Benjamin Mendy - Not guilty on re-trial | NOT a thread about MG

Halftrack said:
What I think is that it's completely idiotic to read "not guilty" as "innocent" or "exonorated", and then go on to make the assumption that this means the woman was lying.

It's like some are just waiting for verdicts like these to help promote their view that women are all to happy to lie about being raped.
Click to expand...
Well what about when woman do actually lie? They always get believed and it’s usually the men that get painted out to be the bad guy even when innocent.
 
Stadjer said:
What is inbetween not guilty and innocent? How does ''not guilty'' need to be read in your view? Partly innocent? Partly guilty? Suspicious?
Click to expand...
Not proven is typically used by a jury when there is a belief that the defendant is guilty but The Crown has not provided sufficient evidence. - this is available in Scotland and perhaps is something the English system should look at
 
Halftrack said:
What I think is that it's completely idiotic to read "not guilty" as "innocent" or "exonorated", and then go on to make the assumption that this means the woman was lying.

It's like some are just waiting for verdicts like these to help promote their view that women are all to happy to lie about being raped.
Click to expand...
Just like it's utterly idiotic for anyone to flippantly dismiss the out come of a rigorous court case and still insist on holding on the the idea the exonerated party is in some way guilty, based off the extravagant assumption it might some how make it seem all women are happy to liee about sexual assault....With that midset we can as well get rid of the legal system altogether
 
Stadjer said:
What is inbetween not guilty and innocent? How does ''not guilty'' need to be read in your view? Partly innocent? Partly guilty? Suspicious?
Click to expand...
A whole lot of grey area. Context matters, of course, but "not guilty" is definitely not synonymous with "innocent".

If you can't grasp that, you have no business discussing law, really.
 
Get him back or playing bad get his life back on track. I apologise for pre assuming he was guilty! The accusers should be thrown in jail and his life should get back on track, there’s no lower low than lying about this sort of thing. Also either you agree with the UK law and judicial system or you don’t but at least front up to that fact!
 
Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber said:
Just like it's utterly idiotic for anyone to flippantly dismiss the out come of a rigorous court case and still insist on holding on the the idea the exonerated party is in some way guilty, based off the extravagant assumption it might some how make it seem all women are happy to liee about sexual assault....With that midset we can as well get rid of the legal system altogether
Click to expand...
He was very much not exonorated, but thanks for playing.
 
Stadjer said:
What is inbetween not guilty and innocent? How does ''not guilty'' need to be read in your view? Partly innocent? Partly guilty? Suspicious?
Click to expand...

Not guily and innocent aren't on the same scale, there is no inbetween to look for.
 
Stadjer said:
What is inbetween not guilty and innocent? How does ''not guilty'' need to be read in your view? Partly innocent? Partly guilty? Suspicious?
Click to expand...

The ONLY thing it means is this;

12 average people couldn't say - beyond reasonable doubt - that the suspect was guilty.

No more or less.

Your own opinion, thankfully, doesn't live and die with the verdict. You can look at the circumstances, some of the evidence your aware of, the person's history or character etc. And decide yourself whether you think them guilty, not guilty, entirely innocent, a martyr, a legend, a scumbag or you can simply wisely accept you don't know enough about it to say either way.

Have at it.
 
DOTA said:
Are those terrible posts about Greenwood gonna stay up? Cause I'm trying behave and not respond to them, as we're not meant to be discussing his case, but they've been there a while now.
Click to expand...
What’s terrible about them?
 
Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber said:
Just like it's utterly idiotic for anyone to flippantly dismiss the out come of a rigorous court case and still insist on holding on the the idea the exonerated party is in some way guilty, based off the extravagant assumption it might some how make it seem all women are happy to liee about sexual assault....With that midset we can as well get rid of the legal system altogether
Click to expand...

Astounding lack of self awareness there.

Do you think less than 1% of reported rapes actually happened?

If you, like everyone else with a brain, accept that at least a good number of those reports are actual rapes - why is that even with a known suspect the conviction rates are so far below even other most serious crime types?

And would you then 'fully exonerate' all those same suspects?

Why was there a hung jury before on the same evidence?

Your black and white acceptance, using a completely misguided belief in how the legal system actually works and what words like exonerated actually mean, is child like in it's simplicity.
 
Halftrack said:
A whole lot of grey area. Context matters, of course, but "not guilty" is definitely not synonymous with "innocent".

If you can't grasp that, you have no business discussing law, really.
Click to expand...
And 'not guilty' is even less synonymous with 'guilty'. So the court of public opinion still insisting guilt on very limited evidence, when the courts couldn't say that with all the evidence at their disposal, is wrong in my view.

As a few others have said on here, people should accept that they know very little of the case and so are in no position whatsoever to say with any certainly what the verdict should have been. To be so adamant about it, on such limited evidence, is again wrong in my view. From both sides, of course.
 
So does it mean Mendy lost a few years of his career for… absolutely nothing?
 
Bertie Wooster said:
I think the key part is, though, that 'not guilty' is even less synonymous with 'guilty'. So the court of public opinion still insisting guilt on very limited evidence, when the courts couldn't say that with all the evidence at their disposal, is wrong in my view.

As a few others have said on here, people should accept that they know very little of the case and so are in no position whatsoever to say with any certainly what the verdict should have been. To be so adamant about it, on such limited evidence, is again wrong in my view. From both sides, of course.
Click to expand...

Totally fair.

I haven't looked back specifically but I would wager there are a lot more people saying innocent, exonerated, deserves justice etc. Than there are people saying he is still guilty?

The most people seem to be saying is 7 victims would lead you to believe no smoke without fire?

Perhaps I'm off on that but certainly my perception in this thread is that many more people are reading into it without the full facts/a grasp of the legal system and ending up with 'Innocent' than 'guilty'.
 
TrustInJanuzaj said:
Get him back or playing bad get his life back on track. I apologise for pre assuming he was guilty! The accusers should be thrown in jail and his life should get back on track, there’s no lower low than lying about this sort of thing. Also either you agree with the UK law and judicial system or you don’t but at least front up to that fact!
Click to expand...

If you regret assuming he was guilty of rape, you could actually learn a lesson from that and not immediately jump to now assuming the accusers are guilty of lying.
 
Alemar said:
That’s just terrible. Something is wrong with the system then
Click to expand...

It's not that the system is wrong per se but that the system isn't perfect. People have thought about ways to mitigate these kind of outcomes which is by having both parties benefitting from anonimity but if the accused is roaming the streets and comitting the crimes that he is accused of then you can see what kind of problems it may create.

If he is innocent then I'm sorry for him but the system works in a way that makes sense even if it's not perfect. The same applies to actual victims who are at the wrong end of a Not Guilty verdict based on a lack of evidence.

As @Duafc said multiple times it's not a black or white situation and people should keep that in mind.
 
Red in STL said:
Not proven is typically used by a jury when there is a belief that the defendant is guilty but The Crown has not provided sufficient evidence. - this is available in Scotland and perhaps is something the English system should look at
Click to expand...
In Scotland they are considering scrapping juries in rape trials, as well as the "not proven" verdict, to increase the potential for conviction, where the evidence is weighed though the deliberation of a single judge.

EDIT: after just checking Google it would appear the SNP has backed down from the proposals as a massive boycott by legal professionals was planned in defence of jury system.
 
Last edited:
pocco said:
Is there any repercussions for a woman lying about rape? Lying and "not guilty" are two different things, but there needs to be something done about it. It literally ruins a person's life.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's a crime and you can be convicted for it just like any other.

For example, a very high profile example from just this year.

However aside from being difficult to prove in its own right, there is an understandable wariness when it comes to pursuing these cases. Because as is the system skews in favour of those who are accused of rape and against those making an accusation to an absolutely enormous degree. And raising fears among rape victims that they might not only lose their case but actually be prosecuted for making their claims would be extremely damaging.
 
Yes, rape crimes are one of the most disgusting crimes and people who do that should be jailed for life. Also, it is true that it is very tough for women to prove rape which results with many scum to walk away free.
But, this thread again proves that if you are accused for something, you are either guilty guilty (if jury says that) or probably guilty (if jury say that you are not).
 
sullydnl said:
If you regret assuming he was guilty of rape, you could actually learn a lesson from that and not immediately jump to now assuming the accusers are guilty of lying.
Click to expand...
What’s the lesson for you? The lesson for me is letting the judicial system run its course. Either you have faith in that institution or you don’t, there no in between.,
 
TrustInJanuzaj said:
What’s the lesson for you? The lesson for me is letting the judicial system run its course. Either you have faith in that institution or you don’t, there no in between.,
Click to expand...

In which case you shouldn't have just said "the accusers should be thrown in jail" when they haven't been found to have done anything wrong.
 
Andycoleno9 said:
Yes, rape crimes are one of the most disgusting crimes and people who do that should be jailed for life. Also, it is true that it is very tough for women to prove rape which results with many scum to walk away free.
But, this thread again proves that if you are accused for something, you are either guilty guilty (if jury says that) or probably guilty (if jury say that you are not).
Click to expand...
How in the world have you come to that conclusion? What I see are people thinking not guilty=inncoent, and others explaining to them why it isn't.
Bertie Wooster said:
And 'not guilty' is even less synonymous with 'guilty'.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, no. In some cases, it just means that there was enough doubt not to find you guilty in a court of law.
 
TrustInJanuzaj said:
Get him back or playing bad get his life back on track. I apologise for pre assuming he was guilty! The accusers should be thrown in jail and his life should get back on track, there’s no lower low than lying about this sort of thing. Also either you agree with the UK law and judicial system or you don’t but at least front up to that fact!
Click to expand...
So you learned nothing then?
 
Revan said:
There is no such thing as 'he was innocent' in a judiciary system, as far as I am aware.. The only verdicts are guilty and non-guilty. Despite the mental gymnastics, non-guilty means innocent.
Click to expand...

sullydnl said:
In which case you shouldn't have just said "the accusers should be thrown in jail" when they haven't been found to have done anything wrong.
Click to expand...

Difference being is you not only have a not guilty verdict but also have more information regarding the evidence used to show the alleged victims as not credible witnesses which is much stronger than just accusing someone of something.

The brother was found not guilty, with evidence actually showing conspiracy from some of the accusers along with other things and yet there are people saying "not guilty" doesn't mean innocent, we don't know etc.The guy is not guilty, for all intents and purposes is innocent. He should be allowed to live his live, restart his career without people going "well just because he was found not guilty that doesn't make him innocent".
 
sullydnl said:
Yes, it's a crime and you can be convicted for it just like any other.

For example, a very high profile example from just this year.

However aside from being difficult to prove in its own right, there is an understandable wariness when it comes to pursuing these cases. Because as is the system skews in favour of those who are accused of rape and against those making an accusation to an absolutely enormous degree. And raising fears among rape victims that they might not only lose their case but actually be prosecuted for making their claims would be extremely damaging.
Click to expand...

Yeah I understand why that would be, it's an absolute minefield.
 
sullydnl said:
Yes, it's a crime and you can be convicted for it just like any other.

For example, a very high profile example from just this year.

However aside from being difficult to prove in its own right, there is an understandable wariness when it comes to pursuing these cases. Because as is the system skews in favour of those who are accused of rape and against those making an accusation to an absolutely enormous degree. And raising fears among rape victims that they might not only lose their case but actually be prosecuted for making their claims would be extremely damaging.
Click to expand...
Fair overall point.

As for the bolded bit, that's just in keeping with the burden of proof falling onto the court to prove guilt beyond doubt, rather than the accused having to prove innocence. And that's the way it should be, really. I certainly don't hear many people calling for a general change on other charges to place the burden of proof on the accused to have to try to prove their innocence beyond doubt otherwise they'll be found guilty. So don't see why it should be any different here.
 
Halftrack said:
What I think is that it's completely idiotic to read "not guilty" as "innocent" or "exonorated", and then go on to make the assumption that this means the woman was lying.

It's like some are just waiting for verdicts like these to help promote their view that women are all to happy to lie about being raped.
Click to expand...
Well in this case one woman was filmed having sex enthusiastically with one of the accused. One woman who claimed to be raped was by mendy at a party then went on to have sex with three more people at the same party and then texted her friend saying it was the best night of her life.
Forgive me for being skeptical of there being a possibility of the allegations being true.
 
So it's 10 cases where he's found not guilty in all of them.

I know that not guilty is not the same as innocent, but 10 cases - from the outside you'd think some of it would stick if you had 10 cases against you.

The weirdest thing with these cases is that the footballer's dont come out afterwards and clear their name with some public statement to shed some light on just some of it or just let their feelings out. Basically they've been hung out to dry for months and years in public.
 
JPRouve said:
City were still paying him or had his salary in escrow, so he should be fine financially. The issue here is Manchester City, they are the ones who lost money and labour but I don't know if they can do something about it

PS: I completely forgot that Grealish was allegedly involved in those parties
Click to expand...
He can still sue for losing potential earning and jobs. He's likely not getting resigned by City whether due to image issue(even if he's been proven not guilty) or his own level as a footballer after not playing for several years.

The trouble with him is that despite this verdict, teams will still be reluctant to sign him especially in this current climate where image and PR reign supreme.
 
ROFLUTION said:
So it's 10 cases where he's found not guilty in all of them.

I know that not guilty is not the same as innocent, but 10 cases - from the outside you'd think some of it would stick if you had 10 cases against you.

The weirdest thing with these cases is that the footballer's dont come out afterwards and clear their name with some public statement to shed some light on just some of it or just let their feelings out. Basically they've been hung out to dry for months and years in public.
Click to expand...
I think, as the reaction to any kind of similar statement on here shows, they'd probably fear only making things worse if they in any way try to come out and 'let their feelings out (about) being hung out to dry for months and years in public'.

After months or years of Trial by Media / Court of Public Opinion, then sympathy won't be towards them, despite the not guilty verdict, so they pretty much just choose to not talk about it rather than risk the likely fallout from anything they say that in any way sounds like they're hoping for some empathy or sympathy for what they've gone through and lost.
 
ROFLUTION said:
The weirdest thing with these cases is that the footballer's dont come out afterwards and clear their name with some public statement to shed some light on just some of it or just let their feelings out. Basically they've been hung out to dry for months and years in public.
Click to expand...
What's the point? For the people who would need to be persuaded by such a statement, even a plea of innocence is interpreted as an admission of guilt.
 
Big Ben Foster said:
What's the point? For the people who would need to be persuaded by such a statement, even a plea of innocence is interpreted as an admission of guilt.
Click to expand...

Is it?

For one, the *name we dont speak about here* case would at least shed some light on whether we should keep him or not and what is up and down.

You actually have the chance to clear your name to some extend, at least to me. There'll always be loudmouths with strong opinions on Twitter though.
 
Iker Quesadillas said:
According to this info on Scotland, the figure can be around 3%. This other article from the U.S. finds it between 2-10%.

I don't think these are extremely low numbers. 3% is 1 out of every 33.
Click to expand...

It's low. Maybe you don't think 3% is extremely low but it's certainly not happening on a worryingly regular basis as was claimed.

You also left out my question. I was seeking clarity on what the other poster meant. That was the main thrust of my post.
 
Halftrack said:
Not necessarily, no. In some cases, it just means that there was enough doubt not to find you guilty in a court of law.
Click to expand...

You go into every criminal trial, presumed to be innocent. Throughout the trial, it is the prosecution who carries the burden of proving that you are guilty because, in the eyes of the law, you always start off as innocent and remain that way until the prosecution proves its case. If it fails to prove its case then you remain as you were presumed - innocent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.