Third time's the charm?
Benjamin Mendy - Not guilty on re-trial | NOT a thread about MG
- Thread starter Chief123
- Start date
What I said was:
1. There is a presumption of innocence.
2. That a guilty verdict implies you continue to be presumed innocent
Which part of this is not correct? If anything the source you've shared supports my position.
When you've been charged of a crime, you are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. By the end of a criminal trial, you will either be declared "guilty" or "not guilty." Technically, the court never declares someone "innocent" because it is not necessary to prove actual innocence in order to be acquitted.
An outright finding of innocence is not a thing but the reason you don't have to prove your innocence and the entire burden falls on the prosecution is because, the Court already presumes you are innocent, and if nothing happens to change that, that's how you'll stay.
Literally, your source says you are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty - has Mendy been proven guilty? Why would he not be assumed to be innocent??
Kinda agree but I think it's pretty clear Mendy is a wrongun though, he's not guilty of rape but he is guilty of being a scummy individual. He deserves to be known as a scumbag, but he doesn't deserve to be known as a rapist. I don't really feel as much sympathy for super wealthy individuals who have the luxury of hiring the best legal team, they can afford to relocate, retire, hire security, whatever the hell they choose. Its ordinary people who get properly ruined by such allegations.
You raise a valid point here, but again, remember that civil courts play by different, much less stringent rules.
https://www.amacdonaldlaw.com/blog/2016/may/what-is-the-difference-between-innocent-and-not-/#:~:text=In short, "not guilty",but rather “not guilty”.
Now don't get me wrong I think we should be presuming Mendy innocent and I think its a travesty peope will always have the not guilty isn't innocent arguments. As far as I'm concerned as I said earlier its horrible for him that people now jump to this on some pedantic wording. For me having read a lot of the case as its been ongoing after initially presuming so many cases meant guilt, I feel like I owe the man an apology and in my eyes he's innocent but being pedantic to the letter of the law he's technically not guilty and they aren't the same.
It actually makes me think there should be a 3rd "innocent" verdict possible.
Last edited:
It's very rare that happens.
That defeats the point of innocent until proven guilty which is the bedrock of our legal system.
First you said:
All of this is proven incorrect by the source I gave you. Not guilty and innocent explicitly mean different thing in a legal context, as explained.
You also said:
This is also incorrect. The presumption of innocence means that until you are found to be guilty you will be legally viewed as innocent, and that burden of proof lies with the prosecutor to prove you are not. That doesn't mean you are, in fact, innocent. Or that the court have or will at any point determine you to be innocent.
Again, not true. The only thing a not guilty vedict means is the jury weren't certain you were guilty. Nothing else. And because of that lack of certainty, there is a legal obligation to continue treating you as if you are innocent. But the court following the requirement to treat you as innocent isn't the same as the court actually deeming you to be innocent.
At least four posters have responded to you explaining why you are wrong, and you have the entire internet there to further explain it too. I will struggle to explain it any more than they have or will.
A bleep ton of not guilty.
They have very different standards of proof.
Beyond a reasonable doubt = 90% or so...bit subjective. Criminal
By a preponderance of the evidence = 51% Civil
I'm guessing mentioning other cases isn't ideal on here, so apologies, but while the civil court has been raised - that's what doesn't sit well with me about the David Goodwillie verdict.
There wasn't confidence of proving guilt at a criminal court so there wasn't a trial there. But, instead, in an unprecedented move, they allowed a civil case on it so had just one judge decide whether, in his 'opinion', someone should be judged a rapist, put on the sex offenders register, have their career and reputation tarnished, etc.
All based on how one judge interpreted (basically, have a 'best guess') a they said / she said, was she too drunk (they were all drunk) for her consent to be valid, situation.
Don't personally think a civil case, without a jury or a burden of proof, should be deciding on something like that. It should be in a criminal court, with a jury and a burden of proof on the crown to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.
Last edited:
Not forcing you to "explain" anything so feel free to walk away mate. No idea why you think anyone is obliged to listen to the views of four persons off the internet either.
There's also no point quoting all my previous responses without the context of what I was responding to which has meant a slight evolution in my arguments as I've responded to different issues and questions.
I am not arguing that the not guilty verdict means definitive innocence. My position, for at least the last four entries on this thread, has been that the not-guilty verdict gives rise to an implied innocence.
Happy to agree to disagree. Cheers.
Why not. According to some on here a 3 year investigation and trial means nothing.
Basically yeah. Although I don't think it's limited to video consent. Some sign a paper some just give a WhatsApp type message etc. Apparently all organised before the women are let in to the parties etc. The organisers are agents, security etc. In Mendy's case his brother.
This isn't limited to footballers. I've heard likes of Robbie Williams and Russell brand say similar. I forget the name but a female presenter said she used to be taken to sex parties and had to sign similar.
It's a different world for most of us
Many people owe an apology to Mendy. We were all almost unanimously found Mendy guilty by just reading the news. He was condemned 2 years ago and also suspended/released by his clubs.
And now even after the court give the verdict of not guilty we still have people foaming in the mouth somehow telling people he is not "innocent".
We have another certain someone who is in this exact situation.
And now even after the court give the verdict of not guilty we still have people foaming in the mouth somehow telling people he is not "innocent".
We have another certain someone who is in this exact situation.
At least he can get on with his life now.
Couldn't agree more. It's embarrassing listening to people jumping through hoops to make the distinction that someone who 'had charges dropped' is not innocent and also someone who goes on trial and is acquitted is also 'not innocent'. So basically no smoke without fire. Once an allegation has been made against someone. People have made up their mind and that's it. We all heard the audio "burn him".Why would the victims lie? "Hang him"
I happen to know a teacher accused of sexual misconduct who lost his job and almost took his life based on how they were treated. The allegations were later proved to be false and he was exhonerated of all charges. But that hasn't stopped all the rumours and name calling and he said he will never teach again. Not because he's not allowed to, but because of the rumours that have never stopped even after said acquittal. As a teacher myself this scares the life out of me.
We need to be mindful of victims but also mindful that any one of us could be falsely accused of a crime and no assumption of guilt should come with that.
If he is not guilty, do the women then get charged with lying to the courts etc? There is obviously a reason why they don’t.
Well you would think so but apparently not. Members of 'The Caf' have decided that no matter what decision of the court was, he is 'not innocent' and therefore guilty. His public execution date has yet to be finalised by said caf members but it's thought that if his appeal is successful then this may be reduced to a public flogging.
So who is gonna sign him then? Only 28 years old.
I think his life style needs to be question but being a rapist, he has been found not guilty and reading the Guardian article kind of reinforced my belief that he was quite loose with his sex life and unfortunately it has come to bite him.
I wish him well and I hope he is able to make sense of his career or whatever is left of it.
While I accept innocent until proven guilty, you can't think of this decision without the knowledge that most rape cases do not get convicted because of lack of evidence as the burden of proof is on the victim.
I don't know if that was that case here, though I heard for one there was pretty clear proof that the sex was consensual.
I don't know if that was that case here, though I heard for one there was pretty clear proof that the sex was consensual.
The most depressing thing about this result is all the men using this to vindicate other men accused of rape.
Exactly.
Just remember, when getting to court the conviction rate is well above 60%. The things you mention is before getting to court.
For rapes/sexual offenses, or crimes in general?
Since he is not guilty, there should be many clubs in PL willing to give him a 2nd chance. He is a good player.
Rape
They should do. You can’t go around saying what ever you want and ruin someone’s life.
Source?
Never mind got the one your referring to I think.
Feel bad for him. I’ve met him before. Been on a night out with him. Very nice guy. On the night out he was actively looking to get laid. Nothing wrong in that, and it definitely looked like the girl he was with on that specific night was all over him.
I think this is clearly a story of a ‘celebrity’ sleeping with a hell of a lot of women and a few have tried to make money off him.
I think this is clearly a story of a ‘celebrity’ sleeping with a hell of a lot of women and a few have tried to make money off him.
If find it hard to understand how 10 different women can accuse him of the same crime and none of it be true? I’m not at all saying he’s guilty, I have no idea as I didn’t follow the case closely but 10 women all made up the same story about him and all were lying?
If we’re waiting for the right moment to announce Greenwood’s return this is probably it.
It was 13 I think. I find it hard to comprehend as well, but it's not impossible given his lifestyle and the fact he was cleared. I'm guessing many of those encounters involved drinking where the boundaries of consent can get blurred. It's possible that he did cross some boundaries but it couldn't be proven.
In the trial is came out that he told someone he slept with 10,000 women! Even if it's "only" 1/10th of that it isn't completely absurd that he'd get involved with more than a few looking to take advantage. Maybe some of the 13 were and some weren't, we'll never know it seems.
The arguments from the defense, as I understand, was that:
- There was connection between the accusations (contact between the women, for example) so they are not truly independent.
- Some of the accusations were seemingly contradicted by evidence that was presented during trial.
Last edited:
thats not it
I don't get the above comments of people arguing over "the words". Not guilty clearly doesn't mean that the person is 100% innocent, it means that guilt can't be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt". However, the bedrock of our legal system is "innocent until proven guilty" and so by the very definition of this, if you're not proven guilty, you are innocent - it's what the words actually say!
Obviously some lifestyle question marks with the amount of sexual interactions and the group sex stuff - however that's not legal problem.
I wouldn't be surprised to see him in Saudi come the new season.
Obviously some lifestyle question marks with the amount of sexual interactions and the group sex stuff - however that's not legal problem.
I wouldn't be surprised to see him in Saudi come the new season.