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

Yakuza_devils said:
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.
Click to expand...
You keep saying this but they're not the exact situation at all and to try claim they are is disingenuous.

First, Mendy has just been found not guilty in court, while Greenwood's case won't go to court. Does this mean Mendy is completely innocent? Personally I don't have enough info to say either way but obviously he gets the benefit of the doubt now.

Second, there is audio and pictures in Greenwood's case. I'm pretty sure there wasn't anything like this in Mendys case. Now do these automatically make Greenwood guilty? Obviously not and there could be an innocent explanation, however unlikely that is for me.

And last, Mendys "victims " were strangers that he had just met, while Greenwood's "victim" is his girlfriend of years. Which obviously makes the case a lot more complicated.
 
The Original said:
Point me to your source.

Edit:

Would be interesting to see how a presumption of innocence suddenly goes away after a not guilty verdict.
Click to expand...

The presumtion of innocence only means that you're treated as innocent in the eyes of the law, meaning that the state can't punish you without proving (in a criminal case) beyond reasonable doubt that you're guilty. That's it.

Putting numbers on it is iffy, but for simplicity's sake lets say that beyond reasonable doubt means that you have to be at least 99 % sure of guilt to convict. That means the court can be, for instance, 98 % sure that the defendant is guilty (pretty damn sure!) while still coming to the conclusion 'not guilty'. Outside of the law, when you're 98 % sure that someone has done something, you sure as shit don't think they haven't done it. You just can't jail them for it.
 
noelyman said:
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.
Click to expand...
No one has said anything close to this chief. I think you need to work on your reading comprehension.
 
Andersonson said:
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/feb/juries-convict-defendants-rape-more-often-acquit
Click to expand...
Very interesting link.

Pretty much goes against everything you mostly read or hear when rape cases are ongoing - and similar to stuff also said on here since the verdict.

So instead of it being notoriously difficult to get a guilty verdict at rape trials - because of the often lack of evidence and witnesses, and the he said / she said nature of it - there's actually a higher than normal rate of guilty verdicts reached compared to other serious crimes.

Which actually seems strange, as given the 'often lack of evidence and witnesses, and the he said / she said nature of it', then the what turns out to be a myth of low guilty verdicts seems more likely. So I wonder why it's so high? I guess one reason is they only go to trial on the cases they're more confident about - but, given the cost of a trial, I thought the likelihood of being able to prove guilt was usually taken into account before pressing ahead on all charges, not just with rape?
 
Last edited:
Bertie Wooster said:
Very interesting link.

Pretty much goes against everything you mostly read or hear when rape cases are ongoing - and similar to stuff also said on here since the verdict.

So instead of it being notoriously difficult to get a guilty verdict at rape trials - because of the often lack of evidence and witnesses, and the he said / she said nature of it - there's actually a higher than normal rate of guilty verdicts reached.
Click to expand...

That's not exactly it. Rape cases are notoriously difficult to prove which is why prosecution often end up not pursuing. If you go to court it is likely because prosecution has enough elements to get the sentence they are looking for.
 
Bertie Wooster said:
Very interesting link.

Pretty much goes against everything you mostly read or hear when rape cases are ongoing - and similar to stuff also said on here since the verdict.

So instead of it being notoriously difficult to get a guilty verdict at rape trials - because of the often lack of evidence and witnesses, and the he said / she said nature of it - there's actually a higher than normal rate of guilty verdicts reached compared to other serious crimes. Which actually seems strange, as given the 'often lack of evidence and witnesses, and the he said / she said nature of it', then the what turns out to be a myth of low guilty verdicts seems more likely. So I wonder why it's so high?
Click to expand...

It doesn't, the effect of rape being difficult to prove leads to a lower proportion of cases going to court. It only goes to the court when the prosecution thinks it will win.
 
JPRouve said:
That's not exactly it. Rape cases are notoriously difficult to prove which is why prosecution often end up not pursuing. If you go to court it is likely because prosecution has enough elements to get the sentence they are looking for.
Click to expand...
NotThatSoph said:
It doesn't, the effect of rape being difficult to prove leads to a lower proportion of cases going to court. It only goes to the court when the prosecution thinks it will win.
Click to expand...
I'd just covered that on my post as an edit as re-reading it, I figured that would be the area focused on.

Given the cost of a trial, I thought the likelihood of being able to prove guilt was usually taken into account before pressing ahead on all charges, not just with rape? So that doesn't explain the comparatively lower numbers on the other serious charges? Looks like all of those are difficult to prove at trial as well judging by the figures in the link.
 
Interestingly Mendy could still face disciplinary action from the club regardless of the not guilty verdict particularly gross misconduct for potentilly bringing the club into disrepute. Due to his lifestyle choices which I've heard resembled something out of Caligula he put himself at risk of blackmail and/or facing allegations of sexual assault.

I've represented people in the past who worked in public facing roles who although were aquited of any criminal wrong doing were still sanctioned with disciplinary warnings including dismissal in some cases for putting themselves in similar situations.
 
Bertie Wooster said:
I'd just covered that on my post as an edit as re-reading it, I figured that would be the area focused on.

Given the cost of a trial, I thought the likelihood of being able to prove guilt was usually taken into account before pressing ahead on all charges, not just with rape? So that doesn't explain the comparatively lower numbers on the other serious charges? Looks like all of those are difficult to prove at trial as well judging by the figures in the link.
Click to expand...

Rape is different, often you don't even know for certain if there is even a victim, especially when rape victims don't necessarily immediately go to an hospital or to the police. In the context of crime, if someone is suspected of an homicide there is at least either a body or a disappearance, the existence of an identified victim makes things easier, it's not just a case of believing an alleged victim.

Also it's important to take sexual assaults stats into account sexual assaults because in order to get a sentence prosecution will sometimes "downgrade" a rape case into a sexual assault case.
 
sizzling sausages said:
You keep saying this but they're not the exact situation at all and to try claim they are is disingenuous.

First, Mendy has just been found not guilty in court, while Greenwood's case won't go to court. Does this mean Mendy is completely innocent? Personally I don't have enough info to say either way but obviously he gets the benefit of the doubt now.

Second, there is audio and pictures in Greenwood's case. I'm pretty sure there wasn't anything like this in Mendys case. Now do these automatically make Greenwood guilty? Obviously not and there could be an innocent explanation, however unlikely that is for me.

And last, Mendys "victims " were strangers that he had just met, while Greenwood's "victim" is his girlfriend of years. Which obviously makes the case a lot more complicated.
Click to expand...
you do have the info, a jury of his peers has found him not guilty, and therefore innocent.
unless you are actually involved in the case, how would you ever have enough info to say either way, thats why we have courts and juries etc...
 
Bertie Wooster said:
I'd just covered that on my post as an edit as re-reading it, I figured that would be the area focused on.

Given the cost of a trial, I thought the likelihood of being able to prove guilt was usually taken into account before pressing ahead on all charges, not just with rape? So that doesn't explain the comparatively lower numbers on the other serious charges? Looks like all of those are difficult to prove at trial as well judging by the figures in the link.
Click to expand...

As the article states, rape has the highest 'not guilty' plea of any offence, by a very big margin. A lot of successful prosecutions will never reach the jury.
 
R0nald0 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Perfect place for him :lol:

People in the West too focused on treatment of homesexuals in ME, forget/never know that straight people receive (I am pretty) the worse treatment (at least in term of number of people who get punished).
 
For me it doesn’t matter if the verdict is fair or not, I trust the judges because the other option is so much worse.
 
Karel Podolsky said:
Perfect place for him :lol:

People in the West too focused on treatment of homesexuals in ME, forget/never know that straight people receive (I am pretty) the worse treatment (at least in term of number of people who get punished).
Click to expand...

is this a joke or what are you on about?
 
Tarrou said:
is this a joke or what are you on about?
Click to expand...

I was answering a poster who suggested Mendy probably will play in Saudi, a man who claimed have slept with 10.000 women.

I am just assuming he probably thinks only gay people who get punished in Saudi.
 
Karel Podolsky said:
I was answering a poster who suggested Mendy probably will play in Saudi, a man who claimed have slept with 10.000 women.

I am just assuming he probably thinks only gay people who get punished in Saudi.
Click to expand...

I meant the worse treatment line? Not sure where that comes from

I agree a lot of people get treated badly, just not sure what you were referring to with that line
 
sizzling sausages said:
You keep saying this but they're not the exact situation at all and to try claim they are is disingenuous.

First, Mendy has just been found not guilty in court, while Greenwood's case won't go to court. Does this mean Mendy is completely innocent? Personally I don't have enough info to say either way but obviously he gets the benefit of the doubt now.

Second, there is audio and pictures in Greenwood's case. I'm pretty sure there wasn't anything like this in Mendys case. Now do these automatically make Greenwood guilty? Obviously not and there could be an innocent explanation, however unlikely that is for me.

And last, Mendys "victims " were strangers that he had just met, while Greenwood's "victim" is his girlfriend of years. Which obviously makes the case a lot more complicated.
Click to expand...

Greenwood case won't go to court because of withdrawal of key witness and new evidence. Hence not guilty in the eyes of law. Why is it not the same?

Or are we going to persecute Greenwood based on our own interpretation again?

Anyway, I rest my case.
 
Yakuza_devils said:
Greenwood case won't go to court because of withdrawal of key witness and new evidence. Hence not guilty in the eyes of law. Why is it not the same?

Or are we going to persecute Greenwood based on our own interpretation again?

Anyway, I rest my case.
Click to expand...

Not really. Case never went to trial, so no examination of witnesses or evidence, so no verdict of not guilty.

In Greenwood's case, the eyes of the law didn't even get a chance to see the details to decide. Now you or anyone can feel the fact that they didn't pursue the case reflects his innocence (I am not debating if Greenwood is guilty or innocent). I am pointing out the bolded statement is not right, because the case never went in front of the eyes of the law. Do you see the difference?
 
Tarrou said:
I meant the worse treatment line? Not sure where that comes from

I agree a lot of people get treated badly, just not sure what you were referring to with that line
Click to expand...

I was wrong to say straight people get worse treatment than homosexual.
Don't know the data but I am sure the number of straight people who get punished for fornications/adultery (like what Mendy loves to do) is much higher than homesexuals.

I remember during the WC Qatar a journalist from Europe interviewing Qatar Minister of Propaganda :D about homosexual in Qatar. The minister said the rule applied for all sexual orientation. I am not sure you can even kiss your wife in public.
 
mav_9me said:
Not really. Case never went to trial, so no examination of witnesses or evidence, so no verdict of not guilty.

In Greenwood's case, the eyes of the law didn't even get a chance to see the details to decide. Now you or anyone can feel the fact that they didn't pursue the case reflects his innocence (I am not debating if Greenwood is guilty or innocent). I am pointing out the bolded statement is not right, because the case never went in front of the eyes of the law. Do you see the difference?
Click to expand...

CPS is part of the eyes of the law, but I get your point
 
Yakuza_devils said:
Greenwood case won't go to court because of withdrawal of key witness and new evidence. Hence not guilty in the eyes of law. Why is it not the same?

Or are we going to persecute Greenwood based on our own interpretation again?

Anyway, I rest my case.
Click to expand...

No, but people can make up their own minds based on the available evidence. For instance, you believe City have falsified their revenue, even though that hasn't been proven in a court of law. You think Perez of Real Madrid is probably corrupt, though no conviction. You think City are state owned, even though the official papers say privately owned: falsifying documents can be a very serious thing, you know.
 
Last edited:
An accusation of rape is one of the hardest things for a man to shake off. Its a stench that never goes away no matter what the outcome of a trial is.

A lot of people can not begin to understand how and why a person would lie about rape so the default stance is if accused they must be guilty.

A damn shame.
 
Yakuza_devils said:
Greenwood case won't go to court because of withdrawal of key witness and new evidence. Hence not guilty in the eyes of law. Why is it not the same?

Or are we going to persecute Greenwood based on our own interpretation again?

Anyway, I rest my case.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

He has to be presumed innocent because of this.

Does anyone on here have a clue what the new evidence is?
 
Bertie Wooster said:
Very interesting link.

Pretty much goes against everything you mostly read or hear when rape cases are ongoing - and similar to stuff also said on here since the verdict.

So instead of it being notoriously difficult to get a guilty verdict at rape trials - because of the often lack of evidence and witnesses, and the he said / she said nature of it - there's actually a higher than normal rate of guilty verdicts reached compared to other serious crimes.

Which actually seems strange, as given the 'often lack of evidence and witnesses, and the he said / she said nature of it', then the what turns out to be a myth of low guilty verdicts seems more likely. So I wonder why it's so high? I guess one reason is they only go to trial on the cases they're more confident about - but, given the cost of a trial, I thought the likelihood of being able to prove guilt was usually taken into account before pressing ahead on all charges, not just with rape?
Click to expand...

No, that's not right. It's so hard to prove, and convict, that the vast majority of cases fall away without going to trial, even if a crime has been committed.
 
I have possibly a silly question for those in this thread who are familiar with the UK legal system -

In the US, civil and criminal courts have different standards of proof. So for criminal cases, the standard is guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt", whereas for civil cases the standard is likelier than not - hence why OJ Simpson was found not guilty in criminal court but then liable in civil court for the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. I assume the UK criminal process aligns with that of the US, given some of the quotes cited by The Guardian in (effectively) casting doubt on the veracity of the charges, but is there a similar civil process that Mendy may have to face with a lower standard of proof?
 
Yakuza_devils said:
Greenwood case won't go to court because of withdrawal of key witness and new evidence. Hence not guilty in the eyes of law. Why is it not the same?

Or are we going to persecute Greenwood based on our own interpretation again?

Anyway, I rest my case.
Click to expand...

I'll judge him based on what I've seen and heard, not his standing "in the eyes of the law". There's a ton of scumbags out there who didn't get charged or were found not guilty.
 
duffer said:
I'll judge him based on what I've seen and heard, not his standing "in the eyes of the law". There's a ton of scumbags out there who didn't get charged or were found not guilty.
Click to expand...

And that’s the problem with society today. People will judge others based on snippets off social media.

Yet professional investigations spanning months or years are dismissed as irrelevant.
 
I don't really understand why the debate is all about.

Mendy is innocent in the eyes of the law, period. Is it a perfect standard? Obviously not, but it's the only one we have is outside of personnal opinions that everybody is allowed to have, especially when you know how hard it is to convinct someone over rape allegations. Does it mean he's really innoncent? Obviously not, but he is in the eyes of the law.

I'd say a variation of Churchill's quote (quoting someone else) would be pretty accurate : innocent until proven guilty is the worst criminal law principle except for all those other that have been tried.
 
Sweet Square said:
In some of the cases video evidence and text messages were used to show the claims against Mendy were not credible.

From the guardian
Click to expand...
some of this is wild. Despite this I see in the comments, many still want him to be guilty especially under Depay's recent post. I kinda feel that most haven't actually looked into the details and studied the evidence etc. Some still saying it was 13 different women who didn't know or have any contact with each other.
 
Oly Francis said:
I don't really understand why the debate is all about.

Mendy is innocent in the eyes of the law, period. Is it a perfect standard? Obviously not, but it's the only one we have is outside of personnal opinions that everybody is allowed to have, especially when you know how hard it is to convinct someone over rape allegations. Does it mean he's really innoncent? Obviously not, but he is in the eyes of the law.

I'd say a variation of Churchill's quote (quoting someone else) would be pretty accurate : innocent until proven guilty is the worst criminal law principle except for all those other that have been tried.
Click to expand...
You don’t understand the existence of the debate because you don’t understand the concept being debated.

Mendy isn’t “innocent in the eyes of the law.” He’s been found not guilty.

The presumption of innocence means the law treats those accused of crimes as innocent until their guilt is proven. It doesn’t mean they actually are innocent (though they may be) and court judgments don’t deal with concept of innocence at all. The burden of proof rests upon the prosecution.

The only thing that can be categorically stayed with a “period” is that at least 3 out a panel of 12 jurors didn’t believe that his guilt had been proven beyond all reasonable doubt.
 
Daydreamer said:
You don’t understand the existence of the debate because you don’t understand the concept being debated.

Mendy isn’t “innocent in the eyes of the law.” He’s been found not guilty.

The presumption of innocence means the law treats those accused of crimes as innocent until their guilt is proven. It doesn’t mean they actually are innocent (though they may be) and court judgments don’t deal with concept of innocence at all. The burden of proof rests upon the prosecution.

The only thing that can be categorically stayed with a “period” is that at least 3 out a panel of 12 jurors didn’t believe that his guilt had been proven beyond all reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...
How does one prove innocence from a r charge/allegation?
 
Stacks said:
How does one prove innocence from a r charge/allegation?
Click to expand...
In most cases, you can’t. Exceptions might be if, as has been mentioned, you could prove that you weren’t present or that there was no sexual activity. I suppose you could also record the entire encounter from start to finish, though that would probably throw up it’s own legal issues.

It’s incredibly difficult to prove innocence, particularly with a crime that by it’s very nature usually has no witnesses. However, it’s even harder to prove guilt.

More importantly, the presumption of innocence means that no one is ever asked to prove their innocence in court. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution.

Our system massively favours Mendy when it comes to the actual court judgment. It is neutral financially, in the short term at least, as he was suspended on full pay.

The trade-off for this protection is the potential damage to his reputation. That could have long-term effects on his prospects. Also, strangers on the internet might think that he’s guilty.
 
Now It's obvious that he will not face any more jail times over this.

However, as a lot of people rightly pointed out, he's not "innocent", he is just "not guilty". Unless there are some serious new evidences, he will never be "innocent" again in his life.

It may sound bad, but in my opinion, he deserved it for getting accused. Innocent people do not get accused. Accused people is not innocent (as the best they can be is "not guilty"). It's just that simple.

Also we know for an irrefutable fact that the success of rape case is too low. So even if we always believe the female victim no matter what, it would still be a net positive for women and therefor, society.

So for me, I still believe he's guilty, and I hope other people think the same way. Thankfully in social media (not just here) a lot of people also think the same, or at least on the right way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.