- Joined
- Dec 31, 2007
- Messages
- 91,042
In which case all jury trials would actually be conducted online by poll, with no lawyers and hence without cross-examination. And with evidence selected only by the prosecution. We have trials, at least in part, because even in the most open and shut case, apparently conclusive evidence is itself not 'transparent';. That doesn't mean that the initial conclusion derived from it isn't sometimes wholly accurate, but given the circumstances (including the withdrawal of the case by CPS and, one might add, the witnesses own 'unofficial' statements regarding the genesis of that same evidence - which, of course, also isn't 'transparent' or necessarily true - then we have to reserve judgement)
You're entitled to privately derive any judgement you like from whatever random selection of facts you like and to put this forward as a theory or speculation- you're not, however, entitled to simply call it the 'truth' or to pass moral judgement (that necessarily refers to not-established facts, even if your conjectures are well informed or based in probability, as established ) upon others who question the premises of this same judgement. This applies doubly if you actively choose to ignore the existence of counter-evidence as indicated by those responsible for determining whether a case goes forward or not.
Since the images are, as you say, so 'disgusting' (no disagreement here) in what they suggest , then have you not considered that there might therefore exist equally compelling evidence made available to the CPS to put that judgement in question. We're all in a situation where the degree to which new evidence was significant compared to an unwillingness for the alleged victim to participate. However, from what has been made available to us all, we know that it is some combination of both - and hence none of us are in any position to determine that balance as things currently stand...
If we could all actually agree on what has been firmly established and what is hypothesis or speculation from all sides, then this might be a slightly more productive and less mutually acrimonious discussion...
I don't know why all that was needed. It was an odd response from the guy to only care about Greenwood and not any other aspect of this.
Regardless, most couldn't give a shit if the CPS didn't prosecute or the witness revoked certain statements. We do not have to reserve judgement, we don't have to do anything. People are perfectly entitled to thoroughly dislike this man and not want him to play for their club again. Personally I also find it a bit sickening to see loads of little kids in Getafe idolising him and wanting his autograph.
For me the whole 'legally innocent' thing is a nice convenient shield for people to hide behind so they can still support a footballer they like. It's all nice and murky so people can claim we don't know the truth, all the info isn't out there, they must've dropped the charges for a reason. The truth is, on that audio he said "I don't care if you don't want to have sex with me" and "open your legs". CPS also drop charges all the time, especially in rape/sexual assault cases. There is often not enough evidence to make it worth pursuing. Even murder cases go to the wire with regards to getting the CPS to agree to prosecuting. It's a high threshold to meet, especially when a witness changes/retracts their statement. Has a person who has been abused ever stayed with and had a family with that person? Yes, all the time. It is incredibly common.
Trial by social media is bollocks as well. And so is crying cancel culture. It's called consequences. He'd obviously done so much to that girl that she had to resort to recording it because she knew what was going to happen. If fans don't want him here after just that, then they are entitled to state that. The charges were dropped, so he's free to be a footballer, but certain clubs will not want him. He will get boo'd. Tough shit. Don't be a massive twat then.