Mason Greenwood | Officially a Marseille player

[red_devil29]

Why do so many people say stuff like this?

No, the judicial system did not say that he's inoccent. Charges being dropped doesn't automatically mean that a suspect is innocent. He's almost surely guilty of mistreating and violating that woman, but it seems as if she decided that she no longer want to see him face the consequences of his actions.

We see stuff like this in America all the time, sadly. A man will beat his wife, get arrested, and then the woman will drop the charges because 'this time it's different' and 'he'll never do it again' and 'deep down he loves me.' Those men don't all of a sudden become 'innocent' when their wives grant them mercy.

We need to stop making excuses for rapists and abusers and stop deciding that they're 'innocent' just because we want them to be.

If there hasn't been a verdict, then by definition, he is innocent. The fact that you adopt a 'we don't really know' approach is precisely why doubt should favor him, especially when the police didn't believe the evidence was sufficient to bring charges.

This is the core of the discussion regarding Greenwood's return, so you must address this.

But yes, it is possible to be guilty without being convicted. However, it is essential to note that knowledge of whether a person is guilty is crucial for a verdict. If a murder cannot be solved due to a lack of concrete 'knowledge,' you can claim that the person is guilty, but it is not based on objective findings.

Legally, Greenwood is innocent! Alternatively, we can each individually speculate on what he may have done, attributing guilt for actions that would even differ if you asked 10 different people. Therefore, it's not as you emphasize. Your argument does not hold.

 

[Peter van der Gea]

wow, @Peter van der Gea that's very gutsy to 'own' that story, (I hate that expression, but I mean it!), for what it's worth I found it was ultimately better just to front it all out, in my experience there're groups with the word 'anonymous' in the title but to be honest if you're in one of these situations, you're not keeping anything anonymous, especially in a relatively small industry or small region. You're just conning yourself and I found it much more productive long-term. Gits will always chat behind your back but so what?! thanks for writing that fella, onwards and upwards! Just hope the club can get its act together, my hair's going greyer by the day.

I don't doubt that there are others on here who have had similar experiences, I'm sure, but for those who don't, I feel it's worthwhile to have anecdotal experiences.

My hair is holding on to it's colour for the moment, but I am checking it daily!

Thanks for sharing man and sorry you had to go through that. Agreed with the above and thanks for the insight.

Thanks man, life is life.

This guy, spouting wisdoms and knowledge while breathing on one lung. Godspeed with the recovery

You take slower breaths when you're like this, it's like having slow mode enabled

Genuine question - how come Greenwood wasn’t pursued by the CPS further then for breaking his bail?

If you’re saying you were told someone could go to prison solely for breaking bail - irregardless of the other charge, as with yourself - why wasn’t Greenwood punished for doing so? Doesn’t seem to make sense.

Apparently the CPS were upset with the GMP for not following up on the broken bail.

Also, this breaking bail. If you are a 19-year-old boy, in love crush or whatever and your girlfriend is like, I love you I miss you, please please come over etc. I'm most likely going to break bail. You will all probably have a go at me for saying so, but that how I see it. These are two teenagers in love that both wanted to see each other obviously very much and ended up having a baby in doing so.
And I know you are going to say, if he loved her so much, then why did he do what ever he did, but I am only talking about the breaking bail argument.
If I was a grown man I wouldn't, but a 19 year old boy, probably would.

19 years old is an adult. The age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is 10 years old. At 19, no matter what anyone says to you, you have to stick to your bail conditions. His only response to her should have been to hang up the phone and tell his lawyer what's happened, not go round her house and get her pregnant

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

19 years old is an adult. The age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is 10 years old.

Over here the age for criminal responsibility is 15, in Portugal it’s 16.

18-25 yr olds in England & Wales are sent to prisons that hold 18 to 25-year-olds, not a full adult prison. That’s a bit telling in itself.

I don’t agree a 19 yr old in 2023 is an adult personally, in the eyes of the law yeah but an adult in reality… not for me.

That’s not to say MG was right to breach the conditions of his bail, it could point to some extremely dark ploy on his behalf, although I won’t pretend to know how or why they got back in contact.
I’m fine with saying I don’t know the full story about any of it. My own moral compass doesn’t demand I pretend to know the ins & outs of everything.

 

[LilyWhiteSpur]

If it was CNC then that was an Oscar worthy performance. And no the judicial system didn’t say he was innocent, he wasn’t acquired, the charges were dropped - it’s a big difference.

Dropped why? And yeah CNC is very real and rife in the now generation, most people will have no idea what CNC is.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

If it was CNC then that was an Oscar worthy performance.

Isn’t that kind of the point of CNC though?

Disclaimer: I’m not saying it is that, very likely it’s something darker that we don’t have the full details to, likely Arnold had some more information on the longer tape. Once again, I don’t know and don’t feel we have the full story of how dark it was/wasn’t.

That said, it could also be that the rest of the tape involves them them getting into sex and it then quickly “sounding” consensual which would certainly explain why they don’t wanna release it to the public.

People should be fine with admitting they can’t possibly know the full story.

 

[LilyWhiteSpur]

Although everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence, the term itself is generally not a legal one. Guilty or Not Guilty would be the only two options here.

i think your being into an area of overthinking, the guy is young he deserves a chance at life

The contortions going on in this thread to fold genuine concerns about violence against women into some mob led media conspiracy with a political agenda is appalling.

U have no idea what the both of them were into, kinks are real, I’m not pro violence against anyone, stop making this so black and white, the vast majority of life is a grey area.

 

[Trequarista10]

There could have been a conviction without her testimony. The CPS had the pictures and the tape . If they presented them as evidence at a trail, I imagine they would have gotten a conviction, assuming what we saw and heard are a true representation of what happened.. Just look how many people on here are sure he's guilty just based on seeing the pictures and hearing a portion of the tape.

She also made a statement to the police, I am not sure about the legal position of it, but couldn't the CPS have her orginial statement read into the record?

Yes theoretically, and in some cases, there can be a conviction without her testimony. The police could have used her witness statement(s), and all evidence she provided them with, and all evidence they found through further searches as they would have searched Mason's phone and computer. I think what the poster means is that if the accused offers a counter argument, and the victim does nor then testify, its impossible or highly unlikely to be able to disprove the accused's counter argument in court. Especially if the accused has the finances to hire excellent legal representation. Might be different if the defendant has no money, and their representation is a solicitor who os funded by Legal Aid, so has little incentive to dedicate time and effort to building a substantial defence.

 

[moses]

The contortions going on in this thread to fold genuine concerns about violence against women into some mob led media conspiracy with a political agenda is appalling.

I agree. It's quite depressing.

 

[Peter van der Gea]

Over here the age for criminal responsibility is 15, in Portugal it’s 16.

18-25 yr olds in England & Wales are sent to prisons that hold 18 to 25-year-olds, not a full adult prison. That’s a bit telling in itself.

I don’t agree a 19 yr old in 2023 is an adult personally, in the eyes of the law yeah but an adult in reality… not for me.

That’s not to say MG was right to breach the conditions of his bail, it could point to some extremely dark ploy on his behalf, although I won’t pretend to know how or why they got back in contact.
I’m fine with saying I don’t know the full story about any of it. My own moral compass doesn’t demand I pretend to know the ins & outs of everything.

At 19, you should know what a court order means, and if you break that order, you should be punished, whether you're 19 or 90, a pauper or a prince, a John Doe or a Donald Trump.

Even in Portugal, he still would have been criminally responsible for over 3 years, more than enough time to know what bail is. At 33, I wasn't allowed to see my daughters for nearly a month, after living with them for their whole lives. Don't you think the pull of parental love isn't as strong and overwhelming as teenage infatuation? Being in love is a bullshit excuse.

Isn’t that kind of the point of CNC though?

Disclaimer: I’m not saying it is that, very likely it’s something darker that we don’t have the full details to, likely Arnold had some more information on the longer tape. Once again, I don’t know and don’t feel we have the full story of how dark it was/wasn’t.

That said, it could also be that the rest of the tape involves them them getting into sex and it then quickly “sounding” consensual which would certainly explain why they don’t wanna release it to the public.

People should be fine with admitting they can’t possibly know the full story.

Everything you see, you see in 2D, 2D images of 3D objects.

Perception is using the 2D images and life experience to form the opinion of what the 3D object is. The same goes with how we percieve people.

Of everything, I think the bolded above is probably true, but more that she relented, so the sex itself wasn't non-consensual, but the but the *ahem* 'foreplay' was emotionally abusive.

That's the only thing I could imagine would fit with the United statement. Then her complaint of actual rape or sexual assault would have been for a different incedent, with the audio as evidence only of behavior, not the alleged crime, which would also fit to explain why she rexorded it in the first place. That would also mean that, on its own, the tape could not be evidence of the crime on its own.

 

[TheReligion]

As for us, he's never playing for us again. Completely insane that people even think it's a possibility at this stage.

I’m not so sure you’re right.

I think the loan is a good way for the club to do a few things;

- See if he’s still got it, get him back to fitness
- Use the media to exhaust interest in his return to football
- Gradually reintroduce him in to the spotlight
- Watch the reaction
- Reevaluate in the summer
- Increase value of asset

I think when you read the club statement back knowing they have since loaned him it’s quite ambiguous. There’s been a few stories in recent days that Greenwood is determined to fight for his United career and the club are considering a new contract to ‘protect his value’.

There will be an interview with Greenwood in due course I imagine.

I wager that if the above goes well United may look to bring him back.

 

[Wednesday at Stoke]

Daniel Taylor writes that it was United who choreographed his Getafe introduction and planned it out for the media.

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

Over here the age for criminal responsibility is 15, in Portugal it’s 16.

18-25 yr olds in England & Wales are sent to prisons that hold 18 to 25-year-olds, not a full adult prison. That’s a bit telling in itself.

I don’t agree a 19 yr old in 2023 is an adult personally, in the eyes of the law yeah but an adult in reality… not for me.

That’s not to say MG was right to breach the conditions of his bail, it could point to some extremely dark ploy on his behalf, although I won’t pretend to know how or why they got back in contact.
I’m fine with saying I don’t know the full story about any of it. My own moral compass doesn’t demand I pretend to know the ins & outs of everything.

Are they?!

 

[Wibble]

There could have been a conviction without her testimony. The CPS had the pictures and the tape . If they presented them as evidence at a trail, I imagine they would have gotten a conviction, assuming what we saw and heard are a true representation of what happened.. Just look how many people on here are sure he's guilty just based on seeing the pictures and hearing a portion of the tape.

She also made a statement to the police, I am not sure about the legal position of it, but couldn't the CPS have her orginial statement read into the record?

The case was dropped as the CPS know trying to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt without a complainant giving evidence has a close to zero chance of a conviction in this sort of case.

 

[dumbo]

U have no idea what the both of them were into

Exactly, we don't. And now that that has been established perhaps we can stop posting about their "kinks" and "what the both of them were into" because it's really pathetic and of no value.

 

[Marwood]

He's definitely not been in the gym whilst suspended. Rake thin. Looks like he did at 16. If he wants to fulfill his potential he'll have to transform himself into a top class athlete at some point soon.

 

[pocco]

Daniel Taylor writes that it was United who choreographed his Getafe introduction and planned it out for the media.

The cynic in me did actually think that myself. Insist they make a big deal to try and soften our supporters view. Wouldn't surprise me.

 

[Bobade]

I’m not so sure you’re right.

I think the loan is a good way for the club to do a few things;

- See if he’s still got it, get him back to fitness
- Use the media to exhaust interest in his return to football
- Gradually reintroduce him in to the spotlight
- Watch the reaction
- Reevaluate in the summer
- Increase value of asset

I think when you read the club statement back knowing they have since loaned him it’s quite ambiguous. There’s been a few stories in recent days that Greenwood is determined to fight for his United career and the club are considering a new contract to ‘protect his value’.

There will be an interview with Greenwood in due course I imagine.

I wager that if the above goes well United may look to bring him back.

This is exactly my view on it. The stars will need to align, but if they do, I think he will absolutely be back.

If he performs poorly or has relationship issues, he'll be moved on. If he scores 25 goals for Getafe and he's still with his girlfriend and they look happy, the club will definitely look to bring him back I think.

 

[pauldyson1uk]

How stupid am I, I actually thought this would go away or at least die down, how wrong I was, the defending of him is IMHO shocking.
I honestly think my days watching United are numbered, because I think the club is paving the way for him to come back, does not matter if you agree with me or not, my opinions have not changed.
If he comes back I will not watch a match with him in the squad.

 

[Herschel Krustofsky]

Isn’t that kind of the point of CNC though?

Not according to their website…

“The Civil Nuclear Constabulary (CNC) is the armed police force in charge of protecting civil nuclear sites and nuclear materials in England and Scotland.”

 

[Ole's screen]

No it isn’t. If I punched you in the face and there were no witnesses the police would charge me with the crime, try to build a case and then realise there is no opportunity to win a conviction so could drop the charges. That’s not a declaration of innocence, more they knew there was not enough evidence to be able to convict.

However if we went to court and through a trail and you were acquitted then that’s as close to being declared innocent as you could get.

Charges drop is not an acquittal.


She retracted her statement. Therefore no longer admissible. The pictures and recordings were not strong enough without her to provide context. If she wasn’t there, the defence could just say ‘yeah that was all roleplay’ and there would be no one to refute it.

Neither is acquittal by the court. All that says is that the evidence was not enough to declare him guilty. That’s no better than evidence wasn’t enough to charge him. In fact your scenario is even worse since the CPS clearly feels the evidence is enough to charge and go to trial which means they are at least convinced of guilt.

“then realise there is no opportunity to win a conviction so could drop the charges.”
So you mean that CPS think a court will acquit you right? How’s that worse than, CPS think there’s enough evidence to convict and then the court doesn’t?


The order of innocent to guilty in law goes as follows:
1. Completely innocent - no arrest no charge
2. Arrest but no charge
3. Arrest and charge then charges dropped (where MG is)
4. Arrest, charge, trial, aquittal (what you consider a better scenario to above which I say is just wrong)
5. Guilty verdict

Once you’ve been arrested, there is no completely “declared innocent” anymore. Every step that goes forward means more people in the system think you’re guilty and are willing to proceed further. The earlier the process stops due to lack of evidence, the higher the chance of being actually innocent (but never being “declared” innocent). This line of “it’s better to be charged and brought to trial than charges being dropped” is completely batshit.

 

[Peter van der Gea]

How stupid am I, I actually thought this would go away or at least die down, how wrong I was, the defending of him is IMHO shocking.
I honestly think my days watching United are numbered, because I think the club is paving the way for him to come back, does not matter if you agree with me or not, my opinions have not changed.
If he comes back I will not watch a match with him in the squad.

Me either. I stopped listening to Michael Jackson and R. Kelly, despite them writing and recording two of my favourite ever songs. I don't eat at Gregg's anymore, even though I used to love a Gregg's sausage roll, and I will not support a team that plays Greenwood.

 

[Ole's screen]

The contortions going on in this thread to fold genuine concerns about violence against women into some mob led media conspiracy with a political agenda is appalling.

How about a simple rule of thumb: you’re not allowed to be more outraged than the victim. How’s that for size?

 

[duffer]

How about a simple rule of thumb: you’re not allowed to be more outraged than the victim. How’s that for size?

That's pretty dumb, especially in domestic violence cases.

 

[sullydnl]

How about a simple rule of thumb: you’re not allowed to be more outraged than the victim. How’s that for size?

Given the nature of domestic violence, that would be a pretty stupid rule of thumb.

 

[Judas]

How about a simple rule of thumb: you’re not allowed to be more outraged than the victim. How’s that for size?

Impressively ignorant perspective. Genuinely feel like the whole world needs a better education on DV. It might not be your fault you’re poorly educated, but it’s so scary to still be reading views like this.

 

[Ole's screen]

That's pretty dumb, especially in domestic violence cases.

Yeah probably. It’s still a valid rule of thumb though. If the law refuses to do anything it’s weird to ask the public to enact mob justice on the matter.

 

[noodlehair]

This thread and the public discussion on this in general is why it's just never a good idea for these things to end up in the public eye. Once there's a conviction or a trial it's a different matter, but no one discussing this knows the full circumstances, or what has happened before/after. Its impossible to make any kind of sound judgement one way or the other.

The only thing it tells me is footballers are paid and idolised too much at too younger age. There's no way a couple barely in their 20s with a child are mentally equipped to handle this kind of attention, if anyone at any age is.

Unfortunately it happened and much as the club did handle it idiotically, the barrage of opinions from people more concerned with imposing their own agenda than giving a thought to how it might affect the victim, really isn't helpful either. It's really not difficult to be anti domestic violence/abuse of women and be sympathetic towards a victim of it, or understand how your behaviour might impact them.

There's obviously the worry that if it stays private nothing is done about it, but every time something like this gets dragged out in public it seems to do more harm than good to everyone involved.

 

[duffer]

Yeah probably. It’s still a valid rule of thumb though. If the law refuses to do anything it’s weird to ask the public to enact mob justice on the matter.

Sure but nobody is doing that. Having an opinion (and sharing that on Redcafe or Twitter) isn't "mob justice".

My mum was the victim of domestic violence for a while when I was a very young. She forgave the bloke (who was not my dad) and he did it a few more times. She forgave him a few more times until eventually they separated. Because my mum forgave him, are you suggesting other people shouldn't think he was an absolute scumbag? It's a ridiculous "rule of thumb".

 

[Leftback99]

As for us, he's never playing for us again. Completely insane that people even think it's a possibility at this stage.

We have to hope so but given how badly the club is run I wouldn't rule it out completely.

 

[Ole's screen]

Impressively ignorant perspective. Genuinely feel like the whole world needs a better education on DV. It might not be your fault you’re poorly educated, but it’s so scary to still be reading views like this.

What’s scary about giving women agency and accepting their word as their actual feelings? Why are you infantilizing his partner here?

Do we basically say that everyone with a DV charge is a POS and should be kicked out of their workplace even if charges against them have been dropped?

How’s another legal change to try for size: make it illegal for victims who report DV to stay with their partner. Once someone has reported a DV charge, you clearly think they no longer have the agency to retract or change their mind - so how about in law we consider them unable to consent to going back with the alleged abuser?

 

[Remember the geese]

Me either. I stopped listening to Michael Jackson and R. Kelly, despite them writing and recording two of my favourite ever songs. I don't eat at Gregg's anymore, even though I used to love a Gregg's sausage roll, and I will not support a team that plays Greenwood.

Is this a joke?

 

[Ole's screen]

Sure but nobody is doing that. Having an opinion (and sharing that on Redcafe or Twitter) isn't "mob justice".

My mum was the victim of domestic violence for a while when I was a very young. She forgave the bloke (who was not my dad) and he did it a few more times. She forgave him a few more times until eventually they separated. Because my mum forgave him, are you suggesting other people shouldn't think he was an absolute scumbag? It's a ridiculous "rule of thumb".

I’m not saying that’s my POV, I just see a big discrepancy in the way DV cases are handled legally and in public opinion and I’m trying to figure out the best way to deal with them keeping in mind to protect the victim first and foremost, but also ensuring a pathway back from misunderstandings and for redemption.

I’m sorry to hear about your mom and your plight. I’m wondering what you think would have been the best way to handle it. Do you think your mom shouldn’t have been allowed to forgive him? Do you think if he got fired from his job because your mom accused him, would that have made things better for your mom or worse?

I understand if you don’t feel like discussing this and going into depth, but I promise I’m not trying to do a men vs women gotcha thing, I just genuinely don’t think we know how to handle such things from a public POV.

 

[sepulturite]

Is this a joke?

Why would what he said be a joke?

 

[dumbo]

How about a simple rule of thumb: you’re not allowed to be more outraged than the victim. How’s that for size?

I would rather energy was directed towards developing a society that takes violence against women more seriously than trying to come up with a yard stick for measuring outrage.

Victim's should be at the front of our concern when talking about these issues, however the impact of an crime/action often goes beyond the initial victim that was personally wronged. That's a pretty well established concept both in law and socially in the West. I guess you could advocate for a system like they have in Iran whereby certain serious crimes are considered private between the criminal and victim's family and punishment/mercy is meted out in accordance with the wishes of the victims.

How’s another legal change to try for size: make it illegal for victims who report DV to stay with their partner. Once someone has reported a DV charge, you clearly think they no longer have the agency to retract or change their mind - so how about in law we consider them unable to consent to going back with the alleged abuser?

That's probably enough ideas for today.

 

[JB7]

I’m not so sure you’re right.

I think the loan is a good way for the club to do a few things;

- See if he’s still got it, get him back to fitness
- Use the media to exhaust interest in his return to football
- Gradually reintroduce him in to the spotlight
- Watch the reaction
- Reevaluate in the summer
- Increase value of asset

I think when you read the club statement back knowing they have since loaned him it’s quite ambiguous. There’s been a few stories in recent days that Greenwood is determined to fight for his United career and the club are considering a new contract to ‘protect his value’.

There will be an interview with Greenwood in due course I imagine.

I wager that if the above goes well United may look to bring him back.

I agree there’s a lot in the loan that is about “protecting his value”, and the January break-clause in the loan makes sense in that respect because we’re essentially paying him to put himself in the shop window elsewhere.

Equally, when he was being touted to Lazio, a club who could actually afford his wages, the talk was of a free transfer. However he’s ended up moving to a club that couldn’t afford to pay even half of his wages realistically. I’m not naive enough to believe that if he goes away and scores 10+ goals this side of Christmas that we’ll recall him in January and still offer him to clubs for free, but I do think the club recognises the strength of feeling on the matter and would look to sell him rather than reintegrate him and by extension, recoup some of the money they’ve been paying him to sit at home.

My personal view is there is too much water under the bridge at this stage to bring him back into the team whatever happens, and as such he’s now essentially a tool that can enable a good chunk of spending next summer - academy prospect so full profit in FFPs eyes obviously.

 

[Remember the geese]

Why would what he said be a joke?

Because it sounds incredibly childish.

 

[Jippy]

I’m not saying that’s my POV, I just see a big discrepancy in the way DV cases are handled legally and in public opinion and I’m trying to figure out the best way to deal with them keeping in mind to protect the victim first and foremost, but also ensuring a pathway back from misunderstandings and for redemption.

I’m sorry to hear about your mom and your plight. I’m wondering what you think would have been the best way to handle it. Do you think your mom shouldn’t have been allowed to forgive him? Do you think if he got fired from his job because your mom accused him, would that have made things better for your mom or worse?

I understand if you don’t feel like discussing this and going into depth, but I promise I’m not trying to do a men vs women gotcha thing, I just genuinely don’t think we know how to handle such things from a public POV.

The bar for legally proving something happened is different, eg OJ, Michael Jackson etc...People might not be convicted or something but their apparent guilt (rightly or wrongly) will be held against them. It's always been thus, it's just probably just a bit more shouty in the age of social media.

 

[duffer]

I’m not saying that’s my POV, I just see a big discrepancy in the way DV cases are handled legally and in public opinion and I’m trying to figure out the best way to deal with them keeping in mind to protect the victim first and foremost, but also ensuring a pathway back from misunderstandings and for redemption.

I’m sorry to hear about your mom and your plight. I’m wondering what you think would have been the best way to handle it. Do you think your mom shouldn’t have been allowed to forgive him? Do you think if he got fired from his job because your mom accused him, would that have made things better for your mom or worse?

I understand if you don’t feel like discussing this and going into depth, but I promise I’m not trying to do a men vs women gotcha thing, I just genuinely don’t think we know how to handle such things from a public POV.

The best way to handle it would've been him going to prison after the first time he did it, regardless of my mums feelings. That way he wouldn't have been able to do it again, and again, and again.

Nobody is saying that the victims of crimes can't forgive but that shouldn't really be relevant when it comes to punishment, prosecution or even public opinion, especially when it comes to domestic violence.

You either did the crime or you didn't. What the victim thinks after the event doesn't change that. If someone rapes or abuses a very forgiving person, it doesn't make their crime any less awful, not one iota.

 

[Peter van der Gea]

Is this a joke?

Dude, I'm a child sex abuse survivor and have spoken a lot about my perspective on this matter, so kindly, go feck your post


And for people talking about it being strange a DV survivor going back to their abuser, look up Stockholm Syndrome

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

At 19, you should know what a court order means, and if you break that order, you should be punished, whether you're 19 or 90, a pauper or a prince, a John Doe or a Donald Trump.

Absolutely, I wouldn’t for a second disagree. I’m just arguing that I don’t think the majority of 19 yr olds are remotely “adult/grown up”.

Of everything, I think the bolded above is probably true, but more that she relented, so the sex itself wasn't non-consensual, but the but the *ahem* 'foreplay' was emotionally abusive.

That's the only thing I could imagine would fit with the United statement. Then her complaint of actual rape or sexual assault would have been for a different incedent, with the audio as evidence only of behavior, not the alleged crime, which would also fit to explain why she rexorded it in the first place. That would also mean that, on its own, the tape could not be evidence of the crime on its own.

I think it’s absolutely fine to say we don’t and likely never will know the darkness of it unless he’s 100% guilty and repeats the offensives leading her to eventually speak out again.

I think it’s extremely likely they had sex after the audio as it’s the only logical explanation as to why they aren’t releasing it to the public domain, and that Arnold/United’s investigation heard enough to believe the sex part was consensual.

But if we’re all honest, whether it was her relenting, something darker, or something lighter… we simply don’t have enough information.