Well it’s what we have nowThat's a terrible decision. The other thread was readable and sometimes informative. This one is garbage.
Well it’s what we have nowThat's a terrible decision. The other thread was readable and sometimes informative. This one is garbage.
How can you be 100 % sure it isn't that?For feck sake stop with the "weird sex" angle, this isn't that.
He doesn't get charged to begin with if that's what it was.
He doesn't get charged if that's what it was.How can you be 100 % sure it isn't that?
I can't remember exactly but wasn't the audio was leaked by someone else not her? Then the police proceeded to arrest him and investigate because of the audio?
How can you be 100 % sure it isn't that?
I can't remember exactly but wasn't the audio was leaked by someone else not her? Then the police proceeded to arrest him and investigate because of the audio?
How can you be 100 % sure it isn't that?
Yeah you got a point here if he didn't do it he should have gone public and tell people so. But then why he said he didn't do it after the case was dropped? I mean he was probably lying but if he was lying why he didn't lie at the very start of the investigation? It'd help him a lot more in saving his name and probably even his career imo. And it's not like the jury would charge him a couple more years for lying anyway. Of course if he was convicted.He doesn't get charged if that's what it was.
He doesn't stay quiet and have people think he's a woman beater and potential rapist for 2 years if that's what it was.
The club doesn't get rid of him if that's what it was.
It clearly wasn't some sort of sexual roleplay. It baffles me that it still gets brought up as a possibility.
My view, for what little it is worth, is that if he didn't beat her up, she would've said so within 5 minutes of the pics going online and he would have been playing in whatever your next game was.
Well said.The obvious view/take, yes.
The counter argument here seems to be that she didn't actually post those pics/that content (it was a hack of some kind). Or - she did post it, but it wasn't what it seemed to be.
But given what followed (he was arrested, he was suspended, a grand scale shit show for him personally ensued), that seems feckin' unlikely.
If the audio wasn't what it seemed to be (the ludicrous "role play" angle), and/or if the pictures weren't what they seemed to be (she slipped on a bar of soap and made the most of it), the obvious explanation is that she was trying to - well - stitch him up, yes?
And he reacted to this attempt to stitch him up (and thus potentially ruin his promising career as a professional footballer at the highest level) by....seemingly desperately trying to get back togetheher with her (to the point of breaking his bail conditions on multiple occasions). Rather than fighting her false accusations tooth and nail. With a team of lawyers.
Seems legit? Not really, no.
Seems far more legit that he managed to get back together with her, as numerous other domestic abusers have done for numerous reasons.
Life isn't simple, it's actually horribly complicated.
I won't pass judgment on that couple. I wish them well (especially their kid).
But the "logic" applied on here by people who are obviously trying to justify their own desire to get him back in the United starting XI is...what? Interesting? I suppose it could be. If you're writing a thesis. But I'm not, so I just find it rather depressing.
I'm no expert but imo because of the audio even if she told the police he didn't do it the police would not believe her and drop the investigation. Since in many cases the criminal manage to coerce the victim into withdrawing the charge or even defending the criminal.My view, for what little it is worth, is that if he didn't beat her up, she would've said so within 5 minutes of the pics going online and he would have been playing in whatever your next game was.
To me the most likely explanation is that the new material was that her and Greenwood were back together and having a baby and she would now no longer back her original statement.I'm no expert but imo because of the audio even if she told the police he didn't do it the police would not believe her and drop the investigation. Since in many cases the criminal manage to coerce the victim into withdrawing the charge or even defending the criminal.
As someone has said above that she withdrew 10 months before the police closed the case so obviously the police closed it not because of that but the new material imo.
Edit: the more I think about this the more I'm curious about wtf is that new material. If that new material was able to convince the police that he's innocent and drop the case and he didn't show it to the public to clear his name then imo it must be some really crazy shit. That's the only logical explanation imo.
Come on mate no way the police would drop the case just because of that. That's obviously not how the police and the juridical shit work.To me the most likely explanation is that the new material was that her and Greenwood were back together and having a baby and she would now no longer back her original statement.
Bring him back.
Someone will take him. Why not us? We're "too good" for him?
To me the most likely explanation is that the new material was that her and Greenwood were back together and having a baby and she would now no longer back her original statement.
Oh this probably explain why he didn't show it to the police at the very start of the investigation I think. Imo he simply didn't have it since it's her who recorded the audio.The club statment told us that the audio we all heard was part of a longer clip. It's reasonable to think the additional audio introduces some degree of reasonable doubt.
The club statment told us that the audio we all heard was part of a longer clip. It's reasonable to think the additional audio introduces some degree of reasonable doubt.
Oh this probably explain why he didn't show it to the police at the very start of the investigation I think. Imo he simply didn't have it since it's her who recorded the audio.
Edit: the more I think about this the more I'm curious about wtf is that new material. If that new material was able to convince the police that he's innocent and drop the case and he didn't show it to the public to clear his name then imo it must be some really crazy shit. That's the only logical explanation imo.
What about the victim and her parents?Whataboutery. Rhetorical question whataboutery. The worst kind.
Your problem is he hasn't been found innocent of anything. Charges have been dropped. Not disproved.
The CPS 'dropped the case' as their chances of securing a conviction fell. This was because key witnesses withdrew and 'new evidence', the nature of which is not disclosed, had come to light.
Again, crucially, this is not evidence of innocence.
As for the club, though its belated statement claimed Greenwood was innocent, it acknowledged the player 'made mistakes he takes responsibility for' without advising what these mistakes are and why it's sufficient for them to want him removed, when they clearly wanted him reintegrated.
Think it's quite clear their 'internal investigation' was a ploy to bide time, they rode on the CPS and only due to a fan backlash did they proceed as they did.
One more: this isn't about Greenwood should be allowed to rehabilitate, that's what he should be doing anyway.
It's more about a precedent for player behaviour and until Greenwood can prove the evidence we've seen about him is false, and proven innocence is an incontrovertible fact, he should be removed for both footballing and moral reasons.
Agree.This is the most logical explanation.
What that audio is though we’ll likely never know.
The CPS explicitly said new material in their statement. Something else clearly came to light, in addition to her withdrawing (and potentially others)
Agree that sounds the most plausible imo.My guess is in the longer audio she relents and they have consensual sex (no weird sex games before anyone jumps in). This negates the attempted rape charge and makes the coercive behaviour charge difficult to achieve as well.
Edit: no idea about the assault charge but have to assume a few devices were subpoenaed and additional things uncovered. Of all the questions this one needs an explanation the most.
I disagree.Or he's too radioactive for the nations most media covered club.
I think the most obvious and logical "new material" explanation is she's put forward a new statement completely contradicting the first statement, on which the whole case was probably built. Not sure why everyone's first thought is the clip has more context.
This is the most logical explanation.
What that audio is though we’ll likely never know.
The CPS explicitly said new material in their statement. Something else clearly came to light, in addition to her withdrawing (and potentially others)
Why speculate? It could be anything. And nobody's guess, which is all ye are doing, is enough to counter what I saw. Yes, it might be a big ol' joke or he could be a abuser. The clip I saw had no punchline.
It definitely is, and since tweets and IG posts are usually presented for discussion on forums, that mindset tends to make its way into threads here as well.
That's not to vilify or absolve anything related to Greenwood, just an observation on how people usually cluster into binary camps that result in circular arguments.
Seems to be starting in a midfield 3 oddly, at least thats how SofaScore has predicted it
I read a quote a bit back from their manager saying he rates his link up play in the build up phase too so maybe trying to get him more on the ball away to a bigger sideMaybe playing as a 10
Agree largely with what you said.This is exactly it and why you should never assume what you see or hear, is what you saw or heard.
We should all be aware by now that things aren't always as they seem. That's not me saying someone faked the audio or video, or that it was role play or anything else. Just that things aren't always as they seem, particularly short audio or video clips. Anyone following the Israel Palestine recently will know this as well.
For me, the investigation into to facts was more in depth than would usually occur for this type of allegation and that was partly due to he high profile nature of the accused as well as the significant public interest. So for them to reach the conclusion they did, to drop the charges was in itself significant before the additional factors including new material. Enough to change a person's opinion from "he did it" to "he didn't do it" I am not sure, but enough to pose the question... It should be.
At the same time, nobody can be 100% certain he did not do it. I'm not. To repeat myself again in this thread, and what probably amounts to a complete cop out, I just don't know. I'll never know either. So with that in mind how can I condemn a person?
What? How is it safe to say he didn't do it?Agree largely with what you said.
Tbh I didn't know she withdrew 10 months before the police closed the case. Nor about the new material. It was pretty much 'she withdrew so the police dropped it' for me. So I thought he probably managed to coerce her into doing that. However now knowing these new information imo it's quite safe to say he actually didn't do it. Otherwise no way the police would close the case I think.
I think the most obvious and logical "new material" explanation is she's put forward a new statement completely contradicting the first statement, on which the whole case was probably built. Not sure why everyone's first thought is the clip has more context.
Richard Arnold's open letter tells us there is more to the audio than what was posted online, that's why.
A new statement is also plausible. Perhaps both things are true as well.
Read the posts above mate.]
What? How is it safe to say he didn't do it?
He’s looking good! Gliding past the opposition and a great one two which led to a shot just over