There are other possibilities but I prefer to just focus on the facts rather than speculate
Mason Greenwood | Officially a Marseille player
- Thread starter keithsingleton
- Start date
- Status
There are other possibilities but I prefer to just focus on the facts rather than speculate
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 19,555
- Supports
️
But the case was being pursued factually with her support for 2-3 months.
Greenwood also factually broke bail conditions to have sex with his alleged victim.
The father confirmed factually their relationship was in a bad state to the national press.
@Rood do you believe Greenwood to be wholly innocent of any wrongdoing?
Im interested in your opinion here.
Well we don't know when the pregnancy was confirmed, but it wouldn't necessarily make that much difference to the CPS who decided to continue the case despite knowing that she asked to drop it and that they were meeting again
But the timelines do seem to match so yes it's fair to say this news could have had an impact
To be frank no.
The decision against the full code evidence is made in line with the evidence and case material.
1) The victim and witnesses withdrew or failed to support
2) New material came to light that undermined the case
Both different things and number 2 won’t be circumstantial.
For the record I do not think the club will bring him back...but it won't be the end of his PL career. That's the reality. He will be sold at a cut price to someone in Spain or Italy and do really well for a couple years then a big PL club will come in for him and not give two shits about his past. Thus, I would rather we benefit from his talent than a rival. Chelsea had a guy playing for them who killed someone while drink driving so they won't bat an eyelid about signing Greenwood.
I've given my opinion several times in this thread and it's that we don't have enough info to be making black and white judgements.
You talk about mental gymnastics but I think there are similar leaps in logic required to conclude he is guilty.
No worries - separating fact from opinion and fiction is a major issue in this case.
I have tried to stick to the facts which is mostly details of official statements and put together the timeline, but obviously still so many unknowns and grey areas.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 19,555
- Supports
- ️
@Rood the vast majority of pregnancies are confirmed by a health professional 11-14 weeks into the pregnancy. The likelihood that the victim went 3 months with no indication of pregnancy is preposterously low.
A baby entering the equation absolutely adds pressure for the victim and those surrounding the victim to withdraw more forcefully any support of the case. I’m glad to see you are open to this having an impact.
@Rood do you not find it odd that the images and footage were on her phone in the first place? What do you think about her fathers comment to the press and finally do you believe Greenwood is innocent?
Witnesses withdrawing and lack of support given a baby is on the way is hardly surprising is it?
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 19,555
- Supports
- ️
Out of interest what leaps in logic do you believe are required to conclude he is guilty of:
- Breaching bail conditions
- Coercive controlling behaviour
- Assault occassioning actual bodily harm
- Attempted rape
Can you appreciate how the grey areas will always exist in cases of intimate partner violence?
The point I’m making is some are blurring the two points in to one.
They are very separate.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 19,555
- Supports
- ️
Witness withdrawal and new evidence?
Yes. And the fact she became pregnant being new evidence/material.
I for one quite frequently accidentally make the mistake of threatening to rape people who won't have sex with me on demand.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 19,555
- Supports
- ️
You show a jury a DV case where the victim has got back together with their abuser, recanted and is having their child do you think there is any chance of conviction?
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 19,555
- Supports
- ️
I’m always absent mindedly breaching bail conditions…
Mistakes aren’t what is being discussed here.
What I’m saying, and have been saying, is the CPS explicitly gave two reasons why the case was dropped.
Her becoming pregnant would not qualify as new evidence/material. It would fall under the unsupportive witness bracket.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 19,555
- Supports
- ️
I feel like maybe we are discussing two different things here.
Im not arguing that it’s new evidence.
Im speaking more broadly about the nature of these cases and the potentially deliberate and harmful actions of Greenwood that led to a pregnancy which will have completely changed the prospects of conviction.
A man accused of coercive controlling behaviour, attempted rape and actual bodily harm broke bail conditions to have sex with his alleged victim which resulted in the pregnancy. Just after the usual timescale for a 1st scan the case is dropped due to key witness withdrawal.
Recanting her previous witness statement does qualify as new material.
By all accounts the victim was unsupportive early on in the timeline? If so I suspect they were looking at a victimless prosecution based on the recording, photos and other third party evidence (likely detailing coercion and controlling behaviour and the impact on the victim).
It then looks like these other witnesses withdrew, along with the victim who already had AND other material came to light that undermined the case. We have no idea what that is.
The case will not have been discontinued based on the pregnancy as in isolation that has nothing to do with the evidence of the case itself.
Speaking of facts, this is relevant: “What I am being told is the defendant flagrantly breached the conditions over weeks or even months and police haven’t done anything about it.”
Mason Greenwood: Police ‘deliberately ignored’ bail breaches by Manchester United star during investigation | Evening Standard
Mason Greenwood: Police ‘deliberately ignored’ bail breaches by Manchester United star during investigation | Evening Standard
I disagree.
People regularly (in UK) get found guilty for crimes against their current partner and then remain together afterwards - it happens a lot.
The UK system does not need a victim to be onboard - especially if there is otherwise damning evidence, as you and many others are claiming is the case with Greenwood.
The CPS doesn’t simply drop every case where -
A. The alleged perpetrator and victim are in a relationship / friendship.
B. The alleged victim declares they want nothing to do with the case.
These factors will not cause the CPS to simply drop a case - and in such an incredibly high profile case they would not drop it lightly.
Again - if the ‘evidence’ that many believe is so damning, we’re actually damning - the case would absolutely not have been dropped.
Then you'd be wrong.
Very interesting. I always (lazily, it seems) assumed that was a catch all for information/material that spoke to the pregnancy/alleged engagement/withdrawal of witnesses etc.
Not in this context.
Again, the victim withdrew some time ago. The case continued. The CPS then explained the case was discontinued due to the withdrawal of key witness/s and new material.
It’s quite clearly two different things.
Question for you mate, if your particular knowledge covers this area of course (and you know I'm not asking you as a "gotcha" or any of that nonsense, you know I respect you more than that): If those images/audio were actually "leaked by hackers", would that affect the case? I'm asking in the context of why that would then not be released as a defence in subsequent statements.
Anyone with any sense knows those statements by United and Greenwood are as vaguely written as possible to both provide the best possible cover without getting into any possible legal issues, but surely her phone being hacked would fall under category of what could be said? Because Greenwood's statement already addresses the social media leaks and even accepts partial responsibility...so I guess I'm asking if there's any reason you know of that they'd still hide an aspect that means very little legally but hugely so it seems to the general public.
No, you'd be wrong in this context. In her interview with the police, she would have provided a witness statement on video. Withdrawing as a witness, and recanting her previous witness statements, are two very different things. Witness statements are material, and therefore recanting a witness statement is obviously material as well. There is no debate here, no ambiguity. You're just wrong.
Again I’ll disagree. The phrasing of the CPS statement gives it away in that they referring to different things in my opinion.
A statement is material though, as would a retraction statement, however the victim withdrew sometime before the case was discontinued according to the timelines posted.
A video interview may have been completed (it’s called an ABE as it is about Achieving Best Evidence). Obviously depends on the circumstances though and the victim agreeing.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 19,555
- Supports
- ️
According to that timeline about 3 months later? 3 months is a long time to manipulate someone into a withdrawal.
It’s also a very long time to not reaves sure sure if you want to withdraw…
The pregnancy will have influenced the decision making process of anyone surrounding the victim. You are looking at this as if there isn’t a human element in people withdrawing or offering alternative evidence and explanations.
Regularly? Can you give me the stats then?
Can you give me the stats for convictions in these kinds of cases where the victim recants?
The UK system does not need it but do you have any data on the % of convictions upheld without the key witnesses co-operation?
The realistic prospect of conviction unless you can provide me with a meaningful statistic to contradict becomes minimal in cases where the key witness or victim withdraws.
It doesn't matter that you disagree, this isn't a debatable thing. It doesn't necessarily mean that this is the new material they're referring to, but it is new material, and nothing in the statement necessitates that they're talking about anything different. This isn't a matter of opinion.
Has it been suggested that’s what happened with the audio and visual evidence? I genuinely hadn’t read that (it was hacked/leaked)
It’s really difficult so can only give my opinion and I know nothing about the case detail.
It happens all the time mate. I see it regularly within my work. And I really do mean regularly.
Claiming that a prosecution is LESS LIKELY without key witness is obviously true - but that doesn’t mean CPS throws it out automatically, especially in such a high profile case. To claim that is incredibly naive. Indeed, the very case that you’re spending your time talking about continued for, what, 10 months AFTER the alleged victim said she wanted zero to do with it?
As stated - endlessly - there is supposedly ‘damning evidence’ independent of the alleged victim.
This is what you are basing your entire stance on - yet you’re ignoring the fact that legal experts are essentially telling you that this is definitely NOT damning evidence.
The whole thing is a matter of opinion unless you know the specific details of the case.
When you read the CPS statement, along with the one released by United, I suspect they are referring to two different things.
No, it's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of definitions, and those definitions are clearly laid out by the UK government. United's statements couldn't be less relevant.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 19,555
- Supports
- ️
Again if it’s regular there will be stats to back up the conviction rate without key witness/victim backing.
Throw in a child here and the fact they would have been back together at the time it all fell apart.
I’m not saying there is damning evidence beyond the victims lived experience which was withdrawn as evidence.
I’ve never once claimed there is a smoking gun here but on the balance of probability I know I’m very happy with the stance I have on the likelihood of something nefarious having occurred.
I am however suggesting that the complete timeline of events is entirely consistent with illegal activity in breach of bail to create the perfect conditions for the person accused of coercive control to continue to control their victim and the police having knowledge of the breach of bail conditions is an abject failure to give the victim a fighting chance at justice.
My conscience is clear on the matter there is enough “coincidence” and publicly available statement, evidence and behaviour from parties involved for me to form a reasonable view of what is the most likely scenario here. I believe Greenwood has abused her and I know with certainty he broke bail conditions to get her pregnant.
We are going around in circles here. As I’ve said when you look at the context of the statement I don’t believe they are referring to a retraction statement.
The father said it first thing in the morning, mere hours after it being posted, but nothing since.
I just wonder why that wouldn't be mentioned if it were true. Greenwood already admits to being at least partially responsible for what lead to those posts, I can't think of why they couldn't say it was hacked and leaked. Can you think of any legal reason, within your knowledge of course, why they couldn't and wouldn't say that?
Unless of course, much like this whole affair, it's more cover ups for situations we will never (and probably shouldn't ever) know. But that's pure speculation on my part. Certainly explains a whole lot more about what he isn't playing for us right now and yet isn't just booted out though.
@Rhyme Animal Apologies my friend if you've ever mentioned it as I'm a doughnut for remembering people and not mixing up usernames, but you seemingly work within range of this, so maybe you have input as to this question line?
There's no circle. There's the simple fact of the matter, and then you trying to interpret something with no basis.
- Status