Mason Greenwood | Officially a Marseille player

Status
Not open for further replies.
There are a few things about this that make me think that the full audio would reveal a more innocent explanation.
Firstly his girlfriend's father statement in the immediate aftermath. It sounded completely out of place with the situation.
Secondly, United's statement stating that they were now sure he had not done the things he was accused of. Manchester United (or any global corporation) are not in the business of making excuses for people who have committed serious crimes.

Why is the remaining audio not released or explained if it proves Masons innocence? Who knows. If it is role play, maybe it gets even weirder on both sides and its been kept under wraps to protect his partner.
Maybe we'll never know.
 
It's a huge leap from a verbal threat to committing the physical act. Whether in this example or just in general. Here the threat was deemed credible enough to warrant an extensive investigation but ultimately the case collapsed.

Even in fits of rage most people come to their senses before crossing lines you can't come back from. That's why physical acts of extreme violence are relatively rare.
The recording mentions him doing things that aren't just verbal threats. We're talking about attempted rape, not actually committing the act.
That’s because there’s an incredible amount of daft people pretending they can’t even imagine how a longer clip could change the tone/event, when clearly there’s a tonne of ways a longer clip could change everything.
I think you misunderstand why people can't imagine that. The explanations don't make any sense with how things have gone. Most of these scenarios would never have led to charges in the first place.
It could be attempt to rape. Its not damning evidence which convinces me without reasonable doubt.

When I'm stating my opinions, I'm basing them on all the evidence and information we have rather than looking at each piece individually. I don't necessarily think that's a bad way to analyse things when there's such serious accusations. It would be like me suggesting he's innocent because of Man Utds investigation while ignoring the audio. You have to look at everything as a whole and when I do, I don't find it damning that he attempted to rape but I also don't rule out the possibility either.
But we don't have any other evidence around that audio, that's the issue here.
United saying that there is a longer clip that leads them to believe something different isn't evidence.
It's perfectly normal to want as much as evidence as you can get and to try to not jump to conclusions but when you say stuff like

"I've just said that I am not convinced in anyway at all that I'm listening to attempted rape there"

after hearing the audio, it's a bit odd because that's exactly what it sounds like is happening there. Now yeah maybe there is another explanation for it but we definitely haven't had one and whether you mean to or not the way you talk about it feels a bit dismissive.
 
There are a few things about this that make me think that the full audio would reveal a more innocent explanation.
Firstly his girlfriend's father statement in the immediate aftermath. It sounded completely out of place with the situation.
Secondly, United's statement stating that they were now sure he had not done the things he was accused of. Manchester United (or any global corporation) are not in the business of making excuses for people who have committed serious crimes.

Why is the remaining audio not released or explained if it proves Masons innocence? Who knows. If it is role play, maybe it gets even weirder on both sides and its been kept under wraps to protect his partner.
Maybe we'll never know.
It’s strange one. Based on what we have heard there is only one explanation that makes sense and that he’s been a very naughty boy.
the father coming out so soon with his reaction didn’t sit right with me. I was thinking that if I was in his place I wouldn’t be talking but I’d be fuming about how at the very least he was talking to my daughter even if physical stuff didn’t occur. There is a conclusion that jumps to my head but I don’t want to go there as it makes me look nasty assuming that about the father.
It’s been nearly 2 years. I know they couldnt at the time because of the possibility of a pending court case, but since United made their half arsed investigation you would think that the couple could make some kind of statement or something
 
There are a few things about this that make me think that the full audio would reveal a more innocent explanation.
Firstly his girlfriend's father statement in the immediate aftermath. It sounded completely out of place with the situation.
Secondly, United's statement stating that they were now sure he had not done the things he was accused of. Manchester United (or any global corporation) are not in the business of making excuses for people who have committed serious crimes.

Why is the remaining audio not released or explained if it proves Masons innocence? Who knows. If it is role play, maybe it gets even weirder on both sides and its been kept under wraps to protect his partner.
Maybe we'll never know.

Good post.

But there is a mob that just wants to burn the witch. They do not accept any other explanation other than "Greenwood is domestic abuser and violent rapist".

There was a guy saying he wants to punch in the face anyone who doesn't condemn Greenwood. I guess he wants to also punch the now mother of his child.
 
Big game for Getafe tomorrow against Real Madrid. Hope the boy does well and spark more interest.
I've only watched one of Getafes games live but was going to tune into this one until I saw it clashes with our game. If Greenwood has a good game I'll probably find the full match but, even with him him coming into form and already having a top game against one of the leagues better sides in Atletico, I'm not expecting much because I think Real Madrid are just going to dominate. It'd be nice to be wrong and him to put on a show, though! He has it in him to do so.
 
Good post.

But there is a mob that just wants to burn the witch. They do not accept any other explanation other than "Greenwood is domestic abuser and violent rapist".

There was a guy saying he wants to punch in the face anyone who doesn't condemn Greenwood. I guess he wants to also punch the now mother of his child.
Terrible post. Adds absolutely nothing to the conversation.
 
We can imagine it, but we can also immediately dismiss explanations like the below as completely unrealistic:



I mean, come on.

Yeah, it was me who said I couldn't imagine what content in the extended recording would nullify what we hear in the recording is available. So I came to post pretty much this, thanks.

It's not that I lack the imagination to conceive the 'it was just a joke sorry' scenario, it's that I don't think the unlikely hypothetical excuses the contents we can hear. Obviously.
 
Day 164 in the Greenwood thread. Today the posters are again discussing the roleplay theory.
 
Good post.

But there is a mob that just wants to burn the witch. They do not accept any other explanation other than "Greenwood is domestic abuser and violent rapist".

There was a guy saying he wants to punch in the face anyone who doesn't condemn Greenwood. I guess he wants to also punch the now mother of his child.
Ironic that you feel compelled to defend poor victim Greenwood from what i can only imagine are, in your mind, false accusations, yet you are happy to write something as repugnant as that last sentence about someone else.
 
But we don't have any other evidence around that audio, that's the issue here.
United saying that there is a longer clip that leads them to believe something different isn't evidence.
It's perfectly normal to want as much as evidence as you can get and to try to not jump to conclusions but when you say stuff like

"I've just said that I am not convinced in anyway at all that I'm listening to attempted rape there"

after hearing the audio, it's a bit odd because that's exactly what it sounds like is happening there. Now yeah maybe there is another explanation for it but we definitely haven't had one and whether you mean to or not the way you talk about it feels a bit dismissive.

We don't have access to other evidence but that doesn't mean we should discount evidence which we've been told exists.

United saying there is a longer clip and this is a short exert. They also said that from their investigation that the material posted online doesn't provide the full picture.

The CPS also said:

"and new material that came to light meant there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction"

So that is two investigations which have concluded there is evidence or material out there which affects the realistic prospect of conviction. Of course they could both be referring to two different pieces of evidence. If they are talking about two different pieces though, does that make the defence weaker?

The operative word in what you quoted from me is "convinced". In the very post you replied to I even say "I don't rule out the possibility either" of it being attempted rape. I can not and will not listen to one piece of evidence while ignoring everything else weve learned when making a decision on someones guilt. Especially when statements released since, from both internal and external investigations, suggest evidence not in the public domain affects the possibility of conviction for the accused crimes.

Having said the above we cannot detract from the fact that there were witnesses (plural) statements withdrawn which also impacted the possibility of conviction. So this also needs to be considered. It wasn't just dropped due to new evidence.

If you read some of the comments on here though, some individuals are very selective with what they want to hear. I've lost count of the amount of times I've read people say the case collapsed because the witness withdrew their statement. It collapsed because of new evidence and multiple witness statements withdrawn. I don't understand why people keep taking that statement out of context and adjusting it to imply that it was only dropped due to the witness removing their statement. The frustrating part is that it's usually the posters who accuse others of not being genuine or honest that are knowingly taking the CPS statement out of context and reshaping it to suit their narrative and use as fact. Which is neither honest nor genuine.***

The final part which I query which very few people seem to mention or are able to provide an explanation for when I've asked is Richard Arnold saying:

"The alleged victim requested the police to drop their investigation in April 2022."

To me this implies a statement of withdrawal was made in April 2022 or that proceedings for that began then. So for all we know the alleged victims statement may have been withdrawn prior to the charges being applied. There is also nothing preventing the CPS from continuing with the case despite the withdrawl and if the evidence was as compelling as some alledge then the CPS could also have made an application for a witness summons.

It's not uncommon or unheard of for the CPS to continue to press charges after a witness statement was removed. Lewis Burton removed his statement for domestic violence against Caroline Flack but the CPS still charged her with "assault by beating" despite the statement withdrawl.

*** To add to the above. I've also encountered some posters inplying that mason breaking bail had an influence on the witness removing their statement . From what I've read (happy to be corrected), Greenwood broke bail in October 2022 and the alleged victim requested the police to stop their investigation in April 2022. Again another thing being implied which isn't factually correct by some posters who accuse people such as myself of not being honest or genuine. But they turn a blind eye to people saying stuff like the above who share their opinion. But it isn't honest and it isn't genuine. It's jumping to conclusions which suit their narrative they're trying to impose.

Lastly he could well be guilty, I've said it in many posts and I agree. But the audio alone isn't damning enough and combined with what we've learned since, I'm in no position to say I'm convinced he's done everything he's alleged to have done. He could have done it but I'm not convinced.
 
Last edited:
Ironic that you feel compelled to defend poor victim Greenwood from what i can only imagine are, in your mind, false accusations, yet you are happy to write something as repugnant as that last sentence about someone else.

I'm not saying I want to punch people with different view, am I?

Life is so much easier in black and white I guess.
Greenwood is a monster and that's it!
 
I'm not saying I want to punch people with different view, am I?

Life is so much easier in black and white I guess.
Greenwood is a monster and that's it!
The issue isn't black and white though. In fact, it is the grey that emboldens posters (possibly like yourself) to cower behind a narrative that paints Greenwood as a victim of misunderstanding. Just as it is the grey that results in consequences - consequences that aren't a criminal conviction and jail - but consequences of Greenwood's own doing nonetheless: loss of sponsorship, some fans turning against him, no longer playing for his boyhood club, etc.
 
If INEOS want him back they will have him back. They have too much money to worry about the PR. Would you want to comeback if you were Grenwood? Better off moving to Barca or Real.
 
If INEOS want him back they will have him back. They have too much money to worry about the PR. Would you want to comeback if you were Grenwood? Better off moving to Barca or Real.

Barca or Real?

Pull the other one. It has bells on.
 
If INEOS want him back they will have him back. They have too much money to worry about the PR. Would you want to comeback if you were Grenwood? Better off moving to Barca or Real.
INEOS have so far very carefully and mindfully engaged with fans. What makes you think they will suddenly stop doing this with respect to this very contentious issue?
 
Why don't any of the posters who are defending the theory that there could be a relatively harmless explanation to the audio and pictures dare go all the way and finish the argument? The only possible conclusion being that she framed him when she posted that private and decontextualised shite online.
 
Why don't any of the posters who are defending the theory that there could be a relatively harmless explanation to the audio and pictures dare go all the way and finish the argument? The only possible conclusion being that she framed him when she posted that private and decontextualised shite online.
I don’t personally want to start blaming the victim.
If you think like that, you also have to ask the question how did she know when to record? Was this repeat behaviour that prompted her to setup her hidden camera/phone?
 
Good post.

But there is a mob that just wants to burn the witch. They do not accept any other explanation other than "Greenwood is domestic abuser and violent rapist".

There was a guy saying he wants to punch in the face anyone who doesn't condemn Greenwood. I guess he wants to also punch the now mother of his child.

That'd be me. Please, have a look at my posting history in this thread.
 
Hypothetically, if it has been Nunez from Liverpool not greenwood, then would opinions change?
I can only speak for me. If he was a lessor player/talent interest would obviously be lower and I’d be less bothered about him playing for utd again. However I’d give anyone the benefit of the doubt based on current evidence I’ve seen and heard. I don’t really agree with lumping in without knowing all the facts (that applies to everything I do tbh).
 
INEOS have so far very carefully and mindfully engaged with fans. What makes you think they will suddenly stop doing this with respect to this very contentious issue?

They like winning more than anything. They've hired Brailsford who oversaw systemic cheating at Team Sky and Omar Berrada who was at Barcelona when the alleged referee payments occurred and was at City when they racked up 116 charges against FFP. If they think Greenwood will help them win, he will be in the squad.
 
Hypothetically, if it has been Nunez from Liverpool not greenwood, then would opinions change?

Of course because the majority will just go for the superficial reaction for a Scouser - probably not the right thing to do but it's just the way it is

I doubt many here have spent time to research fine details about Mendy, Partey, Sigurdsson etc either because they aren't our players

in fact many here still don't understand all the facts about this case anyway but I've at least tried to check all publicly available info, understand the timeline etc before taking a view; which I wouldn't bother for an opposition player
 
Last edited:
They like winning more than anything. They've hired Brailsford who oversaw systemic cheating at Team Sky and Omar Berrada who was at Barcelona when the alleged referee payments occurred and was at City when they racked up 116 charges against FFP. If they think Greenwood will help them win, he will be in the squad.
He also went to great efforts to act all moral and how it would be outrageous to dope and went to great lengths to pretend his athletes were clean. There's zero chance they take on the massive PR hit on this. It's wishful thinking on your part.
 
Wanting to punch people in the face because they dont agree with you isnt something to be proud at. Atleast that is my opinion, hopefully that doesnt make you want to punch me in the face.
That depends entirely on the opinion, surely?
 
Wanting to punch people in the face because they dont agree with you isnt something to be proud at. Atleast that is my opinion, hopefully that doesnt make you want to punch me in the face.

Depends. It's OK to punch Nazis for example.
 
He also went to great efforts to act all moral and how it would be outrageous to dope and went to great lengths to pretend his athletes were clean. There's zero chance they take on the massive PR hit on this. It's wishful thinking on your part.
At no point did I say it was my wish. The club we know is gone. All sentimentality is gone. These guys a ruthless and give absolutely no f*&ks. Brailsford obviously had to say they weren't doping as you wouldn't admit they were. They were still cheating though.
 
Whether Greenwood is guilty or not, he would be a liability to the club with sponsors etc plus the lad himself would be drowned in abuse if he played for us. I mean 'Antony is the greatest' chant at Newport and Antony hasn't had videos released of his alleged abuse.is a tame example. Yes, I know that the chant doesn't mean Anton is the greatest!.
 
Wanting to punch people in the face because they dont agree with you isnt something to be proud at. Atleast that is my opinion, hopefully that doesnt make you want to punch me in the face.
Why don't you have a look too
 
What is it about the clip that suggest to you that it isn't an attempt to rape?
I will bite… saying that MG is an attempted rapist only on the basis of that audio is simply illogical.

Any attempt of a crime requires intention of the perpetrator to commit such crime but for reasons beyond the intention of the perpetrator, the criminal act is not completed.

The audio does not indicate that there was any third party who intervened or that the victim neutralized the perpetrator and, for example, escaped.

To put it in very simple terms, without any intervening act, MG would have completed the act if he had the requisite intention to brand him as the attempted rapist. Based on the audio, there was nothing stopping MG to complete the criminal act if indeed this was his intention.

Yes, the audio is morally reprehensible but (without further context or information) does not amount to attempted rape.
 
At no point did I say it was my wish. The club we know is gone. All sentimentality is gone. These guys a ruthless and give absolutely no f*&ks. Brailsford obviously had to say they weren't doping as you wouldn't admit they were. They were still cheating though.
You didn't have to.

And Sky did far more than that, they didn't just say they didn't dope, they actively pushed the morality far beyond the point of any other cycling team in history. They wanted to be seen as cleaner than clean and that they did it all on their own cleverness. They wanted to be seen to do it right. Someone as toxic as Greenwood won't get a look in.
 
We don't have access to other evidence but that doesn't mean we should discount evidence which we've been told exists.

United saying there is a longer clip and this is a short exert. They also said that from their investigation that the material posted online doesn't provide the full picture.

The CPS also said:

"and new material that came to light meant there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction"

So that is two investigations which have concluded there is evidence or material out there which affects the realistic prospect of conviction. Of course they could both be referring to two different pieces of evidence. If they are talking about two different pieces though, does that make the defence weaker?

The operative word in what you quoted from me is "convinced". In the very post you replied to I even say "I don't rule out the possibility either" of it being attempted rape. I can not and will not listen to one piece of evidence while ignoring everything else weve learned when making a decision on someones guilt. Especially when statements released since, from both internal and external investigations, suggest evidence not in the public domain affects the possibility of conviction for the accused crimes.

Having said the above we cannot detract from the fact that there were witnesses (plural) statements withdrawn which also impacted the possibility of conviction. So this also needs to be considered. It wasn't just dropped due to new evidence.

If you read some of the comments on here though, some individuals are very selective with what they want to hear. I've lost count of the amount of times I've read people say the case collapsed because the witness withdrew their statement. It collapsed because of new evidence and multiple witness statements withdrawn. I don't understand why people keep taking that statement out of context and adjusting it to imply that it was only dropped due to the witness removing their statement. The frustrating part is that it's usually the posters who accuse others of not being genuine or honest that are knowingly taking the CPS statement out of context and reshaping it to suit their narrative and use as fact. Which is neither honest nor genuine.***

The final part which I query which very few people seem to mention or are able to provide an explanation for when I've asked is Richard Arnold saying:

"The alleged victim requested the police to drop their investigation in April 2022."

To me this implies a statement of withdrawal was made in April 2022 or that proceedings for that began then. So for all we know the alleged victims statement may have been withdrawn prior to the charges being applied. There is also nothing preventing the CPS from continuing with the case despite the withdrawl and if the evidence was as compelling as some alledge then the CPS could also have made an application for a witness summons.

It's not uncommon or unheard of for the CPS to continue to press charges after a witness statement was removed. Lewis Burton removed his statement for domestic violence against Caroline Flack but the CPS still charged her with "assault by beating" despite the statement withdrawl.

*** To add to the above. I've also encountered some posters inplying that mason breaking bail had an influence on the witness removing their statement . From what I've read (happy to be corrected), Greenwood broke bail in October 2022 and the alleged victim requested the police to stop their investigation in April 2022. Again another thing being implied which isn't factually correct by some posters who accuse people such as myself of not being honest or genuine. But they turn a blind eye to people saying stuff like the above who share their opinion. But it isn't honest and it isn't genuine. It's jumping to conclusions which suit their narrative they're trying to impose.

Lastly he could well be guilty, I've said it in many posts and I agree. But the audio alone isn't damning enough and combined with what we've learned since, I'm in no position to say I'm convinced he's done everything he's alleged to have done. He could have done it but I'm not convinced.
There's a different between not discounting it and making assumptions as to what it means though.
It's been mentioned several times that new evidence could just be new statement from the alleged victim. It doesn't have to change anything to do with that audio.

The CPS take some cases forward without support of a witness yes, but 'many' isn't a word that provides clarification. Do you have any statistics for attempted rape/DV charges without any witnesses?
Potentially ones where the witness submits a new statement that contradicts the initial explanation for the evidence.

The clubs investigation lacks credibility for obvious reasons, and after Crofton reported how they were referring to DV charities internally, I'm not sure we should be deferring to them for our opinions.

Him being caught breaking bail at that time only tells you that he wasn't following what he was ordered to do by the courts. It tells you nothing of any potential interactions between them before she withdrew her support.

Again, I didn't take issue with your overall stance but the idea the audio didn't sound like an attempted rape.
 
I will bite… saying that MG is an attempted rapist only on the basis of that audio is simply illogical.

Any attempt of a crime requires intention of the perpetrator to commit such crime but for reasons beyond the intention of the perpetrator, the criminal act is not completed.

The audio does not indicate that there was any third party who intervened or that the victim neutralized the perpetrator and, for example, escaped.

To put it in very simple terms, without any intervening act, MG would have completed the act if he had the requisite intention to brand him as the attempted rapist. Based on the audio, there was nothing stopping MG to complete the criminal act if indeed this was his intention.

Yes, the audio is morally reprehensible but (without further context or information) does not amount to attempted rape.
So you're saying he didn't attempt to rape her based on him not eventually raping her?

We should ignore her telling him several times that she doesn't want to have sex and him telling her to shut up because he didn't actually go through with it?
 
It’s strange one. Based on what we have heard there is only one explanation that makes sense and that he’s been a very naughty boy.
the father coming out so soon with his reaction didn’t sit right with me. I was thinking that if I was in his place I wouldn’t be talking but I’d be fuming about how at the very least he was talking to my daughter even if physical stuff didn’t occur. There is a conclusion that jumps to my head but I don’t want to go there as it makes me look nasty assuming that about the father.
It’s been nearly 2 years. I know they couldnt at the time because of the possibility of a pending court case, but since United made their half arsed investigation you would think that the couple could make some kind of statement or something
Yes, absolutely. Even stranger that there has never even been some kind of leak or unofficial briefing on the matter from a 'source'. That makes me wonder if there was maybe someone else there as well, therefore very dodgy legal ground. ButAs I say we'll maybe never know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.