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Having said the above we cannot detract from the fact that there were witnesses (plural) statements withdrawn which also impacted the possibility of conviction.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 It collapsed because of new evidence and multiple witness statements withdrawn.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.
I’ve just read that in that geordie voiceover man accent