Not odd at all. Totally consistent. I was advising someone else not to engage. Then you engaged me.
Mason Greenwood | Officially a Marseille player
- Thread starter keithsingleton
- Start date
- Status
Not odd at all. Totally consistent. I was advising someone else not to engage. Then you engaged me.
Get on with life
There's two points to this;
One, I was asked what would be enough for me. This is what I would require from him to ever be accepted back.
Secondly, I don't think telling the truth about what you've done and facing the consequences of it makes you a moron. It is the first step back to becoming a decent person who is accountable for your actions. The only question is does Mason want to be a person who holds himself accountable or does he want to be a person who will do whatever to avoid the consequences of his actions. One day his kid is going to be played that voice recording, be shown those pictures and probably learn what rape means. He'd be better off learning that alongside the fact that his dad admitted he was wrong and accepted the punishment. Being clever doesn't come into it, but he'll never do it because as everything he's ever done has proved, he's selfish.
Please don't ever have an intimate relationship with a woman Spaghetti. I think you've got the wrong idea.
The fact that this guy has a kid is disturbing to me, full stop. Don't think that's being talked about seriously enough given the information we have. Deeply disturbed individuals who don't admit to their crimes shouldn't be anywhere near a kid.
Do you know for sure that he has not changed, living a solid life with his partner and they have moved on, he got professional help and try their best as parents?
Reluctant to get sucked back into this but for me the simple fact that “new evidence” came to light in the internal investigation and more context yet despite this apparently exonerating Greenwood, neither he nor the club (who would require his permission to be fair) have been willing to share this information and help frame the horrific images and audio that we have all seen and heard.
You’ve cleared your name privately, why would you choose not to do it publicly?
You’ve cleared your name privately, why would you choose not to do it publicly?
I think the simplest answer is the correct one here.. no such evidence exists, and maybe they considered a hail mary of claiming roleplay/her making it all up with her agreeing to say she did (I really hope that wasn't considered, and I have no evidence at all to suggest it was, just a bit of a hunch), maybe they weren't, but I don't think there's anything that could exonerate the evidence of those images and audio. Imo it happened and he did exactly what we think he did and anyone seriously arguing there are good reasons to believe he didn't are just kidding themselves. That said I don't think it helps the victim for people to give him dogs abuse every time he plays a football match for the rest of his career, don't think that helps anyone.
Anyway hopefully we get some money for him.
For me it's reasonably simple. Two of the three charges were key pillars for the case.
It's very likely that some or all of the new material that came to light was a longer recording that led to one of the key pillars crumbling (at least based on the club's comments). My interpretation of it is a longer recording showed they had consensual sex shortly after the exchange we heard which kills the attempted rape charge.
The longer recording may have also included detail that impacted the second key pillar (assault charge) but I am not willing to speculate on that content further. It may well be that the witnesses withdrawal made this charge harder to pursue itself.
This left the coercive and controlling behaviour charge which the CPS likely deemed not worthy of pursuit on it's own.
All in all of part of what exonerated you is an audio recording of you and your finances having sex, I can see why no one is pursuing a public charm offensive. For many, the charges no longer being pursued would be enough.
Because the "new evidence" is a red herring. Almost anything at all is new evidence. So it is either his partner saying she made it up or exaggerated it (which happens all the time with DV) or some minor statement from friends or family. The only really meaningful reason for the prosecution not progressing is the withdrawal of cooperation with the prosecution which makes such a case almost impossible to get a successful prosecution.
The DPP wanted to cover themselves a bit with such a high profile case. Which is understandable. However, given that this new evidence isn't something Greenwood and his people want in the public arena you can be fairly confident that it doesn't mean anything that makes the recorded events any less despicable.
It does no such thing. Consent is at the time of actual events and says nothing about consent before or afterwards. It is also highly debatable if sex after such an event is actually consensual and not merely as a result of said events. This would have gone to court if the main witness hadn't withdrawn cooperation. And it was cooperation that was withdrawn and not the statement of events or the veracity of the recording, which the prosecution was based on.
This sounds like your own assumption. Greenwood and his girl were known to lead a pretty wild lifestyle. It could be anything about their private lives that they did not want out there. I really don't see where your confidence comes from, other than "if it's good they would have released it!".
It comes from not being a gullible fool.
I've read a few legal ramblings from various jurisdictions that confirm a cooperative witness is not a requirement if your evidence is sound. The witness can be subpoenaed and is not necessarily detrimental to the case even if hostile.
In this case, the recording seems like ironclad evidence. A witness would only confirm what is already discernable and can be evidenced in other ways (this is your voice, this is Mason Greenwood's voice, questions about whose phone recorded the audio can be determined by the IMEI number of their phone matched to the associated data from the recording, etc). So I wondered what would cause a situation where that daming piece of audio evidence cannot be seen as proof beyond a reasonable doubt that rape was attempted. The only reasonable scenario for me is that the additional audio could cast doubt, at least for a jury, that what was charged occurred.
But with DV cases this virtually never happens as a conviction is hard enough to get even with a cooperating victim/witness, and virtually impossible without.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1097532
More posters coming in and making excuses for him, unbelievable.
Most DV cases also don't have a recording of said abuse happening, so I can see @Dr. Dwayne point to be honest.
Not the worst of loans so far. 7G+5A, 0.62 G/A per 90, and it looks he now passes the ball more than he was used to previously.
Makes no difference. Cases where there is a huge amount of physical evidence of extreme violence fail at the same rate. If you force a non-cooperating victim/witness to testify against their will then there is a very high chance they will lie (it was role-play, I fell down the stairs) for the same reason they withdrew cooperation. If you try without the victim/witness then reasonable doubt is almost a given with a half competent defence lawyer.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1097532
Of course it makes a difference - there are undoubtedly unique factors in this case (high profile of the alleged perpetrator, evidence released online etc) that have to be taken into account when assessing general stats where such factors are not present.
The final result could well be the same as more standard cases but you can't pretend these unique factors don't exist.
By the way, this article doesn't seem to be publicly available.
Weird because I just read it without logging in. Anyway the summary is DV prosecutions virtually never go ahead without the victim cooperation with the prosecution even when extreme violence is involved (of which there is a huge amount of physical evidence). With no witness reasonable doubt is almost baked in and forceing someone to testify when they don't want to is no better because the best case is they get forgetful and the worse case is they lie and say it didn't happen after all. Why cases like this just about never go ahead. So no. This isn't special in terms of why it didn't go ahead. Sadly it is hugely normal.
Last edited:
Fair enough - the one point that still doesn't add up in this case though is that the alleged victim withdrew in April 2022, but Greenwood wasnt charged until October '22 and the case wasnt dropped until Feb '23.
So her noncooperation was clearly not the deciding factor.
This again suggests that 'new evidence' was found or that there was another witness (or maybe even witnesses) that withdrew or even both.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 18,325
- Supports
️
Were they? I know enough people with “wild” lifestyles that also wouldn’t attempt to rape their partners.
It’s a pretty unique crime where so much attention is put into the victim especially with these kind of comments about their character. She could be the biggest party animal in the world and it wouldn’t make a blind bit of difference. It’s this kind of “she was asking for it” kind of culture or the implication that maybe she was up for it because she may have partied once that I find particularly distasteful.
Where factually has it been reported that they had a wild lifestyle @mu4c_20le not just Greenwood.
Not facts or at least not provable but MG and his gf were the talk of various forum boards months before this story broke.
I'd say they hung on believing she would in fact testify until early 23. Or that unusually they were going to go ahead anyway but were told to drop it by some higher up the line for the usual reasons (withdrawl of cooperation). That would make publicising the "new evidence" understandable, to avoid questions as to why they dropped it now.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 18,325
- Supports
- ️
I’m not a fan of trial by social media though.
And what forum boards would these be? Are they linkabke?
Utd fanzines had numerous stories on Greenwood being a complete bellend for a good few years.
The loan is going well. Hopefully he stays fit and continues to impress and we should be able to get about £30m for him, with a bit of luck.
Coupled with £20m for Pellestri then we have done ok for a few loans to Spain.
Coupled with £20m for Pellestri then we have done ok for a few loans to Spain.
This to me just strengthens the idea that it was the witness withdrawal that killed the case. Police and prosecutors wanted to continue with it (which to me says that given what they know they believe he was guilty) but the CPS took another look after the witness had withdrawn and, as a result, decided not to proceed 'given the collapse of the case.'
Reddit and I don’t go there often so I wouldn’t be the best at finding things again on there
Even if Greenwood goes to Athletico or Barcelona and then one of those teams draws an English team in the CL, his life would be hell the moment he played at english ground , his potential new team could even draw United what happens then, I think United might put a clause in the contract that he won’t be allowed to play at OLD Trafford should the team draw United in Europe.
Plus with Getafe, there is a 20% sell on fee, United will want nearer £40m for him as they have 1+1 left on his contract this summer and his wages are relative low to his footballing talent.
Facundo Pellistri is such a polar opposite to MG , he’s as such a humble well mannered young man, you just want the player to get regular football and do well. I think we could loan him for a whole season and get his transfer value up even more to maybe £30m.
Yeah that can't happen
Why? There have been clauses for years saying players can’t play against their former team for years, so I don’t see why you couldn’t? Unlikely but possible
such a clause following a permanent transfer? I can’t think of a single case like that and it would be quite weird.
if he ends up on another loan than sure, United can put such clause in the agreement.
The Police might well have continued because of the politics of the situation. Its one thing the CPS deciding not to continue with the case but if the Police had done so it leaves them open to all sorts of criticism.
Not on a permanent transfer.
Imagine us telling Real Madrid they could have Ronaldo, but he's forbidden from playing for us, because he'd get booed at Old Trafford
Yeah that's the only realistic route I see for him to be accepted back at United. I can understand it would be a tough thing to do. But he and possibly his partner will have to do an interview/statement giving a believable explanation on why the leaked audio wasn't exactly what it sounded like.
If he/she/both aren't willing to do that then a career away from United and England is his only option I reckon.
I highly doubt you'd be able to dictate to the buying club how they're able to utilise their asset, as it won't be a loan move.
Even if you could, any buying club knows we want to sell, and we'd not have a leg to stand on forcing a clause like that. Plus he could be sold again and there'd be no such clause.
It wouldn't even quell the story either. If we played that team in Europe, the stories would be all about the clause, drawing all attention to the story again.
Non starter, obviously, and not something the club should particularly care about.
Guys you can stick anything in a contract if the buyer wants the player. There’s nothing to say that you can’t, for example In year 1, if our 2 clubs compete against each other in European competition, the player is forbidden from playing the away tie at Old Trafford.
simple
simple
- Status