I understand that in most cases but in this particular instance we have direct evidence of the offence in commission. It just seems weak.
Now, consideration of the CPS softly softly approach with victims makes that seem more sensible but still.
Mason Greenwood | Officially a Marseille player
- Thread starter keithsingleton
- Start date
- Status
I understand that in most cases but in this particular instance we have direct evidence of the offence in commission. It just seems weak.
Now, consideration of the CPS softly softly approach with victims makes that seem more sensible but still.
Prosecution “please watch this video”
Defence “witness has withdrawn statement and not here for cross examination”
NEVER going to get a prosecution and CPS is tasked with best use of prosecutors/courts time
Should it be in court? Yes.
Will it (current situation)? No
It's very hard to judge the CPS in this case, because they have to make all kinds of considerations to the victims mental state etc.
The real fury in all of this (aside from the obvious) needs to be with GMP. Even if Greenwood is totally innocent of everything he's accused of and the most generous interpretation of events imaginable is true, ignoring him breaking his bail conditions and repeatedly contacting the victim to the point where she withdrew from the case is such a catastrophic failure it really demands an inquest.
Prosecution subpoenas witness.*
*In fairness this seems to go against their own code of conduct. Not sure if I agree with that in this instance.
Agree on the GMP.
Agreed, but I don't think you can necessarily paint it as the repeatedly contacting the victim was the reason she withdrew the case. There is a reason why breaking bail in these cases should be taken extremely seriously, but each case will have it's own nuances. It sets a terrible precedent.
I didn't say it was the reason she withdrew from the case. I said he repeatedly broke contact until the point she did. I also literally prefaced the entire statement in the hypothetical where you assume the most generous interpretation of events with regards to Greenwood, which obviously wouldn't involve coercing a victim.
I've also discussed this with the same person in the last few hours previously in a non-hypothetical scenario so I suggest it might be worth rereading the post you're quoting and maybe a few before that.
First off, do we know it was a one way street regarding the contact? And do we know which way?
I’m also not quite sure what the GMP could do? What do you imagine as I really the contact between them is a big failure of the case.
I don't think most would care about the academy player angle as much as they would about losing a very good attacker for peanuts with his entire career still ahead of him.
It doesn't matter if it was a one way street or not, if the victim contacted Greenwood then it's still a breach of bail for him to return that contact. If she text him and he text her back then he's broken his bail condition and GMP should have charged him.
Given they conceived a child in that period, I think it's pretty safe to dismiss any argument that the contact between Greenwood and the victim was against Greenwoods will or beyond his ability to prevent.
GMP arrested him for breach of bail, they didn't charge him and essentially turned a blind eye to it. That's an obscene failure.
For what it's worth, I do think you'd be absolutely foolish to take the null stance that he didn't coerce the victim when he was charged prior to the bail conditions with coercing and controlling behaviour, repeatedly broke bail conditions to meet with the victim (including proposing and impregnating her) and then the victim subsequently withdrew from the investigation 4 months after he is arrested for breaking bail conditions.
Beyond reasonable doubt exists as a standard of proof in criminal court cases because the penalty for criminal court cases is a loss of liberty. It's not the standard of proof required by everyone to adopt in every circumstance in a criminal case. Presumption of innocence is a separate principle to standard of proof and it doesn't mean you have to assume everyone who isn't prosecuted to a criminal level is innocent of the crime. You don't have the power to imprison anyone, your standard of proof should therefore be at a more sensible level. The burden for a civil case, which has actual financial penalties is the balance of probabilities.
Beyond reasonable doubt exists as a standard of proof in criminal court cases because the penalty for criminal court cases is a loss of liberty. It's not the standard of proof required by everyone to adopt in every circumstance in a criminal case. Presumption of innocence is a separate principle to standard of proof and it doesn't mean you have to assume everyone who isn't prosecuted to a criminal level is innocent of the crime. You don't have the power to imprison anyone, your standard of proof should therefore be at a more sensible level. The burden for a civil case, which has actual financial penalties is the balance of probabilities.
Apologies, I didnt get that from what I read, but understand now.
* UK use witness summons, but would never happen.. would cause victim distress and put people off coming forward.
And even that would be after it failed the CPSs ‘evidential test’… which would likely lead to some form of an investigation of the CPS and there actions.
You’re arguing a straw man here Dion. I wasn’t arguing that their contact wasn’t a breach of his bail, I even stated the contact between them was a massive failure in the case.
But we can’t make statements like “he repeatedly contracted the victim until she dropped the case”, as we have absolutely no idea if that’s true or if she repeatedly contacted him, or if both of them were at it all along and never stopped contacting each other.
We can say “it was a massive failure of the case that the pair were repeatedly in contact with each other until getting pregnant, after which she withdrew herself from the case”, but the rest is pure speculation and taking away the women’s own will, we just don’t know enough to make such claims.
Of course, once they got pregnant (“he impregnated her” once again makes claim to her having absolutely no will of her own, which may be the case, but is pure speculation), the case was doomed to fail.
But I’m still unsure as to how the GMP could prevent them contacting each other?
This thread is to newbies like that beach scene from Saving Private Ryan. Many come here but only few survive. 
This thread is to newbies like that beach scene from Saving Private Ryan. Many come here but only few survive.
Same difference and I generally agree but this case is different due to the nature of the evidence.
Speaking of evidentiary tests and recognizing the club's mention of longer audio makes me wonder if the evidentiary piece played a larger role than most accept. That's not to suggest any additional audio exonerates him but it may have made conviction more difficult.
You literally said "First off, do we know it was a one way street regarding the contact? And do we know which way?". The point was it doesn't remotely matter if it was 2 way or not, that doesn't rule out coercion.
I didn't actually say that, for what it's worth.
Without getting into the issue of consent between rape victims and their assaulters breaking bail, when the discussion is around his actions yes, "he impregnated her" is the correct terminology. He knowingly had sex with someone he was legally forbidden from contacting. Whether the victim was willing or not has zero impact on his culpability. It's not even remotely makes a claim about the willingness of the victim, since given Greenwood's previous history we cannot give him the benefit of the doubt that it was.
He was arrested when he was found with her, the GMP declined to press charges, something the judge was highly critical of them for. They could simply have not done that. His solicitor said GMP were aware of their contact for months.
The evidence on its own wouldn't stand up to a simple "role play" or "amateur" defence without her saying "that's not true".
Well it does. If the contact was constantly initiated from the other side than you were claiming, it definitely puts a different light on it.
Either way, it’s speculation.
Eh? Isn’t that exactly what you said below and why I questioned the certainty of the claim?
Fair enough on the impregnation explanation, it’s still sounds completely off in my mind but I’ll concede that.
Would pressing charges have helped at that point though? As I say, twas clearly a horrendous failure in the case, but she was already pregnant at the time of the arrest, and seeing how the two of them have acted, I’m sure they’d have found other ways to meet.
Do we know when she informed the police/CPS that she’d be withdrawing from the case? If she did it at this point, maybe the police/cps realised it would be a waste of time?
Maybe no bail would have been the only solution I guess, which they won on appeal if I remember correctly.
Last edited:
It could in fairness. Though I doubt it.
But absolutely the audio could suddenly take an odd turn no-one expected, doesn’t have to be role play, could be as simple as him saying “shit you’re serious, sorry” and her responding “I’m just winding you up Mason, get back here”.
As I say, I very much doubt it, but some imagination can get you to a very different place.
Most likely he’s a young lad used to getting his own way, and was a pretty nasty bastard with her, so hopefully if nothing else, this scared the living shit out of him and he’s a better person & father/partner for it. She’s bound to him now through their kid so I hope she’s done the “right thing” for them and not put them in terrible place.
Your timeline is not correct - she asked for the investigation to be stopped in April '22 (a few months after it started), long before pregnancy or him being arrested for breaking bail (Oct '22).
Not important but I've not seen any reports that he proposed to her either.
I had assumed that they hadn't met again until she withdrew her statement, but it's not actually clear at what point they reconsiled. We just know that it was 'months' before October.
While claims of coercion could be true, it's nowhere near the sure bet that you make out. You also seem to ignore the strong role both families are reported to have played in the entire process.
Think it’s important to get some clarity here. Police imposed bail in all brutal honesty means diddly squat. Pre charge it barely even constitutes an offence and even post charge if it’s pre first court hearing it still means very little.
You stated police arrested but didn’t charge him for breach of bail. They did.. Police can arrest and charge someone for breach of bail …. In custody…. and that’s about the extent of their power. It is then the court who have final say on whether that sticks, what the punishment is etc and although he was actually charged and remanded, it was overturned on appeal. Therefore he wasn’t remanded and he was let him go. The reason the appeal won? Probably because nobody actually thinks much of “police bail”. Not solicitors, not the courts, not the CPS and that’s the real truth.
i wouldn’t make the mistake of trying to absolve blame of CPS/courts. They like to pick and choose when they’re going to take breach of bail seriously. This time they decided to do with Greenwood, don’t make the mistake of thinking that doesn’t shift depending on what the judge feels like doing on that particular day.
If him being arrested and let go for breaching happens even just once. It’s honestly pointless hauling him in front of a court room again for the same thing. That’s food and drink for any defence solicitor . All police would be doing is kicking the can down the road. You arrest him, hold him for 24 hours, he gets released and off he goes breaching bail again.The fault lies with the system and the lack of consistency. The entire system is fecked.
Last edited:
What’s the latest on his performances in Spain, interest from other clubs, and what we’re expecting to get for him?
My only worry for the summer is that clubs know United are backed against the wall with Greenwood (and Sancho) so the potential transfer fees are going to be limited.
Luckily for United Mason has 13 G+A* so he should be attractive to Spanish clubs.
*Which also puts him 2nd on United's top goal/assist for the season, only 2 behind Hojlund.
Luckily for United Mason has 13 G+A* so he should be attractive to Spanish clubs.
*Which also puts him 2nd on United's top goal/assist for the season, only 2 behind Hojlund.
Not to undermine you or anything on this, but he wasn't released on appeal, he was released with instruction not to contact the victim again. He did and wasn't charged a second time, which is what the judge admonished GMP for.
Do you have actual evidence for this? Because she didn't withdraw her statement until much, much later.
I never claimed either way, it's breaking the law regardless. It doesn't put a different light on it.
No, correlation is not causation.
Getting a victim pregnant shouldn't mean you dont have to abide by court orders to stay away from the victim, if anything it should make that enforcement more urgent.
As difficult as this may be, leaving the details of the alleged offence aside, Greenwood would be an asset in footballing terms is not in doubt. However, there's not a chance in hell the sponsors, women's team or the media would allow him to return to United. End of debate.
I agree, but sadly we have 358 pages of people who cannot see the wood for the trees.
A few points i'd like to make on a few comments that have been repeated here multiple times from different members.
The Audio:
In a carefully worded statement, most likely written by the legal team at Manchester United, they made it a point to say that the audio released was a snippet of a larger clip not available to the public which was explained by both parties and played a role in their decision to bring him back. To me, the club wouldn't put out a statement saying that because if down the road the audio in full is released and it was worse it would create a huge problem for the club as it would look like they were covering up a horrible crime. The brand would be tainted and their would be huge financial ramifications especially with sponsors if that were the case. I don't think the club would take that risk, certainly not for a good youth player like Mason Greenwood.
The Couple Release a Statement/Do An Interview:
I genuinely ask if there is any point to this? The ones who are dead against the idea, already believe he is guilty. As in my first point, the club has said that there is information not available to the public. More than likely if they do an interview, the ones against it will just say she is lying or being coerced. No explanation even from the horses mouth will be good enough for the ones against the idea, so what's the point?
Chance of Repeat Offences:
Accurate Domestic Violence stats have been repeated here. I get the concern, however, another statistic is anyone who is sent to prison has an extremely high chance of reoffending and going back to prison. Once someone has been sent to prison, do we lock them up for the rest of their life because statistics show they are likely to reoffend and be a danger to society?
The Audio:
In a carefully worded statement, most likely written by the legal team at Manchester United, they made it a point to say that the audio released was a snippet of a larger clip not available to the public which was explained by both parties and played a role in their decision to bring him back. To me, the club wouldn't put out a statement saying that because if down the road the audio in full is released and it was worse it would create a huge problem for the club as it would look like they were covering up a horrible crime. The brand would be tainted and their would be huge financial ramifications especially with sponsors if that were the case. I don't think the club would take that risk, certainly not for a good youth player like Mason Greenwood.
The Couple Release a Statement/Do An Interview:
I genuinely ask if there is any point to this? The ones who are dead against the idea, already believe he is guilty. As in my first point, the club has said that there is information not available to the public. More than likely if they do an interview, the ones against it will just say she is lying or being coerced. No explanation even from the horses mouth will be good enough for the ones against the idea, so what's the point?
Chance of Repeat Offences:
Accurate Domestic Violence stats have been repeated here. I get the concern, however, another statistic is anyone who is sent to prison has an extremely high chance of reoffending and going back to prison. Once someone has been sent to prison, do we lock them up for the rest of their life because statistics show they are likely to reoffend and be a danger to society?
This is the lingering question. It would've been epic business malpractice to attempt to bring him back if they weren't pretty sure they were armed with an abundance of information to back up their position.
Some form of interview or statement would be necessary imo. Not necessarily to change minds, but to set the narrative away from what it has been in the press over the past 8 months or so.
Not really, the way it's worded is that we will never hear the rest of the audio or the explanation to it. To me, the club probably fully believe the couple have fully reconciled and are gambling that nothing goes south in the future. Not on the strength of the longer audio or explanation, or they'd be happy to go into detail.
He hasn't gone to prison, he has got away scotfree for his (alleged) crimes, including breaking bail. If anything it could have just proved to him to be more careful.
It's in Richard Arnold's official statement which has been posted in this thread many times and was actually reported even before that in various articles - what makes you think it was later?
I think you are probably getting confused with the CPS statement when they closed the case - your speculation of how this all played out doesnt fit the facts that we know
I don't think the club's position was on the reconciliation or what might transpire in the future. It was supposed to be an investigation of what actually happened on the tape, and so their conclusion of attempting to bring him back was suggestive that they didn't have anything substantial enough to get rid him or else there was more information available to the club, whether by talking to the parties or electronically, that led them to conclude what they did. Even the farewell note published by United as the loan was announced was written with language that tacitly suggested, "we may bring him at a later day once the story gradually dissipates from the media space".
She asked the police to end the investigation, she didn't withdraw her statement so she wasn't committed to the decision. The victim and Greenwood were already in contact by April 2022, it wasn't until further exposure to Greenwood that she declined to cooperate with the investigation.
Do you have actual evidence for this?
Sounds like the mental gymnastics many keep going on about
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/mason-greenwood-police-deliberately-ignored-163433725.html
Trust me you’re not undermining me
You’re simply saying things that are not correct. As a few others have pointed out to you too.
Last edited:
But it wasn't strong enough to actually let him stay, so it clearly can't be as substantial enough to exonerate him fully. A degree of trust in the explanation must be at play, or it should have been relatively easy to keep him. I agree it definitely kept the door open, but return is predicated on it's at a point where no one will ask questions or expect an explanation.
"We're satisfied he's innocent" isn't going to cut it, because nothing has changed since they decided he had to go to Getafe.
- Status