Mason Greenwood | Officially a Marseille player

Status
Not open for further replies.
bosnian_red said:
Didn't they say at the start it was her friend who leaked it? Her dad right away playing it down? Absolutely not trying to put any blame on her, but just trying to take it all into account, from shit before these leaks where there were plenty of reports/talk they were a toxic relationship, to obviously Greenwood going over the top, but then giving some middle ground context that kind of ticks every box in terms of what happened, it fits the parents behavior, it fits them returning together fairly quickly, it fits why things were leaked, and it fits the case being dropped as well as the club and greenwoods statements. The club going pretty firmly in the "he's not guilty of what he was accused of" also to me points towards it wasn't an entirely one sided thing.

Whether they hit each other or that side was one sided, yeah that's a complete guess. My only feeling for that is based on the parents defending him which would be entirely illogical unless there was mutual toxic behavior, but yeah I agree dangerous to claim so I'll take it back (also didn't mean in the same way, should've clarified, but more that pushing style of fighting from one side when it gets heated, while the other obviously took to the... Other type of fighting).
Click to expand...

That's why I didn't go at you mate, I knew you weren't suggesting it outright just posing the thought. I can't say I haven't had similar, it's human nature for the mind to wonder. It's the way people are saying blatantly offensive things in here without any thought is why we do need to be careful with words.

As for stuff that fits, one other particular scenario fits even better and that's one not worth typing out. So it's all guesswork, and we'll probably never know. But at least some are being honest with how they really think, I'll still take that over the snakes in here.
 
11101 said:
Why do you keep ignoring that the CPS said there was new evidence? It was not just that the complainant withdrew her cooperation. Nobody outside the CPS knows what that new evidence is, possibly not even the club.

The difficulties of prosecuting DV and SA cases don't really apply here as there is a direct recording of the event. If that was as conclusive as we all first thought they would not need her cooperation, which suggests there is a lot more to it than the 1 minute clip we all heard.
Click to expand...

Recanting previous testimony is new material.
 
Manncunian said:
Anybody wondering if he was indeed guilty etc, trying to suggest that potentially the relationship involves BDSM fetishes etc, please just use some logic.

If a woman falsely accused you of what has been suggested here, destroying your reputation and your career alongside, would you seriously go back to them and have a child with them? Of course not. Never in a million years.

Now would a victim of abuse go back to their abuser? Yes, it’s not uncommon.
Click to expand...
What if that was the only way to save your career though?
 
We can speculate all we like, it doesn't seem like we're going to find out the specific details.

The ultimate point in the context of the decision made is that unless they were willing to put forward an actual explanation for the audio, there was always zero reason for the public, fans or staff to give either Greenwood or the club the benefit of the doubt. Which made it completely unviable for him to return to the club. It's just a shame the club didn't come to that conclusion before the first wave of the inevitable backlash.
 
Berbaclass said:
Wasn’t it a combination of new material and the withdrawal of her testimony though?
Click to expand...

No, it was a combination of the witness withdrawing (as in no longer cooperating, no longer willing to testify), and new material. We know that she both withdrew herself, and that she recanted her previous testimony, which fulfills all the part of the CPS statement. It can of course be that they're referring to new material in addition to the recanting of previous statements, but there's no reason to assume that.
 
spiriticon said:
This 'role playing' defence is doing my head in the more I think about it.

Every time I commit any crime from now on, I'm just gonna say: "It wasn't a real crime! I was just pretending to be a criminal!"

Like feck.
Click to expand...
Don't become a judge or investigator then. You won't like the idea of everything not being so straight forward. :)
 
NotThatSoph said:
Recanting previous testimony is new material.
Click to expand...
But they pointed out two different things - her recanting and also new evidence. That sounds like a separate thing to me.
 
sullydnl said:
We can speculate all we like, it doesn't seem like we're going to find out the specific details.

The ultimate point in the context of the decision made is that unless they were willing to put forward an actual explanation for the audio, there was always zero reason for the public, fans or staff to give either Greenwood or the club the benefit of the doubt. Which made it completely unviable for him to return to the club. It's just a shame the club didn't come to that conclusion before the first wave of the inevitable backlash.
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct.

Which is why I've been saying since this thread started, people need to stop laying blame on "mob rule" "cancel culture" and all that absolute gutter talk. Bottom line is there is evidence out there, strong evidence which has no explanation for, so people are going to ask questions and not let it go. Greenwood has already taken responsibility via that statement for starting all this, how people still won't accept that I'll never know.


NotThatSoph said:
Recanting previous testimony is new material.
Click to expand...

If you ever invent a way to reach through the monitor and smack people around the head with a point until it sticks, count me in as an investor!
 
Wibble said:
Withdrawal of cooperation and new evidence (which may or may not have been recanting of a previous statement).
Click to expand...

New material, not new evidence. The distinction is important because new evidence implies that a new material demonstrates that a proposition is true.
 
NotThatSoph said:
No, it was a combination of the witness withdrawing (as in no longer cooperating, no longer willing to testify), and new material. We know that she both withdrew herself, and that she recanted her previous testimony, which fulfills all the part of the CPS statement. It can of course be that they're referring to new material in addition to the recanting of previous statements, but there's no reason to assume that.
Click to expand...
Why is it reasonable to assume that new evidence automatically indicates that it was the recanting of the statement.
 
Jazz said:
But they pointed out two different things - her recanting and also new evidence. That sounds like a separate thing to me.
Click to expand...

Giving them a different statement absolving him of blame would be classed as new evidence, I think. There could be an element of keeping the police statement deliberately vague at play as well.
 
Berbaclass said:
Why is it reasonable to assume that new evidence automatically indicates that it was the recanting of the statement.
Click to expand...

There is no mention of new evidence, there is mention of new material. The recanting is new material and there is no mention of new evidence.
 
Redlambs said:
That's why I didn't go at you mate, I knew you weren't suggesting it outright just posing the thought. I can't say I haven't had similar, it's human nature for the mind to wonder. It's the way people are saying blatantly offensive things in here without any thought is why we do need to be careful with words.

As for stuff that fits, one other particular scenario fits even better and that's one not worth typing out. So it's all guesswork, and we'll probably never know. But at least some are being honest with how they really think, I'll still take that over the snakes in here.
Click to expand...
Yeah fair enough!

Still think he's a piece of shit of course and absolutely not absolving him of it, glad the club saw sense - just as it's a forum figured might as well say what my thoughts on the whole situation are, my guess on what happened as we'll never actually know.

I tend to try to not think somebody is purely evil anyway especially in a situation like this, I can "see" how things can escalate beyond control and make shitty people do bad things, but try not to jump to a conclusion of somebody is just "a rapist" or a serial abuser unless it's actually convicted, if you know what I mean? Dangerous to jump to that without the conviction, definitely not allowed to outright say it, but also enough out there to think he probably did something along those lines, what the situation around it was is anybody's guess. But it's also hard to ignore the parents behavior which is just weird, because you'd think the second somebody does that, that is a point of no return for anybody who truly cares about the victim, especially parents of the victim. feck knows though, people are weird.
 
Swagawa said:
Don't become a judge or investigator then. You won't like the idea of everything not being so straight forward. :)
Click to expand...

Well if I get called for jury duty I may not have a choice. Sometimes public opinion matters.

My opinion is that the simplest explanation for the events and evidence at hand is more or less what actually happened.

Overcomplicated defences are there only when you need to obfuscate some parts of the truth.
 
Withnail said:
Giving them a different statement absolving him of blame would be classed as new evidence, I think. There could be an element of keeping the police statement deliberately vague at play as well.
Click to expand...
Well they should have clarified. It sounded from what I remember as two separate issues. I may have to go find that statement and then re-read again just to be sure.
 
crossy1686 said:
What if that was the only way to save your career though?
Click to expand...
In what universe is this even a practical solution?

So just simply be able to ignore the betrayal and turpitude that has gone before you? Look them in the eyes day in, day out and forget her actions?

This isn’t even taking into consideration that you believe the better option to save your career isn’t to initially deny all accusations, insisting they are false and cut all ties with the accuser. Make a statement that they are false and if it needs to go to trial so be it, innocence will be proven in a court of law etc.

If he was indeed innocent, I cannot think of a worse way to handle the whole situation. But no, there is zero chance the only way to save his career would be to go back to a woman who made false accusations which has caused the complete destruction of his life.

Guilty. End of.
 
Redlambs said:
A lot of people seem to be forgetting that.

So if she recanted, then we know what it's likely to have said. Sure was enough to help the police decide to pass it to the CPS, that's for sure.
Click to expand...
A lot of people I guess just don’t fully understand the terminology that is being used to varying extents. Myself included.

We have seen how many people think that charges dropped means that he’s innocent when of course it does not.
 
Berbaclass said:
I know but we also don’t specifically know what the new material is.
Click to expand...

Yes, we do, because that is new material. What you're speculating about is that there is even more new material, even though the new material of recanting previous statements is very likely to be enough to drop the case.
 
Unfortunately, that is not how the legal system works. As much as the legal system, in our country and many others, has its failings, it is fundamental that an individual is innocent until appropriate and convincing evidence that proves otherwise has been produced and evaluated by individuals with the appropriate competences. This, unfortunately, is not the competence of masses of individuals who have seen only a portion of the evidence (as reported by multiple sources, forgetting rhe semantics of material and/or evidence) available, have it provoke a strong emotive response (which is also reasonable considering the sort of topic), and arrive at an unwavering and unequivocal conclusion (which may be correct, but may also not considering the amount of phrases we are dissecting in an attempt to extrapolate information and arrive at a conclusion that supports our own individual opinion and bias).

To play devil's advocate; if context is not important, if I am casually arguing with my sibling , or loved one, or whomever, and state "oi, "fill in name here", you're doing my head in now, I'm going to kill you if you carry on" (the sort of phrase that many of us will have used at some time in our lives), is that sufficient evidence to say I have threatened to kill my sibling? Or would it matter that said recording then continues to capture us mocking one another for a few minutes before hugging it out? It is a banal example that is in no way comparable to the severity of the situation and evidence here, but highlights the importance of context and I personally believe it to be naive if one believes that it shouldn't be the case

I often fear that a society that is governed by overall public response on social media and within the (the often, quite frankly, downright abhorrent) media is a slippery slope to be going down, especially if we ever arrive at the point where we are governing based upon "assumptions".

Sky1981 said:
Unless we hear in the same longer recording where both of the laughing : HAHA it's just a prank!!!!! Role Play!!!!

I think we can safely asume it is what it is.

Go ahead, try to imagine anything else that could make the recordings ok. I'd take a mental gymnastic to even think about possibilities.

We will never have full facts? I don't care, the facts out there are enough to brand him guilty in my eyes. If there are no recordings, people would probably give him more benefit of doubts, but it's up to him to prove otherwise with such a damning evidence
Click to expand...
 
bosnian_red said:
Yeah fair enough!

Still think he's a piece of shit of course and absolutely not absolving him of it, glad the club saw sense - just as it's a forum figured might as well say what my thoughts on the whole situation are, my guess on what happened as we'll never actually know.

I tend to try to not think somebody is purely evil anyway especially in a situation like this, I can "see" how things can escalate beyond control and make shitty people do bad things, but try not to jump to a conclusion of somebody is just "a rapist" or a serial abuser unless it's actually convicted, if you know what I mean? Dangerous to jump to that without the conviction, definitely not allowed to outright say it, but also enough out there to think he probably did something along those lines, what the situation around it was is anybody's guess. But it's also hard to ignore the parents behavior which is just weird, because you'd think the second somebody does that, that is a point of no return for anybody who truly cares about the victim, especially parents of the victim. feck knows though, people are weird.
Click to expand...

As I've said before, I've grown up around DV, ended up in a relationship where it happened and I've had an awful experience with my young son be wrongfully accused of some awful stuff over last christmas. So I'm in the unenviable position of experience of a lot of this, including how the police deal with it all (mostly with ineptitude to be honest) and all the nuances around cases like this. Especially in the realm of how the male is instantly treated.

Which is why I've not flat out accused him myself, but it's hard not to see the obvious patterns that fall into line. And I mean that from both sides btw, I'm still not convinced myself what I think exactly happened.


But what I do know is this is the right thing for all parties and should have been done a long time ago. I don't care what excuses people want to make, but the club have handled it horribly and it has made things worse for that family too.
 
Jazz said:
But they pointed out two different things - her recanting and also new evidence. That sounds like a separate thing to me.
Click to expand...

No, withdrawing and new material. You can withdraw as a cooperating witness without recanting previous witness statements. Withdrawing is withdrawing, recanting is new material. There might be even more new material, but we don't know that and the statement doesn't imply it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.