I agree that there must have been some degree of abuse. It's what Greenwood himself seems to say.
Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk
Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk
Buy on AliExpress.com
Premier League 2023-24 (10 Viewers)
- Thread starter Mark
- Start date
- Status
Buy on AliExpress.com
I don't want to revive this or get back into this at all, but I have to just ask for your opinion on this since I keep thinking about this comment. Why should it matter at all what United say? What qualifications do they have to investigate anything pertaining to their own staff, or assurances of impartiality at all?
On a criminal level it doesn't matter at all.
On a civil level it's different.
Depending on the case employers will ask private investigators to conduct their own research. They may also have lawyers asking the prosecution or the court to be able to look into the court files. If this access is granted, those lawyers could then voice their legal opinion on the facts of the case.
Also keep in mind that they would be appointed mostly to find evidence against Greenwood. People over here think United want to protect their asset, but there is no asset. His market value has been 0 since the day of the accusation. United ran a real risk by not employing him ever since though. If there was a lot of evidence against him, it would make their lives easier.
That United have issued a statement saying not only that there is no proof of the allegations, but that he is innocent of them therefore does hold some weight to me.
If you're asking me if I think it's likely there was actual rape based on all of this, I think it's not likely at all. Greenwood's a cunt though, that much is certain.
On a civil level it's different.
Depending on the case employers will ask private investigators to conduct their own research. They may also have lawyers asking the prosecution or the court to be able to look into the court files. If this access is granted, those lawyers could then voice their legal opinion on the facts of the case.
Also keep in mind that they would be appointed mostly to find evidence against Greenwood. People over here think United want to protect their asset, but there is no asset. His market value has been 0 since the day of the accusation. United ran a real risk by not employing him ever since though. If there was a lot of evidence against him, it would make their lives easier.
That United have issued a statement saying not only that there is no proof of the allegations, but that he is innocent of them therefore does hold some weight to me.
If you're asking me if I think it's likely there was actual rape based on all of this, I think it's not likely at all. Greenwood's a cunt though, that much is certain.
you guys are still going on about a scenario that will not happen. greenwood will never sign for juve even if he wasn't involved in charges and was a free agent
juventus don't sign talented young players. when they do they ship them out: coman, rovella, cancelo, dybala, pogba, de ligt, zidane, are all proof juve doesn't like keeping talented players. juventus likes the de sciglios and the keans. players who can play mutiple postitions and run a lot. skill and talent are not accepted.
juventus don't sign talented young players. when they do they ship them out: coman, rovella, cancelo, dybala, pogba, de ligt, zidane, are all proof juve doesn't like keeping talented players. juventus likes the de sciglios and the keans. players who can play mutiple postitions and run a lot. skill and talent are not accepted.
There seem to be a few conflations happening with those defending him.
1- Charges were dropped due to withdrawal of key witnesses is not equivalent to having a full investigation > court process > being found not guilty.
2- Insufficient evidence to pass a legal standard does not equate to no evidence. 100% certainty is near impossible regardless of the thresholds encoded in law. The material is out there you can listen to it yourself its pretty damning. And to be clear, the prosecution never said the full investigation showed him innocent.
3- A complete absence of evidence (which is not the case) does not mean he is innocent either. Plenty of crimes happen everyday that leave no findable evidence. Heck sometimes evidence is inadmissible due to technicalities around how it was obtained even when the evidence itself is clear as day.
He shouldn't go to prison not because I think he actually didn't do anything egregious but because a civilized society follows due process even when it sometimes leads to the wrong outcome (think OJ for example). However, not imprisoning him does not mean that society as a whole should welcome him with open arms. There's enough out there to to raise the scariest of flags. I find it hard to believe that any of his defenders here would genuinely feel secure if their family member or close friend were dating him. None of you would say he is as trust worthy as the next guy
1- Charges were dropped due to withdrawal of key witnesses is not equivalent to having a full investigation > court process > being found not guilty.
2- Insufficient evidence to pass a legal standard does not equate to no evidence. 100% certainty is near impossible regardless of the thresholds encoded in law. The material is out there you can listen to it yourself its pretty damning. And to be clear, the prosecution never said the full investigation showed him innocent.
3- A complete absence of evidence (which is not the case) does not mean he is innocent either. Plenty of crimes happen everyday that leave no findable evidence. Heck sometimes evidence is inadmissible due to technicalities around how it was obtained even when the evidence itself is clear as day.
He shouldn't go to prison not because I think he actually didn't do anything egregious but because a civilized society follows due process even when it sometimes leads to the wrong outcome (think OJ for example). However, not imprisoning him does not mean that society as a whole should welcome him with open arms. There's enough out there to to raise the scariest of flags. I find it hard to believe that any of his defenders here would genuinely feel secure if their family member or close friend were dating him. None of you would say he is as trust worthy as the next guy
You're an idiot.
Your entire post goes against the core principle that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
"The absence of evidence does not mean he is innocent either." - No, it doesn't. But you can't use it to infer guilt. That's just crazy.
And then you make it even worse by saying society should cast him out, even if his guilt wasn't proven.
Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk
Your entire post goes against the core principle that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
"The absence of evidence does not mean he is innocent either." - No, it doesn't. But you can't use it to infer guilt. That's just crazy.
And then you make it even worse by saying society should cast him out, even if his guilt wasn't proven.
Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk
- Status