Premier League 2023-24 (17 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.

.zero

★ ★ ★
Aug 8, 2006
82,928
i get where seven is coming from. he's a lawyer, he has faith in the modern legal system, greenwood wasn't found guilty, end of discussion. that's factual, there's no point arguing. everyone is free to add their takes obviously

badass though... greenwood just gets fired from man.utd, his ethics are at least questionable, he's obviously dumb as a rock, hasn't been training for a while, even saudis don't want him. badass: sign him up

how is it even a discussion for 2 days is beyond me
Tuz :touched:
 

Buy on AliExpress.com

Nzoric

Grazie Mirko
Jan 16, 2011
37,877
No, they cannot coexist.

Either you believe the recording demonstrates rape or you don't. If you believe it does, there is at least sufficient evidence to go to trial. Apparently the investigators had reasons to believe the recording did not demonstrate rape.
Yes they can, you dolt. I dont give a shit about the prosecutors, if there’s insufficient evidence or if the key witness recants he shouldnt be prosecuted.

The recording is a recorded rape - regardless og what flies in a court room. Those things are littered with rats that twist things to suit the resourceful anyways.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
Jun 25, 2003
39,347
Yes they can, you dolt. I dont give a shit about the prosecutors, if there’s insufficient evidence or if the key witness recants he shouldnt be prosecuted.

The recording is a recorded rape - regardless og what flies in a court room. Those things are littered with rats that twist things to suit the resourceful anyways.

The decision to go to trial never implies that the prosecution is 100% confident they will get a conviction. It just means they think there is enough to assume a crime happened and they want to present it to a judge.

There is not a single prosecutor on the face of the Earth who will not prosecute, if he believes he has a recording that shows a crime. That is more than enough evidence to go to trial. This means there is something about the recording we don't know and whatever it was, it made the prosecution believe it was in fact not the recording of a crime.
 

Nzoric

Grazie Mirko
Jan 16, 2011
37,877
The decision to go to trial never implies that the prosecution is 100% confident they will get a conviction. It just means they think there is enough to assume a crime happened and they want to present it to a judge.

There is not a single prosecutor on the face of the Earth who will not prosecute, if he believes he has a recording that shows a crime. That is more than enough evidence to go to trial. This means there is something about the recording we don't know and whatever it was, it made the prosecution believe it was in fact not the recording of a crime.
Or if the key witness/alleged victim recants..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Lion

King of Tuz
Jan 24, 2007
36,185
so i don't think man city will win the league. at least not comfortably

the've lost de bryune for minimum 2 months+ plus no impact players mahrez and gundogan

i think they wil have a tough season. maybe even give arsenal finally a chance to win the leage even if they choke matches here and there cuz who's gonna compete? man u maybe
 

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
Jun 25, 2003
39,347
Or if the key witness/alleged victim recants..
Not even. If a prosecutor truly believes he has a recording of a crime, he will go forward. And besides, everyone just assumes she was lying when she recanted. What's to say she wasn't lying before then? And if she does lie so easily, can you really trust her as the source of the recording? Some of you people are incredibly naive.

The facts are these:

- There was a criminal investigation, but the prosecutor decided there was not enough evidence to go trial;
- There was an internal investigation, after which United explicitly stated Greenwood was not guilty of rape;
- The alleged victim recanted and said there was no rape.

This is where it ends. You cannot continue to call Greenwood a rapist, because there is nothing to base that opinion on.
 

Nzoric

Grazie Mirko
Jan 16, 2011
37,877
Not even. If a prosecutor truly believes he has a recording of a crime, he will go forward. And besides, everyone just assumes she was lying when she recanted. What's to say she wasn't lying before then? And if she does lie so easily, can you really trust her as the source of the recording? Some of you people are incredibly naive.

The facts are these:

- There was a criminal investigation, but the prosecutor decided there was not enough evidence to go trial;
- There was an internal investigation, after which United explicitly stated Greenwood was not guilty of rape;
- The alleged victim recanted and said there was no rape.

This is where it ends. You cannot continue to call Greenwood a rapist, because there is nothing to base that opinion on.
Greenwood is a rapist


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Strickland

Senior Member
May 17, 2019
5,859
The decision to go to trial never implies that the prosecution is 100% confident they will get a conviction. It just means they think there is enough to assume a crime happened and they want to present it to a judge.

There is not a single prosecutor on the face of the Earth who will not prosecute, if he believes he has a recording that shows a crime. That is more than enough evidence to go to trial. This means there is something about the recording we don't know and whatever it was, it made the prosecution believe it was in fact not the recording of a crime.
If the person that did the recording says its not rape and is now on one side with the accused, I think therere plenty of prosecutors who wouldnt want to go to court with just that recording.
 

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
Jun 25, 2003
39,347
If the person that did the recording says its not rape and is now on one side with the accused, I think therere plenty of prosecutors who wouldnt want to go to court with just that recording.
It depends.

If there is doubt regarding the circumstances or the reliability of the recording, they probably wouldn't. If they trust the recording, they'd go to court though.
 

PedroFlu

Senior Member
Sep 20, 2011
7,166
Not enough to prove that he did it or if they are genuine
I cant believe this was a hoax. This is crazy. I really have a hard time believeing that, despite not knowing shit about the case. But I mean, wasn't the guy jailed in flagrant? You dont immediately jail someone without overwhelming evidence, specially a very famous one at that
 

Badass J Elkann

It's time to go!!
Feb 12, 2006
69,052
so i don't think man city will win the league. at least not comfortably

the've lost de bryune for minimum 2 months+ plus no impact players mahrez and gundogan

i think they wil have a tough season. maybe even give arsenal finally a chance to win the leage even if they choke matches here and there cuz who's gonna compete? man u maybe
Whilst you're right to a degree fodden has carried the de bryune mantel whilst hes out injured, and while he may not be mahrez but Cole Palmer looks like a very promising player, certainly a capable squad player.

- - - Updated - - -

I cant believe this was a hoax. This is crazy. I really have a hard time believeing that, despite not knowing shit about the case. But I mean, wasn't the guy jailed in flagrant? You dont immediately jail someone without overwhelming evidence, specially a very famous one at that
That's the thing though the evidence is not enough to prove his guilt, even if you think it seems obvious. Even the 'victim' has back pedalled and is now in a relationship with Greenwood with a kid too. If I felt that strongly about being abused or raped no money in the world would make me want to stay with that person, but she probably lacks morals.
 

PedroFlu

Senior Member
Sep 20, 2011
7,166
Whilst you're right to a degree fodden has carried the de bryune mantel whilst hes out injured, and while he may not be mahrez but Cole Palmer looks like a very promising player, certainly a capable squad player.

- - - Updated - - -


That's the thing though the evidence is not enough to prove his guilt, even if you think it seems obvious. Even the 'victim' has back pedalled and is now in a relationship with Greenwood with a kid too. If I felt that strongly about being abused or raped no money in the world would make me want to stay with that person, but she probably lacks morals.
Didnt know that. Now Im even more convinced he did beat the shit out of her though.

Also happened to an NBA player, if I'm not mistaken, Miles Bridges. His wife was publicly defending him the other day, despite acknowledging he beat her up.

Anyways, it does make the case lighter. Im not in favour of sabotaging his whole professional life because of this though.
 

Badass J Elkann

It's time to go!!
Feb 12, 2006
69,052
Didnt know that. Now Im even more convinced he did beat the shit out of her though.

Also happened to an NBA player, if I'm not mistaken, Miles Bridges. His wife was publicly defending him the other day, despite acknowledging he beat her up.

Anyways, it does make the case lighter. Im not in favour of sabotaging his whole professional life because of this though.
Quite possibly I mean all Greenwood said is that he made some mistakes but not for what he was accussed of.
Agreed I don't think his footballing career should end after this conclusion either, I think its near impossible for him to play in the UK still but playing abroad taking into account that he's not been found guilty will make things easier and more viable.
 

Hist

Founder of Hism
Jan 18, 2009
11,624
People may be held under certain circumstances while awaiting their trial date, yes. But that is not what is happening here. The case didn't go forward, because there was no proof. You can't just say he's guilty anyway.

And as for the part in bold: that's precisely the problem here. You say it is a "clear recording of a woman being raped". Well, there was a criminal and an internal investigation. Both concluded there was no evidence of rape. They obviously looked into the recording as well. So obviously the recording is not quite the proof you want it to be. Perhaps it was tampered with. Perhaps it was taken out of context. Perhaps she was just lying on tape. We don't know. But we do know that the people who actually investigated the case believe the tape didn't really show anything.




No, they cannot coexist.

Either you believe the recording demonstrates rape or you don't. If you believe it does, there is at least sufficient evidence to go to trial. Apparently the investigators had reasons to believe the recording did not demonstrate rape.
You keep asserting there is no proof when the proof is out there. You’re still conflating legal process and semantics with rational evidence.

We don’t know why charges were dropped they never disclosed it. We do know she recanted and is with the guy. Until they disclose why charges were dropped (aside from the girl’s recanting) then I’ll trust my own judgment of the recordings than United’s HR department.
 

Badass J Elkann

It's time to go!!
Feb 12, 2006
69,052
You keep asserting there is no proof when the proof is out there. You’re still conflating legal process and semantics with rational evidence.

We don’t know why charges were dropped they never disclosed it. We do know she recanted and is with the guy. Until they disclose why charges were dropped (aside from the girl’s recanting) then I’ll trust my own judgment of the recordings than United’s HR department.
The audio doesn't actually prove rape which is what's crucial in all this. Can't prove one's physical actions by audio irrespective of what it may sound like.
 

X Æ A-12

Senior Member
Contributor
Sep 4, 2006
87,996
so i don't think man city will win the league. at least not comfortably

the've lost de bryune for minimum 2 months+ plus no impact players mahrez and gundogan

i think they wil have a tough season. maybe even give arsenal finally a chance to win the leage even if they choke matches here and there cuz who's gonna compete? man u maybe
Please, what team will challenge them? Nobody else has a haaland

- - - Updated - - -

The audio doesn't actually prove rape which is what's crucial in all this. Can't prove one's physical actions by audio irrespective of what it may sound like.
Free John Gotti!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 17)