The Footie Thread

[Tashyboy]

It’s the CPS who decides to go to trial or not. Without the lead source of evidence and other evidence which they haven’t disclosed, they decided there wasn’t a realistic chance of conviction. Public interest doesn’t really come into it here.

Ave just mentioned about the CPS and not being very popular within the legal system. One of the reasons being cases are not taken on “ as it’s not in the publics interest “. People used to ask what does that exactly mean. I don’t know. But as you say am sure that wasn’t the case in this instance.
I also mentioned about the similarities between this Case and Joey Barton. In both instances both partners put out evidence regarding physical violence towards them. One rang 999 and one used social media. Both cases had charges placed against both footballers and after some time both partners who had been attacked?, refused at a later date to give evidence.
Read into that what one wants. Personally I think we live in a poor society where this is allowed to happen.

 

[Tashyboy]

CPS also indicated that “new evidence had been presented making a successful conviction very unlikely”.

To date, I’m not aware of them releasing what that new evidence is/was.

It’s a shame it was not made public knowledge, it could have made the difference between Mr Greenwood playing for Utd or not. And changed the publics perception of him.

 

[Tashyboy]

Hmm I asked about Chelsea and there goalkeepers the other day.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66579289

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I never knew that and am just asking Billy why he thinks they may have been dropped.

A good friend of mine is in the CPS. Their job, I know you know this but I'm repeating it for anyone who doesn't quite know their role, is to look at the evidence that the police have collected and decide if their is sufficient evidence to get a conviction. No point having an expensive trial if there is no chance in getting a conviction. Too many of these used to happen, it is a big reason why they were created.

Part of my friends job is explaining to victims, family of victims etc why a prosecution is not going ahead. I can promise you, he hates that, it can be gut wrenching.

In the justice system, the CPS are often, in effect, the messenger. Don't shoot the messenger would be their cry. Get the evidence, collate it correctly, without error, and they can do their job. After all, they exist to prosecute, not to let guilty people walk. Those moaning about their unpopularity need to have a think about what they are really moaning about.

 

[nickjdavis]

I should probably add, or ask the question: It is my belief that the police can continue to press charges without the victims consent, if the evidence is strong enough to get a conviction. Is this true?

I believe it is.

My step son was done for assaulting his wife (he pushed her onto a sofa to stop her punching him)...she called the police shouting assault but subsequently asked for the charge to be dropped. CPS continued with the case ( he had admitted pushing her) as it was deemed important to be showing a no tolerance attitude towards domestic violence.

 

[Tashyboy]

A good friend of mine is in the CPS. Their job, I know you know this but I'm repeating it for anyone who doesn't quite know their role, is to look at the evidence that the police have collected and decide if their is sufficient evidence to get a conviction. No point having an expensive trial if there is no chance in getting a conviction. Too many of these used to happen, it is a big reason why they were created.

Part of my friends job is explaining to victims, family of victims etc why a prosecution is not going ahead. I can promise you, he hates that, it can be gut wrenching.

In the justice system, the CPS are often, in effect, the messenger. Don't shoot the messenger would be their cry. Get the evidence, collate it correctly, without error, and they can do their job. After all, they exist to prosecute, not to let guilty people walk. Those moaning about their unpopularity need to have a think about what they are really moaning about.

That and the cases against joey Barton and Mason Greenwood is what does my goat. I need to be convinced otherwise but both women complained about what their partners had done and then at a later date refused to press charges. They all got what they wanted. The CPS is left to state why or why not in Greenwoods situation the case was dropped. Fine and dandy for Greenwood and Barton. How is that right

 

[Lord Tyrion]

That and the cases against joey Barton and Mason Greenwood is what does my goat. I need to be convinced otherwise but both women complained about what their partners had done and then at a later date refused to press charges. They all got what they wanted. The CPS is left to state why or why not in Greenwoods situation the case was dropped. Fine and dandy for Greenwood and Barton. How is that right

If the star witnesses, the only witness, refuse to testify, then the case can be paper thin. Happens over and over with domestic issues. Interesting to read @nickjdavis post. In the instances with the footballers they must not have had sufficient other evidence . As we know, just because something looks bad, smells bad etc, doesn't mean it can pass the legal test of beyond reasonable doubt. Now clearly, wearing a Man Utd shirt should make him guilty straight off

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Indeed! Suspect he’ll be announced today. Signing World Cup winners! Bonkers really. Loan to buy too so no fee in the current financial year, very clever from the club with regards to FFP.

Sadly, it’s likely due to Serge Aurier being off to Saudi, if rumours are true. He’s been nothing but exceptional since we signed him on a free last season, will be sad to see him go.

Who is this? I can't see it anywhere.

 

[TimShady]

Who is this? I can't see it anywhere.

Montiel from Argentina.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Montiel from Argentina.

£9.4 for a 26yr old Argentine international . What's wrong with him?

 

[Billysboots]

If the star witnesses, the only witness, refuse to testify, then the case can be paper thin. Happens over and over with domestic issues. Interesting to read @nickjdavis post. In the instances with the footballers they must not have had sufficient other evidence . As we know, just because something looks bad, smells bad etc, doesn't mean it can pass the legal test of beyond reasonable doubt. Now clearly, wearing a Man Utd shirt should make him guilty straight off

In domestic abuse cases the CPS and police are actually very much in favour of pursuing prosecutions, even in the absence of compliant victims. So called victimless prosecutions are often pursued, the primary objective being to safeguard the victim long term.

When it is the word of one person against the other, and the other is unwilling to cooperate, whilst prosecutions immediately become far more problematic, they are not always impossible if other sources of evidence are available.

So, whilst the victim in this case clearly didn’t support the prosecution having initially made a formal complaint, that did not necessarily mean the prosecution was doomed at that point, as there may still have been a realistic prospect of a conviction. If, however, other significant evidence came to light which changed the outlook, then that is a different matter altogether.

 

[GB72]

I guess that my concern is that all of the statements made seem to be implying if not out right saying that they have access to information that shows Greenwood's innocence. Now, if that were the case, why not release the evidence and have hom stay at United or be able to transfer him for a large fee. Why not clear you name with the wider public and be able to live your life without the cloud over your head.

If there is evidence to show innocence or an explanation then why on earth woud you keep it hidden.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

In domestic abuse cases the CPS and police are actually very much in favour of pursuing prosecutions, even in the absence of compliant victims. So called victimless prosecutions are often pursued, the primary objective being to safeguard the victim long term.

When it is the word of one person against the other, and the other is unwilling to cooperate, whilst prosecutions immediately become far more problematic, they are not always impossible if other sources of evidence are available.

So, whilst the victim in this case clearly didn’t support the prosecution having initially made a formal complaint, that did not necessarily mean the prosecution was doomed at that point, as there may still have been a realistic prospect of a conviction. If, however, other significant evidence came to light which changed the outlook, then that is a different matter altogether.

I suspect it must be one of the great frustrations of all justice parties that prosecutions don't happen. It wont be for want of trying, I'm sure.

 

[nickjdavis]

I guess that my concern is that all of the statements made seem to be implying if not out right saying that they have access to information that shows Greenwood's innocence. Now, if that were the case, why not release the evidence and have hom stay at United or be able to transfer him for a large fee. Why not clear you name with the wider public and be able to live your life without the cloud over your head.

If there is evidence to show innocence or an explanation then why on earth woud you keep it hidden.

Maybe if the couple are truly reconciled it is something that neither of them might want to be in the public domain.

 

[Swango1980]

I guess that my concern is that all of the statements made seem to be implying if not out right saying that they have access to information that shows Greenwood's innocence. Now, if that were the case, why not release the evidence and have hom stay at United or be able to transfer him for a large fee. Why not clear you name with the wider public and be able to live your life without the cloud over your head.

If there is evidence to show innocence or an explanation then why on earth woud you keep it hidden.

I have also thought about this. Why, indeed, would they not just release the other evidence to shed a different light on matters?

One reason, I can think of is that maybe this other evidence does not put the victim in a great light? Especially the victim who is still with Greenwood and mother of his child. Therefore, it may well be something that Greenwood certainly does not want to pursue either. So, maybe it is a very messy situation all round?

Pure speculation, but if that other evidence paints a very different picture to what we've all seen and made our judgements by, then you'd think the accused camp would usually be desperate to somehow put this in the public domain to turn the heat down a bit?

 

[Deleted member 21784]

Apparently we have agreed a fee and ready to announce for former arsenal defender Kostantinos Mavropan. Personally would be happy with him

We also have agreed terms with kudas of Ajax .. just need to finalise the fee with them as they rejected 35

For me just a left back and striker left and the window is done.

 

[Billysboots]

If there is evidence to show innocence or an explanation then why on earth woud you keep it hidden.

It’s not got to trial and as such the evidence, which has never even been tested in court, is not a matter of public record.

This is precisely where this sort of case becomes a real headache when charges are laid, and the defendant named, prior to those charges then being withdrawn.

Many will argue that those charged with sexual offences, in particular, should retain their anonymity until actually convicted in court for the very reasons we are seeing here.

Mason Greenwood has never been convicted by a jury of his peers of any offence. Regardless of what any of us here or elsewhere think he remains innocent. And yet his life has been pretty much destroyed.

Ultimately, the issue here is not the CPS, the police, the victim, Greenwood himself or Manchester United. The issue here is the release into the public domain of the video which has resulted in the player being convicted in the court of public opinion.

It may well be that Mason Greenwood is the absolute scum of the earth, a vile, misogynistic human being who treats women like dirt. But none of that can stop me feeling a little uncomfortable with regard to how all this has played out.

 

[Deleted member 21784]

It’s not got to trial and as such the evidence, which has never even been tested in court, is not a matter of public record.

This is precisely where this sort of case becomes a real headache when charges are laid, and the defendant named, prior to those charges then being withdrawn.

Many will argue that those charged with sexual offences, in particular, should retain their anonymity until actually convicted in court for the very reasons we are seeing here.

Mason Greenwood has never been convicted by a jury of his peers of any offence. Regardless of what any of us here or elsewhere think he remains innocent. And yet his life has been pretty much destroyed.

Ultimately, the issue here is not the CPS, the police, the victim, Greenwood himself or Manchester United. The issue here is the release into the public domain of the video which has resulted in the player being convicted in the court of public opinion.

It may well be that Mason Greenwood is the absolute scum of the earth, a vile, misogynistic human being who treats women like dirt. But none of that can stop me feeling a little uncomfortable with regard to how all this has played out.

But then it's the victim who brought the videos etc to the public

 

[Billysboots]

But then it's the victim who brought the videos etc to the public

Doesn’t matter who it was.

 

[GB72]

It’s not got to trial and as such the evidence, which has never even been tested in court, is not a matter of public record.

This is precisely where this sort of case becomes a real headache when charges are laid, and the defendant named, prior to those charges then being withdrawn.

Many will argue that those charged with sexual offences, in particular, should retain their anonymity until actually convicted in court for the very reasons we are seeing here.

Mason Greenwood has never been convicted by a jury of his peers of any offence. Regardless of what any of us here or elsewhere think he remains innocent. And yet his life has been pretty much destroyed.

Ultimately, the issue here is not the CPS, the police, the victim, Greenwood himself or Manchester United. The issue here is the release into the public domain of the video which has resulted in the player being convicted in the court of public opinion.

It may well be that Mason Greenwood is the absolute scum of the earth, a vile, misogynistic human being who treats women like dirt. But none of that can stop me feeling a little uncomfortable with regard to how all this has played out.

I very much agree with what you say but I was very surprised at how much the statement made by United went down the innoncence route, as, maybe less surprisingly, did Greenwood's. A statement from United stating that the circumstances simply made it impossible for the player to remain with the club, mistakes were made etc and with both agreeing that a fresh start away from the media spotlight was what was needed would seem to suffice. There was, however, several mentions of evidence that the public had not seen that proved innocence etc. Now, that may be part of the agreement for Greenwod to go quietly, a very specifically worded statement to make a move to another club more likely but if there was evidence that would exonerate me in the eyes of the public and the criminal justice system, I would want it out there asap.