Mason Greenwood

[Admin]

Well 100% certain I've never attempted to rape anyone.

I'm also 101% certain you're a f*cking idiot.

You personify everything that's wrong with this message board. You're a lout, a bully, thteatening, ignorant, bigoted
abusive, self righteous and a coward.

You missed out that time when the money was found "resting" in his account.

That child never wanted to go to Lourdes in the first place.

[Long slender neck]

Dearie me. It’s a good idea, always, to consider (and preempt) the best argument against what you’re asserting. Are you aware of what the counter argument to this post might be? Are you intelligent and honest enough to be able to say “of course, the counter argument is X”, and then say why it’s wrong? I’ll give you a chance to do so before I tell you why that post is demonstrably ignorant and reinforces regressive ideas about domestic violence. Over to you!

If you take the public evidence on face value, they could have got a conviction for something.

You need ADMISSIBLE evidence.

There was and is insufficient ADMISSIBLE evidence to justify the prospect of a conviction

You dont know what evidence they have though, do you?

[Long slender neck]

So why isnt her recording enough evidence? Any reason it would be inadmissible?

Yes, there is no evidence of the legitimacy of the recording , who recorded it when it was recorded, no evidence its not a faked recording. No evidence they were not for example role playing.

You need the person who made the recording to give evidence to confirm these things.

We come back to the basic principle that you need admissible evidence of the offence to be able to discharge the burden of proof on the prosecution

Mad.
Who recorded it and when- obviously the victim, this could be proved by anaylsing her phone.

Have to assume the excuse they've given was some sort of roleplay.

[Neptune's Spear]

Well 100% certain I've never attempted to rape anyone.

I'm also 101% certain you're a f*cking idiot.

You personify everything that's wrong with this message board. You're a lout, a bully, thteatening, ignorant, bigoted
abusive, self righteous and a coward.

Thanks for focusing on my good points.

You're welcome

[BiggsyMalone]

Fair to say the police f*cked it in this case. You have a potential victim of abuse and a controlling relationship who is persistently contacted by the accused, in breach of their bail terms. The potential victim has subsequently gotten back together with that person having dropped their cooperation with the investigation.

From everything we know about abusive relationships, this is the exact sort of situation that the bail conditions were there to avoid, but there was zero consequences to Greenwood for doing this.

There should be an investigation into the handling of it and a full explanation as to why they dropped it. Especially as its so public.

There is no need for an investigation, unless you want to pay for one personally - it is clear why the case was discontinued. There was insufficient admissible evidence to justify the prospect of a conviction

The fact it is so public as you put it is irrelevant.

You need admissible evidence to prosecute a case

Not sure how it could have played out in court either, seeing as he’s a public figure and there was so much discourse on social media. Almost impossible to have a non-biased jury.

Its completely relevant. Allowing those photos and audio to stay in circulation and it being so widely spoken about for this long would have jeopardised the court case. There’s no way it fould have been a fair trial.

The police need to look at how to safeguard cases to guarantee justice going forward. This is the perfect case to investigate and see how they could learn from it.

[BiggsyMalone]

Dearie me. It’s a good idea, always, to consider (and preempt) the best argument against what you’re asserting. Are you aware of what the counter argument to this post might be? Are you intelligent and honest enough to be able to say “of course, the counter argument is X”, and then say why it’s wrong? I’ll give you a chance to do so before I tell you why that post is demonstrably ignorant and reinforces regressive ideas about domestic violence. Over to you!

If you take the public evidence on face value, they could have got a conviction for something.

You need ADMISSIBLE evidence.

There was and is insufficient ADMISSIBLE evidence to justify the prospect of a conviction

I know

[Proposition Joe]

However, what do you expect the police to do? They need evidence to enable a successful prosecution. If the complainant is not prepared to give evidence, then it leaves the police with no evidence to present to the CPS and ultimately to the court.

That's not entirely true though. As already pointed out, the police are able to pursue prosecutions without a victim's cooperation in certain circumstances but particularly in DV cases, precisely to try and mitigate common consequences of the abuser/victim dynamic.

a) The CPS pursue prosecutions, not the police.
b) The CPS chose to discontinue the case, not the police. It was post charge. The police do not have the power to discontinue a case post charge
c) There has to be admissible evidence to obtain a conviction. In this case without the complainant tro give evidence there is no realistic prospect of conviction
d) The complainant did not want the prosecution brought. If, in the absence of evidence of duress etc, you try to force a prosecution, it will have the long term effect of stopping alleged victims coming forward to seek help


Its all very well in keyboard land to make glib statements, but you need to go back to basic legal principles - ie little minor things like needing admissible evidence and the prosecution having to discharge the burden of proof.

In this case, there is nothing to suggest the police did not do everything correctly and legally.

Acknowledge you're right re CPS/Police ultimately making the decision to go forward with a prosecution or not but the rest of your points just waffle past the fact that the mechanism exists for prosecutions to progress even after the victim declines to support it. Whether that has a long term negative effect is up for debate, but the mechanism does exist, despite what you claimed earlier.

[spen666]

So why isnt her recording enough evidence? Any reason it would be inadmissible?

Yes, there is no evidence of the legitimacy of the recording , who recorded it when it was recorded, no evidence its not a faked recording. No evidence they were not for example role playing.

You need the person who made the recording to give evidence to confirm these things.

We come back to the basic principle that you need admissible evidence of the offence to be able to discharge the burden of proof on the prosecution

Mad.
Who recorded it and when- obviously the victim, this could be proved by anaylsing her phone.

. How do the police get the phone if the complainant refuses to hand it over


You are assuming all sorts of evidential things exist.


There is insufficient admissible evidence to justify a reasonable prospect of conviction

Have to assume the excuse they've given was some sort of roleplay.

[CEB]

The mechanism exists, but in practice I suspect that a victim who has been pressured to withdraw a statement/withdraw co-operation could potentially end up being an asset to the defence, unless there are specific safeguards against it.
I mean, even the way men on here are using “the alleged victim withdrew the statement!” shows how that situation could be manipulated, and that’s before the victim is “encouraged” to go further to support her abuser

[Max Fowler]

How do the police get the phone if the complainant refuses to hand it over

Can you just refuse to cooperate with a police enquiry and not hand over evidence? I genuinely had no idea.

This is a game changer.

[spen666]

There should be an investigation into the handling of it and a full explanation as to why they dropped it. Especially as its so public.

There is no need for an investigation, unless you want to pay for one personally - it is clear why the case was discontinued. There was insufficient admissible evidence to justify the prospect of a conviction

The fact it is so public as you put it is irrelevant.

You need admissible evidence to prosecute a case

Not sure how it could have played out in court either, seeing as he’s a public figure and there was so much discourse on social media. Almost impossible to have a non-biased jury.

Its completely relevant. Allowing those photos and audio to stay in circulation and it being so widely spoken about for this long would have jeopardised the court case. There’s no way it fould have been a fair trial.

The police need to look at how to safeguard cases to guarantee justice going forward. This is the perfect case to investigate and see how they could learn from it.

erm you are wanting to waste public funds on irrelevant things.

the case did not fail because videos were on social media. The case did not fail because the accused could not get a fair trial.

You can invent all sorts of irrelevant hypothetical things to demand investigations in.


perhaps an investigation into whether Donalrd Trump and Valdimir Putin might have contributed the there being a lack of admissible evidence.




Its not rocket science to understand that you cannot convict someone without admissible evidence. There was not sufficient admissible evidence to convict in this case

[spen666]

How do the police get the phone if the complainant refuses to hand it over

Can you just refuse to cooperate with a police enquiry and not hand over evidence? I genuinely had no idea.

This is a game changer.

The police are not going to victimise the complainant by forcing her to hand over material when she seemingly voluntarily has stated she does not want to proceed.

[CEB]

I suspect the “realistic prospect of conviction” also factors in the likelihood of the victim actively supporting the accused’s defence.

Eg, it’s not unforseeable that the wife of an abusive partner would exaggerate her own actions to frame her partner’s violence as being proportionate, if she had been pressured/manipulated into not cooperating with a prosecution

[Long slender neck]

Yes, there is no evidence of the legitimacy of the recording , who recorded it when it was recorded, no evidence its not a faked recording. No evidence they were not for example role playing.

You need the person who made the recording to give evidence to confirm these things.

We come back to the basic principle that you need admissible evidence of the offence to be able to discharge the burden of proof on the prosecution

Mad.
Who recorded it and when- obviously the victim, this could be proved by anaylsing her phone.

. How do the police get the phone if the complainant refuses to hand it over


You are assuming all sorts of evidential things exist.


There is insufficient admissible evidence to justify a reasonable prospect of conviction

Have to assume the excuse they've given was some sort of roleplay.

Well cant they just take stuff if its evidence?

[spen666]

That's not entirely true though. As already pointed out, the police are able to pursue prosecutions without a victim's cooperation in certain circumstances but particularly in DV cases, precisely to try and mitigate common consequences of the abuser/victim dynamic.

a) The CPS pursue prosecutions, not the police.
b) The CPS chose to discontinue the case, not the police. It was post charge. The police do not have the power to discontinue a case post charge
c) There has to be admissible evidence to obtain a conviction. In this case without the complainant tro give evidence there is no realistic prospect of conviction
d) The complainant did not want the prosecution brought. If, in the absence of evidence of duress etc, you try to force a prosecution, it will have the long term effect of stopping alleged victims coming forward to seek help


Its all very well in keyboard land to make glib statements, but you need to go back to basic legal principles - ie little minor things like needing admissible evidence and the prosecution having to discharge the burden of proof.

In this case, there is nothing to suggest the police did not do everything correctly and legally.

Acknowledge you're right re CPS/Police ultimately making the decision to go forward with a prosecution or not but the rest of your points just waffle past the fact that the mechanism exists for prosecutions to progress even after the victim declines to support it. Whether that has a long term negative effect is up for debate, but the mechanism does exist, despite what you claimed earlier.

There is a mechanism, but it requires ADMISSIBLE evidence.

you cannot convict anyone without admissible evidence... I think you have focussed on one thing. Yes, the police could proceed if they had evidence, but the whole point here is they did not have evidence

Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1988 provides citizens in our country the right to a fair and public trial or hearing in relation to both criminal and civil matters. Section 2 of Article 6 states , “Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law”.

https://tinyurl.com/24wb2mzy

[spen666]

Mad.
Who recorded it and when- obviously the victim, this could be proved by anaylsing her phone.

. How do the police get the phone if the complainant refuses to hand it over


You are assuming all sorts of evidential things exist.


There is insufficient admissible evidence to justify a reasonable prospect of conviction

Have to assume the excuse they've given was some sort of roleplay.

Well cant they just take stuff if its evidence?

And victimise the complainant. Yes, lets make the complainant be even more of a victim.

that is really going to encourage complainants to come forward.


Even then you now have a phone, but no proof who took video etc No proof it wasn't roleplay etc.

In fact you now have made a victim of the complainant. Forced her against her wishes to be deprived of her phone, and still have not got admissible evidence.

[Max B Gold]

Thread reported to OFFBOARD the Boarding regulator for all manner of failures to observe common sense.

[Long slender neck]

. How do the police get the phone if the complainant refuses to hand it over


You are assuming all sorts of evidential things exist.


There is insufficient admissible evidence to justify a reasonable prospect of conviction

Well cant they just take stuff if its evidence?

And victimise the complainant. Yes, lets make the complainant be even more of a victim.

that is really going to encourage complainants to come forward.


Even then you now have a phone, but no proof who took video etc No proof it wasn't roleplay etc.

In fact you now have made a victim of the complainant. Forced her against her wishes to be deprived of her phone, and still have not got admissible evidence.

Make the victim be a victim?

Pretty easy to prove who took the video! Why wouldnt it be admissable?

Does this stuff really work for you when defending people?

[spen666]

Well cant they just take stuff if its evidence?

And victimise the complainant. Yes, lets make the complainant be even more of a victim.

that is really going to encourage complainants to come forward.


Even then you now have a phone, but no proof who took video etc No proof it wasn't roleplay etc.

In fact you now have made a victim of the complainant. Forced her against her wishes to be deprived of her phone, and still have not got admissible evidence.

Make the victim be a victim?

Pretty easy to prove who took the video! Why wouldnt it be admissable?

Does this stuff really work for you when defending people?

The CPS say there is insufficient admissible evidence to justify the reasonable prospect of a conviction as do nearly every legally qualified person who has expressed opinion on the case.

I am not aware of any legally qualified observer who indicates the CPS were wrong in their decision

[Dunners]

It looks like even the Saudi's don't want him, as he'll tarnish their sports washing operation.

[StillSpike]

Ah - so it seems that it wasn't the case that new evidence was given to the Police / CPS that proved that he was innocent (as stated somewhere about 3 pages ago). It was the case that the victim declined to support the prosecution and so the CPS realised they had no realistic chance of a conviction. That's quite a long way from "new evidence that proves he is innocent", isn't it?

[BiggsyMalone]

There is no need for an investigation, unless you want to pay for one personally - it is clear why the case was discontinued. There was insufficient admissible evidence to justify the prospect of a conviction

The fact it is so public as you put it is irrelevant.

You need admissible evidence to prosecute a case

Its completely relevant. Allowing those photos and audio to stay in circulation and it being so widely spoken about for this long would have jeopardised the court case. There’s no way it fould have been a fair trial.

The police need to look at how to safeguard cases to guarantee justice going forward. This is the perfect case to investigate and see how they could learn from it.

erm you are wanting to waste public funds on irrelevant things.

the case did not fail because videos were on social media. The case did not fail because the accused could not get a fair trial.

You can invent all sorts of irrelevant hypothetical things to demand investigations in.


perhaps an investigation into whether Donalrd Trump and Valdimir Putin might have contributed the there being a lack of admissible evidence.


Its not rocket science to understand that you cannot convict someone without admissible evidence. There was not sufficient admissible evidence to convict in this case

Its in the public interest to have a fair judicial system where social media can’t warp and impact on potential convictions.

[BiggsyMalone]

Ah - so it seems that it wasn't the case that new evidence was given to the Police / CPS that proved that he was innocent (as stated somewhere about 3 pages ago). It was the case that the victim declined to support the prosecution and so the CPS realised they had no realistic chance of a conviction. That's quite a long way from "new evidence that proves he is innocent", isn't it?

“ In this case a combination of the withdrawal of key witnesses and new material that came to light meant there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction”

People keep saying it was down to witnesses withdrawing from the process but ignoring the new material part of it too

[Long slender neck]

And victimise the complainant. Yes, lets make the complainant be even more of a victim.

that is really going to encourage complainants to come forward.


Even then you now have a phone, but no proof who took video etc No proof it wasn't roleplay etc.

In fact you now have made a victim of the complainant. Forced her against her wishes to be deprived of her phone, and still have not got admissible evidence.

Make the victim be a victim?

Pretty easy to prove who took the video! Why wouldnt it be admissable?

Does this stuff really work for you when defending people?

The CPS say there is insufficient admissible evidence to justify the reasonable prospect of a conviction as do nearly every legally qualified person who has expressed opinion on the case.

I am not aware of any legally qualified observer who indicates the CPS were wrong in their decision

You're just avoiding questions now.

Please show me legally qualified opinions.

[Long slender neck]

Ah - so it seems that it wasn't the case that new evidence was given to the Police / CPS that proved that he was innocent (as stated somewhere about 3 pages ago). It was the case that the victim declined to support the prosecution and so the CPS realised they had no realistic chance of a conviction. That's quite a long way from "new evidence that proves he is innocent", isn't it?

“ In this case a combination of the withdrawal of key witnesses and new material that came to light meant there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction”

People keep saying it was down to witnesses withdrawing from the process but ignoring the new material part of it too

Because this 'new material' appears to be a mysterious secret. Not even seen any reasonable speculation as to what the new material could be.