Mendy Innocent
Discussion
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-6...
Fall out of this could be interesting, six months in court, a jury and all not guilty verdicts with two "hung" cases.
Fall out of this could be interesting, six months in court, a jury and all not guilty verdicts with two "hung" cases.
Has there ever been a well thought out alternative proposed to how rape cases currently proceed?
It seems ridiculous and frankly awful for whichever side is innocent/the victim and yet we carry on with the same old system. It’s starting to devalue the charge in public and people’s thoughts?
On the one hand I obviously want rapists jailed for far longer than they currently do, on the other I feel quite sorry and it seems to be becoming within the realms of possibility that I or someone “normal” I know could easily be dragged through the courts like this on total false pretence.
Do we just carry on as is?
It seems ridiculous and frankly awful for whichever side is innocent/the victim and yet we carry on with the same old system. It’s starting to devalue the charge in public and people’s thoughts?
On the one hand I obviously want rapists jailed for far longer than they currently do, on the other I feel quite sorry and it seems to be becoming within the realms of possibility that I or someone “normal” I know could easily be dragged through the courts like this on total false pretence.
Do we just carry on as is?
Dg504 said:
Has there ever been a well thought out alternative proposed to how rape cases currently proceed?
It seems ridiculous and frankly awful for whichever side is innocent/the victim and yet we carry on with the same old system. It’s starting to devalue the charge in public and people’s thoughts?
On the one hand I obviously want rapists jailed for far longer than they currently do, on the other I feel quite sorry and it seems to be becoming within the realms of possibility that I or someone “normal” I know could easily be dragged through the courts like this on total false pretence.
Do we just carry on as is?
It does seem like its a system that does not work, but not sure what an alternative is.It seems ridiculous and frankly awful for whichever side is innocent/the victim and yet we carry on with the same old system. It’s starting to devalue the charge in public and people’s thoughts?
On the one hand I obviously want rapists jailed for far longer than they currently do, on the other I feel quite sorry and it seems to be becoming within the realms of possibility that I or someone “normal” I know could easily be dragged through the courts like this on total false pretence.
Do we just carry on as is?
We also have to remember that a not guilty verdict, in some cases (not saying that is the case here), just means that there wasn't enough evidence to prove someone is guilty, not that they didn't do something.
I am very close to someone who was abused and raped but unfortunately there was insufficient evidence to prove what took place. That doesn't mean that person is innocent. Unfortunately that person went on to do it again.
Silvanus said:
Dg504 said:
Has there ever been a well thought out alternative proposed to how rape cases currently proceed?
It seems ridiculous and frankly awful for whichever side is innocent/the victim and yet we carry on with the same old system. It’s starting to devalue the charge in public and people’s thoughts?
On the one hand I obviously want rapists jailed for far longer than they currently do, on the other I feel quite sorry and it seems to be becoming within the realms of possibility that I or someone “normal” I know could easily be dragged through the courts like this on total false pretence.
Do we just carry on as is?
It does seem like its a system that does not work, but not sure what an alternative is.It seems ridiculous and frankly awful for whichever side is innocent/the victim and yet we carry on with the same old system. It’s starting to devalue the charge in public and people’s thoughts?
On the one hand I obviously want rapists jailed for far longer than they currently do, on the other I feel quite sorry and it seems to be becoming within the realms of possibility that I or someone “normal” I know could easily be dragged through the courts like this on total false pretence.
Do we just carry on as is?
We also have to remember that a not guilty verdict, in some cases (not saying that is the case here), just means that there wasn't enough evidence to prove someone is guilty, not that they didn't do something.
I am very close to someone who was abused and raped but unfortunately there was insufficient evidence to prove what took place. That doesn't mean that person is innocent. Unfortunately that person went on to do it again.
A lad I was in uni with was charged with rape and went to court where he was acquitted. Even 20 years on people talk about him as "the lad that raped that girl", "there's no smoke without fire" etc.
From what I gather, this is something that was previously included in the law, but was since repealed.
MBVitoria said:
Silvanus said:
Dg504 said:
Has there ever been a well thought out alternative proposed to how rape cases currently proceed?
It seems ridiculous and frankly awful for whichever side is innocent/the victim and yet we carry on with the same old system. It’s starting to devalue the charge in public and people’s thoughts?
On the one hand I obviously want rapists jailed for far longer than they currently do, on the other I feel quite sorry and it seems to be becoming within the realms of possibility that I or someone “normal” I know could easily be dragged through the courts like this on total false pretence.
Do we just carry on as is?
It does seem like its a system that does not work, but not sure what an alternative is.It seems ridiculous and frankly awful for whichever side is innocent/the victim and yet we carry on with the same old system. It’s starting to devalue the charge in public and people’s thoughts?
On the one hand I obviously want rapists jailed for far longer than they currently do, on the other I feel quite sorry and it seems to be becoming within the realms of possibility that I or someone “normal” I know could easily be dragged through the courts like this on total false pretence.
Do we just carry on as is?
We also have to remember that a not guilty verdict, in some cases (not saying that is the case here), just means that there wasn't enough evidence to prove someone is guilty, not that they didn't do something.
I am very close to someone who was abused and raped but unfortunately there was insufficient evidence to prove what took place. That doesn't mean that person is innocent. Unfortunately that person went on to do it again.
A lad I was in uni with was charged with rape and went to court where he was acquitted. Even 20 years on people talk about him as "the lad that raped that girl", "there's no smoke without fire" etc.
From what I gather, this is something that was previously included in the law, but was since repealed.
There should also be some protection around potential victims too. Failing to secure a guilty verdict can affect victims too.
MBVitoria said:
Personally I think defendants in all criminal rape cases (and probably those involving sexual offences with children) should have anonymity until found guilty.
The argument against this is, someone else who may have been abused by this person may come forward, but yes if found not guilty there are still the rumours etc and everyone knows!!Many years ago an ex boyfriend of my daughter was accused of a sexual assault whilst at work, he was a pool lifeguard, told a couple of 16 year old girls who were arsing about to stop arsing about and to get a move on with getting dressed as the pool was closing.
A few days later he was arrested at work, for sexual assault on one of them, he was locked up, questioned for hours, released and had to await the court case, which from memory was around 9m later, he had to give up his job and didn't work throughout due to the whole thing massively affecting his mental health his solicitor advised a Crown Court trial, it lasted about 2 weeks, there was zero proof or evidence, only the words of the girls and him, the jury were done and dusted with a unanimous not guilty verdict within about half an hour.
Not for 1 minute did I, my wife and my daughter (who was still friends with him) think he was remotely guilty.
Edited by HTP99 on Friday 13th January 15:49
It certainly seems unfair to name and shame before verdict - hell even websites have that, so why can't the actual legal system follow the same rules? If the perp is bang to rights then by all means sentence the hell out of them, splash the name wherever if reputational damage is deserved. But Mendy's career is over due to accusations that don't seem to be going the way they accusers presumably thought. There's too many cases of post situation regret leading to similar accusations when the reality was far more nuanced (aka simply not rape).
trackdemon said:
It certainly seems unfair to name and shame before verdict - hell even websites have that, so why can't the actual legal system follow the same rules? If the perp is bang to rights then by all means sentence the hell out of them, splash the name wherever if reputational damage is deserved. But Mendy's career is over due to accusations that don't seem to be going the way they accusers presumably thought. There's too many cases of post situation regret leading to similar accusations when the reality was far more nuanced (aka simply not rape).
None of us actually know what happened between the accusing women and Mendy. It might have been rape it might not have been. Its sometimes very difficult to prove. He may well be completely innocent, he may also have committed rape but there is not enough evidence to prove it. The women may have had regrets and made an accusation, we don't know.As mentioned above, I know of a rapist that got off because of lack of evidence. That person went on to do it again.
Another poster has mentioned a situation where someone was falsely accused. Its not always back and white.
Silvanus said:
Certainly don't disagree with the anonymity argument, same with other crime accusations too.
There should also be some protection around potential victims too. Failing to secure a guilty verdict can affect victims too.
I wonder if the problem lies with the fact that the CPS know full well many of these cases have no hope but bow to public pressure to prosecute anyway. There should also be some protection around potential victims too. Failing to secure a guilty verdict can affect victims too.
Bit of a controversial comment coming up.
We don’t know the ins and outs of this case and he could be completely innocent, or guilty, but his fame may have hindered him or worked to his advantage.
Footballers seem to get away with a lot. Harry Redknapp apparently paid his dog and claimed tax relief for doing so and was acquitted along with loads of other dodgy dealings. Steven Gerard was on video punching someone and was found not guilty of what was on the video. Ryan Giggs recently had a jury fail to reach a verdict in a case where he more or less admitted to what he was accused of.
Mason Greenwood will eventually get to trial for stuff that he’s on tape doing and will probably get away with it.
I said it’s controversial, but a jury with a few of their team’s fans on it will always sway in favour of their team and player and that usually precludes any chance of a guilty verdict no matter what the evidence.
Like I said I don’t know the ins and outs of this case, but there are still a few cases to resolve and allegedly he was recently arrested again for other similar incidents.
We don’t know the ins and outs of this case and he could be completely innocent, or guilty, but his fame may have hindered him or worked to his advantage.
Footballers seem to get away with a lot. Harry Redknapp apparently paid his dog and claimed tax relief for doing so and was acquitted along with loads of other dodgy dealings. Steven Gerard was on video punching someone and was found not guilty of what was on the video. Ryan Giggs recently had a jury fail to reach a verdict in a case where he more or less admitted to what he was accused of.
Mason Greenwood will eventually get to trial for stuff that he’s on tape doing and will probably get away with it.
I said it’s controversial, but a jury with a few of their team’s fans on it will always sway in favour of their team and player and that usually precludes any chance of a guilty verdict no matter what the evidence.
Like I said I don’t know the ins and outs of this case, but there are still a few cases to resolve and allegedly he was recently arrested again for other similar incidents.
Silvanus said:
trackdemon said:
It certainly seems unfair to name and shame before verdict - hell even websites have that, so why can't the actual legal system follow the same rules? If the perp is bang to rights then by all means sentence the hell out of them, splash the name wherever if reputational damage is deserved. But Mendy's career is over due to accusations that don't seem to be going the way they accusers presumably thought. There's too many cases of post situation regret leading to similar accusations when the reality was far more nuanced (aka simply not rape).
None of us actually know what happened between the accusing women and Mendy. It might have been rape it might not have been. Its sometimes very difficult to prove. He may well be completely innocent, he may also have committed rape but there is not enough evidence to prove it. The women may have had regrets and made an accusation, we don't know.As mentioned above, I know of a rapist that got off because of lack of evidence. That person went on to do it again.
Another poster has mentioned a situation where someone was falsely accused. Its not always back and white.
LF5335 said:
a jury with a few of their team’s fans on it will always sway in favour of their team and player and that usually precludes any chance of a guilty verdict no matter what the evidence.
It could work both ways. A fan may want to favour the player, or despise the player for bringing shame on the club, so want to punish him. I know many football fans aren't the brightest, but it would take a special level of stupidity to sit on a jury and decide "well I think he's a rapist but I'll say not guilty because he's the best left back we've got". trackdemon said:
It certainly seems unfair to name and shame before verdict - hell even websites have that, so why can't the actual legal system follow the same rules? If the perp is bang to rights then by all means sentence the hell out of them, splash the name wherever if reputational damage is deserved. But Mendy's career is over due to accusations that don't seem to be going the way they accusers presumably thought. There's too many cases of post situation regret leading to similar accusations when the reality was far more nuanced (aka simply not rape).
Totally this. I wonder what his lawyers are thinking right now. Potentially lots millions by being named and shamed, potentially the end of his career, abuse from every away Dan if he does play again. TwigtheWonderkid said:
It could work both ways. A fan may want to favour the player, or despise the player for bringing shame on the club, so want to punish him. I know many football fans aren't the brightest, but it would take a special level of stupidity to sit on a jury and decide "well I think he's a rapist but I'll say not guilty because he's the best left back we've got".
See Redknapp, Gerrard, Giggs, probably Greenwood in a year or so and plenty of celebs.Don't know what to think about this as a City fan, they had only just paid 52m for him, not much when you say it quick.
Like most rape cases only the two involved know what really happened but it seems he was a bit of a lad,
I suspect his reputation is in tatters either way.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/13/be...
Like most rape cases only the two involved know what really happened but it seems he was a bit of a lad,
I suspect his reputation is in tatters either way.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/13/be...
LF5335 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
It could work both ways. A fan may want to favour the player, or despise the player for bringing shame on the club, so want to punish him. I know many football fans aren't the brightest, but it would take a special level of stupidity to sit on a jury and decide "well I think he's a rapist but I'll say not guilty because he's the best left back we've got".
See Redknapp, Gerrard, Giggs, probably Greenwood in a year or so and plenty of celebs.TwigtheWonderkid said:
LF5335 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
It could work both ways. A fan may want to favour the player, or despise the player for bringing shame on the club, so want to punish him. I know many football fans aren't the brightest, but it would take a special level of stupidity to sit on a jury and decide "well I think he's a rapist but I'll say not guilty because he's the best left back we've got".
See Redknapp, Gerrard, Giggs, probably Greenwood in a year or so and plenty of celebs.Neither of us know, that’s why I out it forward as a controversial opinion and even offered up in this case that his fame may have worked either way. However, the cases I’ve mentioned were deliberately chosen. Here’s one you can put some thought into. Liverpool captain tried at Liverpool Crown Court, elected trail by jury over Magistrates Court, all his friends who were present were either found or plead guilty, he admits hitting the victim three times, despite the other person never throwing a punch, but claims self defence and jury agree within 90 minutes.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2009/jul/24/s...
All I’m saying is that celebs have a far higher chance of being found not guilty than Joe Public.
Harry Redknapp case? Well who hasn’t got a Monaco bank account in their dog’s name? Nothing at all dodgy about that, no way was he hiding anything
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff