They can’t Elvis it’s tainted evidence.
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 14 hours, 33 minutes ago
I'll let the courts decide if Mendy is guilty but what I've learned so far is:-
Some of his accusors are in a Whatsapp group called 'Sunday Schlaggs' where tactics for the case were discussed.
At least one of the defendents googled "How much is Benjamin Mendy worth" before deciding to press charges.
Another woman was filmed dancing with Mendy at a club multiple times and visited his house at least 10 times AFTER she alleged she was raped but BEFORE she contacted the police.
Any bloke should be interested in this case if he has an active social life and forget about the fact he played for a rival club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't know enough about it so won't comment on this particular case, but your 3rd point about being filmed dancing and visiting his house doesn't necessarily mean he's innocent.
There's been tons of situations where a victim may not show it in public or takes them a while to come to terms with what happened.
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 3 minutes ago
The audio and photos released on Instagram will not be admissible in court Elvis
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes they will you idiot. Otherwise defendants could release evidence against them to the general public and prevent a trial going ahead. Please think about things before posting your absolute moron.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Druler on the ropes before the bell has signalled the end of the first round.
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 14 minutes ago
They can’t Elvis it’s tainted evidence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Get some new material mate, you're boring as feck.
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 33 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 10 hours, 27 minutes ago
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 16 seconds ago
comment by The Butcher (U22703)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 2 hours, 50 minutes ago
comment by Serious Thorgen Kloppinson - No laughing matter (U1282)
posted 5 minutes ago
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-62894037
This is really bad for the prosecution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It sounds like the prosecution didn't put forwards evidence for the charge. Could be that the alleged victim backed out?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A video came out which essentially discredited her allegations, so the prosecution dropped the case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Boris is the one who found the video
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For someone that has made his mind up on the outcome, you’re not following the case particularly closely are you…?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that aimed at me?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, Culer
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 51 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 hours, 6 minutes ago
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 55 seconds ago
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 1 minute ago
You have no idea of case law Melts…
The evidence is tainted as it’s already been made public. It’s why there are often media-wide reporting restrictions until the start of a trial.
Simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I must tell my employer that, I’ve spent a fair amount of my career in the wrong job!
That doesn’t make the evidence tainted, just think of the implications if that was actually the case. Now think what it might possibly taint, which is why they try to shut down any further spreading of that evidence…
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence is simply inadmissible Melts…..
It’s been made public so it cannot possibly be a fair trial.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it’s admissible, where are you getting the idea from that it isn’t? It’s the same evidence that would be presented at trial, there’s no reason whatsoever for it not to be allowed.
Seriously think about what you’re saying, do you realise how many people are prosecuted based on information that’s initially released to the public domain?
You’re confusing the evidence itself with additional commentary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sigh.
A diligent lawyer and judge will look at the fact the audio and insta evidence is already public and rightfully rule that the jury members may have seen it already and have pre-conceived notions about the guilt or innocence of Greenwood….
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Right, that’s exactly what I was saying when I said what might it taint.
It doesn’t make the evidence inadmissible at all. Just think of what you’re suggesting - your argument is that people that might have seen the evidence already and so be prejudging their opinion and so can’t see that same evidence again….are you suggesting their pre judgement only lasts until the trial starts and it’s then wiped from their memory?
Did you actually want to argue that there was a risk it would never go to trial due to the evidence being public…?I can move onto why that’s false too and we have plenty of precedence for that but let’s at least work out exactly what your argument actually is first.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh deary me. It seems you have no idea of the standards of case law at all. The evidence is already PUBLIC. Greenwood's team will simply point out to the judge that any juror could've already viewed the Insta stuff and decided he's guilty.
That means it won't be a fair trial.
That means there will be no trial.
The law in this case must be applied correctly and all evidence admissable to a standard in which the defendant gets a fair trial. That isn't possible in this case which is why Greenwood will be NFA'd by the police.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn’t matter it’s public! Where are you getting this from? Just think about what you’re saying, if the exact same evidence is presented at trial, why would people having seen it already make any difference?
How do you think investigative journalism works…?
Melts don't you get case law at all? The public have seen/heard all the Insta stuff and let's be honest everyone already has decided he's guilty.
It'll be the exact same for any jury who has seen it too so it can't be a fair trial can it??? Good God man get with it will you.
What I can say on this Greenwood allegation is, through the grapevine and what I have heard from legit sources, it really isn't what everyone assumes and thinks. For example the things released online like the pictures and audio are NOT what we think.
Won't say more because it's an on-going investigation but from what I am told there really actually isn't anything to it and he won't be charged.
You two realise that you’re arguing with a fictional character, right?
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 4 minutes ago
Melts don't you get case law at all? The public have seen/heard all the Insta stuff and let's be honest everyone already has decided he's guilty.
It'll be the exact same for any jury who has seen it too so it can't be a fair trial can it??? Good God man get with it will you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it can be a fair trial. I’ve already told you you’re confusing evidence and conjecture. Even if that was the case, you’re now arguing about fair trial, not admissibility of evidence!
Ironically, this thread is now more likely to be argued by the defence as reason for inability for a fair trial than the evidence is.
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 4 minutes ago
You two realise that you’re arguing with a fictional character, right?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah but I was bored!
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 41 seconds ago
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 4 minutes ago
You two realise that you’re arguing with a fictional character, right?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah but I was bored!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hope you’re good, mate.
Happy with how Haaland is bedding in? (In terms of his returns to date at least, I’m guessing so!)
Haaland is a great goalscorer but overall he de-tracts from City's play. If he doesn't score he's invisible and a rough patch of form for him, goal drought etc, could mean real problems for Pep's men. Kane is better because he gives more to the team and build up play, as well as scoring the goals.
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 3 minutes ago
Haaland is a great goalscorer but overall he de-tracts from City's play. If he doesn't score he's invisible and a rough patch of form for him, goal drought etc, could mean real problems for Pep's men. Kane is better because he gives more to the team and build up play, as well as scoring the goals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
He does Elvis. I don't get why the media slated CR7 last season for having the exact same negative impact on the team when he wasn't scoring, yet with Haaland they all want to line up and suck him off. Watch him when he doesn't score... people will start to see what I mean. His overall footballing ability from a technical perspective is questionable too: poor touch, technique and close control.
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 53 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 41 seconds ago
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 4 minutes ago
You two realise that you’re arguing with a fictional character, right?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah but I was bored!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hope you’re good, mate.
Happy with how Haaland is bedding in? (In terms of his returns to date at least, I’m guessing so!)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All good buddy, hope alls well with you too.
Returns wise, absolutely! There’s still more to come I think too in terms of his play without the ball, his movement is unbelievable.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 hours, 59 minutes ago
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 53 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 41 seconds ago
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 4 minutes ago
You two realise that you’re arguing with a fictional character, right?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah but I was bored!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hope you’re good, mate.
Happy with how Haaland is bedding in? (In terms of his returns to date at least, I’m guessing so!)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All good buddy, hope alls well with you too.
Returns wise, absolutely! There’s still more to come I think too in terms of his play without the ball, his movement is unbelievable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I don’t think I’d realised just how good his movement is. The physicality, strength, pace, finishing - all of that stuff you get from watching the highlights reels, but his movement is something else.
Yeah but Melts you ignore his deficiencies...
Doesn't impact games at all unless he scores, no doubt when he goes through bad form it'll be like you playing with 10 men.
Poor technique too.
Haarland?
I'd given up on this thread but is he in the dock as well?
The evidence cannot be introduced! It's already public ffs.
You might understand case law but what do you know of bird law?
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 2 hours, 26 minutes ago
Yeah but Melts you ignore his deficiencies...
Doesn't impact games at all unless he scores, no doubt when he goes through bad form it'll be like you playing with 10 men.
Poor technique too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I didn’t, I literally said there’s more to come in his play without the ball.
Culer still trying to be involved with his wum
comment by T-SaliBAG (U11806)
posted 11 minutes ago
Culer still trying to be involved with his wum
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's all he's got in life.
Sign in if you want to comment
Not guilty - at least so far
Page 4 of 5
posted on 14/9/22
They can’t Elvis it’s tainted evidence.
posted on 14/9/22
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 14 hours, 33 minutes ago
I'll let the courts decide if Mendy is guilty but what I've learned so far is:-
Some of his accusors are in a Whatsapp group called 'Sunday Schlaggs' where tactics for the case were discussed.
At least one of the defendents googled "How much is Benjamin Mendy worth" before deciding to press charges.
Another woman was filmed dancing with Mendy at a club multiple times and visited his house at least 10 times AFTER she alleged she was raped but BEFORE she contacted the police.
Any bloke should be interested in this case if he has an active social life and forget about the fact he played for a rival club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't know enough about it so won't comment on this particular case, but your 3rd point about being filmed dancing and visiting his house doesn't necessarily mean he's innocent.
There's been tons of situations where a victim may not show it in public or takes them a while to come to terms with what happened.
posted on 14/9/22
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 3 minutes ago
The audio and photos released on Instagram will not be admissible in court Elvis
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes they will you idiot. Otherwise defendants could release evidence against them to the general public and prevent a trial going ahead. Please think about things before posting your absolute moron.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Druler on the ropes before the bell has signalled the end of the first round.
posted on 14/9/22
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 14 minutes ago
They can’t Elvis it’s tainted evidence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Get some new material mate, you're boring as feck.
posted on 14/9/22
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 33 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 10 hours, 27 minutes ago
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 16 seconds ago
comment by The Butcher (U22703)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 2 hours, 50 minutes ago
comment by Serious Thorgen Kloppinson - No laughing matter (U1282)
posted 5 minutes ago
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-62894037
This is really bad for the prosecution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It sounds like the prosecution didn't put forwards evidence for the charge. Could be that the alleged victim backed out?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A video came out which essentially discredited her allegations, so the prosecution dropped the case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Boris is the one who found the video
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For someone that has made his mind up on the outcome, you’re not following the case particularly closely are you…?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that aimed at me?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, Culer
posted on 14/9/22
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 51 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 hours, 6 minutes ago
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 55 seconds ago
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 1 minute ago
You have no idea of case law Melts…
The evidence is tainted as it’s already been made public. It’s why there are often media-wide reporting restrictions until the start of a trial.
Simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I must tell my employer that, I’ve spent a fair amount of my career in the wrong job!
That doesn’t make the evidence tainted, just think of the implications if that was actually the case. Now think what it might possibly taint, which is why they try to shut down any further spreading of that evidence…
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence is simply inadmissible Melts…..
It’s been made public so it cannot possibly be a fair trial.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it’s admissible, where are you getting the idea from that it isn’t? It’s the same evidence that would be presented at trial, there’s no reason whatsoever for it not to be allowed.
Seriously think about what you’re saying, do you realise how many people are prosecuted based on information that’s initially released to the public domain?
You’re confusing the evidence itself with additional commentary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sigh.
A diligent lawyer and judge will look at the fact the audio and insta evidence is already public and rightfully rule that the jury members may have seen it already and have pre-conceived notions about the guilt or innocence of Greenwood….
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Right, that’s exactly what I was saying when I said what might it taint.
It doesn’t make the evidence inadmissible at all. Just think of what you’re suggesting - your argument is that people that might have seen the evidence already and so be prejudging their opinion and so can’t see that same evidence again….are you suggesting their pre judgement only lasts until the trial starts and it’s then wiped from their memory?
Did you actually want to argue that there was a risk it would never go to trial due to the evidence being public…?I can move onto why that’s false too and we have plenty of precedence for that but let’s at least work out exactly what your argument actually is first.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh deary me. It seems you have no idea of the standards of case law at all. The evidence is already PUBLIC. Greenwood's team will simply point out to the judge that any juror could've already viewed the Insta stuff and decided he's guilty.
That means it won't be a fair trial.
That means there will be no trial.
The law in this case must be applied correctly and all evidence admissable to a standard in which the defendant gets a fair trial. That isn't possible in this case which is why Greenwood will be NFA'd by the police.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn’t matter it’s public! Where are you getting this from? Just think about what you’re saying, if the exact same evidence is presented at trial, why would people having seen it already make any difference?
How do you think investigative journalism works…?
posted on 14/9/22
Melts don't you get case law at all? The public have seen/heard all the Insta stuff and let's be honest everyone already has decided he's guilty.
It'll be the exact same for any jury who has seen it too so it can't be a fair trial can it??? Good God man get with it will you.
posted on 14/9/22
What I can say on this Greenwood allegation is, through the grapevine and what I have heard from legit sources, it really isn't what everyone assumes and thinks. For example the things released online like the pictures and audio are NOT what we think.
Won't say more because it's an on-going investigation but from what I am told there really actually isn't anything to it and he won't be charged.
posted on 14/9/22
You two realise that you’re arguing with a fictional character, right?
posted on 14/9/22
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 4 minutes ago
Melts don't you get case law at all? The public have seen/heard all the Insta stuff and let's be honest everyone already has decided he's guilty.
It'll be the exact same for any jury who has seen it too so it can't be a fair trial can it??? Good God man get with it will you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it can be a fair trial. I’ve already told you you’re confusing evidence and conjecture. Even if that was the case, you’re now arguing about fair trial, not admissibility of evidence!
Ironically, this thread is now more likely to be argued by the defence as reason for inability for a fair trial than the evidence is.
posted on 14/9/22
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 4 minutes ago
You two realise that you’re arguing with a fictional character, right?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah but I was bored!
posted on 14/9/22
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 41 seconds ago
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 4 minutes ago
You two realise that you’re arguing with a fictional character, right?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah but I was bored!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hope you’re good, mate.
Happy with how Haaland is bedding in? (In terms of his returns to date at least, I’m guessing so!)
posted on 14/9/22
Haaland is a great goalscorer but overall he de-tracts from City's play. If he doesn't score he's invisible and a rough patch of form for him, goal drought etc, could mean real problems for Pep's men. Kane is better because he gives more to the team and build up play, as well as scoring the goals.
posted on 14/9/22
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 3 minutes ago
Haaland is a great goalscorer but overall he de-tracts from City's play. If he doesn't score he's invisible and a rough patch of form for him, goal drought etc, could mean real problems for Pep's men. Kane is better because he gives more to the team and build up play, as well as scoring the goals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
posted on 14/9/22
He does Elvis. I don't get why the media slated CR7 last season for having the exact same negative impact on the team when he wasn't scoring, yet with Haaland they all want to line up and suck him off. Watch him when he doesn't score... people will start to see what I mean. His overall footballing ability from a technical perspective is questionable too: poor touch, technique and close control.
posted on 14/9/22
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 53 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 41 seconds ago
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 4 minutes ago
You two realise that you’re arguing with a fictional character, right?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah but I was bored!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hope you’re good, mate.
Happy with how Haaland is bedding in? (In terms of his returns to date at least, I’m guessing so!)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All good buddy, hope alls well with you too.
Returns wise, absolutely! There’s still more to come I think too in terms of his play without the ball, his movement is unbelievable.
posted on 14/9/22
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 hours, 59 minutes ago
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 53 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 41 seconds ago
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 4 minutes ago
You two realise that you’re arguing with a fictional character, right?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah but I was bored!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hope you’re good, mate.
Happy with how Haaland is bedding in? (In terms of his returns to date at least, I’m guessing so!)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All good buddy, hope alls well with you too.
Returns wise, absolutely! There’s still more to come I think too in terms of his play without the ball, his movement is unbelievable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I don’t think I’d realised just how good his movement is. The physicality, strength, pace, finishing - all of that stuff you get from watching the highlights reels, but his movement is something else.
posted on 14/9/22
Yeah but Melts you ignore his deficiencies...
Doesn't impact games at all unless he scores, no doubt when he goes through bad form it'll be like you playing with 10 men.
Poor technique too.
posted on 14/9/22
Haarland?
I'd given up on this thread but is he in the dock as well?
posted on 14/9/22
It could be prejudiced
posted on 14/9/22
The evidence cannot be introduced! It's already public ffs.
posted on 14/9/22
You might understand case law but what do you know of bird law?
posted on 14/9/22
comment by Culèr: Mr Brand ✅ (U9489)
posted 2 hours, 26 minutes ago
Yeah but Melts you ignore his deficiencies...
Doesn't impact games at all unless he scores, no doubt when he goes through bad form it'll be like you playing with 10 men.
Poor technique too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I didn’t, I literally said there’s more to come in his play without the ball.
posted on 14/9/22
Culer still trying to be involved with his wum
posted on 14/9/22
comment by T-SaliBAG (U11806)
posted 11 minutes ago
Culer still trying to be involved with his wum
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's all he's got in life.
Page 4 of 5