Benjamin Mendy - City lose case and Mendy awarded £11m in back pay (p168)

[Cityfan]

Mendy is a free man that's all that matters now, he will feel pain for how the club just turned its back on him,
for City to rip up his contract looks like an easy way out, we should have backed him until proved otherwise

Mendy walks away a free man but his name is Mud, an innocent man will want justice

He's innocent of the charges, he is not innocent of breaking his bail commitments.

 

[Academica]

I'm no lawyer but I think that's more of a turn of phrase than a literal legal concept, no?

If you stab me in the throat and get away with it, that doesn't make you innocent.

If I didn't stab you in you in throat, but get put on trial for it and am found not guilty. I'm not innocent just not guilty. That's right isn't it.

 

[Academica]

Exactly like City with CAS.

So once you have been on trial you can never be seen as innocent, just case not proven. That seems a fair system.

 

[hilts]

Was a huge let down both on and off the pitch. Glad he is no longer our concern.

 

[bluenova]

Er, that is exactly how it works.

I think you're mixing up civil and criminal levels of proof.

In a case like this, the jury aren't listening to both sides and deciding who is more believable. They are told to find him guilty only if they are absolutely sure. So, they can listen to both sides, and if they can't make up their minds, then they have to go with not guilty.

What you're describing is "the balance of probabilities", which is used in civil cases, where both sides are heard, and a decision made on which to believe.

 

[roy.or.r]

Why bother with courts and legalities when we have you.?
Miscarriages and wrong decisions obviously occur - but you have to trust the process.

I never said I don’t trust the process, did I? I just said there are multiple cases where courts have found someone not guilty (or vice versa) but people think otherwise based on what they see and hear. Mendy is free and good for him but I can still form my own opinion that 7 different women don’t suddenly accuse a person of rape when statistically speaking the false accusations of rape are very low. So forgive me if I have some doubts.

 

[roy.or.r]

Your first paragraph makes no sense but didn't the courts show that some of the accusers were proven liars? Guaranteed to put doubt about guilt in any ones mind about the rest regardless. They really need to look in a mirror.

Can you show me where the courts showed they were liars? Genuine question. Maybe I missed it.

 

[BigJoe#1]

I said he’s not been proven innocent - which is a fact, and objected to the idea the events of the last 3 years happened to him “through no fault of his own”.

I have to smile, purely in good taste but..... is this "not been proven innocent" stance going to apply to Huw Edwards?

Seriously, no offence intended.

Maybe we need a third verdict a la Scotland.... Case unproven?

 

[Blue Mist]

I’ve never said he’s guilty at all, let alone tried to “prove the juries were wrong”

I said he’s not been proven innocent - which is a fact, and objected to the idea the events of the last 3 years happened to him “through no fault of his own”.

If you can’t reply to what a comment says, don’t reply to it. Don’t invent what you wish a comment had said and then respond to that because it just wastes all our time.

'I've never said he's guilty'
'He's not been proven innocent'

And yet it's mean that you suggest shouldn't comment.

 

[aguero93:20]

Dog could of eaten it

Lock him up!