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

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

Just out of interest, is that about Mendy or the women who slept with him (or both)?

Everyone involved

 

[34yearsandstillgoingstrong]

You were talking about someone else's post which said "What we do know with absolute certainty is that 7 women gave evidence against him over 2 separate trials. 2 juries heard ALL the evidence over many weeks and believed him over every single one of them."

Someone said that's not how it works, and explained the way criminal trials are decided. You disagreed and said, "that's exactly how it works".

If you agreed with the post in italics, then, I will say again, that's not how criminal trials work.

A civil trial result is based on who is believed on "the balance of probabilities". A criminal trial, quite rightly, has a much higher burden of proof - where the prosecution has to prove their case "beyond reasonable doubt". When it's two people talking about an event that there is little evidence for, and only the two people involved truly know what happened, then it's incredibly difficult for either side to "prove" what happened. That's the situation with rape, and is one reason why only around 1% of all reported rapes result in convictions.

So, in a criminal case it's not true that the "not guilty" party was "believed", or that the victims were not believed.

Not sure you're correct. Quite recently I was the foreman of the Jury in a rape trial. The "victim" was actually 15 years old ( she did not appear in court ) but at no time did she actually show any distress or claim that she had been raped. The judge -in his summing up, advised - that we - the jurors - had to be absolutely certain that the girl had never given her consent - it was NOT sufficient to rely on "beyond reasonable doubt" - to find the accused guilty. Strangely enough - the fact that she was a minor seemed to have no relevance in the case.

The law does seem to be remarkably flexible where rape charges are concerned. In the Mendy Case it would seem very unlikely that the "victims" were so naive as to return to Mendy's pad late at night and not anticipate that Mendy might be looking to add to his 10,000 conquests ! Whereas in the Mason Greenwood case, the CPS has been handed very concrete proof that the victim had been raped, and yet they have dropped the charges ( because the victim, subsequently , declined to cooperate ). In the Ched Evans case, he was found guilty ( but eventually cleared ); the lady in question never complained to the police -but he was found guilty because, at the time, the Lady Victim was apparently too drunk to make rational decisions ( and yet his "accomplice" was found not guilty with much the same evidence against him. ) If I recall correctly, Adam Johnson was sent to jail primarily because his supposed victim was a minor and yet she appeared to have been an enthusiastic partner with Johnson. It all seems something of a lottery. One for the lawyers to explain.

 

[bluenova]

Not sure you're correct. Quite recently I was the foreman of the Jury in a rape trial. The "victim" was actually 15 years old ( she did not appear in court ) but at no time did she actually show any distress or claim that she had been raped. The judge -in his summing up, advised - that we - the jurors - had to be absolutely certain that the girl had never given her consent - it was NOT sufficient to rely on "beyond reasonable doubt" - to find the accused guilty. Strangely enough - the fact that she was a minor seemed to have no relevance in the case.

The law does seem to be remarkably flexible where rape charges are concerned. In the Mendy Case it would seem very unlikely that the "victims" were so naive as to return to Mendy's pad late at night and not anticipate that Mendy might be looking to add to his 10,000 conquests ! Whereas in the Mason Greenwood case, the CPS has been handed very concrete proof that the victim had been raped, and yet they have dropped the charges ( because the victim, subsequently , declined to cooperate ). In the Ched Evans case, he was found guilty ( but eventually cleared ); the lady in question never complained to the police -but he was found guilty because, at the time, the Lady Victim was apparently too drunk to make rational decisions ( and yet his "accomplice" was found not guilty with much the same evidence against him. ) If I recall correctly, Adam Johnson was sent to jail primarily because his supposed victim was a minor and yet she appeared to have been an enthusiastic partner with Johnson. It all seems something of a lottery. One for the lawyers to explain.

I think what you're describing is pretty much the same argument I've made. That the standard of proof required is so high, that it does not equate to innocence, or imply that the victims were not believed. I'm not sure you can ever be absolutely certain, but I've heard the words "almost certain", as an equivalent.

I am in no way commenting on the merits of this case, as I didn't sit through the whole trial and listen to all the evidence, but there have been comments on here about him getting revenge, and the women being prosecuted as they've lied to try and frame him. But as you've said, in criminal cases, and particularly in rape cases, the bar is very, very high and I think drawing conclusions from the verdict, as others seem to be doing, is very reckless.

 

[Keith Moon]

Feel sorry for the stupid ****, he should know that if you're a bling bling multi millionaire footballer the only women you can trust are prostitutes and girlfriend/wife. He dived into the honey trap. I suspect he will sign for a Saudi team soon.

 

[dublinblue12]

 

[west didsblue]

The way I look at it is that, although he’s not a rapist, he is a bit of a ****. If he was living that lifestyle and the women involved were happy to be treated like shit then that’s up to them, but he was being paid a weekly six figure salary partly from our pockets. As such it was incumbent on him to do what was necessary to get himself fit as quickly as possible after each injury. It’s difficult to imagine that having regular parties and shagging multiple women on a daily basis would contribute positively to him recovering from his injuries. At best it wasn’t helping and at worst it would extend his recovery times. If he was performing well on the pitch whilst living this lifestyle I wouldn’t give a shit, but he wasn’t so to me he was clearly taking the piss. We’re well rid.

 

[Stephen230]

He is alleged to have said '10,000 women' by one of the accusers.
Mendy is not on record as having said it directly, or claimed it as a boast, anywhere.
When he was questioned in court, he only said he enjoyed "having sex with a lot of women" and was never asked, or offered, to provide a number.

My apologies then. Didn’t follow either of the trials really closely. But thought I had a recollection of reading that the 10,000 women boast came during his own testimony. Clearly not.

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

Not sure you're correct. Quite recently I was the foreman of the Jury in a rape trial. The "victim" was actually 15 years old ( she did not appear in court ) but at no time did she actually show any distress or claim that she had been raped. The judge -in his summing up, advised - that we - the jurors - had to be absolutely certain that the girl had never given her consent - it was NOT sufficient to rely on "beyond reasonable doubt" - to find the accused guilty. Strangely enough - the fact that she was a minor seemed to have no relevance in the case.

The law does seem to be remarkably flexible where rape charges are concerned.

It isnt. Respectfully, and Im not looking to agitate you or cause a row here, if that was your understanding of the judges direction on the law you should not have been the foreman on that jury. The confusion between the having to be absolutely certain of the victims lack of consent and the burden of proof for the defendant to be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt have been conflated there and misunderstood.

To explain that: the offence of rape is committed when

• (A)Acts intentionally and penetrates either the mouth, anus or vagina of (B) with his penis
• (B) does not consent to the act;
• And (A) does not reasonably believe that B consents.

So, in order to prove that it HAS to be found that the victim did not consent, amd juries have to be absolutely certain - amd that is what the judge explained- that she did not.

It is only one part of the proof to be met. Once established, the rest is the same as any other offence and the burden of beyond reasonable doubt is as in any other case.

There is no flexibility as you describe it, it is just that with rape that are several elements to be satisfied and non consent is an absolute.

Again, not looking to cause annoyance here.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

The way I look at it is that, although he’s not a rapist, he is a bit of a ****. If he was living that lifestyle and the women involved were happy to be treated like shit then that’s up to them, but he was being paid a weekly six figure salary partly from our pockets. As such it was incumbent on him to do what was necessary to get himself fit as quickly as possible after each injury. It’s difficult to imagine that having regular parties and shagging multiple women on a daily basis would contribute positively to him recovering from his injuries. At best it wasn’t helping and at worst it would extend his recovery times. If he was performing well on the pitch whilst living this lifestyle I wouldn’t give a shit, but he wasn’t so to me he was clearly taking the piss. We’re well rid.

Seems a bit victim Blamey, not that I disagree. People need to take responsibility.
I'm glad he's gone. But I'm annoyed that someone's whole career can be screwed up like that by other people quite legally and encouraged.

 

[SWP's back]

Sadly never worked out for him at the club due to injuries and these accusations but I quite liked him and wish him all the best for the future. Hopefully he can find a new club and get his life back on track.

Would you want him dating your sister or daughter?

For me, I think he’s wasted his talent. Guilty verdict or not, from the evidence that came up, he was a terrible professional with a very questionable sex life who treated women like shite and as objects, by his own admission. He’s one of the worst buys post A.D. and I find it hard to have too much empathy for a guy that had it all and fucked it up. Compare and contrast him with the likes of Ruben or Gundo and it’s night and day.