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

Gorton_Tubster said:
I'm taking about him being a victim?
Thx for repeating what I said too. He's only himself to blame.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

In terms of victim blaming as far as Mendy’s concerned, it’s like saying that if you go on holiday and leave your house with the doors and windows unlocked, don’t be too surprised if you get burgled. The insurance won’t pay out if you did that.

To my mind that’s totally different to trying to blame a woman for wearing a short skirt and a low top then getting raped. Everyone knows or should know that no means no whatever happened ahead of time.

I think we’re in agreement.
 
bluenova said:
Only 1% of reported rapes end up with a conviction. Plenty more are never reported.

Unless you believe that 99%+ of women reporting rapes are making it up, then it's clear that a "not guilty" verdict doesn't automatically make the accused a victim.

Unless you sat in on the trial, and heard all the evidence, you're not in a position to make a judgement on this case. We'll have heard the most salacious details from the prosecution and from the defence. Two skewed and heavily abbreviated versions of events - and that's not enough to make a judgement.
Click to expand...
? I said it seems, ie I don't know. But you plow on telling me off.
 
domalino said:
I'd also disagree quite strongly one the "through no fault of his own".

He's not been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and so he gets to walk free, but lets not pretend that you can just be going about your life minding your own business and suddenly 6 different women are accuising you of 7 counts of rape, and sexual assault with enough evidence to make the police and CPS pursue a case for one of the hardest to prove crimes in the book.

He entitled to his freedom, i think the justice system is fundamentally fair, but this whole thing came about because of the way he acted. The way treated women, partied non-stop with virtual strangers and repeatedly put himself in situations where consent was ambigious at best.

That's before you even go into the other murky, grubby behaviour detailed during the course of the trial.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that's true, given the current media (social and mainstream), if it was found that cps failed to prosecute with 7 or 8 allegations can you imagine the media fall out ? cps are lawyers at the end of the day (albeit not very good ones or looking for political/judicial careers) and may well of thought prosecute and let the allegations play themselves out (we are off the hook). Is that not possible ?
 
bluenova said:
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.
Click to expand...
So the jury that came up with a not guilty verdict after hearing all the evidence didn't believe Mendy?
 
bluenova said:
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.
Click to expand...
What other conclusion do you expect people to draw from a not guilty verdict?
Also, what civil cases are tried by jury?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.