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

aguero93:20 said:
Or just exaggeration and boasting, perfectly normal in young lads.
Click to expand...

I think the fact he said this when up on charges of sexual misconduct means it wasn't just like exaggeration and boasting from some guy down the pub. It's not a good reflection on his state of mind.

Anyway, enough from me on this. He needs help with this the same way Walker needs help with his drinking, imho. Up to them if they get it or not. Doesn't bother me particularly.
 
stonerblue said:
You told me i was ''getting mixed up' with civil and criminal law in your first reply were you very kindly explained where i was going wrong.
We're talking about a jury giving a verdict based on their beliefs after hearing all the evidence. If a jury finds 'not guilty' then i and others can only come to the 'conclusion' that the accused was 'innocent'.
getting mixed up with semantics is all well and good but in the real world most people will see not guilty as innocent
Click to expand...
Sorry if I offended you, but your post was wrong, and given the comments about "revenge", how people have "ruined Mendy's life", and that they should be prosecuted for trying to "frame him", it is important to understand that we simply don't know what happened, and we don't know why the jury made their decision.

"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"

Was the original statement someone else made and that you said was "exactly how it works".

That's not how it works.

In a civil court the decision might me made on who is believed more - so it could be a decision where you're 51% sure something happened - where one party is marginally more persuasive.

In a criminal court, one side has to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" - which is considered to be more like being 98-99% sure. Even if the women were more persuasive, and the jury believed their stories were more likely to be true than Mendy's, they could still find him not guilty if they had doubts.

I'm not making a judgement on this case, but a jury could think he was "probably" guilty and they would still have to find him "not guilty", as "probably" isn't enough. Therefore "not guilty" is NOT the same as believing him over every single one of the women.
 
Aside from whether the jury got it right or wrong and aside too from the astonishing rate of Mendy's amorous adventures the fact remains that young, rich and sexy footballers (from George Best to Jack Grealish) attract women looking for fun - or for whatever. Same in other sports. When U.S. baseball teams are on the road the bars in the hotels they stay in are crowded with women hoping to be invited up to a player's room. It's even true in cricket. Years ago on a hot summer's day in Bournemouth Lancashire's own Jack Simmons (admittedly no Jack Grealish) was fielding on the boundary all afternoon and got steadily chatted up by a buxom lass sunning herself in the front row. As the players came in for tea I called out "what's her name, Jack?" He laughed and said "I don't know, but I got her number!"
 
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.