“Not guilty” does however mean, that their claims were without (legal) merit. It also means the jury found the defence, which included the allegation of collusion, credible to some degree.
As @Joshua who it seems clear also seems to lean towards supporting the accusers said, it also seems there was a weak case against Mendy and a good chance the case should never have gone to trial at all. So the seven accusers clearly did not anything like as compelling as you’ve suggested in your post to present against him.
The attempt to criticise Mendy’s fellow footballers who have spoken up for him, which has been the main area of contention in this thread this evening, is the thing that is truly worthy of reproach here.
There is a guardian article that suggested they knew each other and that there was an element of collusion between them; it is not beyond the realms of possibility that 7 women who knew each other lied.
You’d think that if a group of 7 women who happened to be sex workers and were going to these parties hosted by footballers that were systematically raped by the same footballer that at some point maybe after like 3 or 4, one of these women would pipe up and be like “you know what girls, stay away from that Mendy lad, he’s not one of the good ones”
Hold up. The only thing I said was weak about this case was what I read in the paper which had to do with some alleged text messages from one of the complainants.
My read of that piece of evidence was that it’s really hard to explain that to a jury which expects rape victims to behave in a certain way. But you roll with the evidence you have. The CPS must have thought it was enough.
And for the record I’m not saying I support the complainants because I don’t know exactly what they’re alleging. But I do know that complete fabrications are really really rare.
I thought the same but looks like it was all planned.
They might be a small circle of eye candies and perhaps banded together to fuck with him.
If a woman texts about having a good time the very night she was supposedly raped, these ain’t your regular bunch of women with self respect and honour.
This is the exact attitude the prosecution would have had to overcome. People expect rape victims to behave a certain way and if it doesn’t fit with their expectations, the accusations are “obviously” false.
How many people on a jury would you expect to side with an accuser who claims she was raped but then after that incident, decides to stay at the party and on the same night consensually has sex with 3 other men at the party and immediately after leaving the property texts her friend to brag about having shagged Grealish?
Another accuser testified that she was raped but then a video was discovered showing her having consensual sex at the time she said she was being raped. Could the jury then take any of her testimomy seriously?
I would add that working girls will have sex with multiple men over the course of a night. If a girl was raped by one guy, they might very well shrug off that horrible experience and continue to work the rest of the night. It’s only afterwards that the realisation and trauma hits home.
There’s no way a bloke can really tap into the mindset of somebody who lives that lifestyle and has sex with men for a living. They must have a part of themselves that is cold and shut off when having sex. Emotions and reflection then kick in later.
Okay let say the reality hit the victim the next day. Well they submitted videos of the victim dancing with Mendy after the incident.
You may justify one behaviour or two but you can’t justify all of it.
Having sex with other men after being raped, texting your friend about having a great night after being raped, hinting at going for Grealish after being raped, dancing with Mendy the day after being raped.
Where does it become suspect for you guys? At what point do you stop giving benefit of doubt?
This is not to say any person was or wasn’t lying but I think we can all accept that we dont need to make that determination purely off simplistic logic as above.
There is no set way to react to being raped or having any such thing done to you. These silly logic games of “oh well if x happened then surely you wouldn’t do y” are based on nothing except perception.
You are not a woman who has been raped so its hard to see how you know what determines what and what isn’t a justifiable thing to do in this situation.
100% correct, no one knows how they would react in a situation unless they have been in that situation and normal is usually not “normal”. But a jury is filled with individuals who likely have to make the determination of what is or isn’t justifiable in the situation - so by extension outside of the jury people in the general public will assess what they deem to be expected behaviour or not.
Hold up, let gets you a gender transformation and get you all raped up and we’ll do an experiment on how you would react after. You seem to be the arbiter on how a woman should behave after going through something like this.
From a bloke’s perspective, I think there might even be a macho / bravado type reaction to being raped. You might very well text your mates and say you shagged a famous celebrity even if they abused you horribly. Because that’s how you try and justify moving past it, that it was still worthwhile. Even though you were violated.
You have sex again with the abuser because you get paid a lot of money or you’re hoping to get into a relationship with that famous person, who is attractive, wealthy and powerful. You may even think you can change that person from behaving that way with you.
Even though you may be motivated by self-gain to persist in the relationship, that never excuses the rape / abuse. So the “happy” reaction and repeated sexual encounters will take place in the hope of some future financial reward or a positive change in the dynamic of the relationship.
A lot of simp talks and not a lot of common sense.
So all 7 of those instances & all 4 of those victims just didn’t have a regular human reaction to being raped.
You guys are giving them a lot of leeway.
I don’t think we need to go down the route of questioning the accusers logic. Their case has already been rejected by the court, that their accusations are without sufficient basis has already been established.
What does need to be questioned is why when their case lacked a firm basis, Mendy needed to be put in prison on remand, why he had to wait two years to be cleared and why he had to be publicly named at all.
I think that’s valid, and I think there should be a focus on how he’s been treated and why when he’s not guilty and it seems he was facing a weak case. There doesn’t need to be a focus on the accusers to do that.