ChatterBank12 mins ago
Mendy Was Found To Be Innocent!!
By a majority verdict!!
https:/
But his playing career is over!
Do you feel sorry for him?
No smoke without fire brigade will be along shortly, I'm sure.
https:/
But his playing career is over!
Do you feel sorry for him?
No smoke without fire brigade will be along shortly, I'm sure.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by piggynose. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
There were no majority verdicts.
"Manchester City footballer Benjamin Mendy has been found not guilty of six counts of rape and one count of sexual assault at Chester Crown Court.
Jurors could not reach verdicts on one count of rape and one of attempted rape, following a six-month trial."
"The unanimous verdicts were delivered on Wednesday by the seven men and four women on the jury, one juror having been discharged earlier for medical reasons."
"Manchester City footballer Benjamin Mendy has been found not guilty of six counts of rape and one count of sexual assault at Chester Crown Court.
Jurors could not reach verdicts on one count of rape and one of attempted rape, following a six-month trial."
"The unanimous verdicts were delivered on Wednesday by the seven men and four women on the jury, one juror having been discharged earlier for medical reasons."
He hasn't been totally cleared yet, though, has he. The prosecution have stated their intention to try him again on the charges the jury could not agree upon.
I understand that naming those suspected of rape encourages other possible victims to come forward, but i feel terribly sorry for any man who is truly not guilty. Whatever line of work they are in, their careers are virtually over unless they move away from the area in which they live.
In Mendy's case, that would more than likely have to be out of the country.
I understand that naming those suspected of rape encourages other possible victims to come forward, but i feel terribly sorry for any man who is truly not guilty. Whatever line of work they are in, their careers are virtually over unless they move away from the area in which they live.
In Mendy's case, that would more than likely have to be out of the country.
innocent by a majority verdict
oh dear back to Law Skool
He was found not guilty as the jury took a week or two to find not guilty on four charges and then cdnt agree on another two
Mendy ( monDEE apparenlty) learning "oo-la-la wee" may be " mais non merci" if the shampers is too cheap.
He didnt deny he was er kissing them ( family thread and site)
Bit like the Pink Gangster now doing 14 y in Strangeways for abusing the lads he was clothing ( and unclothing hur hur hur) and giving a roof to - the lads must have known what the game was - it was obvious to us adults.
Imagine: I am Fransh. Gom to my 'ome and 'ave some fun !
Gurl: Ay dont mind if I do: glass of shampagne and nothing else!
MonDEE for it is he: voila ! allons-y cherie
and the rest is a very long court case
oh dear back to Law Skool
He was found not guilty as the jury took a week or two to find not guilty on four charges and then cdnt agree on another two
Mendy ( monDEE apparenlty) learning "oo-la-la wee" may be " mais non merci" if the shampers is too cheap.
He didnt deny he was er kissing them ( family thread and site)
Bit like the Pink Gangster now doing 14 y in Strangeways for abusing the lads he was clothing ( and unclothing hur hur hur) and giving a roof to - the lads must have known what the game was - it was obvious to us adults.
Imagine: I am Fransh. Gom to my 'ome and 'ave some fun !
Gurl: Ay dont mind if I do: glass of shampagne and nothing else!
MonDEE for it is he: voila ! allons-y cherie
and the rest is a very long court case
As pixie points out, there is I vitally important distinction between 'innocent' and 'not guilty'.
Our legal system requires that the jury is satisfied 'beyond a reasonable doubt', and they were not in all but two charges.
That does not mean that the accused is 'innocent', although he may well be so, it does mean the jury were not sufficiently convinced by the evidence, to convict.
Without hearing what the jury heard, anything we say is our opinion and nothing more.
But the circumstances appear to point once again to a rich footballer who lives in a culture where normal adult behaviour and responsibilities are not uppermost in the minds of the people he mixes with, and that includes some of the female company that his money and lifestyle attract.
He comes across as an overpriveliged immoral individual, but that does not make him a rapist, and he should not be labelled as such, pending the outcome of his next trial in June.
Our legal system requires that the jury is satisfied 'beyond a reasonable doubt', and they were not in all but two charges.
That does not mean that the accused is 'innocent', although he may well be so, it does mean the jury were not sufficiently convinced by the evidence, to convict.
Without hearing what the jury heard, anything we say is our opinion and nothing more.
But the circumstances appear to point once again to a rich footballer who lives in a culture where normal adult behaviour and responsibilities are not uppermost in the minds of the people he mixes with, and that includes some of the female company that his money and lifestyle attract.
He comes across as an overpriveliged immoral individual, but that does not make him a rapist, and he should not be labelled as such, pending the outcome of his next trial in June.
there is I vitally important distinction between 'innocent' and 'not guilty'.
no there isnt - if he is not guilty, then he is innocent. That much is clear. We should keep away from ' he really done it'. In Mendy's case he admitted.... kissing them. The only thing was consent
we went up collectively a blind alley (20y) over the Irish bombers really had done it but had got off... they hadnt. And it would have been better if we had listened to them.
and in the police big book of naughtiness, there is a section on 'noble corruption' = planting evidence because you think he musta done it.
as for " That does not mean that the accused is 'innocent', although he may well be so," - I despair
so he is innocent and not innocent at the same time ? that is a clarification which will go down in the annals of AB
Let us call a thing a thing, and not another thing ( Bishop Butler)
no there isnt - if he is not guilty, then he is innocent. That much is clear. We should keep away from ' he really done it'. In Mendy's case he admitted.... kissing them. The only thing was consent
we went up collectively a blind alley (20y) over the Irish bombers really had done it but had got off... they hadnt. And it would have been better if we had listened to them.
and in the police big book of naughtiness, there is a section on 'noble corruption' = planting evidence because you think he musta done it.
as for " That does not mean that the accused is 'innocent', although he may well be so," - I despair
so he is innocent and not innocent at the same time ? that is a clarification which will go down in the annals of AB
Let us call a thing a thing, and not another thing ( Bishop Butler)
If it helps, UK-
Not guilty means that a defendant is not legally answerable for the criminal charge filed against him/her. An acquittal is a finding by a judge or jury that a defendant is not guilty of the crime charged. Note that an acquittal does necessarily not mean that the defendant is innocent in a criminal case.10 May 2022
Not guilty means that a defendant is not legally answerable for the criminal charge filed against him/her. An acquittal is a finding by a judge or jury that a defendant is not guilty of the crime charged. Note that an acquittal does necessarily not mean that the defendant is innocent in a criminal case.10 May 2022
In Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998, Article 6(2) states,
“Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.”
That being the case, a Not Guilty verdict must mean the legal presumption of innocence remains and is the same as being innocent.
“Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.”
That being the case, a Not Guilty verdict must mean the legal presumption of innocence remains and is the same as being innocent.
Corby, I believe we are, in various combinations, mixing and matching the three terms between their linguistic understood definitions, and their unequivocal legal definitions.
It is possible for a defendant to be found 'Not Guilty' in the legal definition of the term, and still not 'innocent' in the moral sense of the term.
It is possible for a defendant to be found 'Not Guilty' in the legal definition of the term, and still not 'innocent' in the moral sense of the term.
I have seriously unpleasant and very protracted experience of the difference in the terms.
No details - but a teacher was accused of physically abusing children, and the evidence against her - which I was party to because I am connected to someone involved in the case - was overwhelming.
Nevertheless, the CPP declined to bring a prosecution, and the lady concerned told everyone long and loudly that she had been 'proven innocent' - a term which of course does not exist.
She was not found 'guilty' in court, but there is no way on God's earth that she was innocent, and she knows it.
No details - but a teacher was accused of physically abusing children, and the evidence against her - which I was party to because I am connected to someone involved in the case - was overwhelming.
Nevertheless, the CPP declined to bring a prosecution, and the lady concerned told everyone long and loudly that she had been 'proven innocent' - a term which of course does not exist.
She was not found 'guilty' in court, but there is no way on God's earth that she was innocent, and she knows it.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.