Jack Diamond

Norman_Conquest

Norman_Conquest

Well-known member
I see Jack Diamond was found not guilty of rape today at Newcastle Crown Court. I haven't heard all of what went on but what I did hear on the local news made me question if the young lady involved was telling the truth.

It sounds like Diamond's gone through hell over the last few months and the stigma will stay with him forever. The young lady hasn't been named.

Do clubs need to do more work around young player's private lives to keep them safe?

www.bbc.co.uk

Jack Diamond: Sunderland footballer cleared of rape

Jack Diamond denied raping and sexually assaulting a woman he had a sex-based relationship with.
www.bbc.co.uk
 
There must be more compelling evidence we aren't seeing. As what is written in the article would not lead to a criminal case, let alone charges
 
Boro4life said:
Yeah trouble is his name has now been dragged through the mud and he'll be forever associated with this. Will severely impact his playing career and life
Click to expand...
It’s a difficult one isn’t it? I firmly believe names should be kept out of the media in these cases but for someone like a footballer, there are safeguarding issues and implications for the club if they’re seen to have been playing suspected sex offenders.
 
Trugdish said:
I have zero clue whether you meant to reply to me as it made no sense
Click to expand...
Yes, it was meant for you.

You stated that there must have been more compelling evidence that we aren't seeing against Diamond for it to go to trial, and I stated if there was more compelling evidence wouldn't he have been found guilty?

Or do you know more about this case than we do?
 
Norman_Conquest said:
Yes, it was meant for you.

You stated that there must have been more compelling evidence that we aren't seeing against Diamond for it to go to trial, and I stated if there was more compelling evidence wouldn't he have been found guilty?

Or do you know more about this case than we do?
Click to expand...

What you're saying doesn't make any sense. Compelling isn't guilt. In criminal trials they have both a prosecution and defense, guilt is found beyond any reasonable doubt
 
Trugdish said:
What you're saying doesn't make any sense. Compelling isn't guilt. In criminal trials they have both a prosecution and defense, guilt is found beyond any reasonable doubt
Click to expand...
I hope this helps you understand what compelling means.

From Collins Dictionary

A compelling argument or reason is one that convinces you that something is true or that something should be done.

From Cambridge Dictionary

Compelling - facts, information, documents, etc. that give reason to believe that something is true.
 
Norman_Conquest said:
I hope this helps you understand what compelling means.

From Collins Dictionary

A compelling argument or reason is one that convinces you that something is true or that something should be done.

From Cambridge Dictionary

Compelling - facts, information, documents, etc. that give reason to believe that something is true.
Click to expand...

It seems like you don't know what a court case is. Arguments are tested and judged beyond reasonable doubt
 
Rape cases, in terms of the required thresholds leading to trial, are almost unique.

There is huge pressure on the police and (particularly) the CPS to raise conviction rates and since most rape cases centre around the issue of consent, they are very difficult to interpret.

Consent can be inferred of course, but ultimately it will rely on the state of mind of the victim and when alcohol is a factor this only becomes more complex. Currently we have a system that lets down victims and innocent suspects alike.

I say all this in a general sense of course, I have no idea of the details in this particular case.
 
Trugdish said:
It seems like you don't know what a court case is. Arguments are tested and judged beyond reasonable doubt
Click to expand...
No sh1t Sherlock. Read the quotes again and then you decide whose legal team had 'compelling evidence'. If it was the female in the case as you stated above, Diamond would have been found guilty, if it was Diamond's legal team, he would have been found not guilty.
 
Norman_Conquest said:
No sh1t Sherlock. Read the quotes again and then you decide whose legal team had 'compelling evidence'. If it was the female in the case as you stated above, Diamond would have been found guilty, if it was Diamond's legal team, he would have been found not guilty.
Click to expand...

You clearly fundamentally don't understand what happens in a criminal case. Do you think cases are going to court with one blatantly false story?
 
Trugdish said:
You clearly fundamentally don't understand what happens in a criminal case. Do you think cases are going to court with one blatantly false story?
Click to expand...
It is you who doesn't understand how people are found guilty or not guilty and what is taken into consideration.

The party bringing the case has the burden of proving their case. The level of proof required depends on the type of case and the legal standard.

These factors collectively contribute to the determination of guilt or innocence in criminal cases or liability and damages in civil cases. The specific considerations may vary depending on the jurisdiction and the nature of the case.
 
Norman_Conquest said:
It is you who doesn't understand how people are found guilty or not guilty and what is taken into consideration.
Click to expand...

At this point you're just arguing with your lack of reading comprehension. I posted originally to say that the prosecution must have been more compelling than that presented in the article. You read that as that the prosecution must have been more compelling than the defense. Which was never said
 
Trugdish said:
At this point you're just arguing with your lack of reading comprehension. I posted originally to say that the prosecution must have been more compelling than that presented in the article. You read that as that the prosecution must have been more compelling than the defense. Which was never said
Click to expand...
I think you are changing your stance now, it is obvious that there is no smoke without fire but as I added to my post above the party bringing the case has the burden of proving their case. The level of proof required depends on the type of case and the legal standard.
 
Norman_Conquest said:
I think you are changing your stance now, it is obvious that there is no smoke without fire but as I added to my post above the party bringing the case has the burden of proving their case. The level of proof required depends on the type of case and the legal standard.
Click to expand...

Read my original post, I was making my point that it wouldn't have gone to court with such a flimsy prosecution as presented in the article. In no way does that say he's guilty
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top