|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Mar 1, 2016 17:24:33 GMT
If he gets off, is he likely to do time for the 2 offences that he pleaded guilty to. I saw one quote, summat about " digital penetration"...What the fuck did he put up her....Ahhh...I see...he fingered her...Allegedly... He fingered her? Maybe they should check his age as he maybe 15 also. I thought you went scuba diving after the age of 18. i thought most women appreciated a bit of both (if memory serves...but it's going back a long time!)
|
|
|
Post by haway on Mar 1, 2016 18:20:26 GMT
Anyone ever seen the film 12 angry men? Great film. Agreed
|
|
|
Post by norman conquest on Mar 1, 2016 18:34:19 GMT
One of the greats
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Mar 1, 2016 19:40:01 GMT
thing is that when there is no forensic evidence and it's just 1 person's word against the others it's never going to be clear cut or straight forward so there's bound to be a lot of hesitation. if the jury are anything like the one i was on although it does help to hear the other juror's viewpoints and see things from other perspectives, it's hard to compute those ideas and think them through properly when you're in the room and everyone's trying to get their ideas across....things can become clearer when you listen to those ideas and have some quiet thinking time to yourself that night without others shouting across a table. really, really don't envy them...i spent 10 days in a bloody canteen in Stafford waiting and hoping desperately to be picked for a really juicy case and by the end would have given anything to have not been picked at all. it's a horribly stressful experience for the jurors (as well as the defendant and the alleged victim) I completely agree with all that, Mick. I've been called twice and I really hope that's it, but of course, the system relies on people doing it, and doing it conscientiously. I was very impressed with 'my' jury. Did their level best and respected each other in what was a horrible case. They were almost like friends by the end and most of us went for a few beers when it was all over.
|
|
|
Post by Gifton on Mar 2, 2016 12:38:02 GMT
I think he'll get off on the two charges because of lack of concrete evidence but the following is taken from reports of the trial:
Giving evidence on the third day of his trial, the 28-year-old ex-England player contacted the girl after the encounter with the girl on January 30 2015, texted her "It was class."
prosecutor Kate Blackwell QC asked him: "What was class?"
He said: "The kissing."
She added: "Mr Johnson, you were a man of 27, you were referring to more sexual activity than a kiss, weren't you?"
He replied: "No."
The court was told that he was to go on to tell the girl "Just wanted to get your jeans off."
The prosecution allege that the message had been in response to Johnson performing a sex act and the girls' jeans being too tight.
A further text from him read "You felt very turned on."
Miss Blackwell asked: "What happened in that car for you to realise that (she) was very turned on, Mr Johnson?"
He replied: "You don't need to feel someone physically to know that they are turned on. I only kissed her. I accept I kissed her and I accept it was all my fault but I can't accept the other two allegations that I haven't done."
He so clearly did more based on the texts!
|
|
|
Post by foster on Mar 2, 2016 12:45:21 GMT
I think he'll get off on the two charges because of lack of concrete evidence but the following is taken from reports of the trial: Giving evidence on the third day of his trial, the 28-year-old ex-England player contacted the girl after the encounter with the girl on January 30 2015, texted her "It was class." prosecutor Kate Blackwell QC asked him: "What was class?" He said: "The kissing." She added: "Mr Johnson, you were a man of 27, you were referring to more sexual activity than a kiss, weren't you?" He replied: "No." The court was told that he was to go on to tell the girl "Just wanted to get your jeans off." The prosecution allege that the message had been in response to Johnson performing a sex act and the girls' jeans being too tight. A further text from him read "You felt very turned on." Miss Blackwell asked: "What happened in that car for you to realise that (she) was very turned on, Mr Johnson?" He replied: "You don't need to feel someone physically to know that they are turned on. I only kissed her. I accept I kissed her and I accept it was all my fault but I can't accept the other two allegations that I haven't done." He so clearly did more based on the texts! It's not conclusive to me. if that's the best they have to go on then I wouldn't convict him tbh. You need to be 100% certain.
|
|
|
Post by GeneralFaye on Mar 2, 2016 13:29:28 GMT
He definitely did it but you can't prove it, unfortunately. Anyway, his career is fucked and that's enough for me.
|
|
|
Post by Kilo on Mar 2, 2016 13:42:24 GMT
I think he'll get off on the two charges because of lack of concrete evidence but the following is taken from reports of the trial: Giving evidence on the third day of his trial, the 28-year-old ex-England player contacted the girl after the encounter with the girl on January 30 2015, texted her "It was class." prosecutor Kate Blackwell QC asked him: "What was class?" He said: "The kissing." She added: "Mr Johnson, you were a man of 27, you were referring to more sexual activity than a kiss, weren't you?" He replied: "No." The court was told that he was to go on to tell the girl "Just wanted to get your jeans off." The prosecution allege that the message had been in response to Johnson performing a sex act and the girls' jeans being too tight. A further text from him read "You felt very turned on." Miss Blackwell asked: "What happened in that car for you to realise that (she) was very turned on, Mr Johnson?" He replied: "You don't need to feel someone physically to know that they are turned on. I only kissed her. I accept I kissed her and I accept it was all my fault but I can't accept the other two allegations that I haven't done." He so clearly did more based on the texts! It's not conclusive to me. if that's the best they have to go on then I wouldn't convict him tbh. You need to be 100% certain. I thought it was "beyond reasonable doubt" rather than 100% certain?
|
|
|
Post by foster on Mar 2, 2016 14:06:12 GMT
It's not conclusive to me. if that's the best they have to go on then I wouldn't convict him tbh. You need to be 100% certain. I thought it was "beyond reasonable doubt" rather than 100% certain? Well I guess that depends from person to person. I wouldn't personally convict someone if I had doubts. I guess short of photographic or video evidence, the only way that could happen is if the girl in question can recount what happened in enough detail to convince the jury.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Mar 2, 2016 14:20:46 GMT
Personally, I think most of the evidence points to him being guilty.
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Mar 2, 2016 15:46:05 GMT
jury coming back into court.....
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Mar 2, 2016 15:48:37 GMT
not guilty on 1 count...
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Mar 2, 2016 15:51:11 GMT
yet to reach a verdict on the second 1
|
|
|
Post by dhes2113 on Mar 2, 2016 15:55:45 GMT
Not guilty on second charge of engaging in a sexual activity with a child. Jury still out on first charge that he touched a child intimately.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2016 15:57:35 GMT
Cheers for updates MM. What count is he not guilty on... Zero coverage ere.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Mar 2, 2016 16:00:39 GMT
Amazed he's been found not guilty tbh.
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Mar 2, 2016 16:04:39 GMT
Cheers for updates MM. What count is he not guilty on... Zero coverage ere. didn't see which was not guilty but appears dhes has answered our queries just above your post mate. think the charge he's not guilty of is act being performed on him judging by his post
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Mar 2, 2016 16:05:02 GMT
Amazed he's been found not guilty tbh. It's what happens when a case is built on circumstancial evidence and ends up being 1 persons saying against another. Most jurors probably think he did it, but if you asked them if they'd bet their house on it, a few would waiver. Luckily for Johnson he didn't fully incriminate himself in his messages.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Mar 2, 2016 16:06:06 GMT
Sunderland could have some serious egg on their face if he's found not guilty on all charges! He's already admitted to some.
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Mar 2, 2016 16:06:39 GMT
Sunderland could have some serious egg on their face if he's found not guilty on all charges! Why ? He's already pleaded guilty to 2 charges. Them on their own are enough to be sacked and sent to prison.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Mar 2, 2016 16:06:54 GMT
Amazed he's been found not guilty tbh. It's what happens when a case is built on circumstancial evidence and ends up being 1 persons saying against another. Most jurors probably think he did it, but if you asked them if they'd bet their house on it, a few would waiver. Luckily for Johnson he didn't fully incriminate himself in his messages. I'm aware that the entire case is built on circumstantial evidence, but those messages are so seedy and completely demonstrate intent. He's basically getting off because they can't prove he fingered her/she sucked him off, as despicable as that sounds.
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Mar 2, 2016 16:12:23 GMT
It's what happens when a case is built on circumstancial evidence and ends up being 1 persons saying against another. Most jurors probably think he did it, but if you asked them if they'd bet their house on it, a few would waiver. Luckily for Johnson he didn't fully incriminate himself in his messages. I'm aware that the entire case is built on circumstantial evidence, but those messages are so seedy and completely demonstrate intent. He's basically getting off because they can't prove he fingered her/she sucked him off, as despicable as that sounds. That's exactly it. But that's our justice system. Without hard proof you need to build one hell of a case to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Mar 2, 2016 16:19:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Mar 2, 2016 16:23:40 GMT
It's what happens when a case is built on circumstancial evidence and ends up being 1 persons saying against another. Most jurors probably think he did it, but if you asked them if they'd bet their house on it, a few would waiver. Luckily for Johnson he didn't fully incriminate himself in his messages. I'm aware that the entire case is built on circumstantial evidence, but those messages are so seedy and completely demonstrate intent. He's basically getting off because they can't prove he fingered her/she sucked him off, as despicable as that sounds. to be honest, from what has been reported (and there is stuff that hasn't been remember as they weren't legally allowed to) i didn't really see anything that would convince me she'd carried anything out on him (there was her evidence of his pubic hair but nothing else from what i've seen). the texts more seem to infer he may have done something to her however (jeans being too tight, felt how turned on she was etc.) and that's what they're still deliberating
|
|
|
Post by Kilo on Mar 2, 2016 16:24:29 GMT
Did he use the "depends on the meaning of the word 'it'" defence of Bill or OJ's "I can't fit my hand in it so it didn't happen"
|
|
|
Post by Robo10 on Mar 2, 2016 16:25:12 GMT
Guilty on the second charge
Will go down. No doubt
Breaking on Sky now (and SSN)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2016 16:25:58 GMT
According to BBC the Judge will accept a majority verdict on the 2nd charge...
|
|
|
Post by Robo10 on Mar 2, 2016 16:28:25 GMT
Already been announced dude - guilty - BBC is miles behind!
Cue on SSN lots of former coaches asking for 'leniancy' and 'understanding'
Only thing I understand is that he is a pervert and should be nowhere near sport or kids ever again.
What a dickhead
|
|
|
Post by dhes2113 on Mar 2, 2016 16:29:38 GMT
guilty on first charge of intimately touching
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Mar 2, 2016 16:30:14 GMT
And SSN showing "eulogies" ovbiously pre filmed on basis of guilt
Sentencing in 2-3 weeks prison a probable inevitable
|
|