sbnufc

Aye they cannot charge him for rape now, but it reads like he's deffinitely sexually assaulted her. I'm assuming it's just harder to prove so they never pushed for it. Where's the N-O lawyer squadron at? Sexual activity with a child are the two outstanding charges. There is an element of coercion but the evidence suggests she was reluctantly consenting rather than refusing. If you think of sexual activity with a child as statutory rape then it makes more sense. I guess the defence will be that the only proof (unless it changes) is her word versus his? Having no experience of courts... how the hell do you judge that then? From who's more believable? Cause surely a 28 year old is more believable than a onlyjust15yearold There is a real benefit in sitting in Court and listening to the evidence first hand. Often you can clearly see who is credible. Children are often more credible witnesses because there is a perception they are less likely to lie in the given context. Ah fair enough, that makes sense

Aye they cannot charge him for rape now, but it reads like he's deffinitely sexually assaulted her. I'm assuming it's just harder to prove so they never pushed for it. Where's the N-O lawyer squadron at? Sexual activity with a child are the two outstanding charges. There is an element of coercion but the evidence suggests she was reluctantly consenting rather than refusing. If you think of sexual activity with a child as statutory rape then it makes more sense. I guess the defence will be that the only proof (unless it changes) is her word versus his? Having no experience of courts... how the hell do you judge that then? From who's more believable? Cause surely a 28 year old is more believable than a onlyjust15yearold

I very much doubt they'd use that defense like. It would be total speculation, but possibly the proof in those texts only shows that 'something' happened and he's claimed that it's a kiss. I assume the defence will be 'he didn't do, there's no evidence to prove he did'. When is there ever solid evidence/proof in cases like this that were reported a while after the incident happened though, and it's just person x's word vs person y? People still get sent down regardless

But if it was a different charge (rape) would that not have been set out from the beginning?

fucking hell, sick

Never mind what I said then But seriously.. isnt this almost crossing into forcing her?

So it seems he didnt do anything in the end apart from kissing, although there was intent and she stopped it. That's enough though, yeah?

http://i.imgur.com/kcwgZXB.png

http://www.sunderlandecho.com/live/event?1834584 This guy will be tweeting too:

His missus isnt with him apparently (like she has been all other times). Maybe she saw sense after what was revealed the other day

Trial resumes today, 10:30am

Sherwood says we'll be safe. No reason to worry then He knows what he's talking about

pace was absolutely embarrassing against Costa (who isnt even fast himself)

Classic cheating Barca

Suarez was in the box, should it not have been retaken?

Could Ramsey see action for his playacting? Bad challenge or not, that rolling around and then jumping up to kick off is a joke. That's irrelevant. Rolling around doesnt potentially break someone else's leg

Could Drinkwater see retrospective action for that tackle that should have been red?

Surely tomorrow would be the day he goes if he does?