Elliottman Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 Will be interesting to see what the defence comes up with. Would they try and make it out that she was just as willing as him and therefore the other two charges won't be true? 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'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattoon Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 Will be interesting to see what the defence comes up with. Would they try and make it out that she was just as willing as him and therefore the other two charges won't be true? 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'. Exactly, he's only admitted to meeting her and kissing her because there's solid proof in the text messages, anything else is pure conjecture you'd think? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 Will be interesting to see what the defence comes up with. Would they try and make it out that she was just as willing as him and therefore the other two charges won't be true? 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'. The defence will be more manipulative towards the girl. 'You admired him, and when you met up with him you were hoping for more than a kiss and the defendant didn't go further than that did he? Because he never went further you felt hurt by him and you wanted to hurt him like he hurt you by saying these things to get him into trouble, didn't you?' Stuff like that. It's pretty hard in cases like this where there is plenty of evidence to suggest it did happen, then defense will be aiming to get a degree of doubt into the minds of the jury at the expense of the girl. She has already said that she admired him, is a big fan, and never wanted to tell anyone about it, so they will just play on that hoping she turns her back on the claims. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbnufc Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 Will be interesting to see what the defence comes up with. Would they try and make it out that she was just as willing as him and therefore the other two charges won't be true? 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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattoon Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 Will be interesting to see what the defence comes up with. Would they try and make it out that she was just as willing as him and therefore the other two charges won't be true? 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'. The defence will be more manipulative towards the girl. 'You admired him, and when you met up with him you were hoping for more than a kiss and the defendant didn't go further than that did he? Because he never went further you felt hurt by him and you wanted to hurt him like he hurt you by saying these things to get him into trouble, didn't you?' Stuff like that. It's pretty hard in cases like this where there is plenty of evidence to suggest it did happen, then defense will be aiming to get a degree of doubt into the minds of the jury at the expense of the girl. She has already said that she admired him, is a big fan, and never wanted to tell anyone about it, so they will just play on that hoping she turns her back on the claims. You'd think that being a minor they won't be allowed to cross examine her directly, however they can bring her statement into question and put an element of doubt in the juries mind with those questions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbnufc Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fugazi Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 So she's a radgepacket Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stottie Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 I'm not a lawyer but doesn't the "age of consent" mean that someone under that age cannot give consent. They cannot be "willing", no matter how the defence tries to spin it. As Shay's Given Tim Flowers says its automatically treated as rape/sexual assault because anything that may resemble consent is invalid. The only defence is to claim nothing sexual happened. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 Creased at that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Geordie Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 So she's a radgepacket I shouldn't laugh, but! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stottie Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 Creased at that Imagine having to sit in a court and read that out with a straight face. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest palnese Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeyt Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 'Geet' :lol: Reminds me so much of the charvas back in school Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RodneyCisse Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 :lol: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 But if it was a different charge (rape) would that not have been set out from the beginning? 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? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsunami Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 But if it was a different charge (rape) would that not have been set out from the beginning? 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? She might be able to describe his penis, not geet straight, not geet pink, not geet tasty. Cue the court artist. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 But if it was a different charge (rape) would that not have been set out from the beginning? 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? She might be able to describe his penis, not geet straight, not geet pink, not geet tasty. Cue the court artist. FFS Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 She's just described the Lambton Worm, he'll get off on mistaken identity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbnufc Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 But if it was a different charge (rape) would that not have been set out from the beginning? 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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 But if it was a different charge (rape) would that not have been set out from the beginning? 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 This 28 year old has just pleaded guilty to grooming and sexual activity with a child though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 But if it was a different charge (rape) would that not have been set out from the beginning? 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 Surely why? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Geordie Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 I just wonder (making a massive assumption), if he's tried to bag himself this young lass who could be from a more working class background lets say, with a view to trying to groom her and keep her gob shut in the process? I guess we may get an idea at the end of the trial - if true though - proper predatory behaviour. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbnufc Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 But if it was a different charge (rape) would that not have been set out from the beginning? 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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lush Vlad Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 But if it was a different charge (rape) would that not have been set out from the beginning? 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 Yeah. I mean I suppose the messages point towards something more happening and makes Johnson come across as a real predator. Johnson has pleaded guilty to grooming, kissing and touching her body in a sexual way. But yeah. I suppose him saying he didn't finger bang her or make her suck him off, would be more believable than what the 15 year old is saying Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dembacha Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 Will be interesting to see what the defence comes up with. Would they try and make it out that she was just as willing as him and therefore the other two charges won't be true? 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'. The defence will be more manipulative towards the girl. 'You admired him, and when you met up with him you were hoping for more than a kiss and the defendant didn't go further than that did he? Because he never went further you felt hurt by him and you wanted to hurt him like he hurt you by saying these things to get him into trouble, didn't you?' Stuff like that. It's pretty hard in cases like this where there is plenty of evidence to suggest it did happen, then defense will be aiming to get a degree of doubt into the minds of the jury at the expense of the girl. She has already said that she admired him, is a big fan, and never wanted to tell anyone about it, so they will just play on that hoping she turns her back on the claims. You'd think that being a minor they won't be allowed to cross examine her directly, however they can bring her statement into question and put an element of doubt in the juries mind with those questions. It's going to be hard to put an element of doubt in the juries mind when they met in the back of a car behind a takeaway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts