Hanshithispantz Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Tight cunt, making the victim buy her own sweets. The VICTIM buys the sweets? Oh this really leaves a sour taste. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbnufc Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 How can the jury be sure "beyond all doubt" (or whatever the quote is) to give a guilty verdict? I mean, I'm not and I dont see how I would be even if I was in the courtroom throughout the trial. There's literally no evidence. Surely he'll be found not guilty? This is what I've been asking for days. Suppose the jury must just decide who to side with in all these paedophile cases where the only witness is the victim... I honestly don't know. Yeah, while I reckon he probably did have a feel, even with that I wouldnt be sure 100% Can he get time for the other two things he pleaded guilty for? Reckon after all this we might see him with community service and a fine(?) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhoywhonder Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 http://www.sunderland.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=11475 "Bridge Over the River Nonce" Actually, looking at the shape of it, yep. The 'Digital Pentration Bridge' (of Light obviously) Tight c***, making the victim buy her own sweets. The VICTIM buys the sweets? Oh this really leaves a sour taste. "Faster, more Haribo!" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/en.futurama/images/c/cf/Hyper-Chicken.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20090822141314 "Son, as your lawyer, I declare y'all are in a 12-piece bucket o' trouble." Perfect chance for me to say one of my favourites, 'I'm going to allow this' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-more Mag Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 How can the jury be sure "beyond all doubt" (or whatever the quote is) to give a guilty verdict? I mean, I'm not and I dont see how I would be even if I was in the courtroom throughout the trial. There's literally no evidence. Surely he'll be found not guilty? This is what I've been asking for days. Suppose the jury must just decide who to side with in all these paedophile cases where the only witness is the victim... I honestly don't know. The jury, as finder of fact, is tasked with the role of determining the credibility of testimony and what weight to give it and all of the other evidence presented. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shintonsghost Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 sorry lads i havent followed all of this. can someone sum up what the club are in the shit for? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaylorJ_01 Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 sorry lads i havent followed all of this. can someone sum up what the club are in the s*** for? Poor squad and motivation issues. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 How can the jury be sure "beyond all doubt" (or whatever the quote is) to give a guilty verdict? I mean, I'm not and I dont see how I would be even if I was in the courtroom throughout the trial. There's literally no evidence. Surely he'll be found not guilty? This is what I've been asking for days. Suppose the jury must just decide who to side with in all these paedophile cases where the only witness is the victim... I honestly don't know. The jury, as finder of fact, is tasked with the role of determining the credibility of testimony and what weight to give it and all of the other evidence presented. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pixelphish Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Tight c***, making the victim buy her own sweets. The VICTIM buys the sweets? Oh this really leaves a sour taste. Only if she'd bought Sherbet Lemons. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mouldy_uk Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 How come the club don't seem to be getting any grief about this in the media, or am I missing something? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 How come the club don't seem to be getting any grief about this in the media, or am I missing something? See what happens if it's proven that they knew about it and still played him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Geordie Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 How come the club don't seem to be getting any grief about this in the media, or am I missing something? That may yet be to come, at the end of the trial. Questions definitely need to be asked. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED209 Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Is it possible he might join the list of players to move to china when all this is finished? The age of consent there is 14 according to google so his antics may be viewed as more acceptable there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Is it possible he might join the list of players to move to china when all this is finished? The age of consent there is 14 according to google so his antics may be viewed as more acceptable there. Imagine that man. A few years time he goes there, massive contract...he'd be in his element. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeyt Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Do they have Chinese takeaways in China? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattoon Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Is it possible he might join the list of players to move to china when all this is finished? The age of consent there is 14 according to google so his antics may be viewed as more acceptable there. You got access to Johnson's search history? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaus Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Wouldn't be the same if it was legal though. Wouldnt feel as dirty. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED209 Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Is it possible he might join the list of players to move to china when all this is finished? The age of consent there is 14 according to google so his antics may be viewed as more acceptable there. Imagine that man. A few years time he goes there, massive contract...he'd be in his element. Wouldn't have thought he would need to wait a few years, would offer him a way out form the dogs abuse he will almost certainly get everywhere he goes after this case his finished. Unless china has very strict visa requirements i don't think there would be anything to stop him. Oh unless he is residing at her majesty's pleasure of course. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Geordie Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Fellas - has there been a tweet today that said that SAFC had seen the Whats App messages between him and the girl? Am sure I've read one, but am having trouble finding it. Someone asking for 'proof'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogmatix Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 If Sunderland had sacked him before the trial started, they would have prejudiced his case. i.e., ''his club sacked him therefore he is guilty''. He would then have been in a position to claim that he could not get an unbiased jury. As the case would have been seen to have been pre-judged, and MAY have been able to walk away from it all Everyone is entitled to a fair trial, and you are supposed to be innocent until proved otherwise. That applies to everyone, even if you are scum and lower than a snakes belly. Sunderland would have had legal advice on how to conduct themselves. As soon as he pleaded guilty to two counts, Sunderland could then sack him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 It's not about sacking though. It's about unsuspending him and playing him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phillipealbert Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 How can the jury be sure "beyond all doubt" (or whatever the quote is) to give a guilty verdict? I mean, I'm not and I dont see how I would be even if I was in the courtroom throughout the trial. There's literally no evidence. Surely he'll be found not guilty? He's admitted to lots of illegal stuff. And witness testimony counts as evidence. There will also be statements, phone records etc. By the sound of it, he will definitely go down on some counts, and have a good chance of going down on other, more serious counts Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 He admitted to the club that he was guilty of some of the crimes but later and at numorous times he pleaded not guilty to those crimes. Surely the club should have informed the police about his confessions? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Geordie Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 It's not about sacking though. It's about unsuspending him and playing him. This. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phillipealbert Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 If Sunderland had sacked him before the trial started, they would have prejudiced his case. i.e., ''his club sacked him therefore he is guilty''. He would then have been in a position to claim that he could not get an unbiased jury. As the case would have been seen to have been pre-judged, and MAY have been able to walk away from it all Everyone is entitled to a fair trial, and you are supposed to be innocent until proved otherwise. That applies to everyone, even if you are scum and lower than a snakes belly. Sunderland would have had legal advice on how to conduct themselves. As soon as he pleaded guilty to two counts, Sunderland could then sack him. You can rightly sack someone, provided you have genuine belief (in this case, an admission) that they have committed a serious offence and it impacts the company (serious damage to reputation). Any two-bit lawyer knows this, and the club would have been informed of this fact. The fact that the let him play, let alone sack him, shows that they would rather play a known child sex offender than risk relegation. This is absolutely wrong, and the club should be heavily fined. When other fans (rightly) lay into the mackems with paedo chants, they will not have a leg to stand on. By continuing to support the club, the are supporting an organisation that has knowingly harboured a paedophile. They really are a disgusting club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts