Dembacha Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Has anyone seen what the banner about Byrne says that the away fans have brought ? the f***ing state of them shirts man ffs bedsheets out and they can't even spell four.................comedy gold this Neither can you tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figures 1-0 Football Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 The irony of Sunderland giving away free shirts, whilst Johnson is in court because he felt up a kiddie after giving her a free shirt such great timing Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghandis Flip-Flop Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 If either of you can cite a case where a sexual assault conviction has been secured purely by the victim's testimony only, which has been contested by the defendant, let's hear it. Been waiting since last night. Racist incidents, ffs. Wake up, man. All of the BBC historical sex abuse cases enough for you? Not as if they've been low profile or anything. Seems your knowledge of the criminal justice system is as comprehensive as your knowledge of football. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaus Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Can't wait til it's time four dinner. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-421 Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 WOW... didn't realise the 'free shirts' thing was actually true, but it is... http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/feb/27/sunderland-free-shirts-west-ham-away An attempt to deflect any fan criticism of the club, with a free shirt? Unreal! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 If either of you can cite a case where a sexual assault conviction has been secured purely by the victim's testimony only, which has been contested by the defendant, let's hear it. Been waiting since last night. Racist incidents, ffs. Wake up, man. All of the BBC historical sex abuse cases enough for you? Not as if they've been low profile or anything. Seems your knowledge of the criminal justice system is as comprehensive as your knowledge of football. Or you're just quite thick (whoever you are) and don't understand the discussion. One person's word against another securing a conviction independent of witnesses and other evidence. No? Exactly. Pipe down. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figures 1-0 Football Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 If either of you can cite a case where a sexual assault conviction has been secured purely by the victim's testimony only, which has been contested by the defendant, let's hear it. Been waiting since last night. Racist incidents, ffs. Wake up, man. All of the BBC historical sex abuse cases enough for you? Not as if they've been low profile or anything. Seems your knowledge of the criminal justice system is as comprehensive as your knowledge of football. Or you're just quite thick (whoever you are) and don't understand the discussion. One person's word against another securing a conviction independent of witnesses and other evidence. No? Exactly. Pipe down. You are correct in saying one persons word against another will not secure a conviction, there will need to be other 'evidence' to support the claims of one more than the other. For example, in the Johnson case - if SAFC turned up and said he didn't turn up at the ground until 18:20, that would support the girl and possibly lead to a conviction It doesn't necessarily have to be DNA or fingerprint evidence, it could just be one person having the more believable version of events with other circumstances showing that they are more likely to be telling the truth than the other. I think people are misinterpreting what you are saying. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghandis Flip-Flop Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Or maybe his WhatsApp history would constitute evidence more reliable than memories from 30 years ago. Also I rather suspect that those in the courtroom have been privvy to further evidence not reproduced on Twitter. The idea that this case is purely one person's word against another's is absurd. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawK Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 If either of you can cite a case where a sexual assault conviction has been secured purely by the victim's testimony only, which has been contested by the defendant, let's hear it. Been waiting since last night. Racist incidents, ffs. Wake up, man. All of the BBC historical sex abuse cases enough for you? Not as if they've been low profile or anything. Seems your knowledge of the criminal justice system is as comprehensive as your knowledge of football. Or you're just quite thick (whoever you are) and don't understand the discussion. One person's word against another securing a conviction independent of witnesses and other evidence. No? Exactly. Pipe down. You are correct in saying one persons word against another will not secure a conviction, there will need to be other 'evidence' to support the claims of one more than the other. For example, in the Johnson case - if SAFC turned up and said he didn't turn up at the ground until 18:20, that would support the girl and possibly lead to a conviction It doesn't necessarily have to be DNA or fingerprint evidence, it could just be one person having the more believable version of events with other circumstances showing that they are more likely to be telling the truth than the other. I think people are misinterpreting what you are saying. So circumstantial evidence is admissible in court now? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figures 1-0 Football Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 If either of you can cite a case where a sexual assault conviction has been secured purely by the victim's testimony only, which has been contested by the defendant, let's hear it. Been waiting since last night. Racist incidents, ffs. Wake up, man. All of the BBC historical sex abuse cases enough for you? Not as if they've been low profile or anything. Seems your knowledge of the criminal justice system is as comprehensive as your knowledge of football. Or you're just quite thick (whoever you are) and don't understand the discussion. One person's word against another securing a conviction independent of witnesses and other evidence. No? Exactly. Pipe down. You are correct in saying one persons word against another will not secure a conviction, there will need to be other 'evidence' to support the claims of one more than the other. For example, in the Johnson case - if SAFC turned up and said he didn't turn up at the ground until 18:20, that would support the girl and possibly lead to a conviction It doesn't necessarily have to be DNA or fingerprint evidence, it could just be one person having the more believable version of events with other circumstances showing that they are more likely to be telling the truth than the other. I think people are misinterpreting what you are saying. So circumstantial evidence is admissible in court now? Where did I say that like? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deuce Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Loads of N-O legal experts all of a sudden. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawK Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 If either of you can cite a case where a sexual assault conviction has been secured purely by the victim's testimony only, which has been contested by the defendant, let's hear it. Been waiting since last night. Racist incidents, ffs. Wake up, man. All of the BBC historical sex abuse cases enough for you? Not as if they've been low profile or anything. Seems your knowledge of the criminal justice system is as comprehensive as your knowledge of football. Or you're just quite thick (whoever you are) and don't understand the discussion. One person's word against another securing a conviction independent of witnesses and other evidence. No? Exactly. Pipe down. You are correct in saying one persons word against another will not secure a conviction, there will need to be other 'evidence' to support the claims of one more than the other. For example, in the Johnson case - if SAFC turned up and said he didn't turn up at the ground until 18:20, that would support the girl and possibly lead to a conviction It doesn't necessarily have to be DNA or fingerprint evidence, it could just be one person having the more believable version of events with other circumstances showing that they are more likely to be telling the truth than the other. I think people are misinterpreting what you are saying. So circumstantial evidence is admissible in court now? Where did I say that like? There? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figures 1-0 Football Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 If either of you can cite a case where a sexual assault conviction has been secured purely by the victim's testimony only, which has been contested by the defendant, let's hear it. Been waiting since last night. Racist incidents, ffs. Wake up, man. All of the BBC historical sex abuse cases enough for you? Not as if they've been low profile or anything. Seems your knowledge of the criminal justice system is as comprehensive as your knowledge of football. Or you're just quite thick (whoever you are) and don't understand the discussion. One person's word against another securing a conviction independent of witnesses and other evidence. No? Exactly. Pipe down. You are correct in saying one persons word against another will not secure a conviction, there will need to be other 'evidence' to support the claims of one more than the other. For example, in the Johnson case - if SAFC turned up and said he didn't turn up at the ground until 18:20, that would support the girl and possibly lead to a conviction It doesn't necessarily have to be DNA or fingerprint evidence, it could just be one person having the more believable version of events with other circumstances showing that they are more likely to be telling the truth than the other. I think people are misinterpreting what you are saying. So circumstantial evidence is admissible in court now? Where did I say that like? There? Lets use the Johnson trial as an example... Johnson says he searched about the age of consent because of a conversation in the dressing room... Circumstances that may make his version of events more believable would be: - A team mate in court verifying his version of events - Johnson being able to recall the TV program they were discussing, what happened in the episode relating to the age of consent and what time and day it was on - Johnson being able to prove that the time/date he searched for that, was the exact time/date he would have been in the SAFC dressing room (pre-match for example) IF Johnson was able to do all of those three things (which he hasn't), the jury would be more inclined to believe his point. Nowhere did I say that circumstantial evidence is accepted on its own like, of course it can be accepted in relation to other evidence though. EDIT - if circumstantial evidence wasn't accepted, Johnson would not have even been charged for the other two offences that he has pleaded not guilty to. The circumstantial evidence is the WhatsApp messages, for example. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpolic Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 This cunt gone down for nonceing yet? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figures 1-0 Football Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Imagine him in prison he'll get so much grief Still think we're set for a not guilty verdict though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-more Mag Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 This cunt gone down for nonceing yet? I don't remember any testimony about cunnilingus. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sima Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Tbf Johnson is a decent free transfer option in an updated game of FM. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peppe Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Has anyone seen what the banner about Byrne says that the away fans have brought ? "Short/Byrne take 1 four the team" #teamnonce Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foluwashola Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Tbf Johnson is a decent free transfer option in an updated game of FM. Is being a nonce an orange or red injury? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figures 1-0 Football Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Tbf Johnson is a decent free transfer option in an updated game of FM. Is being a nonce an orange or red injury? He gets half-term off for compassionate leave. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 If either of you can cite a case where a sexual assault conviction has been secured purely by the victim's testimony only, which has been contested by the defendant, let's hear it. Been waiting since last night. Racist incidents, ffs. Wake up, man. This lass I know's brother was sent down for rape a couple of years ago and it was purely a case of his word against her's. I don't know the ins and outs of it but it was claimed that she had taken others to court for the same thing too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sima Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Tbf Johnson is a decent free transfer option in an updated game of FM. Is being a nonce an orange or red injury? Red, obviously. Did you learn nothing in biology? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figures 1-0 Football Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 :lol: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figures 1-0 Football Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Quick question that popped into my head... If Johnson told Sunderland the full truth when it came out, then why has Fletcher turned his back on Johnson after the guilty verdict and refused to come to court? Surely, Johnson/Sunderland would not have lied to all of the playing staff - if they have, imagine knowing your employer lied to you for 11 months and allowed a nonce to work alongside you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Not a chance they'd reveal details of his charge with any of the playing staff man. Dunno about Sam though? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts