simonsays Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 what are the two charges that he has claimed he is not gulity of? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 There's absolutely no way that they'll use words amounting to 'she agreed to it' when it's an underage sex case man. Howeh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliottman Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 what are the two charges that he has claimed he is not gulity of? Penetration is one if them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattoon Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 Maybe we should change the thread title to "Adam Johnson - fucked lol" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomson Mouse Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 There's absolutely no way that they'll use words amounting to 'she agreed to it' when it's an underage sex case man. Howeh. I meant that she turned up willing, Johnson says its just a kiss and she was fine with it and the other things didn't happen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
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...
Shays Given Tim Flowers 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. 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...
Shays Given Tim Flowers Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 They can cross examine her and they will. 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...
Shays Given Tim Flowers Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 Yeah pretty much. 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...
Recommended Posts