loki679 Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Is it just me who thinks they're missing something obvious? Is this highly paid, highly regarded barrister going to come out with something genius? Or have they just realised they're shafted? 'You wanted to nonce her, Mr Johnson?' 'Yes' 'And you did nonce her didn't you, Mr Johnson?' 'I did, yes.' 'Um.....' 'Can I go now?' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heake Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Is it just me who thinks they're missing something obvious? Is this highly paid, highly regarded barrister going to come out with something genius? Or have they just realised they're shafted? Aye...He hasn't actually made a "defence" yet. The jury must be chomping at the bit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beren Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Is it just me who thinks they're missing something obvious? Is this highly paid, highly regarded barrister going to come out with something genius? Or have they just realised they're shafted? Johnson looks bad, but from what I've read they're no closer to proving digits/blowie beyond all reasonable doubt. In the absence of any forensic evidence, witnesses, footage - it's her word vs his on those key issues. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
1964 Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Can the jury sue him for wasting their time? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbnufc Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Is it just me who thinks they're missing something obvious? Is this highly paid, highly regarded barrister going to come out with something genius? Or have they just realised they're shafted? Johnson looks bad, but from what I've read they're no closer to proving digits/blowie beyond all reasonable doubt. In the absence of any forensic evidence, witnesses, footage - it's her word vs his on those key issues. There's no way they can though, it'll always be word v word. That's been evident since the start Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figures 1-0 Football Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Is it just me who thinks they're missing something obvious? Is this highly paid, highly regarded barrister going to come out with something genius? Or have they just realised they're shafted? Johnson looks bad, but from what I've read they're no closer to proving digits/blowie beyond all reasonable doubt. In the absence of any forensic evidence, witnesses, footage - it's her word vs his on those key issues. Aye, but if the jury think that Johnson is a liar "beyond all reasonable doubt" then he will be convicted based on that. From what I have read he looks as slimey and slippery as they come, so will expect the jury to see that also. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordie_b Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Is it just me who thinks they're missing something obvious? Is this highly paid, highly regarded barrister going to come out with something genius? Or have they just realised they're shafted? Johnson looks bad, but from what I've read they're no closer to proving digits/blowie beyond all reasonable doubt. In the absence of any forensic evidence, witnesses, footage - it's her word vs his on those key issues. In the opening statements they said that they cant judge him based on one word against the other. Given they don't have any other evidence I don't understand why its continuing (Other than showing him up to be a massive nonce) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beren Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Is it just me who thinks they're missing something obvious? Is this highly paid, highly regarded barrister going to come out with something genius? Or have they just realised they're shafted? Johnson looks bad, but from what I've read they're no closer to proving digits/blowie beyond all reasonable doubt. In the absence of any forensic evidence, witnesses, footage - it's her word vs his on those key issues. There's no way they can though, it'll always be word v word. That's been evident since the start Therefore I imagine the prosecution's only card is to try and impugn the credibility of his word by getting him to lie about intentions which his actions are clearly contrary to - but he isn't biting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
1964 Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 It will be on the balance of probability which based on the trial so far is a distinct imbalance Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordie_b Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Ms Blackwell QC, prosecuting, warns the jurors to only judge based on the evidence. She tells the court: “This is not a case of one person’s word against another”. And thats the prosecutor saying that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-more Mag Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Man, I would not have wanted to put him on the stand. Ultimately his own call though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cookie1892 Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 he is fucked totally fucked, basically admitting he wanted to do all of these things despite knowing her age Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shays Given Tim Flowers Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 He kinda has to give evidence though. It's quite easy to criticise the Defence in this one but to do so ignores the fact that there is a huge pile of evidence that limits their hand considerably. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbnufc Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 he is fucked totally fucked, basically admitting he wanted to do all of these things despite knowing her age Didnt admit to doing it though which is the important bit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-more Mag Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 He kinda has to give evidence though. It's quite easy to criticise the Defence in this one but to do so ignores the fact that there is a huge pile of evidence that limits their hand considerably. Yeah, I guess otherwise there's nothing to counter her testimony, and you can't really just rely on the prosecution not having proven its case. But man, the feeling leading up to him getting on the stand could not have been a great one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figures 1-0 Football Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 The jury has been shown a photograph of the cast which Johnson said he had on his left hand when the alleged sexual encounter took place. Johnson told police the cast covered all of his hand “up to his finger tips.” After seeing the photograph which was downloaded from his iPhone following his arrest the player admitted in court that he had “got confused” and told the police the wrong thing. The photo showed that the bandage only covered his thumb and not his fingers. “I just got it wrong,” Johnson said. “I couldn’t remember how far up the hand the cast went. I was getting confused with other bandages.” Ms Blackwell QC told the court that Johnson’s life was not affected by his injury and he was even able to play golf. Johnson denied the prosecution’s allegation that he had wrongly tried to give police the impression his hand was immobilised. In his defence given less than 24 hours ago, he tried to claim the cast would have prevented him digitally penetrating the girl... Now he has back tracked entirely and admitted the cast only covered his thumb. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Is it just me who thinks they're missing something obvious? Is this highly paid, highly regarded barrister going to come out with something genius? Or have they just realised they're shafted? Johnson looks bad, but from what I've read they're no closer to proving digits/blowie beyond all reasonable doubt. In the absence of any forensic evidence, witnesses, footage - it's her word vs his on those key issues. In the opening statements they said that they cant judge him based on one word against the other. Given they don't have any other evidence I don't understand why its continuing (Other than showing him up to be a massive nonce) The criminal justice system is built on the premise of one person's word against another. If the prosecution didn't bother with offences where that is the primary evidence, hardly anybody would ever be convicted of rape or sexual assault. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stal Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 It will be on the balance of probability which based on the trial so far is a distinct imbalance That's more for civil cases. In criminal trials it's beyond all reasonable doubt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shays Given Tim Flowers Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 He kinda has to give evidence though. It's quite easy to criticise the Defence in this one but to do so ignores the fact that there is a huge pile of evidence that limits their hand considerably. Yeah, I guess otherwise there's nothing to counter her testimony, and you can't really just rely on the prosecution not having proven its case. But man, the feeling leading up to him getting on the stand could not have been a great one. The I agree with 99% of the Prosecution case but trust me, that 1% just straight up didn't happen defence. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbnufc Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Jerry Lawton @JerryLawton 2m2 minutes ago #johnson is shown pic of his exposed manhood - Q "no hair on it?" A "it has been trimmed" - girl alleges it was shaved Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stal Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Just wondering, since RTG have banned mention of it, do you think their posters are reading this instead? Has there been an influx of new members requests that are suspiciously mackemesque? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RodneyCisse Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 25 "guests" in this topic so yeah. Get a wash you mackems. Dirty mackems. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Just wondering, since RTG have banned mention of it, do you think their posters are reading this instead? Has there been an influx of new members requests that are suspiciously mackemesque? It's only banned on there until after the trial I think we all know how Mackematics works... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 'Private parts' could only have been creepier if he'd said 'her foof' cannot fucking stand that word. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loki679 Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Visitors from RTG reading about Stiflers penchant for malodorous strippers and thinking 'Aye, sounds canny that'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts