Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Has anyone seen what the banner about Byrne says that the away fans have brought ?

 

CcOMkIWWwAA5_0X.jpg:large

 

 

the fucking 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

Has anyone seen what the banner about Byrne says that the away fans have brought ?

 

CcOMkIWWwAA5_0X.jpg:large

 

 

the fucking state of them shirts man ffs

 

bedsheets out and they can't even spell four.................comedy gold this

 

Neither can you tbh.

 

:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest neesy111

No clean sheets since the 7th of December.  Say what you like about Big Sam, but he gets his team's defence well organised.

 

Worst defence in the league now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone seen what the banner about Byrne says that the away fans have brought ?

 

CcOMkIWWwAA5_0X.jpg:large

 

 

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.

 

:lol:

 

:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.[emoji38]

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

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.[emoji38]

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

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.[emoji38]

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

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.[emoji38]

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? :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.[emoji38]

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? :lol:

 

Where did I say that like?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.[emoji38]

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? :lol:

 

Where did I say that like?

 

There? :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.[emoji38]

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? :lol:

 

Where did I say that like?

 

There? :lol:

 

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...