Shays Given Tim Flowers Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 Of course, but there has to be more evidentiary support than one person's word to justify a conviction anyway. So essentially, in any sex case unless there are what third party witnesses/evidence the person can never be convicted? That cannot be right. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alijmitchell Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 Bollocks basically. Absolute proof is nigh on impossible in cases like these. It should be reasonable doubt both ways Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shays Given Tim Flowers Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 Reasonable doubt both ways? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbnufc Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 Of course, but there has to be more evidentiary support than one person's word to justify a conviction anyway. So essentially, in any sex case unless there are what third party witnesses/evidence the person can never be convicted? That cannot be right. But then is it not down to basically who can lie better in court anyway? Only Johnson and the girl will ever know what truly happened in the car that evening. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 I can easily see the jury deciding there's enough doubt to acquit him. I haven't followed that closely but I haven't seen anything that proves he sexed her up. because there isnt anything There's the girl's evidence that he did. Texts before: 'Depends what you’re up for - a little bit more than kissing. A bit of feeling.' and after: 'it wasn't so bad', 'you felt turned on'. His admission in giving evidence he intended to have sexual contact with her. The only evidence against is his story that he had some sort of epiphany while his tongue was down her throat. You don't need to have all the pieces to see the picture on the jigsaw puzzle. There's no proof though. To be sure "beyond reasonable doubt" you really need some proof. Him saying he wanted more than kissing doesnt mean it happened. I've said it before, I do think he is guilty of a feel of her but I wouldnt be 100%. How high up a percentage would it need to be to qualify as beyond reasonable doubt? It's about 90%. 'Proof' doesn't need to be DNA samples and fingerprints, it can be a combination of factors which back up someone's side of the story. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 Of course, but there has to be more evidentiary support than one person's word to justify a conviction anyway. So essentially, in any sex case unless there are what third party witnesses/evidence the person can never be convicted? That cannot be right. No evidence with the exception of the alleged victim's word resulting in a conviction if contested by the defendant(s)? I'd be genuinely interested to read one case in the UK where it has, but I doubt it exists. Sex cases will generally always have a fair degree of supporting evidence anyway, thankfully. One quick scratch will get DNA under the fingernails etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shays Given Tim Flowers Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 No evidence with the exception of the alleged victim's word resulting in a conviction if contested by the defendant(s)? I'd be genuinely interested to read one case in the UK where it has, but I doubt it exists. Sex cases will generally always have a fair degree of supporting evidence anyway, thankfully. One quick scratch will get DNA under the fingernails etc. I'm not trying to be a dick here it's genuinely interesting to talk about. So we're talking generally about sex cases, typically people (including rapists) will run consent. So how can DNA take the case any further in such a scenario? Court of appeal says medical evidence is corroborative but not diagnostic of rape so what sort of supporting evidence are you envisaging? Like I say genuinely curious. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alijmitchell Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 Mental that people even use the word proof, since there is no such thing Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GideonShandy Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 Mental that people even use the word proof, since there is no such thing Really? Even if it says so in Savvywoman.com? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 No evidence with the exception of the alleged victim's word resulting in a conviction if contested by the defendant(s)? I'd be genuinely interested to read one case in the UK where it has, but I doubt it exists. Sex cases will generally always have a fair degree of supporting evidence anyway, thankfully. One quick scratch will get DNA under the fingernails etc. I'm not trying to be a dick here it's genuinely interesting to talk about. So we're talking generally about sex cases, typically people (including rapists) will run consent. So how can DNA take the case any further in such a scenario? Court of appeal says medical evidence is corroborative but not diagnostic of rape so what sort of supporting evidence are you envisaging? Like I say genuinely curious. Unfortunately, within a relationship the consent defence can succeed, it's a major flaw in the system but I don't see a way around it. But if a woman fights back, sustains injuries etc, as does the accused there's obviously effective support for the allegation. Admmissable use of previous bad character pertaining to sexual assaults etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Of course, but there has to be more evidentiary support than one person's word to justify a conviction anyway. So essentially, in any sex case unless there are what third party witnesses/evidence the person can never be convicted? That cannot be right. No evidence with the exception of the alleged victim's word resulting in a conviction if contested by the defendant(s)? I'd be genuinely interested to read one case in the UK where it has, but I doubt it exists. Ched Evans? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shays Given Tim Flowers Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Probably not a god example but it does exist. The attrition rate in rape cases is around 6/10 i.e. 6 cases in 10 result in not guilty verdicts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shays Given Tim Flowers Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 No evidence with the exception of the alleged victim's word resulting in a conviction if contested by the defendant(s)? I'd be genuinely interested to read one case in the UK where it has, but I doubt it exists. Sex cases will generally always have a fair degree of supporting evidence anyway, thankfully. One quick scratch will get DNA under the fingernails etc. I'm not trying to be a dick here it's genuinely interesting to talk about. So we're talking generally about sex cases, typically people (including rapists) will run consent. So how can DNA take the case any further in such a scenario? Court of appeal says medical evidence is corroborative but not diagnostic of rape so what sort of supporting evidence are you envisaging? Like I say genuinely curious. Unfortunately, within a relationship the consent defence can succeed, it's a major flaw in the system but I don't see a way around it. But if a woman fights back, sustains injuries etc, as does the accused there's obviously effective support for the allegation. Admmissable use of previous bad character pertaining to sexual assaults etc. Worryingly it succeeds outside of relationships. It's a really tricky one. The law is already disproportionately stacked in favour of complainants. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hithere Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 I think he's guilty of it. Just my opinion. He's cast enough 'reasonable doubt' on the charges he's not pleading guilty to. Not guilty on both counts. Sign the register. Suspended sentence. Is what will happen. We'll squirm a bit. Make Byrne a scapegoat. It'll be forgotten about within the month. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaus Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Probably not a god example but it does exist. The attrition rate in rape cases is around 6/10 i.e. 6 cases in 10 result in not guilty verdicts. I am not saying you are wrong. But where did you get this number? It is a shockingly high statistic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbnufc Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 I think he's guilty of it. Just my opinion. He's cast enough 'reasonable doubt' on the charges he's not pleading guilty to. Not guilty on both counts. Sign the register. Suspended sentence. Is what will happen. We'll squirm a bit. Make Byrne a scapegoat. It'll be forgotten about within the month. Doubt it, football fans will be singing about it for ages man Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shays Given Tim Flowers Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 'Statistics show that while the conviction ratio for child sex offences has fallen from 67% to 60% in the last two years those found guilty of all criminal offences in England and Wales has remained steady at 83%.' Telegraph in 2015. 'Conviction rates for sexual offences plummeted faster than for any other type of crime last year, official figures have revealed. Victim support groups said the fall of 6 per cent to just 55 per cent was “startling” and warned it could have a major impact on the willingness of victims to come forward.' Telegraph in 2014 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shays Given Tim Flowers Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 it's been a while since I look at offence specific attrition rates but the MOJ publishes them from time to time. You're more likely to get away with a sex offence than most offences but then that's because 90% are just one persons word against another. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Is there some part of his defense I missed? From what I can tell his defense consists of 'I wanted to but changed my mind when I was kissing her, honest' backed up by 'I've always been an honor-less slime-ball but I'm actually being really honest now' and his girlfriend's supporting evidence that 'he's been really honest and open and told me everything... apart from all the stuff I've just found out about'. Where's all this doubt he's supposedly cast? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ketsbaia Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 'Beyond reasonable doubt' is weird here. Because there's no video evidence, Johnson can just admit partial guilt and talk his way out of trouble. So easy to cast doubt. How does anyone ever get convicted of this?!?! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbnufc Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Is there some part of his defense I missed? From what I can tell his defense consists of 'I wanted to but changed my mind when I was kissing her, honest' backed up by 'I've always been an honor-less slime-ball but I'm actually being really honest now' and his girlfriend's supporting evidence that 'he's been really honest and open and told me everything... apart from all the stuff I've just found out about'. Where's all this doubt he's supposedly cast? He doesnt have to prove innocence, the girl/prosecution has to prove guilt. ..and they havent imo (well, not enough to convince however many are on the jury). That said, I think actually witnessing it all in court might give a different view. How Johnson was, how the girl was etc. I'm sure you can read a lot more into that than the text on a screen we've been getting Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shays Given Tim Flowers Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 'Beyond reasonable doubt' is weird here. Because there's no video evidence, Johnson can just admit partial guilt and talk his way out of trouble. So easy to cast doubt. How does anyone ever get convicted of this?!?! I've always had a lingering suspicion that in high profile celebrity cases that Jury's apply a far stricter burden. Johnson's defence is about as weak as it gets, be interested to see what happens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 I'll be very pleasantly surprised if he's found guilty of the 2 offences. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbnufc Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 The "digital penetration" one does seem a lot more likely than the BJ one. I'm struggling to believe that one to be honest, but the first one, sure Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 "You felt turned on" says a lot for 4 words, like. I'd lose all faith in our justice system if he's acquitted. I've seen Making a Murderer so if he's found not guilty it'll just be a shrug. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts