Wullie 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. Wow. So naive. It happens every day, in every court. Witness/victim testimony is what the justice system is built on. How do you think historical sex offences ever get prosecuted? In your world, almost nobody other than strangers with a knife in the park would ever get convicted of rape, the conviction rate would be in single digits. Most rape allegations hinge on consent in my experience - standard practice is two pissed people go home together, sex occurs, and they disagree about the circumstances in which it took place. Physical evidence in that situation is worthless. Not just sex cases, most minor offences in the magistrates run purely on witness statements as well - most domestic violence is one person's word against another, most racially aggravated offences are the same: "he hit me and called me a paki" "no I didn't, I just hit him." Stuff like drunk and disorderly is your word against a police officer and your chances of your word being deemed more credible than his are slim to none. There is no evidence in a case like that - the two sides give their version of what happened and the bench decide which is more credible. "Doubt it exists" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie 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? Indeed. Not just changed his mind when he was kissing her ("I knew it was wrong") but then upon leaving her, immediately changed it back and decided he wants to get in the back next time. The jury will have to buy a fairly preposterous story to go NG on the digital penetration charge imo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
newsted 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. Wow. So naive. It happens every day, in every court. Witness/victim testimony is what the justice system is built on. How do you think historical sex offences ever get prosecuted? In your world, almost nobody other than strangers with a knife in the park would ever get convicted of rape, the conviction rate would be in single digits. Most rape allegations hinge on consent in my experience - standard practice is two pissed people go home together, sex occurs, and they disagree about the circumstances in which it took place. Physical evidence in that situation is worthless. Not just sex cases, most minor offences in the magistrates run purely on witness statements as well - most domestic violence is one person's word against another, most racially aggravated offences are the same: "he hit me and called me a paki" "no I didn't, I just hit him." Stuff like drunk and disorderly is your word against a police officer and your chances of your word being deemed more credible than his are slim to none. There is no evidence in a case like that - the two sides give their version of what happened and the bench decide which is more credible. "Doubt it exists" I was going to say that, but much less coherently. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaus Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Not just sex cases, most minor offences in the magistrates run purely on witness statements as well - most domestic violence is one person's word against another, most racially aggravated offences are the same: "he hit me and called me a paki" "no I didn't, I just hit him." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ujpest doza Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 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 Wouldn't be so sure. It seems like the reporting on certain aspects of the incidents that Johnson pleaded to not guilty on were rather scant, as if more was said in the courtroom than was released in the media. I think the media reports are selective and some poeple who've been in court in the public gallery have pulled the likes of Josh Halliday up on it. They are also legal arguments etc that they weren't allowed to report. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ujpest doza 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? Timing. He said he had to be at the coach at the stade de plop by 6 pm or get fined so couldn't have stayed with her as long as she alleged but there is zero cctv evidence to show him driving to the coach either late or on time and he didn't get a fine either. the club literature the prosecution had says he had to be there by 6.30 though, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Mackem Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Doubt it, football fans will be singing about it for ages man Surely not FFS the Smoggies still get grief over a child abuse scandal which happened almost 30 years ago Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
midds Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Even got a brief rendition of the Johnson song at the darts in Aberdeen on Thursday night. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Doubt it, football fans will be singing about it for ages man Surely not FFS the Smoggies still get grief over a child abuse scandal which happened almost 30 years ago Aye, which is bonkers when you consider that the scandal was about children not having been abused. Higgs actually lived in Newcastle, I lived a couple of doors away from her at the time. Odd family, kids were virtually feral. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crumpy Gunt 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 Not only is he a predatory paedo he's a predatory paedo with a famous face. That in itself will make whatever is coming his way a life changing event for him. He'll not be able to walk down a street, go to a pub, restaurant without serious risk of getting into serious bother. I doubt the public will ever warm to a convicted paedo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpolic Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 "warm to" Can see a Justin Bieber-esque shift in public perception at some stage myself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ndegwa 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. Wow. So naive. It happens every day, in every court. Witness/victim testimony is what the justice system is built on. How do you think historical sex offences ever get prosecuted? In your world, almost nobody other than strangers with a knife in the park would ever get convicted of rape, the conviction rate would be in single digits. Most rape allegations hinge on consent in my experience - standard practice is two p*ssed people go home together, sex occurs, and they disagree about the circumstances in which it took place. Physical evidence in that situation is worthless. Not just sex cases, most minor offences in the magistrates run purely on witness statements as well - most domestic violence is one person's word against another, most racially aggravated offences are the same: "he hit me and called me a paki" "no I didn't, I just hit him." Stuff like drunk and disorderly is your word against a police officer and your chances of your word being deemed more credible than his are slim to none. There is no evidence in a case like that - the two sides give their version of what happened and the bench decide which is more credible. "Doubt it exists" I was going to say that, but much less coherently. Wullie Ronaldo's post displays a spectacular level of stupidity, wow. Imagine, racist incidents for example couldn't be prosecuted without a time-stamped audio recording of the event 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shays Given Tim Flowers Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 I've seen it first hand. Is that good enough? They generally don't reach the appellate Courts because there is no ground of appeal for the Jury believing one witness over another. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bimpy474 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. Dave Lee Travis ? Phil Taylor ? Mike Tyson (America i know) ? I'm sure there's more i can't remember. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Tyson's case involved DNA if memory serves. With the Hairy Cornflake there was a plethora of allegations/witness testimony. Taylor was two words against one, too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon 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. CPS guidance on evidence requirements for rape prosecutions: "The police will always look for corroboration or supporting evidence (such as medical or scientific evidence, CCTV evidence, or eyewitnesses to events prior to or after the incident) but it is not essential and a prosecution can still go ahead without it." Anyway, how would such a case be relevant to this? There is solid evidence of events before and after that strongly support her version of what happened and lots of stuff that casts doubt on his truthfulness, it's not purely her word against his. Of course it could go one way or the other, but I think you and a few others seem to be misinterpreting the level of evidence needed to be 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Nobody said it was merely her word. If you'd followed the discussion you'd see where the issue arose. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbnufc 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. CPS guidance on evidence requirements for rape prosecutions: "The police will always look for corroboration or supporting evidence (such as medical or scientific evidence, CCTV evidence, or eyewitnesses to events prior to or after the incident) but it is not essential and a prosecution can still go ahead without it." Anyway, how would such a case be relevant to this? There is solid evidence of events before and after that strongly support her version of what happened and lots of stuff that casts doubt on his truthfulness, it's not purely her word against his. Of course it could go one way or the other, but I think you and a few others seem to be misinterpreting the level of evidence needed to be 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Hers too Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paully Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Free away tops for all away fans there today presumably as a gesture for supporting the nonce like the club did! Beasts! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foluwashola Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Hope it's that minging gold one Clive Mendonca fucked them up in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sho Time Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Has anyone seen what the banner about Byrne says that the away fans have brought ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbnufc Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Has anyone seen what the banner about Byrne says that the away fans have brought ? "she shags who she wants" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankpingel Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Time for the truth written on banner. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sima Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Time for the truth written on banner. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts