Adam Johnson pleads GUILTY

16-02-2016 07:47AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But that's precisely why the penalty if convicted following a contest is (significantly) greater than that following a plea.

Sexual assault cases can be particularly ugly, but the fundamental principle of justice in a democracy is the presumption of innocence and the right to challenge the case that is being made.

As for it not looking good, it is pretty much impossible to gauge how a case is going when the defence hasn't even started.

I'd say people are saying it's not looking are going by the texts he exchanged with her

16-02-2016 08:11AM

RoboKlopp wrote: »

I'd say people are saying it's not looking are going by the texts he exchanged with her

They certainly point to grooming and kissing...and he has pleaded guilty to both.

Can't say Ive followed it too closely...is there a text from him which confirms there was sexual contact beyond kissing?

Lovely Bloke · 16-02-2016 08:50AM

Deleted User wrote: »

They certainly point to grooming and kissing...and he has pleaded guilty to both.

Can't say Ive followed it too closely...is there a text from him which confirms there was sexual contact beyond kissing?

no, which is why he's plead not guilty to the further charges, you'd imagine.

But the girl has given evidence that he had his hand in her knickers, and was moving her hand toward his penis, more than once, then that she carried out a "sex act" on him, which she felt compelled to do.

I wonder will Johnson himself take the stand to give his version of events, or will the defence just look to discredit the girl's version of events - which can get particularly nasty, especially when a top defence is questioning a teenager. But that's how justice works.

POKERKING · 16-02-2016 10:15AM

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

no, which is why he's plead not guilty to the further charges, you'd imagine.

But the girl has given evidence that he had his hand in her knickers, and was moving her hand toward his penis, more than once, then that she carried out a "sex act" on him, which she felt compelled to do.

I wonder will Johnson himself take the stand to give his version of events, or will the defence just look to discredit the girl's version of events - which can get particularly nasty, especially when a top defence is questioning a teenager. But that's how justice works.

Will it not be a case of his word against hers and he cant be convicted on that basis?

StringerBell · 16-02-2016 10:47AM

On the more serious charges I am sure his defence team will be able to create enough doubt in the jurys mind to give him a good shot at acquittal due to lack of evidence. That is why he plead guilty to what he doesn't have a chance of fighting anyway. The legal system is certainly not perfect and can be exploited in cases like these quite easily by any good lawyer so I just hope they give him a proper sentence on the charges he wasn't able to even attempt to weasel out of.

Lovely Bloke · 16-02-2016 11:05AM

POKERKING wrote: »

Will it not be a case of his word against hers and he cant be convicted on that basis?

Depends who the jury believes, and if they believe the evidence presented is enough to convict.

Lovely Bloke · 16-02-2016 11:08AM

StringerBell wrote: »

On the more serious charges I am sure his defence team will be able to create enough doubt in the jurys mind to give him a good shot at acquittal due to lack of evidence. That is why he plead guilty to what he doesn't have a chance of fighting anyway. The legal system is certainly not perfect and can be exploited in cases like these quite easily by any good lawyer so I just hope they give him a proper sentence on the charges he wasn't able to even attempt to weasel out of.

It's not "exploiting" - either the prosecution proves the charge, or the defendant is found Not Guilty.

"Not Guilty" is not the same thing as "Innocent", which is a mistake often made. Being found "Not Guilty" just means the jury thinks the prosecution has not shown, beyond reasonable doubt, that their case is proved.

Good Justice Systems need good defence lawyers, otherwise we don't get true justice. It's always better to have a hundred guilty men go free than have one innocent man locked up.

StringerBell · 16-02-2016 11:19AM

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

It's not "exploiting" - either the prosecution proves the charge, or the defendant is found Not Guilty.

"Not Guilty" is not the same thing as "Innocent", which is a mistake often made. Being found "Not Guilty" just means the jury thinks the prosecution has not shown, beyond reasonable doubt, that their case is proved.

Good Justice Systems need good defence lawyers, otherwise we don't get true justice. It's always better to have a hundred guilty men go free than have one innocent man locked up.

So there is never an occasion where a defence team exploits a situation?

Thanks for the explanation of not guilty and innocent, I thought I had it covered by acquittal due to lack of evidence but........

I am not arguing against having good lawyers, in fact I am not arguing against anything. The law is there to be worked, good lawyers work the system better then others. A poor man will go to jail for a crime a rich man can walk away from due to having a better legal team.

The system is obviously not perfect, but it is what it is.

The more serious of these charges you would have to assume is going to be very hard for the prosecution to prove unless they have some hard, physical evidence. The defence are obviously content there is not going to be any texts that can hurt them, and since it was only the two of them together it is a her word v his word scenario, which is the defence best shot at acquittal.

He didn't contest the charges he had no hope of winning, not a leg to stand on legally. His team are obviously more confident in defending the other charges as they are much harder to prove.

Lovely Bloke · 16-02-2016 11:41AM

StringerBell wrote: »

So there is never an occasion where a defence team exploits a situation?

You call it "exploiting" I call it doing their job.

user2011 · 16-02-2016 11:42AM

StringerBell wrote: »

So there is never an occasion where a defence team exploits a situation?

Thanks for the explanation of not guilty and innocent, I thought I had it covered by acquittal due to lack of evidence but........

I am not arguing against having good lawyers, in fact I am not arguing against anything. The law is there to be worked, good lawyers work the system better then others. A poor man will go to jail for a crime a rich man can walk away from due to having a better legal team.

The system is obviously not perfect, but it is what it is.

The more serious of these charges you would have to assume is going to be very hard for the prosecution to prove unless they have some hard, physical evidence. The defence are obviously content there is not going to be any texts that can hurt them, and since it was only the two of them together it is a her word v his word scenario, which is the defence best shot at acquittal.

He didn't contest the charges he had no hope of winning, not a leg to stand on legally. His team are obviously more confident in defending the other charges as they are much harder to prove.

If ever a case highlighted this read up on Robert Durst/Morris Black.

Moneymaker · 16-02-2016 11:48AM

Poor girl is giving evidence today. Going to be subjected to some pretty brutal treatment by the defence, I imagine.

armaghlad · 17-02-2016 07:36AM

This case keeps getting worse as it goes on. I had initially kept an open mind to a certain extent; I hate "questioning" the victim's version of events in these sort of things but you kind of have to. I think AJ will get a custodial sentence and deservedly so. The tweets describing the evidence in court were hard to read at times.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 17-02-2016 07:52AM

Has it been stated how long the trial is expected to last?

kevthegaff · 17-02-2016 09:02AM

She tried to contact Conor Wickham after the arrest, suspicious

fergiesfolly · 17-02-2016 09:07AM

kevthegaff wrote: »

She tried to contact Conor Wickham after the arrest, suspicious

Are you suggesting that she's grooming them???

irishgeo · 17-02-2016 09:08AM

kevthegaff wrote: »

She tried to contact Conor Wickham after the arrest, suspicious

You got a source for that

kevthegaff · 17-02-2016 09:16AM

irishgeo wrote: »

You got a source for that

http://www.sportsmole.co.uk/off-the-pitch/sunderland/news/wickham-contacted-police-over-johnson-girl_266572.html

armaghlad · 17-02-2016 09:16AM

kevthegaff wrote: »

She tried to contact Conor Wickham after the arrest, suspicious

Mirror reporting that Connor Wickham handed screenshots from social media involving her over to police

SteM · 17-02-2016 12:04PM

kevthegaff wrote: »

She tried to contact Conor Wickham after the arrest, suspicious

Hang on, there's nothing in the article you linked to saying she contacted Wickham. She was a Sunderland fan and probably followed most of the team on social media. 'Liking' a tweet by Wickham isn't trying to contact him and tweeting that her friend fancied Wickham isn't trying to contact him either. Unless Wickham was following her she couldn't DM him.

jaykay74 · 17-02-2016 03:16PM

kevthegaff wrote: »

She tried to contact Conor Wickham after the arrest, suspicious

SteM wrote: »

Hang on, there's nothing in the article you linked to saying she contacted Wickham. She was a Sunderland fan and probably followed most of the team on social media. 'Liking' a tweet by Wickham isn't trying to contact him and tweeting that her friend fancied Wickham isn't trying to contact him either. Unless Wickham was following her she couldn't DM him.

Bad form from kevthegaff...

kevthegaff · 17-02-2016 03:44PM

SteM wrote: »

Hang on, there's nothing in the article you linked to saying she contacted Wickham. She was a Sunderland fan and probably followed most of the team on social media. 'Liking' a tweet by Wickham isn't trying to contact him and tweeting that her friend fancied Wickham isn't trying to contact him either. Unless Wickham was following her she couldn't DM him.

Sorry

kevthegaff · 17-02-2016 03:49PM

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/manchester-city-superfan-tells-desperation-7382604 on a lighter note

NIMAN · 17-02-2016 03:51PM

kevthegaff wrote: »

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/manchester-city-superfan-tells-desperation-7382604 on a lighter note

What sort of grown-up gets a footballers autograph tattoo'd on their skin?

This guy would be slightly slow I'm thinking?

SteM · 17-02-2016 04:21PM

He says he's embarrassed about it now but no one would know who's signature it is if he didn't tell them. He should have been embarrassed back then as a grown man getting a tattoo of footballers scrawl on his leg imo.

NIMAN · 18-02-2016 12:50PM

SteM wrote: »

He says he's embarrassed about it now but no one would know who's signature it is if he didn't tell them. He should have been embarrassed back then as a grown man getting a tattoo of footballers scrawl on his leg imo.

So he went to a national newspaper to tell the country?
What a knob.

Like those people who are embarrassed to visit their GP with an itch in a private area, yet go on Channel 4 and show the country their bits.:rolleyes:

Moneymaker · 18-02-2016 03:05PM

Last couple of days has been his lawyers questioning some of the girls friends.

Some creepy stuff. Looks like they're trying to discredit the girl and find some holes in her story.

Dickerty · 18-02-2016 03:30PM

Moneymaker wrote: »

Last couple of days has been his lawyers questioning some of the girls friends.

Some creepy stuff. Looks like they're trying to discredit the girl and find some holes in her story.

Isn't that what any defense lawyer would do, though?

ctrl-alt-delete · 18-02-2016 05:19PM

Dickerty wrote: »

Isn't that what any defense lawyer would do, though?

Can't understand why he went for a defense lawyer when he is an attacking midfielder.

Moneymaker · 18-02-2016 05:34PM

Dickerty wrote: »

Isn't that what any defense lawyer would do, though?

Of course. Those guys are absolute sharks. They'll find some spin where he gets off or gets a vastly reduced sentence.

Augme · 18-02-2016 05:38PM

Moneymaker wrote: »

Of course. Those guys are absolute sharks. They'll find some spin where he gets off or gets a vastly reduced sentence.

Or else they'll find the truth where he gets off or gets a vastly reduced sentence.

Adam Johnson pleads GUILTY

Comments