| Adam Johnson on 20:28 - Feb 17 with 2585 views | morningstar |
Took a while tonight, but we're off! |  |
|  |
| Adam Johnson on 20:31 - Feb 17 with 2578 views | exiledclaseboy |
You appear to be confused so this bears repeating.
Johnson had sexual relations with an under age girl. He knew that girl was under age and yet he still arranged to meet up with her for the purposes of sexual relations despite knowing this. These facts are not in dispute. Johnson's admitted them and he's not on trial for that. He WILL be convicted and sentenced on those two points.
The only thing to be decided at the trial is how far these sexual relations went. That is the only thing Johnson is disputing.
Despite your shameful view on this, and your insistence that the victim is somehow on trial, the girl is not on trial here. She's the victim of a crime that's already been established and admitted. [Post edited 17 Feb 2016 20:37]
|  |
| |
| Adam Johnson on 20:33 - Feb 17 with 2562 views | shandyjack |
So a 15 yr old child got excited and embellished the truth with her friends. It doesn't excuse anything Johnson did when manipulating the Child to Meet up with him and taking advantage of a situation he had full control over,what with being the adult |  |
| |
| Adam Johnson on 20:35 - Feb 17 with 2546 views | SwansNZ |
| Adam Johnson on 20:15 - Feb 17 by Highjack |
Allegations now that he offered her cash to meet up. Not looking good for mr Johnson but I'm sure there'll be people on her saying it's still all her fault. |
Money now? Is a 15 year old child allowed to work in the prostitution trade? |  |
| |
| Adam Johnson on 20:42 - Feb 17 with 2520 views | Dewi1jack |
An excerpt from what you claim "makes the girl look bad"
"The girl's friend told police she did not believe her at first, 'because he's a footballer, he's famous and she's only 15'.
But she said she changed her mind after a seeing a message that Johnson had sent to her friend which said: 'Just wanted to get your pants off'."
You're trying your hardest to blame a 15 year old, while trying to excuse the actions of a Paedophile.
Johnson has admitted grooming. Has admitted he knew her age and he used his position to take advantage, yet you think it's all her fault.
Worrying.
Very worrying |  |
| If you wake up breathing, thats a good start to your day and you'll make many thousands of people envious. |
| |
| Adam Johnson on 21:02 - Feb 17 with 2470 views | MrSwerve |
Crikey, some mental posts in here and some very obvious trolls. |  |
| |
| Adam Johnson on 21:03 - Feb 17 with 2470 views | exhmrc1 |
the evidence in the daily mail says she had told her friend of items Johnson had allegedly bought her which subsequently proved he had not done so and the girls grandmother had actually bought them. The barrister then asked the girl is your friend prone to exaggeration and the girl replied yes. it also states that she had a chance meeting with Johnson's girlfriend at a football game. it also states that after Johnson had pulled out of a third meeting she was seen as taking selfies outside his house. None of us know what the real truth is. Only Johnson and the girl. The girl is the key witness for the prosecution and it is very difficult to get a guilty version in a case of this type due to having to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. If there is any doubt about the girl's story then there will be reasonable doubt. The girl's evidence over the last few days isn't going to help the prosecution. She has not told the police the truth, asked her friend to lie, given a false version about him buying clothes for her and if the DM is to be believed turned up outside his house to take a selfie when he didn't show up for the third time and has allegedly contacted Conor Wickham. Unfortunately like everyone else I do not know the truth in this case. The judge and jury are the people hearing this case. The judge will outline the legal position and the jury will decide whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. They are the only people who can come to a proper decision. |  | | |
| Adam Johnson on 21:06 - Feb 17 with 2460 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Adam Johnson on 21:03 - Feb 17 by exhmrc1 |
the evidence in the daily mail says she had told her friend of items Johnson had allegedly bought her which subsequently proved he had not done so and the girls grandmother had actually bought them. The barrister then asked the girl is your friend prone to exaggeration and the girl replied yes. it also states that she had a chance meeting with Johnson's girlfriend at a football game. it also states that after Johnson had pulled out of a third meeting she was seen as taking selfies outside his house. None of us know what the real truth is. Only Johnson and the girl. The girl is the key witness for the prosecution and it is very difficult to get a guilty version in a case of this type due to having to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. If there is any doubt about the girl's story then there will be reasonable doubt. The girl's evidence over the last few days isn't going to help the prosecution. She has not told the police the truth, asked her friend to lie, given a false version about him buying clothes for her and if the DM is to be believed turned up outside his house to take a selfie when he didn't show up for the third time and has allegedly contacted Conor Wickham. Unfortunately like everyone else I do not know the truth in this case. The judge and jury are the people hearing this case. The judge will outline the legal position and the jury will decide whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. They are the only people who can come to a proper decision. |
Johnson had sexual relations with a 15 year old girl knowing she was 15.
He's admitted that. You get that right? | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Adam Johnson on 21:07 - Feb 17 with 2448 views | Darran |
| Adam Johnson on 20:28 - Feb 17 by morningstar |
Took a while tonight, but we're off! |
Won't be long Skippy will be home from the playground it closes at 9. |  |
| |
| Adam Johnson on 21:08 - Feb 17 with 2451 views | shandyjack |
| Adam Johnson on 21:03 - Feb 17 by exhmrc1 |
the evidence in the daily mail says she had told her friend of items Johnson had allegedly bought her which subsequently proved he had not done so and the girls grandmother had actually bought them. The barrister then asked the girl is your friend prone to exaggeration and the girl replied yes. it also states that she had a chance meeting with Johnson's girlfriend at a football game. it also states that after Johnson had pulled out of a third meeting she was seen as taking selfies outside his house. None of us know what the real truth is. Only Johnson and the girl. The girl is the key witness for the prosecution and it is very difficult to get a guilty version in a case of this type due to having to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. If there is any doubt about the girl's story then there will be reasonable doubt. The girl's evidence over the last few days isn't going to help the prosecution. She has not told the police the truth, asked her friend to lie, given a false version about him buying clothes for her and if the DM is to be believed turned up outside his house to take a selfie when he didn't show up for the third time and has allegedly contacted Conor Wickham. Unfortunately like everyone else I do not know the truth in this case. The judge and jury are the people hearing this case. The judge will outline the legal position and the jury will decide whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. They are the only people who can come to a proper decision. |
He's pleaded guilty to 2 counts, just the other 2 for the prosecution to prove. Do she lied a bit like 15 year old children do to impress their friends, doesn't excuse the manipulation by Johnson to engage in illegal activities with a child | |
| |
| Adam Johnson on 21:10 - Feb 17 with 2443 views | morningstar |
| Adam Johnson on 21:07 - Feb 17 by Darran |
Won't be long Skippy will be home from the playground it closes at 9. |
He's logged in!  | |
| |
| Adam Johnson on 21:13 - Feb 17 with 2438 views | Bloodyhills |
Just to be clear. Adam Johnson has pleaded guilty to one count of sexual activity with a child and one of grooming. | |
| |
| Adam Johnson on 21:13 - Feb 17 with 2435 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Adam Johnson on 21:03 - Feb 17 by exhmrc1 |
the evidence in the daily mail says she had told her friend of items Johnson had allegedly bought her which subsequently proved he had not done so and the girls grandmother had actually bought them. The barrister then asked the girl is your friend prone to exaggeration and the girl replied yes. it also states that she had a chance meeting with Johnson's girlfriend at a football game. it also states that after Johnson had pulled out of a third meeting she was seen as taking selfies outside his house. None of us know what the real truth is. Only Johnson and the girl. The girl is the key witness for the prosecution and it is very difficult to get a guilty version in a case of this type due to having to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. If there is any doubt about the girl's story then there will be reasonable doubt. The girl's evidence over the last few days isn't going to help the prosecution. She has not told the police the truth, asked her friend to lie, given a false version about him buying clothes for her and if the DM is to be believed turned up outside his house to take a selfie when he didn't show up for the third time and has allegedly contacted Conor Wickham. Unfortunately like everyone else I do not know the truth in this case. The judge and jury are the people hearing this case. The judge will outline the legal position and the jury will decide whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. They are the only people who can come to a proper decision. |
You appear to misunderstand what this case is actually about.
There are only 3 questions -
(1) did Jonhson have sexual contact with a girl who was underage (admitted that he did - guilty plea so he will be sentenced for this)
(2) did he know her to be underage when such sexual contact took place (admitted that he did - guilty plea thus removing any defence from the other charges)
(3) what was the extent of the sexual contact. That is to be determined by the case.
There is an additional specific offence of grooming which he has also pleaded guilty to.
She could have stood in front of him with no clothes on and begged him for sex and it wouldn't matter as long as the answer to questions 1 and 2 were 'yes'.
I am confused as to what exactly you think the trial is about. | | | |
| Adam Johnson on 21:38 - Feb 17 with 2364 views | exhmrc1 |
point 3 is going to depend on whether the jury believe the prosecution. The key prosecution witness is the girl. The defence do not need to prove it didn't happen. they merely have to prove there is reasonable doubt in this case. If it can be shown that there is doubt over this girl's statement the jury will find Johnson not guilty. the only other issue that might get Johnson found guilty is if there is concrete dna/ forensic evidence.
if someone has lied to the police, asked their friends to lie for them, told lies about the defendant purchasing clothes for them and is known by their friend to exaggerate things it doesn't exactly look good in court and if that person is the main plank of the prosecution evidence then there are going to be real problems. as with all things the press misrepresent things or don't fully report matters and the only people who can make that decision are the 12 members of the jury. | | | |
| Adam Johnson on 21:42 - Feb 17 with 2345 views | morningstar |
| Adam Johnson on 21:13 - Feb 17 by londonlisa2001 |
You appear to misunderstand what this case is actually about.
There are only 3 questions -
(1) did Jonhson have sexual contact with a girl who was underage (admitted that he did - guilty plea so he will be sentenced for this)
(2) did he know her to be underage when such sexual contact took place (admitted that he did - guilty plea thus removing any defence from the other charges)
(3) what was the extent of the sexual contact. That is to be determined by the case.
There is an additional specific offence of grooming which he has also pleaded guilty to.
She could have stood in front of him with no clothes on and begged him for sex and it wouldn't matter as long as the answer to questions 1 and 2 were 'yes'.
I am confused as to what exactly you think the trial is about. |
None of this matters though as.
1. She took a selfie outside his house.
2. She told her friends that he'd bought her clothes when he hadn't.
But hey, best I don't say anymore on it otherwise Perchie might brand me a hypocrite as I was a bit of a lad at the football back in the 80's!  | |
| |
| Adam Johnson on 21:45 - Feb 17 with 2336 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Adam Johnson on 21:38 - Feb 17 by exhmrc1 |
point 3 is going to depend on whether the jury believe the prosecution. The key prosecution witness is the girl. The defence do not need to prove it didn't happen. they merely have to prove there is reasonable doubt in this case. If it can be shown that there is doubt over this girl's statement the jury will find Johnson not guilty. the only other issue that might get Johnson found guilty is if there is concrete dna/ forensic evidence.
if someone has lied to the police, asked their friends to lie for them, told lies about the defendant purchasing clothes for them and is known by their friend to exaggerate things it doesn't exactly look good in court and if that person is the main plank of the prosecution evidence then there are going to be real problems. as with all things the press misrepresent things or don't fully report matters and the only people who can make that decision are the 12 members of the jury. |
The jury will decide and that will determine the extent of the sentence. He will still be guilty of the two offences already determined and he will be sentenced for those irrespective of what happens in the rest of the case. | | | |
| Adam Johnson on 21:45 - Feb 17 with 2334 views | raynor94 |
| Adam Johnson on 21:38 - Feb 17 by exhmrc1 |
point 3 is going to depend on whether the jury believe the prosecution. The key prosecution witness is the girl. The defence do not need to prove it didn't happen. they merely have to prove there is reasonable doubt in this case. If it can be shown that there is doubt over this girl's statement the jury will find Johnson not guilty. the only other issue that might get Johnson found guilty is if there is concrete dna/ forensic evidence.
if someone has lied to the police, asked their friends to lie for them, told lies about the defendant purchasing clothes for them and is known by their friend to exaggerate things it doesn't exactly look good in court and if that person is the main plank of the prosecution evidence then there are going to be real problems. as with all things the press misrepresent things or don't fully report matters and the only people who can make that decision are the 12 members of the jury. |
Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse? irrespective of the outcome of these two charges, he has pleaded guilty to sexual activity with a child also grooming, what needs to be determined is the extent of the sexual activity |  |
| |
| Adam Johnson on 22:03 - Feb 17 with 2287 views | sully49 |
From what we know so far I would hazard a guess that he's pleaded guilty to sexual contact, which probably means he kissed her and the grooming part is preparing the way to "get her pants off" at the next meeting.
He is now on the more serious charge of actual sexual contact.
From all of what has happened today we get a real insight into how young these girls really are.
This is only an assumption on my part. |  |
| |
| Adam Johnson on 22:04 - Feb 17 with 2277 views | Highjack |
So you are trying to prove your point that the girl is at fault and that the papers are lying by posting a link to a newspaper website which looks bad on the girl?
Barking. |  |
| |
| Adam Johnson on 22:07 - Feb 17 with 2269 views | shandyjack |
| Adam Johnson on 22:03 - Feb 17 by sully49 |
From what we know so far I would hazard a guess that he's pleaded guilty to sexual contact, which probably means he kissed her and the grooming part is preparing the way to "get her pants off" at the next meeting.
He is now on the more serious charge of actual sexual contact.
From all of what has happened today we get a real insight into how young these girls really are.
This is only an assumption on my part. |
I'd be surprised if the guilty plea he has entered for sexual contact when only as far as kissing tbh | |
| |
| Adam Johnson on 22:15 - Feb 17 with 2259 views | sully49 |
| Adam Johnson on 22:04 - Feb 17 by Highjack |
So you are trying to prove your point that the girl is at fault and that the papers are lying by posting a link to a newspaper website which looks bad on the girl?
Barking. |
Her only fault is being a silly little girl and be being used by a man who used her infatuation with him to abuse her. The will be loads more to come from trial yet.
For pleading guilty to some charges he deserves the full force of the law to be applied. [Post edited 18 Feb 2016 1:10]
| |
| |
| Adam Johnson on 22:16 - Feb 17 with 2256 views | morningstar |
| Adam Johnson on 22:07 - Feb 17 by shandyjack |
I'd be surprised if the guilty plea he has entered for sexual contact when only as far as kissing tbh |
As far as i'm aware, kissing is not considered to be sexual contact. So if i'm right, it obviously went further than that. | |
| |
| Adam Johnson on 22:21 - Feb 17 with 2248 views | sully49 |
| Adam Johnson on 22:07 - Feb 17 by shandyjack |
I'd be surprised if the guilty plea he has entered for sexual contact when only as far as kissing tbh |
Yes I see your point, I assumed the age difference was a factor. | |
| |
| Adam Johnson on 00:01 - Feb 18 with 2145 views | Banosswan |
Unless Ched Evans is called as an expert witness, I'd say all testimony in this case is false. |  |
| Ever since my son was... never conceived, because I've never had consensual sex without money involved... I've always kind of looked at you as... a thing, that I could live next to... in accordance with state laws. | | Poll: | How do you like your steak? |
| |
| Adam Johnson on 08:51 - Feb 18 with 2031 views | exhmrc1 |
of course this matters. She is the key prosecution witness. She has alleged the 2 more serious offences which he has denied. The key is whether the jury believe her version of events. She claimed she cancelled the third meeting. He supposedly cancelled this meeting and she then turned up outside his house taking a selfie. These are totally different version of the events. As far the issue of him not buying the clothes it matters because it makes a less credible witness. If she has lied about this and other things how are the jury going to be believe the other allegations. If she is prone to exaggeration has she exaggerated her version of events. The only people who really know whether these 2 incidents occurred are Johnson and this girl. Unless there is dna/forensic evidence it comes down to who is believed. It is notoriously difficult to prove in this case. The defence doesn't have to prove he dud not commit the offences. They only have to prove there is reasonable doubt. The prosecution have to prove the case BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT and if the defence can prove the girl has lied and exaggerated issues then there is reasonable doubt on her story. It would not surprise me if Johnson doesn't even take the witness stand unless something far more concrete comes out. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
