Adam Johnson on 03:09 - Mar 5 with 1479 views | isawqpratwcity | I don't see why people are lumping on the PFA. It is a union, and it's job is just to protect players from the perils of their occupation. And the PFA will be what it's members want it to be. At the moment, that is just an ambulance for players that fall. | |
| |
Adam Johnson on 07:27 - Mar 5 with 1435 views | timcocking |
Adam Johnson on 16:02 - Mar 3 by Juzzie | Yeah, it's a good point and one I had thought of. With John Terry, Not Proven would be completely correct, especially as he was found guilty via the probability notion later on. With the case I was on it was such a fine line. Both accounts (completely different!) were equally plausible and none of the evidence suggested no consent. They had sex, he admitted it & she admitted it. How do you decide with no evidence whatsoever??? He did seem a wrong 'un (went looking for sex with a prostitute while his girlfriend was 7-8 months pregnant) but that doesn't mean he was guilty in this instance. It's why Courts don't tell the jury of any previous convictions as they are irrelevant to the case in question. But yes, could also lead t many verdicts being given as Not Proven as an easy option for the Jury. I do think we need to change it from Guilty / Not Guilty in England though, there must be another option that ensure Not Guilty doesn't necessarily mean they didn't do it? Personally, i think Johnson did have sex with her but opinions have no place in a Court of law. |
To me, a person's previous behaviour is very relevant to a case in hand! A serial sex offender denies something when he's done it loads of times before, he's most likely lying. It doesn't prove a person is connected to a case, but it certainly is worth knowing if they've done these things before. Bloody obvious, i'd say. To me, our criminal justice system from top to bottom is a farce. Justice? Yeah,right. Lmfao. | | | |
| |