Adam Johnson pleads GUILTY

[Deleted User]

[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

RoboKlopp

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

armaghlad

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

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

kevthegaff

She tried to contact Conor Wickham after the arrest, suspicious

fergiesfolly

kevthegaff wrote: »

She tried to contact Conor Wickham after the arrest, suspicious

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

irishgeo

kevthegaff wrote: »

She tried to contact Conor Wickham after the arrest, suspicious

You got a source for that

kevthegaff

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

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

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

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

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

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

NIMAN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

StringerBell

Augme wrote: »

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

The truth where he has already admitted to grooming and kissing a child?

Canadel

StringerBell wrote: »

The truth where he has already admitted to grooming and kissing a child?

Wasn't she only a few months, a year at most, below the age of consent at the time of the offence? Seems lot of people are making a huge jump in terms of the gravity of the accusations they are labelling against Johnson compared to what actually happened. If the girl is a year older what he did is legally fine, though probably still morally reprehensible depending on your own moral standpoint.

StringerBell

Canadel wrote: »

Wasn't she only a few months, a year at most, below the age of consent at the time of the offence? Seems lot of people are making a huge jump in terms of the gravity of the accusations they are labelling against Johnson compared to what actually happened. If the girl is a year older what he did is legally fine, though probably still morally reprehensible depending on your own moral standpoint.

I'm not going back over the details that someone with a passing interest would already know at this point tbh

The fact that his behaviour is still being excused to a large degree by some people on here is still as disgusting as it was the day he plead guilty to grooming and more with a girl a little under half his age, and a little over 15th birthday.

Canadel

StringerBell wrote: »

I'm not going back over the details that someone with a passing interest would already know at this point tbh

The fact that his behaviour is still being excused to a large degree by some people on here is still as disgusting as it was the day he plead guilty to grooming and more with a girl a little under half his age, and a little over 15th birthday.

Fair enough. I'm not excusing his behaviour. I'm just questioning whether he deserves some of the overly harsh criticism he has been receiving. From what I've read of the case, I don't think he's a dangerous sexual predator or rapist. He is an absolute and total idiot, and he did take advantage of someone below the age of consent, though probably the same mental age as him. Then again, maybe he's an extremely clever guy who carefully manipulated this girl to his own sexual advantage. What is clear though is that she was a year below the age of consent. Not two or three or more years. So I think people need to show some perspective too.

Corholio

Canadel wrote: »

Fair enough. I'm not excusing his behaviour. I'm just questioning whether he deserves some of the overly harsh criticism he has been receiving. From what I've read of the case, I don't think he's a dangerous sexual predator or rapist. He is an absolute and total idiot, and he did take advantage of someone below the age of consent, though probably the same mental age as him. Then again, maybe he's an extremely clever guy who carefully manipulated this girl to his own sexual advantage. What is clear though is that she was a year below the age of consent. Not two or three or more years. So I think people need to show some perspective too.

When they first got in touch, she was closer to 14 then she was to 16. I understand the pettiness of 'months' but it works both ways.

Canadel

Corholio wrote: »

When they first got in touch, she was closer to 14 then she was to 16. I understand the pettiness of 'months' but it works both ways.

Ok yeah that's bad. Though by 'got in touch' do you mean non-physical sexual contact? I still think he's more of an idiot than anything else. But obviously idiots can be dangerous too and this girl was most likely taken advantage of in an extreme way.

~Rebel~

Canadel wrote: »

Ok yeah that's bad. Though by 'got in touch' do you mean non-physical sexual contact? I still think he's more of an idiot than anything else. But obviously idiots can be dangerous too and this girl was most likely taken advantage of in an extreme way.

Honestly, i'd say just go read the actual details of the case, the text messages, and her further testimony and see if you still think it's not so bad. most of it is either directly in this thread over the last few pages, or linked.

Ashbourne hoop

Canadel wrote: »

Wasn't she only a few months, a year at most, below the age of consent at the time of the offence? Seems lot of people are making a huge jump in terms of the gravity of the accusations they are labelling against Johnson compared to what actually happened. If the girl is a year older what he did is legally fine, though probably still morally reprehensible depending on your own moral standpoint.

This nonsense again ??? There is an age of consent for a reason, and this girl wasn't it, and Johnson knew this. That's really all that matters.

Canadel

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

This nonsense again ??? There is an age of consent for a reason, and this girl wasn't it, and Johnson knew this.

Yep, you're right. That wasn't my point though.

That's really all that matters.

It's not necessarily all that matters.

Augme

StringerBell wrote: »

The truth where he has already admitted to grooming and kissing a child?

I was referring to the two outstanding charges.

Lovely Bloke

more apologists for the nonce!

In relation to the defence lawyers being sharks. Nope, the ones who are good at their job are the ones we need more of.

Of course they should question everything, and of course they should try to discredit the prosecution evidence and poke holes in it.

If the evidence is solid then it stands up. If the evidence is not solid then nobody should be convicted on the strength of it.

It doesn't matter if it's an admitted nonce on trial or a fella who didn't pay his TV licence. Defence lawyers, especially the rabid ones, are a necessary facet of natural justice.

Irishcrx

He's a scumbag and what he done was deplorable. Maybe the girl was a few month's off the age of consent but it's his intent that matters.

Fact is she was 15 , he was more than aware of that , he knew what he was doing , he preyed on her and used his position as a football to groom her...all this while his wife is giving birth to his child.

' I wanted to get your jeans off so bad , I wouldn't last 10 seconds with you'

Sexual preditor, lock him up and add him to the register.

Imagine what his daughter will think when she gets to 15 and reads about what he was at while her mother was giving birth to her , poor girl...and why his wife is standing by him is beyond me.

armaghlad

Is the law black and white in these cases? If she was a week off her 16th birthday would the criticism be the same? Would she be any more "mature" at that age? FWIW I think Adam Johnson completely abused his status as a footballer and not only is he a cheating b*stard he has also ruined this girl's life.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

more apologists for the nonce!

Oh goody, here's a well-balaned unemotional considered post....

In relation to the defence lawyers being sharks. Nope, the ones who are good at their job are the ones we need more of.

Of course they should question everything, and of course they should try to discredit the prosecution evidence and poke holes in it.

If the evidence is solid then it stands up. If the evidence is not solid then nobody should be convicted on the strength of it.

It doesn't matter if it's an admitted nonce on trial or a fella who didn't pay his TV licence. Defence lawyers, especially the rabid ones, are a necessary facet of natural justice.

Defense lawyers try to get people off, regadless of whether said person committed the crime or not.

Ashbourne hoop

Canadel wrote: »

Yep, you're right. That wasn't my point though.

It's not necessarily all that matters.

It really is. He was well aware of her age and is said to have googled age of consent. He should really serve jail time, even if he is found not guilty to the offences he hasn't already pleaded guilty to.

Chancer3001

No he shouldn't.

Not if he's innocent of the other two charges.

Kissing a 15 year old shouldn't warrant jail time.

Punishment yes, counselling also, or some kind of education , community service, but not jail.

Ashbourne hoop

Chancer3001 wrote: »

No he shouldn't.

Not if he's innocent of the other two charges.

Kissing a 15 year old shouldn't warrant jail time.

Punishment yes, counselling also, or some kind of education , community service, but not jail.

And pleading guilty to grooming a minor?

Iang87

Its the grooming I find worse than anything else. Maybe I'm wrong but randomly kissing a 15 year old in a moment of weakness can be understood to some but to actively seek out one is worrying

Darkglasses

I really don't understand how you can read the texts and the way he pursued her and not think he deserves a custodial sentence. And if you haven't read the details, you really, really need to before judging the situation.

armaghlad

Darkglasses wrote: »

I really don't understand how you can read the texts and the way he pursued her and not think he deserves a custodial sentence. And if you haven't read the details, you really, really need to before judging the situation.

The grooming is the most worrying factor. He was well aware of what he was doing. But does grooming necessarily mean he was going to go through with it? I seem to recall that he called off one of the meetings with this girl? Perhaps it might be argued that this is the reason she ended up telling her parents?