Johnson formally charged
- Thread starter C19RK73
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
His only defence is that someone else sent them.
Haway man!
He should be suspended with pay until the outcome of the trial.
I'd imagine he'll go not guilty and hope his top barrister can sprinkle some doubt on it at court.
Haway man!
He should be suspended with pay until the outcome of the trial.
I'd imagine he'll go not guilty and hope his top barrister can sprinkle some doubt on it at court.
Just using legal logic.
How else would they authorise charge on grooming without substantial evidence?
He can deny meeting her etc if there's no physical evidence but that grooming charge is damming
Sent what? These text messages that you've decided exists and is concrete evidence which proves his guilt? You're deciding evidence man. How ridiculous is that?
Michael Le Vell faced 12 sex offences charges including 5 of child rape, there wasn't a shred of 'concrete' evidence, it was a public interest case so the charges were in line with the accusation with nothing substantial what so ever, how do you know the same thing hasn't happened here? I'll answer, you don't, you're just making this up as you're going along and deciding he's guilty in the process.
I'm not saying he's innocent or guilty. I'm saying you know **** all and you know it.
I'd wouldn't have lifted the suspension in the first place but that's nowt to do with details of the case and more to do with upholding the clubs reputation in a situation it didn't invite.
Michael Lavell id hazard a guess those charges were their word against his. His legal team obviously did enough to show reasonable doubt.
A grooming charge however they wouldn't have charged him just based on her saying
"Aye he was texting me asking to meet up"
They'd have needed to have been shown the proof.
If there was no evidence of him messaging her and trying to organise meeting they'd never have gotten the grooming charge.
Exactly - you're guessing, like you are in Johnsons case.
God help any poor **** up on trial with you on the jury.
You'd have the poor bastard hung, drawn & quartered before you even got to court.
****ing divvy.
Why not? So they would charge Micheal Lavell based on allegations alone but not AJ? What do you base that on?
Grooming isn't even based on correspondence it's based on him knowing her age. So her saying he knew her age is an accusation which like in the Micheal Lavell case, could be the sole reason for the charge. An accusation.
For all you know she's claiming that she told him before intercourse and there isn't any record of grooming in these Text messages your so fixated on.
For all you know the CP are claiming that he must have known her age after posing for a picture with her after a fan meet and greet. The picture that The Sun published where they pixelated her face, his response could be he doesn't remember her, he's done a million fan pictures.
You don't know, you just don't know. You're claiming he's obviously guilty on your bizarre twisted hunches.
Exactly - you're guessing, like you are in Johnsons case.
God help any poor **** up on trial with you on the jury.
You'd have the poor bastard hung, drawn & quartered before you even got to court.
****ing divvy.
Exactly - you're guessing, like you are in Johnsons case.
God help any poor **** up on trial with you on the jury.
You'd have the poor bastard hung, drawn & quartered before you even got to court.
****ing divvy.
Not at all. I'mjust using my logic to form the basis of my opinion.
Grooming charge will be hard to contest really.
The 3 other charges he can just flat out deny and hope his barrister can show some doubt to it.
Why not? So they would charge Micheal Lavell based on allegations alone but not AJ? What do you base that on?
Grooming isn't even based on correspondence it's based on him knowing her age. So her saying he knew her age is an accusation which like in the Micheal Lavell case, could be the sole reason for the charge. An accusation.
For all you know she's claiming that she told him before intercourse and there isn't any record of grooming in these Text messages your so fixated on.
For all you know the CP are claiming that he must have known her age after posing for a picture with her after a fan meet and greet. The picture that The Sun published where they pixelated her face, his response could be he doesn't remember her, he's done a million fan pictures.
You don't know, you just don't know. You're claiming he's obviously guilty on your bizarre twisted hunches.
There'll be correspondence that show he knew her age and iniatiated a meeting regardless. Hence being charged.
If there was nowt he wouldn't have been charged with grooming.
They wouldn't have charged him for grooming off a fan photo would they,or her word with nothing backing it up.
Of course innocent people have been found guilty and guilty people found innocent so anything could happen at court.
It would appear he'll go not guilty at magistrates so we'll see.
Michael Jackson was never found guilty in a court of law but does anyone really think he was innocent?
It would appear he'll go not guilty at magistrates so we'll see.
Michael Jackson was never found guilty in a court of law but does anyone really think he was innocent?
This whole Johnson thing is dragging the club through the dirt, I'm shocked the club are going to carry on letting him play after he's been charged with such serious charges, both Johnson and whoever at the club makes these decisions are making the club a laughing stock. I just hope that there aren't any of our fans singing his name today as they have in previous games, all that does is make us (the fans and the club in general) look like a bunch of absolute ****s supporting someone who on the face of things looks as guilty as sin. I'm sure we'll find out in due course if he is guilty or not, my gut feeling is that it's not looking good for him.
How do you know?
Why don't you just admit you're guessing and willing to hang him out to dry here and now. That's the ****ing truth.
Why would he plead not guilty if there's 'concrete' evidence from text messages which proves he knew her age? It would guarantee him maximum sentence. Think about it man.
Is he guilty? Who knows. All I do know is AJ would not be playing for me. His head must be all over the place AND his performances have hardly been that great anyway.
Why would he plead not guilty if there's 'concrete' evidence from text messages which proves he knew her age? It would guarantee him maximum sentence. Think about it man.
Did OJ Simpson plead not guilty despite there being overwhelming evidence of his guilt? Yes!
He'll know there's realistic chance of being convicted so he may as well chance his luck and go not guilty