See my edit, I re read and it seemed like I was angrier than it was Sorry I don't follow what you mean by wider situational events? I didn't say my response wasn't up for debate I said that him being a child sex offender isn't up for debate, which it isn't. It is a fact, he has plead guilty to this already so will be required to sign the register I understand how there are various levels of child sex offences, but not sure how that's relevant to this case? (which is what we're talking about on the thread) Your post I orignally quoted said this: "Only comment is that people already made comments from day one or even before about this case, and we definitely don't have all the facts as the case hasn't finished!" I was purely saying that I feel you don't need all the facts to have an opinon (as your post suggested) on the man as he'd already pleaded guilty to grooming and kissing her. That was all. Hope that clears it up a bit
I doubt he will be viewed as a likely reoffender....he's been incredibly stupid and I think this is related to a nature spoilt by adulation. His victim, although a child in law, is at least woman shaped....so I doubt he is a true *****phile and I doubt he will be as daft again. The judge may feel that his crime is aggravated by him being in a way a person of authority, so he has an unfair advantage over the victim. Not exactly the same as a teacher or police officer etc, but tending that way with the girl not wishing to offend him.
Well it's obvious Stacey Flounder thinks he's a keeper. I spent my entire professional life maintaining an objective view about people, their behavious and motives. It was an important part of doing my job. However I'm honest enough to admit I'd struggle if on a Jury for a case like this. I don't doubt for one min that he would take sexual contact much further than he's already admitted with this girl, but proof it happened ?
She hasn't been at court since last Tuesday which was the day the victim gave evidence, wanted to see her evidence to make her own mind up?
Johnson told police in interview that the second time he and the girl met it wasn't specifically for a thank you kiss. He has now said that it was for that reason. In interview, Johnson told police it was a "normal" kiss and that it wasn't "too passionate". But he told them there were tongues. AJ has just said: "I was trying to play it down because I didn't want the police seeing how bad it was. I was trying to play it down. I was embarrassed and panicking and it was all thrown on me very quickly." Read more: http://www.sunderlandecho.com/live/event#ixzz40zQdCIhH
Debra Fox AP: "It was to show the doctor." 8m Debra Fox OP has said: "It is not being suggested that this photo was taken for fun or that you were going to send it to someone. Why did you take this picture?" Debra Fox Jurors are now looking at a photograph handed to them as part of an evidence bundle. This is a photograph, taken by AJ, of his groin. Best read bottom-to-top
Adam Johnsons's barrister has now finished his questions to his client. Cross examination from the prosecution will start after a short break.
Unless the prosecution can pressure him into saying more than he has been coached to say, the verdict is 50/50, IMO. I think some of the actions, confirmed as being true, by AJ, added to his wishes that she would send him photos "without the bikini" and his having sent her a photo of his groin area, (or did I make that bit up, and it was just on his phone?) will already be affecting the juries thoughts on what is "beyond a reasonable doubt". The judge will direct, and stress this point before handing over to the jury, but some will have already made their mind up. Prosecution and defence may have missed a trick, by not bringing in the team mates that were involved in the "underage" discussion, who could have proved his comments truthful or lies.
I think the whole trial will come down to how this bit pans out now it's not the 'easy' questions from your own representative.
It'll be stuff like this that just might sway a jury to convict him of the more serious charges. Wrong maybe, but good god, taking a picture of your naughty area is just the behaviour a EPL footy player with a dedicated medical team on offer 7 days a week would do !
Might be shooting himself in foot here... KB addressing what AJ said this morning about giving his number to the girl because he was sexually attracted to her and wanted to have sexual activity with her. He has now said that at the time he gave his number, he did not want to kiss her and was not sexually attracted to her. He has said he thought she was attractive and that he gave her his number because she seemed like a genuine fan. AJ: "My intention then wasn't to have sexual activity with her." KB has asked why AJ described the girl as a friend in interview with police and added: "You as a 27-year-old would not be desirous of forging a friendship with a 15-year-old girl would you?" AJ: "No." The jury has just been told that there were 834 messages sent between Johnson and the girl in less than a two month period. 806 of these messages were sent in less than 2 month period Just a reminder that Johnson told OP this morning he gave his number to the girl because she was sexually attracted to her. He has now changed this answer slightly. http://www.sunderlandecho.com/live/event?1834584
Pretty sure footballers don't hand their numbers out freely to fans. And hasn't he admitted to having a secret phone so his GF didn't find out. You don't plan ahead like that for no reason at all. He seems to be having a Damascene conversion about his behaviour....could have saved himself a lot of trouble if that had happened earlier in this relationship. This isn't a single error of judgement....he had months to stop this.
AJ on why he was deleting texts: "Because I didn't want to be seen as texting a young girl. I knew I shouldn't have been doing that." AJ: "[Didn't want] my girlfriend to see I was texting other girls." The jury has just been told that messages were recovered from Johnson's phone where he had been talking to other women. These were from seven different days and dated up until a week before his arrest. These had not be deleted Johnson being asked about his reply to the girl when she said when her 16th birthday was. He said: "Ages then LOL." KB asking him about the use of the monkey emoji. AJ has said it was a funny picture, and that emojis mean different things to different people. KB is going through a number of exchanges between Johnson and the girl, sent on WhatsApp. He asked to go somewhere quiet. AJ has said that he wanted to go somewhere they couldn't be seen because people may recognise his car. As we have heard, the black Range Rover has a private registration. Before AJ and the girl met for the first time, he sent her a message saying "it's better when it's dark". AJ denies it was sexual, and that it was just that he "didn't want to be seen". AJ: "I don't want people seeing me and taking my picture." Read more: http://www.sunderlandecho.com/live/event#ixzz410CxAIdi
That argument would only work if there was something obviously wrong with it...like a huge boil. I bet it was just plug ugly like all of them. No men on here are there?
Johnson's Range Rover has been fitted with "privacy glass", the court has just learned. This was the vehicle in which Johnson and the girl met both times. Johnson has said that if someone was walking up the side of the car they would be able to see the person inside. Johnson asked the girl before they met for the first time if she was going to be "forward" with him. Johnson says it was because he didn't want her to be shy, and wanted her to talk to him. KB has alleged that this was in the context of sexual contact. Court now being read messages exchanged when the girl was drinking vodka with her friends. Johnson had said this is when the messages began to get flirty and inappropriate on his part. After the first meeting the pair talked about the girl not being too shy and being "forward". Johnson has agreed with KB that he was trying to make the girl more amenable to engaging in sexual activity with him. Read more: http://www.sunderlandecho.com/live/event#ixzz410GbEZSJ
KB: "You were intending to meet her on the next occasion at a place that provided you with the ultimate level of privacy." AJ: "Yes, but we never did." KB: "The reason you wanted the ultimate level of privacy because you intended on engaging in sexual activity with her." AJ: "Yes." Read more: http://www.sunderlandecho.com/live/event#ixzz410JeiJ00
