• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

Adam Johnson Trial Verdict

Status
Not open for further replies.

sidneyeric said:
Do you reckon Stacey would lie about that ? I dont personally.
Click to expand...
That has nothing to do with it... what she knew of his pubic hair was is his g/f, just as his team mates might have knowledge of his general pubic hair habits - but it still would not prove what his hair was like on that particular day. A man could shave his public hair one day, and it be considered 'trim' within a week. It would be very hard for team mates to remember the exact state of his hair on a given day months previously (unless it was especially noteworthy). You could argue the same for his G/F if their relations were strained (no sex), and she'd recently given birth (again, no sex).

All the jury are left with is:

1) Was the victim correct about his pubic hair? - they don't know for sure
2) Did he normally shave his pubic hair? - according to his G/F no - it was trim usually.
3) Did he shave it especially for her? - we don't know

The photograph of his penis (allegedly to show the doctor) showed trim pubic hair - so where does this leave the accuser? - nowhere, it doesn't prove nor disprove her claim.
 
redgauntlet said:
There may have been one young lady involved but to classify AJ as a serial offender is not true. You said children, plural there is no evidence to suggest that is true.
Click to expand...
It's not whether a person offends that matters. It's whether you are placing young vulnerable people in a potentially dangerous situation.

Given that he had been charged, every young person he came into contact with was potentially at risk, even though he was not guilty at the time in the eyes of the law.

Profit over People Thanks SAFC
 
The club would have been made away of the allegations. They can only go off the idea that Johnson is innocent until proven guilty. Otherwise should a ban have stayed in place, and he not have played/been paid his full wage, he'd have taken the club to the cleaners. The club acted correctly based on the information they had.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top