Kevin Carr's Gloves 3967 Posted February 17, 2016 Author Share Posted February 17, 2016 (edited) those "classy" makems are still trying to blame the girl. http://www.readytogo.net/smb/threads/girl-excited-after-meeting-footballer.1201526/page-4 Edited February 17, 2016 by Kevin Carr's Gloves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 35573 Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Have to love the bit where they say the Beeb shouldn't link it to news about the club because they've sacked him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 46027 Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 I've had my say in there. Some very very odd characters surfacing. Unfortunately every club probably has them though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 35573 Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 See it's been deleted now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 46027 Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Aye but not before one of them started responding to me with gifs of a registered sex offender scoring goals for his beloved team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 35573 Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Aye but not before one of them started responding to me with gifs of a registered sex offender scoring goals for his beloved team. Classy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isegrim 9899 Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Im not quite sure what the defence's strategy is. It sees like they are trying to make out the lass did all the running. Even if she did though, the fact he knew her age from the get go makes it a moot point I think it's damage limitation and trying to counter aggrivating factors. Everything isn't as bad when it is a "willing" victim that has not suffered... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7169 Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Aye, thinking on they are likely trying to cast doubt over the veracity of her claims about the 2 charges he's pleaded not guilty to. Could be the difference between a suspended sentence and 5 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGingerQuiff 2412 Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Think there'll be uproar if he doesn't get a custodial sentence like. Not sure a judge would fancy that sort of criticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2207 Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 Imagine being stuck inside a failing old institution for years, stuck with the same deadbeats every day and wasting your life away. Anyway thats enough about Sunderland AFC... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 35573 Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 Think there'll be uproar if he doesn't get a custodial sentence like. Not sure a judge would fancy that sort of criticism. Think it's more down to sentencing guidelines than public opinion. Presumably there's precedent for the two charges he's admitted to carrying non-custodial sentences. His shit-hot barrister will probably get him off on the other two offenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGingerQuiff 2412 Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 Think I read two and a half years was the maximum sentence for the ones he's pleaded guilty to. Hopefully the judge takes offence to him lying for a year and profiting to the tune of ~£3m as a result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10963 Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 Even if he gets off with a light sentence, can you see him playing professional football ever again? Ched Evans maintains his innocence and nobody is taking the risk, can't imagine a self-confessed kiddy fiddler will get another job (outside of the far-east) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 35573 Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 Think I read two and a half years was the maximum sentence for the ones he's pleaded guilty to. Hopefully the judge takes offence to him lying for a year and profiting to the tune of ~£3m as a result. By pleading guilty he automatically gets a lesser sentence I think. Reckon he was banged to rights with the two he admitted to so he might as well have pleaded guilty to get the reduction. For the other two it would appear to be his word against hers so he could easily get off. I wouldn't know what the usual sentences are for the offences he's admitted to though. I think it's horrible what he's done and I think it's very unlikely he pursued her just for the thrill of a snog and a few texts (especially after he was googling the age of consent). Doesn't work like that though, i.e. the need for it to be proven 'beyond reasonable doubt' with it being a criminal case. Reckon there could well be a subsequent civil case too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Kelly 1260 Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 The whole reasonable doubt thing is never black and white though is it. It all depends on the jury. Sometimes they just think someone is guilty (or innocent) and they vote that way regardless of how concrete the evidence is. I'm not sure how good a defense it is for them to be calling her a liar when he's admitted he's been lying for a year when he maintained his innocence of everything. I would think some the jury will just think that he's lying again now when he's accusing her of lying. At least part of what she's claiming happened has proved to true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 35573 Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 The whole reasonable doubt thing is never black and white though is it. It all depends on the jury. Sometimes they just think someone is guilty (or innocent) and they vote that way regardless of how concrete the evidence is. I'm not sure how good a defense it is for them to be calling her a liar when he's admitted he's been lying for a year when he maintained his innocence of everything. I would think some the jury will just think that he's lying again now when he's accusing her of lying. At least part of what she's claiming happened has proved to true. I appreciate that but his lawyer, who is meant to be one of the top barristers in the country is probably going to be at least the equal of whoever the CPS have got prosecuting when it comes to persuading the jury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3967 Posted February 18, 2016 Author Share Posted February 18, 2016 One of the unwashed seems to think he should sue the 15 year old he has pleaded guilty to grooming and fiddling with. http://www.readytogo.net/smb/forums/pure-football.86/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Kelly 1260 Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 I appreciate that but his lawyer, who is meant to be one of the top barristers in the country is probably going to be at least the equal of whoever the CPS have got prosecuting when it comes to persuading the jury.Very true. That's why I suspect he will manage to avoid prison. Still seems a risky defence to me as it could alienate some of the jury. I'm not sure what other defence he can go with at this stage like. He's admitted he knew how old she was so the only thing left is to make them believe they didn't do what she says. With no physical evidence I don't see how anyone can know for certain who is telling the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 35573 Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 Very true. That's why I suspect he will manage to avoid prison. Still seems a risky defence to me as it could alienate some of the jury. I'm not sure what other defence he can go with at this stage like. He's admitted he knew how old she was so the only thing left is to make them believe they didn't do what she says. With no physical evidence I don't see how anyone can know for certain who is telling the truth. Yeah, that's what I think too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGingerQuiff 2412 Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 If he gets found innocent because there's not enough evidence but it appears there's a likelihood that he was in fact guilty, would a judge be more inclined to be less lenient when sentencing him for the crimes he admitted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 35573 Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 If he gets found innocent because there's not enough evidence but it appears there's a likelihood that he was in fact guilty, would a judge be more inclined to be less lenient when sentencing him for the crimes he admitted? I don't think they can Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Kelly 1260 Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 I would guess that would depend on whether or not they have any flexibility on their boundries. If there's no definitive precedent on the sentence for the crimes he's admitted to then the judge may have a certain level of discretion to pass one sentence or another. But if there's a specific level that hasn't been met a judge can't just impose a higher sentence or it will just be overturrned on appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7169 Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 Ultimately it comes down to reasonable doubt. Unless there was a camera in the car there's never going to be 'proof' of what happened. Most court cases are 'he said, she said' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Kelly 1260 Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 The messages he sent seem to be the only other evidence and those could be taken as just backing up what he admitted to (ie kissing and touching). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohhh_yeah 2991 Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 Ultimately it comes down to reasonable doubt. Unless there was a camera in the car there's never going to be 'proof' of what happened. Most court cases are 'he said, she said' "It was to show that I had actually met up with him. If anyone had asked us, I had the proof there. I wasn't thinking at that time that it was all going to come to this." "It was a massive thing for a 15-year-old to try and keep a secret like that. I'm not very good at keeping secrets." "Obviously I was trying to brag about it and show off about it because how many other people could say it had happened to them?" "I thought I was big and I thought I was clever. I didn't see at the time - I feel so stupid now for not seeing, but I didn't see at the time." The video was taken by her inside his car. You can hear him but do not see him because she did not want him to see she was recording. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now