• 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.

Adam Johnson Trial Verdict

Status
Not open for further replies.
timeforheroes1 said:
they arent allowed to say he was lying? :lol:

the first thing they would have done come any verdict would have said they are starting legal proceedings against him if he had been. the are going to get some serious shit coming their way and its fully deserved
Click to expand...
You know that do you, you know they can say he's lying. just wondering
 

redandwhiterob said:
In my personally opinion a decision has been reached at some level in the club where it's thought the risk has been worth it and we'll worry about the consequences later
Click to expand...
Absolutely. It's pointless arguing the case because people don't want to hear it.
 
janey said:
It's not just that it's the whole thing and tbh I don't even get why people are desperate to bash the club, there will plenty outside waiting to do it.
And as I've said I've been in a Court many a time where people have said what has been stated in meetings and I've thought wtf I was in that meeting and that wasn't said, same with barristers, barristers don't lie but they get a fortune to manipulate information to suit their argument.
Nowt is ever as clear as it seems when it comes to Court rooms
Click to expand...
this. You have to remember he was pleading his defence and it suited him better if he said "poor me i just kissed her. The club knew all about it and still let me play"
 
jcrossan said:
There are some serious questions that the club need to answer as to what exactly they knew, what they were told and when they knew it.
Click to expand...
This is sanctimonious bollocks. Why do you need to know this at all? The club have released their statement it's all in the past now move on instead of dragging up the past.
 
CornedBeefIsland said:
And the end of the day he's admitted to and been found guilty by a jury of child sex offences.

I for one am just glad that he is no longer anything to do with my club.

Whatever went on at SAFC will have to be dealt with by them. And you hope there are some people with sufficient moral integrity to deal with it.

As for the repercussions for Adam Johnson. That is for the judge to decide in due course.

I just know that preferred method of punishment is not an option within our legal system. Not as far as I know, as garden shears would contravene the UNCHR
Click to expand...

From the court transcripts he appears to already have had his hedge trimmed.
 
rocky said:
Tbf you haven't a f***ing clue what documents the club received and it's contents.
Click to expand...

I think we have a clue. Johnson says (in court, so he's guilty of perjury if he's lying) they had copies of all the whatsapp messages... SAFC release a statement saying we received 'some documents'... surely if they didn't receive what Johnson suggested they did SAFC would have refuted it? It seems reasonable if he accuses them of receiving documents, and in their statement they don't deny it, that we have a 'clue' about what was in the documents...
 
jsdftm04 said:
Why are you and plenty others ignoring the fact his QC said it, said Byrne had evidence and was told he kissed the girl. Because it doesn't suit the agenda of defending the club?
Click to expand...

Because people lie. Defending the club isn't an agenda, if this was proven or if the club admitted it then me and loads others would feel massively let down by them. But an accusation from a known liar and his defence team, especially when they have a clear motive to lie about it, definitely isn't proof.
 
samaistonsrightfoot said:
They also won't be suing him for wages although its open to debate why that would be
Click to expand...
Just one in a long line of coincidences

Stevos said:
Because people lie. Defending the club isn't an agenda, if this was proven or if the club admitted it then me and loads others would feel massively let down by them. But an accusation from a known liar and his defence team, especially when they have a clear motive to lie about it, definitely isn't proof.
Click to expand...
They don't even try to deny it man :lol:
 
haway said:
What do you mean lied to the club? The club had some of his documents, presumably the ones Johnson said they did, how has he lied to them? They haven't accused him of lying to him?

And IMO, as has been said from the beginning, they should have suspended him with pay, imo.
Click to expand...

It didn't matter what they knew. He told them he was intending to plead not guilty. Even if he'd walked in and said he was bang to rights, sacking him would have prejudiced any trial. It's a difficult situation, and can only be resolved imho if the club pursue him for the money he was paid while lying to them regarding his pleas. If not, the question will always hang there.
 
Smartin said:
I thought the club statement was quite clear?
Click to expand...

Where do they answer whether or not they had all the whatsapp messages and whether they knew he admitted he kissed her 8 months ago and had admitted it to them?

That is literally the ONLY issue this was about and they didn't answer it.
 
THE CLUB HAVE POSTED THIS:
Club Statement

Published: 02 March, 2016
by Sunderland AFC

Statement from Sunderland AFC.

To respect the legal process, Sunderland AFC was unable to comment on this case until after the jury had delivered its verdict. It has now done so and we thank our supporters for their patience and understanding. We now wish to clarify certain matters which arose during the trial.

Mr. Johnson was suspended by the club immediately following his arrest on March 2, 2015. At that time, the club was advised by police of the broad nature of the allegations against Mr. Johnson, who was being advised at all times by his own legal team. The club felt that the decision to suspend was appropriate at that time, even though he had not then been charged with any offence. Two weeks later, his suspension was lifted after a meeting between the club and the Professional Footballers' Association (PFA), and after the club took independent legal advice. The club reached this decision only after carrying out a safeguarding assessment and liaising with relevant agencies.

On 23 April 2015, Mr. Johnson was charged with four offences. The club was informed that it was Mr. Johnson’s intention to defend all the charges, a stance he maintained right up until the first day of trial. The club continued to review the safeguarding procedures it had put in place throughout this time.

On 4 May 2015, an introductory meeting took place between Mr. Johnson, his father and Orlando Pownall QC. Mr. Pownall had not previously met Mr. Johnson. The club’s CEO was present during part of that meeting. During the time that she was present there was no suggestion whatsoever that Mr. Johnson would be changing his plea. Some documents were received relating to the case, which were immediately sent to Mr. Pownall for his attention. However, the club was not in a position to make any judgment on the outcome of the case nor on Mr. Johnson’s decision to defend all the allegations. Following that meeting, Mr. Johnson again confirmed to the club, presumably on advice from his own legal team, that his intention was to defend the charges in their entirety and he was confident of success once all evidence had been considered. He subsequently entered not guilty pleas to all charges on 6 June 2015.

The club did not give evidence either for the prosecution or the defence in this case. It was therefore not present in court when it is understood that a suggestion was made that the club knew all along that Mr. Johnson was intending to change his plea just before trial to enable him to continue to play football for the club and that the club may also have been involved in tactical discussions about the plea. This is utterly without foundation and is refuted in the strongest possible terms. The club never placed any pressure or demands on Mr. Johnson to play football during this process. Decisions in relation to the pleas and the conduct of the trial have been left entirely to Mr. Johnson and his highly experienced and skilled legal team. Mr. Johnson has admitted in evidence that he changed his plea “on legal advice”.

The club only became aware of the change of plea, in relation to two of the four counts on the indictment, on the first day of the trial, after hearing it reported through the media. The club was not advised in advance that Mr. Johnson would plead guilty to any offence. Had the club known that Mr. Johnson intended to plead guilty to any of these charges, then his employment would have been terminated immediately. Indeed, upon learning of the guilty plea on 11 February 2016, the club acted quickly and decisively in terminating Adam Johnson’s contract without notice.

This has been an extremely difficult time for all involved. The victim and her family have endured an unimaginable ordeal in the last 12 months and we trust that they will now be allowed to move on with their lives without further intrusion or public scrutiny.

Following the announcement of today’s verdict and the release of this detailed statement, the club intends to make no further comment.


THE POLICE HAVE POSTED THIS:
You must be logged on to see external links


THE BBC HAVE POSTED THIS:
Adam Johnson guilty of child sex charge
You must be logged on to see external links




I think its fair to say little old us should be allowed to talk about it.......
 
Stevos said:
That's what he claimed in court but he has also been shown up repeatedly to be a liar. Remember the context in which he claims to have told the club back in May:

It was put to him he pleaded not guilty on all counts, duping everybody in the process, only in order to prolong his playing career and carry on drawing his 60k a week wage. He denied this, saying he carried on playing because the club wanted him to, despite him telling them from the start what he had done.

So it wasn't just a throw away comment from him which he would have no cause to lie about. It was part of him was rebuffing an accusation from the prosecution, as to his motives for carrying on playing. In a nutshell, he is a proven and self-confessed liar who also had a motive to lie about whether or not the club was aware of what he had done. Given that he was denying all charges in June, it seems odd he would have admitted his guilt to anybody a month before that.

It's also important to remember where this fits into his defence's case. In an attempt to portray him as an honest man, his QC argued in court (unsuccessfully, ultimately) that he only lied initially to the police because he panicked. He subsequently then went home and confessed all to his partner, not only about this but about the other women too. This was part of the defence's argument that, despite having lied repeatedly to the police on his arrest, this was essentially out of character and that everything he had done or said since, including his denial of the 2 further counts, was truthful and honest. Admitting he had kept the truth a secret from the club all along would not have tied in with that argument.
Click to expand...

I get the point that they have tried to make him out to be honest and that is what is defence was based off but my issue is just simply with the club not directly respond to the accusation and instead responding to it in a more indirect manner. I'm not going to jump to any conclusions and slag the club of or claim directly that they did know it's just worrying in the way that their statement has been worded.
 
rocky said:
Is it? How do you know that?
I haven't a clue tbh. I'm reluctant to be too hard on the club as it's a horrible situation they found themselves in and in some way would have upset someone.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I just have no sympathy at all.
 
Dibble said:
To be fair, there's bound to be someone comes on saying something like 'I dont believe the club, they are lying'. Whilst Im sure words to that effect are posted on message boards across the country every day, in reality, its libellous, and it would be a surprise if the club is watching the board very closely.
Click to expand...

It's not libellous if you believe it to be true.
And you can no longer sue for libel even if it's a deliberate lie - you must be able to show you have suffered serious harm as a result.
The defamation act was enacted in 2013 and introduced these changes at that time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top