• 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.
PhilSAFC said:
Any f***ing need?
Click to expand...

I've posted the sentencing guidelines for the offence he's been found guilty of earlier on in the thread. Basically 5 years is the minimum for a Category A offence which is what Johnson has been found guilty of. I'm not going into anatomical detail about what that involves like.
 

SAFC_Jack said:
Aye, a young lass and someone in a position of power taking advantage but it's her fault ffs.

She was only 15 man, young people idolise footballers. Lasses unsurprisingly will get a crush on some of them.
Click to expand...

That is exactly the thing though, he was only in a position of power because of the way she pretty much harassed him. Imagine you worked in tesco and someone shopped their weekly, then started waiting outside for you to finish adding you on social media? He only found himself in the situation because of her actions in the first instance. I agree he should have been away when he found out her age, but the way she boasted about it to start with and is now playing the innocent victim who did nothing at all doesn't sit well with me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATS
FanchesterCity said:
Well, playing devil's advocate for a moment - it's because the PFA's raison d'etre is to look after the interests of their members, and that what they were doing (believing him to be innocent at the time).
Sunderland FC however, coul


A lot of legal team will advise you not to start getting into 'he said, we said' type statements. If you're innocent, there should be no need to address specific allegations of others. Why give it any credence?
It's a tough one when someone's made a specific allegation against you, but it's an easy trap to fall into too, and before you know it, you're fending off countless questions about ever more specific things.
Click to expand...

"The Sunderland CEO did not receive copies of the transcripts, did not receive copies of the Whatsapp messages, and was not informed that Mr Johnson had met and kissed a 15 year old girl".

That's surely a pretty easy statement for the Club to make, and if true, I fail to see how it could open a can of worms.
 
Botchie said:
Why are the PFA not getting the same treatment as the club from the people who are still trying to defend a convicted sex offender?
Click to expand...

Botchie said:
Why are the PFA not getting the same treatment as the club from the people who are still trying to defend a convicted sex offender?
Click to expand...

Probably because the PFA CEO isn't female and the target of a long held agenda where anything will be used against her? But we knew that anyway...

Johnson and his QC used a line of defence in court that has been refuted by the club. Suddenly, the line of attack from certain journalists, presuming that they cannot call SAFC liars, is that "they should have made more of the evidence they had in their possession'. Hold on, that's totally different from they were 'complicit in AJs guilty plea'? Now it's "well, you should have checked more."

Take what Johnson and his QC said in court. IF, as they allege, the club "knew he was going to plead guilty" they would have also known this would have all come out at the trial. Which, obviously, makes it laughable if it wasn't so serious. Secondly, the idea that it's just the CEO that made the decision for Johnson to play again is equally uninformed; as mentioned, the PFA and clearly the board and others would also have been involved. Finally, the so called 'smoking gun' of the evidence presented at the infamous meeting. The club, at my last time of checking, are a football organisation not a detective agency. If on presentation of evidence they are told by the player and his legal counsel that they were going to plead not guilty, therefore there was nothing in the claims, they have a duty to presume innocent until proven guilty. Being presented by some evidence is not enough, all defences are entitled to present the full facts of the case of which this was only ever going to be one part.

The hypocrisy on here by some is amazing. The club made a call, he then went on to play a part in our survival and subsequent contributions to points this season. If the club had suspended him or fired him last year despite the fact that the player and QC said he would plead innocent and with evidence that every defence has the entitlement to challenge and contest the outcry on here would have been incredible. "Sacked without a fair trial", "victimised" etc. all, no doubt, the fault of our CEO again...
 
Behind Enemy Lines said:
On a different note - how on earth have the jury ascertained that he fingered her but she didn't suck him off? What evidence led them to that conclusion?
Click to expand...


there was 2 days evidence about his plums whether they were shaved as she said or trimmed as he said, pics of his chucky were even shown to the jury.apparently there were trimmed hence the jury decided she hadn't seen his appendages and therefore didn't blow him off..hope this helps
 
Skellington said:
I could not believe it when Allardyce said Johnson would be available for the first game after the trial started, it was utterly astonishing.

Whether or not Byrne had seen text messages, when the charges were made public they stated that he had been charged with:

"one offence of meeting a child following sexual grooming, contrary to Section 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and three offences of sexual activity with a child, contrary to Section 9 of the Sexual Offence Act 2003. The alleged offences date from 30 December 2014 to 26 February 2015."

Evidence of grooming is highly likely to include text messages or internet messages, and it now turns out that Byrne probably saw this evidence for herself (in what sounds to be a highly irregular meeting).

In any event, a trial has to start with the prosecution setting out their case, which means that in the days before it the club knew that the Friday before the match would see pretty persuasive evidence that Johnson had groomed a child. Even if Johnson had a highly convincing explanation for the whole thing, that would have had to wait until later in proceedings. Given Byrne's career history she must have been acutely aware of this.

With that in mind, how the fuck did the board ever think that it would be appropriate for him to be whizzed up the motorway to be at the Man United match on the following day? Can you imagine what it would have been like if he had been on the pitch the day after that evidence had been read out? Well that was the plan, according to Allardyce.

Are they completely immoral incompetent shitheads? Or did they have some inkling that he may not be available all along?

Bit disappointed that the club statement hasn't addressed this, seeing as they've had plenty of time to prepare it. Not entirely surprised though.
Click to expand...
Where does it say she saw the messages between them? I have missed that. Is that what he said?
 
At the end of the day no matter how mature she looked she was 15 which he knew and is classed as a child.
He's a 28 year old adult and the responsibility in these things lies with the adult end of.
His main offence to me has been lack of intelligence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top