• 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.
luvulongtime said:
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
Click to expand...
and that was straight from the court transcripts!
 

So you're saying that the club had seen the evidence to prove he was guilty but just expected him to get off with it? :lol:
 
West Winger said:
The statement says everything it needed to say. He assured them he was pleading not guilty, they took legal advice on the matter and they acted on that advice.
Click to expand...
Does it answer whether they had the whatsapps and knew he was admitting kissing the girl like? The way I read it they don't answer any of the qs about what was said to them by him (apart from him pleading not guilty)
 
Some Random Guy said:
If the club knew the following 3 things last May it's a big deal:

- he had been texting the lass
- he had kissed her
- he knew she was 15 when he was doing the above

It comes down to what was in that transcript, if it had him admitting those 3 things the club knew enough in my opinion.

If they had that information in that transcript the club knowingly let us cheer on a man who was going down for grooming.n
Click to expand...

Any business person with half a brain would have terminated his contract with immediate effect based on that information.
 
Some Random Guy said:
If the club knew the following 3 things last May it's a big deal:

- he had been texting the lass
- he had kissed her
- he knew she was 15 when he was doing the above

It comes down to what was in that transcript, if it had him admitting those 3 things the club knew enough in my opinion.

If they had that information in that transcript the club knowingly let us cheer on a man who was going down for grooming.n
Click to expand...

certainly not going, to go away quickly this, no doubt the papers tomorow, will open the gates of hell.
 
ProfessionalMackem said:
Was thinking the same mate. Smelled his fingers?
Click to expand...

There was enough doubt in the girls evidence around the state of Johnsons pubes, but the fact Johnson lied about his cast to make it sound like he couldn't have and the content of text messages meant there was no doubt about the charge he has been convicted of.
 
LineTrash said:
Just think of it as a stick you can beat SAFC fans with later...you know, when it means something other than the moral high ground.
Click to expand...
It's got nowt to do with the fans. It's the club that's come out of this badly.
 
ChrisAshley said:
Do you think sexual activity with a child should carry a lesser sentence like?
Click to expand...
I think sexual activity with a child should carry a hefty sentence, obviously there are 15 year olds who are still children, and there are those who could teach most of us board members a thing or two. It is obviously that serious a crime that if the defendant had taken a 2 hour flight from Newcastle and performed the acts in question, he would not have committed an offence. I therefor think that yes 5 years is a ridiculously long sentence in this case
 
haway said:
Sacking him would not have prejudiced the trial, the only downside is they would have opened themselves up to an unfair dismissal if he was found not guilty. But as I said, I wouldn't have sacked, I would have suspended with pay.

They can't claim the money because he will say 'I changed my mind at the last minute' and how will they ever prove he was always planning to plead? Seems impossible task imo.
Click to expand...

The PFA would've been all over the club mind if they dismissed him and like you say open themselves up for a unfair dismissal case (as then he was pleading not guilty). I can see why the club did what it did.

Not sure why people are trying to have a go at the club TBH.
 
It was a 50/50 guess whether he was fucked or not. Writing a story to say he wasn't fucked isn't as interesting so he went with fucked. Complete guesswork, just like the guess he wouldn't play again
 
I wish people would stop putting Sunderland Echo links up, stop being so patriotic, it has to be one of the shittest sites I've ever had the misfortune to view.
 
PhilSAFC said:
Where did I say that like you f***ing arsehole?

My point is Rolf Harris and the likes got done for very serious offences not just kissing and their sentences weren't that harsh.
Click to expand...

Rolf's trial was very dodgy and no, his offences weren't actually that serious - the main one was a girl who said he seduced her at 15 but she kept coming back on and off and having sex with him til she was 29 (never with any coercion). Two were alleged gropes of 17-18 year olds and one was 'hugging' an 8 year old at a County Fair when she sat on his lap inappropriately.

Now Stuart Hall - there was a guy whose actions really were quite serious...

But I agree 5-10 years seems way over the usual tariff and he is being made an example of. Look at the various child sex gang sentences and you'll see a better comparison than doddering 1970's TV presenters.
 
West Winger said:
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.
Click to expand...
If that's true it's just ridiculous, though I guess it would serve as a deterrent. What a waste, the stupid knacker
 
darius said:
Haven't they said in the statement that they had no indication that he wouldn't refute the allegations


I rest my case
Click to expand...
But The club didn't deny it and actually admitted they had 'some' of the papers ... why didn't they deny it if it wasn't true?!?

darius said:
Allegedly. If she had seen the evidence as a lawyer they would not say he refuted the allegations
Click to expand...


Nope... you can admit to kissing someone but plead not guilty for various reasons ...
 
It was
Grooming - talking in a sexual manner etc - Pleaded guilty
Sexual activity - kissing - Pleaded guilty
Sexual activity - fingering - Pleaded not guilty - Found guilty
Sexual Activity - Sucked him off - Pleaded not guilty - Found not guilty

Personally I think the jury have got it wrong, and the fact it was only a 10-2 verdict shows that there wasn't conclusive evidence to show it either did or didn't happen. When I say "got it wrong" I mean that they couldn't prove it beyond all reasonable doubt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top