• 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.
theinediblebulk said:
Club would not have had police statements the police and the CPS do not give statements made in a police station to employers. I have direct experience of this, so should know. Unlike a lot of wannabe Columbo's on here whose only experience of the whole getting arrested, being charged and going to court is probably down to watching a few episodes of the Bill. What the club would have been informed of is the allegations being made due to the nature of the offence and the nature of Johnson's employment. Hence the safeguarding and seeking independent legal advice by the club.

If there was a sniff that Johnson was guilty of the allegations, he'd have been sacked there and then, which is in fact exactly what happened when he put a guilty plea in. The issue seems to be just how much did the club know. From the statement they released it's obvious to me that they knew what the allegations were but were bound by that innocent until proven guilty malarky and couldn't actually act on them. Especially when Johnson had stated he was going to deny them all. So all the club had was one set of allegations and a denial, not one scrap of evidence.

The only thing I'm doubtful of is the whole suspension thing as I don't know what employment law has to say about this. Obviously you can't sack someone for allegations but not sure about if it would have been possible to suspend him indefinitely.

Johnson is the one who lied through his teeth all the way and it's him thta should be getting the boot put into him. Not sure how anyone else is to blame for him wanting to shag a 15 year old.
Click to expand...
This.

I think the only way they could have really suspended him would have been with pay, without getting into trouble with the relevant players' union. That would obviously mean paying him a lot of money to do nothing, which isn't really feasible.
 

Think we just to clarify that that the "shags who he wants" chant was before he pleaded guilty and we all thought he was innocent, have not heard one chant from SAFC fans since his guilty plea......

He is not a Sunderland player now, so let's just forget about him and move on....
 
Idlewild Mackem said:
:lol: :lol:
Click to expand...

Personally, i think he's right. Either they've been very badly advised or someone high up the food chain has made a very poor decision.

The change of plea is irrelevant, as soon as they were in possession of the transcripts and they knew he kissed her, they should have hung him out to dry.

Appreciate my views wont be popular.
 
As far as I'm concerned the club can put this to bed by answering "no" to the following questions in respect of the meeting last year:

(i) were you informed that Adam Johnson had met and kissed a 15 year old fan?
(ii) were you provided with a copy of his police interview transcript?
(iii) were you provided with copies of the Whatsapp messages between Johnson and the girl?

I would like to think that the club could do that.
 
FN-2187 said:
So, in saying all this which I think is a very good explanation by the way. Johnson said that the club knew what he'd done in regards to the kissing and whatsApp. Does that mean he must be lying?
Click to expand...

Good question and my answer is Johnson is being a sneaky twat with his answer. The club knew about the allegations, no doubt about that. However Johnson seems to be making out that the club knew the facts regarding his guilt about the allegations, which isn't true. They knew about the allegations but didn't know he was pleading guilty. I think the term I'm looking for is disingenuous, at least to how I see it.
 
theinediblebulk said:
Club would not have had police statements. The police and the CPS do not give statements made in a police station to employers. I have direct experience of this, so should know. Unlike a lot of wannabe Columbo's on here whose only experience of the whole getting arrested, being charged and going to court is probably down to watching a few episodes of the Bill. What the club would have been informed of is the allegations being made due to the nature of the offence and the nature of Johnson's employment. Hence the safeguarding and seeking independent legal advice by the club.

If there was a sniff that Johnson was guilty of the allegations, he'd have been sacked there and then, which is in fact exactly what happened when he put a guilty plea in. The issue seems to be just how much did the club know. From the statement they released it's obvious to me that they knew what the allegations were but were bound by that innocent until proven guilty malarky and couldn't actually act on them. Especially when Johnson had stated he was going to deny them all. So all the club had was one set of allegations and a denial, not one scrap of evidence.

The only thing I'm doubtful of is the whole suspension thing as I don't know what employment law has to say about this. Obviously you can't sack someone for allegations but not sure about if it would have been possible to suspend him indefinitely.

Johnson is the one who lied through his teeth all the way and it's him thta should be getting the boot put into him. Not sure how anyone else is to blame for him wanting to shag a 15 year old.
Click to expand...

Get them told
 
TAFKAHM said:
Think we just to clarify that that the "shags who he wants" chant was before he pleaded guilty and we all thought he was innocent, have not heard one chant from SAFC fans since his guilty plea......

He is not a Sunderland player now, so let's just forget about him and move on....
Click to expand...
that is what we need to do as you can guarantee the press as scouring this board to try and fill in some comments
 
He told the court he was innocent. As soon as he told the court he was guilty he was sacked.

Is safc a higher force than the court? Nope

Did safc know he was Lieing to the court? Well that's a canny accusation - good luck to anyone who makes it! Also implies the prosecutor is an imbecile as they didn't call Byrne as a witness. 'Did AJ say he did it?' 'Yes'.

Seems more likely that AJ lied to the club just as he lied to the court
 
Sweeper said:
I believe the patter was that Johnson and his QC handed over the interview transcripts (not the police). If that's false, why have the club not addressed it? The allegation made against the club - in court - was that they knew last year that he had kissed the girl and they were given copies of the transcript and the whatsapp messages. The club statement says "Some documents were received relating to the case". If those documents were not the transcript and whatsapp messages, as alleged, why haven't the club said so?
Click to expand...

This.

The club haven't addressed this in the statement. Just avoided it altogether.
This will run and run until this question is answered.
 
janey said:
Pretty much spot on, I share your outrage ;)


It says in the statement that they lifted the ban because he refuted the charges and after consultation with the PFA
Click to expand...

You're wasting your time Janey, the hindsight brigade are all over this. The fact the the professional footballers association were behind his reinstatement has nothing to do with this. the club should have handed him over to the wolves.

In case of doubt, nobody is defending Johnson here, but our club had their hands tied.
 
andymcnish said:
You think the QC (who was there) lied about it to the judge and jury?
Click to expand...
He doesn't need to, if he believes his client to be telling the truth. If the jury had thought the accused was telling the truth he wouldn't have been found guilty.
 
haway said:
He admitted in his police station interview he kissed her - that came out in trial - if they just asked for a copy of the tape before reinstating him they would have known.

I don't know, I think there would be much less of a shit storm than the current situation where it appears (allegedly and currently) like we've played someone we knew kissed a minor.
Click to expand...
and they would just hand over it. numbskull
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top