• 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.
Dizzy Keelman said:
Suspending someone with pay means paying them a lot of money to do nothing. Private firms generally will try to avoid doing this, especially when it's a footballer's wage. I'm making the assumption that they didn't have a valid reason to suspend him without pay/sack him, otherwise they surely would have done so. If they did have reason to do so and chose not to, then they would be in the wrong, but there's no evidence (other than his testimony) that this was the case, as far as I'm aware.
Click to expand...

His testimony is presently unrefuted by the club. The allegations that he admitted kissing her and that the police transcript/800 whatsapp messages were given to the club at that meeting are presently unrefuted, Why are they unrefuted, if they are refutable?
 

I love how Johnson was allowed a trial and under law was innocent until proven guilty. Yet the club who have committed no crime are guilty until proven
ktel said:
He's only ever admitted to anything when he had absolutely no choice.

Self preservation was uppermost in his mind- he has shown no consideration for the defendant his wife or the club.

No doubt he was hoping that the case might be dropped in the intervening year when he was pleading not guilty and of course he would have wanted to earn as much as possible regardless.

As much as the club could perhaps of handled this better the real focus should be on him.
Click to expand...
spot on
 
The Cabbage said:
We've been trying to get players off the wage bill for years. We were presented with an opportunity to do that while also protecting ourselves from a virtually guaranteed shitstorm and instead we chose to knowingly play a lad we could be fairly certain was mere months away from being found guilty on numerous serious charges? It's not a convincing story.
Click to expand...
But you have just given the reason why the club would have jumped at the chance to sack him but didnt. That gives them credibility.
 
Rickybilly said:
Exactly what more evidence was there of digital penetration by him than oral sex by her. The jury clearly believed her that he penetrated her but were not convinced that she was telling the truth in respect of the oral sex! The evidence of both relied upon her testimony. If the jury had any doubts that she was telling lies in respect of some of her evidence then it should have tainted all of her evidence. Watch for the appeal!
Click to expand...

Texts referring to it.

There is no evidence that the jury thought she was lying.
 
Redcar said:
The CEO was present in the interview and saw the documents relating to the case ie the WhatsApp messages (according to what was revealed in court, which the club haven't denied in the statement) .

From what was revealed in those messages it was pretty clear he'd be guilty. If I was a SAFC fan I'd be sickened if she didn't sack him after seeing those.
Click to expand...
Well thank goodness you are not a SAFC fan. We have a general generosity for our club. We may, and do criticise them for their football failings, but we do not expect them to be qualified lawyers.

Your comment is idiotic.
 
The Cabbage said:
We've been trying to get players off the wage bill for years. We were presented with an opportunity to do that while also protecting ourselves from a virtually guaranteed shitstorm and instead we chose to knowingly play a lad we could be fairly certain was mere months away from being found guilty on numerous serious charges? It's not a convincing story.
Click to expand...


Do you think that if the same charges had been levelled at, say, Danny Graham, the club would have behaved in the same way? I don't.
 
peil said:
;) Not quite, but the case of someone getting 9 years, that does seem a bit lightweight.

Anyway, hope he gets athletes foot in the showers
Click to expand...

He'll get more than athletes foot in the showers where he's going.
By the time he gets out his hoop will be like a tattered windsock!
 
Redcar said:
This is what was said in court and has not been denied.
Click to expand...

Why should the club deny or answer anything they had no clue about. The club have been lied to by the player and his legal team in my opinion. Just to add I also believe PFA put pressure on the club to reinstate the player as I believe Sunderland would of stuck by their original action to fully suspended him till the outcome of his trial.
 
I said this on two threads and none of the posters accusing the club have replied.

If he told the club in May he was planning to plead guilty then why did he plead not guilty to all accounts in June? Surely it would have benefit the the to sack him in May rather than February?

Could the police have informed the club of Johnson's interaction with the girl to safeguard them from further accusations and to inform them how serious the accusations where?

Johnson was looking to stay out of jail. The evidence was stacked against him. By pleading guilty to 2 of the charges he might get a lighter sentence and throw a serve ball in his favour for the other 2. He was trying to convince the jury that he was stupid and sorry for what he done. He trying make himself look like he seen the errors of his way. Part of that was to show how open and honest he was from day one.

Maybe the club knew what the accusation was but didn't know if he committed what he was accused of? So yes the club knew what allegedly happened but didn't know the full facts.
 
Lanchesterredandwhite said:
Texts referring to it.

There is no evidence that the jury thought she was lying.
Click to expand...
But conversely they didnt believe her otherwise they would have found him guilty on that count but I do take your point if there was other corroborating evidence in respect of the count that they convicted him on. What were the texts?
 
TAFKAHM said:
I've got one more comment, that we discussed at work today, Johnson high profile status got him arrested, I know a couple that are happily married with kids, when they first got together, she was 15 and he was 25, its a very fine line.....
Click to expand...

It's not a fine line at all. It's child abuse.

Just reading those texts said everything about how Adam Johnson was using his position to have sex with a child.
 
FN-2187 said:
This is spot on. If Johnson is lying and there is no proof at all that the club had anything then they should deny it and it will be put to bed.
Click to expand...

That's the issue mate. Nobody is saying the club have definitely done anything wrong. The problem is they've been accused of something, have put out a long and fairly clever reply, but haven't responded to what was alleged. I think the cynic in a fair few of us on here is reckoning that their failure to answer the allegations might be because they know people won't like the answer, but if that's not the case and they say so as far as I'm concerned this matter would be over in an instant.
 
haway said:
What experience do you have, out of curiosity?

'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' - What do you base this on? It has been alleged in court that Johnson told SAFC he kissed her. It has been alleged in court SAFC were given all the whatsapp messages. This is all under oath. SAFC have issued a reply, they haven't responded to him kissing her at all, re. the whatsapps all they've said is they received 'some documents'.

You say 'they didn't have one scrap of evidence' but if this is true then all we're asking is for them to come out and say that! Say they didn't have the whatsapp messages, say he didn't admit to them he'd kissed her! They have had that put to them and have CHOSEN NOT TO RESPOND to those specific allegations. That's why people are frustrated by the club's response, because they have circumvented what the answers need to be about. If they denied ever having court papers (or the whatsapp messages) or whatever I think everyone here would believe them over AJ... The issue is they aren't denying what the crux of the problem is.
Click to expand...

Being arrested, being charged, going to court and walking out scott free. On a few occasions. I wasn't always the shining light of virtue that I am now.

As I've said about evidence, depends on what exactly the club were given, and there is no way that his defence team are going to hand over anything that would say he was guilty. I personally believe that he would have denied the allegations when questioned under caution, or to put it another way, lied through his f***ing teeth to the cops. This is not an unknown phenomena. Unlike what TV cop shows depict, lots of accused don't break down in interview with 'It's a fair cop guv.' If you think you can get off with whatever you've been charged with, you'll go for it.

And the club can't deny knowing what the allegations were, because they knew about them. However, the club aren't in a position to decide on Johnson's guilt based on what 'documents' they had, that was a job for the courts. And I doubt anyone on here has any idea what is actually in those documents, but if the club received them from his defence lawyer, I'd bet everything I own that there would be no admission of guilt in them.
 
bowers2 said:
I have read their detailed statement and fully believe every word.
As an employer they acted with the professionalism I would expect.
I'd rather believe my club than the rubbish invented by the papers, groups of fans unfurling banners or a convicted proven liar.

Well done SAFC.

Sunderland til I die.
Click to expand...

I believe everything in the statement is true. It's hard to be wrong when you say nothing at all.

They haven't denied any of the "rubbish invented by the papers, groups of fans unfurling banners or a convicted proven liar".

Absolute shite from the club.
 
Lots of people getting the boot in now.

Trial heard #Johnson pocketed £3m wages after playing for 11 mths despite telling Sunderland AFC from start he groomed & kissed schoolgirl

Jerry Lawson, journo who has been at court throughout.

Ms Phillipson: Sunderland AFC made `despicable decision’ to `ignore the victim’ and expose her to a weekly ordeal of fans’ abuse #johnson

Wearside woman of need.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top