• 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.
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...

Ever thought about becoming a barrister ? :lol:
 

mad cyril said:
It's disgusting that a club chose money over what was the right thing to do. Perhaps they thought it wouldn't see the light of day but unfortunately the truth is now known.
The sad thing is the vast majority of clubs probably would have done the same thing. I'm sure we like to think that boro / Newcastle would be different and would have fired him on the spot but sadly they probably would also have turned a blind eye.
Sunderland, are just one in a long line of morally bankrupt clubs unfortunately.
Click to expand...
Absolute nonsense. They are offices of a football club, not lawyers. Our club is far from morally bancrupt.
 
Market Where? said:
The club say they will not be making another statement - I f***ing bet they will when the entire shitstorm hits the papers.
Click to expand...

The club isn't responsible for him. They gave him the benefit of the doubt; I would have done too. Innocent until proven guilty. Upon entering a guilty plea then that was that.

Can't see why the club would need to comment any further.
 
Rickybilly said:
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. What were the texts?
Click to expand...


Not at all.

If a jury believes it is 51% likely that the accused was guilty, they can't convict in a criminal court.

The girl was not on trial, and on three of the four charges the jury believed that she was telling the truth. On the fourth, the jury did not believe that there was proof beyond reasonable doubt.

There is no evidence that the girl was lying.
 
Sweeper said:
Isn't it well documented that he admitted to meeting and kissing the girl in his interview? On that basis, you have to assume that the transcript reflects that. If that is the case, and the club were indeed provided with the transcript a year ago, he should not have played again.
Click to expand...

Don't know. If he did and that's been reported somewhere, fair enough, but I've not seen that.
 
theinediblebulk said:
Aye, I'll accept the handing over of transcripts being instigated by his own lawyer like. However, what do the transcripts contain? I f it was a full and frank admission of the allegations, he's getting a P45 straight away. So my money is on him denying that any criminal activity took place when he was interviewed by the police and this was then used by him as evidence that he was innocent.

'Look, here's a copy of my interview, I'm denying it and pleading not guilty."

So we end up back at the club knowing about the allegations but having the accused making a full denial.

This is just my take on it, based on a bit of personal experience of being inside the whole justice game. Other points of view are available.
Click to expand...

Indeed. It's an important part of the evidence which is about to be tested in court in front of a Jury, not pre judged by his employer at some kangaroo court. One of the most eminent barristers in the country stood there assuring the club that he was about to plead not guilty to all charges and Maggie giving it "You're fired!" It was never going to happen.

The club has handled a delicate matter as well as can be expected in my view.
 
theinediblebulk said:
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.
Click to expand...

You haven't been following the trial, have you?

It's came out in trial he admitted kissing her in the police station interview, he basically admitted it all from the outset (but continued to plead NG).

The issue is exactly that Johnson says he gave the club all the whatsapp's. Every one. And we know from the case what those whatsapp's include. So SAFC just needs to deny they received them. They haven't.

People plead not guilty for tactical reasons all the time e.g. to avoid being remanded, that's all Johnson has done. Not pleaded despite basically making admissions from the outset. He's then accused SAFC of seeing those admissions. SAFC haven't responded to that allegation.
 
I think we can all agree....

this has been no good for anyone involved at alll.

not excusing Johnson he will serve his punishment for an idiotic episode.
 
theinediblebulk said:
Aye, I'll accept the handing over of transcripts being instigated by his own lawyer like. However, what do the transcripts contain? I f it was a full and frank admission of the allegations, he's getting a P45 straight away. So my money is on him denying that any criminal activity took place when he was interviewed by the police and this was then used by him as evidence that he was innocent.

'Look, here's a copy of my interview, I'm denying it and pleading not guilty."

So we end up back at the club knowing about the allegations but having the accused making a full denial.

This is just my take on it, based on a bit of personal experience of being inside the whole justice game. Other points of view are available.
Click to expand...

Have you seen what he admitted in police interviews? He admitted he kissed her and said 'does that count as sexual activity with a child, like?' The man is as thick as mince as admitted it all from the outset (the kissing that is). This came out in trial.
 
Rickybilly said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's exactly my point fella. If they did see the files then it would have been obvious to a layman that Johnson had admitted grooming and sexual activity with a child in his first interview. The only way that doesn't get into the public domain is if there is no trial. That is a hell of a gamble for Byrne to take - one that probably unlikely. I could believe that they didn't read the file - and that may be sufficient incompetence that would see Byrne moved on (rumours suggest it will happen in the summer). However it is highly unlikely that the club read the transcripts and chose to do nothing.
 
Rickybilly said:
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?
Click to expand...
Not true. The jury could 'believe her' but not be 'convinced beyond all reasonable doubt'.

The verdict in no way, shape or form means the girl lied and it shouldn't be treated as such.
 
haway said:
Absolutely pathetic response imo. Totally fails to respond to whether or not they knew he had admitted it. We know they believed he was pleading not guilty, the issue is whether or not he disclosed information that meant his continued employment was inappropriate. Need to answer whether the club knew he kissed her/ saw the messages. That statement answers neither.
Click to expand...

dissappointing and no doubt all we'll ever hear.

would have been very easy - and you would think preferable for the club - to strongly deny ever knowing any of it in the statement. the fact is was worded so diplomatical and in typical woolly politician garbage speak makes me fear the worst.

but aye, we'll never know.
 
Lanchesterredandwhite said:
Not at all.

If a jury believes it is 51% likely that the accused was guilty, they can't convict in a criminal court.

The girl was not on trial, and on three of the four charges the jury believed that she was telling the truth. On the fourth, the jury did not believe that there was proof beyond reasonable doubt.

There is no evidence that the girl was lying.
Click to expand...
The Jury believed her in respect of 1 count on the indictment. He was found not guilty on 1 count. He admitted 2 counts so the Jury did not have to consider whether her testimony was true in respect to those 2 counts. Whose to say that if AJ had pleaded NG on all counts that the Jurors would have found him guilty of the three?
I agree there was no evidence of her lying but clearly they believed her in respect of one allegation but were not certain in respect of the other. If there was corroboration in respect of the allegation that he was found guilty on but not on the other then I agree.
 
Sweeper said:
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?
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I honestly think it's healthy to ask these questions and I'd be more comfortable if they had also refuted that testimony. But I can't see supporters ever being given an answer now, so I'll have to presume that the speculation is just that, until I know otherwise.
 
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...
No it's not, she was 15 and a few days, he was 27 and used his fame to abuse her. Do you think she'd have met you in return for a wedge of cheese ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top