• 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.
Rickybilly said:
Why?
Click to expand...
1: Neither of them relied solely on her testimony
2: Just because they couldn't prove one case "beyond reasonable doubt" doesn't mean that the other charge wasn't
3: There needs to be "a real prospect of success" or "some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard", not being convicted of another charge isn't enough.
 

MunkyHeed said:
Eeeeeeeh. Bet yours looks like a wookies armpit down there man. Probably smells like one too.
Click to expand...

:lol::lol: Get fucked mate. Mines like a Wimbledon tennis court.

I use a beard trimmer mate. I only shave me balls now and again.

My point was nee one could shave their bush, Ive done it once and never again. It f***ing itched for months after.
 
The Cabbage said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sorry mate, i thought you were arguing against!
 
janey said:
I know her well personally, she hates all men and I mean hates them. Not for on here but she would hate him regardless and she'd hate you and every other bloke on here, because she would see sexism and abuse in every comment. Not getting into the debate again but I'm not surprised she's had her say.
Click to expand...
The fact she's likened it to a Jimmy Saville like scandal says it all, we have our differences on this subject but it's in no way similar, one bloke and a football club compared to a huge corporation, hospitals etc and 100's of victims over years and years. Totally minimising what Saville did to prove her point.
 
Twisted said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think that's all our worries tbf.
 
Locke's SAFC said:
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.
Click to expand...
Because the media and a significant proportion of there own fans are asking questions. Not healthy for sponsors. Someone will carry the can.
 
prehab26 said:
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 in need.
Click to expand...


she's a reet mag her mind
 
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...
agree with your take on this.

Records of interview are normally done one or 2 ways.

Full transcript of every word spoken
transcript word for word of relevant section(s) and then paraphrased.

also depends on how many interviews were conducted and if anything was handed over was it relevant.

cant understand why a solicitor and the barrister were at a meeting with the club and cannot understand to logic of handing over evidence that could get into the wrong hands. Maybe they were told, here have this but you cannot act on the information as it is confidential nature. The barrister would control the meeting to ensure nothing incriminating was disclosed and was there a confidentiality clause signed that the contents of the meeting could not be disclosed due to legal privilege


I cant understand why he wants to take the club down with him.
 
haway said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, I never followed the trail, just responding to some things on a thread. The only part of the club statement that refers to documents state they handed them to the defence team.

Some documents were received relating to the case, which were immediately sent to Mr. Pownall (Johnson's barrister) for his attention. However, the club was not in a position to make any judgment on the outcome of the case nor on Mr. Johnson’s decision to defend all the allegations.

I do find it a bit strange that there is an allegation from a lying shit house about the club regarding what he was up to, yet the only mention by the club of any documents were fired straight off to his defence lawyer. What them documents are and what they contained are, to me anyways, something that no-one outside of that meeting knows about and is subject to piles of speculation. My suspicion, or speculation, is that none of them would have implicated Johnson as being guilty for a couple of reasons.

1. It was defence team that handed them over and your defence lawyer isn't there to stitch you up. He's there to get you off.
2 If any of them documents pointed to Johnson being 100% guilty, the club would have sacked him there and then.
3 he was denying all charges.

Does anyone really think his own defence team would hand over any documentation that proved him to be guilty? That's not looking after your clients best interests, which is what the lawyer is there for. That's the game. As I've said previously, lying through your teeth, whether in police interview or the dock at crown court, is nothing new and is to be expected.

Quick edit. Pleading not guilty has fuck all to do with getting remanded or bailed by the way. That's a decision made on what risk you are when it comes to re-offending, not what plea you are entering.
 
Marcosplace said:
No. I repeat. He should have been suspended throughout. Serious charges. If proven to be false - the club showed they were taking the police investigation very seriously.
Click to expand...
Innocent until proven guilty. Don't think it's the right thing to do to suspend anyone until guilt is proven.
 
janey said:
The fact she's likened it to a Jimmy Saville like scandal says it all, we have our differences on this subject but it's in no way similar, one bloke and a football club compared to a huge corporation, hospitals etc and 100's of victims over years and years. Totally minimising what Saville did to prove her point.
Click to expand...
To compare it to Saville demeans all his victims - all the media care about is selling a commoditised package.
 
redgauntlet said:
You were right and I am right, what is gone is gone, it's out of our hands, we need to survive and it's not going to be easy. Another week or so and the whole thing will be history, what can be gained from all of this. I notice a lot of goalkeepers and full backs among the posters again tonight. How sad.
Click to expand...
Looking to stick the collective boot in - what desperate, sad bastards ;) the end.
 
haway said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think you may be misinterpreting what i have said. I agree entirely with the post that you have just made - they have to believe beyond reasonable doubt or as i have heard it clarified by a judge 'with certainty' that the offence was committed. Even 90% leaves some uncertainty if one considers 10% a reasonable doubt. What i was saying was if there was no corroborating evidence in respect of the 2 allegations that were contested then it would be down to the veracity of the witness. They clearly believed her when she claimed she had been digitally penetrated. They were not certain that she was telling the truth when she claimed to have performed oral sex on him. Perhaps I'm just being anal on this point.
 
Locke's SAFC said:
Not true. 'Not proven' is excepted from English Law. You're either guilty or innocent in the eyes of your peers, the jury.

The jury concluded that the girl was lying with regard to the blow job.
Click to expand...

They concluded nothing of the sort. If you don't get the difference between 'balance of probability' and 'beyond reasonable doubt', that's not my problem tbh.
 
The Cabbage said:
See my post above. Maybe they stuck their fingers in their ears but if they read the interview transcripts they would surely have acted.
Click to expand...

Why? Why do you have so much faith that Sunderland would have done the right thing?
 
Some Random Guy said:
1: Neither of them relied solely on her testimony
2: Just because they couldn't prove one case "beyond reasonable doubt" doesn't mean that the other charge wasn't
3: There needs to be "a real prospect of success" or "some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard", not being convicted of another charge isn't enough.
Click to expand...
1. I am unsighted on any corroboration in respect the 2 allegations that were challenged.
2. I agree.
3. I was thinking more on the lines of the judge misdirecting a jury but it was purely supposition. Did the Judge tell the jury that if they thought she was lying in respect of 1 allegation then considerable caution should be given to the other allegation? Purely supposition..............
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top