• 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.
The Cabbage said:
It's a very short term view though. It seems far fetched that they would knowingly play it like that for a player that was taking home significant wages and - evidence suggested - wouldn't contribute that much. All of this at the very start of the summer transfer window where they'd have ample opportunity to replace him. So while the loss of someone like Roberge would hardly register, the ability to benefit from Johnson going would be significant - and would protect them from the inevitable furore when he was found guilty. It would be a bizarre approach to take given all the factors. I'd be very surprised if anyone with a modicum of intelligence would do it given everything that was at stake.
Click to expand...

Of course it is a short term view. It's the only one the club ever takes. The club had no idea how Johnson would play during the run up to the trial - some players, like Lee Bowyer, played their best football while in a similar situation. And although Johnson was not the same player after arrest, right up to his last few minutes on the pitch, he was scoring and creating more goals than most. The club aren't disputing the fact that they had the information they needed to know that Johnson was dodgy as hell. All the club were looking at was that they were in a relegation battle, and their best player was going to be charged, but he was handily giving them a get-out by telling them he was going to plead not guilty.

Personally I think that some things - like doing the right thing - are more important than relegation battles. I don't think that anyone at that club agrees.
 

haway said:
Well from what Johnson said he handed over 800 whatsapp messages (every one). They included statements like 'I want to feel how turned on you are'. The club haven't refuted that.

What you speculate about may well be true but the issue is if it IS true then why don't SAFC say that? Why don't they say he lied to them? Why don't they say he's lied in court and he didn't give them all the whatsapps? Why don't they say he never said he kissed her?

Nobody is doubting that he might have misled SAFC, but the reluctance from SAFC to deny key allegations against them is what is worrying. IMO.
Click to expand...

Can well see that point of view, no worries on that score, and can well understand people's concerns over the matter. I'm partially inclined to agree that the club could have taken the position of stating exactly what documentation they had and what it contained. The big problem I see with this is the fact that it's someone who has been proven by the courts to be a liar is making the allegations. And I also have no idea about the circumstances that the club were under for it to see the documents, ie a non-disclosure agreement, as that level of law is well above me.

As for the perjury you mentioned earlier, I'm not sure that an accused can be done for perjury, at least I've never heard of it happening. If you think about how many trails there are, how many people plead not guilty but are found guilty, there'd be a shit load of further court cases for perjury. Think it's just accepted that an accused just might be a lying twat in the dock. Again, not an uncommon occurrence.

Doubt we'll ever know exactly what has been passed between the defence team and Sunderland but there is no doubt at all that Johnson is a lying twat and has brought a shit load of grief onto himself, his family, his employers and his victim. He's the only fucker to blame in all of this imo.
 
ollie c said:
What has occurred is dreadful and I've done my fair share of criticising the club over the years, but I hadn't realised the utter hatred some harbour for SAFC. Genuinely, it might be better to walk away if you feel you have personally been slighted in the name of the club....it seems feelings run very high. I respect that stance, of course, but keep in mind its a football club, lads.
Click to expand...
It's awful that this situation has dragged many good people apart and causing arguments
 
Lanchesterredandwhite said:
Of course it is a short term view. It's the only one the club ever takes. The club had no idea how Johnson would play during the run up to the trial - some players, like Lee Bowyer, played their best football while in a similar situation. And although Johnson was not the same player after arrest, right up to his last few minutes on the pitch, he was scoring and creating more goals than most. The club aren't disputing the fact that they had the information they needed to know that Johnson was dodgy as hell. All the club were looking at was that they were in a relegation battle, and their best player was going to be charged, but he was handily giving them a get-out by telling them he was going to plead not guilty.

Personally I think that some things - like doing the right thing - are more important than relegation battles. I don't think that anyone at that club agrees.
Click to expand...
As I understand it if the club did know as you say the earliest they knew was at the May meeting, were they not safe from relegation by then
 
Locke's SAFC said:
There is no problem, I've no idea what you're talking about on that count.

English law of course is defined by the concept of proven beyond reasonable doubt.

But, under said law you are innocent or guilty.

The girl will in way no way be considered to have perjured herself because that too requires evidence that can never be proven without witness or forensic evidence.

Yet, by declaring him innocent of that crime then by extension the jury is stating they believed him not her. They didn't believe what she had to say.

'Proven beyond reasonable doubt' does not mean that the incident is simply 'not proven'. That is a concept associated with Scottish Law not English Law.

Under English Law, 'Proven beyond Reasonable Doubt' is a reasonability test and in the event that test is failed then you are innocent. Full Stop. Which in effect means there is no case to answer which in effect means she didn't have a case.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, you're putting words in my mouth and making things up. I've never mentioned anything about 'not proven'.

On one count, the jury found Johnson not guilty. That is not the same as coming to the conclusion that the complainant was lying. Nor is it the same as coming to the conclusion that there was no case to answer.
 
Locke's SAFC said:
There is no problem, I've no idea what you're talking about on that count.

English law of course is defined by the concept of proven beyond reasonable doubt.

But, under said law you are innocent or guilty.

The girl will in way no way be considered to have perjured herself because that too requires evidence that can never be proven without witness or forensic evidence.

Yet, by declaring him innocent of that crime then by extension the jury is stating they believed him not her. They didn't believe what she had to say.

'Proven beyond reasonable doubt' does not mean that the incident is simply 'not proven'. That is a concept associated with Scottish Law not English Law.

Under English Law, 'Proven beyond Reasonable Doubt' is a reasonability test and in the event that test is failed then you are innocent. Full Stop. Which in effect means there is no case to answer which in effect means she didn't have a case.
Click to expand...

It doesn't mean that at all. It simply means that they didn't believe there was sufficient evidence to return a guilty verdict. They may all have believed her but couldn't convict as the weight of evidence wasn't there.
 
bahtat said:
As I understand it if the club did know as you say the earliest they knew was at the May meeting, were they not safe from relegation by then
Click to expand...
Still had 4 more games, Johnson was sub against Everton and Leicester but started the Arsenal game
 
Friendly Fire said:
It doesn't mean that at all. It simply means that they didn't believe there was sufficient evidence to return a guilty verdict. They may all have believed her but couldn't convict as the weight of evidence wasn't there.
Click to expand...
You can't second guess what they were thinking, so why assume you can.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top