• 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.
radjee gadjee said:
Aye son. up to 10 years is what you are going to get,

There'll be a few on here looking forward to you disappearing for 10 years :)
Click to expand...

Good one.

Seriously though, not just saying this because he played for Sunderland, I'd say it for anyone, if he gets anywhere near 10 years its way over the top for what happened. He deserves a couple of years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATS

LeicesterMackem said:
The jury are not necessarily saying that at all. You're just making up your own facts about the case.
Click to expand...

You clearly have little understanding of English Law.

A Not Guilty verdict does in fact mean you are not culpable of the crime with which you have been charged.

That verdict is used to specifically express that you are not guilty, in other words innocent, of the crime brought before you. Moreover, you didn't do it.
 
Mr Redknapp said:
Wouldn't worry about newspapers. they will be dead in the next couple of decades. Existing online only.
who wants to read news that is already 24 hours old?
Click to expand...
I'm not worried really, as I said earlier they are next weeks chip wrappers (I know they don't use newspapers anymore but you know what I mean). I just had headlines like that regardless of what it's about
 
theinediblebulk said:
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.
Click to expand...

1) But even if he's proven by the courts as being a liar, nobody would suggest that means everything he says is a lie. And it seems like a strange one to lie about giving the club documents. But even if you're right, what's the harm in refuting it?

2) I doubt there is a non-disclouse agreement, but even if so, SAFC have a right to refute false allegations.

3) I agree he wouldn't ever be likely to be charged, but it would still be perjury. Besides, separate to that, if he's lied about Byrne knowing the club should sue him because it no doubt harms the clubs reputation.

I agree he's the only fucker to blame as far as his actions are concerned, but there are still q's to be raised about how the club has responded to those actions.
 
Locke's SAFC said:
You clearly have little understanding of English Law.

A Not Guilty verdict does in fact mean you are not culpable of the crime with which you have been charged.

That verdict is used to specifically express that you are not guilty, in other words innocent, of the crime brought before you. Moreover, you didn't do it.
Click to expand...
But it doesn't mean he didn't do it like
 
johnson said:
Good one.

Seriously though, not just saying this because he played for Sunderland, I'd say it for anyone, if he gets anywhere near 10 years its way over the top for what happened. He deserves a couple of years.
Click to expand...

10 years is way OTT like.
It's more than someone would get for GBH, murder etc.

I'd have thought (depending on which of the charges he was guilty of) he would get around 18 months and be placed on the Sex Offenders register.

I'm also assuming that he will be appealing the Guilty verdict.
 
Lanchesterredandwhite said:
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.
Click to expand...

It is certainly the same as concluding there was no case to answer.

Under English Law 'the balance of probability' is a reasonability test as to whether the defendant is guilty or otherwise. It is most certainly not a judgement as to how likely the defendant is guilty. Under English Law you are either innocent or guilty dependent upon the balance of probability; it does not mean that we can't say you're 70% guilty but we'll call it 50/50 - that's not the way English Law works.

In this instance the jury decided that the evidence and witness testimony suggested he was telling the truth on this particular matter and she wasn't. No 50/50 etc.
 
radjee gadjee said:
10 years is way OTT like.
It's more than someone would get for GBH, murder etc.

I'd have thought (depending on which of the charges he was guilty of) he would get around 18 months and be placed on the Sex Offenders register.

I'm also assuming that he will be appealing the Guilty verdict.
Click to expand...

That is what I assumed, and I think it fits the crime of a thick and stupid lad who has made a huge mistake and rightly deserves to get punished.

The judge says the minimum sentence will be 4 years.

As you say, GBH etc, it just doesn't seem right to me.
 
Locke's SAFC said:
You clearly have little understanding of English Law.

A Not Guilty verdict does in fact mean you are not culpable of the crime with which you have been charged.

That verdict is used to specifically express that you are not guilty, in other words innocent, of the crime brought before you. Moreover, you didn't do it.
Click to expand...

That's not true.

I do have an understanding of English law. Not guilty isn't 'in other words innocent'. The clue is in the name it means you aren't guilty, nothing more, nothing less.

What do you mean 'moreover, you didn't do it'. This just isn't true. Nobody or no website with information on the English legal system would say that, where are you getting this stuff from.

As I said before: guilty = allegations of the criminal offence proven beyond reasonable doubt. not guilty = allegations of the criminal offence not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Thats all there is to it, nothing more, nothing less. Innocent isn't a concept in our criminal legal system.
 
So did anyone reads his texts he sent to the girl ? :lol: What a piece of a garbage, I'd expect that from a 60 year old ugly bastard (most brits don't age well to be fair) who hasn't got a lay in 20 years. Also the censorship from the mods a few hours ago would make even the NSA proud :lol::lol::lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top