• 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.
johnson said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't think he did?
 

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...

It doesn't at all.

Read about English Law.

There is no such concept as what you're claiming, although there is under Scottish Law.

Under English Law a Not Guilty verdict means you are not culpable of the crime with which you are charged.
 
johnson said:
It does like, thats the law, its all we have to go off.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. It means there's not enough evidence to charge him with it. He might have still done it.

Say for example I murder someone and get taken to court. They don't have enough evidence to prove without doubt it was me so I get released. I still murdered someone.
 
Media will be even more glad to see us go down after how this has turned out.

Allardyce should try and instil a siege mentality.
 
Locke's SAFC said:
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.
Click to expand...

reasonable doubt 'tis all.
 
theinediblebulk said:
Club would not have had police statements. The police and the CPS do not give statements made in a police station to employers. I have direct experience of this, so should know. Unlike a lot of wannabe Columbo's on here whose only experience of the whole getting arrested, being charged and going to court is probably down to watching a few episodes of the Bill. Shared big man. the club would have been informed of is the allegations being made due to the nature of the offence and the nature of Johnson's employment. Hence the safeguarding and seeking independent legal advice by the club.

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. The issue seems to be just how much did
Click to expand...

Wouldn't even tell the employer in these circumstances.
 
Bishop Mackem said:
No it doesn't. It means there's not enough evidence to charge him with it. He might have still done it.

Say for example I murder someone and get taken to court. They don't have enough evidence to prove without doubt it was me so I get released. I still murdered someone.
Click to expand...

According to the law you didn't.

For the same theory you get people found guilty, who didn't commit the crime don't you? But according to the law they did it.

Its the only system we have and you have to trust it.
 
Locke's SAFC said:
It doesn't at all.

Read about English Law.

There is no such concept as what you're claiming, although there is under Scottish Law.

Under English Law a Not Guilty verdict means you are not culpable of the crime with which you are charged.
Click to expand...

Yes but that has nothing to do with being innocent you knacker. Everyone is right in this thread about this except you yet you keep digging. Not guilty DOES NOT MEAN INNOCENT IN ENGLISH LAW!!!!!!!
 
johnson said:
According to the law you didn't.

For the same theory you get people found guilty, who didn't commit the crime don't you? But according to the law they did it.

Its the only system we have and you have to trust it.
Click to expand...

It's meaningless in this conversation anyway since the trials over. Whatever punishment he gets is entirely his own fault anyway so no sympathy from me
 
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...
But surely they did know how he would play. They'd not used him much in the run in last season and he wasn't more than a super sub this season. The club acted like they were protecting an asset that they hoped would be around for the long term. If they'd read the transcripts they simply couldn't believe that.

I dunno. Guess we have to wait for further clarification.
 
Bishop Mackem said:
It's meaningless in this conversation anyway since the trials over. Whatever punishment he gets is entirely his own fault anyway so no sympathy from me
Click to expand...

I was just saying if we are condemning and accepting the guilty verdict for 1 offence, meaning he definitely did it, we have to accept that he was not guilty and therefore didn't do the other offence.

Otherwise its a bit double standards

I agree there is not much to be gained from this thread, I won't be saying much. But I do think regardless of who he is, if he gets anywhere near 10 years, it is ridiculously over the top.
 
Makes the Alvarez thing even stranger to me, cast one player into the wilderness for having a knee injury and keep another one around through sex crime allegations. We might still have to pay a huge amount of money for that lad.

Understand that both were complicated situations that the club could have easily been acting in good faith in, just a mess though.
 
Crook Mackem said:
10 yrs f***ing hell.

Sums the justice system in this country up if he gets anywhere near that.

I still think the paedo tag is a bit harsh me. f***ing braindead idiot would be a better description bt hes hardly a saville type systematically preying on vulnerables.
Click to expand...

My exact opinion. He is a thick as pig shit.
 
Crook Mackem said:
10 yrs f***ing hell.

Sums the justice system in this country up if he gets anywhere near that.

I still think the paedo tag is a bit harsh me. f***ing braindead idiot would be a better description bt hes hardly a saville type systematically preying on vulnerables.
Click to expand...

Don't teachers regularly get less time for having sex with pupils? I was shocked when I read it could be that long.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top