• 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.

Friendly Fire said:
You haven't a clue what you're going on about. He hasn't been found guilty as there was reasonable doubt. It's not a test of anything else, it's not a test of his innocence, it's a test of his guilt and the jury decided there was reasonable doubt over what had happened.
Click to expand...

Problem with that being it is you who doesn't have the first clue about English Law.

There are three cornerstones of English Law that are pertinent here: trial by a jury of your peers; due process; the presumption of innocence.

Under English Law, a Not Guilty verdict means you are presumed innocent of the charge. Part of the reason being to prevent you and a few more sitting in the pub and saying well he may have been found Not Guilty but that doesn't mean he's innocent and so we'll continue to tar him with brush and ruin his life through association with a crime or worse still take the law into our own hands with an act of vengeful violence. Not as appropriate these days but back in the day people were more than ready to take to the streets with pitch forks and fire.

Under English Law you are afforded due process in a trial by your peers. Once that trial has ended and a Not Guilty verdict has been put forth then you are presumed innocent of the charge. This isn't open for f***ing discussion by the way, these are the tenets of English Law. Done, over. Presumed innocent of the charge and as soon as he steps foot out of a court of law that's it: presumed innocent and free to live his life without a kangaroo court running 'round and saying found Not Guilty but mooe than likely guilty.

Whether or not you think there is a 60% chance he is guilty but not a 75% chance is completely irrelevant because you ain't the law in this case.

So when you say: "it's not a test of his innocence" actually it very much is because the presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of our law.
 
the sleeping giant said:
I'll state my initial, cynical view on the clubs knowledge of Johnsons guilt here & now.... as soon as he pleaded guilty I questioned how long we (the club) had known and why we'd allowed him to play right up to the trial.

And when I read comments on this thread I thought they must've avoided that question in today's statement.

But now I've read the statement, they haven't avoided it. They've answered it quite specifically. He refuted the allegations and said he was confident of being found not guilty. They lifted his suspension after discussions with lawyers and the PFA and sacked him within one day of him pleading guilty.

The clubs statement is far more robust than I expected - I don't see why they need to comment more.
Click to expand...
They don't and they won't. I'm satisfied that the club has dealt with this as best they could given the position it was landed in. Fans wanted answers and they've got them. If they're not content with those answers and they don't believe it there's not much the club can do about that.
 
the sleeping giant said:
I'll state my initial, cynical view on the clubs knowledge of Johnsons guilt here & now.... as soon as he pleaded guilty I questioned how long we (the club) had known and why we'd allowed him to play right up to the trial.

And when I read comments on this thread I thought they must've avoided that question in today's statement.

But now I've read the statement, they haven't avoided it. They've answered it quite specifically. He refuted the allegations and said he was confident of being found not guilty. They lifted his suspension after discussions with lawyers and the PFA and sacked him within one day of him pleading guilty.

The clubs statement is far more robust than I expected - I don't see why they need to comment more.
Click to expand...
They haven't answered it at all.

They said they had received documents.

They have not told us whether they knew:

If he kissed the lass.
If he groomed the lass.
If he knew she was 15 at the time of above.

The very specifically danced around answering those with a lot of fluff.
 
radjee gadjee said:
But the statement actually says fuck all.

It doesn't defend the majority of statements that Johnson made regarding them knowing he had admitted some of the charges and that they had access to police statements and the whatsapp messages.
It only says they didn't know he was going to change his plea to guilty.
It's a shocker of a statement and leaves them open to questions about their incompetence and mishandling of this whole sorry affair.
Click to expand...

Quote from Johnsons barrister

During his trial, Johnson's QC Orlando Pownall said of Sunderland: 'It's plain they knew exactly what was going on. They had the statements, they did have Mr Johnson's interview and they chose in that situation, rightly or wrongly... they allowed him to keep playing.'

Mr Pownall suggested during the trial that the decision may have been down to 'commercial considerations', telling the jury: 'You may consider SAFC were facing relegation and didn't want to lose one of their star players.'


If true i struggle to see how the club can wangle it's way out of allegedly not knowing, and secondly I'd like to see how far they can get by questioning one of the UKs leading barristers integrity by dismissing the claim.
 
Some Random Guy said:
They haven't answered it at all.

They said they had received documents.

They have not told us whether they knew:

If he kissed the lass.
If he groomed the lass.
If he knew she was 15 at the time of above.

The very specifically danced around answering those with a lot of fluff.
Click to expand...

Don't worry our press will get the answers.
 
NeilP said:
It's a bit emotive, because it's our club that is going to take the shit, but aren't the people who are saying that the club should have suspended him from the start also saying that the club have been cynical in deliberately ignoring a serious sexual offense for their own benefit? That's quite a strong insinuation and it's hard to imagine that happening, the stakes are too high.

They did suspend him, then changed their mind. What caused that to happen? We're guessing, assuming getting irate but I think that if they could have got rid back then they would have. I think if there are any fingers to be pointed it's at the PFA because I believe they put pressure on the club, and Johnson is definitely the culprit here for changing his plea at the moment the trial started. It left the club vulnerable and looking cynical. Like I said, damned if they do, damned if they don't. There was no right way for them because they'd been painted into a corner by the real cynical twat in all this.

I can't recall any Sunderland fans joining in the peado chants directed at Johnson either, the club and fans were very much in the innocent until proven guilty camp.
Click to expand...

Innocent until proven guilty yes but that doesn't mean he shouldn't have been suspended, with full pay, until the case had been closed. That was my stance all along.

The PFA may have made it difficult for the club by backing their member, much like many unions would for most employers and their members, but, IMO, the club should have stood firm and suspended him with pay. I'm not suggesting the club have done anything sinister, I just don't understand why they didn't stand by their initially correct decision to suspend him; I thought that then and I still think it now, it's what happens in virtually all lines of work (well, certainly public sector and definitely when the offence relates to a minor).

For the record I didn't join in any pro or anti Johnson songs. I'd be lying if I said I didn't celebrate his goal against Newcastle mind.
 
MarcoGoalo said:
Quote from Johnsons barrister

During his trial, Johnson's QC Orlando Pownall said of Sunderland: 'It's plain they knew exactly what was going on. They had the statements, they did have Mr Johnson's interview and they chose in that situation, rightly or wrongly... they allowed him to keep playing.'

Mr Pownall suggested during the trial that the decision may have been down to 'commercial considerations', telling the jury: 'You may consider SAFC were facing relegation and didn't want to lose one of their star players.'


If true i struggle to see how the club can wangle it's way out of allegedly not knowing, and secondly I'd like to see how far they can get by questioning one of the UKs leading barristers integrity by dismissing the claim.
Click to expand...

Sounds dreadful from the club's point of view, very damning. The damniest of damniness. What's worse is that when the news first broke and no one knew any firm details the club suspended him, just in case.

Then when (apparently) they found out that the allegations were in fact true (who needs a court of law) and they then knew without doubt that he was guilty they decided to get him playing again. Do you think something doesn't sit right?
 
Why let the bbc reporter do that report from inside our stadium
Fecking embarrassing
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top