• 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.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

Adam Johnson Trial Verdict

Status
Not open for further replies.

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...

It's almost as if a man being paid to defend a client was trying to deflect attention from someone who'd admitted to lying about almost every aspect of the case.

And all this just a week after that client had been sacked by his employer. Almost, in fact, quite one sided. If only there was another side to the story, I wonder.
 
West Winger said:
It's almost as if a man being paid to defend a client was trying to deflect attention from someone who'd admitted to lying about almost every aspect of the case.
Click to expand...
He lied about half a dozen things lets not get dramatic.

The situations bad enough without Sunderland fans getting hysterical & going OTT
 
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...

I honestly think they've given us much information as you'd expect without turning it into a 'he said / we said' self-defeating argument (they obviously want to diffuse matters and not give as little credence to Johnson as possible).

Namely: -
"Some documents were received relating to the case, which were immediately sent to Mr. Pownall 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. Following that meeting, Mr. Johnson again confirmed to the club, presumably on advice from his own legal team, that his intention was to defend the charges in their entirety and he was confident of success once all evidence had been considered. He subsequently entered not guilty pleas to all charges on 6 June 2015"

That covers it for me. There's an awful lot about the running of our club in recent seasons that I could take them to task over. And PR has been a real area we've consistently failed in - but on this score the club have given an adequate answer.

Now IF that answer is proven to be less than truthful then it's a different discussion. But - as stated above - you believe it or you don't. I don't have any evidence that they've lied so I have to go with it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top