• 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.
800 and odd whatsapp messages but only a handfull released, for what it's worth I think he thought he was just flirting, not realising because of the age it's classed as grooming and he didn't think kissing was sexual contact, He didn't tell Stacey until September that he was going to plead guilty so I fully believe the club thought he was going to plead not guilty, club were fucked either way...
I reckon he'll win an appeal aswel..
 

haway said:
If I was CEO of a company, and I was accused in court of having proof that an employee of mine had kissed a 15 year old and I had all the grooming messages, and it wasn't true, and I issued a statement about it, then yes, I would make f***ing sure I refuted everything he said that wasn't true in my statement. That doesn't seem like an unfair expectation imo.
Click to expand...
Accused by a proven liar. Case closed methinks ;)
 
Sima said:
Skimmed the first link but seems to be in line with what is being said. Good to have actual examples rather than 'just my opinion' and 'I only read The Sun's headline'

Whether it's 3, 4 or 5 years (or even more), his life is fucked and that's the least that he deserves.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more.

He deserves a custodial sentence, and I wouldn't dispute that in the slightest. He's fucked up many people's lives including his own, and there's no getting away from that.

All I'm saying is I doubt he'll get 5 years. He'll get 2 or 3 imo based on similar cases, and ofc what he did is still awful, but I'm just being realistic about the likely sentence. As I say though, if the judge doesn't take kindly to the fact he's a premier league footballer and the whole 'laughing in the dock' then who knows how far he'll take the sentence. Depends a lot on what the judge makes of the case.
 
Bishop Mackem said:
Embarrasing how desperate you are
Click to expand...
If this was a Newcastle player in the scenario you'd consider your options.

I have not said the club knew. I've just suggested that if it ever come out that they did but turned a blind eye parties that feel aggrieved might seek redress.
 
oddjob said:
To be fair Becs Johnsons QC said that Byrne was aware of the evidence, he was present at the meeting when it was disclosed. Byrne could always call him out as a liar I suppose.
Click to expand...
Nobody on this board knows the extent of what they were aware of, I'm sure they've had lots of legal advice and didn't knock that statement up on the back of a Regal packet
 
oddjob said:
To be fair Becs Johnsons QC said that Byrne was aware of the evidence, he was present at the meeting when it was disclosed. Byrne could always call him out as a liar I suppose.
Click to expand...

Sunderland AFC as a club shouldn't have to come out and say anything else IMO, if anyone does it should be her - her as an individual and employee of SAFC just like any other. She's the one who's alleged to have seen this information, so she herself should be the one who comes out and says exactly what she found out and exactly what she then done with that information. People keep tagging the whole club with knowing but she was the only club employee in that meeting so for all anyone knows whatever she learned may not have went beyond those walls.
 
Dogbark said:
Accused by a proven liar. Case closed methinks ;)
Click to expand...

Even if someone was proven of lying in court, and they made untrue allegations against me I would refute them. Who wouldn't, and why wouldn't you?

I agree Johnson has lied, but the allegation that both he and his QC made up being in a meeting with Byrne is a bit far fetched imo. The QC would be struck off if it was shown he said he was in a meeting with Byrne in court which he wasn't.
 
Sgt Pepper said:
Sunderland AFC as a club shouldn't have to come out and say anything else IMO, if anyone does it should be her - her as an individual and employee of SAFC just like any other. She's the one who's alleged to have seen this information, so she herself should be the one who comes out and says exactly what she found out and exactly what she then done with that information. People keep tagging the whole club with knowing but she was the only club employee in that meeting so for all anyone knows whatever she learned may not have went beyond those walls.
Click to expand...

The massive problem with this though is if this was alleged in her private life, fair enough. But the allegation is she saw this in her role as CEO of SAFC. That brings SAFC in the dispute no matter what.
 
Sgt Pepper said:
Sunderland AFC as a club shouldn't have to come out and say anything else IMO, if anyone does it should be her - her as an individual and employee of SAFC just like any other. She's the one who's alleged to have seen this information, so she herself should be the one who comes out and says exactly what she found out and exactly what she then done with that information. People keep tagging the whole club with knowing but she was the only club employee in that meeting so for all anyone knows whatever she learned may not have went beyond those walls.
Click to expand...

Why should she come out in her own name? As CEO she was acting in executive power of Sunderland Football Club, not as Margaret Byrne. Every decision she made regarding this she made in the name of the club.
 
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...

I'd like to ask my silvery tongued learned friend if at any point during this meeting he informed the club that his client was intending to plead guilty. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top