• 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.
ANonnyMoose said:
Did they? The police said they didn't give them the evidence and of course why would they. Its not an employers place to judge guilt of a crime, that's what we have court cases for. If he and his lawyer had said they were going to plead guilty, then the club would have fired him there and then. But because they said they were going to plead not-guilty, it leaves the club in a crappy position. We can discuss suspension or no-suspension until the cows come home, it was a decision that was made by the Club with input from the PFA and they decided to let him play until the trial. Personally I'm fine with that, innocent until proven guilty.

What I am not ok with is the potential sentence. As others have stated, you can murder someone and get 7 years, yet you kiss and fumble about with a girl, who is months away from being 16, and you get possibly up to 10 years? That is frankly ridiculous.

Johnson is still a dick of the highest order like.
Click to expand...

But you can't bring anecdotal interpretations into law can you?

He spun a situation whereby he gave a girl a gift and instilled a duty of reciprocation, then he sexually assaulted her. That's a chain of premeditated offences against what the law seems to be a child.
 

haway said:
Johnson's QC said he was present in a meeting with AJ and Byrne where he admitted kissing her. He also said he gave the club the whatsapps and this wasn't disputed by the prosecution, nor by the club in their statement.

The max. sentence is 10 year but that also includes much more serious things than what AJ did (much like murder goes up to life without parole). AJ will get 2 - 3 years, and most of it isn't for the kissing, but the exploitation of a position of trust and grooming
Click to expand...
That's still not the employers position to judge guilt in a case such as this though. Obviously if we were talking something violent, then that's a different matter.

I also don't buy this position of trust nonsense, never have, not for a sportsman. A judge, a policeman, a teacher - they are positions of trust. A footballer, no. Their job never includes them being put in charge of children, ergo, is not a position of trust.
 
After prison no money child support could be working for someone on here one day....I have not clue what he be good at....
 
Rober33 said:
Who is supposed to have given the club Whatsapp messages?

Johnson or the QC?

Does that mean they saw all 800 odd of them or only some?

It makes a big difference.
Click to expand...

What was said in court is AJ but at a meeting with the QC present. And all 834.
 
---Nemo--- said:
How did the club get their hands on it then? I haven't read every post, nor have I read a single word of the trial so I may have missed it.
Click to expand...

Only way the club got any actual info was from Johnson's legal team. So it's highly unlikely, to me, that there would have been anything there that would have proved his guilt, as at that point I think the club would have binned him off, like they did when he pleaded guilty. Anyone saying the club would have had the same amount of evidence that the CPS had is talking shite.The only thing the cops would have told them was what he'd been charged with due to the nature of the offenses and because of his job.

The club knew about the allegations, no doubt about that, but Johnson was claiming his innocence, so not sure what the club could have done. After all, they took independent legal advice over the matter and I presume they would have acted on that advice. If they hadn't, they'd of been leaving themselves wide open for some comeback.
 
ANonnyMoose said:
That's still not the employers position to judge guilt in a case such as this though. Obviously if we were talking something violent, then that's a different matter.

I also don't buy this position of trust nonsense, never have, not for a sportsman. A judge, a policeman, a teacher - they are positions of trust. A footballer, no. Their job never includes them being put in charge of children, ergo, is not a position of trust.
Click to expand...

This is a footballer who has picked up a girl at the training ground, offered her signed shirts etc. How the fuck is that not a position of trust? If he met her on a night out, fair. He met her at his f***ing job man.

If an employee of mine was accused of grooming girls they met via my place of work, whether it was a position of trust or not, they would be suspended without pay until the trial was over fact. Tell me a situation you wouldn't?
 
haway said:
Its completely inadmissible man. Did you see it raised in this trial he had been suspended for 2 weeks without pay? No, it would be a complete mistrial because that can't bias the juries view. Whether we suspended him with pay, kept him at the club but not play him, or kept playing him... it would have no bearing on the trial and no judge would allow it to. Imagine a rape trial where someone was suspended with pay during proceedings and the defence barrister raised it. The judge would stop the case and say what the fuck does this have to do with your clients defence? For a start whether he was sacked, suspended or flogged has no bearing on the offences as they were committed BEFORE anything the club did. It's just irrelevant and a judge wouldn't allow it.
Click to expand...

Eh? My point was that the club's action could be seen as influencing a jury. These things are placed in the public domain and reported on and it can often go wrong at that point.
 
Rober33 said:
Who is supposed to have given the club Whatsapp messages?

Johnson or the QC?

Does that mean they saw all 800 odd of them or only some?

It makes a big difference.
Click to expand...

the club had access to all 834 whatsapp messages

You must be logged on to see external links
 
theinediblebulk said:
Only way the club got any actual info was from Johnson's legal team. So it's highly unlikely, to me, that there would have been anything there that would have proved his guilt, as at that point I think the club would have binned him off, like they did when he pleaded guilty. Anyone saying the club would have had the same amount of evidence that the CPS had is talking shite.The only thing the cops would have told them was what he'd been charged with due to the nature of the offenses and because of his job.

The club knew about the allegations, no doubt about that, but Johnson was claiming his innocence, so not sure what the club could have done. After all, they took independent legal advice over the matter and I presume they would have acted on that advice. If they hadn't, they'd of been leaving themselves wide open for some comeback.
Click to expand...

Johnson's QC said in court he was there when AJ said he kissed her to Byrne and the 834 messages passed. This wasn't disputed by the prosecution or SAFC in their statement. You keep saying you presume it didn't happen, but why presume the QC is lying in court, and why haven't the club said it's untrue?
 
theinediblebulk said:
Only way the club got any actual info was from Johnson's legal team. So it's highly unlikely, to me, that there would have been anything there that would have proved his guilt, as at that point I think the club would have binned him off, like they did when he pleaded guilty. Anyone saying the club would have had the same amount of evidence that the CPS had is talking shite.The only thing the cops would have told them was what he'd been charged with due to the nature of the offenses and because of his job.

The club knew about the allegations, no doubt about that, but Johnson was claiming his innocence, so not sure what the club could have done. After all, they took independent legal advice over the matter and I presume they would have acted on that advice. If they hadn't, they'd of been leaving themselves wide open for some comeback.
Click to expand...

Pretty much the way I see it.
 
ANonnyMoose said:
He'll never play football again, he's lost his girlfriend and he's not going to see his daughter grow up until she's potentially at school. I think that's more than enough punishment myself like.
Click to expand...
At least while he's inside he still has a pot to piss in
 
---Nemo--- said:
Eh? My point was that the club's action could be seen as influencing a jury. These things are placed in the public domain and reported on and it can often go wrong at that point.
Click to expand...

But why isn't it affecting the jury he was suspended for 2 weeks? Why isn't it affecting a jury he's allowed to play (bias in the other direction). If you said 'we're suspending him with no bias so he can get on with matters in his personal life'... how is that biasing anyone? Its what would happen in most jobs?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top