• 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.
imfromdurhamme said:
They must be making an example...nonces don't usually get such high sentences
Click to expand...
14 years is the maximum according the papers yesterday, because of her age it wouldnt be the max which is where they're getting the figure of 5-10 from. i honesly don't think his status makes any difference to the judge here.
 

Reiver said:
Which allegations?
Click to expand...
That Byrne and SAFC had all 834 whatsapp messages as well as the police station interview transcript in May, and that she was present when Johnson conceded he kissed her, in May.

That's literally all I want to know.
 
walesie said:
We've all read those texts, if you'd have read them back in May would you have wanted Johnson any where near the team?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't. Do we know the club read them? Its a tough one as if they did read them and not played him or even suspended him would that have had an effect on the court case?

I'm not sure thats why my anger is towards that fucker for creating this situation.
 
Reiver said:
The club have made a statement that people have ignored ...... how may do you think they should make before they look desperate?
Click to expand...
People haven't ignored it man, it was a shit statement that didn't answer the questions raised.

Whoever wrote that statement will likely be the same person who has the case to answer, it's them covering their arses.
 
redandwhiterob said:
It's not some kind of oversight. You don't need to be a genius yo work out a decision was made at some level where it was decided to play him and worry about the consequences later
Click to expand...
I don't know that and neither do you. Its a train of thought that nee fuckers knows if its true or not and probably never will.
 
walesie said:
People haven't ignored it man, it was a shit statement that didn't answer the questions raised.

Whoever wrote that statement will likely be the same person who has the case to answer, it's them covering their arses.
Click to expand...

What questions were raised and by whom?
 
Reiver said:
The club have made a statement that people have ignored ...... how may do you think they should make before they look desperate?
Click to expand...

The club made a statement that didn't answer all the questions. Why do you think they never addressed the allegations thst are getting bandied about in the papers? If this was any other team you would be on here lauding it on demanding answers, bumping threads till your hearts content
 
rocky said:
I wouldn't. Do we know the club read them? Its a tough one as if they did read them and not played him or even suspended him would that have had an effect on the court case?

I'm not sure thats why my anger is towards that fucker for creating this situation.
Click to expand...
That's my point mate, the club had access to them.
Either they read them & knowingly played a nonce, or they decided to adopt a hear no evil see no evil approach & that to me is incompetent.
 
was it just me, or did anyne think that the bbc reporter was a bellend the way he was doorsteping them coming out of court yesterday?

did i read correctly from the echo blog, that they read a statement out from him apologising to the girl? which is what this reporter was getting all angry about with johnson's family?
 
redandwhiterob said:
The club made a statement that didn't answer all the questions. Why do you think they never addressed the allegations thst are getting bandied about in the papers? If this was any other team you would be on here lauding it on demanding answers, bumping threads till your hearts content
Click to expand...

What were the questions and who asked them?
 
janey said:
As someone who has given evidence, been cross examined, prepared numerous reports for Court and been involved in more Court cases than I care to remember
Click to expand...

No, the right answer is that you were there as the accused which is why you're on the club's side. You foolish person. :lol:
 
pedro_1879 said:
I have a feeling it will, especially in the post Savile/yewtree world we live in now
Click to expand...
One of the worst aspects of the outcry over this, and the over the top media coverage, is that yesterday a serving soldier was sent to prison for ten years. His crime was to repeatedly rape a six year old girl, who he groomed by buying her sweets. This is an outrageous case in comparison to AJs, but it's been buried under an avalanche of juicy celebrity news. That piece in the Echo to today is factually incorrect, and inflammatory. Johnson might be a bastard, but unlike that squaddy, he is not a paedophile.
 
Reiver said:
And if the case had been subsequently dropped and all allegations withdrawn the club would be accused of incompetence and undue haste.

Hindsight is the easiest trick in the book.
Click to expand...

No they wouldn't...

The accusation was that a Premier League player has been picking up underage girls at his place of work and has then been using his position in that job to exploit them. If he was accused of feeling up a 15 year old on a night out, you may have a point, but the allegation was he used his job to exploit someone. In absolutely no world would SAFC have been criticised for suspending with pay, especially given they had copies of his whatsapps and police station interview from May at the latest.
 
walesie said:
That's my point mate, the club had access to them.
Either they read them & knowingly played a nonce, or they decided to adopt a hear no evil see no evil approach & that to me is incompetent.
Click to expand...
Thats what I'm saying. What could they have done legally at the point with the case going to crown court? He was still pleading innocence then as well.
 
haway said:
You must be logged on to see external links


'Sunderland AFC made a “catastrophic error of judgment” when they allowed Adam Johnson to continue playing despite knowing he privately admitted kissing a 15-year-old schoolgirl, child protection experts have said...'

Yet apparently we're 'conspiracy theorists'...
Click to expand...

Papers have been full of trial stories for the last couple of weeks. Trial is now over. It was suggested in court that SAFC may have known about Johnson's guilt. What should we print today guv?

You keep posting more and more of these stories that are all based on a small exchange in court which you are still unable to provide any quotes for. At least the Papers have a motivation of selling more copies, what's your angle here?
 
Reiver said:
And if the case had been subsequently dropped and all allegations withdrawn the club would be accused of incompetence and undue haste.

Hindsight is the easiest trick in the book.
Click to expand...
You're a poster I like, but you're wrong on this point. This is a major fuck up by the club.

I've never been one to grind an axe with this Byrne character but I'm surprised she has a job this morning
 
Reiver said:
What were the questions and who asked them?
Click to expand...

Did the club know that Johnson kissed the girl? Did the club know that in doing so, he was aware she was under the age of consent? Did the club view documents confirming these events?

All they've done is say he wasn't going to change his plea.

It sounds very much like it's possible they knew he'd done it, but backed him to get away with it.
 
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...
in criminal law the standard test is beyond all reasonable doubt. In civil law it is based on probability
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top