• 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.
prehab26 said:
That is just it though, I dint have the chance to come into contact with information and evidence about the case. The club did but choose not to act on it. Massive error in judgement.
Click to expand...

In what way did they choose not to act on it?

They took legal advice and were "not in a position to make any judgment on the outcome of the case"
 

rocky said:
Suspended him, allowed him to play then put on gardening leave? The club also said it took legal advice, I wonder what they were told?
Click to expand...

Yup. 'While we initially returned AJ to the team it is clear given the time consuming nature of matters in his personal life, which risk distracting him from performing his duties as a player, that it would be better for him to focus on the proceedings until they are resolved.'
 
ftm1974 said:
He wasn't protesting his innocence to the club, though - he was admitting his guilt whilst telling them he would plead not guilty.

He had admitted to Margaret Byrne sexual activity with a minor and grooming - and she had police transcripts and 800+ messages which backed that up 100%.
Click to expand...

How the fuck do you know that like, where you there :lol:
 
Reiver said:
I wonder if the reporter has asked the parents why they're allowing their daughter to go out meeting men in car parks at night?

I don't believe they're in any way responsible but you'd think a reporter would want to see all sides ....... he said ironically.
Click to expand...
Through the day wasn't it? I find it distasteful that again you're putting any blame on either the girl or her parents in this case.
 
gavinmcant said:
That's simply not true. They may choose not to proceed if it's deemed to be not in th public Interest but never in the history of the CPS have they denied an individual, of any age, access to justice on the basis that it would be too tough a process for them. You're aware of the legislation within sexual offences law relating to anonymity, reporting restrictions, special measures etc? Clearly not.
Click to expand...

'Not in the public interest' is an umbrella term used to give them a free hand whether to prosecute or not. In my experience the CPS is heavily inclined towards avoiding more complicated sex cases. They are often very difficult to prosecute and involve vastly more work to achieve convictions, especially sex gang and paedophile ring cases. I think this is partly how the culture of ignoring such things developed in the police.

I think your statement that "... never in the history of the CPS have they denied an individual, of any age, access to justice on the basis that it would be too tough a process for them" is frankly absolutely idiotic. They are are doing that all the bloody time. They deny justice on the basis that it would be slightly more tricky to process for them, let alone a lot more tricky. This is why when you open the newspaper, week-in week-out the number one cases up in court are TV-licence evasion, the easiest cases of all.

It is a lot easier to get a conviction on a marginal factor in a sex case with established facts, such as in the Johnson case where the girl's age was indisputable, than it is to have to build a case against mass sex offenders, even if they have huge amounts of evidence and testimony in favour of the prosecution.

gavinmcant said:
Kinda contradict yourself right there don't you?
Click to expand...

I do not think you followed my point. I said it was a relatively easy win from the prosecution's point of view, I did not say it would be easy on the girl. You do not seem to be able to separate the aims and desires of the CPS and prosecution from what is best for the girl. These are not necessarily the same thing. On the girl it is horrific, but for the CPS it is great. She was raked over in great detail in court, with many of her friends and what appeared to be gossiping enemies called in to discuss her private life. The CPS got a conviction against a prominent but not too important footballer and they did it very shortly after the events took place.
 
johnson said:
How the fuck do you know that like, where you there :lol:
Click to expand...

That came out in court. Johnson said it, his QC (one of the leading barristers in the UK) supported the claim, Byrne didn't reject the claim in the club statement.

Why would anyone not believe it?
 
Reiver said:
It's wrong but they do.

Do you really believe the Mags are terribly upset or do you think they're lapping it up without a thought for the girl?

When Rooney was shagging owld prostitutes people laughed without a thought for his family ....... deny it if you must.
Click to expand...

They're all terribly concerned for the victim when they're singing "Come on Adam....".
 
haway said:
That came out in court. Johnson said it, his QC (one of the leading barristers in the UK) supported the claim, Byrne didn't reject the claim in the club statement.

Why would anyone not believe it?
Click to expand...

No you have massively exaggerated all that to suit your argument

You are going round in the circles here like, not sure what your problem is.
 
ftm1974 said:
He wasn't protesting his innocence to the club, though - he was admitting his guilt whilst telling them he would plead not guilty.

He had admitted to Margaret Byrne sexual activity with a minor and grooming - and she had police transcripts and 800+ messages which backed that up 100%.
Click to expand...
Aye, sure, that's what happened. Aye.

:lol:
 
Reiver said:
I wonder if the reporter has asked the parents why they're allowing their daughter to go out meeting men in car parks at night?

I don't believe they're in any way responsible but you'd think a reporter would want to see all sides ....... he said ironically.
Click to expand...

nah, i was just wondering if what i had read in the echo blog was right, in that johnson in a written statement to the court apologised to the bairn & her family...
 
johnson said:
@Captain_Fishpaste

I never really agree with anything he says ever, but seen his said this in The Sun (unfortunately for him considering their front page)


It's a highly emotive issue and I can understand why it's important for fans to put the club's actions under some scrutiny.

However, I can also appreciate the very difficult position the club, through no fault of their own, found themselves in.


I don't know what exactly Adam Johnson told them and, in all honesty, I'm not even sure of what they were legally allowed to do anyway. But I know that, right up until the start of the trial, Johnson was telling a court that he was not guilty and therefore had all the rights attached to the presumption of innocence.

As it transpired, that was just one of what turned out to be many lies told by Johnson over the course of a year and the club have become just another addition to a lengthy list of recipients of those lies.

I don't believe for one second the daft suggestion they were putting Premier League points and survival before morality.

I can, of course, appreciate that there is a morality perspective in all of this, but I'd personally have had just as big an issue from a morality point of view had my club pre-judged, condemned and punished someone who was protesting his innocence to a court of law. Once the courts were involved, I think they and their judgement had to be deferred to. The course had to be run.

It's easy, after he had changed his plea to 'guilty' to go back with the benefit of that hindsight and assess decisions made without it. Had the club had that information earlier, they have been very clear in their statement, and immediate actions that followed the guilty plea, that they'd have handled things very differently.

Every part of the Adam Johnson situation has been unsettling from the start, but ultimately I'm comfortable with how the club handled it.

Think that is one of the best articulated responses have seen, perfect answer to some of those revelling in it on here IMO.
Click to expand...

I certainly wouldn't consider myself 'revelling' in what's going on.

I don't think the club suspending Johnson would be the equivalent of them indicting him before trial. It's a fairly common procedure, especially when alleged offences are against minors.

The initial suspension was correct. I said that at the time and I'll say it again now. Whatever evidence the club seen or didn't see, I still think they should have stuck by the suspension (with pay) pending the outcome of the investigation and subsequent trial. If Johnson was pleading his innocence, then the club could have supported him off the field in other ways.

It isn't a masterclass of hindsight to say this and it isn't 'revelling' in the situation to want to know why the club initially suspended him and then lifted the suspension (the statement, for me, didn't answer those questions).

If any good comes out of this whatsoever, it is that the club will put in place rigorous safeguarding / disciplinary procedures to ensure that their reputation isn't called into question on a national scale again. A simple procedure would be that any players arrested and subsequently charged with any offence will be suspended with full pay pending the outcome of the investigation and any trial.
 
johnson said:
No you have massively exaggerated all that to suit your argument

You are going round in the circles here like, not sure what your problem is.
Click to expand...


"Mr Pownall told jurors that he first met Johnson on May 4 last year - and the player confirmed that SAFC chief executive Margaret Byrne was also at this meeting.

The barrister asked Johnson if Ms Byrne had copies of his police interview transcripts, WhatsApp messages and interviews with the girl and "others" at this meeting.

Johnson said: "Yes."

He also said that he admitted kissing the 15-year-old fan on this occasion."
 
haway said:
Not at all. It would be normal to suspend with pay in this situation.

The judge wouldn't allow jury to consider it.

Do you think the fact he was initially suspended for two weeks affected the jury? The judge would simply say, 'this is normal, blah blah blah, no inferences'.

All SAFC would have had to say is 'given the nature of the allegations AJ faces in his private life we have decided it is best he doesn't play for the club until he has been able to resolve those issues'
Click to expand...
This has been said so many times it should be made a sticky for everyone's benefit.

If the club didn't want to become embroiled in this case then it's all they had to do. As it stands and at worst, they still haven't done anything illegal but they have put themselves and the fans in an embarrassing situation.

There will be some chanting from opposition fans, the kind of 'banter' our lot have happily enjoyed giving out in the past but by next season nobody will give a fuck anymore and we'll all be complaining about mundane things once again.

It's been said many times but it's true - if this were about Newcastle there would be a united front of condemnation amongst our fans but as it stands we just have to bend over for a few months and take whatever embarrassment is hoyed our way with a smile on our faces. Shit happens.
 
rocky said:
Would that have had an effect on his case given he was pleading innocence at the time? I'm genuinely not sure as I havent a f***ing clue about the legal system.
Click to expand...
Don't think so, a lot of employers would suspend people in similar cases.
 
The Sheepfolds End said:
I certainly wouldn't consider myself 'revelling' in what's going on.

I don't think the club suspending Johnson would be the equivalent of them indicting him before trial. It's a fairly common procedure, especially when alleged offences are against minors.

The initial suspension was correct. I said that at the time and I'll say it again now. Whatever evidence the club seen or didn't see, I still think they should have stuck by the suspension (with pay) pending the outcome of the investigation and subsequent trial. If Johnson was pleading his innocence, then the club could have supported him off the field in other ways.

It isn't a masterclass of hindsight to say this and it isn't 'revelling' in the situation to want to know why the club initially suspended him and then lifted the suspension (the statement, for me, didn't answer those questions).

If any good comes out of this whatsoever, it is that the club will put in place rigorous safeguarding / disciplinary procedures to ensure that their reputation isn't called into question on a national scale again. A simple procedure would be that any players arrested and subsequently charged with any offence will be suspended with full pay pending the outcome of the investigation and any trial.
Click to expand...

Excellent Post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top