• 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.

Cockney Mackem said:
The two statements that come out of the trial that needed to be addressed in the statement are that in about May last year:

  • Johnson admitted to a senior official of the club that he had committed an offence by kissing an underage girl in a sexual manner
  • Senior official(s) of the club saw a transcript of WhatsApp messages that indicated Johnson was guilty of a sex offence against an underage girl

Neither of those statements are denied in the statement.
Click to expand...
And yet his legal team, who were present at the meeting, advised him to plead not guilty despite knowing this confession, a stance which he maintained for a year...as I've said, he denied knowledge that she was under-age initially, and his plea confirms it. Why would he tell his employer that he was guilty, and yet plead not guilty on legal advice from his own team, who had even more knowledge than the club? He would be incriminated himself, his employer and his legal case.
 
Reiver said:
He can't say anything that he suspects to be untrue if his client has insisted it's true.
Click to expand...

Not true. Your client can tell you an elaborate story that you *suspect* is untrue, but you can still represent that to the court. The issue only emerges if they ask you to lie, in which case you know what they are saying is false.
 
Ilios said:
And yet his legal team, who were present at the meeting, advised him to plead not guilty despite knowing this confession, a stance which he maintained for a year...as I've said, he denied knowledge that she was under-age initially, and his plea confirms it. Why would he tell his employer that he was guilty, and yet plead not guilty on legal advice from his own team, who had even more knowledge than the club? He would be incriminated himself, his employer and his legal case.
Click to expand...

Agreed, the problem here is why the club didn't dispute what has been alleged about them and why they (and we) are being dragged through the mud in the media today.
 
Reiver said:
What I'm saying is that you're not asking for clarity, you're waffling on a message board.

If you want attention this is the right place for you.

If you want to ask the club for clarity it's not.
Click to expand...

No, what you're doing is changing your point all the time. Just before you were saying that the wider public didn't care all that much.

You're well aware this messageboard is read by the club and journalists alike to gauge the mood of fans. It's hardly like we're howling at the moon here.

I'm pretty sure you'll see a more clear request for clarity at Southampton on Saturday.
 
The storm from this issue isn't a flash in the pan that will quickly go away. It's just too big to be ignored.
The club will be forced to, either defend their position with further revelations of facts of the case which were unknown to them or hold up their hands and admit that they got the decision wrong.
Can't see how Maggie can possibly survive this PR disaster which will have 90% of football supporters everywhere hating SAFC.
 
If we had sacked him last year and he had subsequently been found not guilty I can imagine the drama on here.

The Club are in a completely no win situation here. They acted upon advice of their lawyers, people may query that but when you are faced with difficult decisions around complex matters most companies/organisations would follow expert opinion.

I'll be pleased when he is sentenced the press lose interest - and and Pure Football returns to it's 'normality'
 
Ex-England footballer Adam Johnson is warned jail is "almost inevitable" after being found guilty of one count of sexual activity with a 15-year-old girl.

You must be logged on to see external links
 
Mackem00 said:
There'll be little to no reaction imo.
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct.

That's because the brave crusading internet warriors won't do anything but endlessly demand 'justice' on here.

Anything that involves getting off their arses is an effort their profound 'principles' simply can't stretch to.
 
haway said:
We know they were given whatsapp messages and were told by AJ he kissed her, yes.
Click to expand...

Other than that we know nothing, other than the fact they had nothing in their possession that would allow them to ascertain his guilt and they believed that he would be pleading not guilty.
 
JimmyQuinn said:
No, what you're doing is changing your point all the time. Just before you were saying that the wider public didn't care all that much.

You're well aware this messageboard is read by the club and journalists alike to gauge the mood of fans. It's hardly like we're howling at the moon here.

I'm pretty sure you'll see a more clear request for clarity at Southampton on Saturday.
Click to expand...

They don't, how much clearer can I make that?

Will your principles stretch to demanding clarity at Southampton?

The vast majority are going to enjoy themselves and watch the match.

There's always a handful of clowns in any large gathering especially at a circus like SAFC.
 
Cockney Mackem said:
Agreed, the problem here is why the club didn't dispute what has been alleged about them and why they (and we) are being dragged through the mud in the media today.
Click to expand...
It may well be that they have no interest in nit-picking details, and want nothing to do with it. It may be that they themselves now intend legal action against Johnson, and don't want to say too much. It may well be that they did know more than they care to admit, but there is insufficient evidence to say that the club is guilty of anything, even if they don't address each individual claim. They were completely irrelevant to the trial, and are under no obligation start wading in with counter claims imo.
 
haway said:
If you've given evidence in the capacity of an 'expert' then you are still a witness.

If you've given evidence you'll have been whisked straight in and straight out the court.

If you were in an admin role like an usher or whatever you might have a point, but even then, quite how much of the legal proceedings they'd understand is questionable.

Truthfully unless you're 1) a barrister 2) a solicitor or 3) a clerk I don't see how your experience of the court process has fuck all to do with trying to speak authoritatively about barristers can and can't do... You say 'believe me I know how the legal system works' but you've said several things about court process that aren't true, and being an expert witness is pretty meaningless to what we've been debating here.

What was your role if not a 'witness'? Not specifics of anything like who you work for, or whatever, just the job title. Because it's not 1), 2) or 3), is it?
Click to expand...
You have no idea and saying that if your a witness and straight in and straight out shows that. It's my case being presented on behalf of an organisation so effectively I'm the prosecution case. Why are you so determined to undermine me and disprove that actually I might know what I'm talking about?
 
Ilios said:
The club releases a statement which denies all accusations made by Johnson
Click to expand...

No they didn't

Johnson says the club knew of his guilt and had seen the Whatsapp messages
The club says it did not know Johnson was going to change his plea from Not Guilty in May 2015 to Guilty in Feb 2016

2 Completely seperate things
 
haway said:
Not true. Your client can tell you an elaborate story that you *suspect* is untrue, but you can still represent that to the court. The issue only emerges if they ask you to lie, in which case you know what they are saying is false.
Click to expand...

So it is true?

Did you never watch the OJ Simpson trial ......... the defence lawyers were cringing at some of the shite they had to repeat.
 
Reiver said:
They don't, how much clearer can I make that?

Will your principles stretch to demanding clarity at Southampton?

The vast majority are going to enjoy themselves and watch the match.

There's always a handful of clowns in any large gathering especially at a circus like SAFC.
Click to expand...

Clowns because we dare to employ skepticism and don't believe every single thing the club feeds us :lol:

And yet you accepted that it's morally wrong if true. Are you telling me the majority of the wider public are immoral? Me and you are the sole moral crusaders?

Your argument is bollocks.
 
Ilios said:
It may well be that they have no interest in nit-picking details, and want nothing to do with it. It may be that they themselves now intend legal action against Johnson, and don't want to say too much. It may well be that they did know more than they care to admit, but there is insufficient evidence to say that the club is guilty of anything, even if they don't address each individual claim. They were completely irrelevant to the trial, and are under no obligation start wading in with counter claims imo.
Click to expand...

But why issue a statement which says at the outset it's in response to what has been said about SAFC in the trial, and then not address any, actually any of what was said about SAFC in the trial?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top