• 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.

Kenna said:
No one is saying they dont beleive the clubs statement at all.

I trust the club when they say they didn't know he was about to plead guilty.

But they didn't deny the fact they knew he did it and instead chose to try me smart arsed to look like they denied it without outright saying it because they aren't in a position to deny something that is true.
Click to expand...
This is what doesn't make any sense to me why would he sit there and tell the club yes I'm guilty I did this here is the evidence, but I'm pleading not guilty?
 
Cockney Mackem said:
  • 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...
i can't imagine that sunderland will make any further statement either... bunker down and the storm will be gone eventually is probably their approach...
 
Reiver said:
I don't know because I still haven't read them, they're of little interest.

If the club make a mistake then that's a shame but it didn't affect the outcome of the trial etc.

The club weren't the offender and were put in a terrible position by him.



So are you agreeing with me or not?

Are you saying you can claim your client is lying?

He can't say anything that he suspects to be untrue if his client has insisted it's true.

Not true. Your client can tell you an elaborate story that you *suspect* is untrue, but you can still represent that to the court.
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is if your client says to you 'I was in the shop that day, but I want you to say I wasn't' then the barrister has a conflict and needs to drop the case.

If your client says 'I want you say you were in a meeting with me you werent', there is a conflict and the he needs to drop the case.

If you don't believe what your client tells you, privately, and their story is wacky and unlikely, that's fine. But as soon as they tell you they're asking you to lie or ask you to lie for them, no barrister is going to continue. That's my claim, I got a bit confused by quite what you meant so we might be agreeing.
 
Kenna said:
No one is saying they dont beleive the clubs statement at all.

I trust the club when they say they didn't know he was about to plead guilty.

But they didn't deny the fact they knew he did it and instead chose to try me smart arsed to look like they denied it without outright saying it because they aren't in a position to deny something that is true.
Click to expand...
You're just making up your own version
 
haway said:
Criminal crown court case... a witness goes straight in and straight out because otherwise they might be tampered by other information put to the court. Once again you're wrong. You keep saying incorrect things and then authoritatively saying 'but I have vast experience of the courts' so I can't fathom what your experience would be.

Presumably then you never are involved in crown court criminal trials because the case can only be put forward by barristers or solicitors with whatever they call the qualification to present in court. Presumably you won't prosecute in mags court either because you're not a solicitor or barrister...

So given you seem to have no experience of criminal trials, why on earth is your opinion in this thread relevant?
Click to expand...

What have I said that is incorrect? And why am I not entitled to an opinion, what makes me different to you having an opinion? I could say why is your opinion relevant but I'd never dream of it. I have also never made it personal.

Courts deal with a lot more than criminal cases. In effect I have been the prosecution represented by a barrister. It has been my responsibility to prepare, collect and write evidence, to be in case conferences with the barristers, pre-hearing representing my party, where they have stated how they will use the evidence they have to prove the case, been in pre-trial hearings and sat through 10 day final hearings, all the time negotiating with the barrister representing my party.
Now, if you have more experience than that of the Court and judicial process I will happily bow to your knowledge.
 
sksk3021 said:
This is what doesn't make any sense to me why would he sit there and tell the club yes I'm guilty I did this here is the evidence, but I'm pleading not guilty?
Click to expand...

It doesn't make sense, but unfortunately it also doesn't make sense to issue a statement conspicuously not denying that this is what's happened, in a statement responding to allegations made during the trial that this is exactly what happened.
 
rocky said:
What I can't workout is that the club actually seeked and got legal advice and he still played. why would that be?
Click to expand...
Because the victim was a child and they may have had legal obligations in that respect? They had a meeting with the copper about the same thing.

The club without question could have suspended him on full pay 'pending the outcome of legal proceedings'
 
errant said:
i can't imagine that sunderland will make any further statement either... bunker down and the storm will be gone eventually is probably their approach...
Click to expand...

The people who are demanding a statement 'to clarify things' would be gutted if they did.

It would mean they'd lose the opportunity for some foot stamping and toy throwing.

Otherwise they'd just carry on claiming the club are bullshitting and the statement in a cover up.
 
Republican Mackem said:
Aye crime of the century this. Personally I don't see what good sending him to prison will do, he has lost a hell of a lot more than most people could ever dream of. Sentences of between 5 and 10 years are being mooted. A few years ago a teacher ran off to France with one of his underage pupils and lived with her for a few weeks and he got five and a half years. Does a bit of petting in the back of a car really compare to that
Click to expand...

I suppose you could say he palready lost career and could be subject to a private prosecution too for cash like Ched Evans was. So it seems a really long sentance in comparison to the fact you can be done for manslaughter and not go to prison.
 
sksk3021 said:
This is what doesn't make any sense to me why would he sit there and tell the club yes I'm guilty I did this here is the evidence, but I'm pleading not guilty?
Click to expand...

The club needed him to play in the relegation battle it's the only logic I can see can the club, his lawyers despite claiming he didn't do it for money may have told him to do it for that, both sides have reasons they could have done it for just a shame if that is why we done it it's an utterly pathic decision and reason to do it.
 
Ilios said:
Yes he did, he told the police and his girlfriend exactly that, and then changed his version of events and later, his plea.
Click to expand...
To his girlfriend but I'm pretty sure he admitted to knowing she was under 16 to the police in his first interview
 
haway said:
What I'm saying is if your client says to you 'I was in the shop that day, but I want you to say I wasn't' then the barrister has a conflict and needs to drop the case.

If your client says 'I want you say you were in a meeting with me you werent', there is a conflict and the he needs to drop the case.

If you don't believe what your client tells you, privately, and their story is wacky and unlikely, that's fine. But as soon as they tell you they're asking you to lie or ask you to lie for them, no barrister is going to continue. That's my claim, I got a bit confused by quite what you meant so we might be agreeing.
Click to expand...

So you agree with my original point ....... why didn't you just say so, it was perfectly clear.
 
walesie said:
To his girlfriend but I'm pretty sure he admitted to knowing she was under 16 to the police in his first interview
Click to expand...
I may be wrong, but I'm sure he initially 'panicked' and claimed ignorance of her age to the police (and his girlfriend).
 
Reiver said:
I don't know because I still haven't read them, they're of little interest.

If the club make a mistake then that's a shame but it didn't affect the outcome of the trial etc.

The club weren't the offender and were put in a terrible position by him.



So are you agreeing with me or not?

Are you saying you can claim your client is lying?

He can't say anything that he suspects to be untrue if his client has insisted it's true.

"Not true. Your client can tell you an elaborate story that you *suspect* is untrue, but you can still represent that to the court."
Click to expand...
For someone with little interest you've had a lot to say on the matter.

If you're telling the truth and haven't read them, I suggest you do, then you might have some idea why the people you're dismissing are angry with the club.
 
Kenna said:
The club needed him to play in the relegation battle it's the only logic I can see can the club, his lawyers despite claiming he didn't do it for money may have told him to do it for that, both sides have reasons they could have done it for just a shame if that is why we done it it's an utterly pathic decision and reason to do it.
Click to expand...
He hardly played especially after the meeting did he? We only had 3 games left iirc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top