• 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.
theinediblebulk said:
Based on what a lying twat has said in court.
Click to expand...
Then the club would have denied it!
This point has been brought up countless times and everyone seems to go back to that Johnson is a liar.
Yes he clearly is, but the way to deal with this isn't to put our fingers in our ears and hope it goes away.

Just a simple statement saying that we didn't know what he got up to would be enough, in the current statement the club have dodged the question, it's unbelievably naive to think that this is an oversight.
 

Sima said:
Then they should have had no issue denying the knowledge they were accused of having during the trial.

That they've done no such thing just leaves the door open to the questions that are currently being asked.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I think the club statement covers it. Others don't.
 
theinediblebulk said:
If everyone who lied in court got sued there'd be no end to the litigation following on from it. People lie all the time in court and in police interviews to either get off with the charge or make themselves look better so the sentence is lessened. That's a daily occurrence.
Click to expand...

There's different kind of lies, this potential lie is currently causing the club to receive huge critism and is dragging it and the boards name through the dirt, this could harm business and in which is a sue-able offence if it's complete bullshit.
 
it would be foolish for the club to elaborate more.in this blame and claim culture, some shady legal firm would probably advise the victims family to pursue legal recompense against the club for not terminating AJ's contract earlier. The club are only his employer,not his moral guardian.unlike the victim,he is old enough to know what is right/wrong.
 
The Master said:
Then the club would have denied it!
This point has been brought up countless times and everyone seems to go back to that Johnson is a liar.
Yes he clearly is, but the way to deal with this isn't to put our fingers in our ears and hope it goes away.

Just a simple statement saying that we didn't know what he got up to would be enough, in the current statement the club have dodged the question, it's unbelievably naive to think that this is an oversight.
Click to expand...

Like I've said, I'm satisfied with the club statement. Others aren't. Up to them to take it further if they wish.
 
soapster said:
As you and I are probably aware it is against the barristers code of ethics to continue to defend a client in a not guilty plea when there is (as said on here) there is clear evidence to substantiate guilt. If that evidence is there the barrister must refuse to defend the client.

Now that said, the incriminating evidence was handed early 2015, yet how many dates since then has Johnson been at court and denied all charges must be 3 or 4. That means a QC, his junior have broken the ethics of there profession on a number of occaisions. That is not going to happen
Click to expand...
Brilliantly put
 
vic halloms balls said:
it would be foolish for the club to elaborate more.in this blame and claim culture, some shady legal firm would probably advise the victims family to pursue legal recompense against the club for not terminating AJ's contract earlier. The club are only his employer,not his moral guardian.unlike the victim,he is old enough to know what is right/wrong.
Click to expand...

If that is going to be an issue, (which it won't), it will be an issue irrespective of what SAFC imo.
 
Kenna said:
The defence was built around Johnson being honest with everything he says, hence why he tried to claim he knew it was wrong but didn't care. So further proof which he could use to make him seem honest is to use the club, telling us that the club knew about it and he even told them he had done it. He couldn't use this in the case if it was a lie otherwise the club would quite simply sue the living shit out of him and it's not like it's just something he made up he's backed up by his defence who'd almost certainly not let someone use some utter bullshit in their defence like that.
Click to expand...

See, I wonder if he DID tell the club that he kissed a 15 year old girl, BUT used the same lie he told Stacey... That the girl told him she was 16. Makes it more defendable.
 
MunkyHeed said:
See, I wonder if he DID tell the club that he kissed a 15 year old girl, BUT used the same lie he told Stacey... That the girl told him she was 16. Makes it more defendable.
Click to expand...

If that was the case it'd be more understandable but he didn't once mention that he said it in court, all that was mentioned is he told the club he did and and the club had copies of the messages they had sent.
 
Cockney Mackem said:
I can see every bit of the logic and sense of what you're saying. I can completely believe that this is what happened in May 2015. If it was, then it begs the question why the statement released yesterday made such a massive pig's arse of stating that and left the club wide open to get kicked all over the gaff by every news and media organisation on the planet today.
Click to expand...

Your shocked that Maggie and the club can make a pigs ear of things :eek:
 
janey said:
Brilliantly put
Click to expand...

The only issue with that post, as was pointed out several times since, is that it's completely untrue.

A barrister can happily put in a not guilty plea in when someone has made admissions, what they cannot do is mislead the court and support a version of events which they know is false.

Obviously you must have missed this in your extensive legal experience.
 
walesie said:
She's the person named in court as being in receipt of the evidence to implicate Johnson as well as being the most senior member of staff (apart from Short).

There's nothing to suggest this has gone any higher than her, as yet.
Click to expand...
No, I really meant the club name itself would attract the stink.
 
theinediblebulk said:
Have said that consistently. It's not like I'm calling anyone who disagrees with me a f***ing idiot or owt, because they're not. They just have a different opinion to me. No way was everyone going to be happy with what has gone on, regardless of the outcome.

The bit it keeps coming back to is what did the club actually know? For me, I just can't see why Johnson's defence team would hand over evidence that incriminated him then 'advise' him to plead not guilty. That doesn't make any sense to me at all. Other people don't think the same and that's fair enough.
Click to expand...
Indeed. The most likely response from a right thinking individual would be that Johnson would be fired. Why would they risk that damage to his reputation prior to trial? The most likely outcome is surely that the club didn't know the full extent of this and that what occurred in the trial was the result of clever wording surely?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top