• 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.

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...
This is one of the more believable arguments but I still feel that the club should have put that in the club statement if that was the case.

As it is no matter what happens it's a fuck up, if we allowed him to play when we knew what he got up to then that's a huge fuck up, if we didn't know what he got up to then for some reason left that out of the statement then that's a fuck up as well.

This has been handled terribly and the media are rightly asking questions
 
haway said:
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.
Click to expand...

You seem to be making this a bit personal, nobodies attacking your outstanding legal knowledge, based on you taking notes in court.
 
janey said:
Brilliantly put
Click to expand...

In case you missed it:

12.1 In considering the duty of counsel retained to defend a person charged with an offence who confesses to his counsel that he did commit the offence charged, it is essential to bear the following points clearly in mind:

(a) that every punishable crime is a breach of common or statute law committed by a person of sound mind and understanding;

(b) that the issue in a criminal trial is always whether the defendant is guilty of the offence charged, never whether he is innocent;

(c) that the burden of proof rests on the prosecution.

12.2 It follows that the mere fact that a person charged with a crime has confessed to his counsel that he did commit the offence charged is no bar to that barrister appearing or continuing to appear in his defence, nor indeed does such a confession release the barrister from his imperative duty to do all that he honourably can for his client.

12.3 Such a confession, however, imposes very strict limitations on the conduct of the defence. a barrister must not assert as true that which he knows to be false. He must not connive at, much less attempt to substantiate, a fraud.

12.4 While, therefore, it would be right to take any objections to the competency of the Court, to the form of the indictment, to the admissibility of any evidence or to the evidence admitted, it would be wrong to suggest that some other person had committed the offence charged, or to call any evidence which the barrister must know to be false having regard to the confession, such, for instance, as evidence in support of an alibi. In other words, a barrister must not (whether by calling the defendant or otherwise) set up an affirmative case inconsistent with the confession made to him.
 
The club could just take the risk though don't you - was Johnson really going to sue the club for lost bonus opportunities if they had suspended him until the trial was over?
That would seem to me to be incredibly unlikely. It's not like we had a long contract to worry about being in breach of..
 
safcforever said:
And again that's the same :lol:

Johnson had huge bonuses on offer so the club suspending what could have been an innocent man and restricted his wage.
Click to expand...

Adult used his position of trust to groom and commit sexual activity with a minor?

Aye, it is the same. Glad you agree.

Again he could have been suspended on full pay and as far as I am aware Sunderland are under no obligation to select him in the match day squad when he is available for selection and therefore not automatically be eligible for any bonuses that he may accrue.
 
haway said:
Irony = Calling me the PF spokesperson and an attention seeker while simultaneously taking every opportunity on every thread in the history of the SMB, ever, to speak over everyone and get in the most trivial arguments about nothing and turn it into a 'oh look, Reiver is doing his argue with an individual poster until 3am' borefest again. Hazard a guess in 5,000 odd posts how many times I've had an on-going argument with a poster like I have with you today. Not once. You do it almost daily on here. The running war you wage against dangermows is a case in point of that. Now, behave.
Click to expand...

That would be true if it was true ....... it isn't.

I pull Dangermows up when I feel he's being stupid ........ if you can deny he's often provocatively stupid then good luck.
However, we sometimes have a laugh together and 'like' each other's posts so your argument fails yet again.
There is no war.

I've responded to 6 of the first 20 threads on here, at a quick glance, 2 of which are about tickets for the Southampton & Newcastle games.
There are 3 about football in which I'm not arguing with anyone ....... which just leaves this one.

I'll 'behave' exactly as I wish, if that bursts your pomposity bubble then that's too bad :D
 
safcforever said:
And again that's the same :lol:

Johnson had huge bonuses on offer so the club suspending what could have been an innocent man would be restricting his wage.
Click to expand...

He also is not in a position of responsibility over children. Incidentally if he was the legal age of consent rises to 18.
 
Sima said:
Adult used his position of trust to groom and commit sexual activity with a minor?

Aye, it is the same. Glad you agree.

Again he could have been suspended on full pay and as far as I am aware Sunderland are under no obligation to select him in the match day squad when he is available for selection and therefore not automatically be eligible for any bonuses that he may accrue.
Click to expand...
So you knew what his contract was then. So you can confirm he didn't have a clause in saying most feature so many times it has to be selected if fit and available etc.
 
Some Random Guy said:
What satisfied you?
Click to expand...

That Johnson had stated he was pleading not guilty, and this was accepted by the club. It was the first day of his trail that he changed his plea and the club sacked him within 24 hours due to the change in his plea. If people want to believe that the club had information that proved him to be guilty before that day, that's up to them. I just don't see it as it was his defence team that provided said information. The same defence team that advised him to plead not guilty.

So the two parts of it for me are this; I don't believe his defence team would hand incriminating evidence to the club, and I think if the club did know of his guilt earlier and had cast iron evidence of that, they would have sacked him sooner.
 
safcforever said:
So you knew what his contract was then. So you can confirm he didn't have a clause in saying most feature so many times it has to be selected if fit and available etc.
Click to expand...

Do you? To suggest suspending him on full pay would lead to him missing out on any bonuses in the first place? He might have no bonuses in his contract at all for you and I know.
 
Rober33 said:
You seem to be making this a bit personal, nobodies attacking your outstanding legal knowledge, based on you taking notes in court.
Click to expand...
Tbf I would be getting annoyed too if everyone kept ignoring the points I was making and just kept rotating the same circle of questions.

Also a few well before him started this stupid personal shit
 
theinediblebulk said:
That Johnson had stated he was pleading not guilty, and this was accepted by the club. It was the first day of his trail that he changed his plea and the club sacked him within 24 hours due to the change in his plea. If people want to believe that the club had information that proved him to be guilty before that day, that's up to them. I just don't see it as it was his defence team that provided said information. The same defence team that advised him to plead not guilty.

So the two parts of it for me are this; I don't believe his defence team would hand incriminating evidence to the club, and I think if the club did know of his guilt earlier and had cast iron evidence of that, they would have sacked him sooner.
Click to expand...
No matter who the employer is they would not see any evidence before the trail. So the club took his word for it. Simple
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top