• 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.
I wouldnt change that pen against the mags for anything.

Hes done something bad & will get punished for it. The end. Stop being drama queens

You'd think the club had actively conspired to play Adolf Hitler in the number 10 role for a season, supported by Pol Pot playing left back.
 

soapster said:
don't have a go at Janey, have a go at me as I said it.

I am sure I said evidence and not admissions different things entirely and what he is not allowed to do is waste the courts time. If he knew that Johnson was guilty back in early 2015 that why was it waited until February 2016 for a guilty plea. That in my opinion would not happen

What a lot of people are forgetting is that evidence would be built up as time progressed and what was available in early stages of the investigation in May it is likely the evidence provided to the court a year later would be far more detailed. Hard drives and phones take a while to be forensically examined.

I have worked with numerous barristers over the years, attended training sessions with the and about evidence and their clients not accepting their advice is what has always been explained to me. A common question to a barrister is how can you defend someone like that and the reply about advising their client was always trotted out
Click to expand...

It might be your opinion but it's wrong. As has been said in this thread several times, it is common practice that someone will plead not guilty to something they have made admissions to until the last minute.

I've literally provided you with the guidelines that contradict what you say, I don't know what else to add?

The bottom line is a barrister will often happily enter NG pleas for someone when they have admitted their guilt, the issues come if the defendant asks them to submit a false story in court that they know is false, etc.

There is often a lot of tactics in court cases as to when one enters a NG plea.
 
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...

Why do you think then, that the club didn't explicitly denying having knowledge that Johnson had admitted some guilt and had seen some evidence of his guilt? Given that is what they have been accused of, and that is what is doing the damage? The tone of their post was to "refute in the strongest possible terms" an allegation that no one is making and no one gives a shit about, but to fail to mention the allegation that is leading to them getting their arses smacked all over the planet.
 
prehab26 said:
Told of the kiss! That is enough to suspend and stick to it. We didn't follow that. Shameful.
Click to expand...
It's not, the club need evidence he knew the girl was below the age of consent.

That's important, he's not being sent down for having a fumble, he's being sent down for knowingly having a fumble with a lass below the age of consent.

If AJ told the club he though the girl was of age (as he told his lass) they probably don't have enough.

Bear in mind the club haven't denied knowing he kissed the girl, just that they didn't know he was pleading guilty. It was obvious they knew that much from the statement yesterday.
 
Thomas Hearns said:
Some of aren't caught up in the media hysteria, the perpetrator is getting dealt with through the courts and what not. That's issue, I am not going to get worked up about the rest because nobody has broken the law
Click to expand...

It's not media hysteria - it's a very serious issue which the media are rightly pursuing. The Club may well have not broken the law, but that does not mean that they have not acted improperly and if they have, they should be held accountable.
 
janey said:
Well that was definitely what was said in Court and tweeted repeatedly by the journalists that were there. I knew I'd read it.
Click to expand...

But what has just been said is that the club knew all about the kiss and messages, contradicting yes but one of those statements is untrue.
 
I think it's an absolute tragedy that a day after the case ended all the anger and frustrations are aimed at the club. Even if they did know, yes it's wrong I admit that, in fact it's terrible but it's that slimy piece of shit that's caused all this. The club were in a horrible situation, one they could never have imagined or planned for. For me they've done their best, suspended him, sacked him and he's gone. I really feel for Byrne and co personally.
 
Sweeper said:
What are you on about? Byrne is his employer.

On the topic of why and how Byrne was entitled to see evidence (even if Johnson hadn't himself given it to the club), consider that Johnson did this as an employee of the Club. He met this girl in his capacity as a Sunderland player, he gave her Sunderland shirts. I'd be surprised if the club were not concerned as to their own exposure in all of this. They may well, on that basis, have been entitled to see the evidence against their employee. On top of that, it seems that Johnson was happy for the club to have that info.
Click to expand...

The club wouldn't be entitled to see the evidence but the police would be entitled to make some disclosures to them in the interest of safe-guarding. It seems AJ gave his papers to the club, by choice, presumably because they asked for them after what the police disclosed.
 
janey said:
Which he said in Court, I think his words were he outlined the nature of the allegations but didn't give the full facts. The club then did risk assessments and put safeguarding practices into place. I'm sure somebody clever than me will be able to find the exact comment that he made in Court, it was quoted enough.
Click to expand...

I think there's a fair few getting the wrong end of the stick from that statement to be honest

Of course Byrne knew about the allegations. She didn't just find out about him when a trial suddenly started one day. We know this already.

What we don't know and would like clarification on is whether or not she was given evidence to prove that Johnson had committed the offence in question. Also whether or not Johnson had actually admitted the offence to her.

This statement doesn't answer those 2 points. It basically just tells us they told her Johnson had been arrested and why
 
Sweeper said:
What are you on about? Byrne is his employer.

On the topic of why and how Byrne was entitled to see evidence (even if Johnson hadn't himself given it to the club), consider that Johnson did this as an employee of the Club. He met this girl in his capacity as a Sunderland player, he gave her Sunderland shirts. I'd be surprised if the club were not concerned as to their own exposure in all of this. They may well, on that basis, have been entitled to see the evidence against their employee. On top of that, it seems that Johnson was happy for the club to have that info.
Click to expand...
They weren't entitled to see it at all as they don't have the power to legally obtain such information.
 
Some Random Guy said:
It's not, the club need evidence he knew the girl was below the age of consent.

That's important, he's not being sent down for having a fumble, he's being sent down for knowingly having a fumble with a lass below the age of consent.

If AJ told the club he though the girl was of age (as he told his lass) they probably don't have enough.

Bear in mind the club haven't denied knowing he kissed the girl, just that they didn't know he was pleading guilty. It was obvious they knew that much from the statement yesterday.
Click to expand...

and the chief investigator has basically confirmed what some suspected.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top