• 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:
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.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, if the statement made in Court is untrue then it's a police officer lying under oath. I accept that I don't understand why another officer would make a statement that contradicts the one made in Court.
 

Sweeper said:
Apparently they were, be that for safeguarding reasons, as his employer (given that he committed the crime in his capacity as an employee, as a result of his role at the club), because Johnson allowed the club to see it all or a combination of the three. What appears to be clear is that the information was given to the club. They knew.
Click to expand...
No they weren't. You are getting confused with 'safeguarding' it's not the same thing.
 
Cockney Mackem said:
I've just checked and I see nothing in your posts addressing the club statement not responding to the main allegations. I can understand your position in not wanting to discuss it any more but I have not seen a single post giving an adequate response to the main problem raised with the club statement and the shitstorm that has hit today. Happy to be proved wrong.
Click to expand...

I know this wasn't aimed at me but I've said many times that the club have addressed the issue that they see as the most important one and that was whether they knew he would be pleading guilty.

It will be the most important point in their eyes because that is what would indicate how they continue with his employment with the club, given they can only sack him after a thorough investigation which I presume they were leaving to the legal system.
 
Mackem DJ said:
I'm not arsed me I find the contrition amusing. You'll all be laid in bed in 3 hours picking your arseholes thinking you cant be arsed to
Get up for graft tommorow but at least itll be friday etc.

Or will you be sitting awake sweating over this forum thinking of ways to express how angry you are?
Click to expand...
:lol: At least these posts are entertaining in the middle of a reasonable discussion all things considered
 
Turd Ferguson said:
You had a f***ing paedophile playing for your club ffs. And it looks like they knew all about it.

Mental that you think anyone's outrage is fake. :lol:
Click to expand...
You have a man playing upfront who got a 13 yearold pregnant. In a country where the age of consent in 16. Or is that shit normal on the Meadowell?
 
Some Random Guy said:
Was the club told Johnson was aware she was 15 at the time?
Click to expand...

'However, on Wednesday the jury heard that Johnson admitted at a meeting with the Sunderland chief executive, Margaret Byrne, on 4 May 2015 that he had kissed the girl and swapped messages with her.

The former England international was suspended by the club after his arrest on 2 March, the court has heard. However, he was allowed to return to the team 16 days later and scored in his final game in a Sunderland shirt against Liverpool on 6 February.

Johnson’s counsel, Orlando Pownall QC, told the jury on Wednesday that he met Byrne, Johnson and the footballer’s father in Newcastle on 4 May 2015.

Pownall told the court that Byrne had transcripts of police interviews given by Johnson and the alleged victim, as well as the 834 text messages Johnson exchanged with the 15-year-old girl over a seven-week period.

In his first police interview, Johnson admitted kissing the girl and knowing that she was 15.'

You must be logged on to see external links


From the day that the allegations against the club were made.
 
Cockney Mackem said:
I've just checked and I see nothing in your posts addressing the club statement not responding to the main allegations. I can understand your position in not wanting to discuss it any more but I have not seen a single post giving an adequate response to the main problem raised with the club statement and the shitstorm that has hit today. Happy to be proved wrong.
Click to expand...

As far as I can see the allegation that the club knew he was guilty beyond any doubt is bollocks. The club made a statement saying they had been informed Johnson was pleading not guilty and had no reason to doubt him. I don't think the club had any evidence Johnson was guilty simply because the information was provided by his defence QC. And it isn't in the QC's interest to incriminate his client. Hopefully this satisfies you, if it doesn't, ah well, sure you won't lose any sleep over it.
 
haway said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is not what I said.

I said that if the evidence tended to prove he was guilty. Nothing to do with admissions. Even a guilty person has the right to defence counsel, it is when the client does not accept the advice of counsel
 
Rober33 said:
I know this wasn't aimed at me but I've said many times that the club have addressed the issue that they see as the most important one and that was whether they knew he would be pleading guilty.

It will be the most important point in their eyes because that is what would indicate how they continue with his employment with the club, given they can only sack him after a thorough investigation which I presume they were leaving to the legal system.
Click to expand...

In my humble opinion it's a ham-fisted attempt to spin by focusing on the bit they can refute not the bit that they are shaky on. Which is piss weak because one assumes they've been following the trial and should have seen what the most damaging part of the court testimony. If they honestly, actually thought that the pleading guilty part was the most important part then they are bigger clownshoes than anyone has given them credit for.
 
Rober33 said:
I know this wasn't aimed at me but I've said many times that the club have addressed the issue that they see as the most important one and that was whether they knew he would be pleading guilty.

It will be the most important point in their eyes because that is what would indicate how they continue with his employment with the club, given they can only sack him after a thorough investigation which I presume they were leaving to the legal system.
Click to expand...
Isn't that the issue though others see a more important issue
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top