• 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.

Chizno1 said:
'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.
Click to expand...
If all of that is true the club are wrang'uns.

Johnson could have admitted to texting and kissing her but said he didn't know she was 15 at the time. If that was the case I could see why the club made that decision.

If they had a transcript that showed he did it and knew she was below the age of consent they had enough to sack him if they were inclined to. I think the "club acting legally" is more a case of "we weren't legally obliged to sack or suspend him" rather than "we couldn't sack him"

It would have been a civil case if taken to court and they only need to show that "on the balance of probabilities" he was guilty.

In the criminal case it would have impacted as much as Fletcher not speaking on his behalf during the trial, it's not relevant.
 
The PFA has shown itself to be an organisation entirely without any integrity on multiple occasions in the past. They have declined to provide any meaningful statement on their involvement in the Johnson case but it would not surprise me in the least if it came out that their entire aim and approach was to make sure any action that deprived Johnson of wages was delayed and deferred at all costs regardless of right and wrong.
 
Rober33 said:
I'm missing a source which says that the club had access to and reviewed these documents, so far what has been said only agrees with what the club have stated which is that they passed the said documents straight to the QC.
Click to expand...

The QC in question confirmed it in court. As has been explained hundreds of times on here, in the papers, on the radio, on the news.
 
Cockney Mackem said:
The allegation may be bollocks. If it was bollocks, the question remains, and sorry to get all Paxman about it, why the club didn't deny it. They felt it worth going to a lot of effort to denying the "guilty plea" bit so they're obviously in the mode of refuting allegations, in "the strongest possible terms" apparently. so they can have no complaints about looking f***ing terrible as a result of this, and it's their fault. Either for not managing the situation last year or not managing the information yesterday.
Click to expand...

As I said but you don't want to hear, I've had enough of the discussion going round in circles. I think the club did everything they could in difficult circumstances. If you don't agree, fair enough. Last word from the police.

Det Insp Sampson told jurors that on the day of Johnson's arrest she met with SAFC chief exec Margaret Byrne to inform her of the allegations facing the player.

You must be logged on to see external links


"I disclosed the offences which Mr Johnson had been arrested for, and considered safeguarding for any other young people who may come into contact with him in his role as a professional footballer."

The senior officer said particulars of the offences were not discussed, as Johnson had not been interviewed. What he said in interview was still not disclosed to the club.


So if the club had information that proved him guilty, the only place they could get it from was Johnson's QC. So it's up to everyone else if they want to believe his own QC would hand incriminating evidence over to the club. I personally don't believe he would. I have nothing more to say.
 
haway said:
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.
Click to expand...

you are not grasping it are you. You continually talk about admissions. I am talking about evidence and the client refusing to accept the advice of counsel

I know full well that a lot of guilty pleas are submitted on the day of the trial and your guidelines are with reference to admissions. It may be that a person thinks they have committed a crime and it is up to the barrister to consider in whether in the circumstances a crime has been committed and will await evidence that the prosecution will rely on to prove the defendant guilty

A barrister must not waste court time by submitting not guilty pleas when the advise should be to plead guilty
 
Sweeper said:
Wake up for fucks sake - what's embarrassing is that the club knew what he'd done, and decided that they'd prefer to stay up than do the right thing. People are annoyed about it. If your mates don't care, you probably need new mates.
Click to expand...

The club took legal advice and involved the PFA that to me is doing the right thing,they stood by their player who lied to them by saying he was innocent and was going to fight the charges,as soon he admitted his guilt in a court of law they sacked him,what more could they do,everything before court was just allegations.
 
haway said:
Who knows what safc said to the advisors? Who knows what they asked for legal advise on? Who knows whether they chose good advisors?

Saying 'oh well we obtained independent legal advice' doesn't somehow exonerate you for continuing to employ a nonce, and I somehow doubt they went to the NSPCC or whoever to get their advice.
Click to expand...

Well why don't you give us your version and present it as fact, you're good at that ;) - The winks because you're talking shite and I'll continue to argue with you but I have no real inclination to fall out with other supporters about this.
 
theinediblebulk said:
As I said but you don't want to hear, I've had enough of the discussion going round in circles. I think the club did everything they could in difficult circumstances. If you don't agree, fair enough. Last word from the police.

Det Insp Sampson told jurors that on the day of Johnson's arrest she met with SAFC chief exec Margaret Byrne to inform her of the allegations facing the player.

You must be logged on to see external links


"I disclosed the offences which Mr Johnson had been arrested for, and considered safeguarding for any other young people who may come into contact with him in his role as a professional footballer."

The senior officer said particulars of the offences were not discussed, as Johnson had not been interviewed. What he said in interview was still not disclosed to the club.


So if the club had information that proved him guilty, the only place they could get it from was Johnson's QC. So it's up to everyone else if they want to believe his own QC would hand incriminating evidence over to the club. I personally don't believe he would. I have nothing more to say.
Click to expand...

I'm happy for it to be your last word. The club has failed to refute the most damaging allegations made against them. The shitstorm is unfolding.
 
Cheesy Feet said:
The club took legal advice and involved the PFA that to me is doing the right thing,they stood by their player who lied to them by saying he was innocent and was going to fight the charges,as soon he admitted his guilt in a court of law they sacked him,what more could they do,everything before court was just allegations.
Click to expand...

He didn't say he was innocent. To the contrary, he admitted to messaging and kissing the girl from the day he was arrested. The club knew this. The fact that he pleaded not guilty is completely and utterly irrelevant.
 
prehab26 said:
One says she was told at a meeting on March 2nd


One says what AJ said in his subsequent interview wasn't disclosed to the club

2 complete different comments

@Rober33
Click to expand...
It was on the 2nd March that he was arrested, it was the 2nd March that the officer giving evidence was referring to, When they went to the club and told them of his arrest.
So I'm a bit confused about where you say one says what AJ said in his subsequent interview wasn't disclosed.
because if I've read what you have said correctly that means both have said they didn't know.
 
Sweeper said:
The QC in question confirmed it in court. As has been explained hundreds of times on here, in the papers, on the radio, on the news.
Click to expand...

Read back through this thread, this has been shown to be a completely ridiculous argument by myself and others and I can't be arsed to go through it again.
 
Rober33 said:
I'm missing a source which says that the club had access to and reviewed these documents, so far what has been said only agrees with what the club have stated which is that they passed the said documents straight to the QC.
Click to expand...

You must be logged on to see external links


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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top