• 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.

Rober33 said:
I have no idea and neither do you which is my point.

The club statement says that the documents were passed straight to the QC which would seem like the correct course of action in a criminal case. What's not clear is how or why she had the documents in the first place.
Click to expand...

The court heard testimony from Johnson and a statement by his QC that Johnson admitted guilt to at least one offence to Margaret Byrne in a meeting with her in May 2015. The QC's statement also alleges that she had a transcript of Johnson's police interview in which he admitted guilt to at least one offence, and that she had a transcript of the WhatsApp messages which gave further evidence of his guilt.

This testimony and court record is the basis for the public discussion of whether the club knew what Johnson had done and continued selecting him for the team regardless.

The club's statement does not address these issues. They do not deny that Johnson admitted anything to Margaret Byrne. They do not deny seeing information in the documents that indicated his guilt (they say that documents were made available and given to the QC which is not the same thing). They spend a lot of time talking about whether he was going to plead guilty and whether they knew what the outcome of the trial would be, which is not relevant.

Time and again this is being raised. All over the world's media as well as on here. Time and again no response is being provided.
 
Sweeper said:
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.
Click to expand...

He didn't plead not guilty he pleaded guilty.
 
mancitymark said:
He is showing incredible arrogance even now. No shame whatsoever on your club in my opinion. He just happened to play for you at this time and in this world you are innocent until proven guilty and he played you.

Good luck for the rest of the season and hope as a club you can move on from this quickly.

Quick question - when he gets out do you think he will still be able to live up there?
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more with the arrogance, that's partly what got him into this mess in the first place, you'd think he'd have learnt a little bit of humilty
 
draper said:
I think if people are going to quote meetings as proof of their point then they should give timings so we can have context.

The funny thing was, when the trial started I wanted to post something along the lines that the club had turned a blind eye to it. Then I thought I'd just get banned and it wasn't worth it for something so absurd.
Click to expand...

I'm not posting on this matter anymore until @draper gets his say...!!
 
haway said:
Paedo is attraction to prepubescent children. The media use paedo for anyone under age even if they're 15 and 364 days :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
The Sex Offenders Act 1997 defined paedophilia as a sexual relationship between an adult over 18 and a child below 16. The press are merely reporting that fact, whether you believe the position in Law is right or wrong is separate and a matter of opinion.
 
Rober33 said:
I have no idea and neither do you which is my point.

The club statement says that the documents were passed straight to the QC which would seem like the correct course of action in a criminal case. What's not clear is how or why she had the documents in the first place.
Click to expand...
Aye, though the club statement could have cleared this up. Now there is a witch hunt led by the media to trash the club.
 
Far Tibetan Mountain said:
What did they know mate, given the facts that you yourself know?
Click to expand...

They knew he had messaged, met and kissed a 15 year old supporter. They knew everything that had been sent back and forth as they had the 836 whatsapp messages. They knew that he admitted to messaging, meeting and kissing her as they had the transcript of his police interview. They knew relegation would cost the club about £80m. These aren't facts "I myself know", they are known by everyone who has picked up a newspaper or turned on the news in the past two days.

Unless, of course, there is still a minority who think one of this country's top QC's knowingly made false statements in court, that a police officer lied under oath and that the lead investigator with Durham Constabulary lied to the press today.

The Club had their chance to refute the above allegations, they released a statement which - tellingly - skirted over all of those issues.
 
draper said:
I think if people are going to quote meetings as proof of their point then they should give timings so we can have context.

The funny thing was, when the trial started I wanted to post something along the lines that the club had turned a blind eye to it. Then I thought I'd just get banned and it wasn't worth it for something so absurd.
Click to expand...
The policeman who testified in Court and said the club weren't told went to the club on the day of his arrest, the policeman who commented today did not give a date, it might have helped if he had.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top