• 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.
Cockney Mackem said:
So, once again, begging, imploring, providing a written invitation on embossed paper for the big question on the lips of the world's media: if it's a ludicrous suggestion, why not deny it?
Click to expand...

Deny what?? They weren't the ones on trial!!!


Sort of like a conspiracy theory this is turning into...
 

Forgive me if this has already been covered, but at the bottom of this article it says "John Cameron from the NSPCC said it "beggars belief" that Sunderland did not maintain the suspension of Johnson until the case was resolved at court."

You must be logged on to see external links


Did we not suspend him pending outcome of the trial and it was the PFA and Johnsons representatives that made us overturn it? Or a meringue?
 
Pressure is mounting on Byrne. She will probably resign sooner or later and they'll move on to Short.
 
Scottish_Mackem said:
Forgive me if this has already been covered, but at the bottom of this article it says "John Cameron from the NSPCC said it "beggars belief" that Sunderland did not maintain the suspension of Johnson until the case was resolved at court."

You must be logged on to see external links


Did we not suspend him pending outcome of the trial and it was the PFA and Johnsons representatives that made us overturn it? Or a meringue?
Click to expand...

How could they "make us" overturn it? He had been charged with sexual activity with a child, he was due in Crown Court. If ever there was a clear justification for an indefinite suspension, that was it.
 
Ambivalent Squirrel said:
Dunno if this has been posted here yet...

You must be logged on to see external links
Click to expand...

Just posted on another thread but that organisation are a disgrace. Here is one of their members who has been found guilty of under age sex crimes and they describe his crimes as 'mistakes'.

Where's the condemnation? I'm all for unions supporting their members but once they have been convicted they should be as condemning as possible and distance themselves from their former client.
 
Rober33 said:
That doesn't tell us anything, other than the club knew the allegations. What's your point?

You must be logged on to see external links
Click to expand...
This. If you read what she said then, and what she's saying now, and the way it's worded the inconsistencies are glaring. There's a lot of arse covering going on there . Not to mention back tracking . In my opinion as I said yesterday, the club were placed in an impossible situation, and no matter what they did were likely to be slaughtered by one side or the other. Opinions have become so entrenched now that reason and logic have taken a back seat.
As far as I'm concerned there is only one guilty party here and he will be sentenced soon enough. Nothing that happens now can change what he did. This situation is his responsibity and his alone. I would like to think that this won't be overlooked, or somehow become less important due to the shitfight that's ongoing.
 
Cockney Mackem said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'll do this one last time then I'm off to do something more interesting like grate my knob.

The statement was made in court to try and persuade the jury that the club knew that he was going to plead guilty to the two offences he pleaded guilty to on the first day of the trial. They wanted to do this so they could say that he had no fear of losing his job by pleading guilty to the two cases he has now admitted to. Therefore he would have no reason to think pleading guilty would lose him £40,000 per week so that was not the reason for his continued denial up until the day of the trial. I would think it played a big part in his reasoning.

To prove this fact to the jury they could have called SAFC who could have confirmed that they would have continued to play him regardless of whether he pleaded guilty and he had no concern over losing his £40,000 per week. They didn't do this.

The other way they can suggest this is the case (without proving it) is by making statements that make it appear that SAFC had full knowledge of his guilt and have not sacked him regardless of this.

Without lying it's possible to say that:

1. Byrne was at the meeting - (we now know she was only present for some of the meeting) as was his QC.
2. Johnson says he told Byrne about the kiss and she 'knew everything' - compulsive liar fighting for his life.
3. Byrne had copies of the messages and interview transcripts - They didn't say why or how she had these and whether she actually read them or was just passing them on. She might not have even had a legal right to look at them we just don't know. The club statement states: "Some documents were received relating to the case, which were immediately sent to Mr. Pownall for his attention"

It's clear how the above statements could easily be made to try and persuade the jury he had no reason to worry about being sacked while actually being a very poor representation of what actually happened.

The fact is none of us know because the court transcripts regarding the exchange that all of the stories are based around have not been released, that makes it difficult to say for certain exactly what has been claimed never mind what the underlying truth is. Of course journalists will use the version of the truth with the most sensational headlines because they want to sell more papers.

I don't know how I can make it any more clear than this so I'm out now, hopefully I won't be making any response to this for a while but you never know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top