• 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.

Reiver said:
The police seem to be acting a little strangely at the moment.

As far as I know the police aren't being criticised yet, even before the sentencing, they give an exclusive interview to the BBC.

This is the investigating officer on a case that has been to court and lead to a successful conviction.

Is it normal behaviour for them to be discussing details of the case before sentence is passed?
Click to expand...

Why, their case has been proven. It's all over, all that's left is sentencing which is nothing to do with the police.
 
Black Cat Gypsy said:
Good lord:oops:

He could have told her that it was inappropriate. He knew what he was doing.
Click to expand...


Funny how times change......Bill Wyman was humping Mandy Smith from the age of 14 and barely an eyebrow was raised. Johnson is seen as The Devil incarnate and likely to spend a lengthy spell behind bars for literally "kissing with tongues".
 
Reiver said:
The police seem to be acting a little strangely at the moment.

As far as I know the police aren't being criticised yet, even before the sentencing, they give an exclusive interview to the BBC.

This is the investigating officer on a case that has been to court and lead to a successful conviction.

Is it normal behaviour for them to be discussing details of the case before sentence is passed?
Click to expand...

What sentence he gets makes no odds on tv interviews. It's up to the judge who has heard all of the evidence and the jury's verdict.

Doubt the judge is going to have his head turned and change his decision by Katie Price discussing on Loose Women.
 
Well I just got round to reading the entire statement from the club.
Pretty happy in my mind what happened to be honest.
A lot of supposition is being labelled as fact in this thread.

The female copper from Durham is bang out of line for what she has done imo.
Amazed if she doesn't get into trouble either.
She's originally from Gateshead I see....just sayin ;)
 
SAFCOldie said:
I know he did, if you read the texts he sent she must have known what he was expecting. I'm not sticking up for him I'm just saying it should have been stopped much earlier. He definitely deserves the sentence, a mint lass & a kid and he does this, it's ridiculous.
Click to expand...
:oops::oops::oops::oops:
 
haway said:
I thought it was pretty formal that after someone is found guilty they would make a statement to the press particularly in a case where a victim has been absued but I may be wrong.
Click to expand...

This isn't a statement to the press talking about the accused, and convicted, person.

This is a totally different matter regarding people who haven't been accused, charged or even appeared in court.

That isn't usual in my experience.
 
whats unclear to me is the Judge said he would only accept a unanimous verdict and when they re-ajurned the next morning and the jury had settled 10 to 2 and he accepted it straightaway? I'm not siding with Johnson here but there was an element of doubt and thats ample ground for appeal?

sounds like everyone's been lying to some extent
 
treetop91 said:
If the club had sacked him when the police spoke to them he could still have sued the club for negligence if the trial found in his favour. Recent cases have happened when the complaint has not been found true. The club have done exactly what they should have done, AJ will have hoped initially that his defence might win but it appears his counsel has informed him at the beginning of the case that he had no choice but plead guilty on at least one count and the club acted then,quite correctly.
Click to expand...

These words make no sense.
You can't be sued for negligence for this it would be for unfair dismissal or breach of the employment contract.
First point is that an employer can dismiss for a reasonable belief in criminal conduct by the employee. He doesn't need to wait until trial. And the employee and/or the police telling you that he admitted snogging a girl when he knew she was 15 is easily good enough grounds for that - especially when he met her through work. The fact he might plead not guilty doesn't come into it. All the more so if you have all he transcripts of his police interview and his grooming texts available.

Secondly, you can dismiss an employee for all sorts of behaviour - anything that amounts to gross misconduct. It doesn't have to be criminal conduct. Contracts for entertainers/sportsman quite commonly have reputational damage termination clauses in. The reason clubs usually let footballers get away with so much sh^t and don't sack them isn't that they can't sack them or that the PFA has some mystical power - it's just that a footballer in contract is often an asset worth millions and if you terminate he becomes a free agent. Maybe you can sue him for breach (didn't Chelsea do that to their coke-snorting Romanian a while back?) but good lcuk chasing your cash if he sods off to play in Adu Dhabi or China...
 
KGC83 said:
Could they jeopardise his right to a fair trial? I'm not too sure mate I just hope there was a legal implication why the club didn't sack him initially.
Click to expand...

I doubt they could sack him until he had been found guilty. That's not the issue though - he should have been suspended on full pay and told to stay at home until the trial was over.
 
janey said:
I agree about not being critical, again the only person responsible for that was Johnson and the position he put people in. A lot of the time the chants were to drown out those being sung about him by the opposition fans and I defy many supporters of any other club to say they wouldn't have done the same.
Click to expand...

I agree. Johnson is obviously the main person to blame. Unfortunately, where I think we differ a bit in opinion, I believe the club facilitated that situation by not upholding the suspension.

Anyway, as plenty of said, once it gets to this stage we end up going round in circles. I totally get people are supportive of the club, but sadly for me something still doesn't sit right and I'd like a bit more clarification on the suspension withdrawal and exactly how they came to the decision. But I'll leave it there for the night and until there's another development which I'm fairly certain there will be
 
Keith S30S said:
I'd love to know some more facts about the meeting. I maybe being niave but I can't imagine the club would be given a huge dossier of evidence, with statements from both parties and transcripts of nearly 900 messages and the cops saying, have a good read and drop it back at the station when you're done with it.

Surely that would have been incredibly dangerous?
Click to expand...

The allegation isn't that the cops gave the dossier but informed the club of the allegations. The police wouldn't give a full file. It appears the messages came from the defence.

Nobody is disputing what you're saying but the baffling thing is if SAFC haven't read the messages why they haven't come out and just said that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top