• 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.
sidneyeric said:
No evidence, and my point is based on the evidence ive seen there isnt enough evidence to send someone to jail for 5 years.
Click to expand...

Victim's evidence... corroborating messages... searches in internet history...

JURY OF 12 PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY HEARD THE EVIDENCE COME TO THE CONCLUSION.

I presume you think Ched Evans should have been acquitted too? :rolleyes:

Reiver said:
You have to admit it would be funny ........ especially if Johnson was cross examined by her :lol:

I'd buy a ticket.
Click to expand...

Would pay even more to see them in a boxing ring. My money would't be on AJ to walk out standing. . .
 

zebediah said:
Admitting to a kiss is quite ambivalent.
I don't see how if he admitted to grooming and sexual kissing how he could have pleaded not guilty...makes no sense.
I think he admitted the kiss and texting, with a plan to say it was all innocent stuff, till come the trial he was advised there was too much evidence to convince anyone he was innocent.
Click to expand...

You'd imagine though that if that was admitted it would have raised an immediate alert to someone who was a qualified lawyer.
 
zebediah said:
Admitting to a kiss is quite ambivalent.
I don't see how if he admitted to grooming and sexual kissing how he could have pleaded not guilty...makes no sense.
I think he admitted the kiss and texting, with a plan to say it was all innocent stuff, till come the trial he was advised there was too much evidence to convince anyone he was innocent.
Click to expand...
He thought it was flirting, he was still calling it flirting in court.
 
sidneyeric said:
No evidence, and my point is based on the evidence ive seen there isnt enough evidence to send someone to jail for 5 years.
Click to expand...

Whoooooosh?

More likely...what a f***ing idiot you are. What evidence have you 'seen'? You don't need any. Listen to the law and forget it's one of our footballers that's embarrassed us.
 
The Sandance Kid said:
Thanks I hadn't realised that. So he met his QC for the first time and MB was there for some of that meeting (and his father)?

I thought this was a meeting specifically arranged with SAFC to update them on the situation and to discuss his suspension.
Click to expand...

It seems that way, I don't think it was specifically an SAFC thing. It was only a week or so after he'd been charged so his QC would have only recently picked up the case.

It makes sense to me that in their first meeting they'd have discussed the case and the evidence, it doesn't necessarily mean MB was involved in all of those discussions.

If a file of 1,000 pages of evidence was brought to the meeting and available to look through but then taken away by his QC at the end of the meeting then it's true that MB was provided with the details as suggested in court, but it's also unlikely that she'd have read everything and been in a position to determine his guilt, as claimed by SAFC, especially when faced with his defence team maintaining he was pleading not guilty.

I agree with everything people are saying about the statement from the club and how easy it would be to give a clearer rebuttal of knowledge but sometimes things aren't that black and white. Without the full facts I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt to SAFC.
 
Reiver said:
Of course it's important ...... it's the motive behind it I can't understand.

What is it the police are trying to do ....... defend Johnson, attack the club, protect themselves?

I just don't understand why they feel it worthwhile to send a senior officer to give the BBC an exclusive interview.

Why are the rest of the media excluded if it's standard police procedure?
Click to expand...

It's bizarre in the extreme and actually unprofessional.
So what exactly is their motive ?
 
sksk3021 said:
Not really sure what all the debate is for, it seems pretty obvious the he should have been suspended on full pay until the trial/conclusion of investigation as soon as the allegations were known.
Click to expand...

Is it? I reckon it's anything but obvious. It's even less obvious when you're looking at this with very little of anything other than speculation. I think that the club were within their legal rights to sack him immediately, if they wanted to, on the basis of perceived reputational damage. this could have been wrapped up in 'bringing the club into disrepute', just for being charged. The bloke at OFCOM who got sacked for being linked with child sex is the precedent, I think.

Once you accept that the club had a bunch of options ranging from 'keep him on and let him play' (which is what they did) to 'immediately sack him' (which they could have done), both of which would be understandable and legitimate conclusions, why are you so certain of what 'pretty obviously' should have happened?
 
Lord Alfred said:
You'd imagine though that if that was admitted it would have raised an immediate alert to someone who was a qualified lawyer.
Click to expand...

It was my twin nieces 3rd birthday yesterday, I cuddled, squeezed and snogged them to death (I love them they are so bloody gorgeous).
Kissing does not equal a sexual crime, it is the type of kiss, the context and the situation, like in AJ's case it was obviously!

Maybe I am naive, but I feel if he told the club he groomed, kissed and hoped to shag a 15 year old then they would have binned him.
If he said he text, met a fan, gave a shirt and a peck and it was all a misunderstanding that he was going to defend they wouldn't.
 
Lord Alfred said:
The detective who was on the case from the start has just been on the news there stating that the club were told exactly what Johnson had admitted to.

Can't see this going away until the club clarify this exact point.
Click to expand...

She didn't state that the club knew what he had admitted to, she said she met the club the day that he was arrested to inform them of the details of his arrest and some additional details. That he'd met her in his car, sexual activity took place and they'd had text communications. She talks about them as fact because they're now proven to be facts but at the time they were the allegations against him. The parts of the interview shown on the national news edited out the final bit where she said that Johnson hadn't yet been interviewed at the time she met Margaret Byrne, the local news which followed left that comment in
 
sidneyeric said:
He thought it was flirting, he was still calling it flirting in court.
Click to expand...

My feeling is that he was stupid, immature, arrogant, basically the modern spoilt football player.
Too stupid to realise the shit he was getting into.
The stupid arse could get laid every day of the week due to his fame.
He has enough money to have a 3way with two gorgeous escorts every night of the week if he wanted.
Instead he chose to try and get a 15 year old fan into bed.

It's just beyond my comprehension to be honest.
 
Windypants said:
Is it? I reckon it's anything but obvious. It's even less obvious when you're looking at this with very little of anything other than speculation. I think that the club were within their legal rights to sack him immediately, if they wanted to, on the basis of perceived reputational damage. this could have been wrapped up in 'bringing the club into disrepute', just for being charged. The bloke at OFCOM who got sacked for being linked with child sex is the precedent, I think.

Once you accept that the club had a bunch of options ranging from 'keep him on and let him play' (which is what they did) to 'immediately sack him' (which they could have done), both of which would be understandable and legitimate conclusions, why are you so certain of what 'pretty obviously' should have happened?
Click to expand...
Yes you are probably right.
I would still say it seems it would have been the most logical/best route to have taken but that's without all the facts.
 
Lord Alfred said:
The detective who was on the case from the start has just been on the news there stating that the club were told exactly what Johnson had admitted to.

Can't see this going away until the club clarify this exact point.
Click to expand...

'Admitted to' or was accused of?

It's an important distinction because the police claimed otherwise when under oath at court.
 
Rober33 said:
'Admitted to' or was accused of?

It's an important distinction because the police claimed otherwise when under oath at court.
Click to expand...

If I'm reading it right, the plod have muddied the waters a bit, they are playing fast and loose with this but of info

Mighty Boosh said:
To put the boot in I presume. Probably still pissed off at the club for opposing the bubble trip
Click to expand...

To where? Darlington?
 
Must be bored said:
She didn't state that the club knew what he had admitted to, she said she met the club the day that he was arrested to inform them of the details of his arrest and some additional details. That he'd met her in his car, sexual activity took place and they'd had text communications. She talks about them as fact because they're now proven to be facts but at the time they were the allegations against him. The parts of the interview shown on the national news edited out the final bit where she said that Johnson hadn't yet been interviewed at the time she met Margaret Byrne, the local news which followed left that comment in
Click to expand...
That's a bit of a shady game by this copper. So we're back to where we were then - questioning what went on at the meeting in May.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top