• 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.

East Riding Mackem said:
I agree, even if she has seen the documents that's irrelevant - the key issue is what Pownall said their defence would be to the charges - if he said they were pleading not guilty and had a good defence why would a Mickey Mouse lawyer like her query the logic of a top man in the field? If on the other hand they said at the meeting they were pleading guilty to two charges then she'd have to go. Unless I'm missing something, the club seemed genuinely shocked at the change of plea.
Click to expand...

Not really, Johnson could have admitted everything and still been entitled legally to plead not guilty. He did not have to have a good defence to the charges to make a not guilty plea. Which is probably why he changed his plea to guilty, for the first 2 charges because the defence for them was not strong, otherwise why not just let the Jury decide them all.

That is why it is relevant what Byrne actually knew, and why his plea intentions are actually completely irrelevant.
 
Mackemansj1 said:
Again there was the option surly of simply just not playing him, the club might have went by the book so to say but it wasn't enough bare minimum seems to run throughout the club, and then is the question we all want answering what information did the club have, is it what the qc Johnson and police are saying?.
Click to expand...
But would an unofficial suspension not go against the PFA and what advice they have gave? I'm not sure mind and not saying I have the answer, just wondering. The club was in between a rock and a hard place here.
 
DrewC said:
The club needs to follow its legal advice on this issue to many non public facts involved. What did the PFA tell Sunderland? What happened to innocent until guilty? I am with the club on this one and trust me they do not need to say anything more on this subject because at the moment they have done nothing wrong or the legal system will get Sunderland kicked out of the PL....
Click to expand...

Why are a minority still maintaining that club have done nothing wrong? Is it just wilful blindness?
 
Reiver said:
Why would the police feel the need to go around sharing this degree of information pre-trial?


The police, from the outset, seemed quite keen to involve the club.

I'm not sure why they would feel it necessary to share this amount of information with the club pre-trial.

Almost as if they wanted the club to do the dirty work for them, sack the player and hang him out to dry.

They now appear aggrieved that the club did whatever they could for, what was at that point, an innocent man as far as they knew.
Click to expand...

The nature of the offences means they are bound by law to inform the club as soon as possible and offer up a little more information than they would normally have to in order to ensure he isn't involved in any capacity that involves children. How far they went may prove be to an issue here.
 
BS1000 said:
Couldn't sack him. Suspension on pay or carry on regardless were the alternatives.
Click to expand...
Aye they couldn't sack him, but would a suspension then not go against employment law and affect the trial and also go against the PFA. The more I think about it, the more the PFA need questions asked as well about what they have said to the club. It's alright saying the club should of suspended him, but without knowing what legal advice and PFA advice has been given, then no one can say for sure.
 
genericus said:
Agendas everywhere now, it's grim and at the same time unsurprising people have little time for the victim when they have their Columbo heads on to find the truth.

The Reality is making accusations or assumptions without a true grasp on what actually happens just leads to yet more conjecture and speculation and that's something I'm sick to death of seeing with the case, we don't need an answer and it's pathetic to expect one really.
It's totally self serving and has no bearing on the case itself, so for me it doesn't require answering.

As I said before, there is one victim yet sadly quite a few seem to be on their own crusades to seek justice for what has happened.
Two points to that, The legal system has already Done just that and secondly nothing is gained by further bringing exposure to the case and dragging up potential reasons and figures.
Personal crusades and agendas and faux outrage Serve to help nobody other than to apportion blame to people who were thrown into a situation created by Johnson himself.

It's actually quite depressing seeing people with little to no understanding of the inner workings asking for resignations and scapegoats being cast if I'm perfectly honest.
Click to expand...

It's becoming quite clear that club have allowed him to play despite knowing what he's done. There's nothing "faux" about the resulting outrage, unfortunately. Very serious questions need to be answered.
 
---Nemo--- said:
The nature of the offences means they are bound by law to inform the club as soon as possible and offer up a little more information than they would normally have to in order to ensure he isn't involved in any capacity that involves children. How far they went may prove be to an issue here.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

Sweeper said:
It's becoming quite clear that club have allowed him to play despite knowing what he's done. There's nothing "faux" about the resulting outrage, unfortunately. Very serious questions need to be answered.
Click to expand...

Is it?
 
John J Rambo said:
But would an unofficial suspension not go against the PFA and what advice they have gave? I'm not sure mind and not saying I have the answer, just wondering. The club was in between a rock and a hard place here.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. It would mean that regardless of what charges he was facing, regardless of any evidence, as long as his plea was not guilty you would be forced to select a player for match day squads. As long as he was allowed to train with the squad, and not banished to the reserves, the PFA could do nothing about it.
Players cannot ask the union to be involved simply because they are not playing, otherwise Steve Harper would have a massive claim!
 
The Beautiful Game said:
In fairness the PFA can't dictate who is picked for the match day squad.
Click to expand...
But if the club just didn't pick him, then it would be seen as an "unofficial" suspension. Without people legal experts, how can anyone say for sure what should have been done really. The club needed to make sure whatever action they took, didn't affect the trial or verdict as well
 
John J Rambo said:
But if the club just didn't pick him, then it would be seen as an "unofficial" suspension. Without people legal experts, how can anyone say for sure what should have been done really. The club needed to make sure whatever action they took, didn't affect the trial or verdict as well
Click to expand...


They could have simply said Johnson was being give time to deal with his personal issues without the added pressure of football. That would have in no way affected the trial.
 
Chizno1 said:
Not really, Johnson could have admitted everything and still been entitled legally to plead not guilty. He did not have to have a good defence to the charges to make a not guilty plea. Which is probably why he changed his plea to guilty, for the first 2 charges because the defence for them was not strong, otherwise why not just let the Jury decide them all.

That is why it is relevant what Byrne actually knew, and why his plea intentions are actually completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I agree she needs to address these questions, I'd be genuinely stunned though if the conversation was along the lines yeah 'I'm bang to rights on all of these charges but I'm going to plead not guilty, I might get off.'
 
Surely if Byrne knew then Short knew so how can he sack her? Its hypocrisy at its worst.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top