R
Reiver
Guest
I don't think anything is yet clear enough to say that the club played someone they knew was a guaranteed sex offender.
In reality, no one actually knew he was until the guilty verdict.
-
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
- Thread starter Geronimo
- Start date
- Status
I don't think anything is yet clear enough to say that the club played someone they knew was a guaranteed sex offender.
In reality, no one actually knew he was until the guilty verdict.
ShaabanShaaban
Striker
244 pages of utter shit.
Hopefully she gets a canny bit.
Unless the QC lied (and the club, astonishingly, just "forgot" to refute his statement), Johnson admitted to kissing her in his police interview, the transcript of that interview (and all 836 what's app messages) were provided to the club at an early stage. At that point they did know.
He could, and apparently did.
---Nemo---
Striker
As far as I could discover, and this is weird, there are very strict rules concerning a witness statement, apparently there are severe restrictions on them viewing their own statements. As far as defendants go all I could find was some guff about this requiring a third party to apply for a court order. I may be wrong of course.
Edit. There are also a myriad of complex issues over a lawyer incriminating his client.
R
Reiver
Guest
What was actually said at what meetings doesn't appear to be clear.
If the QC was telling the club his client was 'banged to rights' why was Johnson, at the same time, claiming he was innocent?
I don't know all the facts so I've no idea tbh.
T
The Sandance Kid
Guest
Or someone might pay her off before it goes to court?
As would I, which is why I would like to hear the club actually deny the allegation that that is what Byrne was told. Remember it is being alleged that Johnson told Byrne that he had kissed a 15 year old girl in the May 4th meeting, and that Byrne had the evidence that would show he was indeed 'bang to rights' on the first 2 charges (messages, Johnsons fist police interview transcript) and was told that he was pleading not guilty.
Like you I just feel that the questions need to be answered as the statement does not do that in my opinion.
riffraff
Striker
"Leave of absence". Is the term I mentioned on here at the time and on a number of occasions since. Suspension/suspended is a loaded gun linguistically.
No idea on the technical details, but I wouldn't be surprised if Johnson offered everything he said to the club. The lad is seemingly thick as fuck and would have relied on the club for all sorts.
Rober33
Winger
The only thing the police have said is that they made the club aware of the allegations and discussed the ramifications of this from a safeguarding perspective.
It's been represented in the media that the police told the club what had gone on, which is absolute rubbish because these were just allegations at the time. They can get away with speaking like this now because the case has been proven and they are no longer allegations.
---Nemo---
Striker
With his brief in attendance?
I have my own theories about what went on here, and why. I'm not about to share them mind so don't ask.
The club statement has muddied the waters. The allegation in court was that he admitted guilt in that meeting with the club, and the club saw documents which made them aware that there was evidence of his guilt. That is what is causing the club to be accused of playing him while knowing he was guilty, and that is what they did not answer in the statement
Black Cat Gypsy
Striker
At the very least the club should offer to cover any legal fees and pay for any counselling she might need.
He wasn't bang to rights legally - there was a long way to go trial and there would still have been a hope that the case might ultimately have been withdrawn, that they would be able to work out a good defence strategy etc.
At the end of the day it's quite simple - if the QC has not lied in court, SAFC knew very early and continued to allow him to play. If he has lied, I am at a loss to explain why he would risk his career in such a high profile case, or why the club would "forget" to mention it in the statement.
10 Gary Rowells
Striker
Very wise. I read the Guardian article full of moral outrage - the same paper that worships John Peel, a man who was married to a 15 year old at nearly Johnsons age. There was real irony when they followed on 6 Musics news which commented on Sunderland's need for answers with Led Zeppelin - Jimmy Page's activities with a 14 year old when he was 29 are well documented. There is no defending Johnson but the loudest commentators turn a blind eye when it suits them.
chrismisterx
Striker
The fact is the club have done nothing wrong and I think the clubs actions are bulletproof from a legal standpoint.
I think our CEO will have to go, not just because of this but because this is a long line of mistakes that have left the club either out of pocket or with very bad PR.
My own view is that the club have made some poor choices from a moral standpoint, the club were in a really bad spot, but the club should and our CEO should have had the foresight to see what could happen and that this could be yet another PR nightmare .
She gets paid the big bucks to make the hard choice's for the benefit of Sunderland AFC in that she has failed, IMO.
I am also disappointed that the police seem to be quite vocal atm, I am not sure that is the best action by them, I would hate for that dirty little twat to have any grounds for an appeal.
Lets remember only one person broke the law, and that was AJ.
I think our CEO will have to go, not just because of this but because this is a long line of mistakes that have left the club either out of pocket or with very bad PR.
My own view is that the club have made some poor choices from a moral standpoint, the club were in a really bad spot, but the club should and our CEO should have had the foresight to see what could happen and that this could be yet another PR nightmare .
She gets paid the big bucks to make the hard choice's for the benefit of Sunderland AFC in that she has failed, IMO.
I am also disappointed that the police seem to be quite vocal atm, I am not sure that is the best action by them, I would hate for that dirty little twat to have any grounds for an appeal.
Lets remember only one person broke the law, and that was AJ.
Precisely - the statement quite tellingly glosses over all of that.
Rober33
Winger
I and many others have offered you an alternative view about how what the QC said could very easily be misleading and his motivations for doing that.
You either don't understand or don't want to accept this alternative view and keep pushing the argument that his QC wouldn't lie in court.
Can you tell me exactly what the QC said in court - the full statement relating to this? (Not what the papers say he said, unless it's a direct quote)
If you can that would be great, I'd love to see it.
The Rolls Royce
Striker
And this only one day after the hullaballoo fully started on here.
After a weekend of football results the sports media will find something else to latch onto. Fat Brian will still be whinging on youtube like.
- Status
