• 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.

Rober33 said:
Multiple news outlets have taken a few quotes and wrote the most sensationalist headline they could to sell newspapers. To understand exactly what it is claimed the club knew, you would need to see the full transcript from court. The fact that you are willing to accept this as some sort of evidence against the club without even seeing the entire transcript tells me more about your credibility than it does mine.

I have responded to this point multiple times. Firstly these were not allegations against the club they were statements made in court for the purpose of painting a picture to the jury that Adam Johnson did not consider the money he would lose when he decided to plead not guilty to a charge he knew he was guilty of. The statement from the club states that they had documents relating to Johnsons defence but these were passed straight on to his QC. They also stated they were not in a position to make any judgement on the outcome of the case. They also say they did not know he was going to plead guilty. They do not state specifically that they did not know whether he was guilty or not but that does not mean that they were aware of his guilt.

The club have been accused in the press of knowing he was guilty and playing him anyway, based on one exchange in court and some very sceptical misreporting of a police statement claiming the club knew all about what Johnson had done. I'm not denying the accusation I'm simply saying that it is not based on evidence.

The club have stated they passed the documents straight to the QC which pretty much rules out them analysing 834 messages and being able to ascertain guilt. They have also said they had no idea that Johnson was going to plead guilty to any of the charges which strongly suggest that he had not made any admissions to the club that would suggest his guilt.

You can continue to believe the club have done wrong without seeing any actual evidence, I'm just offering you an alternative which you seem unhappy to accept.

My views on this are all over this thread and I've spent far more time trying to explain to people how the wildly sensationalist headlines have offered no reasonable proof of guilt on the clubs part than I ever wanted or intended to.

My personal view is that Johnson is the person who was in the wrong and he is solely responsible for any damage caused by his initial offence and his continued lying about that offence. I will continue to hold this belief until I see some sort of evidence that the club is in some way to blame.
Click to expand...

The club has been accused of knowing he was guilty and playing him anyway and haven't denied it. There is no interpretation, speculation, sensationalist twisting of information or guessing required. Have you even read any of the reports on the trial?
 
Republican Mackem said:
Johnson pleaded not guilty to the charges, even though he admitted to certain acts, that is his right under the law, and as long as he maintained this stance Sunderland could not sack him, even suspending him would have left the club open to legal proceedings (innocent till proven guilty etc.)
Click to expand...
If the club had the documents claimed they could have sacked him.
Why is nobody criticising the CPSand the plod for taking so long to firstly press charges, and secondly bringing the case to trial.
Click to expand...
They had him bang to rights on two charges, they could have rolled with that months ago.
 
joemcdokes said:
This, it's getting boring now.
Click to expand...

But honest people are making important claims without being in possession of all the facts.

Surely they should be allowed to spend days of their lives demonstrating their impressive grasp of employment, as well as, common law.

After all demanding answers, on here, is much easier than actually getting off their arses and asking the club directly.

Fair enough they have high principles and have made a stance for justice but they can do this from their desk at work.

If Gandhi had been able to use the internet he wouldn't have worn his sandals out :confused:
 
Sgt Pepper said:
What do you mean by punished? Byrne is not the club, she's an employee albeit a senior one. She's the one who has to answer to these questions imo, because she's the one being called out and named as the one in the meeting and the one allegedly told what Johnson had done. The way I see it is her, and anyone else at boardroom level told, have failed the club, fans, staff and players - if they did know of course.
Click to expand...
Tbf she was informed what he was accused of, not what he had done
 
Reiver said:
But honest people are making important claims without being in possession of all the facts.

Surely they should be allowed to spend days of their lives demonstrating their impressive grasp of employment, as well as, common law.

After all demanding answers, on here, is much easier than actually getting off their arses and asking the club directly.

Fair enough they have high principles and have made a stance for justice but they can do this from their desk at work.

If Gandhi had been able to use the internet he wouldn't have worn his sandals out :confused:
Click to expand...

Obviously, with this statement you're not accusing everyone who's criticising the club of that, thought, right? Even though you use words and sentence constructions that generalise about everyone on the thread?
 
Cockney Mackem said:
Obviously, with this statement you're not accusing everyone who's criticising the club of that, thought, right? Even though you use words and sentence constructions that generalise about everyone on the thread?
Click to expand...

Just a bit of fun mate ....... lighten up, this isn't Crown Court.
 
Cockney Mackem said:
If the kiss was of a sexual nature as opposed to a peck on the cheek, yes. That's one of the criminal offences Johnson was charged with and one of the two he was pleading guilty to on day one of his trial. The court evidence was that he admitted this to the CEO of SAFC in a meeting in May last year.
Click to expand...

Court evidence - Johnson's claim.
 
I do find it odd how people seize on Johnson having said he had kissed the girl, and that this would have constituted grounds for gross misconduct. There seems to be a bit of selective interpretation applied here. As an adult I've kissed many girls under the age of 16, and I won't be going to prison for it because it has been completely platonic in the normal course of social interactions. If Johnson told the club that he had kissed her, but that is was nothing that would stop him from pleading innocent to the charge that he eventually did please guilty to, I can see how they could have believed there was not grounds to dismiss him.

Either way, if it was me I would have done exactly what the club did. The club is in a difficult position. The correct thing in my opinion was to suspend him until the dates of the first hearing were announced, and then allow him to play until the process of justice was complete. No matter what they knew, it was not up to the club to pre-judge him. Imagine if they had dismissed him and then in the intervening period the trial had collapsed. The player would have been in a strong position to sue the club for wrongful dismissal. Some of you may not like it, but the club did the professional thing. You have to make hard decisions when you are in business and the club were in a no win situation. Whatever they had done they would have been open to criticism. The Press are leaping on this because they are trying to squeeze the last droplets out of a case that should never have been in the public eye in the first place.
 
jsdftm04 said:
This all goes away with a 2 sentence denial...if there's nothing to hide let's just end it now.
Click to expand...

Don't be daft, it would end up with a 2 word outcry ....... 'COVER UP'.

It certainly wouldn't all go away.
 
Reiver said:
But honest people are making important claims without being in possession of all the facts.

Surely they should be allowed to spend days of their lives demonstrating their impressive grasp of employment, as well as, common law.

After all demanding answers, on here, is much easier than actually getting off their arses and asking the club directly.

Fair enough they have high principles and have made a stance for justice but they can do this from their desk at work.

If Gandhi had been able to use the internet he wouldn't have worn his sandals out :confused:
Click to expand...
Are you asking the police directly the questions you posted earlier?

Plus I think the club is now been asked a few questions by the Echo and other news outlets.
 
Reiver said:
Don't be daft, it would end up with a 2 word outcry ....... 'COVER UP'.

It certainly wouldn't all go away.
Click to expand...
I don't agree. The majority of it would definitely settle right down or go away. If they come out and say what they knew about back in May then people would have to accept that. But they aren't going to do that...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top