• 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.
Botchie said:
Some bloke has written open letter to Byrne, and the Echo are publishing it tomorrow. They've just tweeted it, I'm sure someone clever can post it. This bloke is saying his support for the club is in "doubt". This is exactly what we don't need.
Click to expand...

You must be logged on to see external links
, as requested
 

Botchie said:
Some bloke has written open letter to Byrne, and the Echo are publishing it tomorrow. They've just tweeted it, I'm sure someone clever can post it. This bloke is saying his support for the club is in "doubt". This is exactly what we don't need.
Click to expand...

Sounds a bit like the bloke who gave up his season ticket because of goal line technology was being installed

f***ing berk
 
Too many pages to see if this is SEB, but Ive seen the 'victim' is back on Facebook already.
 
Rober33 said:
I was told today that a member of the jury made the judge aware of a prearranged appointment that couldn't be changed, which is why the judge agreed to accept a majority verdict.

Worryingly I was told it could be part of Johnson's appeal.

I have no idea how true any of that is or how the person who told me knew about it because I haven't seen it printed anywhere but I hope it doesn't give Johnson an excuse to mount an appeal and drag this on for even longer.
Click to expand...
It is true, before either of the verdicts it was reported that one of the jurors had a job interview on Thursday or Friday (not sure mind why they weren't sure which day they had an interview, but hey ho). Anyway the journalists there tweeted that there was no rush to reach a verdict because even though one of them had a job interview and that the jury decision could take about 4/5 days if needed because if the juror having an interview.
This was about 3.30ish and I remember thinking well it won't happen today, it's too late in the day, the Court won't sit much longer because the judge will gave a game of golf to play, and they'll all be sent home.
20/30 minutes later we had two separate verdicts, not guilty on the first, unanimous, and guilty on the second 10-2, despite the judge initially saying he wouldn't accept a majority verdict.
 
Speedy1976 said:
Too many pages to see if this is SEB, but Ive seen the 'victim' is back on Facebook already.
Click to expand...

I would be very careful what you say about that, wouldn't want you to get into trouble for posting something which might reveal her identity. Same goes for anyone replying.
 
Rober33 said:
I was told today that a member of the jury made the judge aware of a prearranged appointment that couldn't be changed, which is why the judge agreed to accept a majority verdict.

Worryingly I was told it could be part of Johnson's appeal.

I have no idea how true any of that is or how the person who told me knew about it because I haven't seen it printed anywhere but I hope it doesn't give Johnson an excuse to mount an appeal and drag this on for even longer.
Click to expand...
Don't know about the appeal but the appointment thing is true, was reported in the echo "as it happened" blog
 
Botchie said:
We need to be supporting the team and the manager and standing together to take the shit we will get on the chin.
Click to expand...

I'll be there tomorrow and know that those with me will be supporting the club.

That's all that matters to me.

Byrne isn't the club, Johnson isn't the club and neither is Short.

I'll support my club with pride, as I always do, because it's our club not their's ........ I'll be there long after they've all gone.
 
janey said:
It is true, before either of the verdicts it was reported that one of the jurors had a job interview on Thursday or Friday (not sure mind why they weren't sure which day they had an interview, but hey ho). Anyway the journalists there tweeted that there was no rush to reach a verdict because even though one of them had a job interview and that the jury decision could take about 4/5 days if needed because if the juror having an interview.
This was about 3.30ish and I remember thinking well it won't happen today, it's too late in the day, the Court won't sit much longer because the judge will gave a game of golf to play, and they'll all be sent home.
20/30 minutes later we had two separate verdicts, not guilty on the first, unanimous, and guilty on the second 10-2, despite the judge initially saying he wouldn't accept a majority verdict.
Click to expand...

I totally missed that :)
 
theinediblebulk said:
So basically, in respect to the question "if there's a confidentiality clause between Johnson and his QC and it needed Johnson to give his QC permission to give information over what was discussed to the club, and that same confidentiality clause would prevent his QC from answering press questions, would the club not need permission to reveal what information they received due to the confidentiality issue to answer the same press questions?" the simple answer is you don't know. Glad that's cleared up.

And am I going to find the answer to that question in that link you provided, as if not I'm not going to try and read it.
Click to expand...

As I said before, the answer I think is that 1) the legal privilege AJ waived is only in respect to his confidentiality with his QC being now admissible in court. That means the court are entitled to know things they wouldn't have been otherwise. It doesn't mean ALL confidentiality is waived, so the QC couldn't suddenly set up a website saying everything AJ said to him. So no, I don't think legal privilege being waived means the QC can say things to the media. 2) This I am more sure on, again as I said before. Confidentiality between an employee and an employer isn't as strict as that between a QC and his client. So no, the fact the QC has confidentiality issues in no way means the club does.

I would happily be corrected by someone who has reason to think that is wrong though, and the reason I wasn't authoritative in my earlier reply is because I am not 100% sure.
 
Rober33 said:
I was told today that a member of the jury made the judge aware of a prearranged appointment that couldn't be changed, which is why the judge agreed to accept a majority verdict.

Worryingly I was told it could be part of Johnson's appeal.

I have no idea how true any of that is or how the person who told me knew about it because I haven't seen it printed anywhere but I hope it doesn't give Johnson an excuse to mount an appeal and drag this on for even longer.
Click to expand...

The member of the jury definitely had an appointment it was stated on Wednesday
 
haway said:
As I said before, the answer I think is that 1) the legal privilege AJ waived is only in respect to his confidentiality with his QC being now admissible in court. That means the court are entitled to know things they wouldn't have been otherwise. It doesn't mean ALL confidentiality is waived, so the QC couldn't suddenly set up a website saying everything AJ said to him. So no, I don't think legal privilege being waived means the QC can say things to the media. 2) This I am more sure on, again as I said before. Confidentiality between an employee and an employer isn't as strict as that between a QC and his client. So no, the fact the QC has confidentiality issues in no way means the club does.

I would happily be corrected by someone who has reason to think that is wrong though, and the reason I wasn't authoritative in my earlier reply is because I am not 100% sure.
Click to expand...

Serious question, do you have any actual legal training?
 
Reiver said:
I'll be there tomorrow and know that those with me will be supporting the club.

That's all that matters to me.

Byrne isn't the club, Johnson isn't the club and neither is Short.

I'll support my club with pride, as I always do, because it's our club not their's ........ I'll be there long after they've all gone.
Click to expand...


Oh f***ing yes
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top