• 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.
Safc88 said:
Utter shithouse

You must be logged on to see external links


Oblivious to the irony, he used the judge’s absences from the courtroom to fiddle constantly with his mobile phone, the instrument of his demise. He was reprimanded for “discourteous behaviour”. Then, as the jury retired for their deliberations, he let a door swing in the face of a junior barrister.

Johnson was overheard telling a friend that he hoped it would all end by the third Friday, as “it was getting a bit boring”. He cited the same excuse, boredom, in drawing the context for why he had set about grooming a 15-year-old girl.
Click to expand...
I don't think the fact he is a shithouse has been up for debate mind
 

haway said:
Sorry, I missed that. The answer is that legal privilege only exists between you and your lawyers. So say I give my lawyer permission to breach it to tell you information about my case. You then aren't under that privilege, you can post in on here, tell your mates etc. It's not like anyone who here's information under legal privilege is bound by it, it's only between you and your lawyers.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I find that hard to believe as that would extend outwards from all discussions that went on under those circumstances. Happy to be proved wrong like.
 
Cockney Mackem said:
:lol: a legal action by the club in this case on the basis that something is untrue would require, and I know I'm just a layman here, the club to say it was untrue. I would like to see them make legal history by trying it though
Click to expand...

Clearly they would be saying that it was untrue by taking legal action.

The fact they haven't yet said that it's untrue doesn't mean that it isn't or that they won't at some point.

I'm trying to keep things amicable but the piss taking tone of your comments is getting tedious now.
 
He's been nicked, endless conjecture, pointless as fuck, no one knows the full story, and no one ever will.

The only certainty is that shit sticks, and SAFC look like crap because of 1 arsehole employee (minimum).
 
theinediblebulk said:
Sorry but I find that hard to believe as that would extend outwards from all discussions that went on under those circumstances. Happy to be proved wrong like.
Click to expand...

I'm beginning to suspect that 'haway' has no actual legal training whatsoever.

I've copied & pasted chunks of a few of his answers and they appear on various websites.

Almost as if he's getting his information from them ....... unless, of course, he wrote them.
 
Reiver said:
This wasn't the club's lawyers though was it?
Click to expand...

Aye, when I said lawyers I meant his QC and his solicitor(s).

Whether it was disclosed by AJ and his legal team to his neighbour, Byrne or SAFC lawyers the point if none of the latter would be bound by legal privilege. Legal privilege only relates to the relationship between AJ and HIS lawyers (the ones he's instructing).
 
Daks said:
Why ?

Because there daughter was out meeting a married man , and at the same time congratulating his wife on the birth of there child.

It concerns me if her family ask for money
Click to expand...
I think between her and Johnson she is certainly the lesser of the two evils.
Again, she has done nothing illegal whereas Johnson has, it's as simple as that.
 
Reiver said:
I'm beginning to suspect that 'haway' has no actual legal training whatsoever.

I've copied & pasted chunks of a few of his answers and they appear on various websites.

Almost as if he's getting his information from them ....... unless, of course, he wrote them.
Click to expand...
Your being unfair, he took notes in Court on a part time basis when he was a student.
 
haway said:
Aye, when I said lawyers I meant his QC and his solicitor(s).

Whether it was disclosed by AJ and his legal team to his neighbour, Byrne or SAFC lawyers the point if none of the latter would be bound by legal privilege. Legal privilege only relates to the relationship between AJ and HIS lawyers (the ones he's instructing).
Click to expand...

If AJ and his legal team did disclose sensitive information about his defence surely that would be passed on as confidential material and the club would be bound by that confidentiality though?
 
janey said:
I'm not defending him either, never will, but the legal system doesn't seem quite right for me here, and it's not always about guilty or innocent, with appeals it's sometimes about a technicality. If I was a well paid barrister, I'd be rubbing me hands with this opportunity to appeal.
Click to expand...
What if you were a rubbish paid one ?
 
johnson said:
That total moron who wrote that letter for the front of the Echo

The support for your club is in doubt, he says, well good riddance mate.
Click to expand...

I do think at times based on the comments I read on this message board, we are worthy of accolades for having the most virtuous set of supporters ever.

I am sure that it is all very well meaning, but sometimes their principled viewpoint lacks common sense.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top