• 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.

haway said:
Not sure that's how public opinion works mind, most people are swayed pretty easily.

EDIT: Have a look at Ladz and Lenz (sp) study of the '97 election. They found the Sun choosing to come out in favour of Labour accounted for 20% of their majority.
Click to expand...
That doesn't surprise me one bit.
 
Must be bored said:
I think a lot of people would agree with you but the blame for that lies at the feet of AJ/his legal advisors for pleading not guilty until the trial started and forcing the victim to go through the court process on the remaining charges. His sentencing will quite rightly reflect that although that does nothing to address the damage caused to the victim.
Click to expand...

When he pleased guilty to two charges on the first day of his trial I was shocked, but in hindsight (and hindsight is a great thing), I do not think I should have been surprised at all. As in one of his earlier court summons / hearings prior to the actual trial he did not submit any plea, which I thought was strange at the time.

It would have been legal advice, the longer it took to bring the trial to court, the greater the possibility of it getting dropped due to the victim retracting her statement, witnesses withdrawing (some had to be summonsed to court), etc.

As you say, his sentencing will reflect this.
 
theinediblebulk said:
Your exact words were "I absolutely believe the Durham Police force when they say they met with Byrne on May 4th and allegations were discussed in detail. That's forgetting everything else that links to his being absolutely true."

Yet the cops said "The senior officer said particulars of the offences were not discussed, as Johnson had not been interviewed. What he said in interview was still not disclosed to the club."

I suppose with all the speculation swirling around you just got a bit confused over what had actually been said. Fair enough.
Click to expand...

Fair enough???

Was he not arrested on March 2nd and this information is directly linked to that ?
 
prehab26 said:
Fair enough???

Was he not arrested on March 2nd and this information is directly linked to that ?
Click to expand...

You claimed that the police provided details when they said they didn't. If you've got a link to somewhere where the cops actually admit to passing on details of the case then I'll accept it. And I'm on about details, not just telling the club what Johnson had been arrested for. But at the moment you haven't. All you've done is speculate and passed it off as fact,and seeing as you seem to have an anti-Byrne thing on the go, I'm inclined to think you were just using this as an axe grinding exercise.
 
The police would be obliged to keep under wraps the details of his interview, not least because it's important that his 'story' isn't leaked in order for the person making allegations to adapt their story to suit.
However, they would also be obliged to seek out other potential victims, and safeguard others prior to his conviction - simply because there was a slight possibility he might continue to offend. So in that regard the club had to be made aware of the broad nature of the allegation and to implement safeguarding measures in the interim (and quite possibly consider other opportunities or past allegations within the club - of which there seem to have been none).

The precise details should never have been disclosed to the club, although SOME details would have to be disclosed by reasons of trying to obtain alibis / times and locations etc). Basically - only disclosing as much information as absolutely necessary.
 
theinediblebulk said:
You claimed that the police provided details when they said they didn't. If you've got a link to somewhere where the cops actually admit to passing on details of the case then I'll accept it. And I'm on about details, not just telling the club what Johnson had been arrested for. But at the moment you haven't. All you've done is speculate and passed it off as fact,and seeing as you seem to have an anti-Byrne thing on the go, I'm inclined to think you were just using this as an axe grinding exercise.
Click to expand...

So you have just ignored my reply. Was the message that you posted about interview, In relation to match 2nd or May 4th?

It's simple. It is. Don't lie. You know it's been a get out. It is something linked to old information. March 2nd.
 
Last edited:
Maximus said:
Surely that's his job to explain to his 8 year old son why he removed the bairn's photograph and not Maggie Byrne's. She should write back telling the bairn to ask his daddy.
Click to expand...

This absolute bellend of a parent has just made his child's next weeks at school an absolute nightmare.

What a totally irresponsible thing to do for the sake of attention seeking.

Logon or register to see this image
 
Maximus said:
Surely that's his job to explain to his 8 year old son why he removed the bairn's photograph and not Maggie Byrne's. She should write back telling the bairn to ask his daddy.
Click to expand...
It's press sensationalism at it's very worst. Some moronic supporter given centre of stage.
If they'd sacked Johnson on day one, this father would still have the same problem - explaining to his son that not heroes are the nice people we think they are. It's a lesson every child has in life at some point in their life - often more than once. Nothing to do with Sunderland FC.
 
prehab26 said:
Fair enough???

Was he not arrested on March 2nd and this information is directly linked to that ?
Click to expand...
He was yes, that's the date the officer under oath in evidence, said he'd gone to the club and said he had given an indication of the charges. But had given no more detail.
I know we disagree but, I still say there is a canny discrepancy between what the officer under oath said and the officer yesterday said. I also think it's strange that an officer felt the need or that the pillar of morality the BBC thought it necessary for the police officer to tottle off and make a comment at all.
 
janey said:
He was yes, that's the date the officer under oath in evidence, said he'd gone to the club and said he had given an indication of the charges. But had given no more detail.
I know we disagree but, I still say there is a canny discrepancy between what the officer under oath said and the officer yesterday said. I also think it's strange that an officer felt the need or that the pillar of morality the BBC thought it necessary for the police officer to tottle off and make a comment at all.
Click to expand...

We do disagree. I think it's been accepted, nearly by everyone that information was provided to the CEO of our club on May 4th, linked to the severity of the case. It was ignored and he as allowed to play. I really, logically can not see how anyone can deny it.
 
prehab26 said:
We do disagree. I think it's been accepted, nearly by everyone that information was provided to the CEO of our club on May 4th, linked to the severity of the case. It was ignored and he as allowed to play. I really, logically can not see how anyone can deny it.
Click to expand...

So what do you want ? Are you a sunderland fan ?
 
janey said:
He was yes, that's the date the officer under oath in evidence, said he'd gone to the club and said he had given an indication of the charges. But had given no more detail.
I know we disagree but, I still say there is a canny discrepancy between what the officer under oath said and the officer yesterday said. I also think it's strange that an officer felt the need or that the pillar of morality the BBC thought it necessary for the police officer to tottle off and make a comment at all.
Click to expand...

Thought you wanted this thread dead? Its turned into a canny amount of unbelieveable shit. Some of the things people have said are f***ing disgusting.
 
janey said:
He was yes, that's the date the officer under oath in evidence, said he'd gone to the club and said he had given an indication of the charges. But had given no more detail.
I know we disagree but, I still say there is a canny discrepancy between what the officer under oath said and the officer yesterday said. I also think it's strange that an officer felt the need or that the pillar of morality the BBC thought it necessary for the police officer to tottle off and make a comment at all.
Click to expand...

:lol::lol::lol:
 
Maximus said:
Surely that's his job to explain to his 8 year old son why he removed the bairn's photograph and not Maggie Byrne's. She should write back telling the bairn to ask his daddy.
Click to expand...
Same way I explained it to my son who had his poster on the wall till the day the charges came out.
Awkward, but just tell him his hero was a talented football player who was also a rather bad man.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top