• 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:
Do you have a link to any evidence of this?
Click to expand...

Yes of course - a statement under oath from a well respected QC and Jonson's own defence lawyer.

Pownall told the court that Byrne had transcripts of police interviews given by Johnson and the alleged victim, as well as the 834 text messages Johnson exchanged with the 15-year-old girl over a seven-week period.

In his first police interview, Johnson admitted kissing the girl and knowing that she was 15.

Regardless of what verdict a court would come to in May SAFC knew that there 27 year old footballer had admitted kissing a Year 10 girl knowing her age and in the process of getting to that stage exchanged 834 messages with her. SAFC were more than within their rights not to play him on that basis and should not have done.
 

haway said:
Not at all, :lol:, just can't be arsed to get in a long argument about whether or not immediately is a word that could well be being used to mislead in this situation, when we will invariably find out soon enough and til then we are just arguing about semantics.
Click to expand...
No mate. You've got confused again. Immediately means immediately. Any other length of time isn't immediately.

It's quite a clear word tbh, I'm surprised you've got mixed up with it.
 
AC Mack said:
What's a 'non-sexual' kiss? They knew it wasn't his grandma or child ffs.

And where are the whatsapp messages covered? Unless you mean, 'documents were received relating to the case, which were immediately sent to Mr. Pownall for his attention.'

Surely not.
Click to expand...
The opposite to a sexual kiss marra.

Call me crazy, but I put 2 and 2 together. Maybe I got 5, but at least I tried :*(
 
rentaghost said:
By May it was inconceivable that he was innocent of the less serious charges - so much so that Jonson pleaded guilty to them based on the evidence that SAFC were aware of in May. SAFC didn't have to take the word of the police they could take the word of Johnson's own QC with regards to 650 whats app text messages between a 27 year old bloke and a year 10 girl. They knew at that stage that Johnson had been kissing her and been asking her for pictures without her bikini and for more next time etc. Sunderland should definitely not have had Johnson representing the club on the pitch from that stage. Fair enough initially when SAFC weren't aware of the content but from May they were.
Click to expand...

Johnson and his defence knew he was always going to plead guilty at the trial, it was all for show, and part of Orlando QC's plan to get him off. SAFC did not however know that.


Again the bit in bold, your opinion, I don't agree at all.
 
rentaghost said:
Yes of course - a statement under oath from a well respected QC and Jonson's own defence lawyer.

Pownall told the court that Byrne had transcripts of police interviews given by Johnson and the alleged victim, as well as the 834 text messages Johnson exchanged with the 15-year-old girl over a seven-week period.

In his first police interview, Johnson admitted kissing the girl and knowing that she was 15.

Regardless of what verdict a court would come to in May SAFC knew that there 27 year old footballer had admitted kissing a Year 10 girl knowing her age and in the process of getting to that stage exchanged 834 messages with her. SAFC were more than within their rights not to play him on that basis and should not have done.
Click to expand...

I think the argument has been done enough on this thread and even most people who believe that the club knew what it's suggested they did are accepting that this isn't evidence of that. Obviously they want the club to clarify their position because they do believe they had the information at that time.

I don't know whether they did or not but will continue to give them the benefit of the doubt unless it is proven otherwise.
 
KarenDent said:
She was a nursing mother at the time as well, her hormones will have been all over the place, plus she probably still loved him you can't just turn your feelings on and off, my heart goes out to her she's played a particularly shitty hand with dignity.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. My view, old fashioned as it may be, when I first heard of this was what on earth was he doing sniffing about in the first place? when he has a pregnant girlfriend.
 
rentaghost said:
Yes of course - a statement under oath from a well respected QC and Jonson's own defence lawyer.

Pownall told the court that Byrne had transcripts of police interviews given by Johnson and the alleged victim, as well as the 834 text messages Johnson exchanged with the 15-year-old girl over a seven-week period.

In his first police interview, Johnson admitted kissing the girl and knowing that she was 15.

Regardless of what verdict a court would come to in May SAFC knew that there 27 year old footballer had admitted kissing a Year 10 girl knowing her age and in the process of getting to that stage exchanged 834 messages with her. SAFC were more than within their rights not to play him on that basis and should not have done.
Click to expand...
Safc are not a court, they did the right thing by letting justice take its course. If they had sacked him then and he was later found not guilty he could have sued the club.
 
Morse said:
I understand, and I agree. I can be a bit thoughtless in how I phrase things at times, I'm all too aware of that and I hope you believe that I would never intentionally blame a 15 year old for having a sexual crime committed against her/him, never.

Thanks for your kind words. I'm doing OK, I sort of found a place where I haven't forgotten what happened, but don't let it dominate my life. It has probably affected my sex life a bit if I'm honest, but that's probably too much information for a message board. :p

Sometimes I say and indeed post things where I really should consider my words a lot more tactfully and carefully, especially cases like this one. There are subjects that are deeply sensitive and comments can affect people very deeply. I'm so sorry for your experiences, and I regret any offence I caused you. I hope you won't hold it against me. Again - my deepest apologies. When I'm wrong, I'm wrong! I f@cked up.
Click to expand...
Don't worry, I do understand (no one better!) how deep and emotive an issue for victims this is - it literally touches your soul. Sometimes it means things can come out a bit tangled in the heat of the moment. As for one's intimate life ... again, not one for message boards, but again I do understand.

Look, maybe, just maybe, if there is any good that can come out of a horrible cause celebre like this, it is that it can get victims thinking and talking about what happened to them: venting, processing, getting some of the emotion out. And the internet is a great place for that because we can be full and frank but also anonymous.
 
rentaghost said:
Yes of course - a statement under oath from a well respected QC and Jonson's own defence lawyer.

Pownall told the court that Byrne had transcripts of police interviews given by Johnson and the alleged victim, as well as the 834 text messages Johnson exchanged with the 15-year-old girl over a seven-week period.

In his first police interview, Johnson admitted kissing the girl and knowing that she was 15.

Regardless of what verdict a court would come to in May SAFC knew that there 27 year old footballer had admitted kissing a Year 10 girl knowing her age and in the process of getting to that stage exchanged 834 messages with her. SAFC were more than within their rights not to play him on that basis and should not have done.
Click to expand...
So even if they hadn't read the documents, they somehow new about the 834 messages?
 
johnson said:
Johnson and his defence knew he was always going to plead guilty at the trial, it was all for show, and part of Orlando QC's plan to get him off. SAFC did not however know that.


Again the bit in bold, your opinion, I don't agree at all.
Click to expand...



Hep said:
Safc are not a court, they did the right thing by letting justice take its course. If they had sacked him then and he was later found not guilty he could have sued the club.
Click to expand...


I ddint say they should have sacked him at that stage. I did say that Sunderland did know from May onwards that they had a 27 year old player that had admitted kissing a year 10 girl, knowing her age and exchanged hundreds of text messages with her. From that point onward he should not have been representing the club.
 
Rober33 said:
I think the argument has been done enough on this thread and even most people who believe that the club knew what it's suggested they did are accepting that this isn't evidence of that. Obviously they want the club to clarify their position because they do believe they had the information at that time.

I don't know whether they did or not but will continue to give them the benefit of the doubt unless it is proven otherwise.
Click to expand...
There's that benefit of the doubt again, the same benefit of the doubt some would prefer to give a systematic liar who has been found guilty of sex offences against a child.

rentaghost said:
I ddint say they should have sacked him at that stage. I did say that Sunderland did know from May onwards that they had a 27 year old player that had admitted kissing a year 10 girl, knowing her age and exchanged hundreds of text messages with her. From that point onward he should not have been representing the club.
Click to expand...
If they knew in May, at which point the trial was scheduled for August, rendering any further involvement in playing minimal at most, it would have been the perfect opportunity to sack him and save £60.000 a week going into the transfer window, surely
 
ollie c said:
No, she should have gone on other grounds, long ago. I fully understand all of the various opinions on here, and don't pretend to have all of the answers, but I would hope people on here don't just think " this is a great opportunity to get Byrne" and are using a young kid's misery to further their cause. That would be reprehensible.
Click to expand...
I agree, she's not been a great CEO, but there's more things wrong with that board than just her.
 
rentaghost said:
I ddint say they should have sacked him at that stage. I did say that Sunderland did know from May onwards that they had a 27 year old player that had admitted kissing a year 10 girl, knowing her age and exchanged hundreds of text messages with her. From that point onward he should not have been representing the club.
Click to expand...
How do you know?
 
Dogbark said:
So even if they hadn't read the documents, they somehow new about the 834 messages?
Click to expand...


janey said:
There's that benefit of the doubt again, the same benefit of the doubt some would prefer to give a systematic liar who has been found guilty of sex offences against a child.


If they knew in May, at which point the trial was scheduled for August, rendering any further involvement in playing minimal at most, it would have been the perfect opportunity to sack him and save £60.000 a week going into the transfer window, surely
Click to expand...

Why the if? Of course they did. A QC with the background of Pownall isn't going to perjure himself in court. People seem to want to clutch at straws here and I'm really not sure why. A better debate is whether or not Sunderland should have sacked him then or not I agree.

worcestermackem said:
How do you know?
Click to expand...

Yawn - the sworn accounts of Johnson's own QC who should he be lying would never defend another case again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top