• 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.
Sima said:
Probably when others stop posting 'we couldn't have sacked him'.
Click to expand...
janey said:
She said she handed them over immediately, even the speediest reader in the world would struggle to read all of those documents if they handed them over immediately. See this is part of the problem, people picking out only bits of the information to suit their agenda while not accepting the bits of information that don't suit their agenda.
That's not aimed at you directly by the way, and I've said myself I have no idea of the truth of the matter because I wasn't there as was nobody on this board.
But in not being there and in there being so many uncertainties on both sides of the debate I'm willing to give the club the benefit of the doubt, rather than the bloke that has systematically lied for a year and who has now been found guilty of sex offences against a child.
Click to expand...

Two things there:

1) Its not about believing the club - they haven't even denied it.

2) Its not about believing Johnson its about believing his QC one of the most well though of and professional in the country by all accounts.
 

rentaghost said:
What are you suggesting Janey? You are looking into what / if scenarios. What are you arguing against? SAFC were given police interviews where Johnson admitted knowing the age of the girl when kissing her and they are given the content of all the text messages. Its fact, undeniable (and it hasn't of course by SAFC) and the account of one of the most established and well though of QC's in the country.

Asking why SAFC didn't sack him is a question only they can answer but it doesn't alter anything else.
Click to expand...
I'm saying they were given them, I'm also saying the club said they were given documents that they immediately handed over. There are discrepancies everywhere on both sides, even the officer who gave evidence under oath has been contradicted by another officer who gave an interview to the BBC on Thursday night.
Nothing in law is ever as cut and dried as it seems.
 
Purrfect South said:
Loads of men cheat on their pregnant partners. Yet another sad fact of life, and far more likely to happen, than you'd think.
Click to expand...
As I said I'm old fashioned. I was brought up with a certain set of values such as if you are in a relationship don't fuck around. An outdated view as you say, but I still have no time for anyone that would do something like that.
 
rentaghost said:
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.



Yawn - the sworn accounts of Johnson's own QC who should he be lying would never defend another case again.
Click to expand...

What Pownall said at court about it was this;

"It’s plain Sunderland Football Club knew exactly what was going on, they choose for what ever reason, rightly or wrongly, whether for commercial considerations or in the knowledge they were facing relegation, they allowed him to play. It might be in hindsight they regret that decision,” Mr Pownall said.

Although he doesn't say how it was plain Sunderland knew. Also;

Johnson’s defence barrister has told the jury that the police failed to investigate the case against Johnson properly.

“The allegations of grooming are particularly repugnant,”

So has he committed perjury with his claims about the police and the grooming, especially as Johnson actually pleaded guilty to the grooming. I'm just asking as from the bits I've read it seems you can only commit perjury if you are a witness, not a QC. But it seems you have a bit more knowledge on the subject when it comes to QC's committing perjury so any chance you could help me out a bit here please.

You must be logged on to see external links
 
Looking back at this whole thing it's been a complete farce from start to finish, weve a lying defendant, a lying "victim" the case taking a year to come to court for no reason, a defence barrister who slaughtered his client in court, a judge making football "puns" a jury that couldn't decide guilt but then did after an hour or so because 1 of them had a job interview, the police talking shite and a club who refuses to comment, it's a complete farce.
 
janey said:
She said she handed them over immediately, even the speediest reader in the world would struggle to read all of those documents if they handed them over immediately. See this is part of the problem, people picking out only bits of the information to suit their agenda while not accepting the bits of information that don't suit their agenda.
That's not aimed at you directly by the way, and I've said myself I have no idea of the truth of the matter because I wasn't there as was nobody on this board.
But in not being there and in there being so many uncertainties on both sides of the debate I'm willing to give the club the benefit of the doubt, rather than the bloke that has systematically lied for a year and who has now been found guilty of sex offences against a child.
Click to expand...

Like it's been said a hundred times, if she didn't see anything in those documents, and was accused of seeing something in those documents, and Adam Johnson didn't say anything in the meeting, why didn't she use those exact words in the statement alleging that she knew something? And now that she's catching all kinds of hell for her ambiguous statement, why doesn't she come out and say "I didn't hear or see anything in that meeting to indicate Johnson might be guilty"?
 
rentaghost said:
Two things there:

1) Its not about believing the club - they haven't even denied it.

2) Its not about believing Johnson its about believing his QC one of the most well though of and professional in the country by all accounts.
Click to expand...
Well in my experience if QC's I wouldn't trust them as far as I can chuck them, and no that's not me saying he lied, that's me saying they are extremely clever at twisting the truth if they think it will serve their purpose.
 
Dilligaf60 said:
As I said I'm old fashioned. I was brought up with a certain set of values such as if you are in a relationship don't fuck around. An outdated view as you say, but I still have no time for anyone that would do something like that.
Click to expand...
I don't think it is outdated.

chunkylover53 said:
At the end of the day, the club need to answer the question about what they knew

It really is that simple
Click to expand...
This. However, I think we all know why they won't
 
Cockney Mackem said:
Like it's been said a hundred times, if she didn't see anything in those documents, and was accused of seeing something in those documents, and Adam Johnson didn't say anything in the meeting, why didn't she use those exact words in the statement alleging that she knew something? And now that she's catching all kinds of hell for her ambiguous statement, why doesn't she come out and say "I didn't hear or see anything in that meeting to indicate Johnson might be guilty"?
Click to expand...
I don't know I wasn't there, similarly I don't know why, if the club knew they didn't sack him in May, when the trial was scheduled for August, so he wouldn't have played again, saved the £60,000 a week, and bought another player, rather than wait to sack him as soon as he pleaded guilty in the middle of the season when they can't replace him.
But that's sort of my point, there are so many variables and none of us, not one single one of us know the full truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top