• 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.

AC Mack said:
It's nothing to do with giving the benefit of the doubt to Johnson. It's clear from Sunderland's statements that they received the documents in question.
Click to expand...
It is clear they received them yes, I've never denied that, it's also clear if you believe the Sunderland statement that they handed them over immediately. Immediately to me suggests they might just not have been read.
 
janey said:
It is clear they received them yes, I've never denied that, it's also clear if you believe the Sunderland statement that they handed them over immediately. Immediately to me suggests they might just not have been read.
Click to expand...

Exactly, so why the hell not? That's my question. And if they didn't read them and therefore know the details, why haven't they come out and explained why?

The more it goes on, the worse the club looks.
 
I still don't understand why they were given the docs anyway, seems very odd

But if they had them I simply don't believe they didn't bother reading them. They were in a difficult position as it was, to just ignore them is extremely odd behaviour. Especially for a lawyer
 
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...
From the Guardian
You must be logged on to see external links

"However, on Wednesday the jury heard that Johnson admitted at a meeting with the Sunderland chief executive, Margaret Byrne, on 4 May 2015 that he had kissed the girl and swapped messages with her.

The former England international was suspended by the club after his arrest on 2 March, the court has heard. However, he was allowed to return to the team 16 days later and scored in his final game in a Sunderland shirt against Liverpool on 6 February.
Johnson’s counsel, Orlando Pownall QC, told the jury on Wednesday that he met Byrne, Johnson and the footballer’s father in Newcastle on 4 May 2015.
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.
Addressing Johnson in the witness box, Pownall asked: “At that interview on 4 May did you accept that you had kissed [the girl] and that you had sent and received messages from her?”
Johnson answered: “Yes.”
Pownall continued: “In the discussion was there any discussion about you being summarily dismissed by the club?”
Johnson replied: “No.”
Pownall asked: “Was there any such discussion in the days that followed?”
Johnson answered: “No.”
Johnson told the court he was first made aware he had been sacked when his father received a telephone call on 11 February – a day after his guilty pleas. The footballer later received a “one- or two-line” email, the court heard.
Johnson denied once again that he declined to plead guilty at an earlier stage so he could continue to take his £60,000-a-week salary.
Asked by Pownall whether he would have pleaded guilty earlier had he been advised, Johnson answered: “Yes.”

You do not know what was said in the 4th May meeting other than what was said in court so to question the Club's actions based on this evidence is pure speculation on your part.
You don't know if the Club sought to sack Johnson during the period he was awaiting trial but were advised against.
It has not been made clear why Johnson was advised to plead not guilty, what defence his legal team were going to use nor indeed who advised him.
Nor are you in a position to know the content of the Club's independent legal advice nor any advice offered by the PFA or Johnson's legal team.
You should accept the Club's statement at face value and not take their actions out of context.
 
janey said:
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.
Click to expand...
Do you not want to know the truth?
 
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...
Would that give you peace of mind marra?
 
janey said:
Well that's what was said in the statement, it said they were immediately handed over, so if you are willing to believe one part of the statement, as the poster I replied to does, then surely you have to believe it all.
Click to expand...
You do?

Fine.

I'm a bloke who lives in London
I also have a 12 inch penis and a net worth of £5.6mln

One part of that statement is true
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top