• 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.

Sweeper said:
They knew he had messaged, met and kissed a 15 year old supporter. They knew everything that had been sent back and forth as they had the 836 whatsapp messages. They knew that he admitted to messaging, meeting and kissing her as they had the transcript of his police interview. They knew relegation would cost the club about £80m. These aren't facts "I myself know", they are known by everyone who has picked up a newspaper or turned on the news in the past two days.

Unless, of course, there is still a minority who think one of this country's top QC's knowingly made false statements in court, that a police officer lied under oath and that the lead investigator with Durham Constabulary lied to the press today.

The Club had their chance to refute the above allegations, they released a statement which - tellingly - skirted over all of those issues.
Click to expand...

Police lie when it involves our club to suit their agenda (Central Station & intended bubble spring to mind). QC's also lie and are very good at doing so
 
janey said:
Im assuming if it was the day of his arrest it was the information he gave in his first interview. I'm just highlighting that two police officers appear to have contradicted each other that's all.
I'm not using it as an argument as to the rights and wrongs
Click to expand...
Exactly, so as far as we know no contradictions
 
Rober33 said:
I'll do this one last time then I'm off to do something more interesting like grate my knob.

The statement was made in court to try and persuade the jury that the club knew that he was going to plead guilty to the two offences he pleaded guilty to on the first day of the trial. They wanted to do this so they could say that he had no fear of losing his job by pleading guilty to the two cases he has now admitted to. Therefore he would have no reason to think pleading guilty would lose him £40,000 per week so that was not the reason for his continued denial up until the day of the trial. I would think it played a big part in his reasoning.

To prove this fact to the jury they could have called SAFC who could have confirmed that they would have continued to play him regardless of whether he pleaded guilty and he had no concern over losing his £40,000 per week. They didn't do this.

The other way they can suggest this is the case (without proving it) is by making statements that make it appear that SAFC had full knowledge of his guilt and have not sacked him regardless of this.

Without lying it's possible to say that:

1. Byrne was at the meeting - (we now know she was only present for some of the meeting) as was his QC.
2. Johnson says he told Byrne about the kiss and she 'knew everything' - compulsive liar fighting for his life.
3. Byrne had copies of the messages and interview transcripts - They didn't say why or how she had these and whether she actually read them or was just passing them on. She might not have even had a legal right to look at them we just don't know. The club statement states: "Some documents were received relating to the case, which were immediately sent to Mr. Pownall for his attention"

It's clear how the above statements could easily be made to try and persuade the jury he had no reason to worry about being sacked while actually being a very poor representation of what actually happened.

The fact is none of us know because the court transcripts regarding the exchange that all of the stories are based around have not been released, that makes it difficult to say for certain exactly what has been claimed never mind what the underlying truth is. Of course journalists will use the version of the truth with the most sensational headlines because they want to sell more papers.

I don't know how I can make it any more clear than this so I'm out now, hopefully I won't be making any response to this for a while but you never know.
Click to expand...

You can't make it any clearer because you don't have an answer for why the club didn't deny what they've been accused of. You can walk off claiming to have answered it but you haven't.
 
Cockney Mackem said:
You saw the club gave a statement yesterday which they introduced as a response to what was said about them during the trial?
Click to expand...

Yep...and I know what you're getting at, did they play Johnson after he admitted to a sexual offence with a minor. Ask yourself this...why did they immediately suspend him after his arrest, when they didn't have any facts, but play him after they did. Does that make any sense whatsoever!?!?
 
Mighty Boosh said:
Police lie when it involves our club to suit their agenda (Central Station & intended bubble spring to mind). QC's also lie and are very good at doing so
Click to expand...

You'll find QCs don't lie but are good at manipulating the evidence. Them lying, knowingly allowing their clients to lie or making their client lie, would result in them being struck off.

I highly doubt a very successful QC would risk this.
 
LineTrash said:
Yep...and I know what you're getting at, did they play Johnson after he admitted to a sexual offence with a minor. Ask yourself this...why did they immediately suspend him after his arrest, when they didn't have any facts, but play him after they did. Does that make any sense whatsoever!?!?
Click to expand...

I don't know why. Why didn't they deny it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top