• 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:
Standing outside Black Cat House right now, phone in my left hand, frantically posting on here, pitchfork in my right hand, banging the windows with my head.
Click to expand...
Go get that head seen to. It looks like you have much worse things to worry about, problems within the head can be quite serious.
 
The Master said:
No, this for some reason was brought up by someone who didn't have a clue what they were talking about earlier in the thread
Click to expand...
That's not quite true. The police statement yesterday as reported in the press said they told the club what he's done in March. However the full form of the statement included the fact that Johnson hadn't been interviewed at that stage. So the two police descriptions of the March meeting agree but also make it irrelevant (to an extent). May remains the important issue and it's starting to become clearer sadly.
 
Chizno1 said:
As would I, which is why I would like to hear the club actually deny the allegation that that is what Byrne was told. Remember it is being alleged that Johnson told Byrne that he had kissed a 15 year old girl in the May 4th meeting, and that Byrne had the evidence that would show he was indeed 'bang to rights' on the first 2 charges (messages, Johnsons fist police interview transcript) and was told that he was pleading not guilty.

Like you I just feel that the questions need to be answered as the statement does not do that in my opinion.
Click to expand...
agree there are questions to be answered. This seems to the key paragraph from the statemenent:

On 4 May 2015, an introductory meeting took place between Mr. Johnson, his father and Orlando Pownall QC. Mr. Pownall had not previously met Mr. Johnson. The club’s CEO was present during part of that meeting. During the time that she was present there was no suggestion whatsoever that Mr. Johnson would be changing his plea. Some documents were received relating to the case, which were immediately sent to Mr. Pownall for his attention. However, the club was not in a position to make any judgment on the outcome of the case nor on Mr. Johnson’s decision to defend all the allegations. Following that meeting, Mr. Johnson again confirmed to the club, presumably on advice from his own legal team, that his intention was to defend the charges in their entirety and he was confident of success once all evidence had been considered. He subsequently entered not guilty pleas to all charges on 6 June 2015
 
10 Gary Rowells said:
Very wise. I read the Guardian article full of moral outrage - the same paper that worships John Peel, a man who was married to a 15 year old at nearly Johnsons age. There was real irony when they followed on 6 Musics news which commented on Sunderland's need for answers with Led Zeppelin - Jimmy Page's activities with a 14 year old when he was 29 are well documented. There is no defending Johnson but the loudest commentators turn a blind eye when it suits them.
Click to expand...

Different era and different attitudes, it's far murkier to condemn people with the benefit of a generation or so of hindsight . You won't find a paper in the land who would ignore an adult dating, kissing, grooming or abusing a minor now. Not to mention that John Peel and Jimmy Page aren't currently identified as a potential threat to kids, whereas AJ is.

Bad stuff is bad stuff. It's existence in the past or elsewhere doesn't negate, reduce or excuse it occurring anywhere else.
 
Rober33 said:
I and many others have offered you an alternative view about how what the QC said could very easily be misleading and his motivations for doing that.

You either don't understand or don't want to accept this alternative view and keep pushing the argument that his QC wouldn't lie in court.

Can you tell me exactly what the QC said in court - the full statement relating to this? (Not what the papers say he said, unless it's a direct quote)

If you can that would be great, I'd love to see it.
Click to expand...

If he hadn't said it, or if the press had misquoted him, the club would have said as much. They haven't.
 
chrismisterx said:
The fact is the club have done nothing wrong

I think our CEO will have to go, not just because of this but because this is a long line of mistakes that have left the club either out of pocket or with very bad PR..
Click to expand...

you say the club have done nowt wrong, but then say the CEO will have to go? Why does she suddenly in your view have to go if the club have done nowt wrong in your view?
 
Sweeper said:
If he hadn't said it, or if the press had misquoted him, the club would have said as much. They haven't.
Click to expand...

I certainly wish the club had clarified this or do at some point soon to put the matter to bed once and for all.

Given the way things have been twisted against the club by the media so far it's obvious to see why they would be reluctant to give any more statements though.

They have already stated: "Some documents were received relating to the case, which were immediately sent to Mr. Pownall for his attention. However, the club was not in a position to make any judgment on the outcome of the case"

They could be more clear about specific allegations against them but that is a denial and the fact they didn't specifically mention certain things does not mean they are guilty of them.
 
Cockney Mackem said:
The club statement has muddied the waters. The allegation in court was that he admitted guilt in that meeting with the club, and the club saw documents which made them aware that there was evidence of his guilt. That is what is causing the club to be accused of playing him while knowing he was guilty, and that is what they did not answer in the statement
Click to expand...
If this is the case, I'm sure we all agree the club should be called out and punished.
 
sonson said:
Different era and different attitudes, it's far murkier to condemn people with the benefit of a generation or so of hindsight . You won't find a paper in the land who would ignore an adult dating, kissing, grooming or abusing a minor now. Not to mention that John Peel and Jimmy Page aren't currently identified as a potential threat to kids, whereas AJ is.

Bad stuff is bad stuff. It's existence in the past or elsewhere doesn't negate, reduce or excuse it occurring anywhere else.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. However, maybe now is the time to stop things like the annual John Peel lecture.
 
Rober33 said:
I certainly wish the club had clarified this or do at some point soon to put the matter to bed once and for all.

Given the way things have been twisted against the club by the media so far it's obvious to see why they would be reluctant to give any more statements though.

They have already stated: "Some documents were received relating to the case, which were immediately sent to Mr. Pownall for his attention. However, the club was not in a position to make any judgment on the outcome of the case"

They could be more clear about specific allegations against them but that is a denial and the fact they didn't specifically mention certain things does not mean they are guilty of them.
Click to expand...
Thats such a shit paragraph like.
 
bahtat said:
Article in this mornings express claiming that the victim is to sue Johnson for £1m in damages
Click to expand...
Couldn't see that one coming a mile off like
prehab26 said:
Line is that the club could also be brought into compensation outlay, letting him play on while the police told the club whah was happening.
Click to expand...
Surely we were totally entitled to play him, he was still our player. Yes it might have been wrong morally but thats it, no other reason we couldn't play him.
 
shepherd88 said:
Thats such a shit paragraph like.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry it doesn't meet your approval. Was there a certain element you disliked or was it just the overall shitness?

I've written plenty of paragraphs on this thread though so I assume your failure to critique them is an indication of your agreement with them which is great.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top