• 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:
Not sure that's how public opinion works mind, most people are swayed pretty easily.
Click to expand...

The people at work are quite normal blokes who read the Sun, do their graft and have a pint on a Friday.

When I popped my head into the canteen today they cheered, made a coarse comment about Johnson, turned to page 3 and put the kettle on.

This shit storm is more in the heads of those who want it to be a massive drama and the media that feeds them imo.
 
Rober33 said:
I don't believe that the juror should not do his job but these things do happen and I don't think it would have changed the result of the case if the jurors we're already at 10-2. The judge would have accepted that eventually I assume.

I hope it doesn't give Johnson reason to appeal because I don't want this to drag on any longer.
Click to expand...
Eventually? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
haway said:
1) legal privilege is the privilege between confidentiality between a lawyer and a client, it has special legal meaning and has extra protections, like medical confidentiality.
2) No because AJ can instruct the club to release info to SAFC but not 'in general'. It's like if someone was defending you and you gave them permission to disclose the papers to your wife, it doesn't mean if your sister asks for them the lawyer can disclose them to the sister. The lawyer can only disclose to exactly who the client says.
3) If SAFC specifically signed an agreement they wouldn't release it then yes. But if it was just in a standard meeting they wouldn't. If confidentiality was an issue why wouldn't SAFC just say 'look, we would give specifics but unfortunately we are bound by an agreement not to release this info'?
Click to expand...


Cheers for the legal privilege bit, was confusing me slightly.

Point 2. AJ can instruct the club (guessing you meant QC here) to release info to SAFC but not 'in general'

But doesn't that mean that Sunderland can't release that information 'in general' then as they've received that information under a certain legal privilege. As it wasn't in a standard meeting but in a meeting that I'm guessing has strict rules over what is allowed to be said outside of that meeting, due to the legal privilege bit. See, I don't get how Sunderland would need legal privilege to receive information but then could do what the fuck they wanted with it.

Yes, Sunderland could come out and say that, if it indeed is the case but so could the QC and they haven't.
 
AlpineExile said:
I don't believe that the juror should not do his job but these things do happen and I don't think it would have changed the result of the case if the jurors we're already at 10-2. The judge would have accepted that eventually I assume.

I hope it doesn't give Johnson reason to appeal because I don't want this to drag on any longer.
Click to expand...
Eventually? :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

The problem is , the girl apparently gave him oral sex , and he was found not guilty. This means there was porkies flying about , pardon the pun.

Maybe he could try and sue her after the appeal aswell ?

Although if she or her family arent looking for any money out of it , then maybe he shouldnt either
 
haway said:
Could well have been non-custodial for the first two offences though, especially since he pleaded before the trial so would get a discount.
Click to expand...

Possible, but my money is on the judge hanging him as high as possible what with it being a high profile case and the fact he didn't change his plea until the trail started, causing undue distress to the victim. The courts are never happy with that kind of stunt. If he'd pleaded guilty straight off the bat, maybes, but I highly doubt it.
 
theinediblebulk said:
See, I don't get how Sunderland would need legal privilege to receive information but then could do what the fuck they wanted with it.

Yes, Sunderland could come out and say that, if it indeed is the case but so could the QC and they haven't.
Click to expand...

I asked this earlier and was totally ignored for some reason ..... despite the astute legal brains on here.

I'll await the definitive answer.
 
Daks said:
Eventually? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The problem is , the girl apparently gave him oral sex , and he was found not guilty. This means there was porkies flying about , pardon the pun.

Maybe he could try and sue her after the appeal aswell ?

Although if she or her family arent looking for any money out of it , then maybe he shouldnt either
Click to expand...
Now you're just being silly.
 
Daks said:
Eventually?

The problem is , the girl apparently gave him oral sex , and he was found not guilty. This means there was porkies flying about , pardon the pun.

Maybe he could try and sue her after the appeal aswell ?

Although if she or her family arent looking for any money out of it , then maybe he shouldnt either
Click to expand...
Just because he was found not guilty doesn't mean she necessarily lied, you have to have no doubt before giving a guilty verdict.

Edit: well someone's fucked up the quotes
 
Reiver said:
I asked this earlier and was totally ignored for some reason ..... despite the astute legal brains on here.

I'll await the definitive answer.
Click to expand...

You might be waiting a while there mind.
 
From the live feed,,

We've just been called back into court to hear that a member of the jury has a commitment tomorrow and Friday. It has not yet been said what impact this will have on the trial, should the jury still need more time to decide their verdicts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top