• 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:
Which he was found guilty of... the point isn't that Johnson said it (we can obviously take what he says with a pinch of salt)... the issue is that Johnson has said it and the club hasn't refuted it...
Click to expand...
They haven't even attempted to deny the allegations in court
 

haway said:
Sacking him would not have prejudiced the trial, the only downside is they would have opened themselves up to an unfair dismissal if he was found not guilty. But as I said, I wouldn't have sacked, I would have suspended with pay.

They can't claim the money because he will say 'I changed my mind at the last minute' and how will they ever prove he was always planning to plead? Seems impossible task imo.
Click to expand...

Of course it would prejudice the trial. Pulls the defence case to pieces.
 
haway said:
What do you mean lied to the club? The club had some of his documents, presumably the ones Johnson said they did, how has he lied to them? They haven't accused him of lying to him?

And IMO, as has been said from the beginning, they should have suspended him with pay, imo.
Click to expand...
they couldn't. Why do you think he brought the PFA with him to the initial meeting after he had been suspended?
 
East Riding Mackem said:
Fletcher and Wickham mentioned in the trial in addition to Johnson (surely one of the most spectacular falls from grace/ ie utter f***ing stupidity in the history of football), lends credence to the rotten core position often put about on here - throw in Bardsley rolling about in £50 notes, part-time managers, absent owners, it's a miracle we're still in the league.

Overpaid, thick prima donnas, running riot with minimal oversight- I suppose something like this was inevitable.

Sad f***ing day for the club. Di Canio was right.
Click to expand...
Fletcher and Wickham mentioned in what way? What are they guilty of?
 
jsdftm04 said:
Why are you and plenty others ignoring the fact his QC said it, said Byrne had evidence and was told he kissed the girl. Because it doesn't suit the agenda of defending the club?
Click to expand...

Didn't the judge include it in his summing up as a point of fact?
 
East Riding Mackem said:
Fletcher and Wickham mentioned in the trial in addition to Johnson (surely one of the most spectacular falls from grace/ ie utter f***ing stupidity in the history of football), lends credence to the rotten core position often put about on here - throw in Bardsley rolling about in £50 notes, part-time managers, absent owners, it's a miracle we're still in the league.

Overpaid, thick prima donnas, running riot with minimal oversight- I suppose something like this was inevitable.

Sad f***ing day for the club. Di Canio was right.
Click to expand...

Don't agree with some of the Di Canio stuff like but I'd have love'd to see how Di Canio would have reacted to all this if he were manager.
 
The thing I struggle to get my head around is the fact in this case he was accused of two separate counts. Two distinct crimes against a child. He denied both. He has been convicted of one. He has been cleared of the other (more serious crime). Given the nature of the allegations that means he was telling the truth and the complainant was lying. Whats it called when you lie in court? will perjury charges be brought?

In my mind there are no grey areas here it either happened or it didnt in which case someone is lying there is no get out clause for anyone. If it happened its a crime if it didnt happen someone has lied to get someone else into trouble.
 
phunboy said:
they couldn't. Why do you think he brought the PFA with him to the initial meeting after he had been suspended?
Click to expand...

Of course they could suspend him with pay, how the hell couldn't they? That's totally the club's discretion to pay someone but tell them to stay at home.
 
good com
Stevos said:
That's what he claimed in court but he has also been shown up repeatedly to be a liar. Remember the context in which he claims to have told the club back in May:

It was put to him he pleaded not guilty on all counts, duping everybody in the process, only in order to prolong his playing career and carry on drawing his 60k a week wage. He denied this, saying he carried on playing because the club wanted him to, despite him telling them from the start what he had done.

So it wasn't just a throw away comment from him which he would have no cause to lie about. It was part of him was rebuffing an accusation from the prosecution, as to his motives for carrying on playing. In a nutshell, he is a proven and self-confessed liar who also had a motive to lie about whether or not the club was aware of what he had done. Given that he was denying all charges in June, it seems odd he would have admitted his guilt to anybody a month before that.

It's also important to remember where this fits into his defence's case. In an attempt to portray him as an honest man, his QC argued in court (unsuccessfully, ultimately) that he only lied initially to the police because he panicked. He subsequently then went home and confessed all to his partner, not only about this but about the other women too. This was part of the defence's argument that, despite having lied repeatedly to the police on his arrest, this was essentially out of character and that everything he had done or said since, including his denial of the 2 further counts, was truthful and honest. Admitting he had kept the truth a secret from the club all along would not have tied in with that argument.
Click to expand...
now thats more like it, a well based and sensible critique of an important part of the case
 
peil said:
They've changed their report as this is what I'm currently reading:
You must be logged on to see external links

During the trial,
You must be logged on to see external links
to the lesser offences until the start of his trial so he could still play for Sunderland, from whom he earned £60,000 a week.

Johnson told the court the club knew he had kissed the girl, but in a statement issued after the verdict Sunderland denied the claim.

The club
You must be logged on to see external links
and only became aware he had kissed the girl when he admitted it in court, at which point they sacked him.
Click to expand...

That's a huge blunder by the BBC then. They categorically stated that at a meeting with the club on May 4th he admitted his complicity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top