• 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:
But The club didn't deny it and actually admitted they had 'some' of the papers ... why didn't they deny it if it wasn't true?!?




Nope... you can admit to kissing someone but plead not guilty for various reasons ...
Click to expand...
He said he admitted grooming and kissing. The club said he denied the allegations
 

Poor lass must have been through hell, very brave of her to prosecute.

Hope the former middlesbrough player and boyhood Newcastle fan drops the soap on his first shower vist.

That evil thunderc*** has caused massive damage to our club, last few years have been stained for me.
 
Some Random Guy said:
If the club knew the following 3 things last May it's a big deal:

- he had been texting the lass
- he had kissed her
- he knew she was 15 when he was doing the above

It comes down to what was in that transcript, if it had him admitting those 3 things the club knew enough in my opinion.

If they had that information in that transcript the club knowingly let us cheer on a man who was going down for grooming.n
Click to expand...
I'm not defending the club but how does all that work with the trial? If the club sacked him when being presented with the evidence held by the defence lawyer but knew/thought he was going to plead not guilty would they not be deemed to be interfering with the case? It was in the hands of a court and jury to decide his guilt (if the not guilty pleas had been submitted as the club were told), they surely don't have the processes or authority to act above a court of law.

If the club were presented with the texts and an admission but were told there would be a plea of not guilty then that evidence must have been presented with a lot of spin or some sort of concealment. Otherwise it just doesn't work and the clubs denial that they knew he was pleading guilty doesn't stack up and they wouldn't lie about that in a public statement.
 
darius said:
They have denied any admissions. They said he was pleading not guilty and refuted them. Some papers could just be the charges.


But he denied the allegations. The opposite to what he said in court
Click to expand...
Regardless of the plea, the evidence she is said to have seen was damning enough..
 
Redcar said:
Yes. But that's not what I'm on about. I'm on about the CEO having seen the WhatsApps.
Click to expand...
haway said:
Does it answer whether they had the whatsapps and knew he was admitting kissing the girl like? The way I read it they don't answer any of the qs about what was said to them by him (apart from him pleading not guilty)
Click to expand...
Regardless of any evidence the club was shown or not, Johnson said he would be pleading not guilty. If the club had sacked him there and then, they would have been pre-judging the outcome of any court case and could possibly be accused of influencing the outcome of that case. Johnson had put the club in a no-win situation.
 
Lost Partridge said:
It's obviously different if it was one of mine, because I'd be emotionally involved, probably wouldn't be able to look at the facts with a clear head and would want to kill him. But as someone looking on from afar, I don't have sympathy for the bloke as such, I just think the lass should be held accountable for what she has done.
Click to expand...

She is a child you absolute seedy freak.
 
West Winger said:
The statement says everything it needed to say. He assured them he was pleading not guilty, they took legal advice on the matter and they acted on that advice.
Click to expand...
It also said that at no time did he indicate he would plead not guilty, had he done so they'd have sacked him immediately. Seems to be overlooked by some that bit.
 
Redcar said:
The CEO was present in the interview and saw the documents relating to the case ie the WhatsApp messages (according to what was revealed in court, which the club haven't denied in the statement) .

From what was revealed in those messages it was pretty clear he'd be guilty. If I was a SAFC fan I'd be sickened if she didn't sack him after seeing those.
Click to expand...
Danny Graham scored the winner last night. lol
 
WhoDrankAllTheBovril said:
Regardless of any evidence the club was shown or not, Johnson said he would be pleading not guilty. If the club had sacked him there and then, they would have been pre-judging the outcome of any court case and could possibly be accused of influencing the outcome of that case. Johnson had put the club in a no-win situation.
Click to expand...
Should have suspended with pay, as I and many said at the time on here ...
 
Some Random Guy said:
It means jackshit to us as supporters that our club could have knowingly let you cheer on a paedophile?

Haddaway and shite.
Click to expand...
There's literally nothing we can do about it. I care that we might get relegated and I hope Stoke and Arsenal win tonight, that's my worries at the minute. Not what someone I've never met and never will meet has or hasn't done.
 
Lost Partridge said:
It was
Grooming - talking in a sexual manner etc - Pleaded guilty
Sexual activity - kissing - Pleaded guilty
Sexual activity - fingering - Pleaded not guilty - Found guilty
Sexual Activity - Sucked him off - Pleaded not guilty - Found not guilty

Personally I think the jury have got it wrong, and the fact it was only a 10-2 verdict shows that there wasn't conclusive evidence to show it either did or didn't happen. When I say "got it wrong" I mean that they couldn't prove it beyond all reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...
Nice one mate, looks as if you've cracked the case
 
geordiedean said:
This. Has to be one of the most ridiculous posts in this thread

Somebody educate this stupid boy
Click to expand...

Not really, evidence the same for both charges. The victim has released a statement saying "now everyone knows I was telling the truth" which isn't true if we go off the court verdict
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATS
Lost Partridge said:
It's obviously different if it was one of mine, because I'd be emotionally involved, probably wouldn't be able to look at the facts with a clear head and would want to kill him. But as someone looking on from afar, I don't have sympathy for the bloke as such, I just think the lass should be held accountable for what she has done.
Click to expand...
She is a child for fuck sake
 
Redcar said:
Regardless of the plea, the evidence she is said to have seen was damning enough..
Click to expand...
She is said to have seen? By the proven liar. He's made allegations, the club have put a structured legally advised statement out denying his allegations.
 
Howard the Duck said:
I'm not defending the club but how does all that work with the trial? If the club sacked him when being presented with the evidence held by the defence lawyer but knew/thought he was going to plead not guilty would they not be deemed to be interfering with the case? It was in the hands of a court and jury to decide his guilt (if the not guilty pleas had been submitted as the club were told), they surely don't have the processes or authority to act above a court of law.

If the club were presented with the texts and an admission but were told there would be a plea of not guilty then that evidence must have been presented with a lot of spin or some sort of concealment. Otherwise it just doesn't work and the clubs denial that they knew he was pleading guilty doesn't stack up and they wouldn't lie about that in a public statement.
Click to expand...
The club probably don't need to prove beyond all reasonable doubt when it comes to sacking.

Regardless of whether they sack him they aren't legally obligated to put him on the team sheet and have 40,000 of us cheer him on. This last year we have cheered that bloke on more than any other player as he's stepped on and off that pitch.
 
darius said:
She is said to have seen? By the proven liar. He's made allegations, the club have put a structured legally advised statement out denying his allegations.
Click to expand...
Nope. They didn't deny she saw the messages.
 
Sweeper said:
"The Sunderland CEO did not receive copies of the transcripts, did not receive copies of the Whatsapp messages, and was not informed that Mr Johnson had met and kissed a 15 year old girl".

That's surely a pretty easy statement for the Club to make, and if true, I fail to see how it could open a can of worms.
Click to expand...

They very next question that will be asked is - so what DID you know - because you instigated a safeguarding check. The club is then immediately embroiled in a debate.
Whatever question they address, there's another one right behind it. That's why the legal team will advise them to try and keep things to an overarching statement rather than a detailed one.
Sadly, it will still fail, because the press will be all over them anyway now - and the questions are going to keep coming regardless. I'm just giving the supposed 'rationale' why PR statements try to avoid getting into too much detail at times like this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top