• 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.
Republican Mackem said:
But in finding him not guilty on one charge the jury has dismissed the girls evidence in other words they didn't believe it, or she lied. You could therefor argue that having come to that conclusion why would any reasonable person then believe her for the other charge that happened at the same time in the same place.
QC must have identified something pretty quickly to announce intention to appeal almost straight away
Click to expand...
Or they were not 100% certain and that means not guilty?
 

theinediblebulk said:
No, I never followed the trail, just responding to some things on a thread. The only part of the club statement that refers to documents state they handed them to the defence team.

Some documents were received relating to the case, which were immediately sent to Mr. Pownall (Johnson's barrister) 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.

I do find it a bit strange that there is an allegation from a lying shit house about the club regarding what he was up to, yet the only mention by the club of any documents were fired straight off to his defence lawyer. What them documents are and what they contained are, to me anyways, something that no-one outside of that meeting knows about and is subject to piles of speculation. My suspicion, or speculation, is that none of them would have implicated Johnson as being guilty for a couple of reasons.

1. It was defence team that handed them over and your defence lawyer isn't there to stitch you up. He's there to get you off.
2 If any of them documents pointed to Johnson being 100% guilty, the club would have sacked him there and then.
3 he was denying all charges.

Does anyone really think his own defence team would hand over any documentation that proved him to be guilty? That's not looking after your clients best interests, which is what the lawyer is there for. That's the game. As I've said previously, lying through your teeth, whether in police interview or the dock at crown court, is nothing new and is to be expected.
Click to expand...

The issue is that he has said it was all the whatsapps. If it wasn't all the whatsapp's, then he's lied in court and committed perjury. If that is true (which is possible) then why the fuck haven't SAFC said that they didn't given what he has alleged? Saying 'some documents' seems imo like they're trying to give the impression it was just a piece of paper here and there, but if that's true then they should just f***ing say that!

It was on the instructions of Johnson, ofc the defence team isn't there to stitch him up, but there are all sorts of reasons he might have passed paperwork on the SAFC.

The issue is that it looks like some of the documents DID point to AJ being guilty. The facts are so far 1) HE ALLEGES he told SAFC he kissed her and gave SAFC the whatsapps. 2) the whatsapps included the bulk of the case of the grooming and some very inappropriate things (both 1) and 2) are from court). SAFC has responded, but haven't replied to 1) . If 1) isn't true, then why aren't SAFC denying them?

IMO it's very hard for you (having not followed the trial) to decide if SAFC's response is satisfactory because you don't know what they're responding to?

It is clear from the police station interview Johnson didn't lie about all of it from the outset (presumably due to his own stupidity) but actually admitted a whole amount of stuff. I suggest having a look at some of the court info because I think it would help you understand why some of us are frustrated at the club's response.
 
Lanchesterredandwhite said:
Why? Why do you have so much faith that Sunderland would have done the right thing?
Click to expand...
Self interest. If they had whatsapp messages, a verbal confession and interview transcripts they would have known that he was going to be found guilty of at least some of it. Why would you knowingly open yourself up to this when you could sack the lad and spend his significant wage on other players? He's hardly been an integral part of our side since all this kicked off. Logically the reaction doesn't make that much sense. Now I know that many have a low opinion of the clubs hierarchy but that course of action seems a stretch even if they are as incompetent as I know you believe.
 
Fuck all point talking about it. What is done is done. The club wont be reprimanded, no-one can say for sure what they knew.

Johnson has gotten what he deserves. No need for 58 pages. Time for everyone to move on.
 
Rickybilly said:
I think you may be misinterpreting what i have said. I agree entirely with the post that you have just made - they have to believe beyond reasonable doubt or as i have heard it clarified by a judge 'with certainty' that the offence was committed. Even 90% leaves some uncertainty if one considers 10% a reasonable doubt. What i was saying was if there was no corroborating evidence in respect of the 2 allegations that were contested then it would be down to the veracity of the witness. They clearly believed her when she claimed she had been digitally penetrated. They were not certain that she was telling the truth when she claimed to have performed oral sex on him. Perhaps I'm just being anal on this point.
Click to expand...
Fair, I just think 'But conversely they didnt believe her' is too strong. They might have believed her but not been totally convinced, I guess was my point.
 
Republican Mackem said:
But in finding him not guilty on one charge the jury has dismissed the girls evidence in other words they didn't believe it, or she lied. You could therefor argue that having come to that conclusion why would any reasonable person then believe her for the other charge that happened at the same time in the same place.
QC must have identified something pretty quickly to announce intention to appeal almost straight away
Click to expand...
No they haven't, they've just said it wasn't enough.
 
The Cabbage said:
Self interest. If they had whatsapp messages, a verbal confession and interview transcripts they would have known that he was going to be found guilty of at least some of it. Why would you knowingly open yourself up to this when you could sack the lad and spend his significant wage on other players? He's hardly been an integral part of our side since all this kicked off. Logically the reaction doesn't make that much sense. Now I know that many have a low opinion of the clubs hierarchy but that course of action seems a stretch even if they are as incompetent as I know you believe.
Click to expand...

I think it suited their purpose for him to tell them that he was pleading not guilty, and on that basis they could have him still playing for the team, as they fought relegation, even though they aren't denying that they had enough information to suggest he shouldn't have been anywhere near the club.

Do you think the club would have stuck by Danny Graham or Valentin Roberge in the same way?
 
Rickybilly said:
1. I am unsighted on any corroboration in respect the 2 allegations that were challenged.
2. I agree.
3. I was thinking more on the lines of the judge misdirecting a jury but it was purely supposition. Did the Judge tell the jury that if they thought she was lying in respect of 1 allegation then considerable caution should be given to the other allegation? Purely supposition..............
Click to expand...


One of the texts after the digital penetration meetup had something about him being able to "feel how turned on she was". That was enough for 10/12 jurors.

Corroborating evidence about the alleged oral was something to do with manscaping and obviously wasn't enough for the jury.
 
The Cabbage said:
Self interest. If they had whatsapp messages, a verbal confession and interview transcripts they would have known that he was going to be found guilty of at least some of it. Why would you knowingly open yourself up to this when you could sack the lad and spend his significant wage on other players? He's hardly been an integral part of our side since all this kicked off. Logically the reaction doesn't make that much sense. Now I know that many have a low opinion of the clubs hierarchy but that course of action seems a stretch even if they are as incompetent as I know you believe.
Click to expand...

Then why haven't they just come out and denied it?

If what you're saying is true I can't see any situation where their response didn't say 'we didn't receive whatsapps' ... 'he never said to us he kissed her'.

To actually admit you receive 'some documents' after it was alleged they got the whatsapps, and then not clarify it wasn't them seems incredibly unlikely to me if it wasn't true.

I think they're as incompetent as you fear...
 
I cant believe the Echo reporter reported this from Bradford after the case:-

fiona.thompson
I could hear banging and shouting from the area of the vehicle.
Video of the statement - and Johnson - to come.
 
haway said:
Have you seen what he admitted in police interviews? He admitted he kissed her and said 'does that count as sexual activity with a child, like?' The man is as thick as mince as admitted it all from the outset (the kissing that is). This came out in trial.
Click to expand...

But was the full police interview handed over by his defence team to Sunderland, or was it an edited version? Again, I'll guess it was edited as the defence have no legal obligation to hand anything over to the club and I don't think they would hand anything incriminating over. Who is to say that the club didn't have the wool pulled over there eyes by what was handed over. I know I'm speculating but I just keep looking at this from the point of view of someone trying to get off with the charges, and how your lawyer works for you.

The only reason he put a guilty plea in to 2 offences is because he would have been told you have no f***ing chance of a not guilty here like. If he was advised that there may have been a chance of not guilty, that would be the plea he'd heve put in.
 
This could have been almost anyone's 15 year old daughter on here. For all we know it may actually be a board member's daughter or family member. I cannot think of football or SAFC. The girl and her family have this to live with forever.

All some can think about, is their image and potential for lost revenue. Can we all spare a thought for the child in all of this? She should have been safe attending matches and waiting for autographs; she was not. She should never have been accepted as a friend by Adam Johnson, she was. A lot of this centres around an organisation where parents should feel safe to allow their children to go. I think that the club seriously need to address this and not just brush this under the carpet.

Can we have some humanity please SAFC?
 
What has occurred is dreadful and I've done my fair share of criticising the club over the years, but I hadn't realised the utter hatred some harbour for SAFC. Genuinely, it might be better to walk away if you feel you have personally been slighted in the name of the club....it seems feelings run very high. I respect that stance, of course, but keep in mind its a football club, lads.
 
Some Random Guy said:
One of the texts after the digital penetration meetup had something about him being able to "feel how turned on she was". That was enough for 10/12 jurors.

Corroborating evidence about the alleged oral was something to do with manscaping and obviously wasn't enough for the jury.
Click to expand...
Fair point and see your rationale.
 
theinediblebulk said:
But was the full police interview handed over by his defence team to Sunderland, or was it an edited version? Again, I'll guess it was edited as the defence have no legal obligation to hand anything over to the club and I don't think they would hand anything incriminating over. Who is to say that the club didn't have the wool pulled over there eyes by what was handed over. I know I'm speculating but I just keep looking at this from the point of view of someone trying to get off with the charges, and how your lawyer works for you.

The only reason he put a guilty plea in to 2 offences is because he would have been told you have no f***ing chance of a not guilty here like. If he was advised that there may have been a chance of not guilty, that would be the plea he'd heve put in.
Click to expand...

Well from what Johnson said he handed over 800 whatsapp messages (every one). They included statements like 'I want to feel how turned on you are'. The club haven't refuted that.

What you speculate about may well be true but the issue is if it IS true then why don't SAFC say that? Why don't they say he lied to them? Why don't they say he's lied in court and he didn't give them all the whatsapps? Why don't they say he never said he kissed her?

Nobody is doubting that he might have misled SAFC, but the reluctance from SAFC to deny key allegations against them is what is worrying. IMO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top