• 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.

Adam Johnson Trial Verdict

Status
Not open for further replies.
Republican Mackem said:
in a criminal case it is beyond all reasonable doubt, therefor I cannot see how he could be found guilty of one and innocent of another
Click to expand...
each count is separate and has to be proved. It is alleged both sides lied. Doesn't mean they both lied all the time. There was comments on Johnsons phone though to say about jeans off. Perhaps that offered corroboration to the girls allegation
 

ollie c said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's not like we've played 433 when we should have played 442. The allegation is that we've allowed someone to keep playing football when our CEO has known they had kissed a girl and had inappropriate whatsapp messages. I think people have a right to demand a response.
 
A very very difficult position for the club to have been in. It's easy with hindsight to say what they should or shouldn't have done.

They were clearly in the dark. Is him texting the girl enough for them to suspend him? They've admitted they've sought advice from both the PFA and imdependent lawyers, so seem to have been covered legally.

However there is a moral viewpoint. Or is that simply down to the manager to decide?

Johnson is the only one to blame here. His stupidity has cost him his future. Hopefully the girl will be able to recover from all of this.
 
haway said:
It's not like we've played 433 when we should have played 442. The allegation is that we've allowed someone to keep playing football when our CEO has known they had kissed a girl and had inappropriate whatsapp messages. I think people have a right to demand a response.
Click to expand...
As I said, if it was tearing me up like that, I'd walk away. Just telling the truth.
Not trivialising the situation, I'm just interested in the football...that is the extent of my involvement with the club.
 
haway said:
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.
Click to expand...

it is a trait that you can be handed any document but you are not aware of what that document contains until you read it. You may not be able to act upon the documents you've read because of legal issues. Why then read the documents. You are being told on legal advice a not guilty plea will be fought. Your hands are tied any infortion within those documents you cant disclose.

A word of advice, if you are discussing a legal matter with your solicitor on the phone and he/she hangs up, you've dropped yourself in the clarts
 
Lanchesterredandwhite said:
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?
Click to expand...
It's a very short term view though. It seems far fetched that they would knowingly play it like that for a player that was taking home significant wages and - evidence suggested - wouldn't contribute that much. All of this at the very start of the summer transfer window where they'd have ample opportunity to replace him. So while the loss of someone like Roberge would hardly register, the ability to benefit from Johnson going would be significant - and would protect them from the inevitable furore when he was found guilty. It would be a bizarre approach to take given all the factors. I'd be very surprised if anyone with a modicum of intelligence would do it given everything that was at stake.
 
Lanchesterredandwhite said:
They concluded nothing of the sort. If you don't get the difference between 'balance of probability' and 'beyond reasonable doubt', that's not my problem tbh.
Click to expand...

There is no problem, I've no idea what you're talking about on that count.

English law of course is defined by the concept of proven beyond reasonable doubt.

But, under said law you are innocent or guilty.

The girl will in way no way be considered to have perjured herself because that too requires evidence that can never be proven without witness or forensic evidence.

Yet, by declaring him innocent of that crime then by extension the jury is stating they believed him not her. They didn't believe what she had to say.

'Proven beyond reasonable doubt' does not mean that the incident is simply 'not proven'. That is a concept associated with Scottish Law not English Law.

Under English Law, 'Proven beyond Reasonable Doubt' is a reasonability test and in the event that test is failed then you are innocent. Full Stop. Which in effect means there is no case to answer which in effect means she didn't have a case.
 
Without reading the 58 pages, the Daily Star certainly haven't held back.
You must be logged on to see external links
 
The Cabbage said:
That's exactly my point fella. If they did see the files then it would have been obvious to a layman that Johnson had admitted grooming and sexual activity with a child in his first interview. The only way that doesn't get into the public domain is if there is no trial. That is a hell of a gamble for Byrne to take - one that probably unlikely. I could believe that they didn't read the file - and that may be sufficient incompetence that would see Byrne moved on (rumours suggest it will happen in the summer). However it is highly unlikely that the club read the transcripts and chose to do nothing.
Click to expand...

This is exactly how I read the clubs statement:

Club Statement said:
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.
Click to expand...

It suggests to me that the club didn't read the documentation. It does also suggest that they were given them by someone else (the police) rather than Johnson himself and just sent them on to the Lawyer. Maybe Johnson's argument that the club had been in possession of the information is technically correct, whilst a little disingenuous.
 
Useless at Roker said:
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?
Click to expand...
There are no winners in this case. Its a fact of life that girls swarm round footballers like flies round dog shit, this has been going on for decades.What do you think the club should do? The meetings took place well away from SAFC, so short of taking a blunt pair of scissors to the first team squad they are powerless.

The girl was quite happy to brag to her numerous friends about it, and I am afraid the family are going to have to get used to it, as it looks like going to appeal which could drag things on for another couple of years, then if he decides to go down the Ched Evans route and employ private investigators etc., probably another two years beyond that
 
haway said:
It's not like we've played 433 when we should have played 442. The allegation is that we've allowed someone to keep playing football when our CEO has known they had kissed a girl and had inappropriate whatsapp messages. I think people have a right to demand a response.
Click to expand...
100% correct

Either sue Johnson or resign and sell up.

Are we a community club or not?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top