• 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.
draper said:
Do you expect the press to ignore shit like that because you're not comfortable with it.

My mind goes back when the story first broke. Some on here expressed no surprise that he had been lifted. It's that reaction that day made me think this wasn't a misunderstanding. The fact that the CPS decided to prosecute should have been a clue to the more moronic elements that the chant was iladvised. It's going to get shown as much as Wraith's mock funeral in the coming years.
Click to expand...
:lol:
 

haway said:
But why do I not have an idea? A leading QC has said it, in a court, under oath, and the club haven't refuted it? By all my measures that's usually a good sign it's true. And I agree completely but the issue is it looks like they may have had evidence he was guilty but chosen to 'believe' the fabrication he made up that he was going to plead not guilty anyway... despite having the evidence of the whatsapps and the police station interview.
Click to expand...
Surely the qc has said nothing under oath? He asked a question that Johnson answered. Qcs aren't in the habit of giving evidence themselves.
 
Rober33 said:
Before you go have you got a link to quotes of what was actually said about Byrne having the Whatsapp messages?

All I can find is tabloid stories without direct quotes.
Click to expand...

You must be logged on to see external links


Johnson, 28, admitted that he had thrown away a “glittering career” in professional football, as he explained how he was sacked by Sunderland in an email.

At a meeting on May 4, 2015, Sunderland football club's chief executive Margaret Byrne was shown the WhatsApp messages exchanged between Johnson and the girl, as well as the interviews of the girl and others.

However, the £60,000-a-week player said that it was not until nine months later that he was told he would lose his job.

You must be logged on to see external links


The court heard that, far from taking the club by surprise, Sunderland
You must be logged on to see external links
of his arrest that he had admitted kissing and sending explicit messages to the underage schoolgirl. The club had copies of the 834 WhatsApp messages the pair had sent each other, and transcripts of both their police interviews.

“I told them everything,” Johnson said in the witness box at Bradford crown court.

The court was told that Sunderland’s chief executive, Margaret Byrne, a former solicitor, gave the footballer’s counsel, Orlando Pownall QC, the transcripts and WhatsApp messages at a meeting in Newcastle on 4 May 2015. Johnson, who was at the meeting with his father, Dave, said there was never a suggestion that he would be sacked by the club.


hope that helps, I can't be arsed at this time to find the exact ones with the full quotes in, but as you can see Johnson's QC is present in court and puts to AJ that he was present when the meeting took place where the files went to Orlando from Byrne... so the QC corroborates the story...
 
haway said:
You must be logged on to see external links


Johnson, 28, admitted that he had thrown away a “glittering career” in professional football, as he explained how he was sacked by Sunderland in an email.

At a meeting on May 4, 2015, Sunderland football club's chief executive Margaret Byrne was shown the WhatsApp messages exchanged between Johnson and the girl, as well as the interviews of the girl and others.

However, the £60,000-a-week player said that it was not until nine months later that he was told he would lose his job.

You must be logged on to see external links


The court heard that, far from taking the club by surprise, Sunderland
You must be logged on to see external links
of his arrest that he had admitted kissing and sending explicit messages to the underage schoolgirl. The club had copies of the 834 WhatsApp messages the pair had sent each other, and transcripts of both their police interviews.

“I told them everything,” Johnson said in the witness box at Bradford crown court.

The court was told that Sunderland’s chief executive, Margaret Byrne, a former solicitor, gave the footballer’s counsel, Orlando Pownall QC, the transcripts and WhatsApp messages at a meeting in Newcastle on 4 May 2015. Johnson, who was at the meeting with his father, Dave, said there was never a suggestion that he would be sacked by the club.


hope that helps, I can't be arsed at this time to find the exact ones with the full quotes in, but as you can see Johnson's QC is present in court and puts to AJ that he was present when the meeting took place where the files went to Orlando from Byrne... so the QC corroborates the story...
Click to expand...

I've seen those stories but no actual quotes, that only says that she was shown the messages no idea if she had time to read them let alone analyse them.
 
The Cabbage said:
Surely the qc has said nothing under oath? He asked a question that Johnson answered. Qcs aren't in the habit of giving evidence themselves.
Click to expand...

The issue is if a QC says to Johnson something and Johnson lies, and the QC knows he's lying, he has to stop the trial immediately.

Eg if you're defending someone and they have never been in a meeting with you, and they suddenly say in court 'oh year i was with him at this meeting' then the QC has to stop the case immediately because it's a conflict of interest (between your oath to the court not to mislead and your contract with your client to get the best result). So if the QC puts to Jonno "I was at this meeting with you when... etc' then he's validating it happened, unless of course, the QC is committing perjury.
 
haway said:
Sacked for continuing to employ someone without suspension after having messages of them grooming a 15 year old and kissing her (if the allegations are true)?

They didn't do 'everything by the book', what 'book' do you think there is? It's down to judgement, and if it's true they had a copy of his paperwork then he should have been suspended with pay, no question about that imo.
Click to expand...

Couldn't disagree more

That's your opinion on a moral point that you have issue with, Sunderland did not do anything illegal in the slightest, therefore it is ridiculous to suggest that someone at board level should be sacked just because YOU don't agree

Like it or not but there are a lot of Sunderland fans who think the club did the right thing and agree with their stance

Others, like you won't, doesn't mean someone should be sacked for it, you have absolutely no grounds for that in the slightest, you just didn't personally want him playing for the club

That's not a legal issue at all
 
Rober33 said:
I've seen those stories but no actual quotes, that only says that she was shown the messages no idea if she had time to read them let alone analyse them.
Click to expand...
You must be logged on to see external links


The jury heard the player told the club's chief executive Margaret Byrne that he had kissed the girl.

His barrister Orlando Pownall QC asked him: "Did Margaret Byrne have a copy of your interview, WhatsApp messages, and did she have transcripts of interviews of the girl and others?"

Johnson replied: "Yes."

Mr Pownall: "Did you hold back on your guilty pleas for money?"

Johnson: "No, definitely not."

He told the jury he was not an emotional man, but he felt "absolutely awful" about himself and what had happened to the girl.

The issue is no paper quotes it all, so you only get segments from each, but I doubt all the papers are misleading the dialogue.
 
haway said:
The issue is if a QC says to Johnson something and Johnson lies, and the QC knows he's lying, he has to stop the trial immediately.

Eg if you're defending someone and they have never been in a meeting with you, and they suddenly say in court 'oh year i was with him at this meeting' then the QC has to stop the case immediately because it's a conflict of interest (between your oath to the court not to mislead and your contract with your client to get the best result). So if the QC puts to Jonno "I was at this meeting with you when... etc' then he's validating it happened, unless of course, the QC is committing perjury.
Click to expand...

It's also possible to state the truth in a way which suggests something other than what is strictly true, isn't that what these Barristers are good at?

There's only one truth but there job is to tell it in such a way that their client appears innocent.
 
Tadger said:
See this is what I don't get, as incompetent as the hierarchy of SAFC have been, could they really be that short sighted? They must have known this would all come out in the wash?
Click to expand...
The make reason why this doesn't make sense IMO. If they had seen the messages and the interview transcripts they would have known for sure that he would be found guilty and their knowledge of that would Most likely come out. The only way that doesn't happen is with the trial not proceeding. That is a hell of a gamble for an overpaid substitute.
 
draper said:
Do you expect the press to ignore shit like that because you're not comfortable with it.

My mind goes back when the story first broke. Some on here expressed no surprise that he had been lifted. It's that reaction that day made me think this wasn't a misunderstanding. The fact that the CPS decided to prosecute should have been a clue to the more moronic elements that the chant was iladvised. It's going to get shown as much as Wraith's mock funeral in the coming years.
Click to expand...

And so will us smashing you 6 in a row, now fuck off you back to where you come from will you

Why are mags so obsessed with this case? Because they are desperately searching for anyway to rewrite the past few years, well you can't.
 
Rober33 said:
It's also possible to state the truth in a way which suggests something other than what is strictly true, isn't that what these Barristers are good at?

There's only one truth but there job is to tell it in such a way that their client appears innocent.
Click to expand...

i agree with that fully, but this just wasn't it. How do you 'dress up' or 'massage' Byrne being in a meeting with the QC where AJ said he kissed her. It happened or it didn't. How do you mislead over 834 whatsapps. They went or they didn't. A QC will present a client's case well, but they won't make up facts of what info went to who etc., when they're saying they were present.
 
haway said:
You must be logged on to see external links


The jury heard the player told the club's chief executive Margaret Byrne that he had kissed the girl.

His barrister Orlando Pownall QC asked him: "Did Margaret Byrne have a copy of your interview, WhatsApp messages, and did she have transcripts of interviews of the girl and others?"

Johnson replied: "Yes."

Mr Pownall: "Did you hold back on your guilty pleas for money?"

Johnson: "No, definitely not."

He told the jury he was not an emotional man, but he felt "absolutely awful" about himself and what had happened to the girl.

The issue is no paper quotes it all, so you only get segments from each, but I doubt all the papers are misleading the dialogue.
Click to expand...

They tend to take a small quote and blow it up into a true story and given that the Barrister is also presenting the evidence in a way that suits his case it's impossible to know what exactly Byrne had access to and for how long.
 
The Cabbage said:
The make reason why this doesn't make sense IMO. If they had seen the messages and the interview transcripts they would have known for sure that he would be found guilty and their knowledge of that would Most likely come out. The only way that doesn't happen is with the trial not proceeding. That is a hell of a gamble for an overpaid substitute.
Click to expand...

Firstly I don't care if they knew but even if they did, that's prosecution evidence, not their job to trawl through and interpret every text. He might have just stayed he kissed a 15 year old lass and that was it.
 
Rober33 said:
They tend to take a small quote and blow it up into a true story and given that the Barrister is also presenting the evidence in a way that suits his case it's impossible to know what exactly Byrne had access to and for how long.
Click to expand...

That's true, which is why she had a perfect opportunity to come out today and say she didn't ahem access to a, b and c and the stuff she saw x, y and z she only had brief sight of and couldn't make any decisions from it. She didn't say that.
 
johnson said:
And so will us smashing you 6 in a row, now fuck off you back to where you come from will you

Why are mags so obsessed with this case? Because they are desperately searching for anyway to rewrite the past few years, well you can't.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately for them no matter what Johnson has done off the pitch his goals against them on the pitch will still stand.
 
haway said:
That's true, which is why she had a perfect opportunity to come out today and say she didn't ahem access to a, b and c and the stuff she saw x, y and z she only had brief sight of and couldn't make any decisions from it. She didn't say that.
Click to expand...

The statement addressed the important issue from the clubs point of view, which was whether he was guilty or not.

That would be seen as the end of the investigation and would allow them to sack him or otherwise so it's clearly the most important point even though people want to know more.

Edit: The statement also states that whatever documents they did have did not allow them to prejudge his innocence or guilt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top