• 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.
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...

Or what legal advice the club were given, the role the PFA played. Not to mention what his brief may, or may not, have said to the club. We're all just guessing, filling in the gaps. That's what this place is about. :)
 

johnson said:
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.
Click to expand...

In which case he should have been sacked...

Rober33 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Where? and if so, how would suspending prejudice guilt?
 
haway said:
In which case he should have been sacked...



Where? and if so, how would suspending prejudice guilt?
Click to expand...

"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"
 
haway said:
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.
Click to expand...
I might be wrong but the impression I got was that pownall wasn't present for the bit about the kiss (not sure it even took place in the meeting) and that the files were given to pownall at the meeting rather than the other way around. If it's unclear where the files came from and wasn't clear that the files were ever even opened by Byrne much less discussed in the meeting you can see how pownall could create muddy water without ever lying about it.
 
The Cabbage said:
I might be wrong but the impression I got was that pownall wasn't present for the bit about the kiss (not sure it even took place in the meeting) and that the files were given to pownall at the meeting rather than the other way around. If it's unclear where the files came from and wasn't clear that the files were ever even opened by Byrne much less discussed in the meeting you can see how pownall could create muddy water without ever lying about it.
Click to expand...

That's why I asked if he had direct quotes from court so we could see exactly what was claimed.
 
I have an interest in child protection and I have been following this case very carefully, and I have avoided saying anything about it on this forum up until this point. For me it is troubling that Johnson is being treated like an utter pariah when the majority of states of Europe would not consider what he has been convicted of a crime, rather an affair that has ended with one party feeling aggrieved. I think there has to be a bit more consideration applied to what he has done. This was not an attack on a 15 year girl, this was a 15 year old girl who was shown to be complicit, if starstruck. She did not have the power of consent and that is why this is a crime. This to me is a lesser crime than say those committed by Stuart Hall, who forced himself on girls as young as 9, with 14 convictions for sexual assault, yet who only serve half of a 15 month sentence.

While the police and the CPS seem to have made out that they have been acting in the girl's best interests, I am yet to see how she has benefited from any of this. As far as I can see, a girl who was very close to the age of consent has now had to accept herself being labelled a victim. She has had details of her personal life sprayed across the Press (why this case was held in the public view is utterly beyond me), and one way or another her name is likely to get out and about again. What good has this actually done her? There are a lot of girls who have relationships with grown men at 15, and a lot walk away from it without considering themselves having been abused. For me this case was about the Police wanting to look like they are actually trying to get prominent sex offenders, with a showboating case with an easy target for hate.

The law is the law, and Johnson has been convicted and will serve his time, but you have to ask how many players in the English League have done similar completely legally while playing or living in Europe. People are reacting with incredulity that Sunderland did not dismiss Johnson if they were aware that he was guilty of the charge he admitted at the start of the case. I honestly find it hard to understand how naive people can be. Clubs are papering over things like that all of the time and have been for years. Do you think the Leicester guys would have been dismissed if the club had found out without the video getting into the public domain?

One thing I will say is that if we do continue to treat Johnson as a pariah, then it looks like it will be a certainty that the SMB will be block voting to get out of the EU, as I can not see why they would want to remain in league with so many countries that legalise such apparently abhorrent behaviour. I personally would never consider going near a 15 year old girl. When I was 27 I found most people below the age of 20 nauseating. I think Johnson was an idiot, and legal or not it was a stupid thing to do. However, some people just use the label of 'sex offender' to heap all kinds of brimstone upon them, no matter what the actual offence was. I personally do not believe it is right to categorize him as a serious sex offender, I think he committed a crime by the letter of the law, and that the court demonstrated the impact on the victim is not beyond that if it had been a legal affair that just went wrong. I think it is unfortunate that the case had to come get such exposure, and that exposure is more likely do the girl the most harm. This case could have been a girl kept out of the limelight with Johnson given a serious warning and the girl a life lesson learned. That would have been the end of it and everybody would have been better off, particularly the girl.
 
JumpingAnaconda said:
I have an interest in child protection and I have been following this case very carefully, and I have avoided saying anything about it on this forum up until this point. For me it is troubling that Johnson is being treated like an utter pariah when the majority of states of Europe would not consider what he has been convicted of a crime, rather an affair that has ended with one party feeling aggrieved. I think there has to be a bit more consideration applied to what he has done. This was not an attack on a 15 year girl, this was a 15 year old girl who was shown to be complicit, if starstruck. She did not have the power of consent and that is why this is a crime. This to me is a lesser crime than say those committed by Stuart Hall, who forced himself on girls as young as 9, with 14 convictions for sexual assault, yet who only serve half of a 15 month sentence.

While the police and the CPS seem to have made out that they have been acting in the girl's best interests, I am yet to see how she has benefited from any of this. As far as I can see, a girl who was very close to the age of consent has now had to accept herself being labelled a victim. She has had details of her personal life sprayed across the Press (why this case was held in the public view is utterly beyond me), and one way or another her name is likely to get out and about again. What good has this actually done her? There are a lot of girls who have relationships with grown men at 15, and a lot walk away from it without considering themselves having been abused. For me this case was about the Police wanting to look like they are actually trying to get prominent sex offenders, with a showboating case with an easy target for hate.

The law is the law, and Johnson has been convicted and will serve his time, but you have to ask how many players in the English League have done similar completely legally while playing or living in Europe. People are reacting with incredulity that Sunderland did not dismiss Johnson if they were aware that he was guilty of the charge he admitted at the start of the case. I honestly find it hard to understand how naive people can be. Clubs are papering over things like that all of the time and have been for years. Do you think the Leicester guys would have been dismissed if the club had found out without the video getting into the public domain?

One thing I will say is that if we do continue to treat Johnson as a pariah, then it looks like it will be a certainty that the SMB will be block voting to get out of the EU, as I can not see why they would want to remain in league with so many countries that legalise such apparently abhorrent behaviour. I personally would never consider going near a 15 year old girl. When I was 27 I found most people below the age of 20 nauseating. I think Johnson was an idiot, and legal or not it was a stupid thing to do. However, some people just use the label of 'sex offender' to heap all kinds of brimstone upon them, no matter what the actual offence was. I personally do not believe it is right to categorize him as a serious sex offender, I think he committed a crime by the letter of the law, and that the court demonstrated the impact on the victim is not beyond that if it had been a legal affair that just went wrong. I think it is unfortunate that the case had to come get such exposure, and that exposure is more likely do the girl the most harm. This case could have been a girl kept out of the limelight with Johnson given a serious warning and the girl a life lesson learned. That would have been the end of it and everybody would have been better off, particularly the girl.
Click to expand...
Good post.
 
JumpingAnaconda said:
I have an interest in child protection and I have been following this case very carefully, and I have avoided saying anything about it on this forum up until this point. For me it is troubling that Johnson is being treated like an utter pariah when the majority of states of Europe would not consider what he has been convicted of a crime, rather an affair that has ended with one party feeling aggrieved. I think there has to be a bit more consideration applied to what he has done. This was not an attack on a 15 year girl, this was a 15 year old girl who was shown to be complicit, if starstruck. She did not have the power of consent and that is why this is a crime. This to me is a lesser crime than say those committed by Stuart Hall, who forced himself on girls as young as 9, with 14 convictions for sexual assault, yet who only serve half of a 15 month sentence.

While the police and the CPS seem to have made out that they have been acting in the girl's best interests, I am yet to see how she has benefited from any of this. As far as I can see, a girl who was very close to the age of consent has now had to accept herself being labelled a victim. She has had details of her personal life sprayed across the Press (why this case was held in the public view is utterly beyond me), and one way or another her name is likely to get out and about again. What good has this actually done her? There are a lot of girls who have relationships with grown men at 15, and a lot walk away from it without considering themselves having been abused. For me this case was about the Police wanting to look like they are actually trying to get prominent sex offenders, with a showboating case with an easy target for hate.

The law is the law, and Johnson has been convicted and will serve his time, but you have to ask how many players in the English League have done similar completely legally while playing or living in Europe. People are reacting with incredulity that Sunderland did not dismiss Johnson if they were aware that he was guilty of the charge he admitted at the start of the case. I honestly find it hard to understand how naive people can be. Clubs are papering over things like that all of the time and have been for years. Do you think the Leicester guys would have been dismissed if the club had found out without the video getting into the public domain?

One thing I will say is that if we do continue to treat Johnson as a pariah, then it looks like it will be a certainty that the SMB will be block voting to get out of the EU, as I can not see why they would want to remain in league with so many countries that legalise such apparently abhorrent behaviour. I personally would never consider going near a 15 year old girl. When I was 27 I found most people below the age of 20 nauseating. I think Johnson was an idiot, and legal or not it was a stupid thing to do. However, some people just use the label of 'sex offender' to heap all kinds of brimstone upon them, no matter what the actual offence was. I personally do not believe it is right to categorize him as a serious sex offender, I think he committed a crime by the letter of the law, and that the court demonstrated the impact on the victim is not beyond that if it had been a legal affair that just went wrong. I think it is unfortunate that the case had to come get such exposure, and that exposure is more likely do the girl the most harm. This case could have been a girl kept out of the limelight with Johnson given a serious warning and the girl a life lesson learned. That would have been the end of it and everybody would have been better off, particularly the girl.
Click to expand...
"An interest in child protection" from what standpoint? It appears from your post it's not from the child's.
 
JumpingAnaconda said:
I have an interest in child protection and I have been following this case very carefully, and I have avoided saying anything about it on this forum up until this point. For me it is troubling that Johnson is being treated like an utter pariah when the majority of states of Europe would not consider what he has been convicted of a crime, rather an affair that has ended with one party feeling aggrieved. I think there has to be a bit more consideration applied to what he has done. This was not an attack on a 15 year girl, this was a 15 year old girl who was shown to be complicit, if starstruck. She did not have the power of consent and that is why this is a crime. This to me is a lesser crime than say those committed by Stuart Hall, who forced himself on girls as young as 9, with 14 convictions for sexual assault, yet who only serve half of a 15 month sentence.

While the police and the CPS seem to have made out that they have been acting in the girl's best interests, I am yet to see how she has benefited from any of this. As far as I can see, a girl who was very close to the age of consent has now had to accept herself being labelled a victim. She has had details of her personal life sprayed across the Press (why this case was held in the public view is utterly beyond me), and one way or another her name is likely to get out and about again. What good has this actually done her? There are a lot of girls who have relationships with grown men at 15, and a lot walk away from it without considering themselves having been abused. For me this case was about the Police wanting to look like they are actually trying to get prominent sex offenders, with a showboating case with an easy target for hate.

The law is the law, and Johnson has been convicted and will serve his time, but you have to ask how many players in the English League have done similar completely legally while playing or living in Europe. People are reacting with incredulity that Sunderland did not dismiss Johnson if they were aware that he was guilty of the charge he admitted at the start of the case. I honestly find it hard to understand how naive people can be. Clubs are papering over things like that all of the time and have been for years. Do you think the Leicester guys would have been dismissed if the club had found out without the video getting into the public domain?

One thing I will say is that if we do continue to treat Johnson as a pariah, then it looks like it will be a certainty that the SMB will be block voting to get out of the EU, as I can not see why they would want to remain in league with so many countries that legalise such apparently abhorrent behaviour. I personally would never consider going near a 15 year old girl. When I was 27 I found most people below the age of 20 nauseating. I think Johnson was an idiot, and legal or not it was a stupid thing to do. However, some people just use the label of 'sex offender' to heap all kinds of brimstone upon them, no matter what the actual offence was. I personally do not believe it is right to categorize him as a serious sex offender, I think he committed a crime by the letter of the law, and that the court demonstrated the impact on the victim is not beyond that if it had been a legal affair that just went wrong. I think it is unfortunate that the case had to come get such exposure, and that exposure is more likely do the girl the most harm. This case could have been a girl kept out of the limelight with Johnson given a serious warning and the girl a life lesson learned. That would have been the end of it and everybody would have been better off, particularly the girl.
Click to expand...

The girl says she realised what happened was wrong, and that he should be punished.
 
Rober33 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...

The club wasn't in a position to make a judgement on the case, but were surely in a position to read the deps. think 'oh fuck, this looks a bit dodgy' and suspend him with pay UNTIL the outcome of the case?
 
Adam Johnson told Sunderland football club’s chief executive Margaret Byrne that he “had made a huge mistake” and kissed a 15-year-old fan, Bradford Crown Court has heard.

Cross examining Kate Blackwell QC said: “You told Sunderland football club you had been arrested, did you tell them she was a massive fan?”

Johnson replied: “Yes.”

Ms Blackwell QC asked if Johnson spoke to chief executive Margaret Byrne about what he has done with the 15-year-old and he said “yes”.
 
haway said:
The club wasn't in a position to make a judgement on the case, but were surely in a position to read the deps. think 'oh fuck, this looks a bit dodgy' and suspend him with pay UNTIL the outcome of the case?
Click to expand...

Suspending a professional player on full pay or not would have bigger implications than for someone in many jobs and is probably the reason the PFA were involved.

You have to remember that if a player doesn't play competitively for almost a year that could have a big impact on their career.

That's assuming that the club did inspect the messages which there's no evidence of at all.
 
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...
Well, she is under no obligation to do so, nor is she expected to have made that judgement in the first place. It is not Margaret Byrne's job to arbitrate Johnson's guilt, it is a police investigation. Anyway, what you're essentially saying is that Byrne, Sunderland and of course Johnson'e legal team knew he was guilty, which doesn't make sense on the face of it. Baring in mind you've said Johnson's representatives were present at this meeting where his guilt was seemingly obvious; despite this obvious guilt, Johnson's highly-expensive legal team, then instructed their client plead not-guilty to all charges, to which he subsequently held for nigh on a year. Why would they do this, if his guilt was unquestionably certain even to his employer, and at that very early stage? All that would achieve, is the guarantee of an even longer sentence.

Actually, I personally think there may well be a reason for this, and that the not-guilty plea was designed to challenge the victim, knowing she'd have to testify - it is quite possible they thought she might panic and become unreliable under duress, hoping she would get cold feet and that enough inconsistencies would provide sufficient doubt of his guilt. This would also explain why on the day of the trial, he suddenly panicked and changed his plea, as it would reduce a sentence he was maybe resigned to anyway. But that is just idle speculation on my part.
 
RTRsBM said:
"An interest in child protection" from what standpoint? It appears from your post it's not from the child's.
Click to expand...

I do not see how you have come to that conclusion. I repeatedly said that I do not see the benefit to the girl for being thrust into a massive court case where her private life is spread across the Press and media in great detail, nor the benefit in asking her to accept that she is the victim of abuse. Is it necessarily in her best interests to go through the legal process? Does getting the law's justice do her any favours? I find it frustrating that they put her through this when there are literally thousands of cases of girls being trapped in ongoing sexual slavery where the legal process is one of their few chances of getting out, and even today the CPS all too frequently shy away from prosecutions.

I don't think that the justice system should be rationed, but who genuinely benefited from putting this girl through this legal process? If it was me with the file I do not think I would have put it through.
 
finally found it!

Sunderland AFC had copies of Adam Johnson's interview admissions in May last year, it was revealed at his trial today.

You must be logged on to see external links

In his first interview with police, Johnson admitted to officers that he had passionately kissed an under-age girl, who was 15, with tongues and engaged in flirty messages with her on WhatsApp and Snapchat.

Some of the messages from Johnson said he just wanted to get her jeans off, wanted a naked photograph and wanted to get in the back seat of his car with her.

You must be logged on to see external links

Re-examining the footballer today, Orlando Pownall QC, defending, asked Johnson of his knowledge on what the club knew, and when it was given the information.



1) Mr Pownall told jurors that he first met Johnson on May 4 last year - and the player confirmed that SAFC chief executive Margaret Byrne was also at this meeting.

2) The barrister asked Johnson if Ms Byrne had copies of his police interview transcripts, WhatsApp messages and interviews with the girl and "others" at this meeting.

Johnson said: "Yes."

3) He also said that he admitted kissing the 15-year-old fan on this occasion.

4)The 28-year-old then confirmed that there had been no discussions at that meeting or afterwards about him being "summarily dismissed".

He said he only became aware of his contract termination on February 11 this year - the day after he entered two guilty pleas at Bradford Crown Court.

There were no discussions with anyone at the club about what he had admitted, he said, or what "the consequences" would be before that point.

Johnson added: "My dad got a phone call and told me they had terminated my contract."

He later received a "one or two line" email.

The trial continues.



Read more:
You must be logged on to see external links


So what I've tagged as 1) is the QC saying he met AJ with Byrne 2) is AJ saying that byrne had the whatsapps, deps etc at the meeting. 3) AJ admitted he kissed her at this meeting 4) there was no talk of him being sacked.

So to be clear 1)-4) are what are alleged. The QC is present the whole meeting. If johnson, when he said she had the interviews, and that he admitted kissing her, is lying, then the QC (since he was present and would know he was lying) would have had to bring and end to the questioning immediately and stop representing AJ, because he is being corroborated as being present at the meeting were AJ says this (conflict between his duty to AJ and his duty to the court). If he knows AJ is lying he can't defend him. So the fact he keeps working for him implies he believes 1) to 4) are true (as he would, since he was present for them). And they are exactly the issues SAFC haven't replied to.

@CissesUnderpants19 - have a look at that for a definitive argument ;)

@Rober33 - this is what you wanted, yeah?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top