Adam Johnson Trial Verdict

[Deleted member 26022]

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

i think the words game set and match, or hook line and sinker all apply to this post.

 

[Rober33]

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?

I still don't see what was actually said in court, just a journalists summary which you felt you needed to explain yourself.

1. She was at the meeting but not all of it
2. She had the documents but they were "immediately sent to Mr. Pownall for his attention" and "the club was not in a position to make any judgment on the outcome of the case "
3. He admitted kissing her at the meeting - Byrne was not present at the whole meeting. Was she present when he made this admission? What sort of kissing did he admit to?
4. Poor Johnson got sacked by email without any warning or contact from the club - My heart bleeds.

 

[haway]

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.

The legal team can advise but that's it. For all we know they were saying 'you should plead, you're fucked', and AJ said 'Im not pleading to anything yet (maybe to get more money?), in which case they would have to follow his instructions. Lawyers are there to advise but they don't decide what someone pleads, thats just the client, So my guess is they suggested he did plead, but he chose not to.

 

[Ilios]

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?

But again, it's completely irrelevant. I'm amazed this even reached vocalisation in the court, as it is also a complete non-sequitur to Johnson's trial.

The legal team can advise but that's it. For all we know they were saying 'you should plead, you're fucked', and AJ said 'Im not pleading to anything yet (maybe to get more money?), in which case they would have to follow his instructions. Lawyers are there to advise but they don't decide what someone pleads, thats just the client, So my guess is they suggested he did plead, but he chose not to.

Yet he said he himself said in court, he pleaded not guilty 'on legal advice'.

 

[Rober33]

But again, it's completely irrelevant. I'm amazed this even reached vocalisation in the court, as it is also a complete non-sequitur to Johnson's trial.

They were trying to show that he didn't continue to plead not guilty so that he could continue collecting his wages from the club. That was the sole intention of this entire exchange.

 

[johnson]

In which case he should have been sacked...



Where? and if so, how would suspending prejudice guilt?

No no no, it's your opinion and you don't agree with it morally, but there is no legal reason why Byrne should have been sacked

He isn't Guilty till he goes to court and says he is or is found guilty by a jury

That's how law works in this country incase you didn't know

 

[haway]

I still don't see what was actually said in court, just a journalists summary which you felt you needed to explain yourself.

1. She was at the meeting but not all of it
2. She had the documents but they were "immediately sent to Mr. Pownall for his attention" and "the club was not in a position to make any judgment on the outcome of the case "
3. He admitted kissing her at the meeting - Byrne was not present at the whole meeting. Was she present when he made this admission? What sort of kissing did he admit to?
4. Poor Johnson got sacked by email without any warning or contact from the club - My heart bleeds.

But you won't ever get a FULL transcript of a full court case...

Is it not enough that AJ and his QC have confirmed Byrne had copes of all the transcripts, messages etc at the meeting? Irrespective of whether she left early?

TBF I think you're clutching at straws a bit there, the evidence seems pretty damning unless she can come up with a damn good explanation for all the above.

No no no, it's your opinion and you don't agree with it morally, but there is no legal reason why Byrne should have been sacked

He isn't Guilty till he goes to court and says he is or is found guilty by a jury

That's how law works in this country incase you didn't know

Yes, in the same way it would be my opinion that someone who said 'blacks are inferior' shouldn't be CEO... it's not legal, its moral, fine.

Nobody is saying we should have treated him guilty, just you know, not kept playing him. Suspended with pay isn't treating someone guilty.

 

[Rober33]

But you won't ever get a FULL transcript of a full court case...

Is it not enough that AJ and his QC have confirmed Byrne had copes of all the transcripts, messages etc at the meeting? Irrespective of whether she left early?

TBF I think you're clutching at straws a bit there, the evidence seems pretty damning unless she can come up with a damn good explanation for all the above.

I'm sorry but I don't think I'm the one clutching at straws, you presented it as some sort of proof that the club were in a position to decide that he was guilty and sack or suspend him. It isn't, it's a statement made in court to try and suggest that picking up £40,000 a week wages played no part in Johnson's decision to continue to plead not guilty until the day of his trial.

I've demonstrated in my last post how it proves nothing at all.

 

[JumpingAnaconda]

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

The problem with that for me is that she seems to have been of the opinion when she got involved with him that she did not think it was wrong. The law says it was wrong for Johnson to do what he has been convicted of, but if he had done it in our nearest neighbours in down in France, it would have been totally acceptable. So 'wrong' seems to be fairly fluid in its definition. You have to have lines somewhere, but it makes me uneasy that a girl who has only ever described herself as willingly doing things, even if she was legally unable to consent, is thrust into this legal scenario with massive public exposure and is seemingly compelled to state that she thinks what she says happened was 'wrong'.

Yes, Johnson broke the law, but did it really help this girl to take the case to court? If she thinks what happened was 'wrong' then does having a case that gives massive exposure to her private life and cements it as 'wrong' do anything for her? Up until the point she told her father this was a matter of a girl being upset about gossip. As far as I can see it was not until her father went to the police that it became about it being 'wrong' in her eyes, and at that point she was turned into a victim. If it was my girl I would have told her it was one of life's lessons, and maybe I would have given Johnson a hiding, but I would never have wanted her to go through a court case like this for something like that.

 

[Rober33]

Yes, in the same way it would be my opinion that someone who said 'blacks are inferior' shouldn't be CEO... it's not legal, its moral, fine.

Nobody is saying we should have treated him guilty, just you know, not kept playing him. Suspended with pay isn't treating someone guilty.

It is when you consider the damage that not playing for an extensive period could have on his career. Which is probably why the PFA were involved.

 

[haway]

I'm sorry but I don't think I'm the one clutching at straws, you presented it as some sort of proof that the club were in a position to decide that he was guilty and sack or suspend him. It isn't, it's a statement made in court to try and suggest that picking up £40,000 a week wages played no part in Johnson's decision to continue to plead not guilty until the day of his trial.

I've demonstrated in my last post how it proves nothing at all.

But unless a QC is lying it shows she had access to the documents... unless a qc is lying he told the club he kissed her... all in this meeting. How can you escape that conclusion?

 

[Ilios]

Suspended with pay isn't treating someone guilty.

I would agree with that, but I'm sure the PFA can overrule a suspension that the player doesn't want after a 14-day period? That may be very circumstantial though, I don't know, I don't know how reliable that is.

 

[Rober33]

The problem with that for me is that she seems to have been of the opinion when she got involved with him that she did not think it was wrong. The law says it was wrong for Johnson to do what he has been convicted of, but if he had done it in our nearest neighbours in down in France, it would have been totally acceptable. So 'wrong' seems to be fairly fluid in its definition. You have to have lines somewhere, but it makes me uneasy that a girl who has only ever described herself as willingly doing things, even if she was legally unable to consent, is thrust into this legal scenario with massive public exposure and is seemingly compelled to state that she thinks what she says happened was 'wrong'.

Yes, Johnson broke the law, but did it really help this girl to take the case to court? If she thinks what happened was 'wrong' then does having a case that gives massive exposure to her private life and cements it as 'wrong' do anything for her? Up until the point she told her father this was a matter of a girl being upset about gossip. As far as I can see it was not until her father went to the police that it became about it being 'wrong' in her eyes, and at that point she was turned into a victim. If it was my girl I would have told her it was one of life's lessons, and maybe I would have given Johnson a hiding, but I would never have wanted her to go through a court case like this for something like that.

I'm not so sure about that, perfectly legal maybe.

 

[haway]

It is when you consider the damage that not playing for an extensive period could have on his career. Which is probably why the PFA were involved.

Why would the PFA oppose being suspended with pay? They happily allow players to be dropped for years sometimes, sitting on the bench. Why is that ok?

I would agree with that, but I'm sure the PFA can overrule a suspension that the player doesn't want after a 14-day period? That may be very circumstantial though, I don't know, I don't know how reliable that is.

Thats a suspension WITHOUT pay. With pay the club can do what the fuck they like.

 

[RTRsBM]

If it was me with the file I do not think I would have put it through.

Fortunately it wasn't. I hope for the sake of child protection that your interest in the area is not from an employment perspective and if it is then your employers should consider your statement, that you would chose not to prosecute an offender admitting part of his actions.

You also seem to lessen his actions by saying it's acceptable in other countries. I'm not for a second suggestion you think this way, or indeed comparing the two cases, but there was a horrific case in the news from Yemen this week where the actions of the person (and I dislike accepting he is human) were legal. So the idea it's acceptable elsewhere holds no sway for me.

 

[Deleted member 26022]

But unless a QC is lying it shows she had access to the documents... unless a qc is lying he told the club he kissed her... all in this meeting. How can you escape that conclusion?

if the QC was lieing i can't see him doing that in open court, because he would be in it up to his neck if it were not true i believe ?

 

[Rober33]

Why would the PFA oppose being suspended with pay? They happily allow players to be dropped for years sometimes, sitting on the bench. Why is that ok?

If it's based on tactics or performance that's fine but if a player feels they are not being picked because they're being discriminated against I'm sure they would get the PFA involved.

Imagine a new manager comes to a club and won't play their best player because they're black or gay or some other similar reason.

 

[haway]

if the QC was lieing i can't see him doing that in open court, because he would be in it up to his neck if it were not true i believe ?

Would be guilty of perjury, go to prison and lose his job

If it's based on tactics or performance that's fine but if a player feels they are not being picked because they're being discriminated against I'm sure they would get the PFA involved.

Imagine a new manager comes to a club and won't play their best player because they're black or gay or some other similar reason.

Then that's illegal under discrimination law; race, sex, gender etc. Surprisingly enough discrimination law doesn't include people accused of touching up kids

 

[Deleted member 26022]

Would be guilty of perjury, go to prison and lose his job



Then that's illegal under discrimination law; race, sex, gender etc. Surprisingly enough discrimination law doesn't include people accused of touching up kids

well its up to the club now, they ether speak or have a reaction, for me short has got to personally sort this one out himself.

 

[Rober33]

But unless a QC is lying it shows she had access to the documents... unless a qc is lying he told the club he kissed her... all in this meeting. How can you escape that conclusion?

My answers in the post you quoted show exactly how the QC could be telling the truth while not proving the points you're trying to make.

I'm not going to keep arguing the case, you have your opinion and I have mine but please stop trying to present it as fact.

I've so far seen no evidence that the club should have made an earlier decision about Johnsons innocence or guilt which would mean they had to sack or suspend him.