• 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.
Headingley Slog Fest said:
He told her she was 16 when he was being arrested, Stacey asked him how old she was and he said 16 because he 'panicked'. Maybe the same panic struck him when he could have lost his job in March last year
Click to expand...

if he's done that then I'd imagine he'll also be guilty of an offence(s) under the Fraud act, and his brief would know that.

Mackem Messiah said:
It's the same people time after time on here jump onto anything negative and beat the club.
Click to expand...

I've never beaten the club about anything, it seems like they've made a massive howler on this occasion though. It will be telling whether they sue him.
 

I doubt that the Club saw anthing like all of the evidence probably only a small selections of it. I believe that it is likely that Johnson assured the Club ( and might even have believed it himself) that the police case was exaggerated and that he could "beat the wrap". Indeed he appears to have told everyone else this including those very close to him. It is believable that he only changed his mind immediately before the trial when he realised that a not guilty plea to some of the charges could earn him a bigger sentence.

Despite the Club's very strong statement yesterday I think that owing to the ensuing press coverage and criticism its is going to have to say or do more. This is for the very simple reason that its sponsors will be very unhappy. Remember how the Club lost the major shirt sponsor deal during the De Canio affair? It is for this reason that I believe that had the Club suspected Johnson's claim of innocence it would have never have kept him on and risked damage to their own sponsorship deals. It just wouldn't have been a financial risk that was worth taking for what was one idiot player.
 
DrewC said:
Your job as a footballer is to sign footballs & shirts!!!! Plus thank the public for there support. You are 24 /7 on the job I do not buy your comments as much as I love Sunderland this is wrong wrong & wrong....no way to slice it....
Click to expand...
Whether that is their job or not (there was me thinking kicking a ball was their job), none of those tasks involve the looking after of children.
 
Lord Potts said:
I doubt that the Club saw anthing like all of the evidence probably only a small selections of it. I believe that it is likely that Johnson assured the Club ( and might even have believed it himself) that the police case was exaggerated and that he could "beat the wrap". Indeed he appears to have told everyone else this including those very close to him. It is believable that he only changed his mind immediately before the trial when he realised that a not guilty plea to some of the charges could earn him a bigger sentence.

Despite the Club's very strong statement yesterday I think that owing to the ensuing press coverage and criticism its is going to have to say or do more. This is for the very simple reason that its sponsors will be very unhappy. Remember how the Club lost the major shirt sponsor deal during the De Canio affair? It is for this reason that I believe that had the Club suspected Johnson's claim of innocence it would have never have kept him on and risked damage to their own sponsorship deals. It just wouldn't have been a financial risk that was worth taking for what was one idiot player.
Click to expand...

His ex girlfriend said under oath that he told her he was pleading guilty in September. So it wasn't a last minute decision.
 
Jardin said:
Ahhhh, we are finally allowed to discuss it then? In which case, what a f***ing prat... and with that my input to the discussion is complete :lol:
Click to expand...


Had this conversation with my dad yesterday, "What a f***ing imbecile Johnson has been". His response "She needs a good f***ing kicking from her dad as well"

Horace Cope said:
Didn't a police officer say under oath he admitted kissing the girl to the club who were given what's app messages?
Click to expand...


In a criminal case, can the police share evidence with your employer before the court case? I doubt it very much (I have been wrong before)
 
Last edited:
Speedy1976 said:
His ex girlfriend said under oath that he told her he was pleading guilty in September. So it wasn't a last minute decision.
Click to expand...
I believe that his last formal meeting with the Club was in May 2015 so although he confided in her (and I guess his brief) it doesn't seem that anyone else knew. Stephen Fletcher appears to have been taken by surprise as it was suggested that he was prepared before the start of the trial and the guilty plea to give evidence for the defence.
 
The Master said:
Is anyone actually saying what the club has done is illegal?
It's more from a moral standpoint the club could look potentially bad.
Click to expand...

You can't sack a club director just because you have a different moral opinion to them
 
Lord Potts said:
I doubt that the Club saw anthing like all of the evidence probably only a small selections of it. I believe that it is likely that Johnson assured the Club ( and might even have believed it himself) that the police case was exaggerated and that he could "beat the wrap". Indeed he appears to have told everyone else this including those very close to him. It is believable that he only changed his mind immediately before the trial when he realised that a not guilty plea to some of the charges could earn him a bigger sentence.

Despite the Club's very strong statement yesterday I think that owing to the ensuing press coverage and criticism its is going to have to say or do more. This is for the very simple reason that its sponsors will be very unhappy. Remember how the Club lost the major shirt sponsor deal during the De Canio affair? It is for this reason that I believe that had the Club suspected Johnson's claim of innocence it would have never have kept him on and risked damage to their own sponsorship deals. It just wouldn't have been a financial risk that was worth taking for what was one idiot player.
Click to expand...

Agree with all of this except I don't think the club has to do more. The statement is very strong and very definite and needs no further clarity.
 
JumpingAnaconda said:
Can you not see the difference between doing what is right for the justice system and doing what is best for the girl? The outcomes of the justice system are frequently not in the interests of those deemed victims. Did I not explain in perfect detail that I think it was unfair to put the girl through this circus? The benefit to her has been negligible if anything. It was within the power of the CPS to avoid this.

All too frequently they dodge tricky cases of terrible sexual abuse. The Johnson case was a relatively easy win from a prosecution point of view, and the CPS and the police had a chance to do a showboating case picking off an easy target of hate. Look at how reluctant they are to put cases together against serial sexual offenders operating in the spheres of child prostitution or organised paedophilia. I've mentioned on here before a case with a friend of mine which the police actually held video evidence of. The police and CPS decided to destroy the evidence, supposedly due to the explicit content, but in turn destroying my friends only chance of getting any justice against the perpetrator, who was a serial offender, a chairman of a school board of governers, who went on to offend again. It is not like these kind of things are in the past, they are still happening with the CPS today. I just think if you are going to put a girl through a massive court case like this it needs to be for a really serious offence of abuse. I do not think a case of a girl approaching the age of consent with so much contentious evidence being raked over meets the requirements, unless the girl can be shown to have suffered considerably beyond the normal scope of a teenage breakup. I do not think it makes sense to put her through a court case that could well be more traumatic than the actual wrongdoing itself.
Click to expand...

That's simply not true. They may choose not to proceed if it's deemed to be not in th public Interest but never in the history of the CPS have they denied an individual, of any age, access to justice on the basis that it would be too tough a process for them. You're aware of the legislation within sexual offences law relating to anonymity, reporting restrictions, special measures etc? Clearly not.
 
Wayne The Punk said:
How, you black and white bastard, dont you f***ing misquote me, that might be what they do in skunkland, now fuck off and get back with your I am a canny lad agenda
Click to expand...

I don't care what people think of me, there is no agenda.

Your father said her father should have given her a kicking. I'd imagine that would be just the ticket, more abuse from an adult she trusted at the time. This time it's more than likely the most significant male presence in her life to date.
 
JumpingAnaconda said:
Can you not see the difference between doing what is right for the justice system and doing what is best for the girl? The outcomes of the justice system are frequently not in the interests of those deemed victims. Did I not explain in perfect detail that I think it was unfair to put the girl through this circus? The benefit to her has been negligible if anything. It was within the power of the CPS to avoid this.

All too frequently they dodge tricky cases of terrible sexual abuse. The Johnson case was a relatively easy win from a prosecution point of view, and the CPS and the police had a chance to do a showboating case picking off an easy target of hate. Look at how reluctant they are to put cases together against serial sexual offenders operating in the spheres of child prostitution or organised paedophilia. I've mentioned on here before a case with a friend of mine which the police actually held video evidence of. The police and CPS decided to destroy the evidence, supposedly due to the explicit content, but in turn destroying my friends only chance of getting any justice against the perpetrator, who was a serial offender, a chairman of a school board of governers, who went on to offend again. It is not like these kind of things are in the past, they are still happening with the CPS today. I just think if you are going to put a girl through a massive court case like this it needs to be for a really serious offence of abuse. I do not think a case of a girl approaching the age of consent with so much contentious evidence being raked over meets the requirements, unless the girl can be shown to have suffered considerably beyond the normal scope of a teenage breakup. I do not think it makes sense to put her through a court case that could well be more traumatic than the actual wrongdoing itself.
Click to expand...


Kinda contradict yourself right there don't you?
 
oddjob said:
No, you're absolutely right fella.

I just don't get why a QC would state that he attended a meeting where the evidence, along with Johnsons admission to what he had done was presented to Byne if the meeting or conversation did not happen.
Click to expand...
I'm sure it did, he admitted meeting her giving her the shirt and kissing her.They can not have seen the messages about the jeans etc or his feet wouldn't have touched the ground
 
Wayne The Punk said:
The 15 year old girl going to meet a 28 year old bloke for whatever reason, and she seemed more than willing, funny it all kicked off after their next meeting was cancelled
Click to expand...
Give over! If you were 15 and some female athlete you admired was showing an interest in you and was hinting that they wanted to be in a relationship you would have said no?

If I was the lass I would have done the same tbh. Because I know that people at that age are immature. Johnson is no different to any of the creeps who groom young girls.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top