Adam Johnson Trial Verdict

[boylie_mackem]

The most contradictory part of the statement is that it says on the one hand there was a meeting with AJ, his QC and MB.

It then says:

"Some documents were received relating to the case, which were immediately sent to Mr. Pownall for his attention."

To me, as a lawyer, that seems unclear. It was reported during the proceedings that the QC had submitted during the trial that the club were given transcripts etc.

The statement doesn't identify who gave who the 'documents' referred to, or when. If it was during the meeting, how were they 'sent' to the QC when the statement concedes that he was there too - passing them across the table? What, broadly, was discussed during the meeting? The liability issues have now been decided, there's no problem with giving a brief description of the scope of the meeting, if only to clear things up.

I appreciate SAFC needed to respond, but what they've published is so unclear that it hasn't really helped them.

 

[Fetch Fletch]

As I've said Johnson had his case heard in a Court of law and was presumed innocent until guilty, presumably by the club as well, the club, who have committed no crime are clearly guilty until presumed innocent

The media play by different rules. And of course it's a matter of hours until it's THE FANS KNEW ALL ALONG is trotted out.

All the while there was still actually no basis in bringing a third party into the courtroom without allowing that third party a voice.

 

[Ambivalent Dave]

I'll agree with his motivation.

In fact I am still completely confused as to the relevance of the club at all in this. It is all 'hear say' unless they stand up in court to defend it.

Johnson's own defence didn't say 100% that the club had all the facts. Pownall alluded 'it seems clear that the club had the facts' or something like that.

It's almost like the defence were looking for anything to hang onto. Funny that.

 

[janey]

The media play by different rules. And of course it's a matter of hours until it's THE FANS KNEW ALL ALONG is trotted out.

All the while there was still actually no basis in bringing a third party into the courtroom without allowing that third party a voice.

Exactly

 

[Fetch Fletch]

The most contradictory part of the statement is that it says on the one hand there was a meeting with AJ, his QC and MB.

It then says:

"Some documents were received relating to the case, which were immediately sent to Mr. Pownall for his attention."

To me, as a lawyer, that seems unclear. It was reported during the proceedings that the QC had submitted during the trial that the club were given transcripts etc.

The statement doesn't identify who gave who the 'documents' referred to, or when. If it was during the meeting, how were they 'sent' to the QC when the statement concedes that he was there too - passing them across the table? What, broadly, was discussed during the meeting? The liability issues have now been decided, there's no problem with giving a brief description of the scope of the meeting, if only to clear things up.

I appreciate SAFC needed to respond, but what they've published is so unclear that it hasn't really helped them.

It's basically deflective demonising cackbabble mate

 

[andymcnish]

It's mental that people think they would look at it to be honest. If they knew and still played him obviously that's wrong. The fact is though the club said in their statement they had no idea, and that they passed the evidence straight on. As far as I'm concerned that's pretty concrete evidence that the club didnt know. It baffles me that some people are believing a journalist and convicted sex offenders barrister and using it as concrete evidence.

There isn't any real doubt that the QC and Johnson handed over the transcripts to Byrne. The barrister is a QC and he isn't going to risk his career by lying to the court. The statement is incredibly weasel worded on this, talking about receiving some papers that they passed on...it tries to make it sound like they came into possession on info that was meant for someone else. But the full evidence was given to them by Johnson's team for them to look at. We come out of this very badly, man...

 

[janey]

There isn't any real doubt that the QC and Johnson handed over the transcripts to Byrne. The barrister is a QC and he isn't going to risk his career by lying to the court. The statement is incredibly weasel worded on this, talking about receiving some papers that they passed on...it tries to make it sound like they came into possession on info that was meant for someone else. But the full evidence was given to them by Johnson's team for them to look at. We come out of this very badly, man...

But did they look a it?

 

[bucksoutcast]

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.

I have not read all this thread so not privy to previous comments, but one thing that did cross my mind was what will have caused the victim the most long term psychosocial damage, her correspondence and meeting with AJ or the subsequent impact of the national publicity and trial?

I am not too sure what the best way to handle it would have been, but in the interests of "child protection" I do not thing the legal system has done her any favours.

A sorry state of affairs all round.

 

[The Cabbage]

So they recieved copies but didn't look at them? I don't believe that. Plus they completely avoided the allegation that he told them about kissing a 15 year old.

Anyway, we have our statement out now...

I can well believe that they didn't look at them. Hi Mags I'm gonna plead not guilty. Btw here's a load of transcripts that police process wouldn't allow you to see. I'm not sure I'd peek inside in those circumstances. However on the flip side I struggle to see how anyone could read those transcripts and not resolve to move the lad on. Big wage, summer window and he's been little more than a super sub since the arrest. It's not like moving on Johnson in the light of this evidence was a disaster from a playing perspective. Given all that, plus the evidence in court and the club statement, the logical conclusion is that the club didn't look at the file. Perhaps that's incompetence enough. However I'm not sure what I'd do in such an unusual situation.

 

[j.w]

Why to tell people something Johnson has already admitted? Byrne may have had copies of the files so what. Its not like she was sat in the f***ing car geeing him on and giving him high fives.

It was a tricky position for any senior club member to be in. He was found guilty and sacked. Surely thats enough?

You'll know what it's like when people want to have a go at the club

This will go on for ages man

 

[Deleted User 18963]

I can well believe that they didn't look at them. Hi Mags I'm gonna plead not guilty. Btw here's a load of transcripts that police process wouldn't allow you to see. I'm not sure I'd peek inside in those circumstances. However on the flip side I struggle to see how anyone could read those transcripts and not resolve to move the lad on. Big wage, summer window and he's been little more than a super sub since the arrest. It's not like moving on Johnson in the light of this evidence was a disaster from a playing perspective. Given all that, plus the evidence in court and the club statement, the logical conclusion is that the club didn't look at the file. Perhaps that's incompetence enough. However I'm not sure what I'd do in such an unusual situation.

Just wish they answered the allegations directly. That shite waffle they provided in the statement means this will go on and on.

 

[hexhamali]

There isn't any real doubt that the QC and Johnson handed over the transcripts to Byrne. The barrister is a QC and he isn't going to risk his career by lying to the court. The statement is incredibly weasel worded on this, talking about receiving some papers that they passed on...it tries to make it sound like they came into possession on info that was meant for someone else. But the full evidence was given to them by Johnson's team for them to look at. We come out of this very badly, man...

The club have told us two things. They didn't know he was pleading guilty. They haven't seen the evidence.

 

[PhilSAFC]

The media play by different rules. And of course it's a matter of hours until it's THE FANS KNEW ALL ALONG is trotted out.

All the while there was still actually no basis in bringing a third party into the courtroom without allowing that third party a voice.

 

[Ambivalent Dave]

There isn't any real doubt that the QC and Johnson handed over the transcripts to Byrne. The barrister is a QC and he isn't going to risk his career by lying to the court. The statement is incredibly weasel worded on this, talking about receiving some papers that they passed on...it tries to make it sound like they came into possession on info that was meant for someone else. But the full evidence was given to them by Johnson's team for them to look at. We come out of this very badly, man...

Pownall's own statement in court about 'the facts' the club had is equally weasel worded.

You'd almost think lawyers were involved.

 

[Kauto Star]

You spent from the moment the news broke until the very early hours of this morning rattling on about this. You have ignored the opinions and experiences of others consistently to continue with your own opinion. You consistently quoted information that supported your argument but ignored quotes that supported other people's arguments. You are entitled to your opinion but people are allowed a different opinion to you, and your opinion doesn't make you right. You seem to have appointed yourself the voice of the outraged.
As for the post you tagged me in barristers do whatever they can to get their clients off, if that means choosing information, and being selective with information to help their clients then yes, yes they will try and mislead the Court. I have no idea why you think barristers are so innocent and so above game playing, you totally ignored the examples I have from personal experience to evidence this because it didn't suit your agenda, they are actors on a stage and the only thing they care about is themselves and their reputation.
Give it a bloody rest man

It's actually alarming the number of people that are desperate to believe a defence QC, in order to put the boot in.

The matter has now been heavily debated on here and it's probably at the stage where the thread should be locked. People need to move on

 

[Morny]

Club have made an absolute mess of this to be fair. They clearly had an idea that Johnson had done something wrong after reading the papers from his QC, or else they would have addressed in that in their statement. We aren't shy about being open and honest about stuff like that, so that seems pretty damming to me.

Very disappointing that we put winning football matches above the well being of a child, and effectively alienated a family of Sunderland fans in the process. Complete lack of thought, care and regard for anything other than money, sadly.

Deeply ashamed of my football club this morning.

 

[janey]

It's actually alarming the number of people that are desperate to believe a defence QC, in order to put the boot in.

The matter has now been heavily debated on here and it's probably at the stage where the thread should be locked. People need to move on

Or believe that a defence QC wouldn't twist information, while just stopping short of lieing and committing perjury they will do anything they possibly can to get their client off, they are wicked at it which is why they get a kings ransom.

 

[Deleted User 18963]

Club have made an absolute mess of this to be fair. They clearly had an idea that Johnson had done something wrong after reading the papers from his QC, or else they would have addressed in that in their statement. We aren't shy about being open and honest about stuff like that, so that seems pretty damming to me.

Very disappointing that we put winning football matches above the well being of a child, and effectively alienated a family of Sunderland fans in the process. Complete lack of thought, care and regard for anything other than money, sadly.

Deeply ashamed of my football club this morning.

Aye. Sometimes I think the club could get away with murder and some would fail to be critical of it mind. We are all fans, but sometimes people have to be held accountable.

 

[andymcnish]

One of my senior employees is arrested for a sex offence.
He tells me in a meeting with his QC that he kissed the alleged victim and sent her texts and provides me with transcripts of the police interview and texts.
Separately the police warn me of my child protection obligations.
I am a lawyer who has practised criminal law.

Do I spend an afternoon reviewing the evidence for myself or not?

Hmm.tricky..

 

[Sima]

But did they look a it?

So instead of being immoral they are massively incompetent and grossly negligent?