• 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.
The Sheepfolds End said:
It's hard to say from the clubs statement but I think they're attempting to explain it by saying A. He pleaded his innocence and misled us and B. The PFA were consulted on the issue.

IMO, and I know not everyone agrees, I don't think that is enough of an explanation as to why the suspension was lifted. A bit more clarity on those PFA consultations would be useful.



Johnson is the big story of course. Though it doesn't sound like a stupid mistake to me, it sounds like he knew exactly what he was doing over a period of time. A 'mistake' trivialises his behaviour.

Secondly, SAFC are part of the story whether we like it or not. They were aware of the accusations and his arrest, suspended him on that basis, then lifted his suspension after a meeting between the club and the Professional Footballers' Association (PFA), and after the club took independent legal advice. The club reached this decision only after carrying out a safeguarding assessment and liaising with relevant agencies. allowing him to represent the club whilst the investigation was ongoing. That is very much a talking point for not only those who follow the clubs fortunes closely, ie us, the supporters, but also for a more national audience.
Click to expand...

tidied.
 

walesie said:
I know, they've tainted the club by their actions, which is why some folk are angry. rightly so in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Maybe. But I would expect the moral outrage to be accompanied by voting with feet. You have to be true to yourself ( not you specifically, of course).
 
johnson said:
No it isn't, its summarising the evidence provided by the defence and the prosecution

That is literally what the judge does at the end of a trial
Click to expand...

Yawn, another one stating things they don't know.

A judge, when summarising, will summarise the areas of contention and the areas of agreement.

They won't just say Pros say XYZ, Def say ABC. They will highlight the areas both sides agree on, and then they will highlight the areas they disagree.

The context of that quote - that he'd admitted it in interview - was that he was saying this was a fact accepted by both sides of the trial.

HutchSafc said:
They were present at this meeting?
Click to expand...

Yes. The QC said in court he was present at the meeting.

Sandboy said:
I wonder if he's reading this ?
Click to expand...

If he is he's insane, I wouldn't be going near a computer if I was him, not exactly going to cheer him up...
 
HutchSafc said:
Am I right in thinking Johnson is the only source for what was actually said at this meeting between himself and Margaret Byrne? Or if whoever else was present can confirm exactly what was said?

This is the bit I think people are confused about.
Click to expand...

"On 4 May 2015, an introductory meeting took place between Mr. Johnson, his father and Orlando Pownall QC. Mr. Pownall had not previously met Mr. Johnson. The club’s CEO was present during part of that meeting. During the time that she was present there was no suggestion whatsoever that Mr. Johnson would be changing his plea. Some documents were received relating to the case, which were immediately sent to Mr. Pownall for his attention."

More than one source has stated that these documents were transcripts of WhatsApp messages and texts.

I don't think the club knew he was going to change his plea and I think they believed that he was going to fight the allegations. What I don't agree with is that they thought it appropriate to allow him to carry on playing when faced with those transcripts.
 
haway said:
Yawn, another one stating things they don't know.

A judge, when summarising, will summarise the areas of contention and the areas of agreement.

They won't just say Pros say XYZ, Def say ABC. They will highlight the areas both sides agree on, and then they will highlight the areas they disagree.

The context of that quote - that he'd admitted it in interview - was that he was saying this was a fact accepted by both sides of the trial.



Yes. The QC said in court he was present at the meeting.
Click to expand...

Maybe so but it wasn't accepted by SAFC as they weren't called to give evidence. I wonder why that was?
 
Can't read through 119 pages to see if this has been said before but whether the club knew or not does anyone know whether they could have even legally terminated his contract until he pleaded guilty?
 
Cosmos Rocks said:
I hope Sunderland AFC and its legal team look very closely at the national BBC news report last night as it implies the Club lied in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Noticeably the report on the 10 o'clock news was toned down from the 6 o'clock report, at 6 they said the club knew at 10 they were asking what did the club know
 
haway said:
Yawn, another one stating things they don't know.

A judge, when summarising, will summarise the areas of contention and the areas of agreement.

They won't just say Pros say XYZ, Def say ABC. They will highlight the areas both sides agree on, and then they will highlight the areas they disagree.

The context of that quote - that he'd admitted it in interview - was that he was saying this was a fact accepted by both sides of the trial.



Yes. The QC said in court he was present at the meeting.



If he is he's insane, I wouldn't be going near a computer if I was him, not exactly going to cheer him up...
Click to expand...

Yeah he is summarising evidence from the defence.

This was not part of the prosecutions case in the slightest, it has no relevance.
 
Butcher's Coat said:
Up until the time of him setting foot in a court of law he was innocent.
He was perfectly entitled to earn a living from them as his employers.
The club had taken legal advice on whether play him when Dick was the manager.
Click to expand...

You don't understand either employment law or child protection then.

If I own a bar and have a reasonable belief that an employee is dipping the til, i can sack him. In fact if i know it's one of two but can't find out which even after making all reasonable investigations, I can sack them both.

This isn't some sort of complex fraud by the way.
You ask the employee:
Did you meet her through work?
Did you know she was under 16?
Did you kiss her with tongues?

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Goodbye.
 
johnson said:
No it isn't, its summarising the evidence provided by the defence and the prosecution

That is literally what the judge does at the end of a trial, you can't dispute that, if you are you are just lying now.
Click to expand...

I'm not lying man, that's just a fact.

Judge will say, pros and defence accept that she got in his car etc. they accept he sent the messages, where they disagree is the def. say she left the car at 11am or whatever, pros say he left at 11 20. You need to decide 11 or 11 20. The reason a judge does this is so the jury know what matters they are actually reaching conclusions on - they only reach conclusions on something disputed. If both the defence and pros accept something the jury can't decide on it - they have to take it as a given.
 
Tadger said:
"On 4 May 2015, an introductory meeting took place between Mr. Johnson, his father and Orlando Pownall QC. Mr. Pownall had not previously met Mr. Johnson. The club’s CEO was present during part of that meeting. During the time that she was present there was no suggestion whatsoever that Mr. Johnson would be changing his plea. Some documents were received relating to the case, which were immediately sent to Mr. Pownall for his attention."

More than one source has stated that these documents were transcripts of WhatsApp messages and texts.

I don't think the club knew he was going to change his plea and I think they believed that he was going to fight the allegations. What I don't agree with is that they thought it appropriate to allow him to carry on playing when faced with those transcripts.
Click to expand...

Cheers for that. I think Margaret Byrne should resign or be sacked in that case.
 
johnson said:
I don't but, its season ticket holders and loyal fans who post on here, and you are in the minority on this board, that is a fact, whether you like it or not

Doesn't make you wrong, but don't pretend you are talking for most fans here, you aren't.
Click to expand...
You're an odd ball you mind.
 
Tadger said:
"On 4 May 2015, an introductory meeting took place between Mr. Johnson, his father and Orlando Pownall QC. Mr. Pownall had not previously met Mr. Johnson. The club’s CEO was present during part of that meeting. During the time that she was present there was no suggestion whatsoever that Mr. Johnson would be changing his plea. Some documents were received relating to the case, which were immediately sent to Mr. Pownall for his attention."

More than one source has stated that these documents were transcripts of WhatsApp messages and texts.

I don't think the club knew he was going to change his plea and I think they believed that he was going to fight the allegations. What I don't agree with is that they thought it appropriate to allow him to carry on playing when faced with those transcripts.
Click to expand...

Is there any evidence suggesting they even actually saw the transcripts let alone trawled through 834 messages to try and ascertain his guilt?

For all we know, from the evidence so far, all they did was pass on the documents to Johnson's new Barrister.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top