• 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:
It was not agreed by SAFC as they weren't present at the trial so to try and represent it as an agreed fact is at best disingenuous.
Click to expand...

Agreed Fact is a term used in court to describe events or evidence that aren't disputed by either side of the case and which can be relied upon as true. They don't have any legal bearing outside of that but it's not unreasonable to expect that people reporting on the trial or reading the public record of what happened at the trial will believe such statements are true. SAFC had an opportunity yesterday to dispute what was alleged in court and didn't.
 

haway said:
Where in the statement did they refute 1) receiving the whatsapp's, police station interviews and other documents 2) Byrne being present at a meeting where AJ said he kissed her.
Click to expand...
Where in the statement has it been said that the club read and understood the implications of the WhatsApp messages?
 
samaistonsrightfoot said:
I would probably have agreed with not suing him a couple of weeks ago. I just think now that if the club was to successfully sue him for wages/damages then there would be no better way of putting the whole mess to bed and show no wrong doing on the clubs behalf meaning we all as a club can move on and concentrate on whats happening on the pitch rather than wake up to this shite every day.
Click to expand...

Only issue is the club can't sue if the accusation is true, pretty sure the club would be make it clear by now if they were doing something but they are not and it's most likely because they cannot do anything because they are likely to be true.
 
Rober33 said:
Could he?

Are you sure the PFA would have no problem with him being dropped from the squad purely because of these accusations, given the long term damage that not playing could have on his career?
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm completely sure. The PFA have no right to insist someone is played, when they are facing legal action... for ... wait for it... grooming girls they met via their job! The PFA might have been able to insist he was paid, but where did the PFA kick up a fuss when players are dropped for months on end due to personality clashes etc.? You're away with the pixies saying the PFA can insist SAFC play a player who's accused of using his role to groom a child.
 
Rober33 said:
Could he?

Are you sure the PFA would have no problem with him being dropped from the squad purely because of these accusations, given the long term damage that not playing could have on his career?
Click to expand...
They can't have a problem with it. As long as the club paid AJs wages it was nothing to do with the PFA.
 
haway said:
Have a look at the comments section on every major media outlet, have a look at other team's football boards, have a look at what pundits/ commentators are saying in the press. If this board is 70% in favour of the club's decision then out in the real world it's 90% against it.



I think that's the same for all of us who are criticising the club, tbf.
Click to expand...
To try to also say that there aren't ulterior motives would be naive in the extreme.
 
hexhamali said:
The club did refute it
Click to expand...

No they didn't. They said documents were made available at the meeting but didn't deny seeing content in this documents which would have indicated guilt. They denied knowing that Johnson was going to change his plea to guilty but no one accused them of that. They did not deny or even mention the allegation that Johnson admitted to a senior official of the club in that meeting that he had committed a criminal offence.
 
haway said:
No, I mean the comments on the articles, and what other message boards are saying, why are they so bias?

You do realise, right, that everything that comes out the court will have to be transcribed by someone in the media. So whatever you hear will have come via a journalist. If every journalist present is saying the same thing, then quotes or no quotes, why do you dispute the sentiment of what they're ALL saying?
Click to expand...

As I've previously proved to you, it is very simple for the truth to be presented in a twisted way. The only way to know what was really said in court is to see the transcripts because it's clear the papers will have their own reasons for viewing the statements a certain way.
 
Botchie said:
He had them by the bollocks and his legal team knew it. They knew he would change his plea but made sure he got another 12 months wages.
Click to expand...
I don't necessarily agree that they knew he would change his plea, and that point is actually irrelevant. The issue is that the knew he was guilty (based on the content of the messages) yet still allowed him to play. The fact that the club are focusing on his plea and not what they knew to be true is what is causing the problems and is what the press are latching on to
 
janey said:
I wasn't just a witness, and I mean in all Courts. Believe me I know how the legal system works. Everything I have said is from experience.
Click to expand...

If you've given evidence in the capacity of an 'expert' then you are still a witness.

If you've given evidence you'll have been whisked straight in and straight out the court.

If you were in an admin role like an usher or whatever you might have a point, but even then, quite how much of the legal proceedings they'd understand is questionable.

Truthfully unless you're 1) a barrister 2) a solicitor or 3) a clerk I don't see how your experience of the court process has fuck all to do with trying to speak authoritatively about barristers can and can't do... You say 'believe me I know how the legal system works' but you've said several things about court process that aren't true, and being an expert witness is pretty meaningless to what we've been debating here.

What was your role if not a 'witness'? Not specifics of anything like who you work for, or whatever, just the job title. Because it's not 1), 2) or 3), is it?
 
hexhamali said:
They would have said if they did. I believe in innocent until proven guilty.
Click to expand...

Innocent until proven guilty isn't what we're arguing about here.

Given the circumstances, it was foolish of the club to allow him to play. Most other businesses wouldn't risk their reputation in the way we have.
 
Cockney Mackem said:
It's a bit more than just a good story when it's an allegation made in court, accepted as fact by the judge and then not refuted by the club in the statement they release, don't you think?
Click to expand...

The judge didn't accept it as fact. The judge specifically said

"Johnson told you that he had been sacked by Sunderland Football Club and dropped by Adidas after his guilty pleas.

“He said that the football club had known from the outset that he had kissed the teenager.”

That's not an acceptance of a fact that's the judge telling the jury what the defendant said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top