Adam Johnson Trial Verdict

[sksk3021]

But it was a side-note in a trial about whether he sexually assaulted a child. There were 10 days of evidence, this was only 5 lines. Why would he try and call the CEO over it?

This all came up, in the trial, to refute one, minor prosecution suggestion he might have not pleaded to get paid. This had nothing to do with whether or not he actually assaulted the child. That is what the trial was about.

So we will likely never know.
I thought it was more of a central theme of the defence that he had been open about what had happened, the offences he had pled guilty to for some time and his story hadn't changed since very early in the investigation. Although I wouldn't claim to be an expert on it.

 

[walesie]

And yet his legal team, who were present at the meeting, advised him to plead not guilty despite knowing this confession, a stance which he maintained for a year...as I've said, he denied knowledge that she was under-age initially, and his plea confirms it. Why would he tell his employer that he was guilty, and yet plead not guilty on legal advice from his own team, who had even more knowledge than the club? He would be incriminated himself, his employer and his legal case.

No he didn't.

 

[geordiedean]

Id be interested to see how many members of this board actually think he was guilty of the charge he was found not guilty of

I personally wouldn't be surprised if both verdicts we on the 10-2 scale and because of the unanimous verdict required he was acquitted of that charge

Reading the messages I think it's quite obvious a bit more went on, and he was clearly out to satisfy his own creepy gratification with the ultimate end goal

The worst thing for me is that is this an isolated incident or has he tried this before. .the creepy fucker was obviously so arrogant that because of his position he thought he'd get away with it

Enjoy your time on the nonce wing AJ

 

[Reiver]

Clowns because we dare to employ skepticism and don't believe every single thing the club feeds us

And yet you accepted that it's morally wrong if true. Are you telling me the majority of the wider public are immoral? Me and you are the sole moral crusaders?

Your argument is bollocks.

No, clowns because if you felt as strongly as you claim you wouldn't just be attention seeking on here.

Or do you really believe Short is clicking on all your posts

And yes, the majority of the wider public are immoral ...... they buy the papers to lap this shit up, fact.

 

[walesie]

They don't, how much clearer can I make that?

Will your principles stretch to demanding clarity at Southampton?

The vast majority are going to enjoy themselves and watch the match.

There's always a handful of clowns in any large gathering especially at a circus like SAFC.

If you'd have read the messages from Johnson in May, would you have continued to play him?

 

[haway]

You have no idea and saying that if your a witness and straight in and straight out shows that. It's my case being presented on behalf of an organisation so effectively I'm the prosecution case. Why are you so determined to undermine me and disprove that actually I might know what I'm talking about?

Criminal crown court case... a witness goes straight in and straight out because otherwise they might be tampered by other information put to the court. Once again you're wrong. You keep saying incorrect things and then authoritatively saying 'but I have vast experience of the courts' so I can't fathom what your experience would be.

Presumably then you never are involved in crown court criminal trials because the case can only be put forward by barristers or solicitors with whatever they call the qualification to present in court. Presumably you won't prosecute in mags court either because you're not a solicitor or barrister...

So given you seem to have no experience of criminal trials, why on earth is your opinion in this thread relevant?

 

[Littlerobbieh]

Why hasn't anyone said ?

 

[Reiver]

Id be interested to see how many members of this board actually think he was guilty of the charge he was found not guilty of

I personally wouldn't be surprised if both verdicts we on the 10-2 scale and because of the unanimous verdict required he was acquitted of that charge

Reading the messages I think it's quite obvious a bit more went on, and he was clearly out to satisfy his own creepy gratification with the ultimate end goal

The worst thing for me is that is this an isolated incident or has he tried this before. .the creepy fucker was obviously so arrogant that because of his position he thought he'd get away with it

Enjoy your time on the nonce wing AJ

Speaking personally, I don't give a shit ....... you either accept British justice or reject it.

You can't 'pick & mix' as you're trying to do ...... what are you a 15 year old, grow up man.

 

[genericus]

RTG robot, finger on the pulse of SAFC news, always in the thick of the SAFC action.

 

[deleted user 785]

If you'd have read the messages from Johnson in May, would you have continued to play him?

What I can't workout is that the club actually seeked and got legal advice and he still played. why would that be?

 

[haway]

So it is true?

Did you never watch the OJ Simpson trial ......... the defence lawyers were cringing at some of the shite they had to repeat.

You said: 'He can't say anything that he suspects to be untrue if his client has insisted it's true.' ? That's what I was responding to.


The point stands though mate, a barrister can't put forward a case if their client has told them they're lying re is asking to lie on their behalf. If that's what you're disputing I can produce sources.

Other than that we know nothing, other than the fact they had nothing in their possession that would allow them to ascertain his guilt and they believed that he would be pleading not guilty.

You could have a CCTV tape of me chopping someone's head off, I could say I'm not pleading not guilty. What I say I'm pleading doesn't take away from the evidence you have suggesting I've killed someone.

 

[luvulongtime]

this robot needs an oil and filter change and a general service imo

 

[Ilios]

No he didn't.

Yes he did, he told the police and his girlfriend exactly that, and then changed his version of events and later, his plea.

 

[Reiver]

If you'd have read the messages from Johnson in May, would you have continued to play him?

I don't know because I still haven't read them, they're of little interest.

If the club make a mistake then that's a shame but it didn't affect the outcome of the trial etc.

The club weren't the offender and were put in a terrible position by him.

You said: 'He can't say anything that he suspects to be untrue if his client has insisted it's true.' ? That's what I was responding to.

So are you agreeing with me or not?

Are you saying you can claim your client is lying?

He can't say anything that he suspects to be untrue if his client has insisted it's true.

"Not true. Your client can tell you an elaborate story that you *suspect* is untrue, but you can still represent that to the court."

 

[maghater]

Aye crime of the century this. Personally I don't see what good sending him to prison will do, he has lost a hell of a lot more than most people could ever dream of. Sentences of between 5 and 10 years are being mooted. A few years ago a teacher ran off to France with one of his underage pupils and lived with her for a few weeks and he got five and a half years. Does a bit of petting in the back of a car really compare to that

 

[Ilios]

But why issue a statement which says at the outset it's in response to what has been said about SAFC in the trial, and then not address any, actually any of what was said about SAFC in the trial?

I can't give you the answer to that, I've given a few suggestions, but I don't know which (if any) are correct.

 

[sdurhamlad]

Since what the club did or didn't know had no role in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused, I find it strange that the defence questioning allowed Johnson to state in court that the club new about what he had done.

Could it be that this "diversion" from the issue was to protect Johnson from s potential lawsuit from SAFC for compensation.
They can't sue if they knew the situation and still played him.
Why else focus on the club's knowledge when it had no bearing

 

[Ilios]

Since what the club did or didn't know had no role in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused, I find it strange that the defence questioning allowed Johnson to state in court that the club new about what he had done.

Could it be that this "diversion" from the issue was to protect Johnson from s potential lawsuit from SAFC for compensation.
They can't sue if they knew the situation and still played him.
Why else focus on the club's knowledge when it had no bearing

I said this earlier, that it is a complete irrelevance to the trial. However, somebody told me the entire dialogue was designed to defend Johnson against accusations that he'd deliberately pleaded not-guilty in order to preserve his salary for a year.

 

[Kenna]

No one is saying they dont beleive the clubs statement at all.

I trust the club when they say they didn't know he was about to plead guilty.

But they didn't deny the fact they knew he did it and instead chose to try me smart arsed to look like they denied it without outright saying it because they aren't in a position to deny something that is true.

 

[andysfootball]

he has been a fool and acted illegally

he has lied and let his dick take charge

I feel sorry for the girl more than him

it's not the crime of the century however

and does not cross into the evil category that people get a couple of years for