• 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.
jsdftm04 said:
It's not a coincidence the club have failed to deny such an allegation and continue to ignore it. They would respond with disgust and refute it in the strongest possible terms if this wasn't true.
Click to expand...

Whilst it goes without saying that we can trust Johnson as far as we can throw him his solicitor has absolutely nothing to gain from perjuring himself, it'd pretty much be the end of his career. It's clear as day that the accusations against Byrne are true.
 
Last edited:

monty in command said:
Having a law degree and being a criminal lawyer are not the same thing - the former is a generic qualification, the latter is a speciality; you wouldn't want a GP to carry out a heart transplant, yet both the GP and the heart surgeon would be qualified doctors, and it is the same with the law. QCs for example are only specialist in one aspect of law, so how we can expect Margaret Byrne (and I am not her biggest fan by any stretch of the imagination) can be expected to adjudicate on whatever information she had and determine that it constituted a sackable offence, before the matter went to court I do not know.
Click to expand...

You don't need a law degree to know that sending inappropriate messages to a 15 year old, and kissing them, is illegal. You just need to not be a moron.
 
jsdftm04 said:
It's not a coincidence the club have failed to deny such an allegation and continue to ignore it. They would respond with disgust and refute it in the strongest possible terms if this wasn't true.
Click to expand...
I thought their statement earlier was pretty clear, it appeared to me like they hadn't seen enough evidence to ascertain his guilt. This now implies the complete opposite. We need a statement clarifying exactly what was proved to the club, when it was proved to the club and exactly who knew.
 
monty in command said:
Having a law degree and being a criminal lawyer are not the same thing - the former is a generic qualification, the latter is a speciality; you wouldn't want a GP to carry out a heart transplant, yet both the GP and the heart surgeon would be qualified doctors, and it is the same with the law. QCs for example are only specialist in one aspect of law, so how we can expect Margaret Byrne (and I am not her biggest fan by any stretch of the imagination) can be expected to adjudicate on whatever information she had and determine that it constituted a sackable offence, before the matter went to court I do not know.
Click to expand...

But she was a criminal lawyer. It was one of her specialisms.

'Margaret Byrne grew up in Northern Ireland and was educated at university in both Belfast and London, studying consumer studies and law respectively. She initially trained at Galbraith Branley and after specialising in financial settlements, divorce cases and criminal law, she moved to Goodman Ray, one of the UK's top family law solicitors. Margaret is dual qualified, being a lawyer in Republic of Ireland as well as England and Wales'

You must be logged on to see external links
 
Rober33 said:
That would not be proof of breaking the law unless she had a lot more information that so far there is no evidence that she had.
Click to expand...
In court AJ and the QC said Byrne had seen transcripts of his and the victim's interviews. The club have not denied this.

They may have had copies of some of the messages (am I wrong here?). The club have not denied that.

If they had the interviews they know he was texting her, had met her, and had kissed her. If they had the messages then potentially the know enough to hang him out to dry.

The plausible deniability here is whether Johnson admitted to knowing the girl was underage at the time he did these things. We now know he knew, but did he admit he knew in those transcripts?


I don't see how the latest statement by the investigator changes things.
 
The Sandance Kid said:
You should be ashamed of this comment.
Click to expand...
Anyone who knowingly engages in sexual chat/activity in my book deserves to be found guilty.

Ashamed why? More faux outrage.

What would you call someone who obsesses over famous people (Borini, Johnson, Wickham) desperate to have contact with them and real life engagement?

The term groupie is not an insult nor does it make light of whats happened.
 
safcforever said:
So why was he still pleading not guilty?
I smell bullshit
Click to expand...

Because he is entitled to wait for trial, in the hope that the charges are dropped for whatever reason. Or to go to trial and have a pop at getting away with it.

For the millionth time - his not guilty plea is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT. The Club seemingly knew he did it.
 
Must be bored said:
I make of it that this adds nothing to what we already knew and the journalist is deliberating attempting to mislead people into interpreting that meeting as proof that Byrne was informed of all of the evidence against him.

Det Insp Sampson was clear in her evidence in court that the meeting was to inform the club of the allegations and discuss safeguarding measures, not to discuss details of the case
Click to expand...

4th May - the club were shown 800+ whatsapp messages between Johnson and the girl. Clear evidence of Johnson's grooming campaign. The club have claimed these messages were passed onto Johnson's legal team immediately and they didn't bother looking at them (and evidently Johnson's legal team looked at them, didn't say a word and filed them away without the club enquiring as to what his legal team had just seen). Total and utter horseplop I'm afraid.
 
Some Random Guy said:
In court AJ and the QC said Byrne had seen transcripts of his and the victim's interviews. The club have not denied this.

They may have had copies of some of the messages (am I wrong here?). The club have not denied that.

If they had the interviews they know he was texting her, had met her, and had kissed her. If they had the messages then potentially the know enough to hang him out to dry.

The plausible deniability here is whether Johnson admitted to knowing the girl was underage at the time he did these things. We now know he knew, but did he admit he knew in those transcripts?


I don't see how the latest statement by the investigator changes things.
Click to expand...

We have no idea what documents they had or whether they read them.

In my view it would be wholly proper for the club to hand over all documents to Johnson's Barrister as they have stated and let the legal system deal with the investigation into this case.

The club have stated "Some documents were received relating to the case, which were immediately sent to Mr. Pownall for his attention. However, the club was not in a position to make any judgment on the outcome of the case"
 
Rober33 said:
We have no idea what documents they had or whether they read them.

In my view it would be wholly proper for the club to hand over all documents to Johnson's Barrister as they have stated and let the legal system deal with the investigation into this case.

The club have stated "Some documents were received relating to the case, which were immediately sent to Mr. Pownall for his attention. However, the club was not in a position to make any judgment on the outcome of the case"
Click to expand...

They were, however, in a position to know that he'd done it. They had the interview transcript in which he admitted it. They had the 836 whatsapp messages between them.
 
That statement from the police today, I'm reading it as they told the club what the charges alleged so that they could understand if there was an ongoing risk.

I'm now coming to the view that he should have been suspended with pay, pending the trial. Yes it's in hindsight, but some bad decisions were made here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top