• 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:
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...
Which is tiptoeing around what they were accused of knowing.

If the club had stated "Some documents were received relating to the case, they did not insinuate that Adam Johnson was aware they victim was below the age of consent, and 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" most of us wouldn't have an issue with the club.
 

haway said:
The only issue with that post, as was pointed out several times since, is that it's completely untrue.

A barrister can happily put in a not guilty plea in when someone has made admissions, what they cannot do is mislead the court and support a version of events which they know is false.

Obviously you must have missed this in your extensive legal experience.
Click to expand...

don't have a go at Janey, have a go at me as I said it.

I am sure I said evidence and not admissions different things entirely and what he is not allowed to do is waste the courts time. If he knew that Johnson was guilty back in early 2015 that why was it waited until February 2016 for a guilty plea. That in my opinion would not happen

What a lot of people are forgetting is that evidence would be built up as time progressed and what was available in early stages of the investigation in May it is likely the evidence provided to the court a year later would be far more detailed. Hard drives and phones take a while to be forensically examined.

I have worked with numerous barristers over the years, attended training sessions with the and about evidence and their clients not accepting their advice is what has always been explained to me. A common question to a barrister is how can you defend someone like that and the reply about advising their client was always trotted out
 
Kenna said:
'Durham Police said the club was told Johnson, who has been convicted of sexual activity with a 15-year-old girl, messaged and kissed the girl.'

From BBC, nor the wonder the club can't come out and deny it, they knew all along.
Click to expand...

Police evidence at trial, and I quote

“Myself and a colleague went to meet Margaret Byrne to discuss the offences and consider safeguarding for any other young people he may come in contact with through his work as a professional football player.”

DI Sampson went on to say that what Johnson had told police in interview was not disclosed to the club.
 
Dogbark said:
Have a think as to why there might be a problem with that?

Is this some kind of fast track justice system that's being introduced? Quicker than going to court and will save a fortune :lol:
Click to expand...

What are you on about? Byrne is his employer.

On the topic of why and how Byrne was entitled to see evidence (even if Johnson hadn't himself given it to the club), consider that Johnson did this as an employee of the Club. He met this girl in his capacity as a Sunderland player, he gave her Sunderland shirts. I'd be surprised if the club were not concerned as to their own exposure in all of this. They may well, on that basis, have been entitled to see the evidence against their employee. On top of that, it seems that Johnson was happy for the club to have that info.
 
The club should pass on Mr David's details in order to get him to release a statement on their behalf. To be fair, he speaks more sense than the CEO !
 
janey said:
Police evidence at trial, and I quote

“Myself and a colleague went to meet Margaret Byrne to discuss the offences and consider safeguarding for any other young people he may come in contact with through his work as a professional football player.”

DI Sampson went on to say that what Johnson had told police in interview was not disclosed to the club.
Click to expand...

Think the police needs to sort their claims out then as Sunderland could press charges on them too if what they just said is untrue.
 
Mackem DJ said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're an embarrassment to this message board.
 
Sweeper said:
I'm struggling to work out if the couple who are defending Byrne/the Club are just plain thick, or if they are in some sort of denial.
Click to expand...
Some of aren't caught up in the media hysteria, the perpetrator is getting dealt with through the courts and what not. That's issue, I am not going to get worked up about the rest because nobody has broken the law
 
Some Random Guy said:
Which is tiptoeing around what they were accused of knowing.

If the club had stated "Some documents were received relating to the case, they did not insinuate that Adam Johnson was aware they victim was below the age of consent, and 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" most of us wouldn't have an issue with the club.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion marra.

From the clubs point of view the important fact regarding how they proceed with his employment was whether he was guilty of what he was charged with and they have answered this.

They have also confirmed they acted on legal advice and advice from the relevant agencies regarding safeguarding children.
 
Ale taster said:
Absolute bollocks. Being aware of allegations does not make the man guilty - only a jury does that.
Click to expand...

So if someone tells you he committed a crime, but that he's going to plead not guilty, you are not entitled to look upon him as guilty unless and until he's found guilty in court?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top