• 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.

janey said:
Yet the officer in Court said this

“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...

This was referring to the meeting the police had with Margaret Byrne which was not the same meeting as this one;

'However, on Wednesday the jury heard that Johnson admitted at a meeting with the Sunderland chief executive, Margaret Byrne, on 4 May 2015 that he had kissed the girl and swapped messages with her.

The former England international was suspended by the club after his arrest on 2 March, the court has heard. However, he was allowed to return to the team 16 days later and scored in his final game in a Sunderland shirt against Liverpool on 6 February.

Johnson’s counsel, Orlando Pownall QC, told the jury on Wednesday that he met Byrne, Johnson and the footballer’s father in Newcastle on 4 May 2015.

Pownall told the court that Byrne had transcripts of police interviews given by Johnson and the alleged victim, as well as the 834 text messages Johnson exchanged with the 15-year-old girl over a seven-week period.

In his first police interview, Johnson admitted kissing the girl and knowing that she was 15.'

You must be logged on to see external links
 
janey said:
Yet the officer in Court said this


“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...

The lead investigator said today that Byrne was told, early on, that he had messaged and kissed a 15 year old. The fact she was given the transcript of his confession to kissing her, and the 836 messages that were sent back and forth, merely adds insult to injury. Keep up.
 
Sweeper said:
Here man - it's now common knowledge that the club were informed early on that he had messaged, met and kissed a 15 year old girl. It's common knowledge that the club were provided, early on, with the interview transcript (in which he admits to kissing her) and the 836 whatsapp messages between the two - some of which we know were hugely inappropriate as they were quoted in court. Why are you in denial about this when it is in every paper in the country, on every news channel, and the club have consciously and entirely skirted over it?!
Click to expand...
Sourced from Johnson.
 
Turd Ferguson said:
You had a f***ing paedophile playing for your club ffs. And it looks like they knew all about it.

Mental that you think anyone's outrage is fake. :lol:
Click to expand...

Another sad piece of shit comes to take residence in the SMB, I've read your post history and there really is no purpose to your being here other than to be arsehole, if your over the age 13 then you should be ashamed of yourself.
 
haway said:
No I'm not. I'm not asking them to sack him, or decide he's guilty. What I'm saying is when you are aware an employee has been accused of touching up a kid you should suspend them, especially if the allegation is they used their job to exploit the child. As I've said two dozen times in this thread now, would you say a school was prejudging a trial if it suspended a teacher who was accused of touching up a kid (even one not at the school)? Or a policeman? or a doctor? You aren't prejudging a f***ing trial if you suspend someone until the outcome of the trial!
Click to expand...

That's your opinion but it wasn't the opinion of the PFA or independent legal advisor's, so to suggest the club just allowed someone who was known to have abused a child to continue playing for them is a disgraceful accusation not backed up by any fact.
 
ollie c said:
If you think sacking one person will clear this mess, you're mistaken. Mopping up the blood for years, I reckon. It will always be SAFC that has the fetid stink of a carcass going forward, long after she's gone.
Click to expand...
Don't agree. If she is swiftly removed then the club can move on with its head held high. She is ceo and a solicitor by trade. There is no hiding place for her.
If she isn't removed though it sends the message that her actions were/are condoned by SAFC which would tarnish the club badly and for a long time
 
Sweeper said:
The lead investigator said today that Byrne was told, early on, that he had messaged and kissed a 15 year old. The fact she was given the transcript of his confession to kissing her, and the 836 messages that were sent back and forth, merely adds insult to injury. Keep up.
Click to expand...
Well someone isn't telling the truth
 
Sweeper said:
Here man - it's now common knowledge that the club were informed early on that he had messaged, met and kissed a 15 year old girl. It's common knowledge that the club were provided, early on, with the interview transcript (in which he admits to kissing her) and the 836 whatsapp messages between the two - some of which we know were hugely inappropriate as they were quoted in court. Why are you in denial about this when it is in every paper in the country, on every news channel, and the club have consciously and entirely skirted over it?!
Click to expand...
They'll still find some idiotic way to deny it, no point now if they still can't see it.
 
Chizno1 said:
This was referring to the meeting the police had with Margaret Byrne which was not the same meeting as this one;

'However, on Wednesday the jury heard that Johnson admitted at a meeting with the Sunderland chief executive, Margaret Byrne, on 4 May 2015 that he had kissed the girl and swapped messages with her.

The former England international was suspended by the club after his arrest on 2 March, the court has heard. However, he was allowed to return to the team 16 days later and scored in his final game in a Sunderland shirt against Liverpool on 6 February.

Johnson’s counsel, Orlando Pownall QC, told the jury on Wednesday that he met Byrne, Johnson and the footballer’s father in Newcastle on 4 May 2015.

Pownall told the court that Byrne had transcripts of police interviews given by Johnson and the alleged victim, as well as the 834 text messages Johnson exchanged with the 15-year-old girl over a seven-week period.

In his first police interview, Johnson admitted kissing the girl and knowing that she was 15.'

You must be logged on to see external links
Click to expand...

That's the long and short of it. Byrne knew what he'd done.
 
CARLOS CLASS said:
Don't agree. If she is swiftly removed then the club can move on with its head held high. She is ceo and a solicitor by trade. There is no hiding place for her.
If she isn't removed though it sends the message that her actions were/are condoned by SAFC which would tarnish the club badly and for a long time
Click to expand...

I get the feeling that the club will only act on it if the FA throw her off that panel.
 
This is a great forum. This thread and all the harking is just further embarrasment for our club. Lock it ffs.

Ive spoke to 6 or 7 Sunderland fans [real ones, not tragic wet fannies on a message board] since the guilty verdict and none of them have been foaming at the mouth at the club funnily enough...
 
10 Gary Rowells said:
The more I think about it the more I feel Johnson's barrister has played this one to a tee. Weighing up the evidence he obviously realised that Johnson was looking at jail time. The best scenario was for Johnson to minimise the jail time but maximise his earnings - 18 months or so of £60K a week. If he had pleaded guilty or let the club know he wasn't going to contest the charges Johnson would not have made the money. Everyone - the players, the club, the manager believed he was going to plead not guilty. He then changed the plea at the last minute - something he was always going to do. However, the club could sue to get the wages back - to avoid this the barrister has suggested that the club knew his guilt all along and so won't sue.
Click to expand...
Bingo. Mr Pownalls legal bill is expected to be around 300k. Kerching
 
Rober33 said:
That's your opinion but it wasn't the opinion of the PFA or independent legal advisor's, so to suggest the club just allowed someone who was known to have abused a child to continue playing for them is a disgraceful accusation not backed up by any fact.
Click to expand...

It was known he was accused of it. That is the issue.

The PFA are just there to assist AJ, who knows what their 'opinion' was, and who cares? They're on AJ's side.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top