• 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:
I thought you'd read my posts.

He doesn't have to lie to misrepresent what actually happened.

He had a reason (there would be no point him mentioning it at all if he didn't) - To try and show Johnson was not afraid of losing his job and wages and that wasn't the reason he continued to lie.
Click to expand...

It's not a question of misrepresentation - "the club were provided with documents a and b" is not an ambiguous statement. It's either true or its false. There are no shades of grey.
 
shepherd88 said:
Have you read or heard the statement she released yesterday?
Click to expand...
Yes I have, Ive also read the posts that was put online of her bragging about what she was doing, how she was very angry he failed to turn up to the next meeting, what she was going to do to him at the next meeting and how she reported it when everyone started calling her a slut.
 
Sweeper said:
The statement of the lead detective today that she told the club that he had messaged the girl, had met her and sexual activity had taken place. The statement in court of the QC, who said unequivocally that the club had been provided with copies of the interview transcript, and all 836 whatsapp messages between Johnson and the girl. These are damning statements - which again begs the question - why, if they are able to refute these statements has the club not done so?
Click to expand...
Yet you ignore the statement of the other officer under oath, except to use it to say I won't believe anything despite the evidence.
So was the statement of the officer under oath not evidence
 
janey said:
Yet you ignore the statement of the other officer under oath, except to use it to say I won't believe anything despite the evidence.
So was the statement of the officer under oath not evidence
Click to expand...

I still understand that to be 2 seperate occasions mind.

Maybe same day but 2 different comments relating to 2 different incidents.
 
janey said:
Yet you ignore the statement of the other officer under oath, except to use it to say I won't believe anything despite the evidence.
So was the statement of the officer under oath not evidence
Click to expand...

The officer in question was not, I believe, at the meeting between Johnson, Byrne the QC and the PFA. The QC was and he said - unequivocally - that those documents had been provided to the club. The policeman wasn't speaking to that.
 
Sweeper said:
The statement of the lead detective today that she told the club that he had messaged the girl, had met her and sexual activity had taken place. The statement in court of the QC, who said unequivocally that the club had been provided with copies of the interview transcript, and all 836 whatsapp messages between Johnson and the girl. These are damning statements - which again begs the question - why, if they are able to refute these statements has the club not done so?
Click to expand...
You still peddling this shite? :lol:
 
Always a relief when Johnsno wades in with his pontificating trumpery on the opposite side of the conversation.
 
Sweeper said:
It's not a question of misrepresentation - "the club were provided with documents a and b" is not an ambiguous statement. It's either true or its false. There are no shades of grey.
Click to expand...

The club say they had documents but passed them straight to the QC so I would say that it sounds very much like he was trying to misrepresent the truth to me. He didn't lie, they did have the documents but they passed them straight to him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top