Adam Johnson Trial Verdict

[The Cabbage]

There was 2 seperate meetings from the looks of it though. It is convoluted, I agree. Still it appears that Byrne was shown the transcripts from the messages, and told what AJ had done. Alleged, I guess. Also, AJ said himself, he told the club at this time. Both lying?

Why didn't the club suspend with pay, until outcome of trial. Legally untouchable. Would have made the correct moral and ethical choice. Would have not got half as much shit as it is getting now.

If he was found not guilty? He was still paid in full, and he had to answer the charges.

Just seems a massive error in judgement for me. The fact he was allowed to play when information was given to show what he had alleged to have done. It's shameful.

Even if there were two separate meetings, both coppers have said that Johnson hadn't been interviewed at that stage so there were no transcripts (and by that stage most certainly no whatsapp messages) to see. We're back to where we were. The club suspended him to the maximum amount at the time and it all hinges on the May meeting - during which, if it was the first meeting with the qc, it is entirely possible that the evidence was not formally presented to Byrne.

It all hinges on whether she was offered the evidence to review or whether it was a box of files In the corner of the room at a meeting that wasn't set up for Byrne. The questions in court remain the same but the circumstances are very different.

 

[Deleted User 18963]

Even if there were two separate meetings, both coppers have said that Johnson hadn't been interviewed at that stage so there were no transcripts (and by that stage most certainly no whatsapp messages) to see. We're back to where we were. The club suspended him to the maximum amount at the time and it all hinges on the May meeting - during which, if it was the first meeting with the qc, it is entirely possible that the evidence was not formally presented to Byrne.

It all hinges on whether she was offered the evidence to review or whether it was a box of files In the corner of the room at a meeting that wasn't set up for Byrne. The questions in court remain the same but the circumstances are very different.

Well AJ lawyer has just said this, this morning

#Johnson barrister Orlando Pownall QC says he was present at meet with player & Ms Byrne on May 4 at which full case details disclosed

Why has he been allowed to continue to play. That will be the girls question when she asks for damages

 

[Reiver]

I've sat back and ignored this thread for a while and, instead of just firing off posts, thought about the behaviour of the police.

There's something absolutely wrong.

Why would they feel it necessary to send a senior officer to give the BBC an exclusive interview? Why are the rest of the media excluded if it's simply standard police procedure? Why is it so urgent to attack SAFC when the convicted man hasn't even been sentenced yet ....... this looks like panic to me.

Why are the police now bleating on about why "there's a 15 year old girl wondering why blah blah blah"

The officer, in the BBC interview, also said that 'the club were given a little more information'. What the hell does that mean ......... absolutely nothing tbh.

There's an agenda here and the police have their PR team working full blast on this, mark my words. Are they expecting a shit-storm when the sentence is passed down and the judge makes his closing comments? Should they have, if the case against Johnson was so secure, objected to his bail application.

After all the police appear to be branding the man a sexual predator who deliberately targeted a 15 year old for sex but would be walking around free. I've no doubt that Johnson was terrified of being remanded in custody until the trial was concluded but why wasn't he? This, in my mind, is why he was pleading not guilty even though he knew 100% that he'd change his plea on the first day of the trial. He's lied through his teeth to stay out of remand.

I believe the police have made mistakes that will soon come out, most likely on sentencing, and they're getting their retaliation in first.

There's something wrong here with the police behaviour which I haven't figured out yet,but I will.

 

[RTRsBM]

Well AJ lawyer has just said this, this morning

#Johnson barrister Orlando Pownall QC says he was present at meet with player & Ms Byrne on May 4 at which full case details disclosed

Why has he been allowed to continue to play. That will be the girls question when she asks for damages

The web gets more tangled.

 

[Sandboy]

The BBC are really pissing me off now, Adam f***ing Johnson is getting less exposure than Sunderland AFC. There's only one lying cheating pervert involved here.

 

[Deleted User 18963]

Mr Pownall says at May 4 meet Ms Byrne knew #Johnson accepted meeting and kissing the 15yo schoolgirl

 

[Rizla]

There was 2 seperate meetings from the looks of it though. It is convoluted, I agree. Still it appears that Byrne was shown the transcripts from the messages, and told what AJ had done. Alleged, I guess. Also, AJ said himself, he told the club at this time. Both lying?

Why didn't the club suspend with pay, until outcome of trial. Legally untouchable. Would have made the correct moral and ethical choice. Would have not got half as much shit as it is getting now.

If he was found not guilty? He was still paid in full, and he had to answer the charges.

Just seems a massive error in judgement for me. The fact he was allowed to play when information was given to show what he had alleged to have done. It's shameful.

Absolutely this. It was a stupid decision by the club to lift his suspension regardless of whether evidence had been seen or not. But now it is clear that the club were aware of the evidence, it makes that decision even more questionable. Byrne has to go. No two ways about it.

 

[sksk3021]

I think she knew exactly what he was accused off with details and she choose to put the legal line of innocent to found guilty within a courtroom ahead of ethics and morals. Unacceptable. Legal matters are not everything, we are a respectable, family club who have allowed a sex offender to play for nearly a year.

I don't think there is any doubt that she knew what he was accused of. To me that is enough to warrant suspension. However I can see how another route could be taken.
What we don't know is to what extent she had seen evidence or heard him confess to things. If the club have seen copies of the messages and he has told them he kissed her then it leaves a very sour taste that he was allowed to continue playing.
Having said that the club were put in a bad situation by the actions of an employee and it's a lot easier to retrospectively make judgements.

 

[BS1000]

This, people say but they followed what they had too, they might have but given the seriousness that simply wasn't enough in this case. And if they had the information the police johnson and his team said they did how they let him back seriously boggles the mind, they should've known this would cause a complete shit storm. Although nowt surprises me with the way they've been running the club.

There was a big thread at the time when the suspension was lifted and it was always going to cause a lot of grief for the club if he was found guilty. You didn't need to be Mystic Meg to see this coming (the crap not the guilty bit).

The only way the club could of sacked him at the time was that he admitted it and said he was going to plead guilty, the only course of action open to them was suspension with pay. Given the nature of the charges and the clubs responsibilities if they had of continued that none of this would be heading their way. The reality was he was seen as needed so allowed to play, which was a poor decision at the time, given what has come out now it looks like a horrendous decision based on the information available to the club / Byrne.

 

[Deleted User 18963]

I don't think there is any doubt that she knew what he was accused of. To me that is enough to warrant suspension. However I can see how another route could be taken.
What we don't know is to what extent she had seen evidence or heard him confess to things. If the club have seen copies of the messages and he has told them he kissed her then it leaves a very sour taste that he was allowed to continue playing.
Having said that the club were put in a bad situation by the actions of an employee and it's a lot easier to retrospectively make judgements.

Mr Pownall says at May 4 meet Ms Byrne knew #Johnson accepted meeting and kissing the 15yo schoolgirl

They you go. Why was he allowed to play ??at the time I said we should have left him suspended with full pay for his reason. The state of the clubs reputation now. Yes, because 1 scumbag but the fact that the club seemed to turn a blind eye is lifting. f***ing horrid.

 

[Mackemansj1]

Well AJ lawyer has just said this, this morning

#Johnson barrister Orlando Pownall QC says he was present at meet with player & Ms Byrne on May 4 at which full case details disclosed

Why has he been allowed to continue to play. That will be the girls question when she asks for damages

I just can't see johnsons lawyer the police and Johnson all being wrong like, so ms Byrne over to you, either gross incompetence or gross mismanagement of the whole thing, over to short too he can't continue to let the club and it's fans be dragged through the mud.

 

[Rober33]

Well AJ lawyer has just said this, this morning

#Johnson barrister Orlando Pownall QC says he was present at meet with player & Ms Byrne on May 4 at which full case details disclosed

Why has he been allowed to continue to play. That will be the girls question when she asks for damages

Does his QC always talk about himself in the third person like that or is that just another tweet regarding what has already been widely reported because of what was said in the trial?

 

[Mackemansj1]

There was a big thread at the time when the suspension was lifted and it was always going to cause a lot of grief for the club if he was found guilty. You didn't need to be Mystic Meg to see this coming (the crap not the guilty bit).

The only way the club could of sacked him at the time was that he admitted it and said he was going to plead guilty, the only course of action open to them was suspension with pay. Given the nature of the charges and the clubs responsibilities if they had of continued that none of this would be heading their way. The reality was he was seen as needed so allowed to play, which was a poor decision at the time, given what has come out now it looks like a horrendous decision based on the information available to the club / Byrne.

Did you though? Police are saying the club had the information?.

 

[Deleted member 26]

Well AJ lawyer has just said this, this morning

#Johnson barrister Orlando Pownall QC says he was present at meet with player & Ms Byrne on May 4 at which full case details disclosed

Why has he been allowed to continue to play. That will be the girls question when she asks for damages

She's right in it now

 

[The Master]

The BBC are really pissing me off now, Adam f***ing Johnson is getting less exposure than Sunderland AFC. There's only one lying cheating pervert involved here.

Exactly and he's the one going to jail.

 

[Rober33]

I just can't see johnsons lawyer the police and Johnson all being wrong like, so ms Byrne over to you, either gross incompetence or gross mismanagement of the whole thing, over to short too he can't continue to let the club and it's fans be dragged through the mud.

The police only told the club what he was accused of which we all know know and knew at the time.

 

[Black Cat Gypsy]

Sam and the press officer done a brilliant job, Sam in particular. But they shouldn't have been in that situation. It reminded me of the di Canio press conference. They were thrown to the wolves. Luckily Sam is a bit more experienced.

Byrne needs to answer those questions. It's disgraceful watching everyone bar here talk about this.

 

[Mackemansj1]

I've sat back and ignored this thread for a while and, instead of just firing off posts, thought about the behaviour of the police.

There's something absolutely wrong.

Why would they feel it necessary to send a senior officer to give the BBC an exclusive interview? Why are the rest of the media excluded if it's simply standard police procedure? Why is it so urgent to attack SAFC when the convicted man hasn't even been sentenced yet ....... this looks like panic to me.

Why are the police now bleating on about why "there's a 15 year old girl wondering why blah blah blah"

The officer, in the BBC interview, also said that 'the club were given a little more information'. What the hell does that mean ......... absolutely nothing tbh.

There's an agenda here and the police have their PR team working full blast on this, mark my words. Are they expecting a shit-storm when the sentence is passed down and the judge makes his closing comments? Should they have, if the case against Johnson was so secure, objected to his bail application.

After all the police appear to be branding the man a sexual predator who deliberately targeted a 15 year old for sex but would be walking around free. I've no doubt that Johnson was terrified of being remanded in custody until the trial was concluded but why wasn't he? This, in my mind, is why he was pleading not guilty even though he knew 100% that he'd change his plea on the first day of the trial. He's lied through his teeth to stay out of remand.

I believe the police have made mistakes that will soon come out, most likely on sentencing, and they're getting their retaliation in first.

There's something wrong here with the police behaviour which I haven't figured out yet,but I will.

You really won't have anything bad said about the club will you?. It's a super high profile case they ain't going to send a beat officer to answer questions on to are they?.

 

[Chizno1]

Are we going to go over the same things again and again? This has been covered already in this thread - he allegedly admitted to the club he had kissed the girl. No context is given for this kiss. A kiss on its own is NOT AGAINST THE LAW - seeing as you are so keen on clarifying the law. Context is absolutely everything there.


237 pages of mostly drivel and you say I'm the one looking stupid? Give over. The club were put in a difficult position, of that there is no doubt. But if they fired him and he turned out to be innocent in court? Or the fact the firing was used as a defence in court that he couldn't get a fair trial as he's such a famous person, etc etc? Read all this thread, its been discussed a million bloody times already. The only choice the club had at the time was suspension on full pay, or to allow him to play until the trial. After talks with the PFA (who not many people are asking questions about) and after assuring the FA (I think it was) that he would have nothing to do with the clubs promotional/external stuff in the meantime, the call was made to continue playing him. Sunderland's lawyers had the evidence, although once again I ask - on what grounds was his defence team doing giving possibly incriminating evidence to his employers? That is beyond belief for me. Its still presumed innocent until proven guilty, as you yourself say.

He allegedly told the club he kissed a fan. It has been alleged that at the same time the club had documents that contained the messages between them, and johnsons 1st police interview transcript in which he admitted that he knew the girl was only 15.
This meeting supposedly took place on the 4th of May, which was 2 months after police had at the very least told the club of the allegations/charges Johnson was facing.
If you believe that this meeting occurred, and what Johnsons QC said in court about Byrne having access to what she did, then Byrnes position is untenable. Not because of anything the club may have done legally, but because she is CEO and is ultimately responsible for the club and businesses image.
If the meeting on May 4th occurred, and Johnson admitted kissing the girl, as you have said the context in which he placed it is important. However, in such a meeting, surely Byrne is responsible for finding out that context? She allegedly had documents that Johnson and his defence were happy for her to have and again if this meeting occurred either read them, or didn't. Either way she would be in a bad position. Either she did know and someone at the club decided Johnson would continue to be available for selection anyway (remember suspension had already been lifted by May) or if she did not read the documents, bearing in mind she definitely knew about all of the charges he was facing, she failed to be vigilant enough about the potential damage that could be caused to the clubs reputation.

Now, again the May meeting might not have occurred, the lead DI on the case might not have made is as plain to Byrne as she alleged to the BBC yesterday, and Johnson could very easy be manipulating exactly what he told the club. However, the club is facing these allegations, and they are not defending themselves against them. The statement they made was very cleverly worded and denied knowing he was going to change his plea, but does not deny knowledge of what it is alleged he admitted to the club in private.

Now regarding deciding on his guilt, Johnson was entitled under the law to plead not guilty and have a trial by jury. He would have been entitled to do this even if he had admitted all charges in a police interview. The club is not there to decide his guilt, but if the club did have knowledge of what he had already admitted to privately (again not his official plea stance) the club could have simply not played him until the conclusion of his trial. No official action, either suspension or sacking needed to happen. Just do not select him, stating that time was being given to Johnson so he could sort out personal issues without the added pressure of football. This would have protected firstly the victim, and secondly the club.

I just want the club I love to come out and categorically deny that they continued to play Johnson despite knowing what it has been alleged they knew. In my opinion, and the opinion of various agencies including the NSPCC the statement they released has not done this.

 

[The Master]

You'd think this club was run by Jesus Christ himself the way some go on