• 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.

johnson said:
No he wasn't, that is exactly the point you are missing

The evidence was carefully presented and laid out in court, which proved he was guilty, not a moment before

You can't go around making presumptions

You have just proved my point exactly, thanks a lot.
Click to expand...

Let's be clear here. Johnson admitted "snogging" the girl (using tongues) in a police interview - it may even have been the first one. He then asked if that was an offence to which he was told it is. So, from his police interviews he knew he was guilty of a sexual offence and pleaded guilty to it on day one of the court proceedings.
 
Dogbark said:
The opposite to a sexual kiss marra.

Call me crazy, but I put 2 and 2 together. Maybe I got 5, but at least I tried :*(
Click to expand...

Thanks for both not only managing to not clarify the first point, but admitting you've possibly jumped to an errant conclusion on the second.
 
Useless at Roker said:
Daily Mirror - half way down
You must be logged on to see external links


Not just from my head pal
Click to expand...

Cheers marra.

The article actually states, though, she claimed he intended to "plead guilty to kissing the schoolgirl" not that he admitted it was more than a peck on the cheek.

I, quite honestly, don't know who to believe upon the extent of their suggested knowledge/attempts at damage limitation.

Clearly the man is a now a convicted sexual offender though I can't help but feel that some are attempting to cover their backsides and others are being accused of doing that (maybe with justification, maybe not), rather than be tainted by association.
 
Last edited:
Rober33 said:
I think the argument has been done enough on this thread and even most people who believe that the club knew what it's suggested they did are accepting that this isn't evidence of that. Obviously they want the club to clarify their position because they do believe they had the information at that time.

I don't know whether they did or not but will continue to give them the benefit of the doubt unless it is proven otherwise.
Click to expand...

How is the sworn testimony of one of the top defence barristers in the country not evidence? Its proof what more do you want?
 
rentaghost said:
Why the if? Of course they did. A QC with the background of Pownall isn't going to perjure himself in court. People seem to want to clutch at straws here and I'm really not sure why. A better debate is whether or not Sunderland should have sacked him then or not I agree.
Click to expand...
He said that they'd received them, not that they had read them.
 
rentaghost said:
Why the if? Of course they did. A QC with the background of Pownall isn't going to perjure himself in court. People seem to want to clutch at straws here and I'm really not sure why. A better debate is whether or not Sunderland should have sacked him then or not I agree.



Yawn - the sworn accounts of Johnson's own QC who should he be lying would never defend another case again.
Click to expand...
So why didn't they sack him then, when it was highly unlikely he wouldn't play again before the trial, going into a transfer window where it was well documented we were hamstrung by financial fair play but could have sacked a player on £60, 000 a week and replaced him. Why didn't we sack him then instead of waiting and sacking him immediately he pleads guilty in the middle of a season when we can't replace him. Doesn't make much sense really does it?
 
anotherfinemessi said:
Let's be clear here. Johnson admitted "snogging" the girl (using tongues) in a police interview - it may even have been the first one. He then asked if that was an offence to which he was told it is. So, from his police interviews he knew he was guilty of a sexual offence and pleaded guilty to it on day one of the court proceedings.
Click to expand...
Linky?

Nope, he pleaded not guilty.
 
Dogbark said:
He said that they'd received them, not that they had read them.
Click to expand...

Incredible really that some people would clutch to straws that the legal team of a professional organisation would choose not to read 800+ text messages, transcripts and interviews that were given to them where their own player admits to kissing a year 10 girl when knowing her age. They are absolutely duty bound to pour through every bit of what they were given because they know that ignorance is not an excuse.

However you probably know that anyway
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top