• 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.

Adam Johnson Trial Verdict

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bagpuss said:
No issue with the team, got a serious issue with the way the club looks like it has dealt with this issue. Whether he told them he was going to plead not guilty or not is irrelevant as everything I have read suggests they knew he had admitted kissing her in interview. They did not deny this in their statement just that they thought he was going to plead not guilty....That makes it worse imho as they were aware that not only had he kissed the girl but that he intended to lie about it and plead not guilty too.
Click to expand...
But that's taking the presumption he told them they met up and passionately necked on his Range Rover.
 
Ghost in the Machine said:
Does anyone know what documents they wereor is that more speculation?

If a brief, or his client under his instruction, offered me private dcumentation under similar circumstances I'd hand them straight back anarl. My first thought would be what's the sneaky bugger attempting to set up here.
Click to expand...

police station interview transcript, victim's evidence and whatsapp messages...
 
Purrfect South said:
He signed shirts for lots of children outside of the stadium, along with all the other players. It was her who contacted him first, and he wasn't the only player she texted. This is not normal behaviour, which ever way you want to look at it. Why would the club expect that every child is going to chase after the players, just because they got an autograph? They'd have to ban all autographs, or contacts with all minors if that was the case.
Click to expand...

Interestingly not every player chose to reply then contact said girl over 800 times......Once you had a player who had done that then it is your responsibility as an employer to ensure it didnt happen again. She did what infatuated teens do constantly to superstars and lets be honest she probably never expected to get a reply (and clearly didnt from the other players she messaged/texted). Contrary to you saying it is not normal behaviour I would argue it is extremely typical behaviour of a teenage girl, the difference is most adults do not prey on that to abuse them....The idea this is in anyway her fault is utterly outrageous.
 
Littlerobbieh said:
I've made my own mind up already. Safc done everything legally and above board then sacked the sex offender the day he plead guilty. They and us were lied to by a piece of garbage who's rightfully going to jail. Now my immediate plans are to get behind the team and cheer them on to survival.
Click to expand...

I'm like you,and probably lots of others. When I read the club statement it seemed to be definite and genuine and I thought it would deal with it. I admit though I didn't follow the trial that closely. Now,I can't decide whether all the vitriol since is just sensation seeking media and holier than thou campaigners or whether the club do have a case to answer here. One thing is though,we have a chief executive who knows nothing about football ( recent history proves that),but who appears not to have been able to ensure we stayed the right side of everything in a legal matter either,which I did think was her line of expertise.
 
Purrfect South said:
You're right there, but nobody was hounding the club at the time. Its always easy to point the finger after the event.
Click to expand...
No one thought the club knew anything about it though. the QC mentioning it in court has brought it to people's attention.

sad-eyed prophet said:
I'm like you,and probably lots of others. When I read the club statement it seemed to be definite and genuine and I thought it would deal with it. I admit though I didn't follow the trial that closely. Now,I can't decide whether all the vitriol since is just sensation seeking media and holier than thou campaigners or whether the club do have a case to answer here. One thing is though,we have a chief executive who knows nothing about football ( recent history proves that),but who appears not to have been able to ensure we stayed the right side of everything in a legal matter either,which I did think was her line of expertise.
Click to expand...
Mind I'm pretty sure we fine from a legal point of view. The main accusations revolve around if they played Johnson knowing or suspecting what he had done.
 
Last edited:
janey said:
He is though he's choosing to believe the bit in the club statement that says the documents were handed to the club but not to believe the bit in the club statement where it says the club handed the documents over immediately.
You can laugh as much as you like but that's choosing information to suit your argument, a little like a barrister uses information to suit their argument really
Click to expand...

Seriously, think about what you're writing because it's *insane.* You're saying that someone can make a statement designed to hide, conceal or lie, and if they try and make their statement more plausible by including some things that are true, you have to believe everything they have written? It's like some law of skinchies has been introduced to centuries old concepts it truth, logic can language. f***ing hell
 
Bagpuss said:
Interestingly not every player chose to reply then contact said girl over 800 times......Once you had a player who had done that then it is your responsibility as an employer to ensure it didnt happen again. She did what infatuated teens do constantly to superstars and lets be honest she probably never expected to get a reply (and clearly didnt from the other players she messaged/texted). Contrary to you saying it is not normal behaviour I would argue it is extremely typical behaviour of a teenage girl, the difference is most adults do not prey on that to abuse them....The idea this is in anyway her fault is utterly outrageous.
Click to expand...
I think you'll find there's a lot more to it than that. You're simplifying the situation because you want to protect the lass. I understand that, but this case is not that straightforward forward. I'm hoping we don't miss this opportunity to look at the behaviour of young adults, and try to work out ways to discourage them from putting themselves at risk. Smart phones, and the Internet, are more to blame for this situation than the club.
 
Cockney Mackem said:
Seriously, think about what you're writing because it's *insane.* You're saying that someone can make a statement designed to hide, conceal or lie, and if they try and make their statement more plausible by including some things that are true, you have to believe everything they have written? It's like some law of skinchies has been introduced to centuries old concepts it truth, logic can language. f***ing hell
Click to expand...
It's life. Its devious, and a nasty way to play the game, but that's what the law is like.
 
Purrfect South said:
I think you'll find there's a lot more to it than that. You're simplifying the situation because you want to protect the lass. I understand that, but this case is not that straightforward forward. I'm hoping we don't miss this opportunity to look at the behaviour of young adults, and try to work out ways to discourage them from putting themselves at risk. Smart phones, and the Internet, are more to blame for this situation than the club.
Click to expand...

There were no young adults involved in this case, just a 28 year old bloke and a child.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top