Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The schoolgirl who allegedly had sexual encounters with Adam Johnson told her friends he gave her cash for a trip to London, a court heard today.

 

The teenager bought underwear for her school friends and claimed Johnson gave her the money for it.

 

Defence barrister Orlando Pownall said: “She told you face-to-face that she received a text message from Adam Johnson saying lets meet up in a car park.

 

“She told you that Adam Johnson asked her if she needed money to go to London with and she said he gave her £50.”

 

The school friend agreed.

 

Mr Pownall went on to say: “She brought you presents from London, underwear sets and a couple of other things. She told you she had paid for the gifts with money Adam Johnson gave her.”

 

The girl agreed and Mr Pownall said: “Is this an example of what you have come to expect - that your friend is someone who can exaggerate?”

 

The school friend said: “Yea,” and added that she hadn’t believed her friend’s story about the cash.

 

Its this s*** that'll cast doubt in the jurors mind. Too many anomalies and they'll have to go not guilty.

 

Aye.. this is her "best friend" talking too. Says she (victim) can exaggerate and didnt even believe her about it at first. Doesnt exactly sound great for her

 

"Oh hai Mark...I noshed off Ian Curti...I mean Adam Johnson for a few seconds behind Wong's...he was geet floppy"

 

Yup, not very believable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The schoolgirl who allegedly had sexual encounters with Adam Johnson told her friends he gave her cash for a trip to London, a court heard today.

 

The teenager bought underwear for her school friends and claimed Johnson gave her the money for it.

 

Defence barrister Orlando Pownall said: “She told you face-to-face that she received a text message from Adam Johnson saying lets meet up in a car park.

 

“She told you that Adam Johnson asked her if she needed money to go to London with and she said he gave her £50.”

 

The school friend agreed.

 

Mr Pownall went on to say: “She brought you presents from London, underwear sets and a couple of other things. She told you she had paid for the gifts with money Adam Johnson gave her.”

 

The girl agreed and Mr Pownall said: “Is this an example of what you have come to expect - that your friend is someone who can exaggerate?”

 

The school friend said: “Yea,” and added that she hadn’t believed her friend’s story about the cash.

 

Its this shit that'll cast doubt in the jurors mind. Too many anomalies and they'll have to go not guilty.

 

Aye.. this is her "best friend" talking too. Says she (victim) can exaggerate and didnt even believe her about it at first. Doesnt exactly sound great for her

 

Probably didn't believe the stuff she told her about Johnson which he's since admitted to, either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Friend 1 said that the girl had asked her to lie to police about an alleged sex act taking place and to delete messages from her phone. As well as this, she told jurors today that she was asked to lie about a third meeting that the girl claimed had taken place.

 

At this third meeting, Friend 1 said, the girl told her that Johnson had met her and given her £50 for a trip away.

 

Friend 1 told the court that she "didn't believe" this meeting had happened because it seemed unrealistic. In her own evidence yesterday, the girl said she was "joking" when she told Friend 1 this meeting had taken place, and that Johnson had given her money.

 

:serious:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Friend 1 said that the girl had asked her to lie to police about an alleged sex act taking place and to delete messages from her phone. As well as this, she told jurors today that she was asked to lie about a third meeting that the girl claimed had taken place.

 

At this third meeting, Friend 1 said, the girl told her that Johnson had met her and given her £50 for a trip away.

 

Friend 1 told the court that she "didn't believe" this meeting had happened because it seemed unrealistic. In her own evidence yesterday, the girl said she was "joking" when she told Friend 1 this meeting had taken place, and that Johnson had given her money.

 

:serious:

 

14 year old girls. Not shocked.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Friend 2 also said she was aware of a third meeting being arranged between the girl and Johnson, which then had to be cancelled because he couldn't make it.

 

When asked by the officer what she personally thought would happen at that meeting, Friend 2 said that the girl and Johnson would "have sex". When asked why she thought this, Friend 2 said that's what the girl had told her.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a very weak defence from Johnson, exaggerating about money when she is excited and bouncing about meeting up with a footballer is one thing - lying about sexual contact is entirely different.

 

Lets not forget that Johnson lied about the first two charges for over a year, the girl admitted she exaggerated within a couple of weeks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty tough ground to debate, but McCormick killed two children while drunk.  Are people honestly saying that what Johnson has done is worse than killing two children?  Honestly?  I'm not defending what Johnson has done (which I hope goes without saying)m but come on.

 

 

Quite frankly if you've killed someone or sexually abused someone, I would hope that no club would even think about offering you a contract.

Spot on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

she has said she could exaggerate - fine

 

but she thought she was exagerating about meeting him in the first place which has all turned out to be non-exaggerating

 

tbh this money and london drivel has nowt to do with whether he boinked her or not, its just the defence clutching at straws trying to defame her character

Link to post
Share on other sites

Conor Wigwam apparently called the police after becoming aware of mentions of it on social media.

 

How?

 

Picked up the phone, dialled the number for the police and said "Hi I'd like the Emercengy Nonce Division please."

Link to post
Share on other sites

As bad as the Lee Hughes incident was I think it's right he should be allowed back into football like, I'd say the same for most criminals. If you're grooming a 15 year old girl then you're obviously completely f***ed in the head though.

 

The thing that's extra fucked about Johnson and that should stop him being in football moreso, is he very actively used his position as a sunderland player to drive the whole thing, it all comes from a thank you for the shirt. That's where I thought sunderland as his employer could get in bother too.

 

I'd say it's also significantly worse than the Rix case because he knows her age.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"I suspect my teammate is suffering from a bad case of nonsilitis".

 

 

"With no awareness of the noncequences"

 

http://usvsth3m.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/collins-nonce-sense.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

McCormick and Hughes were accidents - stupid, irresponsible ones - but not intentional. Johnson has been accused of consciously grooming a school girl, which is far more heinous.

 

Unintentional? Fucking hell.

 

If your pissed and think it's ok to drive, the risk is there.

You make a choice. If you kill someone the choice to get behind the wheel is intended if you already know your pissed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam Johnson will NOT be sued by Sunderland after sacking him for breach of contract following guilty plea

Under FIFA laws club had the option of seeking compensation

 

Johnson was sacked by Sunderland after pleading guilty to grooming PA:Press Association

EXCLUSIVE by DAVID COVERDALE

00:01, 18 Feb 2016

 

SHAMED Adam Johnson is set to escape a seven-figure legal suit from Sunderland.

The Black Cats sacked the winger last week for breach of contract after he pleaded guilty to one count of sexual activity with a child and one charge of grooming.

Under FIFA laws, the club had the option of seeking compensation from Johnson by claiming for losses suffered as a result of his dismissal.

But Sunderland have decided against suing their ex-player as they want to move on from the scandal.

________________________________________

________________________________________

Johnson, 28, cost the Black Cats £10million when he signed from Manchester City in August 2012.

The ex-England international had less than five months of his four-year deal left to run.

But Sunderland could still have claimed for the “unamortised portion” of the transfer fee, signing on fee and agent fee, which would likely have been around £1m.

The Premier League’s second-bottom club may also have had a case to claim for losses suffered if they were relegated, as well as compensation for reputational damage.

But it is unlikely they would have been able to recover any of the wages Johnson banked from when he was first arrested last March, as the Black Cats benefited from playing him.

Back in 2004, Chelsea terminated Adrian Mutu’s contract after he tested positive for cocaine and then sought compo from the Romanian, who cost £15.8m from Parma.

After a hard-fought legal battle, Mutu was ordered to pay the Blues a whopping £14.5m.

But he had almost three and a half years of his five-year deal to run when he was sacked.

And legal experts believe it would not have been worth Sunderland’s while to sue Johnson given his contract was soon to expire.

Nick Hawkins, employment solicitor at Stewarts Law LLP, said: “Sunderland may have grounds to sue Adam Johnson for breach of contract, claiming the losses suffered as a result of his dismissal.

“However, any damages are likely to be minimal.

“Johnson is out of contract in the summer, and so the club have had almost full value for his services.”

Zee Hussain, employment partner at Simpson Millar Solicitors LLP, added: “Sunderland may consider that any potential damages are outweighed by the legal costs and adverse publicity.

“If the club were relegated, any damages for subsequent loss of revenue would likely be seen as too remote by the courts.

“In order to succeed, the club would have to show that there was a direct, foreseeable link between Johnson’s conduct and the loss incurred.”

Johnson was initially suspended by the club following his arrest in March 2015.

________________________________________

________________________________________

But that ban was lifted when his bail was extended by five weeks a fortnight later - and he continued to play even after he was charged in April.

Hawkins told SunSport: “If Sunderland had dismissed Johnson at the time of his charges, their losses for breach of contract would be greater.

“He would have had more time left on his contract and the club might have been able to replace him.

“However, the club have not incurred any obvious losses by not dismissing Johnson earlier, because he continued to play during the period between then and his recent guilty plea.

“Sunderland would not likely be able to recover the Johnson’s wages for that period, as they had the benefit of his services in return.”

Johnson has denied two further charges of sexual activity with a girl under 16 and his trial continues at Bradford Crown Court.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...