Sima Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 Nowt will happen. Yesterday's chip paper by next Tuesday, Sunderland aren't significant enough for this to run. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Geordie Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 Paul Jeeves @PJeevesie 20s20 seconds ago Defence QC: Girl has endeavoured to manipulate the truth". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paully Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 The so-called 'classy club'! OP- Defence Barrister "It's plain they knew exactly what was going on. They had the statements, they did have Mr Johnson's interview and they chose in that situation, rightly or wrongly ... they allowed him to keep playing." "You may consider SAFC were facing relegation and didn't want to lose one of their star players." OP says Johnson should not be blamed for club's decision OP has also said that SAFC may have had "commercial considerations" when deciding to continue playing Johnson. Adds Johnson should still not be blamed for their decision Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Geordie Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 It's damning, Paully. Johnson has dropped Sunderland right in it, to try and shift some blame. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 Why is his defence mentioning that though? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaus Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 Playing somebody who they knew was a paedophile is awful. I honestly would rather my club was relegated than carry on starting him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbnufc Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 Why is his defence mentioning that though? Prosecution said he stayed on for the money (instead of pleading guilty at the time), defence basically saying you can't blame him for that, the club decided to let him stay Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 Why is his defence mentioning that though? The prosecution claim he deliberately delayed entering a guilty plea, the defence are essentially trying to blame to the club by the sounds of it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Geordie Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 If it's true, then Sunderland have put themselves, their position in the PL and the money that brings in, ahead of the welfare of a young female supporter. Damning. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsunami Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 We'll find out afterwards what Sunderland have to say, they surely can't remain silent after what's being said in court about them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lush Vlad Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 I guess they'll just throw Byrne under the bus and use her as a scapegoat. She's the only one that knew, of course Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sima Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 I guess they'll just throw Byrne under the bus and use her as a scapegoat. She's the only one that knew, of course 100% this is what will happen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 You'd think this would deter them from trying to take the imaginary high ground with the weird 'at least we have class' shite they made up, but it won't. They're like Liverpool, only they achieve cringeworthy solidarity in their faux hatred of nonses instead of stadium tragedies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbnufc Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 OP saying he is going to talk about the characters of both the girl and Johnson, as well as the girl's untruths which he said have been "ignored" by the prosecution. OP on the girl's small lies underoath: "This exhibits her swift ability, without blinking, to mislead you." "She, underoath before you, has continued to tell you untruths." OP reminding jurors that the girl tried to persuade her friends to lie. One has already admitted that she did lie, but others refused. She asked her friends not to tell officers about alleged sex act she performed on Johnson and asked them to delete messages from their phones. OP: "That is an illusion the girl was trying to achieve. Distortion. 'Hide what I said'." Prosecution called Johnson a liar, now defence are calling her a liar. Whose lies to believe Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 "Her swift ability, without thinking, to mislead you" says the barrister Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 If the jury have anything about them they'll realise that the lie works both ways, as the accusation is that she lied about him having done anything. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 Hadn't considered the sex offenders list part tbh, makes so much sense now you think about it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Geordie Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 Def - girl said she had tossed him off - that was a lie...she said it was a joke #AdamJohnson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgarve Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 When will the jury make their decision by? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Geordie Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 I'd imagine it will be Monday or Tuesday. Defence still presenting their closing statements now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Geordie Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 Robin Perrie @robin_perrie 36s36 seconds ago Def closing speech ends. Judge tells jury they will start considering verdicts at 10am on Monday #AdamJohnson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp40 Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 they will be sent to a hotel for the weekend and told to avoid media and other people? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figures 1-0 Football Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 I've changed my mind over the last few days, can see a not guilty verdict next week. I just think there are too many holes and assumptions. I 100% believe the young girl like and think the texts he sent her are a clear indication that more than a kiss happened, but I don't know if it will be enough for the jury. The defence lawyer is right, the police have made a right hash of this case in some places:- - Why were SAFC not questioned on AJ's arrival time for the coach? - Why were his teammates not bought to court to discuss his version of "speaking about age of consent" in the changing room? - Why were SAFC not questioned on the reasoning for AJ continuing in his role at the club despite his admission? Crucial points that could have completely thrown AJ's defence out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaylorJ_01 Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 what is wrong with you Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 I've changed my mind over the last few days, can see a not guilty verdict next week. I just think there are too many holes and assumptions. I 100% believe the young girl like and think the texts he sent her are a clear indication that more than a kiss happened, but I don't know if it will be enough for the jury. The defence lawyer is right, the police have made a right hash of this case in some places:- - Why were SAFC not questioned on AJ's arrival time for the coach? - Why were his teammates not bought to court to discuss his version of "speaking about age of consent" in the changing room? - Why were SAFC not questioned on the reasoning for AJ continuing in his role at the club despite his admission? Crucial points that could have completely thrown AJ's defence out. Sorry but what does the last one have to do with anything in terms of his guilt or innocence? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts