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...
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. Sorry but what does the last one have to do with anything in terms of his guilt or innocence? His version of events is that he was open and honest with the club, the club may come to court and say that he's lied to them all along and the first time they heard he was guilty was the first day of the trial when he pleaded. All about his honesty and integrity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ujpest doza 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. Yip, I think he is 100 % guilty but enough inaccuracies and seeds of doubt have been planted. I also cannot believe his car has not been picked up on a single cctv camera or ANPR camera between Castle Eden and Sunderland which I'd guess is a journey of about 20/25 miles at least. Surely there is cctv at the stadium of light to show either him or his car arriving?? I was at a meeting in Sunderland this morning and there are warnings of cameras all along Wessington Way as you travel towards the Stadium of Light. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout 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 Guaranteed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 I can easily see the jury deciding there's enough doubt to acquit him. I haven't followed that closely but I haven't seen anything that proves he sexed her up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bossman Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 What I don't understand is these celebrities that have been convicted after 30+ years with no physical evidence but he might get away with it after a year or so? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbnufc Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 I can easily see the jury deciding there's enough doubt to acquit him. I haven't followed that closely but I haven't seen anything that proves he sexed her up. because there isnt anything Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts