Adam Johnson found guilty of one count of sexual activity with a child | Sentenced to six years

[VorZakone]

Police statement today saying the club knew everything and had an additional meeting on 2nd March 2015 on the day after he was arrested, preceding the May meeting which they acknowledged in the statement. Huge questions to answer now.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-35721975

Ouch.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

Ouch.

I may have jumped the gun with the "knowing everything" part after reading the report again, but the March 2nd meeting "outlined the case", this being in addition to the May meeting that they acknowledged in their statement. CEO was present at March 2nd meeting too.

 

[Lynty]

I feel most sorry for his daughter.

 

[acnumber9]

I may have jumped the gun with the "knowing everything" part after reading the report again, but the March 2nd meeting "outlined the case", this being in addition to the May meeting that they acknowledged in their statement. CEO was present at March 2nd meeting too.

Outlined what he had been charged with. No specifics were mentioned and there's currently no evidence they knew what he'd done.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

Outlined what he had been charged with. No specifics were mentioned and there's currently no evidence they knew what he'd done.

Why not say this meeting happened in their statement then? Remember this is on top of his QC saying during the trial that they knew everything last May.

 

[acnumber9]

Why not say this meeting happened in their statement then? Remember this is on top of his QC saying during the trial that they knew everything last May.

It's not really a question I can answer. It's not exactly a cover up mind you. The report you linked states the police did not share specifics of the case with them.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

There is no such term as statutory rape in English law. It is an Americanism.

True enough. The American term seems very widely used though, even in reference to someone convicted in England (like the present case).

Technically, though, he clearly isn't a rapist, not even a statutory one (so to speak).

AFAIK the term "rape" in the American "statutory" sense is applied [in the UK, that is] when the child is below the age of 13. From 13-16, however, it is termed "sexual activity" (with a minor) rather than "rape".

 

[AltiUn]

Supposedly the victim is suing for £1m, not sure if this is new news or anything.

 

[Moriarty]

True enough. The American term seems very widely used though, even in reference to someone convicted in England (like the present case).

Technically, though, he clearly isn't a rapist, not even a statutory one (so to speak).

AFAIK the term "rape" in the American "statutory" sense is applied [in the UK, that is] when the child is below the age of 13. From 13-16, however, it is termed "sexual activity" (with a minor) rather than "rape".

Right. I explained this in an earlier post. The crime of rape in modern English law has evolved markedly from the old common law definition. This wasn't rape under any definition.

 

[Pexbo]

Supposedly the victim is suing for £1m, not sure if this is new news or anything.

I think, with the context considered, I'd be more comfortable if it was her parents suing.

Maybe her in 5 or so years but it just doesn't feel right that she would be so complicit a short while ago and now feel like she's been wronged or abused.

 

[cyberman]

Supposedly the victim is suing for £1m, not sure if this is new news or anything.

Isnt it that she has the option to sue and not that she intends to?
The idiots on facebook have come out over this. The comments im reading are too vile for words.

 

[Skywarden]

Where these relationships persist (interesting point, btw). Is it often in the context of the older person having a simultaneous pregnant partner situation?

Would be highly coincidental. In majority of these cases, the older person has developed his sexual preferences/attractions far earlier than any time-frame relating to their partner's pregnancy.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

I may have jumped the gun with the "knowing everything" part after reading the report again, but the March 2nd meeting "outlined the case", this being in addition to the May meeting that they acknowledged in their statement. CEO was present at March 2nd meeting too.

I think people need to consider that anything the club knew was privileged information and that any negative action against their employee, whom to their knowledge was going to contest the charges, would heavily prejudice the case against him. We may not agree with their actions based on the nature of Johnson's offences but even the worst of society deserve a fair trial.

 

[Winrar]

Do people still buy their papers?

sensationalism sells, unfortunately

 

[unchanged_lineup]

I think people need to consider that anything the club knew was privileged information and that any negative action against their employee, whom to their knowledge was going to contest the charges, would heavily prejudice the case against him. We may not agree with their actions based on the nature of Johnson's offences but even the worst of society deserve a fair trial.

I'm actually over that direction today and heard more details that I hadn't realised from talking to folks here. For instance, I didn't know he wasn't playing til Poyet was sacked and Advocaat came in. Up to that point he'd obviously been left out. They didn't help themselves in the PR stakes by bringing him back in, and even worse making him captain for the Derby.

 

[Drifter]

Sunderland chief believed to have left UK over Adam Johnson case

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/mar/06/sunderland-chief-margaret-byrne-adam-johnson

 

[unchanged_lineup]

Sunderland chief believed to have left UK over Adam Johnson case

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/mar/06/sunderland-chief-margaret-byrne-adam-johnson

The paparazzi are at her Portugal home too apparently.

 

[Giant Midget]

The paparazzi are at her Portugal home too apparently.

She holds quite a few high positions in the football world. I don't see how that can continue if it's proven she allowed Johnson to play on despite knowing the facts of the case.

 

[Marching]

I don't think there is any doubt she knew the facts. The police told her on 2nd March 2015 when they suspended him only to bring him back just 16 days later. Johnson admitted to her his wrongdoing in May 2015.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

I've heard she hasn't actually left, that report is incorrect. Must be a prisoner in her own home if she hasn't stepped outside it in days, horrible...

 

[Billy Blaggs]

He knew it. He's guilty. I almost bit my apparently mates eat of for grabbing my wife's boob and then licking her face. (In another thread somewhere).

If I found out that my daughter had been a fecking idiot. And had been doing that Shit there's two options. Do you love her and want to marry her. (That would stop me with number two)

Number two. Let out the Pitbull and when he comes over crack his fecking legs and call the police while the dog chews on him.

 

[dogwithabone]

The sentence being talked about does seem extremely harsh. Don't get me wrong if it was me I'd hand down life sentences for burglary but there doesn't seem any consistency if Johnson gets 5-10 years whereas some of these famous multiple offenders who have come to light in the wake of Jimmy Saville - Harris, Clifford, Hall - are either out, as in the case of Hall, or facing up to imminent parole.

 

[acnumber9]

I don't think there is any doubt she knew the facts. The police told her on 2nd March 2015 when they suspended him only to bring him back just 16 days later. Johnson admitted to her his wrongdoing in May 2015.

There is definitely doubt. The police specifically said they didn't share the details of what he had done.

 

[Rednotdead]

There is definitely doubt. The police specifically said they didn't share the details of what he had done.

Also, simply being arrested and/or charged isn't incontrovertible evidence of guilt.

 

[Marching]

There is definitely doubt. The police specifically said they didn't share the details of what he had done.

Byrne was told at the time of Johnson's arrest by Detective Inspector Aelfwynn Sampson that they had evidence that sexual activity had taken place and that Johnson had messaged the girl. Johnson himself admitted this to Byrne on 4th May and she had transcripts of police interviews given by Johnson and the alleged victim, as well as the 834 text messages Johnson exchanged with the 15-year-old girl over a seven-week period.

Also, simply being arrested and/or charged isn't incontrovertible evidence of guilt.

It kinda is when Johnson admitted in his first police interview kissing the girl and knowing that she was 15.

 

[acnumber9]

Byrne was told at the time of Johnson's arrest by Detective Inspector Aelfwynn Sampson that they had evidence that sexual activity had taken place and that Johnson had messaged the girl. Johnson himself admitted this to Byrne on 4th May and she had transcripts of police interviews given by Johnson and the alleged victim, as well as the 834 text messages Johnson exchanged with the 15-year-old girl over a seven-week period.



It kinda is when Johnson admitted in his first police interview kissing the girl and knowing that she was 15.

The lead inspector said they were told what he was charged with and that there was a number of texts exchanged. She also clearly said specific details were not given to Sunderland by the police. Something I'm pretty sure they would not be allowed to do. It's in the BBC link quoted at the top of the page.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

The lead inspector said they were told what he was charged with and that there was a number of texts exchanged. She also clearly said specific details were not given to Sunderland by the police. Something I'm pretty sure they would not be allowed to do. It's in the BBC link quoted at the top of the page.

From the link:

"Durham Police said Margaret Byrne was told on 2 March 2015, the day of Johnson's arrest, that he had allegedly messaged and kissed the schoolgirl.

Det Insp Aelfwynn Sampson from Durham Police, the lead investigator of the case, said she met Sunderland chief executive Margaret Byrne on 2 March 2015.

She told BBC News: "They were given detail that he had met the girl and sexual activity had taken place."

How much more specific detail do they need? In any other job in the world, you'd be suspended pending the outcome of the investigation.

Edit: I'll add again, why didn't they mention this in their statement? Would Durham Police have released their statement if the full details had been in Sunderland's? It just seems like mis-step after mis-step which only makes the club look worse.

 

[Rednotdead]

Byrne was told at the time of Johnson's arrest by Detective Inspector Aelfwynn Sampson that they had evidence that sexual activity had taken place and that Johnson had messaged the girl. Johnson himself admitted this to Byrne on 4th May and she had transcripts of police interviews given by Johnson and the alleged victim, as well as the 834 text messages Johnson exchanged with the 15-year-old girl over a seven-week period.

It kinda is when Johnson admitted in his first police interview kissing the girl and knowing that she was 15.

The Police are simply not allowed to go around giving out details like that. This is not America.

 

[acnumber9]

From the link:

"Durham Police said Margaret Byrne was told on 2 March 2015, the day of Johnson's arrest, that he had allegedly messaged and kissed the schoolgirl.

Det Insp Aelfwynn Sampson from Durham Police, the lead investigator of the case, said she met Sunderland chief executive Margaret Byrne on 2 March 2015.

She told BBC News: "They were given detail that he had met the girl and sexual activity had taken place."

How much more specific detail do they need? In any other job in the world, you'd be suspended pending the outcome of the investigation.

Edit: I'll add again, why didn't they mention this in their statement? Would Durham Police have released their statement if the full details had been in Sunderland's? It just seems like mis-step after mis-step which only makes the club look worse.

From the link.

The Sunderland Echo reported the officer said particulars of the offences were not discussed as Johnson had not been interviewed.

More serious questions would have to be asked about why the police would share details such as that in an ongoing legal case to a persons employer.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

From the link.

The Sunderland Echo reported the officer said particulars of the offences were not discussed as Johnson had not been interviewed.

More serious questions would have to be asked about why the police would share details such as that in an ongoing legal case to a persons employer.

How much more detail do they need exactly to suspend someone with pay til the investigation is concluded? For me, what it says in the BBC article they were told would be enough, combined with the further detail giving in the May meeting the club conducted.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

More serious questions would have to be asked about why the police would share details such as that in an ongoing legal case to a persons employer.

Was about to say the same thing. I don't get that particular part.

He could have disclosed certain details, himself, to his employer - that's one thing. But I don't see why the police would do so, let alone allow the employer access to transcripts of text messages and whatnot.

Probably reading it wrong, but the above is the impression you get.

 

[acnumber9]

How much more detail do they need exactly to suspend someone with pay til the investigation is concluded? For me, what it says in the BBC article they were told would be enough, combined with the further detail giving in the May meeting the club conducted.

It's a judgement call on their part. Given they did suspend him and changed their mind later following legal advice suggests they were worried of the legal ramifications if he was innocent. Ultimately there's no way the police could provide somebody's employer with evidence relating to a criminal matter unless they were legally acting on his behalf.

 

[acnumber9]

Was about to say the same thing. I don't get that particular part.

He could have disclosed certain details, himself, to his employer - that's one thing. But I don't see why the police would do so, let alone allow the employer access to transcripts of text messages and whatnot.

Probably reading it wrong, but the above is the impression you get.

I think the article is fairly poorly written. It's weird to me that the police shared any information with Sunderland though and I think there's a question to be asked around why they did.

 

[Marching]

The Police are simply not allowed to go around giving out details like that. This is not America.

The lead inspector said they were told what he was charged with and that there was a number of texts exchanged. She also clearly said specific details were not given to Sunderland by the police. Something I'm pretty sure they would not be allowed to do. It's in the BBC link quoted at the top of the page.

Apparently they are. Watch the video of the interview.

At a meeting on March 2 they disclosed to Byrne and others that Johnson had been arrested, there had been meetings and sexual activity with a 15 yr old girl along with a little more detail which presumably meant the 800+ texts the police new about. On May 4 Johnson admitted to Byrne that it was true.

 

[acnumber9]

Apparently they are. Watch the video of the interview.

At a meeting on March 2 they disclosed to Byrne and others that Johnson had been arrested, there had been meetings and sexual activity with a 15 yr old girl along with a little more detail which presumably meant the 800+ texts the police new about. On May 4 Johnson admitted to Byrne that it was true.

Well then questions would need to be asked about why they were sharing confidential information with a third party. Johnson says he admitted it to Byrne. Sunderland say otherwise. At this stage that's the only evidence that they knew the exact circumstances.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

I think the article is fairly poorly written. It's weird to me that the police shared any information with Sunderland though and I think there's a question to be asked around why they did.

Funnily enough, there's quite a big discussion about exactly this on the Sunderland boards. Spotted one thing of interest - if the phone was given to Johnson by the club as a benefit of employment, they would be allowed access to them.

 

[Marching]

Well then questions would need to be asked about why they were sharing confidential information with a third party. Johnson says he admitted it to Byrne. Sunderland say otherwise. At this stage that's the only evidence that they knew the exact circumstances.

I'd guess it was standard procedure to inform a persons employer that one of their employees was under arrest and what for. Johnson most certainly did tell Byrne of his offending and the transcripts of all the conversations were made available at the meeting on May 4 which took place in Newcastle.

Edit - I now know why they will have disclosed a certain ammount of info to Byrne....due to the nature of the offence and the likelyhood of Johnson coming into contact with children there were child protection issues to be taken into account.

 

[acnumber9]

I'd guess it was standard procedure to inform a persons employer that one of their employees was under arrest and what for. Johnson most certainly did tell Byrne of his offending and the transcripts of all the conversations were made available at the meeting on May 4 which took place in Newcastle.

Edit - I now know why they will have disclosed a certain ammount of info to Byrne....due to the nature of the offence and the likelyhood of Johnson coming into contact with children there were child protection issues to be taken into account.

Where are these transcripts? They wouldn't need to know the specific details to know he'd been charged with sexual assault on a minor. That's all they needed to know so why would they go into specifics including what evidence they had?

 

[acnumber9]

Funnily enough, there's quite a big discussion about exactly this on the Sunderland boards. Spotted one thing of interest - if the phone was given to Johnson by the club as a benefit of employment, they would be allowed access to them.

Its a big if. Though I'm pretty sure the police would supersede that right and given it was evidence to be used in a court of law I don't see how or why Sunderland would be allowed that information.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

Its a big if. Though I'm pretty sure the police would supersede that right and given it was evidence to be used in a court of law I don't see how or why Sunderland would be allowed that information.

Because they own the phone?