Roger Martin - trial

This section was setup in August 2018 in order to move the existing related discussions from other sections into this new section to group them together, and separate from the other CH-related topics.

Moderator: Moderators

Locked
Vilified
3rd Former
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2019 7:22 pm
Real Name: RCD

Re: Roger Martin - trial

Post by Vilified »

TMF wrote: Sun Jul 07, 2019 11:14 pm

Do you believe that Roger Martin was wrongfully convicted?
I do intend to write a bit about my own observations of Roger Martin, but as to that direct question, briefly: I cannot imagine that he would have committed any sexual assault on any boy, but have been searching high and low to find some detail as to what the actual prime accusation was and have found none, so without knowing the accusation or precise circumstances I'm very torn. I don't want to disrespect anyone who did suffer real assault, obviously, but I was deeply deeply shocked and disbelieving to hear that RM had been convinced and received a prison sentence.
Vilified
3rd Former
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2019 7:22 pm
Real Name: RCD

Re: Roger Martin - trial

Post by Vilified »

AMP wrote: Sun Jul 07, 2019 11:39 pm There wouldn't be all the historical cases there are today if there had been a whistleblowing policy and inappropriate behaviour properly dealt with.

If you had not been moved on with a good reference by Newsome, would you have had a long career in teaching?

Would you still retain your status as a qualified teacher had you perforated that boy's eardrum in 2006?
Yes, absolutely right. Phenomenal harm all round has been caused by cover-ups.

I did have a long career in teaching, did nothing but teach, mostly very successfully; and retired at the normal ages.

Probably no. To have used violence against a pupil in that way, when physical punishment has long been outlawed, would have been deemed completely unacceptable. I might not have been banned, but would no doubt have been severely reprimanded by any disciplinary panel. It would probably also be a police matter. However, at the time, such things were part of the regular way of life at most schools, and corporal punishment had a long way to run...
TMF
GE (Great Erasmus)
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2014 6:03 am
Real Name: TMF

Re: Roger Martin - trial

Post by TMF »

Vilified wrote: Sun Jul 07, 2019 8:26 pm 6. I did, by the way, inform the Common Room at dinner one evening as to the circumstances of my departure.
Did you inform your next school as to the circumstances of your departure from Christ's Hospital?
Vilified
3rd Former
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2019 7:22 pm
Real Name: RCD

Re: Roger Martin - trial

Post by Vilified »

TMF wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 5:36 am
Vilified wrote: Sun Jul 07, 2019 8:26 pm 6. I did, by the way, inform the Common Room at dinner one evening as to the circumstances of my departure.
Did you inform your next school as to the circumstances of your departure from Christ's Hospital?
Of course not!
TMF
GE (Great Erasmus)
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2014 6:03 am
Real Name: TMF

Re: Roger Martin - trial

Post by TMF »

Vilified wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 6:12 am Of course not!
but you say:
However, at the time, such things were part of the regular way of life at most schools, and corporal punishment had a long way to run...
...so I thought that you might have mentioned the actual circumstances. What did you say was your reason for leaving Christ's Hospital?
Vilified
3rd Former
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2019 7:22 pm
Real Name: RCD

Re: Roger Martin - trial

Post by Vilified »

TMF wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 6:41 am What did you say was your reason for leaving Christ's Hospital?
I think I mentioned the stress of living in a boarding house in close 24/7 proximity to the boys, the desire for more privacy, the wish to teach at a higher level, and of course the appeal of the outdoors, the proximity of the Welsh mountains... all of which was true; and would have been supported by Newsome. And all of which came to pass, as I rebuilt my life.
richardb
Forum Moderator
Posts: 886
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:23 pm
Real Name: Richard Bloomfield
Location: Tyne and Wear

Re: Roger Martin - trial

Post by richardb »

One needs to be very careful about impugning the verdict in Martin's trial. He was unanimously convicted by the jury.
Vilified
3rd Former
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2019 7:22 pm
Real Name: RCD

Re: Roger Martin - trial

Post by Vilified »

With regard to Roger Martin, I was his assistant resident in Barnes A for the two years I was at CH, so was obviously in a very good position to know how he worked. I don’t have the exact dates to hand, but roughly 1974-76.

First, he was utterly besotted with CH. He lived and breathed it and was devoted to it, to everything it stood for. And if I could put it like this, I think he saw it as his mission in life to serve the school, and that meant also the boys, particularly ‘the folks’ of Barnes A. He was their enabler, facilitator, encourager, and champion.

On the few occasions I fell out with him (in very minor ways) it was when he thought I’d treated a boy without the compassion he would have done. For example, I used to find one particular boy very difficult. He had considerable anger-management problems, and a real chip on his shoulder. I responded accordingly. Roger took me to task, and was quite angry with me. He explained that the boy had a very difficult and abusive home background and that it was my role to help him and make things better, not continue with confrontation.

He was fond of quoting CH legendary figures of whom he approved, and it may have been regarding the above incident, or may not… but he quoted someone (I think a previous headmaster) who rebuked an angry colleague who had described some boys as (let’s say, I can’t quite recall) ‘little sh1ts’, saying in response, ‘precious little sh1ts, for whom Christ died’. It summed up the attitude Roger felt that we should have towards even the most difficult boys. He exuded Christian compassion, though was not showy over his faith. But I do recall one occasion in chapel when he was moved to tears by a beautiful hymn celebrating Christ’s love in descending from heaven for us.

Once I caught a boy pinning a notice to my bedroom door with my newly-invented nickname on it, Pugwash. I gave the boy a detention. Roger said that it showed they liked me, that it was all just fun, and that I should take it as such. He tried to talk me out of the detention, but failed…

On another occasion I took part in a house cross-country race, and was head to head with the lead boy, and worked hard to beat him, narrowly succeeding. Again, this did not meet with Roger's approval, and he felt that I’d have done better to have let the boy win, to boost his confidence.
These are small indicators of his manner of thinking.

He did all he could to make the boys’ lives rewarding and interesting, and misdemeanours which did not involve unkindness to one another (such as the illicit brewing of beer) were all good fun and high spirits, to be tolerated and winked at.

He behaved in a relaxed and friendly way towards the boys but not slack or over-familiar. He had a sense of propriety. He would not, as far as I recall, for instance, follow Newsome’s lead (during his visitations) of lying on one of the beds whilst telling the boys ghost stories. And when one boy sitting in the window had called out to me ‘Hi, sir’, as I passed up the Avenue, Roger told the boy that this was not the correct way to behave; which I thought it was!

With regard to skinny-dipping, he sold this to me as a house tradition, which I thought was a bit eccentric but did not doubt, as CH seemed a very strange place to me; and I was roped in once to help transport some of the senior boys in my own car to Littlehampton where the boys could experience this. I think they all participated. I’m sure that he wouldn’t in any way have pressurised anyone to engage who didn’t want to; but no doubt there was peer pressure. Anyway, it happened. We just stood and chatted halfway up the beach. I can’t recall the exact details, but I think the boys probably undressed close to the sea, dashed in and out, got dressed, and that was that. Slightly daring, but all good clean harmless fun, as it seemed then. (For context, this was at a time in history when staff were expected and required as part of the job in many schools to supervise boys through the showers after games. I was told to do just that in my state grammar school within weeks of starting to teach, and this was normal practice in schools long after the skinny-dipping incident. Just see the film ‘Kes’ for an example!) So it did not seem the least bit voyeuristic or dodgy, though it may from a different world 40 years later!

And beyond that, nothing ever seen or heard to suggest any impropriety of any sort at any time between Roger and any of the boys.

So I am naturally extremely upset that his years of dedicated service to CH have led to prison. To me it is horrific. If he did indeed commit some act, it must surely have been an utterly uncharacteristic aberration. For that reason, it saddens me that many who had previously honoured him as I did, but with more reason than I had, should feel that they must now spurn those affectionate and grateful memories. Let each judge as he finds, and for myself, even despite this, I have nothing bad to say against Roger Martin, whatever may be true of those others with whose brush he has now been tarred.
Last edited by Vilified on Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Vilified
3rd Former
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2019 7:22 pm
Real Name: RCD

Re: Roger Martin - trial

Post by Vilified »

richardb wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 7:22 am One needs to be very careful about impugning the verdict in Martin's trial. He was unanimously convicted by the jury.
You seemed somewhat less convinced as to the validity of the jury's verdict in my case, when invited to uphold it by 'yamaha', I seem to recall. Odd.

It would help greatly to know what was proved against him. All I've garnered is that he encouraged skinny-dipping, that there was bum-sliding in the lav ends, and that he naively thought it OK to film naked boys cavorting around... but nothing as to the nature of any particular physical offence against any individual. I agree that in the wisdom of 40 years later this group stuff was all rather silly, even though RM's attitudes to these things had been formed by his own years as a Blue; but I can only speak from my own experience of him, and I really do think that he was innocent of voyeuristic intentions.
The jury may be 100% right in having weighed the evidence and followed the judge's instructions, and indeed the law as it stands; but that doesn't reduce my scepticism about applying the morality of a later period in history to an earlier one or my bafflement in trying to make sense of the whole situation.
Otter
GE (Great Erasmus)
Posts: 182
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:17 pm
Real Name: Stephen O'Rourke
Location: East Anglia

Re: Roger Martin - trial

Post by Otter »

I have total trust in the CH-related convictions, but I also understand Vilified’s points.

There can be no denying that historical cases are extremely hard to investigate and successfully prosecute, and it’s therefore highly satisfying when a conviction arises. But we can’t forget that all defendants are convicted/cleared by a group of non-legal experts with absolutely no accountability and no requirement to explain how they reached their decision.

Thus, innocent people can easily be convicted, and guilty people can easily go free.

As alluded to by Vilified immediately above, I don’t like the contradiction that once someone is convicted, it is preposterous to suggest that they might be wrongly convicted, yet when someone is acquitted, it’s fine to say they might still have done it.

Would it have been bad to suggest, in the immediate aftermath of the verdicts, that Stefan Kiszko or Angela Cannings might be innocent?

It’s also unfortunate that anyone who is ever acquitted, is never innocent for the rest of their life, only “not guilty”. Far from being innocent unless proven guilty, in this country the presumption of guilt lasts a lifetime as soon as there is any suspicion, even if no arrest, charge or conviction. This is attested by any Enhanced DBS check, where the Chief Constable can add any information s/he deems “relevant” (even if no arrest was ever made). Numerous failed appeals have shown this de facto means “all information they have ever held on you”: if you were suspected of assault but then found to have been in Australia at the time, the suspicion (with no explanation of why no further action was taken) will still appear on your Enhanced DBS check whenever you apply as a teacher, doctor, carer, etc.

I repeat that I believe the verdicts and that those convicted here were indeed factually guilty, but I respect others’ opinions and believe it should be permitted to question justice, as it is far from perfect.
richardb
Forum Moderator
Posts: 886
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:23 pm
Real Name: Richard Bloomfield
Location: Tyne and Wear

Re: Roger Martin - trial

Post by richardb »

Vilified wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 7:37 am
richardb wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 7:22 am One needs to be very careful about impugning the verdict in Martin's trial. He was unanimously convicted by the jury.
You seemed somewhat less convinced as to the validity of the jury's verdict in my case, when invited to uphold it by 'yamaha', I seem to recall. Odd.

It would help greatly to know what was proved against him. All I've garnered is that he encouraged skinny-dipping, that there was bum-sliding in the lav ends, and that he naively thought it OK to film naked boys cavorting around... but nothing as to the nature of any particular physical offence against any individual. I agree that in the wisdom of 40 years later this group stuff was all rather silly, even though RM's attitudes to these things had been formed by his own years as a Blue; but I can only speak from my own experience of him, and I really do think that he was innocent of voyeuristic intentions.
The jury may be 100% right in having weighed the evidence and followed the judge's instructions, and indeed the law as it stands; but that doesn't reduce my scepticism about applying the morality of a later period in history to an earlier one or my bafflement in trying to make sense of the whole situation.
Not odd at all.

Eleven jurors, having heard the evidence, were sure that he was guilty. Thirty five years of practice in the law tells me that that is good enough.

If you wish to impugn the verdict - having not heard the evidence - then feel free to do so. But make sure that you do not accuse the victim of lying as that would be defamatory.

I haven't heard all the evidence but have had an account from someone present throughout the trial. This was not a case of someone suddenly coming forward with allegations in 2017 and jumping on the bandwagon. The victim had been telling people about this at various times of the preceding 40 years.

And we aren't talking a morality point here. What Martin did was an offence under standards prevailing at the time, just as much a your assault which perforated that pupil's eardrum was at around the same time.

In truth all that you can say (as his character witnesses did) is that they do not believe that the Roger Martin that they knew was capable of the acts alleged against him.
richardb
Forum Moderator
Posts: 886
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:23 pm
Real Name: Richard Bloomfield
Location: Tyne and Wear

Re: Roger Martin - trial

Post by richardb »

Otter wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:21 am There can be no denying that historical cases are extremely hard to investigate and successfully prosecute,
One of the features of historic cases is that the victim has not suddenly got the idea in their head that they have been abused. Very often, the victim has disclsoed to family/friends/professional advisers for years that they have been abused. The police will seek out such evidence which tends to corroborate what the victim says.

In the mid 1980s, the victim was confiding in friends at University about what happened to him. So he has either invented it 35+ years ago or it is true.
Elvie
LE (Little Erasmus)
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2018 11:05 am
Real Name: Bal fobwell

Re: Roger Martin - trial

Post by Elvie »

Vilified wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 7:37 am
richardb wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 7:22 am One needs to be very careful about impugning the verdict in Martin's trial. He was unanimously convicted by the jury.


All I've garnered is that he encouraged skinny-dipping, that there was bum-sliding in the lav ends, and that he naively thought it OK to film naked boys cavorting around.
I liked the man and was surprised at the charge, I accept that times have changed somewhat, but filming boys naked is not naive, it’s disgusting
Otter
GE (Great Erasmus)
Posts: 182
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:17 pm
Real Name: Stephen O'Rourke
Location: East Anglia

Re: Roger Martin - trial

Post by Otter »

richardb wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:37 am
Otter wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:21 am There can be no denying that historical cases are extremely hard to investigate and successfully prosecute,
One of the features of historic cases is that the victim has not suddenly got the idea in their head that they have been abused. Very often, the victim has disclsoed to family/friends/professional advisers for years that they have been abused. The police will seek out such evidence which tends to corroborate what the victim says.

In the mid 1980s, the victim was confiding in friends at University about what happened to him. So he has either invented it 35+ years ago or it is true.
I fully agree with you and the guilty verdict.

But I would be interested to know why it’s never OK to question the validity of a guilty verdict, yet it’s always OK to question/ignore a not guilty verdict, and sometimes to insist/imply that they were guilty regardless.
richardb
Forum Moderator
Posts: 886
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:23 pm
Real Name: Richard Bloomfield
Location: Tyne and Wear

Re: Roger Martin - trial

Post by richardb »

He wasn't convicted of filming boys. That was relevant to show that Martin had an inappropriate interest in boys.

He was convicted of putting the pupil in his [Martin's] own bed and then touching his penis. The boy was 10 and very homesick.

That was demonstrably inappropriate, even in 1976.
Locked