Page 22 of 22
Re: Roger Martin - trial
Posted: Thu Jul 11, 2019 2:55 pm
by AMP
Pe.A wrote: Thu Jul 11, 2019 2:37 pm
AMP wrote: Thu Jul 11, 2019 10:41 am
harryh wrote: Wed Jul 10, 2019 9:29 pm
As usual, Andy, spot on.
Not quite.
This isn't the appropriate forum to eulogise about child abusers
How was anyone eulogising about child abusers...?
Read the thread.
Re: Roger Martin - trial
Posted: Thu Jul 11, 2019 3:00 pm
by AMP
Pe.A wrote: Thu Jul 11, 2019 2:42 pm
AMP wrote: Thu Jul 11, 2019 12:21 pm
Now you're getting angry again, calm down.
I have every right to ask you polite probing questions.
I don't know you, have never met you, and a lot of what you have posted is unverifiable, so forgive me if I don't just roll over.
And in response to another poster, anything I put on here I would quite happily say to their face, man to man.
Disingenuous. Its the angles your coming in from...
Disingenuous, I nearly used that word myself.
I will now withdraw and take anymore cheap shots on the chin
Re: Roger Martin - trial
Posted: Thu Jul 11, 2019 3:05 pm
by harryh
What is the classic line from Frozen?
Before I get accused (again!!!) of flippancy, think about it, one and all...
"LET IT GO! LET IT GO!"
Re: Roger Martin - trial
Posted: Thu Jul 11, 2019 3:15 pm
by TMF
Despite the instinctive burying...
I remain interested in the unanswered question about drinking to excess with colleagues and pupils.
Do any of the staff or ex-staff have comments on this topic? Is it simply part of the culture?
Re: Roger Martin - trial
Posted: Thu Jul 11, 2019 3:22 pm
by jtaylor
I have locked this topic, as suggested by a previous poster and by a number of PMs I’ve received.
Tempers and feelings are running high, and I feel that a lot has been said, often quite aggressively, which may be regretted and/or seen to be trolling/bullying - and as anyone who’s spent enough time online in forums will know much is lost in the online text medium, vs proper conversation.
I do not have the time, unless pushed, to try to separate what’s ok and what’s not in this topic - so my current thought is to remove/hide this topic completely later this evening, but I welcome any brief PMs on what should ideally be done with it.
Julian
Admin/Founder
Re: Roger Martin - trial
Posted: Thu Jul 11, 2019 6:00 pm
by jtaylor
From Rob Totterdell, posted on his behalf:-
Statement to the Unofficial CH Forum
I have been made aware of and have now read some posts that have been mad concerning the Roger Martin trial.
I can confirm that I attended at the trial for its full length other than the Thursday when he was found guilty by a unanimous verdict of the Jury and subsequently sentenced.
During the trial Mr Martin’s wife attended on the days she could which was not all of the days and missed critical evidence. Another person turned up and witnessed pretty much the defence case and summing up.
I can state that Her Honour Judge Henson was unequivocal in her fairness and ensured that Mr Martin was well treated and cared for – it was very hot and she went out of her way to ensure he was well and was able to cope.
I can confirm that she advised the Jury both at the start of the trial and again at the end that ‘the burden of proof lied with the prosecution – the defence had to prove nothing at all’.
This case was non recent (it is no longer called Historical whilst survivors of the events remain alive) and there was no evidence that the hearing was weighed in favour of the prosecution – if anything it felt like the defence had the benefit of doubt – that was until Martin spoke.
I can confirm that one of the key basis of defence was that it could have been another master who committed the abuse. This master could have been in Barnes A or Barnes B because of the interlinking corridors.
The masters at that time in the Michaelmas term of 1976 were:
Barnes A: R Martin, R C Durrant, C.R. Watters
Barnes B: J N M Goodall, P J H Webb, I H Torkington.
Mr Watters lived out.
It was very clear that the defence wished and did suggest that it was one of the others who lived in the house and not Mr Martin who committed the abuse.
At the start of the trial the defence considered calling Mr Webb but decided better of it – I would assume from the private direction of Judge Henson.
I have provided information based on what happened at the trial. If anyone wants to question this then they are able to go directly to CH who had a pupil barrister taking notes for them or to the Court Records Office.
I am both saddened but, also, amazed that some persons posting on the Unofficial Forum Site have suggested that other forum contributors have falsely reported what happened at the trial – they did this based on my attendance records and I will not allow anyone to suggest that I have deliberately or wilfully lied in my reporting of these events.
I ask that when posting you respect others points of view but do not throw insults or get aggressive because you don’t like that point of view. I also request and require that if you do not know the facts you be very careful in what you state.
Robert Totterdell an abuse victim of Peter Burr, Maine A 1969 – 1972 , Mid A 1972 to 1976.