Unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum

J.R. wrote: Fri Jul 27, 2018 1:50 pm

richardb wrote: Fri Jul 27, 2018 10:15 am To put a bit more background on the day of sentence, I have now worked out that the older woman who attended as a supporter of Husband is his first wife who was a matron at the school.

Educated guess is that he stayed with her during the trial.

Which in itself I find strange given her husbands departure from CH and later family life.

In her position, if my daughter wished to attend then I would be there to support her irrespective of my feelings towards her father.

It makes sense for her to be his daughter. A very prolific writer during the hearing. Even more so than young Richard, which leads me to wonder if, (a) she's preparing a book, or (b) planning an appeal.

As I don't use Facebook, I have no knowledge if she has since made any direct reference on there to the sentence hearing.

Is it acceptable to share what she wrote on Facebook on here? Not a complete copy + paste but a summary. It was posted on the OB group so not on her private profile.

I'd like to read it. If its something she's put into the public domain there can be little harm unless it disparage Husbands victims or demean his crimes?

Scazza wrote: Sat Jul 28, 2018 4:48 pm I'd like to read it. If its something she's put into the public domain there can be little harm unless it disparage Husbands victims or demean his crimes?

My point exactly Scazza , but I refuse to use Farcebook.

Scazza wrote: Sat Jul 28, 2018 4:48 pm I'd like to read it. If its something she's put into the public domain there can be little harm unless it disparage Husbands victims or demean his crimes?

It will do one or the other as she is hardly likely to acknowledge his crimes.

I too would like to see what she has said but not if it offends anyone.

So, if this has been posted publicly on Farcebook for all the world and his sister to see, why can't someone with Farcebook access cut and paste it on here ?

What do you think, Richard ?

I would like to see it first, in case it is offensive.

richardb wrote: Sat Jul 28, 2018 5:15 pm I would like to see it first, in case it is offensive.

Then surely, we as Moderators could respectfully request a Forum member who has seen it and still has access to it, to cut and paste to us, and let us decide if it could or should be made public on here without breaching legal issues.

richardb wrote: Sat Jul 28, 2018 5:15 pm I would like to see it first, in case it is offensive.

Richard I think you’ve already seen it as you added comments directly underneath hers, although you were replying to the original comment rather than to hers.

I fear it will be an anti-climax as it was nothing groundbreaking, nor offensive in any way other than an implied refusal to accept his guilt, which I think you’d have to be pretty cold hearted not to understand given her relationship to him.

I’m trying to be sensitive and avoid the wrath of the forum moderators. I’ve heard they can be terrifying when riled

Ah, sod it. The mods can delete if required

The comments were in response to a post about the convictions and that the defendants had requested limits on the media reporting. 3 comments in total:

“Wow”
“Irrelevant now I know, but given the climate chances of unbiased press reporting are zero.”
“For record, three charges dropped. Matter of public fact that wasn’t reported at all by media.”

As I said, likely an anti-climax but definitely on the defensive of her father IMHO.

DazedandConfused wrote: Sat Jul 28, 2018 7:14 pm Ah, sod it. The mods can delete if required

The comments were in response to a post about the convictions and that the defendants had requested limits on the media reporting. 3 comments in total:

“Wow”
“Irrelevant now I know, but given the climate chances of unbiased press reporting are zero.”
“For record, three charges dropped. Matter of public fact that wasn’t reported at all by media.”

As I said, likely an anti-climax but definitely on the defensive of her father IMHO.

Seems a bit blinkered given her father was convicted of raping a girl her age, or younger, and also had flings with other young girls (which would now be illegal due to the breach of his position of trust). Did she expect press coverage to be anything but damning?

Interesting to know which charges were dropped but that isn't exactly unusual, or evidence of being less guilty.

Scazza wrote: Sat Jul 28, 2018 8:50 pm

DazedandConfused wrote: Sat Jul 28, 2018 7:14 pm Ah, sod it. The mods can delete if required

The comments were in response to a post about the convictions and that the defendants had requested limits on the media reporting. 3 comments in total:

“Wow”
“Irrelevant now I know, but given the climate chances of unbiased press reporting are zero.”
“For record, three charges dropped. Matter of public fact that wasn’t reported at all by media.”

As I said, likely an anti-climax but definitely on the defensive of her father IMHO.

Seems a bit blinkered given her father was convicted of raping a girl her age, or younger, and also had flings with other young girls (which would now be illegal due to the breach of his position of trust). Did she expect press coverage to be anything but damning?

Interesting to know which charges were dropped but that isn't exactly unusual, or evidence of being less guilty.

There was another comment, which I am not going to repeat here, which was deleted, perhaps my her or by someone else and more specifically related to events at the trial. It was an appalling comment for her to have made, all I would say is she clearly believes her father to be innocent and regards the media as 'biased' against rapists, which I suppose they are, and should be.

She also made another comment claiming that Husband's conviction(s) were by majority verdict not unanimous. I don't know if this is true or not.