Unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum

Not sure if he gave evidence, but Sillett's name came up:

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/16149552 ... llegations___/

When JAH was dismissed (1994), RP, EC and RS were all in post. RP left in 1996 and I believe the earliest accusations against GD are from 1998. But I can't believe that they wouldn't be part of the case against JAH.

I think it likely they got a statement from Sillett confirming that Husband admitted having sex with 17 year olds.

Did Husband go back into teaching? I heard somehow that he was a lorry driver after being sacked but it would be good to be assured

Husband was born in Yorkshire and appears to have returned to his roots.

An Andrew Husband has been Town Clerk of Puckering Town Council which is on the North Yorkshire Moors.

I haven't seen Husband for more than 40 years and have no idea what he looks like.

This is Andrew Husband of Pickering Town Council:

https://www.pickering-rotary.org.uk/hom ... -phf-award


I can't say for sure that it is the same person but to me there is some resemblance.

I am sure it is all an unfortunate coincidence but Andrew Husband of Pickering Town Council is Mr JA Husband. Over the last 3-4 weeks his duties have been performed by an Acting Town Clerk.

How odd.

Yes, that's him in the Pickering photo. There are various photos of him arriving at/leaving court. https://www.wscountytimes.co.uk/news/cr ... -1-8137667

I think that the Pickering photo is him, in which case he has been Town Clerk since no later than 2001.

He obviously needs time off to deal with his personal business.

I am puzzled that the press have not reported his current occupation. I assume that he will have "paid in" his good character and will have character references from the good and great of Pickering.

Opinion seems to think that the Judges summing up could be at the end of this week.

According to Xhibit, the case for Husband closed at 12.32. Suggests that he did not call any witnesses apart from himself and character witnesses.

I imagine we haven’t heard the last about JAH though.

The cases will have been joined for a reason, and based on what the press have told us about dates it’s unlikely to be a common complainant, leading me to suspect that the nexus must be this “beard rash” business.

jakew wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2018 6:39 pm I imagine we haven’t heard the last about JAH though.

The cases will have been joined for a reason, and based on what the press have told us about dates it’s unlikely to be a common complainant, leading me to suspect that the nexus must be this “beard rash” business.

I think you are right Jake.

There’s a point of proceedure I’m unsure about though.

In a joined case, if defendant #1 has already concluded their defence, and defendant #2 proceeds to sell #1 down the river, does #1 have right of reply? Or is there a real advantage to batting second?