Unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum

AMP wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2019 4:53 pm Thank you Richarddb for such an informative post which has answered my remaining questions

The disclosure to the jury is unusual I think, unless the defence claim their client is a person of good character, but now you explain it, it makes perfect sense.

I hope he does not try to use that as a basis for an appeal

He won't get anywhere appealing on that basis.

I am surprised he didn't plead guilty to these charges. It would have made little difference to the length of his sentence, allowing for credit his guilty plea. But it would have allowed his defence barrister to say he was showing remorse. Instead he has been shown to be just a bare faced liar.

Something that has been discussed before is how the press now cover trials.
It is not at all uncommon for the press to turn up to hear the prosecution opening when the prosecutor tells the court in detail what the case is all about and not be seen until the verdicts.
The opening gives the case all in one go.
Sometimes they will cover particular aspects - the victims evidence or the defendants evidence.
I believe that they covered the victims evidence in this case and then all left.
The early coverage of the verdicts gave the appearance of being agency copy, ie syndicated copy.
When the member of staff gave evidence, I don't believe the press were in court. There does not appear to be any restriction on the reporting of his name.
I prefer not to name him as I don't know the full circumstances and I cannot fairly narrate them.

Completely agree Richard DB

Maybe he fancied a few days out?

Maybe he enjoyed reliving the evidence?

I suspect it is because he cannot face up to what he done and has no insight into the distress and damage he has caused.

Pleading not guilty enables him to perpetuate the denial to friends and family

You were spot on with the JAH sentence, any idea how long he will get?

That’s helpful insight, thank you Richard. I completely understand (and respect) you not wanting to name him.

i predict 21 years

You are quite right about sex offenders wanting to perpetuate denials of the offences. They would rather claim to be wrongly convicted than admit what they have done.

I don't know the precise detail of Dobbie's offending but I don't believe it involved penetration. Previously I had it at around 14-15 years but I think it is now around 17-18 years.

richardb wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2019 4:09 pmThe jury was told of his previous convictions but that was not done until Monday and was not covered by the press and so the forum could not rely upon the newspaper reports to inform you of that.

In regard to this, were the press barred from reporting Dobbie's earlier conviction when reporting about this trial? I noticed that none of the media articles mentioned last year's conviction, despite it being widely in the public domain.

If there wasn't a media ban on mentioning his earlier conviction, then the failure to mention it seems unusual, since in those trials of high-profile individuals a few years ago, there were a couple who were already convicted and then faced further charges, and during those subsequent trials, the earlier convictions were mentioned openly.

DazedandConfused wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2019 4:55 pmI’m amazed he still has people he can call upon to be character witnesses. They must be aware of his previous convictions so one must assume they believe him innocent of those also.

I remember after Karim was convicted, one of Karim's colleagues at the tennis club said he would still not hesitate to leave his children with Karim.

Some family/friends just can't/won't believe their loved one capable of doing this kind of thing, even if it is proven that they did.

PS, the conclusion of the trial has now reached more media outlets, such as the BBC. It is being reported that sentencing is on 12 June.

Out once he has served 50%?

On the same day as Husband

Another G and T Dobbie?

Welcome back Richard, and I really appreciated our one to one chats and messages of the past weeks.

Thanks for the phone call chat lunchtime, when I was sitting on the beach at Ferring, looking out over the English Channel, My whoop of joy did startle a few pensioners taking in the sea air on receipt of your original text.

Now I can have my say without fear of upsetting people on here.

Much has been said that Dobbie's proclivities were well known around the school during his tenure. I have absolutely no doubt this was true having been able to see snippets of the evidence this week. I will now go much further to say that there was a conspiracy by staff to cover up what was OBVIOUSLY going on.

I was criticised on here recently for singing ther praises of C.M.E. Seaman as HM during my time at Horsham. Somewhat strange that after his departure, a raft of HM's came and went very quickly, probably trying to dodge the conspiracy of silence or realising the possible implications, IF the balloon did go up.

I do however, don't think we have heard the end of Dobbie, and possibly others.

Sentence ? Given his age, probably 17-18 years.

My view ? He should die in prison, a disgraced man of God, teacher and supposed protector of youth.

I could extend my personal views on what I believe the sentence SHOULD be, but many of you know my right-wing views on crime and punishment, so I won't offend the labour/liberals on here. Each to there own.

FINALLY: My thoughts and feelings for the abused will always be with me. For their courage in coming forward and having to endure the defence instructions from Dobbie, indicating his complete innocence,

Q.E.D.

AMP wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2019 5:56 pm Out once he has served 50%?

On the same day as Husband

Another G and T Dobbie?

Yes, 50% release point.

Another G&T Dobbie? ". He will be too old for anything else by then.

Otter wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2019 5:55 pm

richardb wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2019 4:09 pmThe jury was told of his previous convictions but that was not done until Monday and was not covered by the press and so the forum could not rely upon the newspaper reports to inform you of that.

In regard to this, were the press barred from reporting Dobbie's earlier conviction when reporting about this trial? I noticed that none of the media articles mentioned last year's conviction, despite it being widely in the public domain.

If there wasn't a media ban on mentioning his earlier conviction, then the failure to mention it seems unusual, since in those trials of high-profile individuals a few years ago, there were a couple who were already convicted and then faced further charges, and during those subsequent trials, the earlier convictions were mentioned openly.

DazedandConfused wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2019 4:55 pmI’m amazed he still has people he can call upon to be character witnesses. They must be aware of his previous convictions so one must assume they believe him innocent of those also.

I remember after Karim was convicted, one of Karim's colleagues at the tennis club said he would still not hesitate to leave his children with Karim.

Some family/friends just can't/won't believe their loved one capable of doing this kind of thing, even if it is proven that they did.

PS, the conclusion of the trial has now reached more media outlets, such as the BBC. It is being reported that sentencing is on 12 June.

There was no media ban on reporting Dobbie's convictions. The convention, however, is that "bad character applications" aren't determined until near the end of the prosecution case.

So it is unlikely that the previous convictions were mentioned in the prosecution opening. Until spoken about in open court the press cannot report on them.

I am told that the jury was given a long list of information including all the details on Monday of this week by which time the press were noticeably absent.

JR,

I think some members of staff covered up, but it may well be that it was the staff that mattered. It is clear that not all members of staff were involved in the conspiracy.

Doubtless Dobbie relied upon his cloak of goodness to repel any allegations against him.

The BBC is carrying a report https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-48151635 but doesn’t mention he was a Chaplain, neither in this year’s report nor in the linked last year’s one. I would have expected that to be included as in many minds it makes the crimes seem even worse.

The BBC always downplays sexual abuse. Remember Savile.

It’s irritated me from the start that he’s not been titled Revd. And scant mention of being a chaplain.
I would hope the church would release a statement, and he’d be de-frocked for his appalling breach of trust and horrific offences to young vulnerable kids away from home, turning to the person who was SUPPOSED to be a primary pastoral care responsible person at the school.
When I went to him, all he wanted to do was get me to tell him about any sexual activities I’d been involved with. No care, no empathy, and made me feel significantly worse.

Guilty 100% in my view, and now the court’s view too, in every way.

He should never leave prison.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk