Unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum

Keep your friends close, and your enemies even closer.....

Some may have been staying “friends” in order to see what others are saying. I do that in terms of following political figures and commentators I vehemently disagree with - mainly to ensure I don’t exist in my own echo chamber, but also also to stay informed about what others are enthusiastically supporting and following.

Know your enemy....

(Edit:- Just realised I’m still “friends” with him and a number of other CH staff from my time. I plan to leave that as-is I think - see if anyone takes over his account, given there’s still some out there who unbelievably think he’s innocent!)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He has not bothered to lock down the security on that account at all.

It's a free for all.

Watch out for much more graffiti

richardb wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2019 1:31 pm

AMP wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2019 1:30 pm An interesting comment from one person regarding Shrewsbury School

What does it say?

Sent you a PM, might be libellous

You are right. The school might take action so best not posted on open forum.

If you look at his Facebook account, you can see what is posted even if you are not his "friend".

Some shocking allegations which cannot be published here about Shrewsbury School. One of the posters is appears to be a Shrewsbury resident.

'Nuff said.

Are the 'character witnesses' and their relationship to Dobbie now a matter of public record via an official transcript of the trial?

One thing we'll never know is the motivation and orientation of the jurors who stuck out for not guilty forcing the judge to call for a majority verdict.

“Orientation”?

J

postwarblue wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2019 3:48 pm Are the 'character witnesses' and their relationship to Dobbie now a matter of public record via an official transcript of the trial?

One thing we'll never know is the motivation and orientation of the jurors who stuck out for not guilty forcing the judge to call for a majority verdict.

There may have been one or two who obstinately refused to convict because there was no CCTV of the actual crime, such as in the first Phil Spector trial, even though the evidence was overwhelming

postwarblue wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2019 3:48 pm Are the 'character witnesses' and their relationship to Dobbie now a matter of public record via an official transcript of the trial?

One thing we'll never know is the motivation and orientation of the jurors who stuck out for not guilty forcing the judge to call for a majority verdict.

The names and nature of the evidence given by witnesses are now in the public domain. You can obtain transcripts if you can justify why you want it.

The only exception is that you can't publicly identify the victim. He has lifelong anonymity.

Dobbie was plausible. Despite last year's conviction there were still supposedly educated people who believed in him and his innocence. By a process of elimination it appears that two had connections to CH and one to Shrewsbury.

It is very telling that the majority of the jury saw through him where his character witnesses did not.

richardb wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2019 6:04 pm You are missing the point.

It's the friendships they forge once at the school and the protection those friendships can give. Those are what matters.

Quite so, and so near to conspiracy, in my book. Richard.

postwarblue wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2019 3:48 pmOne thing we'll never know is the motivation and orientation of the jurors who stuck out for not guilty forcing the judge to call for a majority verdict.

I have been on a jury.

Holding out for not guilty doesn’t mean you don’t believe the defendant is guilty. It could just mean that, in your opinion, there is a bit of reasonable doubt.

You don’t reach a verdict based on your gut-instinct assessment of someone’s personality or deviousness, even if they are the slimiest person you’ve ever seen. You reach a verdict solely on the evidence presented at trial. At least you should - the fact that a jury has 12 people means the occasional judgmental or bigoted juror will hopefully be overruled and persuaded.

In the case I was a juror on, it was a not guilty verdict. The defendant was a bad egg and we were confident that they were guilty - but the evidence was not watertight and left reasonable doubt. That’s all you can do. It’s not about what you think in your heart.

Do you have to believe in someone's innocence to be called as a character witness? Can't you say: As appalled as I am by these accusations I can only say that X was a great help to me at a difficult time, and I never felt uncomfortable in his/her presence? Or, for example: Ronnie and Reggie were a great help to my ageing mother in obtaining better accommodation after the unexpected death of the previous occupant? You are only stating it as you saw it.

Goatherd wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2019 4:41 pm Do you have to believe in someone's innocence to be called as a character witness? Can't you say: As appalled as I am by these accusations I can only say that X was a great help to me at a difficult time, and I never felt uncomfortable in his/her presence? Or, for example: Ronnie and Reggie were a great help to my ageing mother in obtaining better accommodation after the unexpected death of the previous occupant? You are only stating it as you saw it.

The point of a character witness is to say what a decent person the accused is with implication that his character is such that he is not the sort of man who would commit the offence charged.

You don't have to believe in his innocence, but if you don't then your evidence isn't entirely truthful and you shouldn't be giving it.

Thanks. I was just trying to understand/justify why people might stand up in court and offer that support.

Character Witness? Here's an employment reference:

"I have known Ronnie Biggs for years, he is very experienced, punctual, in good health and is well-liked. I know of many great jobs he's done, and he is used to the responsibility of handling large quantities of cash."