Simon Dobbin Verdicts

[THE SEVENTIES NORTH BANK]

In general terms I guess the issue comes down to the burden of proof. The defense don't have to prove anything. It is up to the prosecution to prove a person's guilt. It is not up to the defense to prove innocence. Therefore a defendant has the right not to give evidence.

However, specifically to this case: if there were any legal justification for what they did then they should have defended themselves.

I think they all didn't want to answer questions as they didn't want to incriminate others. There was no CCTV of the fight. It was dark and witnesses couldn't say which of them attacked Simon Dobbin. So they probably thought it was there best line of defence without dropping others in it. It's pretty obvious that all those defendants and the missing twelve(according to the detective) didn't all attack Simon, it sounds like two or three did. They basically all got umbrella sentences as the real attackers couldn't be identified.

 

[londonblue]

I think they all didn't want to answer questions as they didn't want to incriminate others. There was no CCTV of the fight. It was dark and witnesses couldn't say which of them attacked Simon Dobbin. So they probably thought it was there best line of defence without dropping others in it. It's pretty obvious that all those defendants and the missing twelve(according to the detective) didn't all attack Simon, it sounds like two or three did. They basically all got umbrella sentences as the real attackers couldn't be identified.

Then more fool them because I doubt very much their lawyers would have told them to do that. Maybe they should all have been charged with peverting the course of justice as well.

 

[Rob49]

I think they all didn't want to answer questions as they didn't want to incriminate others. There was no CCTV of the fight. It was dark and witnesses couldn't say which of them attacked Simon Dobbin. So they probably thought it was there best line of defence without dropping others in it. It's pretty obvious that all those defendants and the missing twelve(according to the detective) didn't all attack Simon, it sounds like two or three did. They basically all got umbrella sentences as the real attackers couldn't be identified.

they all had the opportunity to explain their alleged innocence during police interviews and at the court proceedings. They failed to do so.
Those especially with the blood on their clothing of poor SD were bviously very close to the atta k or worse!

 

[Sussex Shrimper]

I've nothing to add regarding the incident or verdicts themselves other than that the whole business is desperately sad, which feels trite and insufficient.

I've read a few times in the thread that this casts a shadow over the club and wanted to respond to that, as it irks me a bit. Southend United FC has no power whatsoever to stop people like these claiming an association with it. What the club can do is to take ownership of what happens on its premises and respond accordingly. Ron has stated that all of the convicted will receive lifetime bans and not darken our doorway again. Likewise, with the trouble at the Essex Derby a couple of seasons ago we did all that could reasonably have been expected in terms of condemnation, assistance to the police and ensuring that the man responsible isn't seen in our ground again.

When it comes to doing those things that are within our control, I don't think that we need feel ashamed of our club's record in relation to fan conduct in the slightest.

 

[rigsby]

they should if they saw who committed GBH and haven't come forward with information

Lets hope you keep your new found high and mighty morals when you next set off to be a hunt saboteur. Remember you said violence would be justified. No doubt you and your friends will be queueing to give statements to the police about each other.

 

[Rob49]

Anyone who knows that the are innocent and they believe that they are clearly innocent of any of the charges remains silent during police interviews as well as court proceedings. A normal person would protest it and provide clear evidence of it.
this failed to happen.

 

[united we stand]

In general terms I guess the issue comes down to the burden of proof. The defense don't have to prove anything. It is up to the prosecution to prove a person's guilt. It is not up to the defense to prove innocence. Therefore a defendant has the right not to give evidence.

However, specifically to this case: if there were any legal justification for what they did then they should have defended themselves.

I know they have the right to say nothing, and the jury has the right to interept that silence in any way. I keep coming back to the same point- if you are innocent then do everything in your power to make the jury see that.

 

[rigsby]

Anyone who knows that the are innocent and they believe that they are clearly innocent of any of the charges remains silent during police interviews as well as court proceedings. A normal person would protest it and provide clear evidence of it.
this failed to happen.

I know they have the right to say nothing, and the jury has the right to interept that silence in any way. I keep coming back rob he same point- if you are innocent then do everything in your power to make the jury see that.

2 great examples of why the Jury system is so flawed. Not just for the accused but so often for the victim.

 

[davewebbsbrain]

I know they have the right to say nothing, and the jury has the right to interept that silence in any way. I keep coming back rob he same point- if you are innocent then do everything in your power to make the jury see that.

It doesn't matter how innocent someone is. The prosecution are past masters of twisting everything an innocent person says to convince the jury that they are guilty. Happens time and time again

 

[rigsby]

I know they have the right to say nothing, and the jury has the right to interept that silence in any way. I keep coming back rob he same point- if you are innocent then do everything in your power to make the jury see that.

Equally the prosecution will do everything in their power to make you look guilty. You should try reading the court transcripts of the one person who did take the stand. Because he dismissed a txt with a CS Gas crew calling card as just banter there were 'gasps' from the public gallery.

Not sure what relevance txts to 2 different girl friends had to do with conspiracy or the assault. Other than to make a certain negative impression on the jury.

 

[Napster]

2 great examples of why the Jury system is so flawed. Not just for the accused but so often for the victim.

it's not flawed, it's too perfect. the jury is made up of your peers. Most of the time that means they're thick as mince.

 

[rigsby]

it's not flawed, it's too perfect. the jury is made up of your peers. Most of the time that means they're thick as mince.

Someone described it as being judged by 12 people who are to stupid to get out of jury service.

 

[rigsby]

Funny, and there's me thinking the main focus of this forum is all matters connected with Southend United, but in particular the team and the club's ambitions. What next, a debate on who shot JFK?

At the end of the day if this is what a large proportion of zoners want to read, then fine by me; but I don't expect to see any football related threads closed by moderators in the future without a damn good reason.

If JFK had been shot on his way to Prittlewell Station from an upper window in the Railway pub, then yes it would be discussed on here.

 

[Richard Hearn]

If JFK had been shot on his way to Prittlewell Station from an upper window in the Railway pub, then yes it would be discussed on here.

Where was he shot then?

 

[Napster]

Where was he shot then?

in the head. :smile:

 

[Richard Hearn]

in the head. :smile:

And in the Dealey Plaza too, so I'm told. If anything that is probably even more painful.

 

[kaymac]

it's not flawed, it's too perfect. the jury is made up of your peers. Most of the time that means they're thick as mince.

That from your experience of juries.....or just wild conjecture?

 

[Napster]

That from your experience of juries.....or just wild conjecture?

somewhere in between.

 

[kaymac]

Were you the brain or the mince ?

 

[MK Shrimper]

I've been a foreman on a jury. One old woman fell asleep during the trial and just went along with everyone else to save time, one spoke about the case to his brother despite being told not to as it could result in a mistrial (and he was a psychologist IIRC), but the other 9 seemed fairly clued up.

It's a big deal pronouncing someone guilty and screwing up the lives of those convicted (and in my case we probably got kids taken into care as well as imprisoning a mother). Previous convictions are not disclosed until after the verdict so the jury wouldn't have known the some of the accused had a history of violence.