Simon Dobbin Verdicts

[jaffa1]

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.

Given.....I was a juror about 10 years ago! It was at Snaresbrook Crown Court and while I had the most boring case in history (that dragged on for 3 weeks) chaos ensued around me. There was a gang fight in one court, a fella escaped from another (helicopter circled the grounds for ages) and a certain A Ferdinand appeared, and was cleared, of an assault outside Faces nightclub.

 

[Beefy]

Indeed, so why is that incident part of the prosecution case and why are the morning text messages part of it, as well?

Because the prosecution case was that what happened outside the railway was retaliation for what happened in the Spread. The prosecution was related to the fight/assault/whatever you want to call it outside the Railway.

I doubt you'll find anyone who would argue against the idea that the ***** causing issues in the Spread should have been dealt with by the authorities but that wasn't the incident that this prosecution related to.

 

[rigsby]

Simple, solicitors make copious notes of any/all discussion with clients; they do this so as the client can not claim "bad advice/wasn't told etc" later. It is BASIC client/solicitor stuff.
The solicitor gives advice on the information the client supplies, the advice is legal and contains theoretical "what if" scenarios as to cause and effect; this would change as the case progresses.
If there was just 1 defendant then perhaps, maybe,just maybe your "bad advice" may have some point but with so many solicitors involved the odds are extremely unlikely.

So how do you know that any of the accused ignored legal advice. As we are guessing I would say its more likely they listened and choose not to give evidence.

I have been arrested twice by Southend police and spent the night in the cells. Even though I was not guilty, on both occasions I took legal advice and made no comment. I was released both times without charge.

On another occasion I was interviewed about an alleged hit and run in London about 3 months after the event. I can only assume it was a case of cloned number plates. Again I was advised to say no comment even though I was in a pub with other witnesses at the time who would of definitely remembered because England were playing their first group match v Tunisia in WC 1998 on that very afternoon.

 

[AndyT]

Point taken 'Beefy' and it's a fair one.

I'm just surprised that the prosecution needed the Spread incident as part of it's case. There seemed enough evidence from the Blue Boar and The Railway to suggest they might have a case against some people.

To spread the net over the whole day surely incriminates those from Cambridge, as well and allow the defence to form a reasoned argument.

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

So how do you know that any of the accused ignored legal advice. As we are guessing I would say its more likely they listened and choose not to give evidence.

I have been arrested twice by Southend police and spent the night in the cells. Even though I was not guilty, on both occasions I took legal advice and made no comment. I was released both times without charge.

On another occasion I was interviewed about an alleged hit and run in London about 3 months after the event. I can only assume it was a case of cloned number plates. Again I was advised to say no comment even though I was in a pub with other witnesses at the time who would of definitely remembered because England were playing their first group match v Tunisia in WC 1998 on that very afternoon.

No where do I state, or guess that they ignored given advice; indeed it is very unlikely as they would have advice on "if" they answered/commented & advise on "if they didn't", and advise on written replies, forensic inferences etc.

As for personal history it is reassuring to know you were released with no charge when you were innocent, that you got legal advice, and that it assisted your positive outcome.

 

[Firestorm]

Point taken 'Beefy' and it's a fair one.

I'm just surprised that the prosecution needed the Spread incident as part of it's case. There seemed enough evidence from the Blue Boar and The Railway to suggest they might have a case against some people.

To spread the net over the whole day surely incriminates those from Cambridge, as well and allow the defence to form a reasoned argument.

Any argument about the earlier events being Mitigation would have been seized upon by the prosecution as evidence of conspiracy.
You only have to see the number of times they refer to the two who were involved in earlier trouble....

Whether or not they could be bothered to track down the Cambridge fans involved in all the ructions of the day is , unfortunately of little relevance to this actual charge.
The police had a serious assault to investigate, had many witnesses from the area of the assault but couldn't get positive ids on the attackers, so went for lesser charges for those they could place in the vicinity at the time.

it does appear that they haven't given up on pinning down the actual assailant

 

[Lord Football]

So how do you know that any of the accused ignored legal advice. As we are guessing I would say its more likely they listened and choose not to give evidence.

I have been arrested twice by Southend police and spent the night in the cells. Even though I was not guilty, on both occasions I took legal advice and made no comment. I was released both times without charge.

On another occasion I was interviewed about an alleged hit and run in London about 3 months after the event. I can only assume it was a case of cloned number plates. Again I was advised to say no comment even though I was in a pub with other witnesses at the time who would of definitely remembered because England were playing their first group match v Tunisia in WC 1998 on that very afternoon.

I think you need to differentiate between silence during police questions and remaining silence in a court of law.

In the police questioning scenario you were in, the police are hoping you will provide them with something to assist their evidence collection. Given the police have a set time to make a charge, your silence makes that job harder. So, in this case staying silent may see you released without charge. In many cases a duty solicitor will advise you stay silent because they walk into the case absolutely cold with no facts at all. In many cases it is the only advice they can give.

Once you are in the court it is a different matter because by this time the police have sufficient evidence, supported by CPS, to lay charges and seek prosecution. The advice given by your solicitor or barrister will in most cases (and including this one) be based on being full knowledge of the evidence, witness statements and comments from the accused. If a silence defence is used it is generally done so to avoid incriminating yourself, you are deemed as not being able to take the stand or a tactic because the evidence may not stand up.

The latter of course is a risk, because you are wholly reliant on the case collapsing without your involvement. That may be what the thinking was in this case given the complexity nature of the charges laid and the number of people charged.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I have never claimed X Y or Z is innocent.

What I am not happy with is how the case was presented. Right from the start it has done all of us Southend fans no favours. Groups of Southend fans masked up looking for innocent small groups of away fans was never why or how the attack on Simon Dobbin unfolded. Even the speech at the end by the police saying the investigation is still ongoing implies that at least 12 other people are involved and Southend fans and Railway regulars are maintaining a wall of silence. How will that look to most Cambridge fans ?

This will be because why the attack unfolded is irrelevant.

I don't see why you are so hung up about it as it in no way excuses or mitigates the attack that then followed.

 

[rigsby]

This will be because why the attack unfolded is irrelevant.

I don't see why you are so hung up about it as it in no way excuses or mitigates the attack that then followed.

So why are people avoiding the Cambridge friendly. Sure the attack on Simone Dobbin should legally not excuse or mitigate a revenge attack on any Shrimpers. But we all know the rules of life and that's why people won't be going.

To claim one event has no bearing on another, especially when it comes to football, is dangerously naïve.

The police on the day decided to stand down at 19:00 because they thought job done with the idiots back on their coaches. What they should have done is gone into the Blue Boar and said right lads drink up because with all that has gone on today we are going to escort you to Southend Vic and put you on a train. As we don't want to risk any further trouble and for your own safety we don't want you walking past a pub that has been attacked several times today by those idiots who came on the coaches.........And no one would have ever heard of Simon Dobbin.

 

[EastStandBlue]

What I am not happy with is how the case was presented. Right from the start it has done all of us Southend fans no favours. .

Might I suggest that it is the incident itself, rather than how it has been presented in court, that has done us no favours.

 

[kaymac]

..........

 

[kaymac]

So why are people avoiding the Cambridge friendly. Sure the attack on Simone Dobbin should legally not excuse or mitigate a revenge attack on any Shrimpers. But we all know the rules of life and that's why people won't be going.

To claim one event has no bearing on another, especially when it comes to football, is dangerously naïve.

The police on the day decided to stand down at 19:00 because they thought job done with the idiots back on their coaches. What they should have done is gone into the Blue Boar and said right lads drink up because with all that has gone on today we are going to escort you to Southend Vic and put you on a train. As we don't want to risk any further trouble and for your own safety we don't want you walking past a pub that has been attacked several times today by those idiots who came on the coaches.........And no one would have ever heard of Simon Dobbin.

Ah, so it's the police's fault then? Got it now......

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

So why are people avoiding the Cambridge friendly. Sure the attack on Simone Dobbin should legally not excuse or mitigate a revenge attack on any Shrimpers. But we all know the rules of life and that's why people won't be going.

To claim one event has no bearing on another, especially when it comes to football, is dangerously naïve.

The police on the day decided to stand down at 19:00 because they thought job done with the idiots back on their coaches. What they should have done is gone into the Blue Boar and said right lads drink up because with all that has gone on today we are going to escort you to Southend Vic and put you on a train. As we don't want to risk any further trouble and for your own safety we don't want you walking past a pub that has been attacked several times today by those idiots who came on the coaches.........And no one would have ever heard of Simon Dobbin.

Sorry I thought, as we were discussing the legal case, we were talking about the rule of law not the rule of life.

I'm sure the police could have handled things better but that fundamentally doesn't excuse the violent disorder that took place on Simon Dobbin. I'm not sure why people seem to be keep on looking for excuses.

 

[rigsby]

Sorry I thought, as we were discussing the legal case, we were talking about the rule of law not the rule of life.

I'm sure the police could have handled things better but that fundamentally doesn't excuse the violent disorder that took place on Simon Dobbin. I'm not sure why people seem to be keep on looking for excuses.

Who's making excuses. We are discussing the whole case and events on that day, which include Cambridge fans and the police as well as the actions of the convicted.

 

[kaymac]

Isn't this thread related to what happened tragically to SD, as in the header "SD verdicts", and not all the peripheral stuff with all the various guesswork attached ?

 

[MK Shrimper]

Who's making excuses. We are discussing the whole case and events on that day, which include Cambridge fans and the police as well as the actions of the convicted.

The only thing that mattered is that those who put Simon Dobbin in a coma and destroyed his life. The rest is an irrelevance.

 

[Firestorm]

So why are people avoiding the Cambridge friendly. Sure the attack on Simone Dobbin should legally not excuse or mitigate a revenge attack on any Shrimpers. But we all know the rules of life and that's why people won't be going.

To claim one event has no bearing on another, especially when it comes to football, is dangerously naïve.

The police on the day decided to stand down at 19:00 because they thought job done with the idiots back on their coaches. What they should have done is gone into the Blue Boar and said right lads drink up because with all that has gone on today we are going to escort you to Southend Vic and put you on a train. As we don't want to risk any further trouble and for your own safety we don't want you walking past a pub that has been attacked several times today by those idiots who came on the coaches.........And no one would have ever heard of Simon Dobbin.

Personally , I don't think anyone is avoiding the Cambridge friendly because of the legal complexities of mitigation in a conspiracy case.

If anything they are avoiding it because some boozed up idiot might decide to blame them for a boozed up idiot fighting another boozed up idiot 2 years ago , and they don't want to take that risk for a friendly .

 

[rigsby]

Personally , I don't think anyone is avoiding the Cambridge friendly because of the legal complexities of mitigation in a conspiracy case.

If anything they are avoiding it because some boozed up idiot might decide to blame them for a boozed up idiot fighting another boozed up idiot 2 years ago , and they don't want to take that risk for a friendly .

I think I was saying the same thing.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Who's making excuses. We are discussing the whole case and events on that day, which include Cambridge fans and the police as well as the actions of the convicted.

So to be clear, you're happy with the convictions?

 

[rigsby]

So to be clear, you're happy with the convictions?

For what reason would I be happy or unhappy. If Simon Dobbin was my son or brother then I would be very unhappy.

The 3 or 4 people who actually did the damage have got off very lightly. I would have preferred the police to have charged them with GBH with intent. Instead they went for a one charge fits all to get more people, some of whom are unlikely to have had any contact with Simon.

I would also be asking the police some serious questions about the days events. From why did they allow those coaches to travel. Why did they allow away fans to walk past the Railway, after they had stood down on a day that was unprecedented for the number of incidents of organised attacks on the pubs around the ground.

I would like to speak to the Cambridge fans who never gave evidence and ask them why?