Simon Dobbin Verdicts

[jaffa1]

As a cabbie I thought you'd have known all about going the long way round:winking:

I've always been quite amused that you are convinced I am a cabbie !

On a serious note, I'm sure I read months ago, from one of SD's companions, that they had ended up on the wrong platform that fateful night....

 

[kaymac]

WS, since you're apparently so well informed on the actions taken by the 'innocent' four, care to tell just how much assistance they offered to SD when they watched what was happening to him? My guess it was b*gger-all.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I've always been quite amused that you are convinced I am a cabbie !

I always get you and jassfya1 mixed up - I even thought that as I pressed post - get a more distinct username!

Still I'll take the laughs where I can get them...

 

[WickfordShrimper]

i honestly don't get this "grass" stuff. --- is it fear of retribution? Maybe I have had a sheltered life and don't live in the real world but , if I had done nothing wrong and someone else's actions meant I could be going to prison then I would be doing everything in my control to avoid going to prison. Certainly if I had a friend or aquantance that had stamped on someone's head then frankly I wouldn't want to be associated with them going forward . I would actually question what type of person are they that they are prepared to see me tgo to prison to save their own skins- is that what being a mate is all about? The only obvious thing that might impact me is intimidation. Likewise people who think you shouldn't "grass" ( thinking about the zone here not necessarily the defendants) aren't the type of people I would want as my friends.

I don't believe one moment they thought they was going to be charged or even found Guilty and sent to prison for a few years for that matter on little no evidence the police had believed was only interviewed to help out with the '' investigation as they gave their full names and addresses and details on the Night to be contacted '' , Not one was ID by witnesses no Police saw what happened CCTV was not good and the prosecution just made up a story that sounded like a gang warfare

 

[WickfordShrimper]

I have heard from several people that some of the accused had nothing to do with the assault. No blood on their clothes, no marks on their hands, no eyewitnesses and no CCTV. Little chance of conviction in any other situation.

Their crime was being football fan with previous. The police are claiming they are still searching for 12 other people yet have CCTV of them from the Railway so there are plenty of people who could identify the rest of them, including the police.....Anyone seen any wanted lists with stills, like you get after a riot etc.

Personally I believe the police thought we will never convict 20 on little evidence other than they bundled out of the door. Some of them obviously never got involved but wanted to watch the action.....Just like Simon Dobbin and his friends did when the Cambridge mob were being herded onto coaches after the game.

No, the usual suspects had previous and it was all over the press and that would have an effect on any jury. The problem is the ones who actually done the damage will now not own up because they could be charged with a more serious offence such as GBH with intent ? (waits to be corrected by legal expert)

Just wrote something Similar in a reply to United

I AGREE 110% on the below

''''Personally I believe the police thought we will never convict 20 on little evidence other than they bundled out of the door. Some of them obviously never got involved but wanted to watch the action.....Just like Simon Dobbin and his friends did when the Cambridge mob were being herded onto coaches after the game.'''''

 

[united we stand]

I don't believe one moment they thought they was going to be charged or even found Guilty and sent to prison for a few years for that matter on little no evidence the police had believed was only interviewed to help out with the '' investigation as they gave their full names and addresses and details on the Night to be contacted '' , Not one was ID by witnesses no Police saw what happened CCTV was not good and the prosecution just made up a story that sounded like a gang warfare

Wether they thought they would be charged or not is irrelevant- they were charged and then had choices to make regarding giving evidence. They would also have been given worse case scenarios I would be interested to know if an appeal was possible ( I have no idea) whether second time around they would give evidence? As I have said before if I was a juror I would be influenced by a defendants decision not to give evidence. Were they all independently advised by their own legal teams not to give evidence?

 

[WickfordShrimper]

WS, since you're apparently so well informed on the actions taken by the 'innocent' four, care to tell just how much assistance they offered to SD when they watched what was happening to him? My guess it was b*gger-all.

Blimey if that's the case lets send all the 100 drinkers in the Railway that night who was looking out the windows to prison also

 

[WickfordShrimper]

Wether they thought they would be charged or not is irrelevant- they were charged and then had choices to make regarding giving evidence. They would also have been given worse case scenarios I would be interested to know if an appeal was possible ( I have no idea) whether second time around they would give evidence? As I have said before if I was a juror I would be influenced by a defendants decision not to give evidence. Were they all independently advised by their own legal teams not to give evidence?

Nice reply BTW

I all reckon they should appeal and totally agree this time should take the witness Box to defend themselves I/O saying nothing

 

[andykn]

Well I know at least 4 who have sent to prison yesterday had nothing to do with the fighting and went outside to be noisy ( watch )

They never wanted to Grass or be known as a Grasses and said no comment when pulled into the Police stations under interview and now ended up going Prison for at least a few years for saying no comment

All this is very sad from what happened to Simon Dobbin to innocent people locked up

No wonder their family's are so upset

So how did they get caught and what was the evidence presented against them?

 

[rigsby]

Blimey if that's the case lets send all the 100 drinkers in the Railway that night who was looking out the windows to prison also

And the Cambridge fans on the train.

 

[duncan bulgaria]

I honestly believe its human nature to instantly think someone is hiding something if they go 'no comment' , if i was on the jury , rightly or wrongly i think i would make an assumption that they are going no comment for a reason - I'e with holding information, would this sway my verdict , quite possibly so .

Like was said previously it appears the Police had minimal evidence on all involved and although i'd say i have faith in the system, i do wonder if there was strong enough evidence to convict all of the accused as it seems very flimsy to say the least.

But fundamentally the whole lets stick together and not ' grass' each other up has come back to bite some on the bum in this case , and the question is who are the bigger men ?? ....... those that saw everything and do not grass on others or those that were heavily involved and hold their hands up and admit it was them and not let the 4 chaps that allegedly have been harshly treated go to jail.

 

[WickfordShrimper]

maybe they advised by their solicitors to say nothing as well of because of the following :


'' Reasonable doubt is a term used in jurisdiction of Anglo-Saxon countries. Evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt is the standard of evidence required to validate a criminal conviction in most adversarial legal systems.[SUP][1][/SUP]
Generally, prosecutors bear the burden of proof and are required to prove their version of events to this standard. This means that the proposition being presented by the prosecution must be proven to the extent that there could be no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a "reasonable person" that the defendant is guilty. There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not affect a reasonable person's belief regarding whether or not the defendant is guilty. Beyond "the shadow of a doubt" is sometimes used interchangeably with beyond reasonable doubt, but this extends beyond the latter, to the extent that it may be considered an impossible standard. The term "reasonable doubt" is therefore used.
If doubt does affect a "reasonable person's" belief that the defendant is guilty, the jury is not satisfied beyond "reasonable doubt". The precise meaning of words such as "reasonable" and "doubt" are usually defined within jurisprudence of the applicable country. A related idea is Blackstone's formulation "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer".
Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest burden of proof in any court in the United States. Criminal cases must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. '''

 

[Rob49]

You'll be shouted down on here with that opinion mate!

its the truth though....

 

[united we stand]

maybe they advised by their solicitors to say nothing as well of because of the following :


'' Reasonable doubt is a term used in jurisdiction of Anglo-Saxon countries. Evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt is the standard of evidence required to validate a criminal conviction in most adversarial legal systems.[SUP][1][/SUP]
Generally, prosecutors bear the burden of proof and are required to prove their version of events to this standard. This means that the proposition being presented by the prosecution must be proven to the extent that there could be no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a "reasonable person" that the defendant is guilty. There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not affect a reasonable person's belief regarding whether or not the defendant is guilty. Beyond "the shadow of a doubt" is sometimes used interchangeably with beyond reasonable doubt, but this extends beyond the latter, to the extent that it may be considered an impossible standard. The term "reasonable doubt" is therefore used.
If doubt does affect a "reasonable person's" belief that the defendant is guilty, the jury is not satisfied beyond "reasonable doubt". The precise meaning of words such as "reasonable" and "doubt" are usually defined within jurisprudence of the applicable country. A related idea is Blackstone's formulation "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer".
Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest burden of proof in any court in the United States. Criminal cases must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. '''

i get that, but I dont get the downside of giving evidence. I am genuinely struggling to think of a scenario where I would think that having given evidence I would be more likely to be found guilty. If I could understand that then ( to me) it would put a different perspective on the reasons for not giving evidence.

 

[Floval Flyer]

Can we please sign someone so we can talk about football again

 

[AndyT]

Sometimes defence barristers will say that saying nothing means it's harder for the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, or they might consider the witness too risky to put in the dock.

It would be interesting to know whether the defence team for each defendant got together and agreed no-one would take the stand in order to show a united front as a group or whether they each individually chose not to.

 

[Stuart W]

Sometimes defence barristers will say that saying nothing means it's harder for the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, or they might consider the witness too risky to put in the dock.

It would be interesting to know whether the defence team for each defendant got together and agreed no-one would take the stand in order to show a united front as a group or whether they each individually chose not to.

I would challenge this point that any further comment on this thread would be interesting. With respect it has been done to death, and I am amazed it has not been closed by moderators.

 

[AndyT]

This just in : Other threads are available!

This one's about the Simon Dobbin Trial, which we weren't allowed to discuss sub-judice, but are now.

It's not for everyone. :winking:

 

[GBJ]

I would challenge this point that any further comment on this thread would be interesting. With respect it has been done to death, and I am amazed it has not been closed by moderators.

Personally mate, these days I find 90% of the threads on this site boring (no offence Ken, JC). I don't really care what anyone is listening to. I don't really care what someone has watched recently.

Threads like this, the emotive ones, the opinionated ones, the actual debate threads are be the best

The fact that this thread has had the most traffic & most interest over the past few weeks speaks for itself.

cue this being closed now

 

[RHB]

Personally mate, these days I find 90% of the threads on this site boring (no offence Ken, JC). I don't really care what anyone is listening to. I don't really care what someone has watched recently.

Threads like this, the emotive ones, the opinionated ones, the actual debate threads are be the best

The fact that this thread has had the most traffic & most interest over the past few weeks speaks for itself.

cue this being closed now

This thread was previously closed by the Owners while things were sub-judice. When the verdicts were announced the thread was re-opened. Not everyone's cup of tea, but if that's the case then give the thread a swerve. Mods don't get everything right but we do try and this thread is still open.