Simon Dobbin Verdicts

[PrawNZ]

Pretty damning evidence this text message!
14:52 - Ryan Carter to Jason Dockerty: “I am mate LOL got blood all off me shoe, when I said bad Jace, I mean bad, They chalk-marked his body and blues and twos to hospital.”
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/simon-dobbin-trial-prosecution-open-13143697

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

Pretty damning evidence this text message!
14:52 - Ryan Carter to Jason Dockerty: “I am mate LOL got blood all off me shoe, when I said bad Jace, I mean bad, They chalk-marked his body and blues and twos to hospital.”
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/simon-dobbin-trial-prosecution-open-13143697

Sickening stuff, what is the matter with these people; don't they have any morals?

 

[LCBB72]

That's why historically the police have lied when it comes to football fans.

We all know about Hillsborough but I know several Southend fans including a relative who have had to stand in the dock and listen to perjury being committed by the police when they are giving evidence.

I know , back in 73 a dozen or so of Southend were arrested at Brentford , it proved over and over the police were telling porkys , the result 3 Southend got sent down all the rest heavy fines , a QPR fan who was wearing a blue and white scarf was nicked with the Southend was let off in the court when it came out he was not a Southend supporter , we heard later from him that he had been told that it would be a feather in the police hats to arrest a load of Southend , Sgt Fishwick you were a lying git .

 

[rigsby]

I did read the transcripts that were up on the cambridge news site every day- but thanks for assuming thatI didn't.

re the prosecution being 'past masters of twisting everything' - you seem to be forgetting that the defence also gets to ask questions.

yes the prosecution is going to try and make me look guilty, thats their job , but |I would rather try and defend myself given the chance When other defendants have criminal records and blood on their clothing and are choosing not to give evidence then I would want to distance myself as much as possible from them. Its pretty obvious what conclusion the jury might draw- _ I would not want them to drae the same conclusions from me not giving evidence.

So they were given bad legal advice.

Not a surprise because I contacted the defence team of one of the defendants (who I don't know) half way through the trial. Certain evidence given against him was false (can't go into details as the police are contacting me tomorrow) His defence team took details but never got back to me again.

Perhaps like so many on here and in social media his defence team thought he deserves prison for a number of reasons....Football fan, previous, not taking the stand, a WAG who wears a grey track suite etc.

 

[Suffolk Blue]

If you don't take the stand, the prosecution don't get an opportunity to ask you personally to answer some pretty difficult questions. It's fairly common for briefs to advise groups of defendants to remain silent if there's a chance that one or more will incriminate their co-defendants by getting caught out by a prosecution question. Also, any answer given by a defendant in court sounds a lot more incriminating than a statement made by the prosecutor alone.

Judges are under very strict guidance as to how to deal with defendants wishing to exercise their right to remain silent. They will instruct the jury on what inference can be taken from this. Of course juries will make up their own minds on the matter.

I can't remember the exact figure but it's estimated that about 80% of convictions are as a result of defendants own admissions when being questioned in the police station or in court. Even innocent people are advised to keep silent and not make a statement until their solicitor is with them.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

So they were given bad legal advice.

Not a surprise because I contacted the defence team of one of the defendants (who I don't know) half way through the trial. Certain evidence given against him was false (can't go into details as the police are contacting me tomorrow) His defence team took details but never got back to me again.

Perhaps like so many on here and in social media his defence team thought he deserves prison for a number of reasons....Football fan, previous, not taking the stand, a WAG who wears a grey track suite etc.

you are talking to the police tomorrow with evidence you have for a trial that has already ended, a trial that you have been discussing at length on social media. Sounds to me like your priorities and timing are out of line and you may well have devalued the evidence you are about to hand over.

 

[rigsby]

you are talking to the police tomorrow with evidence you have for a trial that has already ended, a trial that you have been discussing at length on social media. Sounds to me like your priorities and timing are out of line and you may well have devalued the evidence you are about to hand over.

Sounds to me like you are not getting any reaction with your boring political ramblings so you'll try and spoil this thread as you like to make things personal as it makes you the centre of attention.

 

[Pubey]

Sounds to me like you are not getting any reaction with your boring political ramblings so you'll try and spoil this thread as you like to make things personal as it makes you the centre of attention.

 

[Beefy]

Well done rigsby for stepping forward. I assume a number of others on here who have stated as fact for two and a half years that these lads are innocent and that the story that came out in the trial isn't what happened will also now be speaking to the Police.

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

So they were given bad legal advice.

.

I expect they were all given good legal advice AND that they were briefed extensively and regularly as to how the investigation and trial were progressing.
That advice would have had all the possible outcomes from the taking of any of the several courses of action available to the defendants, it would have been clearly laid out and discussed between client and agent, the defendants would also likely shared the advice given to each of them AND would also be heavily recorded/audit trailed by the solicitors just in case someone decided to allege "bad advice". They had choices to make and they made them; maybe the one who pleaded guilty and got a lesser sentence was listening more carefully?
Following advice given is, and never will be a defense to a crime.

 

[Napster]

Following advice given is, and never will be a defense to a crime.

I was only following orders!

 

[rigsby]

Well done rigsby for stepping forward. I assume a number of others on here who have stated as fact for two and a half years that these lads are innocent and that the story that came out in the trial isn't what happened will also now be speaking to the Police.

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 ?

Like I say why have they never released any CCTV images if they really do mean the case is not over.

I have just spoke to the major crime unit at Harlow. They told me no Cambridge fans are under investigation and nor will they be. As far as they are concerned once they were put on the coaches that was it. If any us were not happy then we should have made a complaint at the time.

Having spoke to fellow shrimpers who were in the Spread that day, none of us knew the CCTV was not working. None of us knew that police body cams were conveniently not working. We assume that the police would have evidence, like the film on YouTube to identify and deal with those idiots from Cambridge. If they didn't why did they not appeal for witnesses at the time. ?

There is more stuff that I cannot discuss on here for legal reasons which is still ongoing with the police.

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

Ref Rigsby's post #372
Have I got this straight?
X y and Z are not innocent and yet the guilty verdicts are wrong?
There is no response to my query of the illogical (& unknown/inaccurate) "bad advice" post of earlier.
AND
The prosecution case is investigated by the Police, a prima facia case is presented to the CPS; and if sufficient merit. then the CPS take the case to court on charges they decide; and under the control of Barristers employed to present (speak!) the case in front of the Judge and Jury.
The case presented will be related to the charge and NOT to other events/crimes that have association which while linked is not relevant to the charges; however defense could seek to introduce that using witnesses giving testimony - which didn't happen.

 

[AndyT]

Agreed, but that depends if the charges are solely linked to the events immediately leading up to the incident at Prittlewell Station.

However, the Prosecution sought to present a case based on all events throughout the day and the traded text messages as early as 10:30am that morning, between some of the defendants.

Therefore, if the 'conspiracy to cause violent disorder' relates to the day's events and not the incident itself, then others should be in the dock, as well.

Otherwise, why call the barmaid in the Spread Eagle and the WPC outside that pub, as prosecution witnesses, if that incident has nothing to do with the later one.

 

[rigsby]

I expect they were all given good legal advice AND that they were briefed extensively and regularly as to how the investigation and trial were progressing.
That advice would have had all the possible outcomes from the taking of any of the several courses of action available to the defendants, it would have been clearly laid out and discussed between client and agent, the defendants would also likely shared the advice given to each of them AND would also be heavily recorded/audit trailed by the solicitors just in case someone decided to allege "bad advice". They had choices to make and they made them; maybe the one who pleaded guilty and got a lesser sentence was listening more carefully?
Following advice given is, and never will be a defense to a crime.

Ref Rigsby's post #372
Have I got this straight?
X y and Z are not innocent and yet the guilty verdicts are wrong?
There is no response to my query of the illogical (& unknown/inaccurate) "bad advice" post of earlier.
AND
The prosecution case is investigated by the Police, a prima facia case is presented to the CPS; and if sufficient merit. then the CPS take the case to court on charges they decide; and under the control of Barristers employed to present (speak!) the case in front of the Judge and Jury.
The case presented will be related to the charge and NOT to other events/crimes that have association which while linked is not relevant to the charges; however defense could seek to introduce that using witnesses giving testimony - which didn't happen.

I'm confused now. Neither of us know what advice was given or who took what advice. Yet my post is illogical, unknown/inaccurate. So what is your based on ?

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

Agreed, but that depends if the charges are solely linked to the events immediately leading up to the incident at Prittlewell Station.

However, the Prosecution sought to present a case based on all events throughout the day and the traded text messages as early as 10:30am that morning, between some of the defendants.

Therefore, if the 'conspiracy to cause violent disorder' relates to the day's events and not the incident itself, then others should be in the dock, as well.

Otherwise, why call the barmaid in the Spread Eagle and the WPC outside that pub, as prosecution witnesses, if that incident has nothing to do with the later one.

Fair points and thus allowing defense to make what they will of any causation; however where were the defendants' witnesses? There will have been many. many witnesses whose statements never got turned/used as court evidence and defense council would have access to those spoken to by Police investigators/
And defense council would have unfettered access to the accused AND got from them details of any witnesses who could support their case surely? Why didn't those people get named by the accused and summoned to court - failure to attend is an offence - to give testimony/account of events witnessed?

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

I'm confused now. Neither of us know what advice was given or who took what advice. Yet my post is illogical, unknown/inaccurate. So what is your based on ?

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.

 

[AndyT]

Good questions on the defence witnesses. I think if some of us in the Spread Eagle that day, were aware that the incident in there was to form part of the prosecution case, we may well have stepped forward. As far as I was concerned, the charges were related directly to the incident involving Simon Dobbin and who actually attacked him, but the 'conspiracy' convictions threw a whole new light on the whole day.

I did follow the first few days of the trial and was quite surprised that defence counsel seemed to do very little cross-examining of prosecution witnesses, based on the Cambridge News feed I read.

 

[Beefy]

Again, the conspiracy charges relate to the idea of a retaliation attack on Cambridge fans. Obviously those morons who caused issues in the Spread earlier should have been dealt with by the authorities but it has never been alleged (that I've seen) that those same Cambridge fans conspired to cause violence outside the Railway five hours later and therefore would be a second, unrelated prosecution.

 

[AndyT]

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