Simon Dobbin Verdicts

[Tangled up in Blue]

Is there any evidence that Simon Dobbin was one of the Cambridge supporters who tried to take the Spread before the game?

Even if there is, does anyone seriously suggest it somehow justifies what happened to him in East street after the match?

 

[Mr Plow]

Is there any evidence that Simon Dobbin was one of the Cambridge supporters who tried to take the Spread before the game?

Even if there is, does anyone seriously suggest it somehow justifies what happened to him in East street after the match?

I haven't seen a single poster here claim that to be the case, infact it's been universally condemned by everyone.

 

[Chris Powell's mate]

Yes. If a jury is going to convict a person of murder or manslaughter they always need more evidence than if its for an assault.

Its why we could never reintroduce the death penalty and still have trial by jury......They are always aware of what a guilty verdict means.

Sorry, dear friend, but I think you'll find you need sufficient evidence to convict for anything - not more.
The police present a case to the DPS, who decide whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed.
Although involuntary manslaughter cases are easier to prove than murder cases, which require the element of criminal intent, prosecutors still have the burden of proof.
Therefore, they try not to waste public money on a case they can't win - and that goes for everything they bring before the courts.
The reason why the death penalty was abolished was a public repugnance for it, and as you say the implications of a guilty verdict.
But it had nothing to do with getting more evidence - just the right evidence.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I haven't seen a single poster here claim that to be the case, infact it's been universally condemned by everyone.

Not quite "everyone."

 

[Chris Powell's mate]

Very well put, but as we all know the press are never interested in the truth.

Oh, please...
Did you get that cliché out of a bag of crisps?
I'm never comfortable with a one-size-fits-all accusation.
The minute I read: 'all blah are..." I zone out, and so should everyone else.

 

[Floval Flyer]

Oh, please...
Did you get that cliché out of a bag of crisps?
I'm never comfortable with a one-size-fits-all accusation.
The minute I read: 'all blah are..." I zone out, and so should everyone else.

Why so offended? Do you work the The Daily Express or something...

 

[Chris Powell's mate]

Why so offended? Do you work the The Daily Express or something...

I wasn't just referring to journalism, but a lack of discern, while hoping for light and shade rather than blanket condemnation.
It worries when everyone in any category is tarred with the same brush.
So, are the press 'NEVER' interested in the truth? Remember, that's 100% never.
Any modification of that renders your point invalid.

 

[rigsby]

Sorry, dear friend, but I think you'll find you need sufficient evidence to convict for anything - not more.
The police present a case to the DPS, who decide whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed.
Although involuntary manslaughter cases are easier to prove than murder cases, which require the element of criminal intent, prosecutors still have the burden of proof.
Therefore, they try not to waste public money on a case they can't win - and that goes for everything they bring before the courts.
The reason why the death penalty was abolished was a public repugnance for it, and as you say the implications of a guilty verdict.
But it had nothing to do with getting more evidence - just the right evidence.

Waffle as much as you like but you clearly don't understand how the system works. Like most people, me included, you think you do until you become part of it.

I have been a key witness to a wages robbery and I have also been in the dock having been originally charged with affray and could have been facing up to 4 years. Luckily for me there was enough evidence to prove self defence

It is every thing to do with credibility of witnesses and amount of evidence one way or another.

One thing is certain your legal aid appointed barrister is not working in your interest. (I had to sack the first one) Nor can you rely on the police and prosecution to be honest about evidence etc (I have an ongoing complaint).

Back to the SD case. It is clear that some people got off lightly but others, especially the ones charged with conspiracy had no evidence against them. Other than they spoke to some of the accused of the assault at some stage in the pub. The evidence against them would never have secured a conviction if the same events had happened at Henley Regatta. But they were football fans and the legal advice to not give evidence done them no favours.

Some of you may remember Essex police making a statement outside the court after the case. They said they were looking for a further 12 people in connection with the attack......If that was true how come they have never interviewed people who were around on the day. How come we have never seen a list of faces taken from CCTV in the Railway.

What that statement did was to leave that stain mentioned on all of us. It makes it look like there is a wall of silence amongst us fans. They may think what happened to SD was wrong but club loyalty comes first.

Worse than that, the statement puts a target on the back of every Southend fan, especially at Cambridge.

The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth would do us all a favour.

 

[THE SEVENTIES NORTH BANK]

Is there any evidence that Simon Dobbin was one of the Cambridge supporters who tried to take the Spread before the game?

Even if there is, does anyone seriously suggest it somehow justifies what happened to him in East street after the match?

From all reports, I don't think he was part of the group that attacked the Spread before the game. He drunk in the Blue Boar with a few mates. They got a little loud with drink, but nothing too bad. But his little group did approach the Railway when going to get their train at Prittlewell Station, and start the sad event off. I thnk one of his mates started it by throwing something at the Railway and mouthing off. The Southend offenders ran out of the pub, and Simon Dobbin was too drunk to run fast and was caught. The other large Cambridge mob did come down for trouble and serious disorder. So I'm very surprised there wasn't a few police garding the Railway that night. I know that main trouble mob came down in a hooly coach, but the police should have sussed out there may be trouble when Cambridge fans make their way to the station.

 

[Napster]

but the police should have sussed out there may be trouble when Cambridge fans make their way to the station.

Police intelligence is an oxymoron.

 

[Chris Powell's mate]

Waffle as much as you like but you clearly don't understand how the system works. Like most people, me included, you think you do until you become part of it.

I have been a key witness to a wages robbery and I have also been in the dock having been originally charged with affray and could have been facing up to 4 years. Luckily for me there was enough evidence to prove self defence

It is every thing to do with credibility of witnesses and amount of evidence one way or another.

One thing is certain your legal aid appointed barrister is not working in your interest. (I had to sack the first one) Nor can you rely on the police and prosecution to be honest about evidence etc (I have an ongoing complaint).

Back to the SD case. It is clear that some people got off lightly but others, especially the ones charged with conspiracy had no evidence against them. Other than they spoke to some of the accused of the assault at some stage in the pub. The evidence against them would never have secured a conviction if the same events had happened at Henley Regatta. But they were football fans and the legal advice to not give evidence done them no favours.

Some of you may remember Essex police making a statement outside the court after the case. They said they were looking for a further 12 people in connection with the attack......If that was true how come they have never interviewed people who were around on the day. How come we have never seen a list of faces taken from CCTV in the Railway.

What that statement did was to leave that stain mentioned on all of us. It makes it look like there is a wall of silence amongst us fans. They may think what happened to SD was wrong but club loyalty comes first.

Worse than that, the statement puts a target on the back of every Southend fan, especially at Cambridge.

The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth would do us all a favour.

First off, why go on the attack?
Unless you bring legal credentials to the point, I fail to see how you know more about the criminal justice system than me?
My point was a general one on how a case needs solid evidence rather than 'more' as you claim.
Whether the evidence is good or bad is another thing entirely, and again like others, this blanket approach based on your regrettable experience is telling.
The impression you leave is bitterness based on what happened to you.
As for waffle you might want to sort out that fifth paragraph. I think you suggest football fans get treated worse than other sporting fans?
I wonder whether precedent has anything to do with it?

 

[GBJ]

I’ve often popped into The Railway after a game for a few pints and I’ve always gone out the front, or round the side for a fag. I’ve also had many conversations with fellow Southend fans in that pub, some who I’m familiar with and some who are strangers. I dare say I’m not alone, and there are many amoung us who have done the same thing countless times.

But has anyone considered the implications of those simple actions, had they been there that night in question?

The OB threw a net around everyone who was standing outside the pub that night. That was their starting point.

So If you’d been standing outside at the time, you would have been a suspect.

If you were caught on CCTV having a passing conversation with any of the other suspects over the course of the evening - even something a trivial as “another dull game again today, I’m beginning to think Brown out now, how about you?” - then you may have been facing conspiracy charges.

If you saw a commotion going on outside the pub and thought you’d pop out for a crafty snout (and to be nosey), you might have been facing the same fate as the person(s) who actually committed this crime.

The OB would have been under immense pressure to make sure a conviction stuck in this particularly violent case and everyone knows that there’s no sympathy when it comes to a bunch of football fans.

I’ll say again, what happened to SD was pointless, tragic, and unnecessary, for which the true culprit(s) deserve a fitting punishment... but 13-men didn’t commit this crime. The majority of them, IMO, have been stitched up & the sad thing is, that could have been any one of us. That to me, is very concerning.

 

[Swiss Tony]

I’ve often popped into The Railway after a game for a few pints and I’ve always gone out the front, or round the side for a fag. I’ve also had many conversations with fellow Southend fans in that pub, some who I’m familiar with and some who are strangers. I dare say I’m not alone, and there are many amoung us who have done the same thing countless times.

But has anyone considered the implications of those simple actions, had they been there that night in question?

The OB threw a net around everyone who was standing outside the pub that night. That was their starting point.

So If you’d been standing outside at the time, you would have been a suspect.

If you were caught on CCTV having a passing conversation with any of the other suspects over the course of the evening - even something a trivial as “another dull game again today, I’m beginning to think Brown out now, how about you?” - then you may have been facing conspiracy charges.

If you saw a commotion going on outside the pub and thought you’d pop out for a crafty snout (and to be nosey), you might have been facing the same fate as the person(s) who actually committed this crime.

The OB would have been under immense pressure to make sure a conviction stuck in this particularly violent case and everyone knows that there’s no sympathy when it comes to a bunch of football fans.

I’ll say again, what happened to SD was pointless, tragic, and unnecessary, for which the true culprit(s) deserve a fitting punishment... but 13-men didn’t commit this crime. The majority of them, IMO, have been stitched up & the sad thing is, that could have been any one of us. That to me, is very concerning.

Bloody hell that's a scary scenario,this whole case is a tragic mess,

 

[LCBB72]

A bit of target , a few years ago six doormen over the Zero 6 started on four guys who had done nothing , the doormen came off very badly . Now what I am saying one of the four fractured the skull of one of the doormen , he was told that if the doorman died within a year and a day , he would be bought back to the court and charged with manslaughter . So what happen to the year and a day then .

 

[Ricky Otto]

I’ve often popped into The Railway after a game for a few pints and I’ve always gone out the front, or round the side for a fag. I’ve also had many conversations with fellow Southend fans in that pub, some who I’m familiar with and some who are strangers. I dare say I’m not alone, and there are many amoung us who have done the same thing countless times.

But has anyone considered the implications of those simple actions, had they been there that night in question?

The OB threw a net around everyone who was standing outside the pub that night. That was their starting point.

So If you’d been standing outside at the time, you would have been a suspect.

If you were caught on CCTV having a passing conversation with any of the other suspects over the course of the evening - even something a trivial as “another dull game again today, I’m beginning to think Brown out now, how about you?” - then you may have been facing conspiracy charges.

If you saw a commotion going on outside the pub and thought you’d pop out for a crafty snout (and to be nosey), you might have been facing the same fate as the person(s) who actually committed this crime.

The OB would have been under immense pressure to make sure a conviction stuck in this particularly violent case and everyone knows that there’s no sympathy when it comes to a bunch of football fans.

I’ll say again, what happened to SD was pointless, tragic, and unnecessary, for which the true culprit(s) deserve a fitting punishment... but 13-men didn’t commit this crime. The majority of them, IMO, have been stitched up & the sad thing is, that could have been any one of us. That to me, is very concerning.

I've been pretty quiet on the matter as I was not there and there does seem to be a lot of contention over what really happened. This all seems viable to me and as a Shrimper who usually takes the train from Chelmsford to Prittlewell and does stop in the railway occasionally, I do see your point. Going from my memory of the thread around the time of the trial there were people on here who knew people that were implicated who were supposedly innocent but "weren't grasses". This is the bit that troubles me in your scenario, if I were a person who stepped outside and had no involvement as you say then I would tell the police what I saw, I would identify anyone I saw involved as my freedom is at stake. So I don't agree with your closing summary that it could have been any one of us, unless of course you mean any of us could have been arrested on suspicion rather than convicted.

 

[rigsby]

I've been pretty quiet on the matter as I was not there and there does seem to be a lot of contention over what really happened. This all seems viable to me and as a Shrimper who usually takes the train from Chelmsford to Prittlewell and does stop in the railway occasionally, I do see your point. Going from my memory of the thread around the time of the trial there were people on here who knew people that were implicated who were supposedly innocent but "weren't grasses". This is the bit that troubles me in your scenario, if I were a person who stepped outside and had no involvement as you say then I would tell the police what I saw, I would identify anyone I saw involved as my freedom is at stake. So I don't agree with your closing summary that it could have been any one of us, unless of course you mean any of us could have been arrested on suspicion rather than convicted.

They took legal advice.

Which from my own experience and from several people I know is not always the best. Barristers are used to dealing with some of the thickest people in society so they assume all their clients will convict themselves if they take the stand. My first barrister took all of 10 minutes to look at my case, without looking at the CCTV. He urged me to plead guilty and said he would get me a suspended sentence......That would have ruined my business as there were later consequences, if i had done that.....I got the case ajourned and sacked him.

I had to reassure my second barrister that I would be fine on the day. I had already admitted what i had done but the whole case rested on whether it was reasonable self defence.

She was advising me to 'dodge' certain questions. I refused and answered them all. I wanted to come across as honest and not shifty. If I was going down it would be for who I am not because I tried to play a down trodden victim.

The jury, of 9 women a 3 men obviously liked what they heard because I was found
unanimously not guilty in the shortest time that the jury were allowed to retire.

The key for anyone in my position is to know your own case better than the prosecution, which is not that difficult. I also made sure all the evidence was included pre trial. Its not like Hollywood where you can produce some magic half way through the trial. But again I made sure, against advice, that it was all included. Better its not used than not have it.....A vital clip was used in my favour.

 

[Napster]

They took legal advice.

Which from my own experience and from several people I know is not always the best. Barristers are used to dealing with some of the thickest people in society so they assume all their clients will convict themselves if they take the stand. My first barrister took all of 10 minutes to look at my case, without looking at the CCTV. He urged me to plead guilty and said i would get a suspended sentence......That would have ruined my business as there were later consequences, if i had done that.....I got the case ajourned and sacked him.

I had to reassure my second barrister that I would be fine on the day. I had already admitted what i had done but the whole case rested on whether it was reasonable self defence.

She was advising me to 'dodge' certain questions. I refused and answered them all. I wanted to come across as honest and not shifty. If I was going down it would be for who I am not because I tried to play a down trodden victim.

The jury, of 9 women a 3 men obviously liked what they heard because I was found
unanimously not guilty in the shortest time that the jury were allowed to retire.

The key for anyone in my position is to know your own case better than the prosecution, which is not that difficult. I also made sure all the evidence was included pre trial. Its not like Hollywood where you can produce some magic half way through the trial. But again I made sure, against advice, that it was all included. Better its not used than not have it.....A vital clip was used in my favour.

Without going into specifics - I was peripherally involved in a court case a few years ago, and the solicitors were terrible; I had to help provide a lot of the documentation for the barrister to work from. The barrister was however top notch, and argued the defense case very well; and the judge agreed with them for a lighter sentence (Non-custodial). The person had already pled guilty, but there were mitigating factors which the barrister successfully argued.

My point is, every case is different; and as you know Rigsby, sometimes the die is cast before you roll it.

 

[GBJ]

I've been pretty quiet on the matter as I was not there and there does seem to be a lot of contention over what really happened. This all seems viable to me and as a Shrimper who usually takes the train from Chelmsford to Prittlewell and does stop in the railway occasionally, I do see your point. Going from my memory of the thread around the time of the trial there were people on here who knew people that were implicated who were supposedly innocent but "weren't grasses". This is the bit that troubles me in your scenario, if I were a person who stepped outside and had no involvement as you say then I would tell the police what I saw, I would identify anyone I saw involved as my freedom is at stake. So I don't agree with your closing summary that it could have been any one of us, unless of course you mean any of us could have been arrested on suspicion rather than convicted.

You’re assuming the OB would want or even believe your information though.

If they’ve got you pegged as a culpable party, and they believe they can win a conviction against you, they may very well not be interested in what you have to say about other individuals.

It’s also possible - and the CPS would know - that a decent brief would likely come after you heavily, and paint a picture of YOU being the truly guilty one, and your testimony is nothing more than apportioning blame to anyone else in order to save your own skin.

We all like to believe that justice would prevail, but frankly that’s not a forgone conclusion, especially when it comes to football fans & violence

 

[LCBB72]

Police intelligence is an oxymoron.

There has been trouble between Southend and Cambridge since Oct 1970 , so it should not of been to hard to know there was going to be trouble .

 

[rigsby]

Without going into specifics - I was peripherally involved in a court case a few years ago, and the solicitors were terrible; I had to help provide a lot of the documentation for the barrister to work from. The barrister was however top notch, and argued the defense case very well; and the judge agreed with them for a lighter sentence (Non-custodial). The person had already pled guilty, but there were mitigating factors which the barrister successfully argued.

My point is, every case is different; and as you know Rigsby, sometimes the die is cast before you roll it.

The die being how much they are being paid because like most things you do get what you pay for.

With legal aide being reduced they moan at every opportunity that they don't get paid enough to do a thorough job. So even if like me you don't qualify for legal aide they still do the same job because I had to pay X amount a month.

Yes you need them because the law is so complicated. My barrister successfully argued for the other parties criminal record to be read out in court, as the prosecution were dead against it.