Roger Martin - trial

[Elvie]

He wasn't convicted of filming boys. That was relevant to show that Martin had an inappropriate interest in boys.

He was convicted of putting the pupil in his [Martin's] own bed and then touching his penis. The boy was 10 and very homesick.

That was demonstrably inappropriate, even in 1976.

I realise that. I just don’t agree with the notion that it was naive

[richardb]

There were other aspects of his behaviour that were inappropriate. They all involved naked boys.

[blueeyedboy]

Afraid that none of this changes the overall situation, which is that CH in the 1970s was not a safe place for children, with a growing minority of masters who were unable to control either their sexual or physical behaviour towards those in their charge, and with a regime that was unable to protect them.

[Vilified]

He wasn't convicted of filming boys. That was relevant to show that Martin had an inappropriate interest in boys.

He was convicted of putting the pupil in his [Martin's] own bed and then touching his penis. The boy was 10 and very homesick.

That was demonstrably inappropriate, even in 1976.

Thank you for the first account I've seen of what the accusation was.
Yes, indeed. No one could argue that such things were standard practice and acceptable.
Thank you for the other background too.
At last the thing makes sense.
As you say, the most I could do would be to say, by way of character witness, that I am astonished and saddened that he would ever do such a thing. And, given what you have said about the evidence that this has not just very recently emerged, obviously I would certainly never wish to do other than to express my sorrow and sympathy to the victim. A tragedy all round.

[Otter]

He wasn't convicted of filming boys. That was relevant to show that Martin had an inappropriate interest in boys.

He was convicted of putting the pupil in his [Martin's] own bed and then touching his penis. The boy was 10 and very homesick.

That was demonstrably inappropriate, even in 1976.

Thank you for the first account I've seen of what the accusation was.
Yes, indeed. No one could argue that such things were standard practice and acceptable.
Thank you for the other background too.
At last the thing makes sense.
As you say, the most I could do would be to say, by way of character witness, that I am astonished and saddened that he would ever do such a thing. And, given what you have said about the evidence that this has not just very recently emerged, obviously I would certainly never wish to do other than to express my sorrow and sympathy to the victim. A tragedy all round.

Thanks for coming on here publicly, and for your honesty and humility.

[DazedandConfused]

He wasn't convicted of filming boys. That was relevant to show that Martin had an inappropriate interest in boys.

He was convicted of putting the pupil in his [Martin's] own bed and then touching his penis. The boy was 10 and very homesick.

That was demonstrably inappropriate, even in 1976.

Thank you for the first account I've seen of what the accusation was.
Yes, indeed. No one could argue that such things were standard practice and acceptable.
Thank you for the other background too.
At last the thing makes sense.
As you say, the most I could do would be to say, by way of character witness, that I am astonished and saddened that he would ever do such a thing. And, given what you have said about the evidence that this has not just very recently emerged, obviously I would certainly never wish to do other than to express my sorrow and sympathy to the victim. A tragedy all round.

It’s brave of you to come on here and share your thoughts and experiences. I admit that I struggle to comprehend your point of view on everything, especially what was deemed acceptable by the standards of the time, but then again I was at CH in the 90s that outwardly seemed a safe place when the very opposite was true.

Regarding Roger Martin, as previous posters have said, this one hits harder for many precisely because he did seem to be one of the good guys.

[J.R.]

There can be no denying that historical cases are extremely hard to investigate and successfully prosecute,

One of the features of historic cases is that the victim has not suddenly got the idea in their head that they have been abused. Very often, the victim has disclsoed to family/friends/professional advisers for years that they have been abused. The police will seek out such evidence which tends to corroborate what the victim says.

In the mid 1980s, the victim was confiding in friends at University about what happened to him. So he has either invented it 35+ years ago or it is true.

I fully agree with you and the guilty verdict.

But I would be interested to know why it’s never OK to question the validity of a guilty verdict, yet it’s always OK to question/ignore a not guilty verdict, and sometimes to insist/imply that they were guilty regardless.

Any person convicted of a crime has the right to appeal against sentence and would be well advised by their legal representatives .

[Morgan]

Very healthy debate going on here, which does help come to terms with what has been taking place in the courts.
I’m happy that the UK legal system allows for such justice. It is not right to dismiss this type of case as historical, and hence deficient. I’m certain that the victim statements have to be bombproof in the absence of any physical evidence.
From my memories of my “pulled naked from the bath” experience, which happened about 43 years ago, these things don’t fade. In fact that memory is probably one of my most vivid from that time. It’s as if the Adrenalin kicks in, and tells the brain “File this stuff somewhere safe - it might be useful later”. So I can easily remember the bright light of the lav ends, the feel of the tweed jacket, and the sight of the thinning hair. Luckily for me that’s the extent of it, but to those boys and girls who went through much worse experiences, I believe they would have the ability to recall such stuff in such a way as to convince a jury that the experience was real, even if it happened decades ago.

[richardb]

The experience lives in the memory and seems to become more traumatic to recall as time passes.

There are well established procedures now for investigating historic sex abuse. The police will gather up educational, medical and social services records. These will be scrutinised to see if the matters alleged are referred to in them. These often shed light on the credibility and reliability of the complainant. It may also show that a different perpetrator was accused previously.

In many cases, the complainant has shared the secret with friends or family, but swearing the recipient of the information to silence.

Juries are quite astute. Where there is something in past times which corroborates the allegations, they are more likely to convict.

In Martin's case the complaint related back to 1976. If it was untrue, why was the victim sharing it at University? If it was a false allegation, then why was the complainant talking about it nearly 40 years ago?

Once I heard that the victim had shared the circumstances of the offence when at University, I thought it likely Martin would be convicted.

[max_ratcliffe]

I fully agree with you and the guilty verdict.

But I would be interested to know why it’s never OK to question the validity of a guilty verdict, yet it’s always OK to question/ignore a not guilty verdict, and sometimes to insist/imply that they were guilty regardless.

My guess it that it's a perverse outcome of the presumption of innocence and the fact that criminal convictions need to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The courts are biased in favour of the defendant (and rightly so - I don't mean they're biased unfairly), but there have been famous instances of coppers enhancing the evidence to ensure that people "who were known to be guilty" don't get off. Of course, this ends up also perverse as it ultimately results in genuinely guilty people's convictions being quashed, which again just adds to the bias (this being the unfair kind) in the public view. Of course, this is a huge improvement on olden times when people were legally presumed guilty and ended their days at Tyburn on someone's say so.

Back to Martin's case: I had hoped somehow that a mistake had been made - an incorrect memory after all these years or some dreadful misunderstanding.

Sadly, there seems no doubt that he did it.

[richardb]

Well Vilified has put one thing to bed.

When teaching staff transgressed, they were moved on with glowing references. We know that Karim was moved on for sexual misconduct which eventually got him 10 years, while Vilified was moved on for an assault which in the modern day and age would have starting point of 26 weeks and was assisted by Newsome to get another teaching job.

It tends to increase the suspicion that attaches to others who left at short notice.

[Blindandstupid]

At the beginning of this section there is a thread that says "Please be sensitive ....".

Please remember that there are two families out there hurting at present, both the Victim's and Roger Martin's.

This is a forum that is open to anyone with internet access to read. Please imagine you are one of either sides family, and you are reading this about your Husband/Brother/Son or Father (I know that one party has teenage children). Some of the more detailed information will be hurtful to these people, on both sides of the case.

In the forum's righteous fury at the crimes committed please be mindful of any collateral damage that may be caused.

Thank you

Pete

[TMF]

What did you say was your reason for leaving Christ's Hospital?

I think I mentioned the stress of living in a boarding house in close 24/7 proximity to the boys, the desire for more privacy, the wish to teach at a higher level, and of course the appeal of the outdoors, the proximity of the Welsh mountains... all of which was true; and would have been supported by Newsome. And all of which came to pass, as I rebuilt my life.

6. I did, by the way, inform the Common Room at dinner one evening as to the circumstances of my departure. They were naturally very sympathetic; but also very appreciative of being told the true story, because, as they said, they were so rarely told. Newsome made up some spin about how I was leaving for North Wales because I was ‘passionate about the mountains.’ It was true that I loved the mountains, and became much more so, but it was not the true reason, of course.

There was a difference then between the true departure reason and the reason given to the new employer.

In your experience were such differences common at the time in the teaching profession?

[Vilified]

What did you say was your reason for leaving Christ's Hospital?

There was a difference then between the true departure reason and the reason given to the new employer.

In your experience were such differences common at the time in the teaching profession?

i'd think it was standard practice then and I'd have thought even up until the present time, and not just in the teaching profession, for an employer who was happy to see someone go to gloss over a person's defects and seek out positive reasons for recommending them. Equally, I personally had two different headmasters who gave rather unflattering references for me when I applied for posts, and in those cases it was because they wanted to keep me!

[AMP]

In my sphere which is in the private sector, any requests for references have to be passed on to HR.

References full stop are limited to start and end date and salary.

Anything else i assume is considered too subjective and risky for the company.

Private references are another thing.