Unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum

robert totterdell wrote: Thu Aug 19, 2021 1:41 pm Hard evidence is simply hard evidence and I have provided Sussex police with my HARD evidence. There is absolutely no issue as to whether individuals were influenced by events at the school at the time. Knowledge was widespread. When I started looking at the issues my question was 'did anyone know' which in itself allows for influence on pupils by perpetrators. I now have over 20,000 documents and if you could read some of these I think you would have a slightly different mindset. I can not provide these as many are confidential but where ever possible I have provided them to the police.

It will be up to Breakwell whether he wants to use any aspect of coercion in his mitigation - I doubt that he will. JR is right in what he says (hey I don't like as I was abused but haven't abused others) but that is the historical and recent evidence. In the same way many abusers (I would say most) do not work alone - they connect with each other and some of the CH cases actually prove that. Might be worth you looking at all of the cases both heard in court and not heard due to death/suicide etc. but which are available. It might also pay you to understand that I have documentation back to when I started in 2017 from witnesses, victims and actual abusers which most likely suggest that Breakwell was 'groomed'. I say 'likely or maybe' because only a formal witness and in fact Breakwell himself can confirm it. I suggest we all wait for the sentencing on the 14th October.

richardb wrote: Thu Aug 19, 2021 1:46 pm Which may be the case. We will probably never know.

But if he was abused at school it would offer a potential explanation.

robert totterdell wrote: Thu Aug 19, 2021 2:41 pm Out of interest, I was at CH from Sept 1969 to Jul 1976. When were you there? Did you have no knowledge of various issues with some (a small few) of the teachers and boys or girls? Were you there with Breakwell?

Pe.A wrote: Thu Aug 19, 2021 2:20 pm

richardb wrote: Thu Aug 19, 2021 1:46 pm Which may be the case. We will probably never know.

But if he was abused at school it would offer a potential explanation.

No one is saying that he was abused at the school. The bone of contention is whether it is likely he was schooled, influenced or manipulated into doing the things he did by events or people 25 years ago at the school he himself went to.

richardb wrote: Thu Aug 19, 2021 2:53 pm

Pe.A wrote: Thu Aug 19, 2021 2:20 pm

richardb wrote: Thu Aug 19, 2021 1:46 pm Which may be the case. We will probably never know.

But if he was abused at school it would offer a potential explanation.

No one is saying that he was abused at the school. The bone of contention is whether it is likely he was schooled, influenced or manipulated into doing the things he did by events or people 25 years ago at the school he himself went to.

We don't know whether or not he was abused at school. There is no way of knowing. It may however emerge at his sentencing hearing that he was. Or maybe that he was not

The fact that we don't know if he was doesn't mean he wasn't

robert totterdell wrote: Thu Aug 19, 2021 3:17 pm Thank you for this.

When I spoke to Chief Constable York of Sussex police, one of the things he said is that 'we need to join the dots in any case'. Facts can be made obscure or re-imagined. It is often circumstantial evidence that proves a case. Putting dots together is a valid and important part of any Criminal case.

Pe.A wrote: Thu Aug 19, 2021 2:59 pm

richardb wrote: Thu Aug 19, 2021 2:53 pm

Pe.A wrote: Thu Aug 19, 2021 2:20 pm

No one is saying that he was abused at the school. The bone of contention is whether it is likely he was schooled, influenced or manipulated into doing the things he did by events or people 25 years ago at the school he himself went to.

We don't know whether or not he was abused at school. There is no way of knowing. It may however emerge at his sentencing hearing that he was. Or maybe that he was not

The fact that we don't know if he was doesn't mean he wasn't

That was never the issue and the cause of the argument here.

My point has always been to stick to the facts and not to grasp at dots to try and link up.

richardb wrote: Thu Aug 19, 2021 3:52 pm

Pe.A wrote: Thu Aug 19, 2021 2:59 pm

richardb wrote: Thu Aug 19, 2021 2:53 pm

We don't know whether or not he was abused at school. There is no way of knowing. It may however emerge at his sentencing hearing that he was. Or maybe that he was not

The fact that we don't know if he was doesn't mean he wasn't

That was never the issue and the cause of the argument here.

My point has always been to stick to the facts and not to grasp at dots to try and link up.

I disagree. You assert: "No one is saying that he was abused at the school". That is a bold assertion as we simply do not know.

But it is one possible explanation of why he became an abuser.

richardb wrote: Thu Aug 19, 2021 4:55 pm I am not sure why you dismiss out of hand the notion that people who are abused become abusers.

People who are abused are entitled to remain anonymous unless - like Rob - they choose to waive it. Sadly I have often come abusers admitting to having been abused.

The abuse affects them in many different ways. My latest was a young man who was on a very short fuse as he could not bear being touched and lashes out disproportionately.

Just because he has a pechant for young girls does not mean that he was not abused, although I accept that thus far there is no direct evidence that he was. Abuse at a young age gives some victims a skewed view of sex and they become promiscuous because - for example - they associate sex with love.

We may yet be surprised by what emerges at his sentencing hearing.