John Smyth, Church Scandal, Channel 4 9pm

MartavTaurus

^she encouraged the victims to hide the evidence^

I struggle to understand how the shocking evidence could be hidden?

My husband says you would know which boys at boarding school (1970s) had occasionally been given the cane because you would see red marks on their upper legs when they went swimming or in the shower. This was corporal punishment, not violent child abuse, and never, ever bad enough to break the skin.

The teachers were undoubtedly present too when those bleeding Winchester boys got undressed and showered at school, so they would have seen. Yet they reported nothing at the time, and the school just carried on sending them to the house.

In the documentary, one of the victims said it was usually three of them sent continually together. No doubt three of the most vulnerable boys, one was an orphan, because those are the type that wicked predators in those situations choose to abuse.

What I heard was she gave them adult nappies do no one would see them bleeding or blood on their clothes.

Maremia

Remember that ghastly old saying, 'Spare the rod, spoil the child'?

Exactly Meremia. Thrashing boys was seen as ensuring good behaviour. No wonder Smythe ‘s abuse was not dealt with effectively via criminal investigations

Remember that ghastly old saying, 'Spare the rod, spoil the child'?

Yes, I guess the type of abuse was physical, sexual and emotional. Difficult to see where one sort ends and another type starts.

And how boys were selected, because out of 750 pupils, the number is small. (Though even one victim makes it completely wrong.)

Not necessarily. Don’t forget that ‘ muscular Christianity’ was encouraged in those elite circles, and attracted some of the most privileged young men. JS was admired and popular in those circles.

she encouraged the victims to hide the evidence

I struggle to understand how the shocking evidence could be hidden?

My husband says you would know which boys at boarding school (1970s) had occasionally been given the cane because you would see red marks on their upper legs when they went swimming or in the shower. This was corporal punishment, not violent child abuse, and never, ever bad enough to break the skin.

The teachers were undoubtedly present too when those bleeding Winchester boys got undressed and showered at school, so they would have seen. Yet they reported nothing at the time, and the school just carried on sending them to the house.

In the documentary, one of the victims said it was usually three of them sent continually together. No doubt three of the most vulnerable boys, one was an orphan, because those are the type that wicked predators in those situations choose to abuse.

I think you should watch it, Iam, particularly the second episode. Much of the discussion on here has been speculation, but if you see her behaviour (particularly the strange smile) and listen to her children you might feel differently, as might those who keep referring to corporal punishment.

The Ch4 interview with SJ (the son) is on YouTube, and features Cathy Newman speaking to him about his experiences as a child. That is worth a watch too, to get a fuller picture of AS's involvement.

As I’ve repeatedly said, by seeking to understand mars Smythe’s beviour, I’m in no way excusing or condoning it.
I haven’t watched the documentary and might be wise to do so.
It is not uncommon to find abused wives who placate in order to avoid the wrath of their husbands.
Like others posting, there’s no way on earth I would allow anyone to beat, to terrify and emotionally abuse my children.

I didn’t know about her keeping a record of her son’s ‘misdemeanours’ to report back to the abuser. It’s a great pity he wasn’t the subject of a thorough police investigation rather than being shipped off to Africa where he co tinted to abuse. A thorough investigation would have included interviewing his wife and children. Her involvement could have been evaluated

Maremia

So, to actually record what her child did, so that he would be punished when the abuser returned, is an 'unforced' action which for me demonstrates 'complicity'.

Exactly, it isn't as if she was expecting him to get a telling off or have his pocket money stopped. She was setting up her child to get a beating. Vile.

So, to actually record what her child did, so that he would be punished when the abuser returned, is an 'unforced' action which for me demonstrates 'complicity'.

Men who knew not me. I didn't know.

Doodledog

According to a Channel 4 interview with PJ Smyth (available on YouTube) AS kept a book of her son's 'misdemeanours' when his father was away, so that they could be 'addressed' by beatings when he got home. On one occasion he had had a school report that criticised him in six subjects, and he was given 36 strokes of the cane - six for each subject. He was a child, and his mother allowed it. Apparently (according to PJ) his mother was 'specially kind' to him after he was beaten, administering first aid and giving him cushions to sit on.

Is that normal behaviour? Not in my world.

I can't get my head round how she colluded and was just as much to blame as him. Some people seem keen to excuse her, she was young, it was her religion, she was brain washed.

She was guilty and unless you are prepared to excuse me who knew what was going on why would you excuse her. Her own child was a victim, she saw the injuries with her own eyes, she encouraged the victims to hide the evidence and make sure they hid the blood stains. She should be locked up.

According to a Channel 4 interview with PJ Smyth (available on YouTube) AS kept a book of her son's 'misdemeanours' when his father was away, so that they could be 'addressed' by beatings when he got home. On one occasion he had had a school report that criticised him in six subjects, and he was given 36 strokes of the cane - six for each subject. He was a child, and his mother allowed it. Apparently (according to PJ) his mother was 'specially kind' to him after he was beaten, administering first aid and giving him cushions to sit on.

Is that normal behaviour? Not in my world.

She was born in 1944 I believe as she’s one year older than me
It says they met for the first time when she was 16 but that means nothing they could have met briefly gone their own ways and then re met when she was older It doesn’t mean she started seeing him when she was 16
She’s certainly a strange and cold woman when he was stopped in the street for an interview, she was smiling all the time, at one point she laughed a very strange reaction while he seemed only concerned with how they d known where he was.
A cold and detached women linked to a serial abuser not a good mix

MartavTaurus

Unless she were actually born in 1948 as is also written in some online reports?
I don't know, or really care too much. I can't get into public records to check. I don't have Ancestry, and anyway there'd be 1000s of Smyths to dig through!
It will remain unresolved here unless anyone can check. Personally I find her untrustworthy, but who knows?

Her version doesn't seem very reliable.

Unless she were actually born in 1948 as is also written in some online reports?
I don't know, or really care too much. I can't get into public records to check. I don't have Ancestry, and anyway there'd be 1000s of Smyths to dig through!
It will remain unresolved here unless anyone can check. Personally I find her untrustworthy, but who knows?

Wikipedia shows him getting his BA when he was 22. Her timeline doesn't seem to add up.

theworriedwell

So if he was three years older than her and they met when she was 16 and he'd just finished at Cambridge does that mean he graduated at 19?

Apparently he received his BA in 1963 which by my reckoning would make him 22 years?

Just to deal with the rumours about google and the daughter apparently committing suicide, well I asked google since the rumour came from there

"There is no evidence in the search results that John Smyth QC's daughter committed suicide.

The user's query likely stems from news coverage of the John Smyth abuse scandal, which has been widely reported.

The news reports mention that one or more of John Smyth's male victims attempted suicide due to the trauma of the abuse.

I think we should be wary of spreading rumours!

So if he was three years older than her and they met when she was 16 and he'd just finished at Cambridge does that mean he graduated at 19?

It has been asked why does a very, very, lifelong severely abused person lie?

Do we really, really even have to ask that?

I thought the daughter who died had cancer but according to google she committed suicide???
That's very, very sad, if so.
She was the eldest I think.

theworriedwell

MartavTaurus

What Iam64 wrote is not inaccurate.

The wife said in the documentary that she was 16 years old when she met her husband.

I'm not sure she is someone I'd trust given what she was involved with. I think I'd trust public records rather than what she says.

So who to believe? Anne Smyth's own words or information collected about her?

IF the wife lied in the documentary about when she met her husband to be, (16 years old), what else is she lying about?

Anne Smyth refused to contribute any information to the enquiries mentioned.
The documentary is the first time she has ever spoken. Why might she lie that she was 16?

This, however, does appear to back her giving the correct information of being 16 years old:
The documentary features Mrs Smyth recalling her first meeting with her future husband on holiday in Norfolk, when she was 16. This is in contrast to the chronology set out in Keith Makin’s review of Smyth’s abuse, which describes the couple meeting when she was in her early twenties in Swanage.

We could go round and round in circles discussing her age, but what I am saying is that mine andIam64's ears did not deceive us. She said 16 years and that he had just finished at Cambridge.

Thanks Doodledog.

The two children in the interview I believe have had extensive therapy I thought the daughter who died had cancer but according to google she committed suicide ??? Anyone know if that’s true
The third daughter who didn’t appear in the channel 4 docu seems to have been similar in thoughts to the other two, but perhaps she didn’t want any publicity

I think it was the total lack of passion of any emotion that did it for me with the mother
How many beaten women risk their lives daily for their children??? the refuges are full of them She put nothing of her life on the line at all even allowing her own son to take the beatings WOW I don’t care how much under his spell she was to allow him to beat her boy is totally unforgivable

I cannot accept anything about her feelings, his hold on her, Stockholm syndrome, age or anything else except her total ineptitude to save her own children from a monster