Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: At last; a jury accepts that media publicity provokes false allegations
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
Anon |
Gnomo wrote:
What is the Law now? - can the accusers be named?
You presumably know who your accusers were JK - have you been able to follow their careers since your trial? - I know one starred in a documentary for money, but anyone else able to cash in or exploit their status as a 'believed accuser'
They can be named if they are prosecuted and found guilty of making malicious complaints I think, not sure otherwise though...  |
|
honey!oh sugar sugar. |
Gnomo wrote:
What is the Law now? - can the accusers be named?
You presumably know who your accusers were JK - have you been able to follow their careers since your trial? - I know one starred in a documentary for money, but anyone else able to cash in or exploit their status as a 'believed accuser'
I think one of them was on Kilroy. |
|
Gnomo |
What is the Law now? - can the accusers be named?
You presumably know who your accusers were JK - have you been able to follow their careers since your trial? - I know one starred in a documentary for money, but anyone else able to cash in or exploit their status as a 'believed accuser' |
|
Foz |
A waste of taxpayers and Roache's money and I expect he won't even bother trying to sue for his considerable costs as the accusers will, no doubt, cry bankruptcy and slope off into undeserved anonimity. |
|
honey!oh sugar sugar. |
JK2006 wrote:
Several of DLT's character witnesses offered to appear on my behalf; my lawyers rejected them as it would just "irritate" the judge.
Never mind "irritate" He needed a slap! |
|
|
|
