Media hates developments like this and plays them down; so do judges and CPS - I think it's highly significant, illustrating something that happens to celebrities. Just as I really resented the judge in my case taking the conviction in one trial to represent all claims against me when I was acquitted on all charges in a second trial. It's not such a good story, that's why.

People lie, become confused, believe in things that never happened. Memories are faulty. Some "victims" want compensation cash. Some want sympathy. Some want an explanation for life's failure - an excuse. Blame someone or something else. Some are confused, some are mental, some are greedy. And some speak the truth.

But "beyond reasonable doubt"? Never.

Only 6 to go.

JK2006 wrote:
Media hates developments like this and plays them down; so do judges and CPS - I think it's highly significant, illustrating something that happens to celebrities. Just as I really resented the judge in my case taking the conviction in one trial to represent all claims against me when I was acquitted on all charges in a second trial. It's not such a good story, that's why.

People lie, become confused, believe in things that never happened. Memories are faulty. Some "victims" want compensation cash. Some want sympathy. Some want an explanation for life's failure - an excuse. Blame someone or something else. Some are confused, some are mental, some are greedy. And some speak the truth.

But "beyond reasonable doubt"? Never.





So it can get as far as court if you cant remember if something happened but you think it might?

I've seen it all now!

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/27/...count-sexual-assault

Absolutely extraordinary but the judge should have dropped the entire fiasco. If someone has been so badly trained by the police that they say they "think" something might have happened, it doesn't take a genius in law to work out that saying it DID happen is just as unreliable. It MUST have more than that (it didn't in MY case, one of my main causes for still fighting for my appeal). You simply cannot allow "similar fact" evidence when the same police officers make sure they get the same type of evidence from different people - sometimes, amazingly, using exactly the same words.

My more in depth thoughts on this...


The extraordinary developments during the William Roache trial have highlighted the terrible situation in the United Kingdom in the area of allegations of sexual offences.

Without wishing to comment on any specific ongoing events, I quote the Press Association, which has carried the story that the Judge in the trial - Mr Justice Holroyde - has declared, during the trial, that Roache is NOT GUILTY of one of the charges. He said in court - "In relation to that episode the witness was not giving evidence that it did happen, she was giving evidence that she was thinking it did happen and that is not a sufficient evidential basis for the conviction of an offence."

Thirteen years ago, in 2001, I was acquitted at the Old Bailey on all charges of alleged sex offences for very similar reasons.

This was an event not covered in depth by the media at the time because, in another trial six weeks earlier, I had been wrongly convicted of crimes that never took place. A contempt of court embargo had restricted coverage until after the second trial.

The media, understandably, preferred the story of the conviction and felt the second trial result might muddle the reader, listener or viewer.

Indeed, it muddled Richard and Judy over on Channel 4 so much that they put in a call to my lawyer, saying they were delighted I'd been acquitted, had always believed in my innocence and would I please go on their show to discuss the case.

Rapidly discovering their mistake, they quickly reversed their position.

So I became the first Celebrity Vile Pervert since Oscar Wilde and, indeed, suffered a Sun Front Page (mocked up in the Guardian) covering his case, using the tabloid words about me.

But this latest development in the Roache trial is very significant.

My lawyers, since my trial, have said that, if we hadn't made the mistake of getting the allegations split into several trials, jurors, on hearing 21 of the 27 false allegations get thrown out or declared wrong during my trial, would have acquitted me.

I am still fighting to get a hearing for my Appeal granted by the courts.

But this opens a bigger Pandora's Box. Or can of worms. As we watch 2014 turn into a year of historic allegations bringing celebrities to court, and even some more recent allegations, all seeming based on one person's word against another's, not only ancient comedians and DJs but publicists, actors, weathermen and politicians, isn't it time to change the law?

To put in a statute of limitations or, at least, to make any compensation be paid only to medical professionals?
To deal with the greed motive, if not victim sympathy or revenge or desire for fame or genuine delusion or all the other reasons to make complaints from years ago?

There is rarely evidence for any of these crimes. Which is hard for real victims (who ought, I suggest, therefore be encouraged to make claims at the time) but is, surely, more fair?

And it would save so much expense and energy by police and CPS and judges - all using our tax monies to investigate claims which, so often these days, seem provoked by publicity about famous people.

It won't happen, of course, until people start making claims against higher profile law makers - barristers, editors, police chiefs, cabinet ministers. But we are mere seconds away from that. I'm astonished that there haven't already been claims against dead Prime Ministers - surely Edward Heath is a target waiting for a "victim"? When people start emerging making claims against current top politicians (or Deputy Speakers of the House, or Lib Dems), it must only be weeks before other, higher profile people get allegations, true or false, made against them.

Parliament should do something about this ludicrous situation sooner rather than later because, who knows, next... IT COULD BE YOU!