The judge in the trial of former BBC DJ Dave Lee Travis has instructed a jury to ignore any separate allegations against other celebrities when reaching its verdict.

The outcome of the William Roache trial, the Savile inquiry and the allegations against Rolf Harris are "irrelevant" to the case, Judge Anthony Leonard said.

news.sky.com/story/1208176/dlt-jury-to-i...lliam-roache-verdict

Is there even a need to send the Jury out ?

Judges always try desperately to appear to be "fair".

But can a juror erase from his or her mind eight pages they have just read in the Daily Mail? Or something they saw on TV last night?

When Question Time says it has become ridiculous, witch hunts against celebrities after the Savile fiasco (and I've got news for him, there were several BEFORE the Savile scandal) - how can Jurors erase this from their minds.

And should they?

Does solid evidence, fact, proof that Media Publicity about Celebrities provokes false allegations, be ignored.

Is it irrelevant? How DARE a judge say so.

I submit the judge is wrong; it is HIGHLY relevant.

Absolutely agree JK - the Roach case is very relevant to the DLT case - same historic allegations, same trawling of accusers by the arrest publicity - same unbelievable witnesses.
I am amazed the Defence didn't highlight the similarities so the Jury are fully aware they can - and should take the accusers' evidence with a VERY large pinch of salt.

JK2006 wrote:
I submit the judge is wrong; it is HIGHLY relevant.

Hence my last line !

I've said before .... Juries are usually (if properly directed) very capable of sorting the liars / moneygrabbers from the genuine.

They will have watched as the evidence was given ... sensed whether they were telling the truth / did they appear "shifty" or evasive? / formed an opinion of their reliability and honesty etc.

We who read about it can only guess.

The Juries stare the witness in the eyes !

It will all turn out alright !

I was in Southwark yesterday, so witnessed first hand all the details. I saw a smarmy, supercilious and arrogant closing speech by the prosecution, and I consider myself lucky to have witnessed first-hand Mr Vullo's defence. If it had been on a stage, he would have got a standing ovation.
The judge struck me a refreshingly no-nonsense too.

In The Know wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
I submit the judge is wrong; it is HIGHLY relevant.

Hence my last line !

I've said before .... Juries are usually (if properly directed) very capable of sorting the liars / moneygrabbers from the genuine.

They will have watched as the evidence was given ... sensed whether they were telling the truth / did they appear "shifty" or evasive? / formed an opinion of their reliability and honesty etc.

We who read about it can only guess.

The Juries stare the witness in the eyes !

It will all turn out alright !

Suppose it's kind of your luck who you get on the jury too...