Clive Goodman has obviously picked up tips from ITV's fave - if in trouble, accuse a dead person. Princess Diana isn't around to deny Clive's sensational allegations that she sent round the Palace Directory.

JK2006 wrote:
Clive Goodman has obviously picked up tips from ITV's fave - if in trouble, accuse a dead person. Princess Diana isn't around to deny Clive's sensational allegations that she sent round the Palace Directory.

an absurd claim. Diana may have been a troubled soul but she wasn't a fool and she understood security. She had 2 small children. As if she would put other lives in danger by giving out personal details.

She was distressed about losing her Royal status because she lost her guards from the Royal Protection Squad- hence having to rely on private bodyguards.

...... But it does sound TRUE, though, doesn't it?

The fact that it sounds 'true' ITK is irrelevant.
Give us the evidence - which like most historical charges is impossible, especially when the main party is dead.
I agree with Hedda, she was not stupid enough to put her children at risk by giving out private phone number

Whether true or not is of no interest to me; what I find interesting is the relatively new discovery that dead people cannot answer so, if we regard claims about them as proof or evidence, they will start getting used a great deal to explain matters.

Works both ways?

The dead can't answer charges or accusations levelled at them for convenience or malice....

but also unfortunately, the dead can't correct the chain of events that would convict people who 'get off through lack of evidence'..........whent the dead have all the answers.....

Being dead sounds rubbish

Yes it's not so much the dead as the bizarre fact that media and now the courts are starting to accept hearsay from or about the dead as reality. This is the frightening thing, along with the already established rule that one person's word can be accepted as evidence when there is no other corroborating proof. All absolutely fine if nobody ever lies or gets muddled or is genuinely deluded.

I am completely befuddled (often) that in a current trial and in previous, of 'celebrity' sex claims that hearsay is being included.

Friends of the claimant are giving evidence that something was told them ten years ago?..how can this be so?

Yes this was brought in some time ago to assist in raising the conviction rates. Since there is usually no actual "evidence", hearsay was allowed. All of a sudden close friends emerged saying he or she told them about it "at the time". Said close friends are often considerably wealthier after a guilty verdict, sharing in compensation or media fees. The Judge must now tell the jury this is proof an event happened.

It really is amazing how justice has been perverted. I find it shocking that politicians haven't done anything about it. But, of course, abused women and children are a far better story than miscarriages of justice (boring).