The suicide note and the reflections on mental health, drugs and relationships with celebrities throws more light on this strange area that has only come into focus in the last twenty years or so. When I said I should be judged by "a jury of my peers" I clearly meant by others who had experienced the effects on media and ordinary people of fame.

Until you've experienced it and known what it does, you cannot judge the behaviour of others.

your 'jury of peers' is another quaint concept of law that has been thrown out the window along with double jeopardy and the new acceptable 'evidence' in sex abuse trials- hearsay.

And as evidenced and accepted in the Clifford trial- 18 witnesses who were never at the scene of the alleged crime were allowed to give 'evidence' of it happening by virtue of sitting with someone watching TV and the wife saying "he's a real wrong'un that one- groped me one day " etc etc and so on.

Only your peers would understand as Rolf Harris tried to explain : that his life is so busy, so complicated with 100s of people coming in and out of it and endless tours of towns : how in the hell could he remember being in some town 40 years ago ?

Indeed I went to Justin Beiber's 1st Australian TV interview 4 years ago- he has been back twice since yet was seen on video this week asking an aide "have I been to Australia?"

I believe it was a genuine query.

so how can the general public be expected to judge him?