Very convincing but, like any good journalist, I suspect she coloured up what happened and her reactions to his conviction. after all, then it's a "better story" innit?

Call me cynical, but you how the Pollard Report revealed how much plotting and scheming was going on to create 'The Savile Scandal' from the minute he turned his heels up?
And how we subsequently saw that January 2012 fake Gary Glitter account that turned out to be a strange anonymous 'social experiment' (curiously timed to coincide with his BBC4 TOTP77 appearances, in order to whip up a frenzy in TwatterLand?

Well I suspect feelers (if you pardon the pun) were put out to blacken DLT's name at that stage too, and along came Murdoch employee Long with a grossly exaggerated account of her encounter with The Hairy Cornflake.

Too much coincidence.

Interesting Chris but a bit "conspiracy theorist" - I reckon DLT did do his obnoxious "touchy feely" act with Camilla, she saw a great column in it and rather exaggerated his behaviour and her reactions to make a "great story" which snow balled (why wouldn't she be a witness? I suspect even a hack draws the line before having to swear in court that exaggerations were specifically true).

The police and CPS should never have pursued the case against someone whose behaviour was coarse and tasteless but deserved a kick in the balls rather than a court case. And even though her article yesterday is excellent and persuasive, she should not have written it nor the S Times published it; kicking a man when he was down - but since when has that ever stopped our dear media? Mind you, the media deserved a kick in the balls for this (and the hacking scandal and a lot more) but not spending a fortune of our tax monies on investigating, police time and court costs.

Save the Ebola victims and the 17,000 children who die needlessly every day, I say, spend our monies on that instead.

I reckon DLT did do his obnoxious "touchy feely" act with Camilla, she saw a great column in it and rather exaggerated his behaviour and her reactions to make a "great story" ...
Does her Sunday Times article say how she reacted? A report in the Mail makes no mention of her objecting at the time. It also says she "giggled" in "horror and fear", which seems a strange way of showing those emotions. Since she seems feisty enough to write the article, and even says he should have been jailed, you'd think that if she really considered it objectionable/criminal at the time she'd have been capable of 1. saying "would you mind not doing that, please" and 2. reporting it to the police.

Then:
Now :

???