Been reading about John King, as i remember him on TV from when i was a child, I have read many transcripts from celeb "so Called" band wagon convictions, dont get me wrong pedo's should be locked up, However in JK's case it wasn't clear weather these boys were of an age whereby they could consent to sex.

Indeed 2 other threads of enquiry were dropped and i quote "because the Victim may have been 16. Now im no judge or jury but in many cases i have agreed with the convicitions of some of the celebs, however upon doing some reading i do not agree in the case of Jonathon King. Homosexuality is not a crime and neither is it with somebody of consenting age! Due to many people seeking monetary gain and others jumping on to bandwagons im not sure these high profile cases can be safe. Indeed most are hung and quartered by the media! This creates an immediate bias and therefor deems any trial or jury judging those charged bias!

My own mother was a victim of child abuse clear and true, and the person who did it was never brought before a court! The Fact that JK was and a few other people who have been recently accused have been found guilty makes me feel uneasy about our justice system, and that media can control in affect anything!

I am no friend of JK and i have found this site from wikipedia! But no consenting Homosexual or hetrosexual man should be put through this and i hope this conviction is quashed and JK is removed from the sex offenders register. SK39

And sadly SK you'll find media reports - especially WikiPedia, are often inaccurate too. In my second trial we produced evidence that, if one of the men had ever met me, he would have been over 18. The record he heard me play the first time he saw me was not recorded until several years after the date he claimed. He said he came to my house several times and "thoroughly enjoyed his experiences" (he'd never been to my house). These and many other facts caused me to be found Not Guilty. All this is freely available in transcript of the trial but, naturally, neither the media nor WikiPedia Editors bother to get copies.

Our Judicial system is broken.

Nobody reads court transcriptions, just as they do not read official reports which are easily obtainable on-line these days. All they can manage, it seems, is the gutter press headline, they rarely even get into the body of text, which often contradicts the headline. I've given up asking friends if they've read the Yewtree report. They just know Savile was a predatory child-abuser, 'cos the newspapers said so, anyway, there's no smoke without fire etc., etc.

I've read a good number of the NHS reports (thanks Moor Larkin/Annaraccoon), and there really is nothing of substance in any of them, but when you tell people, you get "..but there's so many, some must be true....."

I then tell them I used to work for BBC TV, and knew the Savile production team very well (Jim'll fix it and other programs), and that those people have denied anything untoward happened, nor did I hear any rumours at the time - as in "Jim had better watch out, if the New of the World finds out....."

No effect. Your first-hand witness is trumped by the salacious headline every time.

Exactly,

I get worried that we now have a system that can convict on no real evidence and indeed many historical cases have been quashed due to unsafe testimony and little to know forensic evidence, if indeed i am chatting to you JK i do feel you ought to pursue your fight to clear your name and seek compensation for time served.

I feel that in future cases all media have to do is draw you in a bad light, indeed probably lie too, and a person can have their life ruined!

What has happened, have we gone mad, and who can really say anything is safe with the absense of forensic or safe evidence! Yours is as such that you should of been cleared, just my opinion

Seek further advice for sure kind regards

SK39

JK2006 wrote:
[quote]And sadly SK you'll find media reports - especially WikiPedia, are often inaccurate too. In my second trial we produced evidence that, if one of the men had ever met me, he would have been over 18. The record he heard me play the first time he saw me was not recorded until several years after the date he claimed. He said he came to my house several times and "thoroughly enjoyed his experiences" (he'd never been to my house). These and many other facts caused me to be found Not Guilty. All this is freely available in transcript of the trial but, naturally, neither the media nor WikiPedia Editors bother to get copies

I find what you have been through at the hands of the legal sytem unfair and unjust, the corrupt and broken powers that be need to establish a base for people who are charged with these crimes where they have no evidence, convictions off the back of next to nothing is tant amount to dictatorship!

JK2006 wrote:
And sadly SK you'll find media reports - especially WikiPedia, are often inaccurate too. In my second trial we produced evidence that, if one of the men had ever met me, he would have been over 18. The record he heard me play the first time he saw me was not recorded until several years after the date he claimed. He said he came to my house several times and "thoroughly enjoyed his experiences" (he'd never been to my house). These and many other facts caused me to be found Not Guilty. All this is freely available in transcript of the trial but, naturally, neither the media nor WikiPedia Editors bother to get copies.

Our Judicial system is broken.


Would it be possible to publish the entire transcript here? It might be helpful.

-- Would it be possible to publish the entire transcript here? --

+1

Sadly no; it would bore you to tears and occupy a million bytes!

JK2006 wrote:
Sadly no; it would bore you to tears and occupy a million bytes!


It wouldn't! I love transcripts. (I don't know about the bytes though.Maybe excerpts?)

corevalue wrote:
I've read a good number of the NHS reports (thanks Moor Larkin/Annaraccoon), and there really is nothing of substance in any of them, but when you tell people, you get "..but there's so many, some must be true....."


A good counter to this is to ask these people where the aliens are.

"Aliens?" they asked with a puzzled look.

Yes, you tell them. Even the claims against Sir Jimmy are outstripped by the thousands of people worldwide who claim (many with similar stories) to have been abducted by aliens. Using the "they can't all be lying" logic you espouse above, it must therefore follow that you believe in alien visitors. So where are they?