I've had several messages asking about my SECOND trial, a few months after the first, where I was acquitted on all charges. The coverage I give in Vile Pervert: The Musical (www.VilePervert.com) was not sufficient for some and, as usual, WikiPedia simply leaves it out.
The first "victim", a liar who I never met, described the first time he saw me - at The Walton Hop where I was DJing and played a specific track which he named.

I was able to prove that the track had not been recorded until two and a half years after he claimed to have first seen me, making him 18 or 19, to which he happily agreed. All this is in the transcript of the trial.

He then went into great detail of having sex with me and said he hated every minute of it and has been haunted by it ever since.

Then asked why he came up to my house several times afterwards he said "because I enjoyed it".

This brought a laugh from the jury. The judge, at this point, stopped the trial and declared me NOT GUILTY of all the charges (including several others) and ordered the prosecution to abandon the remaining charges, saying he would sentence me on the first trial verdict (guilty) as a sample of all the claims. I felt this was terribly unfair, having proved allegations false in 50% of my trials.

Why did this man, who had never been to my house, say "I enjoyed it"? Because (this is only my unproved assumption) the Police, realising juries would not believe people came to me again and again if they hated something, told him and all the other "victims" that they must say they enjoyed themselves or the case would collapse. They forgot to tell him that therefore their entire case depended on the "victims" being under 16 at the time and thus unable to consent to any sex.

Having admitted he was 18 or 19, he was stupidly unaware that he could not then say he enjoyed himself.

I've also posted this in the LEGAL section - www.kingofhits.co.uk/index.php/Legal/My-...-on-all-charges.html

Watching the Glitter trial and remembering the other celebs like the Corrie ones and people like Gambo, would you have handled your first trial the same way if it had been 2015?

Oh yes. the situation in 2015 is very different to that in 2000 and I've learned a huge amount from mistakes made in my trials.

1) I think at last ordinary people are starting to suspect that false allegations DO exist. Fifteen years ago they were considered unlikely. I would, with the benefit of hindsight, now call Chief Constables and other top police to witness how many ludicrous false allegations there are every day. I would give jurors synopses of the NHS reports of the accusations against Jimmy Savile received since all the media coverage of his assumed perversion. I would put the Green Ink Brigade/conspiracy theorists in the withess box (there was one before me on the Leveson Inquiry and, believe me, they are clearly barking). And I would get my QC to ask top cops why anyone making an allegation about sex abuse "will be believed" whilst others will not. Like poor Sally Clark when she denied killing her son (it was eventually proved she didn't) or poor Breck Bednar's mother Lorin LaFave when she begged police to stop a paedophile grooming her son (who he went on to murder). They were NOT believed though they were telling the truth.

2) I'd have called Top Publicist Max Clifford and asked him to explain his role in my prosecution which provoked a "thank you" letter from the Chief Constable.

3) I'd NOT have asked the Judge to divide my trial into five parts (five, not three as inaccurately reported - after my second trial NOT GUILTY verdict the judge ordered the rest abandoned). Then, in one trial, the jury would have witnessed the majority of false claims get thrown out (instead of that happening in legal argument before the first trial) which would have virtually guaranteed a NOT guilty verdict in the only trial too.

4) I'd have then been able to produce all the "maps" of my house drawn by "witnesses" which all featured a door leading to another room in a wall which was and remains a solid brick party wall between my house and the one next door. And I would have got my QC, on oath, to ask them whether they had copied another map left casually on the interview table by "helpful" officers.

5) I'd have insisted on a far more rigorous examination of the stolen credit card used to buy £30,000 worth of goods in Paris a week after the police raided my house. I'm certain a bent cop took it. These days everyone films the individual police before allowing them to search so there would be photographic evidence.

6) I'd call many of the celebrities falsely accused over past years to give evidence about the appalling effects and the lack of punishment for those criminals who tried to pervert the course of justice and ask the police concerned why they did not prosecute the liars (could it be that police "assistance" might have been revealed?).

7) I'd have questioned why my Judge never mentioned the Internet to the Jurors. Although it was up and running and widely used 15 years ago, particularly the Guardian site, judges tend not to be aware of the real world. I'm sure jurors in my case logged on, saw the reports of allegations not mentioned in my trial (and actually thrown out by the Judge) and wrongly decided "he's done it before - he must be guilty".

8) I would not have accepted the Judge allowing the prosecution to change the dates after we showed I could not be guilty, without allowing me time to find my alibi for the new (later) dates (I was in America).

But all this is hindsight, 15 years too late!

I was astonished to read elsewhere that you were acquitted in a second trial. How come this wasn't all over the media? And how come the judges in your appeal weren't influenced by that?

Yes - as it happens, the (now) late Anne Kirkbride had just recently been all over the media as Deirdre Barlow - the Weatherfield One - and the then Prime Minister Tony Blair had been deluged with hundreds of letters appealing to him to "release Deirdre". These writers all genuinely believed she was a real person - not a Coronation Street fictional character. Should police have taken their claims seriously? (They will be believed). Should police today bother spending time and resources examining the claims of those who truly believe they have been abducted by aliens? Or are there better ways to spend our taxes? That's what I asked 15 years ago.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/71934.stm

JK you have put together a good list of challenges. I think it is well said.

I must say that when the media does appear, on the odd occasion, to report the defense QC questioning in these cases it feels like the defense QC is working for the prosecution. The questioning witnesses and research appears to me not well thought out and plays into the hands of the prosecution. The defense QC may say, for example. "I put it to you that such and such an event did not occur..." Well the witness will disagree and thus reinforce his or her lie.
So hard as it may be, the accused needs to take the lead in their own fight and IN JK's case I believe if JK knew what JK knows now he would be one of the few who could do it. DLT appeared as one guy who did not take it lying down. I loved Freddie Starr's counter attacks as well.

I would encourage all to listen and consider the advice by all means but never trust on face value advice from anyone in anything. 'A case of guilty until proved innocent.' So a defend QC is reliable and gives good advice because you test it by your own research and their previous record to you personally and to others historically is consistently correct and well thought out. None of this you must be believed crap. But finding a good QC and finding a good builder are two jobs not to be envied at all. And when accused and the world is against you what a position to be in. Find your hidden resources and seize the day, take charge. JK has given some good suggestions. If you follow them and they fail and the QC, friends and so forth say '...told you so...' take no notice. As long as you honestly listen and evaluate then lift your head up and know you fought well. My belief (Which I hope never to be tested!!!) is better to die trying than roll over and die anyhow. Here's a common example all lawyers always say speak to no one stay quiet and this advice may well be what saves you. But Freddie Starr did not keep quiet and he is not in jail. Max Clifford did speak a little but appears to followed the no comment policy and he is in jail.

There is the much bigger problem of how society - and the media - use, regard and want police to behave.

The officer in charge of my prosecution was given, as a reward for my successful conviction, the Milly Dowler case to head up. Since he was incompetent at real policing, Levi Belfield was allowed to remain free and murdered two other innocent girls. Fortunately in an area belonging to another force who then, rapidly, found him, arrested him, stopped him and jailed him for life. Although the officer was given early retirement, he's never been investigated. Read all about it in detail in 70 FFFY.

So when a mother contacts police, worried that her son is being groomed, she is ignored. The force are instead spending thousands on investigating whether those Duncroft women accusing (dead) Jimmy Savile of historical sex offences were lying or telling the truth. The Savile story is, of course, a far bigger media story. Is that the best use of our taxes given to police? The result, as we all know, was that the 14 year old boy was murdered by the loony. That could have been prevented if the budget had not been wasted on the Duncroft investigation (the women were not believed and the letter forged by someone from the police was ignored).

Could the innocent Amelie and Marsha not have died if a decent cop had been running the Dowler investigation? We'll never know but I suggest saving innocent lives would be a far better use of resources than obeying the media desire for a good story.

I'm aware of a case (non criminal) at the moment where the Recorder has also split the case up into a ridiculous number of parts and has made judgements for and against a friend of mine who is the complainant. I believe that case is going back to court because the complainant's legal team is unhappy about the process and want it to be returned into 'a whole' as they feel they will get the decision they want that way (all for the complainant as opposed to piecemeal bits for him.)

Looking at the Talbot case and the fact that the vast majority of claims were dismissed by the jury, you must feel upset that you proved so many allegations against you were lies yet you were found guilty of a few and most people now regard you as a convicted criminal. How many claims were rejected in your case?

Of the 27 claims, over half were thrown out by the Judge (which is why lawyers have since told me we should have had the trial on all 27 - the jury seeing one after the other chucked would have acquitted me). Of the 12 remaining, the trials were divided. Eventually only 5 (6 charges) were in the first trial, in which I was found guilty. The rest were either in Trial 2 (acquitted) or 3,4 and 5, ordered abandoned by the judge.

People lie, or are genuinely mistaken, or have faulty memories (often transferring experiences from one person to another) or are persuaded by helpful, hard working police to "remember" things wrongly (especially dates).

Since the majority returned to visit me many times (one came back 50 times over three years until he was nearly 20), they were all assumed to have consented to anything that had occurred.

But Judge Paget decided to use the 5 complainants in the first trial as samples of all other claims and thus sentenced me accordingly.

Thank you the many people who have told me they think my conviction was a disgrace.

Matthew Parris has always been supportive privately but the recent events have made him express his views publicly, as are many others.

JK2006 wrote:
Matthew Parris has always been supportive privately but the recent events have made him express his views publicly, as are many others.


Little by little, Mr King.

Did I dream it or was Wilf Self involved somewhere in your case?

Yes; the man who started my persecution shared a room in rehab with Will Self shortly before going to Max Clifford and making false allegations. I wondered whether he'd mentioned my name to Will and asked him after he gave the Longford Lecture a couple of years ago. Will confirmed he had NOT mentioned me despite pouring out all his past problems but then revealed the police had contacted him, after Kirk made his claims to them, and he'd told them my name had never been mentioned. You would think that would have made the police worry that this man's new claims might be fake. But no, they just chose to ignore Will's evidence. "You will be believed" unless you endanger our chances of getting a wrongful conviction.

If Kurt is lying, then what was his agenda? Did he make any money out of the whole thing? Is he just deranged? Why would he put himself through the trauma of testifying in a trial? And didn't he work for you and/or Chris Denning back in the 70s?

I have no idea why "KuRt" lied (amused you've gone with the Vile Pervert name as opposed to his real name when he "bravely" waived anonymity) but it's strange that he never mentioned me at all until sent away from Max Clifford's company with a flea in his ear "because nobody of interest abused him". No, not only did he never work for me but I never even met him until confronted with him by The Sun after my release. And have since found loads of evidence on that. But it's of no use to my appeal as his claims were ordered abandoned by the Judge, so his case was no part of my trials (to, I suspect, the delight of the police and prosecution, who knew he was only meant to be the trigger for more false claims that would prove more believable - Gambo's "fly paper" example).