Those who have read 65 My Life So Far or watched Vile Pervert: The Musical will know this story but here's a brief précis. In Belmarsh, after my conviction, I got an anonymous letter seemingly written on parchment or vellum with a quill pen and ink from someone who said I was a good and decent man and that many of those responsible for my wrongful conviction would suffer.

Indeed, she (I assumed it was a woman) said two out of three judges involved in my trials would die prematurely. "Rubbish", I thought, "I only had one Judge". But then the Recorder of London who had allocated my trial to the Old Bailey died in his early 60s from a sudden heart attack and John Kay, the presiding lead judge in my appeal, also died aged 60. After his death I realised he'd been at Cambridge with me (see elsewhere for details).

She said two jurors had already died. Someone "not directly involved but encouraging others" would suffer - losing a loved one and more. Max Clifford's wife then got terminal cancer. The original false accuser (who first went to Max) suffered serious strokes.

All this can be read or watched at greater length. I dismissed it as just another loony (though the ink was not green) but now I wonder...

JK I've read with interest your pieces on your case. How much greater sentence do you think you would have been given if you had been found guilty in the second trial?

Nothing. I was told by the Judge that he was sentencing me on the first trial verdict to represent all other claims and that even if there had been a hundred other guilty verdicts the sentence given - running concurrent, not consecutive - represented them all. Which was how he justified giving a much longer sentence than the guidelines. I felt that was very unfair since I was found NOT GUILTY in the second trial which implied I could have been acquitted on many of the charges. My lawyers later (on appeal) said we made a mistake and that if all the claims had stayed in one trial I would have walked free (the judge threw the majority out in pre trial legal argument) as the jury would have seen how many claimants were lying (or mistaken).

That was one reason why the later claims (after the Matthew Kelly false allegations) were not pursued. Police told me the CPS had said it would "not be in the public interest" as - even if they had gone to trial and I'd been found guilty - I'd already been sentenced for all claims.