Yes it was a different and interesting tactic. Lawyers recoil in horror at the suggestion, naturally, thinking that jurors, hearing even more ghastly inventions and rehearsed pain, delivered with BAFTA nominated skill and tears, will be encouraged to convict. But I suspect they are starting to see through the bad acting and, as mentioned above, I do think, if they had been faced by weeks of loonies, they might have acquitted me of all 27 false allegations, especially when instructed again and again by the Judge, as claim after claim fell apart. The jurors in my first trial obviously didn't get to see or hear the other fibbers. But then, just as we get hope after an acquittal, another ludicrous conviction is announced. And tragic cases like David and Lynn Bryant get minimal media coverage (I do blame the majority of media, with honourable exceptions, for stoking this fire; it needs a few top editors and reporters to suffer false allegations and prison for the majority to sit up and smell the coffee).
When, for example, somebody can prove they were on another continent when a crime they were convicted for was meant to have taken place, you'd think one brain cell would grant an appeal, wouldn't you?
www.kingofhits.co.uk/component/option,co...d,64/?g2_itemId=5034