A question I've been asked many times in messages since I revealed my acquittal notice recently; my (bad) lawyers got the 22 dropped in legal argument or acquitted in the second trial so only 5 were left for the first trial which, as a result, only lasted 4 days. A mistake - all the false accusers over 40 days would have had the jurors threatening to lynch them as they watched and heard the collection of loonies, druggies, alcoholics and mentals parade their lies.

www.kingofhits.co.uk/component/option,co...d,64/?g2_itemId=4945

As you pointed out yourself in one of your movies, allowing the charges to be split into three separate trials was a strategic error.

You were in the rare and fortunate position of being able to prove that some of the accusations were false. Since the first jury didn't hear any of the evidence about the 22 charges they were denied the opportunity to spot any similarities and patterns between those and the 5, and gain an overall perspective - probably a more negative one - on the prosecution.

I also think it was a mistake not to examine the police assistance/collusion issue more closely, as this nicely compliments the point about the pile of disproved charges.

Yes you live and learn and remember - 17 years ago attitudes were different. It was 5 trials, by the way, not just three! The three subsequent trials were ordered abandoned by the Judge; acquitted on the second trial; convicted (after almost as long Jury consideration as the entire trial took) on the original 5 man trial.

There was an interesting strategy in Rolf Harris's second trial. On the prosecution side, it is often suggested that all these people telling similar tales couldn't possibly be making it up independently and so it all must be true.

That shoe can fit on the other foot. Mr Harris's advocate did a good job of demonstrating that the accusations in the original trial were bollocks and so these probably are too. Bet the CPS didn't like that. How dare the defence pull such a disgraceful stunt, eh?

Nota bene, dear host.

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