Again I, like you, have no idea whether he is innocent or guilty of the charges against him (or even, in these days of plea bargaining, of the offences he has admitted). But it seems sensible that he has no defence. It is virtually impossible to prove you didn't do something years ago, especially when there is no evidence produced that you did. Unless you believe (like the police and CPS) that nobody ever lies or is mistaken. And, like the law, accept one person's word as evidence. Yes, he could go into the dock and rip witnesses apart, exposing their various crimes (I'm sure there are many - from minor breaches of drug laws, driving offences and so on to more serious ones; easily discovered by a decent PI) but when the guy is unable to eat after serious operations, why bother? He cannot beat the system; he is almost dead; give up the will to live. Why bother?

www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-534...nce-abuse-trial.html

JK, I'm not sure whether you have to be careful with any of this as the trial is going on, but the following information is easily accessible through a quick search for his name, so I hope I'm not causing any problems.

This all seems incredibly vindictive.

As far as I can tell, he's done time on both sides of the Atlantic. The first of his (now) three UK trials did not cover all the known accusations - he was tried and found guilty of twenty-odd offences, whilst another twenty-odd were left to lay on file. Having served his time for these offences he was sentenced again in 2015 for activities during the same period as his initial UK trial. And now he's being 'got' again for offences, again, during that same period.

If someone had gone down for a sample 20 burglaries during a decade-long career, done his time, and started to rebuild his life, could we then go back and try him again, and again, each time he picked himself up, for other burglaries committed during the same period as the original offences? Is this not cruel and unusual punishment?

I would think the last thing the poor man wants is to attempt a defence. Presumably he’s on suicide watch so that we can be sure he doesn’t ‘evade justice’. And now we’re making him watch his own trial on a television.

And all because of the media and the wonderful Victoria Derbyshire getting a sacked cop sobbing on TV in order to boost ratings.

I remember photos at the time of his arrest showing his house being boarded up and dog being led away. It gave the impression that he had been getting on with his life, posing no harm to anyone.

And the sobbing copper had been amongst the the first group of UK complainants back in 1998, hadn't he?

I suppose that, if a victim is damaged for life, bringing the abuser to justice can provide only temporary relief. So, each time a victim feels a bit down again, we can drag out his original abuser and do justice to him all over again.

Perhaps this is what's meant by a victim-centred approach.

It might just be worth noting that a Channel 4 Dispatches helped get the ball rolling in Britain whilst Bennell was serving time in the US, so it's not only daytime TV that helps administer justice.

JK2006 wrote:
And all because of the media and the wonderful Victoria Derbyshire getting a sacked cop sobbing on TV in order to boost ratings.

Well when she turns up to present that show - could you imagine the JK Show on TV *WITHOUT* JK?

But seriously, it is such a dull, depressing programme that it needs these little "tabloid tales" in there to try and pep it up.

Wonder if the Bennell jury have read this?

www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-n...e-victim-lied-compo/

Seems vindictive to me also.