Use of local media by bent cops is an interesting area; local papers often carry information regarding local people involved in court cases. Police know they prefer the juicy, nasty elements, lies and false allegations. Often this only appears after a Court appearance when the prosecuting barrister inflates and colours up the lies. But this can spectacularly backfire. Media is not meant, for example, to reveal names of false accusers (those criminals are protected by an absurd law). So they give details which only those who know the liars can understand. But sometimes this can provoke decent, honest people to come forward.

A researcher on a popular local TV show, for example, was going to be a witness in my debacle of a trial in 2018. He had worked with me in London on a radio series before moving out to the Midlands. Now in the North East, he contacted me with incredibly valuable, detailed evidence and was scheduled as a vital defence witness. Ditto a local radio DJ. Ditto the first girlfriend of one liar. Along with massive anomalies in prosecution statements (apparently witnesses whose sworn details totally contradicted those of the liar). Even relatives can provide valuable evidence of lies about dates, places and circumstances.

In cross examination, prosecution witnesses can become vital defence witnesses if presented with contradictory evidence. Believing they are telling the truth; baffled to discover their friend or relation is lying. The word used by hacks is "crumbled". But I have nothing but admiration for them. They genuinely believed their friend was truthful and are horrified when proof of lies is provided - by their allies. It is the false accusers who deserve punishment. And, of course, the "enablers".

Police don't like having to warn potential witnesses. In my debacle, the man's sister had to be warned (only after the CPS insisted) that her claims he had raped her "numerous times - full penetration" when she was 10 and he was 20 - would be revealed in court. She said if that happened she would kill herself. She could not take the shame (though why she would be considered at fault I have no idea). So the CPS instructed Surrey Police to drop her as a witness, knowing the cross examination would not only destroy her but their case as well.

Juries tend to disbelieve false accusers when they are revealed to be child rapists.

Is it deliberate that False Accusers conceal skeletons in their closets? Is it hope that their own crimes will not be discovered so they can claim compo? Is it genuine delusion (some people really forget their worst behaviour)? Have they lied to their loved ones so often that they actually come to believe their own lies?

And social media is a huge asset too; I strongly urge any future victims of the False Allegations Industry to use social media to attract those missing pieces of evidence. You'd be surprised how much of it is out there.