When, during my 2001 trial, the Prosecutor showed photos of my False Accusers when they had been teenagers, we wanted to show the jury this - how I also looked at the alleged time period. The Judge would not allow it.

I wonder if Benjamin Butterworth is a relation of yours.

That is interesting. What was the reason the Judge gave to deny this?

He agreed with the Prosecution that it would give the Jurors an unfair view of the relationship. The fact that they WERE allowed to see photos of the false accusers, always from several years before they met me (if they ever did), escaped him.

JK2006 wrote:
He agreed with the Prosecution that it would give the Jurors an unfair view of the relationship. The fact that they WERE allowed to see photos of the false accusers, always from several years before they met me (if they ever did), escaped him.

An unfair view of the relationship...what a strange notion.

It seems to imply that the jury must ignore the reality of the relationship at the time by only visualising you as an older rather than younger man. That the jury must have the maximum sense of power imbalance and exploitation protected. Concerning.

(PS totally get that you may not wish to comment further on this).

JK2006 wrote:
He agreed with the Prosecution that it would give the Jurors an unfair view of the relationship. The fact that they WERE allowed to see photos of the false accusers, always from several years before they met me (if they ever did), escaped him.

I bet it didn't!

there are so many further pieces of evidence that the 2001 trial was totally unfair by today's standards. Back then things like failure to disclose vital evidence was just shrugged off. It still amazes me that, having proved TWICE that I was not in the country on two of the dates claimed, the judge simply allowed the prosecution to change the dates to later without allowing me a second to find alternative alibi proof.

All of this is currently with the CCRC.

JK2006 wrote:
there are so many further pieces of evidence that the 2001 trial was totally unfair by today's standards. Back then things like failure to disclose vital evidence was just shrugged off. It still amazes me that, having proved TWICE that I was not in the country on two of the dates claimed, the judge simply allowed the prosecution to change the dates to later without allowing me a second to find alternative alibi proof.

All of this is currently with the CCRC.

But what sort of lunatic could ever think that this is acceptable?