His name is all over the Internet. Everybody knows who it is.
But the jury must not know.
So yesterday the prosecutor accidentally named him.
Despite the fact that any juror worth their salt googled his name on Day One...

The judge told them to put the name out of their heads.

And the trial continues.

Alice in Wonderland anyone? We really are living in cloud cuckoo land.

Either everyone gets told or they stop the trial.

But no, the Judge continues the "Let's pretend" game.

Mad.

I have to hold my hand up and admit I haven't a clue who it is. I've not followed the story at all.

I think I've become numb to all the scandal stories, many of which turn out to be a load of tosh.

JK2006 wrote:

The judge told them to put the name out of their heads.

And the trial continues.

Alice in Wonderland anyone? We really are living in cloud cuckoo land.

Either everyone gets told or they stop the trial.

Why should the name remain secret, JK ?
Everyone else gets named at Court - why should a member of the Royals get extra privilege and protection?

PS - His father - also rumoured to be gay - was alleged to have said "thats enough of that business" after he had produced the heir and spare !

I just Googled it out of curiosity after reading this thread.

If I were on the Jury I think I would too - although what difference does it make who he is?

Unfortunately "Don't look at that that" is a great way to spark curiosity.

The Cat wrote:
I have to hold my hand up and admit I haven't a clue who it is.

You're not alone, Cat, nor have I.

I have always thought it strange how judges ask juries to disregard things, as if something can be unsaid or unread just because the legal process has demanded it. Very odd.

The reason for secrecy ITK is quite right - blackmail victims (Royal or otherwise) are always given and deserve anonymity.

Unlike false accusers who, I believe, deserve to be named and jailed.

And yes, Anthony - that happened in my trial several times and I was furious - how can a jury be expected to "put something out of their minds" when it has been proven totally false? It's an evil legal trick.

JK2006 wrote:
The reason for secrecy ITK is quite right - blackmail victims (Royal or otherwise) are always given and deserve anonymity.

Thanks for that JK. I've not really been following the story and didn't realise it was a blackmail plot (and of course blackmail victims should have their identity kept secret).

BUT ... what is the difference between selling a story to a newspaper (for gain) and selling the same story to the "victim" (to prevent its publication)?

Pretty dodgy ground I think. Perhaps we should ask Max - I'm sure he would know !!!