What news of your European court case JK?

It's meant to be being considered at any moment Giles; as you may have seen in the movie, the prosecution asked to change the dates on 4 of the 6 charges after my defence had been completed (always later, in one case 2.5 years later, making the men older every time).

To my amazement the Judge allowed this - not allowing me to discover alternative defence on the new dates (and I've subsequently discovered a cast iron alibi I was in America on the dates of one of the convictions).

So the jury heard no defence at all for 4 of the 6 charges.

"You did something in 1987" is a very different charge from "you did something in 1989".

This happens all the time - it is "standard judicial practice". My team assured me the judge would tell the jury to take this into account - I thought he'd instruct them to acquit me - but he didn't.

It took the jury 3 days (after a 5 day trial) to decide I was guilty. I was surprised they could decide at all, not having heard any defence.

I believe that was a fundamental breach of my human rights to a fair trial. That's what the ECHR will be considering.

They've got by this one now.In my case I was given a 13 month period for which the false allegations covered.
How can anybody find an alibi over such a timescale?
They learnt from JK,they cheated on him,but now moved the goalposts so it's impossible to provide an alibi.Crafty cheats.

Oh no, IA - all my initial charges were a year long too (I don't think they are allowed to do longer than that; check it out) but I was able to prove them wrong (TV shows they came up to me and said they loved not yet broadcast that year etc etc)...

Indeed in the second trial (at which I was acquitted on all counts) the man spoke about the track I'd played at the first disco when he met me (he never did) which we proved had not been recorded or written until he would have been 18 or 19 (not 15)...

Luckily I have monuments of scrap books as well as piles of documents.

One man spoke about my multi coloured wig - I was able to produce the sales slip (3 years later)...

That's one of the few advantages of being a celebrity. Of course if I hadn't been a celeb, no charges would have been made. Compen - say - shun!

The new. later dates were smaller time frames (in order to be allowed by the judge)... I can now produce a cast iron alibi for them but, of course, couldn't do so at the time having only acquired evidence - with great difficulty - for the earlier dates.

Sorry JK,wasn't aware of the exact time scales of your trial.
Seems you caught them out by year,good detective work,but again almost impossible to catch that many out...hence the conviction.
Good luck with the appeal,I'll no doubt read of it here,doubt it'll make the Sun;)

JK, If the ECHR find in your favour(which they SHOULD do) can they quash your conviction outright or would it be referred to the court of appeal in the UK so that you can present them with the evidence to say you were in a different country at the time of these allegations?

IF they find for me (which they won't; I'm very cynical about justice these days and "they" do not want me to win), my convictions go back to the CofA but HAVE to be quashed as we signed the Human Rights Act.

the timeline is absolutely vital !.

There was a famous case here in Oz that concerned a solicitor-the late very high profile John Marsden who sued a TV station for claiming he had been with underage boys.

We all knew John was gay and this was political withhunt-he was on the police board. But he was into pretty rough trade..big tough guys. He sued for libel. It took six years during which time his teeth fell out and he got cancer.

Poor John died in Istanbul spending some of the $6M he was awarded in damages.

The TV station and News Ltd did the usual disgraceful things..putting the so-called witnesses up in luxury hotels with promises of payouts if they won the case plus the inevitable compen-say-shun.

Marsden finally demolished the TV station's defense after the men gave descriptions of his bedroom, by proving the place had been re-decorated 4 years after they claimed they were there..making them 19 & 20 at the time.

Even the present of a goat for his farm from a former judge was featured. Given to him 3 years after these money hungry louts say they saw it.

Although the TV station paid out about $10M in costs etc, in the end it's just a tax deduction. They can slander and libel and even when caught out, the taxpayer subsidies their costs, not something the public can do with legal costs.

There needs to be criminal editorial culpability for the rubbish tabloids print.

You must have got the most shocking judge JK. Sounds like a senile old fool.

The worst aspect is these creeps sail away scot free even though they are proven liars and have committed perjury.

Actually no, Veritas, I thought Judge David Paget was pretty fair.

But this IS "standard judicial procedure" and, of course, all the men in wigs, defence, prosecution, judge, are all old mates who see each other daily and begin to accept things which are just extraordinarily unacceptable.

That is "institutional stupidity"

It is how people disconnect with the real World. Politicians and the Judicial System operate outside of normal human lives.

That is why it is such a culture shock for law abiding citizens to be faced with being plunged into this crazy strange world - as was well portrayed in the BBC drama "Criminal Justice"

It seems the usual rules dont apply to the Judicial System - and truth is the first casualty. Proceedure is king and even when the facts contradict this it wins every time.

The GOVERNMENT have ignored the European Court ruling on DNA blatantly - so why should they do anything about any of its other rulings ? The LAW does not apply to our ruling classes and their private Police service.