Is it true you got a longer prison sentence because you were acquitted at another trial?

Yes indeed; they decided to split up the charges (a mistake, we later decided, as the Judge threw out dozens of false allegations and a jury, seeing them all collapse, would probably have acquitted me of the lot).

So several smaller trials were scheduled. I was found guilty in the first, Not Guilty in the second and the judge then ordered the others dropped and sentenced me for the first as samples for all of them; thus giving me seven years when I really should only have been given 2 years.

I get more E Mails asking me about my acquittal at the second trial than almost anything else... yes, there was a second trial and yes, I was acquitted and then sentenced on the result of the first trial. I felt this was grossly unfair - why was not the result of the SECOND trial considered to represent all historical allegations? And why did the media choose hardly to cover my acquittal?

Media savi JK wrote, " And why did the media choose hardly to cover my acquittal?"

Surely rhetorical, and not so naieve not to know that for bent-media good news ain't, er 'News' ?

JK2006 wrote:
And why did the media choose hardly to cover my acquittal?

Not a good story, JK. But you know that.

WholeTruth wrote:
Media savi JK wrote, " And why did the media choose hardly to cover my acquittal?"

Surely rhetorical, and not so naieve not to know that for bent-media good news ain't, er 'News' ?

I think the media got much worse around that time, and though nowadays we dont expect the papers to report anything that doesn't fit their agenda, most of us at that time would have expected full coverage.
I only knew something had gone terribly wrong with the case when they had one of the "victims" on "Vanessa" or "Kilroy"(Or something) and they were very obviously lying.