Brave defence lawyer Chris Saltrese' vastly experienced review.

Of what, after 25 years since the proven false 'Satanic Abuse' panics, is now increasingly recognised as a truly medevil modern 'Witch Hunt'.

Perhaps of particular note for KingOfHits, are the learned criticisms of Her Majesty's Circuit Judges. Responding to a raft of confused and prejudicial proposals in a consultation paper, 'Convicting Rapists and Protecting Victims' issued by the Home Office in March 2006.

�It has to be recognised that the purpose of disclosing evidence to the defence...is to ensure that the defence know the case they have to meet. Simply allowing supplementary questioning of a witness risks the introduction of matters that have not been dealt with in the evidence disclosed.�

www.chrissaltrese.co.uk/falseallegations.html

In last November 2012, breaking tsunami of supposed 'historic allegations' about Jimmy Savile, almost NIL bent-Cops/Media time was given to investigating any possibility of 'False Allegations'.

But, brave defence lawyer, vastly experienced Chris Saltrese managed to get about 10 minutes interviewed on the populist BBC Radio 5 Live, late evening. Podcast now unavailable - Quel Surprise.

So, here's a verbatim transcript of that interview conducted by (sitting in for Tony Livesey) 38 yr old Colin Paterson, a Scottish journalist, broadcaster and entertainment correspondent on BBC Radio 5 Live, who has been a presenter and reporter on BBC Three's Liquid News. (The show's full introduction, not transcribed here, also referred to P.M. David Cameron's balanced statement that ITV1 presenter and ambassador for the charity 'Kidscape', Phillip Schofield; was quite wrong to hand him a list of alleged 'paedophiles' live on-air.)

BBC Radio 5 Live, Thursday 08 Nov 2012, 22:30hrs.

COLIN PATERSON SITS-IN FOR TONY LIVESEY.

" A solicitor who represented careworkers accused of child sex abuse in North Wales care homes, believes allegations against Jimmy Savile and others have been 'grossly exaggerated'

Chris Saltrese who represented accused careworkers during the Waterhouse Inquiry, says he thinks some complainants may be motivated by money.

1m.12s: We'll be speaking to a solicitor who represents care worker accused of sexual abuse we'll be asking him what he thinks.

5m.10s: We�d love to get your thoughts on the issues that were discussiing tonight. Fay, the numbers�.

FAY: 0500 909693 is the phone number. Or you can text us, 85058.

7m.10s

CP: We really want to discuss this issue of the Witch Hunt. What David Cameron was saying COULD be happening because a number of new enquiries have been launched into child abuse allegations since revelations about the television star Jimmy Savile. Chris Saltrese is a solicitor in Southport who represented staff at the Bryn Estyn childrens� home in north Wales it was one of the homes investigated at the Waterhouse Enquiry after claims of abuse in the 1970s & �80s. Good evening to you Chris. Now let�s get your reaction to what happened on �This Morning�. Does the Prime Minister have a point in your opinion ?

CS: I certainly think he does have a point. You�ve described it as a stunt and I would say its an extremely silly stunt. But not only is it silly, it's irresponsible and dangerous. Over the past 10 years people on a daily basis in this country are being sent to prison for sexual offences which they have not committed, and Philip Schofield's behaviour will just compound the problem.

CP: Now explain why this is happening.

CS: Its happening for a combination of political, social, and legal reasons. Over the past 15 to 20 years there's been an erosion of the traditional defences that are available to somebody accused in these types of offences. And we've got the situation now where a bare allegation unsupported by any other evidence, is sufficient to send someone to prison for very long time, for an offence they have not committed.

CP: But, the crucial thing is surely a burden of proof is required so people won�t be convicted without evidence will they ?

CS: It�s possible for people to be convicted solely on oral testimony. I commonly see cases where complainants are alleging they were abused 10, 15, 20 years ago, 30 years ago. Sometimes they don�t know the house in which they were abused, the town in which they were abused, and juries are being invited to convict on that type of evidence, and its very difficult for defendants to have a fair trial. And the behaviour we�ve seen in the press in the recent weeks has made that situation, an appalling situation, made it even more difficult.

CP: Now this is since Jimmy Savile, is what you're meaning ?

CS: Since Jimmy Savile, yes.

CP: What are your particular complaints with the press then ?

CS: The way in which it�s been reported. There are two sides to this story. There are many people in this country who are facing allegations of sexual abuse, offences alleged to have happened in the dim and distant past, and they are being sent to prison for offences that they did not commit.

CP: See... one of the things that people are saying is, a real positive from the whole Jimmy Savile scenario, is that people that, who were perhaps frightened or, er, embarrassed or too ashamed to come forward and talk about what�s happened to them in the past, have come forward. Surely that�s to be welcomed.

CS: Well, I simply don't accept that scenario. The authorities over the past 20, 30 years, have been more than receptive to allegations of abuse. Childline�s been going for many many years, the courts are completely receptive, the police are more than willing to receive allegations.

CP: You honestly do not believe that anyone has been inspired to come forward and say genuine cases of sexual abuse, off the back of the Jimmy Savile...

CS: Can I make my position quite clear. The sexual abuse of children, or..or any other person for that matter is a despicable offence, and if it's happened, perpetrators deserve to be sentenced accordingly. But I use the word 'IF'. Now we've got to the position in this country where the evidential burden is on the defendant to show that he HASN�T commited the offence. And what I'm saying is that the law makers in this country, including senior judges need to review the way in which these case are investigated and prosecuted.

CP: That�s not how the law's supposed to be though is it ?

CS: It's not how the law's supposed to be. Of course there's a presumption of innocence, but in effect, that burden is reversed in these cases.

CP: Why would someone make fake claims ?

CS: There are a multitude of reasons why people would make a false allegation. One of the main ones is the desire to claim undeserved compensation. And that motive cannot, and it should not, be underestimated.

CP: Its..that�s a very grisly belief...

CS: Well, my view is it's not grisly at all, that�s the reality. And these claims from the civil side, these claims are being supported by personal injury lawyers up and down the country who have a vested interest in pursuing these matters through both the criminal courts and the civil courts.

CP: �I�m getting some, er, breaking news as well, relating to the Guardian. New claims have emerged tonight about the identity of one of the men alleged to have been involved in the abuse of the children from the care homes in north Wales. Last Friday on Newsnight a victim Steve Messham claimed that he had been repeatedly abused by a senior politician of the Thatcher era. Tonight a report in the Guardian claims the attack was carried out not by the political figure which the paper names, but by another member of the same family carrying the same name. In 2000 the Waterhouse Report setup to investigate the abuse claims concluded the evidence about the identity of the attacker was inconclusive. The Government has setup a fresh investigation into claims of abuse at the care homes, led by Keith Bristow of the National Crime Agency. Now that news just coming through here. Chris what would be your reaction to that ?

CS: Well, obviously I was at the north Wales Tribunal for sometime. The tribunal sat for over 200 days hearing evidence. Contrary to recent reports it was not a whitewash. I've got my own criticisms of the tribunal, but it was in some respect thorough.

CP: It is a very emotive issue, and one the public care about deeply. How do you stop it becoming a witch hunt ?

CS: Well, its very very difficult. I think some of the reponsibility should start with the media. I think they've got a duty to report matters responsibly. For example the coverage of the Jimmy Savile business has been absolutely appalling. I'm reading in respectable newspapers of 'crimes that he's committed'. Well what I'd like to know is, 'what crimes ?' Where is the evidence for it ?

CP: What would you like to happen then ? How would you like things to proceed ?

CS: Well I would like the law makers in this country to sit down and review how these matters are investigated and prosecuted. We need to address those matters extremely quickly before things get further out of hand.

CP: I mean the police are referring to them as crimes. Hundreds of people have come forward on Jimmy Savile, and you just dont believe...

CS: I don't know what Jimmy Savile was up to, and nobody in this room does. But my experience tells me that the allegations against him are grossly exaggerated, for various reasons.

CP: But that's by the police...

CS: The police have collected allegations. None of the allegations have been tested. And I'm sure your listeners will be aware that civil claims are being filed against the BBC, against the NHS, against Police, and whoever else. That's one of the main motors driving the whole business.

CP: So, as you think that as a nation there has just been far far too much of a knee jerk response ?

CS: Its turned into a national obsession, and its extremely damaging to normal relations. It completely undermines the presumption of innocence which ordinary people need in their everyday lives.

CP: I think its worth actually just repeating some of that breaking news that was coming through there as well. Let me just read again that new claims have emerged tonight about the identity of one of the men alleged to have been involved in the abuse of children from those care homes in north Wales. Last friday on Newnight, victim Steve Messham claimed that he had been repeatedly abused by a senior politician of the Thatcher era. Tonight a report in the Guardian claims the attack was carried out not by the political figure which the paper names, but by another member of the same family carrying the same name. So Chris that's an example of what you're talking about.

CS: Well, It's precisely an example of what I'm talking about. You've just referred to Steven Messham as a 'victim'. Well how on Earth do you know he's a 'victim' ? He's a complainant who is making allegations, that's all he is !

CP: Chris Saltrese, Solicitor from Southport who represented staff at the Bryn Estyn childrens' home in North wales. Thank you very much for coming into the studio tonight on 5-Live.

CS: Thank you.

Station Ident: On digital, and online, bbc.co.UK/5live. This is BBC Radio 5-Live. Call 0500 909 693. Calls are free from most landlines but some networks and mobile operators will charge. Text 85058, texts will be charged at your standard message rate. This is BBC Radio 5-Live.

CP: I'm sure many of you will have views on what you've just been hearing there please get in touch. Fay, the numbers.

Fay: 0500 909693 is the phone number. Or you can text us, 85058.

CP: OK, It's time to talk about what is going on with our cyclists... "


Yet, soooo predictably, on this ongoing most serious issue of UK Journalism & Justice 'Serial Gang Raped' - NIL further comments, calls, e-mails or texts were aired on that BBC 3-hour programme.

WholeTruth wrote:
Brave defence lawyer Chris Saltrese' vastly experienced review.

Of what, after 25 years since the proven false 'Satanic Abuse' panics, is now increasingly recognised as a truly medevil modern 'Witch Hunt'.

Perhaps of particular note for KingOfHits, are the learned criticisms of Her Majesty's Circuit Judges. Responding to a raft of confused and prejudicial proposals in a consultation paper, 'Convicting Rapists and Protecting Victims' issued by the Home Office in March 2006.

“It has to be recognised that the purpose of disclosing evidence to the defence...is to ensure that the defence know the case they have to meet. Simply allowing supplementary questioning of a witness risks the introduction of matters that have not been dealt with in the evidence disclosed.”

www.chrissaltrese.co.uk/falseallegations.html

 �This firm took payment in advance, did not lay out terms of engagement, did not outline who would be acting in matters nor how long matters would take. When asked nearly three months later how progress was going, their secretary Margaret Barker, advised that the firm would no longer act for me. Use this firm if you must but pay up, put up and shut up is what you must do�.
See www.lawyer-reviews.co.uk/lawyer-reviews/...ese-solicitors/5905/

Just ONE sad review doth not a bad lawyer make.

And who the hell are 'Lawyer Reviews'? If not part of the same 90% bent UK cabal/cartel of ne'er do wells, that did for innocent JK and thousands more victims of UK mass injustices?

Quote late great True Brit wit Peter Cook, paraphrased, "Yes, I know that prosecution team, they are proven lawyers!"

Quote late great True Brit wit Benny Hill, paraphrased, "Shall we do this legally, or do we instruct a lawyer?"

Anonymous wrote:
WholeTruth wrote:
Brave defence lawyer Chris Saltrese' vastly experienced review.

Of what, after 25 years since the proven false 'Satanic Abuse' panics, is now increasingly recognised as a truly medevil modern 'Witch Hunt'.

Perhaps of particular note for KingOfHits, are the learned criticisms of Her Majesty's Circuit Judges. Responding to a raft of confused and prejudicial proposals in a consultation paper, 'Convicting Rapists and Protecting Victims' issued by the Home Office in March 2006.

“It has to be recognised that the purpose of disclosing evidence to the defence...is to ensure that the defence know the case they have to meet. Simply allowing supplementary questioning of a witness risks the introduction of matters that have not been dealt with in the evidence disclosed.”

www.chrissaltrese.co.uk/falseallegations.html

 “This firm took payment in advance, did not lay out terms of engagement, did not outline who would be acting in matters nor how long matters would take. When asked nearly three months later how progress was going, their secretary Margaret Barker, advised that the firm would no longer act for me. Use this firm if you must but pay up, put up and shut up is what you must do”.
See www.lawyer-reviews.co.uk/lawyer-reviews/...ese-solicitors/5905/

what an absolutely pathetic "review"

Every lawyer or firm asks for money up front (which occupation involving long term work doesn't??)

and by law both lawyer & client sign a form detailing the work to be done ..like a contract.

the only reason a lawyer would drop you is if you had not paid them after doing work...people are quite stupid and forget how much it costs to run an office.

My husband used Chris Saltrese to defend his false allegation and Mr Saltrese was fantastic ! He is exceptionally knowledgeable and has a very good track record in these cases. We wouldn't have chosen anyone else.

This is a topic that's close to my heart... Cheers!
Where are your contact details though?

From the homepage: "JK is taking a brief vacation from all social media; keep posting and E Mail him on KingOfHits@aol.com"

Thanks for bumping this thread, by the way. That's a very interesting interview with Chris Saltrese.

judges..magistrates etc.

Seen enough Rumpoles to know how personal it can be.

Decades ago I had a lovely gay Magistrate pal in Brighton I often stayed with (now deceased)

He was always fair except..when a really good looking lad came up before him he was incredibly lenient. Couldn't help himself and admitted it.

of course it's personal taste as well. What if M'Learned Honour fancied the Yorkshire Ripper ?