[JK, I'll quite understand if you've had enough, and this simply doesn't appear, but perhaps worth a minute if your time to read]

Talk Sport has an article about Bennell's 2013 trial, which shows a letter advising that the CPS felt "The original decision not to charge in this case was made because it was felt the public interest test was not met." Then,One week after Mr Lean was told that Bennell would not be charged the National Child Sexual Abuse Review Panel was launched, giving victims the chance to appeal if they felt their case had not been handled correctly.
It was Cheshire Police who had originally taken this to the CPS. Then,In 2016, Mr Lean was still anonymous but Andy Woodward, who was aware of the case, waived his own anonymity to speak out, prompting a group of others to do the same and the current case to begin.
Mr Woodward, then, recently, ex-Lancashire Police, 'who was aware of the case' may have been the one to get the ball rolling on the new case, but he wasn't the first complainant in the new case, as it turns out. The first complainant was Detective Constable Gary Cliffe, of Cheshire Police, who months after Bennell's third trial apparently wrote his own police statement
So a detective constable watched his own force take his abuser to trial, but only regsistered his own complaint once the abuser was already back in prison. Meanwhile, his case was given a daytime-TV kickstart by an ex-policeman from a neighbouring force who had been in contact with the accuser in the earlier trial. Have I got that right?

Misa wrote:

So a detective constable watched his own force take his abuser to trial, but only regsistered his own complaint once the abuser was already back in prison. Meanwhile, his case was given a daytime-TV kickstart by an ex-policeman from a neighbouring force who had been in contact with the accuser in the earlier trial. Have I got that right?

Yes, I think you have.

Any indication that Andy Woodward and Gary Cliffe were in contact with each other?

I'm not disputing either man's claims to have been sexually abused but mounting prosecutions in this way doesn't seem proper. It's not transparent and it looks like gamesmaneship.

I've not seen any indication that Cliffe and Woodward had any dealings prior to the latter's daytime TV appearance. Though, of course, it's all in the open that they've been supporting each other through the charity and whatever.

'Gamesmanship' is pretty much exactly my reaction too. It feels kind of like having a police officer serve on a jury within his own police force area...you're left with the concern that he may bring knowledge of the case with him into the jury room, without it having been aired in the courtroom, and even claim expert knowledge in 'legal matters' in an effort to steer the jury.

Presumably, a police officer, on joining up, doesn't give up his right to have prosecuted crimes against himself. But I'd be genuinely interested to know how the process of handling an allegation from a serving officer (or indeed, perhaps, a CPS or court official) differs from the process when an allegation is made by a 'normal' member of the public. I would imagine there must be a lot of checks in place to ensure that everything is not just above board, but also seen to be above board...as you say 'transparent'.

I was quite impressed that the Talk Sport article I linked to at the top of the thread actually showed a section of the CPS letter (proper journalism!) and am just sorry I dragged out the previous thread without tracking it down first. But thank you, Randall, and others, for your insights and patient explanations.

But none of this matters ....

There is either an offence committed - or there isn't !

There is either evidence - or not

There are either complainants - or not

.... and the defence will do its upmost to rip it all to shreds.

At the end of the day the Jury has to believe what is presented to them ...

Very interesting, Misa, and acutely observed.

I see from Gary Cliffe's many tweets on this subject that he also appeared on Victoria Derbyshire.
twitter.com/garycliffe1

ITK, none of this matters now - he's been found guilty and will presumably get a hefty sentence.

As you point out, the legal system is, well, a system. Like any well-designed system, we hope, it will produce reasonably reliable outputs from a range of inputs - charges, pleas, and evidence, will usually produce either a guilty verdict, or a not-guilty verdict, in which we must be able to trust.

Of course, like most systems, it requires inputs within the range for which it has been designed. If you forget to input washing powder with your clothes, your washing machine will produce damp, smelly clothes; put in crockery, and it will just give you smashed plates. If you forget to input corroborating evidence with your allegations of sexual abuse, your trial will probably not produce justice; put in tittle-tattle and half-forgotten rumours...I don't think you should be too trusting of the verdicts it produces, though verdicts it still does produce.

I must say I'm mildly surprised that in recent years we haven't had juries simply throw up their arms and say, "Beyond a reasonable doubt? We haven't heard enough to have a reasonable suspicion!" But hell. I admire your faith, and sincerely hope neither of us needs to defend ourselves in the present system.

Jo, I did see one or two videos, but it's stomach-churning stuff, and there were a stack of news articles over the weekend, some more interesting than others. The BBC link in the original post was produced by staff from the Derbyshire show, I think.