An answer to a poster's question...

Saturday, 07 May 2016

I suspect it was more the standard QC/Judge fellowship; they ooze politeness to each other. At the time I thought the Mother's Diary was evidence for me that the man was lying - or at least mistaken. I never dreamed the dates on the indictment would later be changed - I assumed it proved I was NOT GUILTY. Foolishly I thought giving dates meant the imaginary crime had to have been committed between those dates (often a year long) and thought proving it could not have happened meant I was proved NOT GUILTY. Otherwise why put dates at all? "At some time?" So I was thunderstruck when the dates were changed and believed the junior when he said the Judge would cover this later (in my mind; disbanding the jury whilst I found any fresh alibis). When the dates were simply changed without letting me find an alibi - I gave up - reckoning that, even if I could find an alibi, they would just be allowed to change the dates again. It did not dawn on me (until after my release) that eventually this date changing game might make the men (who claimed totally consensual acts) be over 16 and legal anyway, not that anything ever happened.