News A to Z directory, please click on the links below to find your favourite news or to contact the media to tell your story:
His barrister didn't challenge the so-called scientific evidence produced at trial. He should have. It was junk science. [Junk science is bogus forensic information that the police use to gain a conviction, where they have a weak case.] His barrister didn't show the jury the accused' diaries, he should have, because the girl's mother reminded the accused to send Valentines cards every year - which she, err, seems to have forgotten to mention to the court. She also forgot to tell the prosecution about the existence of her own diaries. These diaries reveal that the accused was not alone with the girl as she had claimed. Why do you suppose her mother might hide this information?
The accused was instructed not to venture why the girl should make up her story by his barrister, but of course he has a good idea. Sadly, that cannot be revealed just yet for legal reasons. He did say he could forgive a 15 year old for some kind of unthinking hormone driven revenge for not doing what she had wanted, but not a mature woman - who would have known better. The accused had refused to get together with the girls mother. The girl wanted the accused to get together with her mother. It's an or-else situation and the accused was threatened - which information the defence lawyers failed to introduce - despite instructions to the contrary.
Local newspapers breached a Court Order prohibiting publication, and published mid-trial, which to us seem the most damaging time to publish, to virtually guarantee conviction. Nearly all the local papers published at the same time - in orchestrated fashion - obviously from a shared source; presumably the reporter attending. Is that responsible reporting?
Once they had convicted the victim of this injustice, the Crown tried to prevent him publishing his story. Why would they do that? Fortunately, Judge Cedric Joseph (this was his last case) was persuaded by barrister Michael Harrison, that that would breach the chaps human rights. The Judge agreed, subject to not naming the girl or her mother.
We think that the Crown's reluctance is to do with the way they obtained their conviction. It was based on medical testimony, which itself was based on out of date guidance from the Royal College of Paediatric and Child Health from 1997. New guidance was issued in 2008, just one month after the trial. Why did the Crown not wait the extra month before going to trial? Well, we know the answer to that, the new guidance confirmed that certain internal marks are naturally occurring. The prosecution told the jury (or, rather, allowed their pet witness to say it for them - which amounts to the same thing) that they were supportive of the allegations - which was a deception on the part of the Crown.
They Crown had kept the defence waiting for more than 18 months and delayed matters by refusing to hand back vital computer information that they'd confiscated - claiming they might find pornographic images. Of course the Crown were just making this up and instead of letting the jury know that none of the accused' computers were image free, they refused to confirm the results of their investigations! Don't you think the jury should have known that this mans' computers were clean?
You'll have to wait for the subject's appeals in the ECHR to conclude before this book is published. Maybe then we'll see an official version in 2016/2017? European appeals take 4 years on average, from the date of lodge. But first you have to exhaust any domestic remedy. He has finally, as of February 2013.
If you would like to know more about this developing story, please Contact Us.
LINKS and REFERENCE
WE ACCEPT NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ACCURACY OF ANY FEATURED LINKS
IF YOU HAVE ANY GOOD STORIES TO TELL WE'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU WITH PICTURES, ETC. OR, WHY NOT BUILD A WEBSITE OF YOUR OWN TO TELL YOUR STORY. WE WILL LINK TO YOUR SITE WITH A SHORT SUMMARY.