Oh yes; at length - he admitted. Who with? With the female police officer Littlejohn (portrayed in Vile Pervert: The Musical, after a slight sex change, as Littledick) who was interviewing all the accusers (and me - she was one of the several police links between victim - me - and accusers - them).

He told, in the dock and under oath, details of what was said; how much he was hoping to make; what she had advised him. All this is in the transcript.

We had managed to get the police banned from the court until their turn for cross examination arrived so they had to sit outside, drinking styrofoam cups of coffee and smoking hundreds of cigarettes. As a result, when her turn came she was unaware of his evidence in court and proceeded to deny ever discussing compensation with him. Not a word - she swore, on oath.

So one or the other was a proven liar. Admitted.

Yet the judge did not refer to this in his summing up. The jury chose to ignore it.

That is my point. If Judges and Juries are simply going to ignore evidence like that, what chance is there for a correct verdict?