The first "victim", a liar who I never met, described the first time he saw me - at The Walton Hop where I was DJing and played a specific track which he named.

I was able to prove that the track had not been recorded until two and a half years after he claimed to have first seen me, making him 18 or 19, to which he happily agreed. All this is in the transcript of the trial.

He then went into great detail of having sex with me and said he hated every minute of it and has been haunted by it ever since.

Then asked why he came up to my house several times afterwards he said "because I enjoyed it".

This brought a laugh from the jury. The judge, at this point, stopped the trial and declared me NOT GUILTY of all the charges (including several others) and ordered the prosecution to abandon the remaining charges, saying he would sentence me on the first trial verdict (guilty) as a sample of all the claims. I felt this was terribly unfair, having proved allegations false in 50% of my trials.

Why did this man, who had never been to my house, say "I enjoyed it"? Because (this is only my unproved assumption) the Police, realising juries would not believe people came to me again and again if they hated something, told him and all the other "victims" that they must say they enjoyed themselves or the case would collapse. They forgot to tell him that therefore their entire case depended on the "victims" being under 16 at the time and thus unable to consent to any sex.

Having admitted he was 18 or 19, he was stupidly unaware that he could not then say he enjoyed himself.