Spare a thought today…

by Anna Raccoon on February 14, 2014

Dave Lee Travis Archive

For Mrs Griffin.

That’s Mrs Griffin, proudly sporting her diamond engagement ring and wedding band, back in 1986. Proud of her husband.

She used to live in a beautiful farm in Mentmore, Buckinghamshire. She had spent ten years arranging her home just the way she wanted it.

She contracted breast cancer recently, with all the self doubt, worry and anguish that anyone who has been through the misery of cancer will understand. She will have wondered whether she would still be attractive to her husband. She will have wondered whether she would live to see the garden bloom again.

She has spent the past eighteen months listening to the world at large discussing all the times casual acquaintances of her husband alleged that having a beautiful young wife at home was not enough for him – in fact so much ‘not enough’, that he was allegedly prepared to ‘grab wildly’ at any opportunity to touch a breast or any other part of a female anatomy.

She has had to move out of her home, into a nearby bungalow. Still a home that many would aspire to – but not her home. Not her choice. Merely to pay for the legal advice he needed to clear his name.

Every one of those witnesses who were alleging sexual assault by Dave Lee Travis was alleging that it occurred whilst he was married to her. As he has been for 42 years.

I cannot think of a worse accompaniment to breast cancer.

Or a better Valentine’s Day present to her than the verdict last night.

Yet I have not heard one of the strident feminists crawling over Twitter today, urging us to have sympathy ‘with the women involved’,  so much as mention her.

So spare a thought for Mrs Griffin, and the ordeal she has faced, and wish her well today – and for the future.

{ 80 comments… read them below or add one }

Chris February 14, 2014 at 10:52 am

Hear Hear.
As involved as I am in *this side of things* even I can’t begin to understand how horrific it must be to right there in the eye of the hurricane.
Peace and Love to them both x


Johnny Monroe February 14, 2014 at 2:14 pm

Too true. How ironic when the word ‘victim’ is bandied about with such gay abandon that the ones who suffer most from the fall-out of this circus are those on the receiving end of it, their genuine suffering dismissed in a fashion reminiscent of Sonia ‘She must have known’ Sutcliffe – whilst the accusers slip back under their rock of anonymity, their identities intact and their crimes unpunished.


Ho Hum February 14, 2014 at 11:25 am

Well said, Anna.


Woman on a Raft February 14, 2014 at 10:18 pm


I have been poking round the conspiraloon department. It is noticeable that even down there, it is not his name which surfaces.

If this face-off between Afzal and Levitt makes it impossible to bring cases which really do need to come before a jury, people will be saying that in itself could be a fix. N.B. Nazir Afzal was responsible for bringing in the very serious gang cases after years of what looked suspiciously like a political connivance to discredit campaigners such as Ann Cryer. This debacle should not be allowed to overshadow Afzal’s work, especially as he advised against this prosecution.


SpectrumIsGreen February 14, 2014 at 11:37 am

Here’s hoping that the CPS see sense and decide that to pursue the other two charges any further would not be in the public interest and drop the charges. I shudder to think of the cost of another show trial to both the public and the Griffins.


JuliaM February 14, 2014 at 12:07 pm

If there was any sense to be had at the CPS the trial (and others) would never have gone ahead in the first place…


Mr Ecks February 14, 2014 at 4:05 pm

Sense had nothing to do with it. The senior bluebottles are practically politicised. What I mean is that while I have no doubt that few of them believe in or even give a rats arse for poisonous radical feminist bullshit, they know that it has captured the institutions of state who are the police’s master and they will have to take the “right” actions and make the appropriate noises –or else their careers will be down the toilet. They are not going to go back to the senior CPS slugs or the Home Office man-hate squad and say “These allegations are shite–it is stupid to go to court with this soapy crap”.


Anna Raccoon February 14, 2014 at 4:08 pm

Which, of course, is precisely what Nazir Afzal did say – and was over ruled by Alison Levitt……


SamBest February 14, 2014 at 11:43 pm

Afzal, Starmer & MWT. The 3 wicked witches of the west. Hateful, vile , repulsive.


Anne April 25, 2014 at 8:28 pm

Very true – these 3 are the most wicked individuals around – hope their downfall is sooner rather than later..


sally stevens April 26, 2014 at 12:46 am

Amen. So let it be written, so let it be done.


Cascadian February 14, 2014 at 6:32 pm

A very succinct summation, the long march through the institutions has succeeded, radical socialist feminists now not only use the law to attempt to transfer wealth from men to women, but they direct the law, and draw out the process for maximum extraction of wealth. The fact that they are incompetent and the money ends up in their pockets is a feature not a bug.

Similarly the law is being used to attempt to silence commentors on “climate science” as Mark Steyn has astutely commented the process is the punishment.

My sympathies to Mrs Griffin, may her health be restored and her steadfast stand against greed be rewarded. That salutation is aimed at the landlady too.


Time Traveller February 14, 2014 at 11:39 am

Hear, hear.

And shame on the Daily Mail for its coverage today which appears to be a concerted effort to influence the decision on a further prosecution by publishing a picture of Travis with his tongue in Janice Long’s ear and – not one but two – photographs associating him with ‘paedophile Jimmy Savile’. Meanwhile, comments are closed for ‘legal reasons’ Scurrilous.


Eyes Wide Shut February 14, 2014 at 12:12 pm

The Mail is hedging its bets: its on line edition also features articles referring to celebrity Witch Hunts and an opinion piece by Carole Sarler which is critical of the CPS. They seem prepared as always to jump either way. One thing you can be sure of with the Mail: someone is going to be guilty of something, and if it isn’t the celebs, it will be the CPS. 🙂


Moor Larkin February 14, 2014 at 12:20 pm

It certainly will not be the media who is guilty. The media does not exist.

As Maggie Thatcher might have remarked:
“There is no such thing as The Media. There is a living tapestry of men and women and people and the ugliness of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate.”


Eyes Wide Shut February 14, 2014 at 12:23 pm

Personally, I’ve always liked PM Baldwin’s formulation (nicked from Rudyard Kipling): “power without responsibility – the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages” 🙂


Moor Larkin February 14, 2014 at 11:45 am

The juggernaut has rolled into Celebrity World.

Campaign groups have formed to support individuals. Members point to the risks involved in prosecuting historic abuse cases and the potential for wrongful convictions. There is no forensic evidence and convictions are dependent on complainants’ testimony. Prosecutions are notoriously difficult to obtain in these cases and the police and courts rely on “similar fact” evidence, whereby if more than one person makes the same accusations, without other evidence, a person can be convicted. Campaigners maintain that the police have used unethical trawling methods to find witnesses. They believe that former care home residents have lied about their experiences to obtain compensation

The same police methods and dodgy legal dealing are plain as a pikestaff a decade later. How many other wives are there whom we have never even heard of? And never will.


Ian B February 14, 2014 at 11:55 am

IANAL, but I always thought if you’re acquitted you get your legal costs paid. Is this not so?


Anna Raccoon February 14, 2014 at 12:41 pm

You did, but not any more!
Post 25th January this year, if your solicitor had the wit to put in an application for legal aid, which DLT wouldn’t have been granted, then he would at least have got back legal aid rates for a brief in the event of an acquittal – about 50 quid an hour.
Given that the CPS would have been batting with someone in the region of 600 quid an hour – you can be sure DLT was’t using a 50 quid an hour brief…….
The price of ‘innocence’ these days is around 250,000 quid. Hence the house move.


Moor Larkin February 14, 2014 at 12:42 pm

Are they Lawyers? Or Banksters?……….. 😀


Jonathan Mason February 14, 2014 at 1:15 pm

Presumably a large part of the high cost is because the lawyers have to employ several subordinates to seek out witnesses, research evidence, research the credibility of the plaintiffs, obtain statements, etc, so you are hiring a small business rather than an individual and paying all its salary and expenses plus profit margin over a period of several weeks.


Jonathan Mason February 14, 2014 at 1:16 pm

Where would Perry Mason have been without Paul Drake and Della Street on the payroll?


Moor Larkin February 14, 2014 at 1:24 pm

I was thinking moor of the guy being employed by the government, who has none of that to do……… 😉


the moon is a balloon February 15, 2014 at 2:23 pm

But that cannot be right and just anywhere, can it? In olde worlde days, wouldn’t there have been some sort of common law right of redress? (Or maybe that is here the old rule of getting yuor costs paid if acquitted came from. IANAL.) And I daresay the other way around worked. Drag some Silk out to argue your speeding ticket and you may well have not get repaid, and quite right too.

And with all due respect to the alleged victims, why was such a high cost team prosecuting? It wasn’t Jack the Ripper level atrocities that were alleged. That seems to me to be an abuse of power too. Where are our various Courts of Human Rights to protect us from the state’s overwhelming resources and its corresponding ability to bully us? Isn’t that what a great many of our rights are about? Maybe I have this wrong too.


Ho Hum February 15, 2014 at 3:08 pm

Catch up at the back. You’re thinking is out of date, and you’ve got this all the wrong way round. You’re not innocent. If you were, you wouldn’t have been prosecuted. You’ve just been found ‘not guilty’ – this time. Why should the State pay you for your getting lucky?


Ho Hum February 14, 2014 at 12:21 pm

The other thing you can be sure of is that they will pursue anything that gives them the chance to put ‘BBC’ in any article with the merest whiff of scandal


Eyes Wide Shut February 14, 2014 at 12:30 pm

The Mail (or better said) Dacre has its own agenda, which makes it so endlessly fascinating. Sometimes this agenda co-incides with that of others and sometimes it doesn’t. Sometimes it runs parallel and sometimes it deviates. Sometimes the DM’s agenda is so unique and personal to the DM itself that like the peace of God, it passeth all understanding. But we can certainly discern the contours of some basic immutable laws governing the DM’s tergiversations and one of them is Thou Shalt Not Pass Up Any Opportunity, No Matter How Trivial or Evanescent, To Stick It Right Up the BBC. 🙂


Ian B February 14, 2014 at 12:38 pm

My view FWIW is that the Mail treats its readers as an abusive spouse does, the inconsistency is part of the manipulation. One day, he’s all sweetness and light and the next day he’s smacked you in the mouth.


Eyes Wide Shut February 14, 2014 at 12:42 pm

Lol, love the metaphor, but I’ve always gone with Lord Beaverbrook’s Basic Normative DM Law: “Give ’em something to be angry about every morning at breakfast” 🙂


Ho Hum February 14, 2014 at 1:54 pm

Guess who said

‘if mass-circulation newspapers, which, of course, also devote considerable space to reporting and analysis of public affairs, don’t have the freedom to write about scandal, I doubt whether they will retain their mass circulations with the obvious worrying implications for the democratic process.’

They don’t do irony, do they?


Joe Public February 14, 2014 at 1:01 pm

Thanks for this posting, Anna.

I wonder how many of the ‘complainants’ were actually attention-seeking Groupies? And I wonder how many were rejected attention-seeking Groupies?


sally stevens February 14, 2014 at 10:15 pm

Well, we know that Karin Ward got her dander up because Freddie Starr called her a “titless wonder.”


Ian B February 15, 2014 at 5:58 am

In a dressing room also containing Jimmy Savile, Gary Glitter, Lord Lucan, the Abominable Snowman and the Ark Of The Covenant.


Moor Larkin February 15, 2014 at 3:30 pm

Staff from Duncroft were supposed to be in there too don’t forget.

“One of the things that struck me though, was if it had not been for Anna Raccoon revealing that the Duncroft Allegations were a scam, what might have been the eventual consequences for the elderly ex-teachers of Duncroft? After all, Jimmy Savile was dead so he certainly wouldn’t have been able to speak up for them. ”


rabbitaway February 14, 2014 at 1:41 pm

Check this out – Ch 4 News on demand – scroll to 24 mins – inc pre recorded comments by Barbara Hewson – ONLY AVAILABLE til 7pm GMT today


rabbitaway February 14, 2014 at 1:46 pm

Oop la, Ms Hewson got there before me with a much better clip !


WorldViews February 14, 2014 at 1:56 pm

The State should compensate DLT and his good wife, for their loss of home, reputation, and legal fees.


Now hunt the Liars & Witch-Hunters!

NOW, for all TRUE victims, past, present, and future.

Make a UK 10-year statute of ‘Criminal Limitation & Neglect’.

If an alleged victim fails to report ‘in strictest confidence’ any serious crime within 10-years. Then that person can years later be prosecuted for ‘Placing The Public At Serious-Risk’.

E.G. Someone allegedly abused as a child, or aware of any serious crime, should be given all assistance ‘in strictest confidence’ to report the offender(s) as soon as emotionally possible. Or soon after their 16th birthday, or at the very latest before their 18th birthday.
Failure to do so, can years later make that adult liable to prosecution for ‘Serious Criminal Neglect’ by ‘Placing The Public At Serious-Risk’.

Current costs of Yewtree & spinoffs/BIG BIZ are quoted at £7.2 Million of Public Funds and, like the other floods of filth – still rising!


Ed P February 14, 2014 at 1:58 pm

Comments are starting to suffer from excessive use of acronyms: BBC, DLT, CPS, MP & PM are fine, but IANAL & FWIW – really?

I hope a website with high readership numbers (such as Anna’s) might consider organising a whip-round for DLT – he deserves some compensation for standing up to bullies. And when will all those false witnesses be prosecuted for perjury? (I’m not holding my breath.)


Anna Raccoon February 14, 2014 at 2:06 pm

The idea has crossed my mind – and I would be happy to do it – but it would be more appropriate after the ‘Couldn’t Prosecute Savile’ (CPS) have decided whether they are going to make their excuses and leave, or continue to shaft Dave Lee Travis. There should be a decision by 24th February.


Ian B February 14, 2014 at 2:27 pm

I Am Not A Lawyer and For What It’s Worth. They’re quite standard on the WWW, AFIAK. 😉


Eyes Wide Shut February 14, 2014 at 2:31 pm



Moor Larkin February 14, 2014 at 2:36 pm

Restores one’s faith in the biblical story of the Tower of Babel……….. 😀


Eyes Wide Shut February 14, 2014 at 2:45 pm



Anna Raccoon February 14, 2014 at 2:50 pm



Moor Larkin February 14, 2014 at 2:55 pm

Reminds me that movie geeks do this too…. AMOLAD and IJATTOD
and Prisoner fans must be the worst… whole episodes… DNFMOMD and TGWWD
You’d have thought the advent of copy/paste would have eliminated the need.


Eyes Wide Shut February 14, 2014 at 2:58 pm


Any More Of This And I Pull The Plug?
Sorry, Anna . 🙁


Anna Raccoon February 14, 2014 at 3:09 pm

You are too quick!!!! Well done. xxxx


Ed P February 14, 2014 at 6:40 pm

I knew what they meant, but they’re clunky: add a space and voila! I ANAL


Moor Larkin February 14, 2014 at 2:06 pm

Meanwhile in other news…………

“A judge has condemned the ‘appalling’ treatment of underage sex attack victims by the friends of the men who groomed them. Shakil Munir, 32, and Sakib Ahmed, 19, were today each jailed for eight years for sexually exploiting girls as young as 13. Ateeq Latif, 17, was sent to a young offenders’ institution for three years for helping them.”


johnS February 14, 2014 at 3:12 pm

Exactly – it’s all part of the perfect storm that the very useful old-white-celebrity accusations gained prominence just at the time that Muslim grooming gangs could no longer be ignored.
Any time that such grooming, and the likely hundreds of victims, is raised on a forum now there is now going to be someone saying “but look at Savile” as a distraction.

Of course, I’m not saying that this aspect is paramount but you don’t need grand conspiracies created by a handful of illuminati sitting in a hollowed out volcano to create major scares. A widely diverse scattering of interest groups all finding the same subject useful at the same time is much more common and much more likely to run and run.


Anna Raccoon February 14, 2014 at 3:28 pm

I’ve always said this was a’perfect storm’ of vested interests.


johnS February 14, 2014 at 6:50 pm

Of course, I didn’t mean that anyone here was suggesting the grand conspiracy but it’s a common tactic elsewhere to discredit anyone questioning a spurious “consensus”.


JimmyGiro February 14, 2014 at 3:18 pm

“Yet I have not heard one of the strident feminists crawling over Twitter today, urging us to have sympathy ‘with the women involved’, so much as mention her.”

If they were to, it would be to condemn the innocent by suggesting they caused collateral grief by their impudent self defence. Feminism is a cult of death, not of the living.


GildasTheMonk February 14, 2014 at 3:25 pm

Bravo! The newish rule that you don’t get your costs back if wrongly prosecuted by the machinery of the State are a disgrace.


GildasTheMonk February 14, 2014 at 3:25 pm

is, rather


MTG February 14, 2014 at 3:33 pm

I was unaware of her other ordeal by cancer…otherwise I shared your thoughts upon seeing photographs in the DM, Anna.


Eyes Wide Shut February 14, 2014 at 4:27 pm

What is going on here?

Police officers destroyed a teacher’s career after falsely telling his employers that he was a ‘very dangerous paedophile’. Judge says that the officers – who have not been named and have since left the force – had ‘targeted malice’ against Curran.


Anna Raccoon February 14, 2014 at 4:33 pm

Which makes this post from yesterday on John Ward’s site all the more interesting.


Eyes Wide Shut February 14, 2014 at 4:35 pm

I read that and was gobsmacked. They’re on a rampage.


Matt February 14, 2014 at 4:30 pm



Carol42 February 14, 2014 at 5:49 pm

Well said Anna, I have barely seen a mention of the families suffering which is all too real. Of course they should be refunded their costs, I was not aware of this ruling, if the CPS don’t have to pay they have nothing to lose maybe that’s why they are bringing these ridiculous cases.


Moor Larkin February 14, 2014 at 5:54 pm

There was talk of Le Vell suing on some kind of “vindictiveness” basis, but I don’t suppose he can afford it. Do we do Class Actions yet over here? Or is that just in The Good Wife….. 😉


Eyes Wide Shut February 14, 2014 at 6:15 pm

We do, but as far as I know, they are basically restricted to commercial litigation (think air passengers who have all been let down by the same tour company going bust). If the complainant in the Le Vell case is who i think it is, he really, really, really should leave it alone. For his own peace of mind.


Andy February 14, 2014 at 6:12 pm

The Fred Talbot trial doesn’t seem to be getting much media coverage. In his case the claims all relate to boys rather than girls, and all come from before he was “famous”, though some date back to when he was a teenager. I wonder if Richard & Judy will be called as character witnesses?


Ed P February 14, 2014 at 6:42 pm



Radical Rodent February 14, 2014 at 7:24 pm

As usual, Anna, you are spot on the money.

Why can we not have people of your sense and sensibility in Westminster?

Why can we not have people of your sense and sensibility offering to represent us in Westminster?

Mind you, when Liebour gets re-elected in the recent by-election, you realise that most of the population are merely sheep, happy to be led to the slaughter.


Moley February 14, 2014 at 7:52 pm

We’ll if I had a pound for every time I’d been groped back in the day I’d probably have about £23.50. Tonight I tearfully told my husband of an incident back in the eighties when a man invited me to his room to show me his “jewellery” (he was a goldsmith) and then proceeded to ravish me. He reminded me that it was in fact him.


Jonathan Mason February 14, 2014 at 8:28 pm

That is the problem–a lot of these historical “sexual assaults” just sound like seductions gone wrong. Where are the knives to the throat or the force feeding of alcohol. Has anyone even seen Stuart Hall’s penis?


Moley February 15, 2014 at 9:42 am

I’m not sure they could be said to have gone wrong. One of the girls in the Stuart Hall case seems to have been a willing participant. It’s also not clear how old she was. I would hazard a guess that most of us have had one or two sexual encounters that we would rather had not happened. How to people get together these days? It used to be called “making a pass”, not sexual assault.


Jonathan Mason February 14, 2014 at 8:26 pm

One thing that probably works against accusers in these cases is that if they insist on anonymity, they cannot easily bring character witnesses to court. As a potential juror myself, if one was sitting on a jury in which the evidence of a rape or sexual assault was simply he said-she said, it would be difficult to convict a person with a hitherto unblemished criminal record unless one knew that the person making the allegations was a person respected in their community with a record of integrity and honesty.

I was once a juror in a minor case, and although as an all-round pundit and expert on everything, I thought I knew all about the jury system in advance, what I really learned from the experience is that the jury is called upon to decide who is lying and who is telling the truth. Over a whole day in court we had to decide whether the cops was right that the female driver was so drunk that she could not walk straight (she had refused a breath or blood test), or whether she was unable to walk a straight line ue to a wonky knee as she claimed. Guilt or innocence often depends on such determinations.

Often you cannot have it both ways. One side or the other is lying, and that is what juries have to figure out. If they are not convinced beyond reasonable doubt that a witness is telling the truth, then they must acquit.

Many years ago when I was a young fellow in Liverpool, UK, I was the allegator in an assault case in which I had been punched in the head in my workplace (Royal Liverpool Hospital) by a relative of a patient, causing minor injury (2 stitches) and breaking of my glasses. The single eye-witness for the prosecution who had agreed to testify did not show up in court, leaving me as the sole complainer and witness.

The magistrate convicted and she commented that normally they would not convict a case like this without some corroborating evidence, but in this case my evidence given was so evidently compelling that they did convict, and the person was fined and had to pay at 50p per week.

So if a witness is perfectly honest and straightforward, and seen to be so, it is entirely possible that a sceptical seen-it-all court or jury will convict on purely verbal evidence, but there seems to be little point in bringing such cases to court when the charges are very serious and carry prison terms unless the allegators can be seen on the witness stand to be clearly credible and have compelling testimony that can stand cross examination.


Jonathan Mason February 14, 2014 at 9:05 pm

Perhaps part of the problem with these prosecutions is that the CPS used a rule-driven system, for example:

“If three more women make sex allegations about the same man, then let the case go to court even if the witness statements are unconvincing as evidence, because it may well be that the man IS a sexual predator or serial rapist, and even if found not guilty, the very fact of the trial will curtail his activities in the future and make the community aware of the possible dangers he presents.”

This might be quite effective within a given community in a localized area, but takes no account of the fact that media personalities are known to millions of people rather than dozens of people, and may attract flaky complaints from people they have never met. On the other hand the CPS would not want to be seen to be waiving the rules just because the man is rich and famous.

In the LeVell case it seems that the allegators were on a mission and had made all kinds of threats involving politicians, the media, and anyone who would listen, so the CPS just gave in to them for a quiet life and washed their hands of the matter, because a jury decision is final and irrevocable and would buy the case once and for all.


Jonathan Mason February 14, 2014 at 9:06 pm

Sorry, that should be “bury the case”.


sally stevens February 14, 2014 at 10:23 pm

“Jurors need set guidance – what else is key evidence that supports 4 & against when it’s one word agst another with no other direct evidence.” In other words, juries are too stupid to figure out who’s lying and who isn’t, and need someone of greater wisdom to tell them how to think. Oh shaddup, MWT,


Jonathan Mason February 14, 2014 at 10:45 pm

Juries get to see a great deal that is not reported in the press. The UK press is not even allowed to report the evidence in these trials, but even leaving aside the evidence, there is a great deal more. For example the jurors can make eye contact with the defendant, watch the reaction of the defendant when evidence is being given by others–for example eye-rolling, smiling, scowling, or making whispered comments to own counsel, observe the demeanour of the defendant when the lawyers are conferring, and so on. All of these observations play some part in the jury making up its mind who is telling the truth.


SamBest February 14, 2014 at 11:59 pm

but MWT says he saw all the evidence and tweeted his defamation on the strength of it. Now deleted of course.


sally stevens February 15, 2014 at 12:13 am

MWT thinks he is judge, jury and executioner.


DICK R February 15, 2014 at 5:12 am



Ian B February 15, 2014 at 6:46 am

This whole thing has reminded me of the miscarriage of justice which convicted Stefan Kiszco of the murder of Lesley Molseed.

“At the time of the hunt, four teenage girls, Maxine Buckley, Catherine Burke, Debbie Brown and Pamela Hind, claimed that Kiszko had indecently exposed himself to them the day before the murder. One of them also said he had exposed himself to her a month after the murder, on Bonfire Night, and that he had been stalking her for some time previous to that.”

None of which was true.

“Also in February 1991, the four girls involved in the court trial admitted that the evidence they had given which had led to Kiszko’s arrest and conviction was false, and that they had lied for “a laugh” and because “at the time it was funny”. Burke said she wished she had not said anything but refused to apologise, saying she did not think it would go as far as it did. Buckley said it was not Kiszko who had exposed himself to her and that he had not been stalking them, but they had seen a taxi driver (not Ronald Castree) urinating behind a bush on the day of Molseed’s murder. She also refused to apologise. Brown refused to make a statement. Hind was the most remorseful of the four, saying that what they did was “foolish but we were young” and that, had she appeared in court, she would have told the truth about Kiszko and not perjured herself, unlike her friends who had committed perjury. She herself did not think Kiszko would be convicted.”

“Despite the overwhelming and obvious evidence that Kiszko was innocent, the West Yorkshire police and Ronald Outteridge, the original forensic scientist, refused to apologise to Kiszko for his wrongful conviction. In 1991 Outteridge was angry when questioned about his role in the trial.

Neither did David Waddington, Sheila Buckley, Maxine Buckley, Hind, Brown and Burke, or prosecution barrister Peter Taylor offer an apology or express even one word of regret for what had happened. All refused to comment when Kiszko was released. Even the West Yorkshire police, while accepting and admitting they had been wrong, tried to justify the position they had taken in 1975.”


The Blocked Dwarf February 15, 2014 at 7:04 pm

It is worth bearing in mind that only a decade early and Kiszko would have hanged for sure. I was too young in 1975 to read the Daily Xenophobe but I’ll lay money the front page SCREAMED IN RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION CAPSLOCK/BOLD font for him to be hanged…and probably drawn and quartered too…for the sake of the CheEEEldren.


judith October 14, 2014 at 10:46 pm

I used to go to DLT gigs in Wolverhampton many years ago. I got chosen to go on stage and take part in a funny performance with him on stage (it involved an African cooking pot). Just good honest fun, no more no less. These people who accuse such talented folk as DLT have no thought for his lady or any of his family. Bless you both and take care 🙂


Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: