Monday, 15 June 2015

Frederick Starr V Karin Ward Day 1

Here are extracts from news reports of the day's proceedings in the libel case brought by Freddie Starr against Karin Ward.
From ITV news

The Mail includes a reference to Jimmy Savile

Then there's the Press Gazette

The Irish independent provides more coverage of Freddie's testimony.


  1. "Mr Starr said that Ms Ward and the other two women who made allegations about him, who all attended Duncroft Approved School at the time, had stayed in touch over 40 years.

    He added: "They all went to the same school, wore the same school tie and they are all telling lies, and that's the truth of the matter. This whole thing is ridiculous."

    Mr Starr has finished giving his evidence and the hearing was adjourned until Tuesday. "

    Looks like the BBC have messed up in that report....

    "Ms Ward's advocate, David Price QC, dismissed the evidence of another 15-year-old girl as "garbage". "

    I'd like to think that was what Price QC said, but I suspect an editorial error.

    1. LOL the Mail didn't do much better calling Mr Price, Mr Ward. But it's updated itself since I took the snip & I think it's added a few more pics. Poor Freddie, he does not look well.

  2. He looks tired. About as tired as I am of this whole dreary farce. I hope he nails Miss Ward and her cronies, once and for all. As well as the "brave" little Fiona and the rest of the lying coven.

    1. I'm willing to bet Fiona is keeping a million miles away from her "old pal".

      Noticeable that the "Daily Paedo" fraudster is keeping a similar distance, not even mentioning the case yesterday in his daily round-up of popular paedo trash:

      Both of them were legally smart all along though and kept their script rigidly to the dead guy. They even made sure that they didn't even take the risk of offending the glittery guy.. since he was warm & breathing.

      "The conclusion of Exposure was without any further revelations, but perhaps it's most cynical moment followed the declaration that Fiona made clear 'she was never assaulted by Glitter'. "
      "The inclusion of this man in the Exposure show was evidently designed to tar Savile with the brush of some kind of association with a convicted paedophile. It is an enormous irony of such a miserable and cheap tactic that, following the hysteria that broke across the UK as the Savile Revelations gained momentum in the media of all types, that the inclusion of "Gary Glitter" only served to tarnish his reputation as he was tarred with the brush of some kind of association with the most prolific sexual predator the UK has ever known - Jimmy Savile!! "

  3. Does any one have any idea what Davis Price QC would be charging Karin Wards benefactors, for a 10 day trial? It would just give us an indication of how much some people fear about being "exposed".

    1. According to his website he is a pioneer in offering a no win/no fee-service to defendents in libel cases, so possibly no one is "behind" Ward except Price:

    2. He does a lot of work for the media and newspapers.
      He acted as legal advisor to Peter Rippon as it happens.

    3. I found it interesting to see that he'd "made his name as a claimant lawyer" in libel cases... before switching sides to the defence.

      Who knows, maybe someone IS financing it on Ward's behalf, given that the media have much to lose should she herself lose. And it would be good to learn what lead to that Private Eye article. But Price seems to know his onions, so I'm hoping for - rather than expecting - a particular outcome.

  4. Interesting that the case is being tried without a jury.

    "When are Juries Used in Civil Cases
    The county Courts Act 1984 has set out the following guidelines on when a jury should be used for a civil trial:
    Defamation: including cases involving:
    Liable or slander
    False imprisonment
    Malicious prosecution
    All these cases will include either damage to a person’s character or reputation. A case involving the above matters may still be refused a trial by jury if the judge believes the case, evidence or other matters are too complicated for a trial by jury."

    1. I wonder WHY too Moor ! Cynical me might conclude that the less members of the public KNOW about the matter, the better ! Good for the loser I guess

    2. This is interesting
      Usually a defamation case will be tried by a jury. The exceptions are when both sides agree for the case to be heard by a judge without a jury or when the judge decides that a jury will complicate matters. This could be, for instance, because explaining the complexities of certain defamation cases to a jury of laypeople could be too time consuming.
      From same site