The Freak Was A Leso On TV So She Must Of Done It

Maggie Kirkpatrick played a lesbian sexual predator on Prisoner, so she must be a bit like that in real life. Therefore if she’s accused of a predatory sexual offence against an underage girl, she probably did it. There’s no smoke without fire etc ... I wish there was an emoticon for “descent into illogical platitudes”.

I bet many people were thinking (or gut feeling) along those lines when The Freak appeared in court, charged with a 30 year old sexual offence against a 14 year old girl. Some probably quipped about life imitating art, then made the same dumb connection. Of course, every media article had to mention “The Freak”.

I wonder how much magistrate Peter Mealy was able to separate the TV character from the person when he found Maggie Kirkpatrick guilty.

Judges are supposed to protect defendants against irrational, emotionally biased connections, gut feelings and every other means of false deduction which could lead a jury to convict on evidence which does not constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. That is why defendants need the right to request a judge only trial.

I do not believe magistrate Peter Mealy has met the law’s obligation to Maggie Kirkpatrick to convict only if the evidence demonstrates that there is no other reasonable conclusion but guilt.

Look at the “evidence” presented by the prosecution: a teenage psychiatric patient makes a complaint about a one off incident 30 years ago, which Maggie Kirkpatrick vigorously denies. That’s it. No witnesses, no admissions, no physical evidence. There is even some discrepancy in the evidence as to the time of the “offences”, alleged to be in June or July 1984, while the Logies were on television (in April).

Yet Peter Mealy found Kirkpatrick guilty because he “considered the victim a witness of truth”. That’s not the point and a judge should know this. Now Maggie Kirkpatrick has a conviction for sex offences and is on a sex offenders’ register. Over what? An isolated, 30 year old accusation from a teenage mental patient?

It’s suspicious that Kirkpatrick invited a young fan she’d never previously met back to her house, especially one with mental problems. But that’s the extent of it: she said, she said and actions that today appear a bit odd. That’s not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

There is no way the evidence presented in this case meets the criminal standard of proof. The judge is clearly incompetent. The verdict should be quashed. On this standard of proof, anyone could accuse anyone else of anything, years after the fact and succeed because they are "a witness of truth".

As she should, Maggie Kirkpatrick is appealing this absurd travesty of a verdict. Hopefully it will be overturned.

Citizens should not underestimate the consequences of an unsuccessful appeal. That would effectively create a precedent for the erosion of the burden of proof in criminal matters, at least for allegations of sex offences. How would you defend yourself against a malicious accusation?