He Said/She Said(59)
JAMIE BALCOMBE WAS WRONGLY CONVICTED OF RAPE ON 20TH APRIL 2000. THIS WEBSITE IS RUN BY HIS FAMILY AND FRIENDS, WHO WILL CONTINUE TO FIGHT TO CLEAR HIS NAME.
‘Can they say that?’ I asked. ‘They’re basically saying you lied. Isn’t that libellous?’
‘No,’ said Beth tautly. ‘You can’t libel someone anonymous. They can say what they like about me.’
On 20th MAY 2000, Mr Donald Imrie of Imrie and Cunningham Chambers, Bedford Row, was granted leave to appeal the verdict. They are confident that the verdict will soon be overturned.
‘Keep going, it gets better,’ said Beth, reading over our shoulders. ‘Can I have some more wine?’
‘Go for it.’
From the outset we would like to state that this website does not seek to undermine the seriousness of rape or trivialise the suffering that rape victims suffer. Had Jamie committed the crime, we believe that a five-year sentence would not be sufficient. But we are stating that he did not commit the crime of rape at all. Furthermore, we recognise and acknowledge that in rape cases the anonymity of the victim is a fundamental legal principle that should be upheld and respected. However, we would like to see that right extended to men, too. This is something to which Jamie intends to devote his energy when his name is cleared.
We are unable to comment on whether we will counter-sue Jamie’s accuser in the likely event of the verdict being overturned. We have always maintained that her history of mental instability makes her vulnerable and it is more important that Jamie’s name is cleared than that an already troubled young woman is put through the criminal justice system when her problem is a medical one. We are willing to help her obtain the professional counselling she needs to help her come to terms with what she has done, and to address the deep-rooted problems that led her to make this false accusation in the first place.
‘Bollocks, more like,’ said Beth. ‘If they get him off, they’ll bring charges against me before the handcuffs are even off him.’
I didn’t doubt it, but had to concede that the false note of concern was a public relations masterstroke.
‘You finished reading?’ I asked Kit, who was staring slackly at the screen. He nodded.
There was a series of tabs down one side: Offer Jamie Your Support, Appeal for Information, Gallery, Jamie’s Career. Media Enquiries told the reader that in addition to instructing a new legal team, the family had hired a publicist. ‘No stone unturned,’ I said. I clicked on Antonia’s Letter. The accompanying photograph showed her and Jamie at a wedding; she had a few flakes of confetti in her hair.
Thank you for visiting Jamie’s website. My name is Antonia Tranter and I am Jamie’s fiancée. We have been together for two years. The past year has been hard for me. It is not easy to hear that your fiancé has been unfaithful; but that is nothing compared to the nightmare that followed, when this mistake has had him painted as a monster. Like all who know and love Jamie, I am convinced of his innocence.
On these pages we have set out, as clearly as we can, reasons why this has been a gross miscarriage of justice. We’d be grateful if you could share our message as far and wide as possible.
In particular, we are looking for witnesses who may have seen Jamie and the young lady in question prior to the event. However insignificant you feel it may be, or if your conscience is troubling you, please write to me via the website and help us get justice for Jamie.
‘He’s got her brainwashed,’ I said.
Beth chewed on a cuticle. ‘Have you found my starring role yet?’
Kit and I looked up together.
‘Click on the tab that says, “Judge for yourself”,’ she said.
Mr Justice Frenchay praised Jamie’s accuser in court for her strength of character in coming forward, and in his summing-up painted her as a shrinking violet. The judge also glossed over her history of mental instability. Whilst we sympathise with anyone who suffers from mental illness, we feel that the jury did not take into consideration that this makes her an unreliable witness.
I couldn’t resist looking at Beth.
‘D’you want to know about my history of mental illness?’ she said. ‘When I was sixteen my grandparents were killed in an accident. I was heartbroken.’ She looked at me, appealing to my own loss, and my heart went out to her. ‘I couldn’t sleep, so my GP gave me a couple of weeks’ Valium. That’s literally it. Just good old-fashioned grief. In the witness box, they made it sound like I’d been in and out of asylums ever since.’
These photographs show Jamie’s accuser out ‘partying’. We have of course disguised her identity in accordance with the law. Is this the sober, conservative girl who appeared in the witness box? Or is this a free spirit, a hedonistic, party-loving girl who is open to all experiences, for whom casual sex at a music festival is all part of a weekend’s fun? We believe that, had the jury been allowed to see these pictures, the verdict would have been very different. Who do you believe? The diligent, studious young man with no record of violence, or the girl with a history of mental illness, who allows herself to be photographed like this?
In the pictures, Beth’s face was pixelated but the hair was clearly identifiable. One showed her licking a male friend’s face in a nightclub; not the most elegant photograph, but everyone our age had done worse. The other had blacked out her whole head but showed her whole body; she looked great in a black bustier, hotpants and cowboy boots, with a bottle of tequila between her breasts. She was photographed side-on, with one shoulder turned towards the camera. The angel wing tattoo had not been disguised.