The remarkable thing about this is just what Nigel Seed QC was willing to consider normal.
“On the day of her trial there was a large number of reporters at the court,” he said. “I was informed by the police that this was because the defendant, who had been on bail, had let it be known that if the case progressed as far as her having to give evidence she intended to allege that she had provided rent boys to Edward Heath.”
Just another day at the office. And then all his witnesses dropped out.
Seed said three witnesses, all sex workers who allegedly worked for Forde at her brothel in Salisbury, Wiltshire, failed or refused to give evidence at court, leaving him with no choice but to offer no evidence.
The combination of the two facts does not seem to have worried him in the slightest. After all, it wasn’t as if they were people, was it?
Seed said there was no suggestion the men were underage or “anything more than male prostitutes”
This is of course how they get away with it. But the guy’s enormous incuriosity is what gets me. There’s sang froid, and then there’s just sitting there like a sack of spuds.
He was a barrister – he was hired to prosecute that case, that’s all. He wasn’t a CPS employee (or whatever it was then). Was there anything to suggest that someone unrelated to the case should be investigated/prosecuted? Nothing to do with him. Literally not his job.
So I’m not that surprised that someone who had no role in launching investigations/prosecutions didn’t spend much time wondering whether a an investigation should be launched.
Also the first point – criminal barristers don’t believe their own clients or witnesses, let alone the ones on the other side. Second point – witnesses often don’t turn up. That’s why defendants often don’t plead guilty till the last minute.
Third point – it would be a bit odd if she was suggesting she was pimping underage boys to anyone – not a great way to get a reduced sentence.