Rolf Harris - trial starts today

[gpo746]

chonok said:

I no way defend what he did, but do find it very difficult to comprehend he doing it.

Can please someone please explain to me how they come to a guilty verdict?

Surely there is no 'evidence' from a sexual assault from 40 years ago, other than peopled word. Is this enough??? Sorry, to be naiave, but i really don't understand the justice system when cases like this are involved...

look
If a persons evidence is clear and consistent it will be enough
If several people essentially say the same thing as above it will be enough.

The frigging difference now is that allegations are taken much more seriously in the early 80's I know for fact they could be given only a cursory "glance" In the 70's and 60's probably much less.

The friggin irony of all this that gets me really narked is that in the 80's tabloids were busy running expose's of celebrities involved in sex parties domination dungeons and the like - essentially off track but consenting adults acting badly, but in the meantime other celebrities were busy molesting children, rumours were flying around yet hardly any investigative stuff took place.

[chonok]

Thanks for that.

Having looked at my original post, I must apologise for all of the mistakes! Was written in a rush..

[hedgefinder]

I am glad it wasnt for me to decide if he was guilty or innocent, but it still doesnt really sit well with me that all these "victims" only came out with their stories AFTER many people were making large compensation claims against the Savile estate... many of Saviles victims had reported their cases to police when they occurred as you would if genuine (and its a disgrace that the police didnt act), but the fact that I havent seen any evidence that ANY of harris' supposed offences were ever reported to police before Yewtree just seems odd.. and does whiff a little of compensation or publicity seeking.
If definately guilty he deserves the lot, anyone doing anything of that nature with children should castrated and locked up permanently IMO , but I am still not 100% convinced just based on poeple making statements about incidents many years ago.

[gpo746]

Derek Smith said:

gpo746 said:

A sad side of that is what someone mentioned before that the well meaning genuine people will be less inclined to want to get involved in youngsters activities (and don't be smutty !)for fear of being at risk of being misconstrued.

My wife takes our grandchildren, aged under 4, to organised activities in a local sports centre. I used to go along but felt a bit out of it and 'looked at'. I felt I was looked upon as a dirty old man, whether for the mummies or the children was not clear. So I wandered off to the canteen for a cup, put up my laptop and did some work.

I get odd looks there as well. Mummies sit around, half clothed and seem to resent some old guy taking up space. A kid, around 4, wandered up once and stood beside me, gazing at me typing. She asked: 'What are you doing?' I started to tell her that I was writing. Mother came up and lifted said child away without a word to me.

It's very uncomfortable. I find kids entertaining, I've had four of my own and have four grandchildren. When I was a police officer I was better with kids than most WPCs who were called out who were unable to chat to them. But now, I'm a dirty old man.

It is quite sad.

I have to say Dereck one of your most touching posts and very true.
I think a laptop anywhere in a swimming pool even a canteen will arouse thoughts
I can remember years ago when we got a video camera videoing our daughters sports day and some of the other parents asking us for copies of the races she and their kids were in, I don't even think you could do that now. A friend of ours was told when their daughter attended school (in the pre attendance parents invite group meetings they have) that under NO circumstances were parents allowed to film their kids going into school for the first day either by video or camera or phone.

[scenario8]

As someone with an interest in sex crimes I don't think I can explain fully quite how upset I get every time I read on Pistonheads the dismissive posts about ""victims"" publicity/compensation seeking motivations.

For the nth time can I please emplore people to study the nature of sex crimes, perhaps moreso sex crimes against children and other vulnerable people before jumping to cycnical conclusions regarding victims' silences and/or the failure of the reporting mechanisms to pursue matters fully.

Try to imagine for one moment you're a young or vulnerable person and you've been assaulted by a trusted adult, most likely a close family member. You're confused and scared. Do you honestly believe that in every single case young and vulnerable people would come forward? Do you think in every case their accusations would be taken seriously and without consequence for the victim? For a very large number of vistims (a number impossible to calculate, naturally) silence is the most appealing and least worst path of (in)action. The situation was even worse back in the good old days so it is of no surprise to me whatsoever that alleged victims are only now starting to come forward with historic claims.

There are cases of individuals using the 9/11 tragedy to falsely claim life insurance or to cover up other terrible crimes. I wouldn't use those few examples as evidence that all 9/11 victims families are cycnical compensation seekers. Even if it is ever shown that any of Savile's claimants are fraudulant I wouldn't use that as a basis to be cynical towards any claimant that ever came forward in similar cases. I'd extend that sentiment to false rape claimants, too - just to save me the bother of typing it in the next quasi-misogynistic rape case thread.

[sugerbear]

I read that the judge had ruled that Harris wouldn't have to pay compensation to his victims but he would have to pay all the prosecution costs.

I have no idea if that means that the taxpayer picks up the bill for criminal compensation and if that also applied to any future civil case.

[anonymous-user]

sugerbear said:

I read that the judge had ruled that Harris wouldn't have to pay compensation to his victims but he would have to pay all the prosecution costs.

I have no idea if that means that the taxpayer picks up the bill for criminal compensation and if that also applied to any future civil case.

That's not what the judge said.

He did say that he should pick up prosecution costs but that he didn't feel able to agree compensation for the victims - definitely leaving the door open for them to claim separately.

[Beati Dogu]

We should deport him to Australia once he's released. They've done the same thing with "British" sexual offenders several times over the last few years. Even ones that emigrated to Australia when they were 2 years old.

[anonymous-user]

The simple fact is the victims, investigators and prosecutors deserve great praise. Historic sexual offences are not easy to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

scenario8 said:

As someone with an interest in sex crimes I don't think I can explain fully quite how upset I get every time I read on Pistonheads the dismissive posts about ""victims"" publicity/compensation seeking motivations.

There's been that snide, underlying tone in all the Yewtree-themed threads from multiple posters. A nasty, unjust bias from people who have no idea what they are talking about. The SP&L topic features a lot of this.

The_Burg said:

He was a bit if a childhood hero, he visited our school. He never touched my willy, nor my sisters lady bits, nor anybody elses i know.

I just see folk wanting to make a profit out of an old man who did a lot for a great many kids.

Is kiddy fiddling so amazingly awesome that everyone that was famous had to have a go? I really don't think so.

It seems everyone for the last 40 years believes so.

If it is true i really do feel for you, but until i feel sceptical.

I met a murderer before he murdered someone. I'm really sceptical because he didn't stab me to death, or anyone else he had met prior to the victim, for that matter.

Great logic.

Multiple independent people from different points in time providing a corroborative MO. It must be a conspiracy.

Rolf Harris's legal team were of a very, very high quality. Drop them a line and tell them you're sceptical due to the above. Quick, whilst they can still appeal!

The_Burg said:

Nobody it seems these days who enjoys spending time with kids is exempt. There are many who would, i remember many years ago teaching my kids to ride their bikes and having lots of local kids wanting to join in. A neighbour of mine used to try and encourage the local kids to play football and get involved in local activities. My grandad was a caretaker at a local school and used to teach the kids to play football and cricket, was briefly a goalie for Leicester City and played cricket for Northants. These days he would probably be accuse of being a paedo, beaten up and his house set fire to.

[Colonial]

scenario8 said:

As someone with an interest in sex crimes I don't think I can explain fully quite how upset I get every time I read on Pistonheads the dismissive posts about ""victims"" publicity/compensation seeking motivations.

For the nth time can I please emplore people to study the nature of sex crimes, perhaps moreso sex crimes against children and other vulnerable people before jumping to cycnical conclusions regarding victims' silences and/or the failure of the reporting mechanisms to pursue matters fully.

Try to imagine for one moment you're a young or vulnerable person and you've been assaulted by a trusted adult, most likely a close family member. You're confused and scared. Do you honestly believe that in every single case young and vulnerable people would come forward? Do you think in every case their accusations would be taken seriously and without consequence for the victim? For a very large number of vistims (a number impossible to calculate, naturally) silence is the most appealing and least worst path of (in)action. The situation was even worse back in the good old days so it is of no surprise to me whatsoever that alleged victims are only now starting to come forward with historic claims.

There are cases of individuals using the 9/11 tragedy to falsely claim life insurance or to cover up other terrible crimes. I wouldn't use those few examples as evidence that all 9/11 victims families are cycnical compensation seekers. Even if it is ever shown that any of Savile's claimants are fraudulant I wouldn't use that as a basis to be cynical towards any claimant that ever came forward in similar cases. I'd extend that sentiment to false rape claimants, too - just to save me the bother of typing it in the next quasi-misogynistic rape case thread.

Excellent post.

as someone who has been through this st what is most damaging is the pathetic victim djaming and excuses from people who have their own bias or reasons.

Even after the person admitted to it there were still those that maintained that he never did anything to me so it can't be true.

pathetic. Simply pathetic.

[Halb]

Harris has been convicted, he is guilty. He may appeal?


Here is an article that goes on about how he may not be 'guilty'.
http://www.libertarianview.co.uk/current-affairs/r...

[technogogo]

gpo746 said:

The friggin irony of all this that gets me really narked is that in the 80's tabloids were busy running expose's of celebrities involved in sex parties domination dungeons and the like - essentially off track but consenting adults acting badly, but in the meantime other celebrities were busy molesting children, rumours were flying around yet hardly any investigative stuff took place.

That is a very good point.

[backwoodsman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkzxGr4Yx8U

[anonymous-user]

Halb said:

Harris has been convicted, he is guilty. He may appeal?


Here is an article that goes on about how he may not be 'guilty'.
http://www.libertarianview.co.uk/current-affairs/r...

The author / website moderator has deleted my comment twice now. I think they must be allergic to having their "logic" ruined.

[Dr Jekyll]

I remember after the Barry George and Amanda Knox trials there were suggestions that obviously the court must have had some compelling piece of evidence that the media all inexplicably failed to mention. Obviously it's possible, but given the attention paid to a video clip of RH being in Cambridge 3 years after an alleged assault in that city, I suspect anything more conclusive would have come to light by now.

[pip t]

One indicator of whether there is room for doubt in the verdict will surely be if Mr Harris tries to appeal?

So far, no sign of it that I've heard, which may indicate the verdict was the correct one. I think if I was innocent and wrongly convicted I'd be banging that drum VERY loudly as soon as I could...

[rover 623gsi]

Dr Jekyll said:

I remember after the Barry George and Amanda Knox trials there were suggestions that obviously the court must have had some compelling piece of evidence that the media all inexplicably failed to mention. Obviously it's possible, but given the attention paid to a video clip of RH being in Cambridge 3 years after an alleged assault in that city, I suspect anything more conclusive would have come to light by now.

sentencing remarks

http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/?news_id=37470

[telecat]

La Liga said:

Halb said:

Harris has been convicted, he is guilty. He may appeal?


Here is an article that goes on about how he may not be 'guilty'.
http://www.libertarianview.co.uk/current-affairs/r...

The author / website moderator has deleted my comment twice now. I think they must be allergic to having their "logic" ruined.

Hardly surprising as that is no argument merely supposition. Where is the Logic in it? The article is based on the evidence and the evidence looks very flawed. The test of guilt is "Beyond Reasonable doubt". That there is doubt is missed here. If Harris can afford it I would expect there to be an appeal. That's another flaw in the current system. The Accusers tend not to be financially prosecuted at any stage in these Trials. The defendants tend to lose more with very little chance of the Justice System ever replacing it if found "not Guilty".

[marshalla]

telecat said:

Hardly surprising as that is no argument merely supposition. Where is the Logic in it? The article is based on the evidence and the evidence looks very flawed. The test of guilt is "Beyond Reasonable doubt". That there is doubt is missed here. If Harris can afford it I would expect there to be an appeal. That's another flaw in the current system. The Accusers tend not to be financially prosecuted at any stage in these Trials. The defendants tend to lose more with very little chance of the Justice System ever replacing it if found "not Guilty".

Appeal on what grounds ?

AFAIK appeals can only be allowed for either new evidence, or errors in procedure - not because you don't like the verdict.

[anonymous-user]

telecat said:

Hardly surprising as that is no argument merely supposition. Where is the Logic in it? The article is based on the evidence and the evidence looks very flawed. The test of guilt is "Beyond Reasonable doubt". That there is doubt is missed here. If Harris can afford it I would expect there to be an appeal.

There's no logic in saying one should be in possession of all the information before making definitive conclusions? Are you for real? Do you have any idea how much evidence and information will have been presented to the jury overall that we don't know about? I'm not talking about a "smoking gun", but lots of little things that amount to something significant.

It's not hard to take a complex trial, paint a biased picture and conveniently ignore how unlikely is it all the legal safe-guards failed because it suits me.

Also, tell me how there's no logic in pointing out that equating a not guilty verdict to a false accuser is wrong. You do realise that this is actually wrong, don't you?