Rolf Harris - trial starts today

[rover 623gsi]

i really do think that anyone commenting on this thread ought to read this

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

[Vaud]

KFC said:

I wonder if the UK should have some statute of limitations like America. It seems extremely hard to prove innocence 20 years down the line. I know you shouldn't even have to prove innocence and the other side has to prove guilt.... but if you end up with a liar making accusations the passage of time makes it extremely difficult to prove otherwise.

Except that the statute of limitations varies by state:

"Not all crimes are governed by statutes of limitation. Murder, for example, has none. Sex offenses with minors, crimes of violence, kidnapping, arson, and forgery have no statutes of limitation in a number of states. In Arizona and California crimes involving public money or public records have no statutes of limitation. While in Colorado, treason has none."

So it isn't a sweeping position.

[saaby93]

KFC said:

I wonder if the UK should have some statute of limitations like America. It seems extremely hard to prove innocence 20 years down the line. I know you shouldn't even have to prove innocence and the other side has to prove guilt.... but if you end up with a liar making accusations the passage of time makes it extremely difficult to prove otherwise.

I think you'll find it's just as difficult to prove guilt too!
They've tried suggesting statute of limitations in Northern Ireland to try to help people move on from the past.

If a young lad breaks the neighbours greenhouse with a football and has 'got away' with it, after how many years does the neighbour accept he's never going to bring the culprit to account? Or is the possibility always there?

[Dr Jekyll]

rover 623gsi said:

i really do think that anyone commenting on this thread ought to read this

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

What makes you think we haven't.

[saaby93]

rover 623gsi said:

i really do think that anyone commenting on this thread ought to read this
http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/?news_id=37470

What's wrong with that?
Isn't it pretty much what you'd expect to be written given the Jury's verdict and the witness statements?

[anonymous-user]

KFC said:

I wonder if the UK should have some statute of limitations like America.

just for nonces though?

not for real hardcore murderers or hammer wielding rapists?

What offences do you suggest the statute would limit?

This chap admitted being sexually attracted to a 13 year old girl in his evidence in court.

The only argument appears to be the the "jury got it wrong"

He's not been fitted up and he had an expensive defence team.

Why all the anguish over the verdict? Whether he did it or not there are LOADS of cases to get stuck into before this one.

[scenario8]

telecat said:

You may well ask why so many who were not Communists were persecuted by McCarthy in the 1950's and why Satanic Sexual Abuse was believed rampant in the 1980's. Both are now ridiculed. I suppose we can only give thanks that the original Yewtree Report did think that the majority of reports of Saville's abuses were just too ridiculous to include. The remainder it jumps straight from Allegations to Facts in one foul sweep. This sorry state of affairs means that very probably, real abusers can now rest easy knowing they have got away with their crime.

At least two of the "victims" had already profited from telling their "Stories" by the way. Just continuing mining the "seam".

Edited by telecat on Saturday 5th July 20:10

Would you mind expanding on that as I don't follow how in your line of arguing it follows. If it's so easy to make historic allegations up (to fabricate and lie) and for these lies to be so easily proven in Court as fact, leading to unsafe, indeed false convictions, how does this conviction (or do you mean the Savile non-convictions?) mean it is "very probable real abusers can rest easy knowing they have got away with their crime?" Aren't they (real abusers) (and you and I, presumably) more likely to have been falsely convicted for a non-crime? Happy to have it explained as it isn't very clear to me at all.

Thanks.

[Dr Jekyll]

La Liga said:

Dr Jekyll said:

tenpenceshort said:

This idea from some here that the CPS have somehow managed to get the jury to accept insufficient evidence and convict when they otherwise wouldn't be able to is fanciful and ignorant of how the system works.

This is clearly saying that juries would never convict on insufficient evidence.

You're selectively quoting (and even when so it isn't clearly saying that).

tenpenceshort said:

You say the evidence is 'flimsy'. I would like to know on what basis you suggest this?

If, having heard the prosecution evidence and before they gave their own, the defence thought the evidence was insufficient to make out any offence, they are entitled to make an application of no case to answer (a 'half time submission'). The court can dismiss the case at this point.

To paraphrase, the test for whether the evidence is sufficient, is to ask whether a jury, properly directed, would have heard evidence sufficient to allow it to reach a guilty verdict.

I don't believe Harris' lawyers made a half time submission and, if they did, we know it was not successful. This idea from some here that the CPS have somehow managed to get the jury to accept insufficient evidence and convict when they otherwise wouldn't be able to is fanciful and ignorant of how the system works.

He's saying the the idea the CPS have 'beat' all the safeguards and slid an evidence-less case through for the jury to make a decision is fanciful - the point is the jury wouldn't even have to make the decision as it would be taken from them due to the safeguards. "When they otherwise wouldn't" means during normal operation.

He says nothing about juries never convicting on insufficient evidence. "Fanciful" means unrealistic, not never.

The whole point of the discussion was the suggestion than on some of the counts the evidence sounded pretty sparse. 10PS response to that was to say that since guilty verdicts were returned by the jury, anyone who suggests the evidence could possibly be thin was being fanciful and ignorant.

[anonymous-user]

I can't recall a case that has split opinion as much as this one.
Usually, quite rightly, there is a universal chant of 'string them up' , but there seems to be an underlying unease here..

[Mr Trophy]

Not sure if this has been said, but can't believe his Daughter and Wife are still standing behind him...

[marshalla]

Mr Trophy said:

Not sure if this has been said, but can't believe his Daughter and Wife are still standing behind him...

I can.

A few years back I was involved in a case where we had to withdraw the defence team because I had found something pretty damning and the lawyers could no longer represent him.

The accused knew he was guilty and his wife knew it too - but she apparently instructed him that he must NOT plead guilty. If he had, she would have left and taken the kids with her. He reasoning was that if he was found guilty, she could try to maintain her status in the community by playing the "miscarriage of justice" card. What the family say and do in public can be very different to what happens behind closed doors.

A couple of months after we withdrew, the case was back in court with a new legal team. He pled not guilty, was found guilty and given a long holiday in a segregated section of one Her Majesty's least pleasant holiday camps along with an entry on the register.

[anonymous-user]

Mr Trophy said:

Not sure if this has been said, but can't believe his Daughter and Wife are still standing behind him...

I'm sure that if they believed he was guilty they would have waved goodbye. I can't imagine anyone would stand by someone if they truly believed what he was found guilty of in this case.
I'd hazard a guess that they are well aware of the consensual relationship (admitted) but believe the rest is a load of tosh.

[unrepentant]

KFC said:

I wonder if the UK should have some statute of limitations like America. It seems extremely hard to prove innocence 20 years down the line. I know you shouldn't even have to prove innocence and the other side has to prove guilt.... but if you end up with a liar making accusations the passage of time makes it extremely difficult to prove otherwise.

You're not suggesting that's what's happened here are you?

If this were a case where a woman had gone to the police and said "Rolf Harris touched me up in 1980" I'm sure it would never have gone to court. Instead we had a number of unconnected women going to the police and telling a very similar story. A pattern develops and each witness effectively gives credibility to the others. It's how they got Hall and Clifford and it's how they got Harris, all correctly convicted.

[Derek Smith]

Jimboka said:

Mr Trophy said:

Not sure if this has been said, but can't believe his Daughter and Wife are still standing behind him...

I'm sure that if they believed he was guilty they would have waved goodbye. I can't imagine anyone would stand by someone if they truly believed what he was found guilty of in this case.
I'd hazard a guess that they are well aware of the consensual relationship (admitted) but believe the rest is a load of tosh.

Some hold out, not willing to believe (look to this thread) despite everything.

Others - and I'm not suggesting that this has occurred in this case as I know nothing about the domestic circs of course, there is an 'arrangement'.

Having the missus standing by you is a positive for the defence. The defendant might expect a finding of guilt so would realise assets and would have some control over them, the idea being to put it beyond the range of any claimant. It doesn't always work though of course, but there are those who will, no doubt for a percentage, cover tracks.

If you don't do what I say then the money goes elsewhere.

Wouldn't you stand by your kids, partner, parents in the trial stage? Plenty of time to change tactics if they are found guilty.

I know a chief constable who stood by his daughter despite there being no doubt she was not only guilty but a bit of a . . .

Despite it putting the back up of the home secretary, the fact that the chap had a sense of loyalty to his family regardless upped him in my mind.

He was willing to be photographed coming out of one of the courts with he newly convicted daughter was a sign of character. Two people were noticeably absent: her mother and his wife. She held an important job it seems.

I've spoken with parents of right little arhsoles who know full well that there's little chance for their kids but still stick by them in the hope that they might change. Their point of view is easy enough to understand.

I had to take a complaint from a father when a PC took their beaten son back to the home address. The lad was a transvestite, presumably the cause of his beating. The father all but refused the kid entry because of his sexuality/clothing, and the PC gave him a bit of her mind. Him I couldn't understand.

[Aretnap]

La Liga said:

The 'compensation' geniuses probably don't actually know what they are practically saying. Here they are saying:

1) Several Women have all decided at the same time to make allegations to the police about sexual offences about the same person - how do they all pick the same celebrity?

2) Each of these independent Women from different times has managed to come up with the same MO for Harris. This is either from coincidence or conspiracy.

3) The are motivated by money and not genuine victims.

4) They are all willing to pervert to course of justice and go through a hard process and the most high-profile of Crown Court cases to secure money.

5) They get their lies past the best police interviewers and investigators in this crime area.

6) They get their lies through the CPS (who on a related note are happy to put any old st to court).

7) At no point through the process do any of them "crack" or get challenged because anyone involved in the investigation suspects so.

8) The expert defence counsel aren't able to obtain the necessary 'reasonable doubt' from a group of liars.

9) The collective liars manage to convince a jury enough to convict.

All good points, but you missed at least one out

(0) One of the women spends 15 years in therapy, telling various therapists and counsellors about how Rolf Harris abused her (as confirmed by their notes), on the off-chance that it will help if one day there's a celebrity witch-hunt and a compo bandwagon that she can jump on.

That seems like quite a lot of foresight to me.

Edited by Aretnap on Sunday 6th July 00:04

[number 46]

Aretnap said:

All good points, but you missed at least one out

(0) One of the women spends 15 years in therapy, telling various therapists and counsellors about how Rolf Harris abused her (as confirmed by their notes), on the off-chance that it will help if one day there's a celebrity witch-hunt and a compo bandwagon that she can jump on.

That seems like quite a lot of foresight to me.

Edited by Aretnap on Sunday 6th July 00:04

No different from the cretins on here that still maintain that 911 was a hoax and flight MH 370 flew into space!!!!

[saaby93]

number 46 said:

flight MH 370 flew into space!!!!

I saw that thread

Don't forget two people can have significantly different memories of what happened at an event.
Neither of them will be lying because that's what they believe
At least one of them will be mistaken.

It's for the courts to unravel

Remember this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGQmdoK_ZfY
Did you see the ball passed 15 times?

Edited by saaby93 on Sunday 6th July 00:38

[Gareth79]

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.

It still happens - only recently a local paper ran an "exposé" of a small BDSM/fetish type party by sending in reporters undercover. The vague news link was that the venue was a large suburban house owned by a Lib Dem councillor - although he was not at the party or ever mentioned. They found nothing outrageous and not only did the immediate neighbors not know the events happened, they didn't care!

Meanwhile I'm sure others councilors and public officials were doing far worse things but not nearly as titillating for readers...

[HoHoHo]

I had dinner last night with a friend who's a barrister and of course we discussed this case.

Whilst she is disappointed that he is the person we now know he is, she suggested historical sex cases are notoriously difficult to get a conviction and from what she is aware of (which is as we are and looking from the outside) she is confident it appears to be the right decision.

She also mentioned that don't forget the jury will have had an extremely difficult time separating the likeable TV personality from the person sitting in the dock, it's totally different if you don't have an historical relationship however tenuous hence the time taken deliberating.

So I for one still sit here feeling comfortable a nonce has been locked up.

As with other sensible posters in this thread not living in denial, I'm confident the justice system does on the whole make the right decisions even if it's against a person who on the face of it appears to be normal and popular.

[saaby93]

Gareth79 said:

It still happens - only recently a local paper ran an "exposé" of a small BDSM/fetish type party by sending in reporters undercover. The vague news link was that the venue was a large suburban house owned by a Lib Dem councillor - although he was not at the party or ever mentioned. They found nothing outrageous and not only did the immediate neighbors not know the events happened, they didn't care!

Meanwhile I'm sure others councilors and public officials were doing far worse things but not nearly as titillating for readers...

What sort of worse things and why are you sure?