Rolf Harris - trial starts today
Discussion
unrepentant said:
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.
This precisely my point. The Portsmouth case for example would never have got to court without the other accusations. But there is a perfectly good reason why previous convictions are generally not admissible as evidence, much less previous accusations. All the Yewtree inspired investigations have an element of finding crimes for a suspect rather than the other way round so it's hardly surprising the allegations are broadly similar. I can certainly understand the argument that if it's necessary to adapt usual procedures in order to get the correct verdict on someone we know is guilty then so be it. But sooner or later it's going to backfire.
unrepentant said:
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.
This has been mentioned more times than it needs to be in this thread and is exactly why he's been convicted.I can't understand why people struggle with this concept/fact and as with any cases similar to this it's not simply random statements provided by any old woman and then he goes to jail.......
Edited by HoHoHo on Sunday 6th July 09:30
There was a case a few years back of social workers accused of assaults and later exonerated, a judge who investigated the case said.
legal expert said:
‘I reject any analysis to the effect that, abuse having been alleged in so many instances, it must be a true bill in all or even some cases. Not only is that an inherently sloppy approach to any serious allegation, but it ignores an essential part of the claimants’ case in this litigation; namely, that there has been a “feeding frenzy” leading to a grave risk of cross-fertilisation between the accounts given.
Dr Jekyll said:
There was a case a few years back of social workers accused of assaults and later exonerated, a judge who investigated the case said.
My bold.legal expert said:
‘I reject any analysis to the effect that, abuse having been alleged in so many instances, it must be a true bill in all or even some cases. Not only is that an inherently sloppy approach to any serious allegation, but it ignores an essential part of the claimants’ case in this litigation; namely, that there has been a “feeding frenzy” leading to a grave risk of cross-fertilisation between the accounts given.
I think the judge mentioned that there was no chance of cross-fertilisation in this case. It's part of the job of the CPS to check this and the court to ensure that they have done so. If there was any then the defence could have had a field day. But they didn't so the conclusion is . . .
Derek Smith said:
Dr Jekyll said:
There was a case a few years back of social workers accused of assaults and later exonerated, a judge who investigated the case said.
My bold.legal expert said:
‘I reject any analysis to the effect that, abuse having been alleged in so many instances, it must be a true bill in all or even some cases. Not only is that an inherently sloppy approach to any serious allegation, but it ignores an essential part of the claimants’ case in this litigation; namely, that there has been a “feeding frenzy” leading to a grave risk of cross-fertilisation between the accounts given.
I think the judge mentioned that there was no chance of cross-fertilisation in this case. It's part of the job of the CPS to check this and the court to ensure that they have done so. If there was any then the defence could have had a field day. But they didn't so the conclusion is . . .
scenario8 said:
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".
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.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
Thanks.
http://www.eastgrinsteadcourier.co.uk/Jimmy-Savile...
Now this
http://www.eastgrinsteadcourier.co.uk/Jimmy-Savile...
In this case the accusation is rebuffed as proof exists. However if this woman got it wrong how many others did as well?
Vanessa Feltz claims Rolf Harris put his hand under her knickers on live TV
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2682180/He...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Is there no ends to the mans depravity.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2682180/He...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Is there no ends to the mans depravity.
Dr Jekyll said:
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.
Yes, he wasn't saying "never" like you originally said, he was saying it was fanciful (unrealistic). Unrealistic that flimsy evidence would get to the jury to the degree people are suggesting it is here. Dr Jekyll said:
All the Yewtree inspired investigations have an element of finding crimes for a suspect rather than the other way round so it's hardly surprising the allegations are broadly similar.
It's hardly surprising because the offenders operate the same way. People are approaching the police, who have never met on another and from different points in time and describing the same thing, independently. Dr Jekyll said:
I can certainly understand the argument that if it's necessary to adapt usual procedures in order to get the correct verdict on someone we know is guilty then so be it. But sooner or later it's going to backfire.
What usual procedures have been changed? Dr Jekyll said:
But that still leaves the 'inherently sloppy approach' which was the main point of the comment.
And that has what to do with this case? In any case, read what he has written:legal expert said:
‘I reject any analysis to the effect that, abuse having been alleged in so many instances, it must be a true bill in all or even some cases. Not only is that an inherently sloppy approach to any serious allegation, but it ignores an essential part of the claimants’ case in this litigation; namely, that there has been a “feeding frenzy” leading to a grave risk of cross-fertilisation between the accounts given.
Who on here has said that it MUST be true when multiple people make allegations?You're arguing against a position no one is taking. Relying on improbable extremes rather than what is highly-likely to have occurred.
telecat said:
http://www.eastgrinsteadcourier.co.uk/Jimmy-Savile...
In this case the accusation is rebuffed as proof exists. However if this woman got it wrong how many others did as well?
No one's saying allegations are infallible. Those examples haven't gone through the same processes and filters as something that goes to trial. In this case the accusation is rebuffed as proof exists. However if this woman got it wrong how many others did as well?
desolate said:
Why the focus on this case rather than any other?
It could be the 'Halo Effect'. It's much easier to accept bad things about 'bad' people rather than 'good' people. I have no doubt at all that Rolf Harris is a bad person. I just think it's odd that he was found guilty in the Portsmouth case on the basis of an uncorroborated allegation. I suspect that the guilty verdict on that charge only came in because of the other separate allegations. The charges have been lumped together for mutual support, this is a departure from normal practice and a pretty dubious tactic even if it did give the correct result in this case.
Dr Jekyll said:
I have no doubt at all that Rolf Harris is a bad person. I just think it's odd that he was found guilty in the Portsmouth case on the basis of an uncorroborated allegation. I suspect that the guilty verdict on that charge only came in because of the other separate allegations. The charges have been lumped together for mutual support, this is a departure from normal practice and a pretty dubious tactic even if it did give the correct result in this case.
There is no departure from normal practice. Each charge has to meet the CPS's full test code. The same standards and well established rules of admissibility, weight and disclosure are applied. Unless you know otherwise, which I doubt as I expect the defence would have spotted anything that deviated from what fits within the norm. The intricacies and complexities of how MOs crossover and corroborate from one charge to another, and how similar fact evidence supports each one is not known to us. We simply don't have the detail to say whether or not there is corroboration in every aspect that creates a compelling case for each charge.
Dr Jekyll said:
tenpenceshort said:
Can you provide an example of a conviction that was appealed on the basis of 'there was no procedural error at trial but we think the jury got it wrong'?
No, because as you know perfectly well there are no such grounds for appeal. That doesn't make juries infallible though.Zeeky said:
It also presupposes that the the procedural rules lead to safe convictions. Over the years we have seen an increase in the use of expert, bad character and similar fact evidence, all of which have a serious risk of being given more weight than they deserve.
I make no such presupposition, merely pointing out the jury's relatively unfettered power to make decisions and for those decisions to be unappealable on the basis they were simply bad/wrong/illogical.A small number of people here seem to believe Harris should or may appeal on the basis the jury gave too much weight to 'flimsy' evidence. This is not grounds for a appeal, unless the evidence was wrongly (as in unlawfully) put before them in the first place.
desolate said:
I am not sure what the team for the defence are trying to achieve.
The burden of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt"
NOT beyond ANY doubt.
Why the focus on this case rather than any other?
Not sure if this has already been posted, but I found this quite interesting, it argues "Reasonable Doubt"The burden of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt"
NOT beyond ANY doubt.
Why the focus on this case rather than any other?
http://www.libertarianview.co.uk/current-affairs/r...
10PS, putting your comment into context...
The legal test you have referred to above doesn't assist with this controversial point.
What is more relevant is the fact that pieces of evidence in themselves are often flimsy but in the round the evidence can be compelling. Without having had the benefit of looking at all of the evidence in context it is difficult to know whether or not we would have come to the same conclusion.
tenpenceshort said:
...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.
It appears that the CPS was not convinced that the individual complaints were supported by sufficient evidence. The CPS relied on the complaints supporting each other. Statistically that is of little value and that is where the criticism appears to be coming from. There may well be probative value in four unrelated allegations but it may be difficult to isolate that from the inevitable prejudice that comes with four different people making similar allegations. 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.
The legal test you have referred to above doesn't assist with this controversial point.
What is more relevant is the fact that pieces of evidence in themselves are often flimsy but in the round the evidence can be compelling. Without having had the benefit of looking at all of the evidence in context it is difficult to know whether or not we would have come to the same conclusion.
Guam said:
Adrian W said:
Not sure if this has already been posted, but I found this quite interesting, it argues "Reasonable Doubt"
http://www.libertarianview.co.uk/current-affairs/r...
That looks quite disturbing if that is the sum total of the evidence?http://www.libertarianview.co.uk/current-affairs/r...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff