Rolf Harris - trial starts today
Discussion
Guam said:
XCP said:
You can say that about any case. The man is guilty. Some people need to get over that fact.
Steady on I have no dog in this fight, I was merely commenting on how flimsy the "evidence" appeared too be based on that link.His premise is how easy it is to obtain convictions and scare-monger into saying Men aren't safe, yet gives multiple examples of 'not guilty pleas' of historic and more recent 'celebrity' sexual offending trials.
He also equates 'not guilty pleas' with 'false allegations' which shows how flawed and possibly biased his thinking is.
Zeeky said:
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.
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.
What's of little statistical value? It reads like you're saying the corroboration is of little value, then saying it can be compelling, later on. 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.
P-Jay said:
I haven't read of any other - I suspect an appeal will take place at some point.
Exactly. We're built to draw conclusions from the information we have rather than consider what we don't have. La Liga said:
That's the problem though. It's a link from someone with wholly incomplete information. Unless he's seen all the evidence from the investigatory stage and the trial stage then he has no credible basis. I know it's not what people want to hear on forums, but I can't stress enough how views and outcomes can change when people have all the information to hand.
Fine, there may well be damning evidence, so let's hear it. Pointing out that the evidence so far made public for the Portsmouth case is thin in the extreme is a reasonable observation.Given the massive coverage given to the video of RH visiting Cambridge 3 years after the Cambridge assault, it does seem unlikely that evidence placing him at the event in Portsmouth has been overlooked by the media.
As I've pointed out before, this was precisely the argument used in the Barry George case.
"The jury was correct"
"But the evidence looks thin"
"But you don't know all the evidence, there was strong evidence that the media inexplicably failed to mention"
"How do you know?"
"Because otherwise the jury would not have convicted"
"How do you know the jury got it right?"
"Because there was obviously strong evidence"
I have no doubt RH deserves to be locked up and preferably castrated (at the neck). But piggybacking a flimsy accusation on stronger ones is dubious.
Dr Jekyll said:
La Liga said:
That's the problem though. It's a link from someone with wholly incomplete information. Unless he's seen all the evidence from the investigatory stage and the trial stage then he has no credible basis. I know it's not what people want to hear on forums, but I can't stress enough how views and outcomes can change when people have all the information to hand.
Fine, there may well be damning evidence, so let's hear it. Pointing out that the evidence so far made public for the Portsmouth case is thin in the extreme is a reasonable observation.Given the massive coverage given to the video of RH visiting Cambridge 3 years after the Cambridge assault, it does seem unlikely that evidence placing him at the event in Portsmouth has been overlooked by the media.
There are cases where miscarriages occur. These are in the extreme minority.
La Liga said:
Dr Jekyll said:
La Liga said:
That's the problem though. It's a link from someone with wholly incomplete information. Unless he's seen all the evidence from the investigatory stage and the trial stage then he has no credible basis. I know it's not what people want to hear on forums, but I can't stress enough how views and outcomes can change when people have all the information to hand.
Fine, there may well be damning evidence, so let's hear it. Pointing out that the evidence so far made public for the Portsmouth case is thin in the extreme is a reasonable observation.Given the massive coverage given to the video of RH visiting Cambridge 3 years after the Cambridge assault, it does seem unlikely that evidence placing him at the event in Portsmouth has been overlooked by the media.
There are cases where miscarriages occur. These are in the extreme minority.
I can't imagine there's some tangible bit of evidence that was a major part of the case that's been missed by the press.
Without being overly cynical, are the press there to report the parts which have a commercial interest or a precise picture? Perhaps a specialist legal publication, for example, would, but are the media most are deriving their information from?
Like I say, I don't think there's some 'smoking gun'. It's probably lots of little things that amount to compelling case and evidential threshold.
Fundamentally you have independent people, from different points in time who don't know one another describing specific things. That's is a powerful place in which to start from.
Like I say, I don't think there's some 'smoking gun'. It's probably lots of little things that amount to compelling case and evidential threshold.
Fundamentally you have independent people, from different points in time who don't know one another describing specific things. That's is a powerful place in which to start from.
P-Jay said:
There were numerous journalists in court for every day of the trial. Whilst they might find it hard to express the tone and body language when evidence was given by various parties (although they certainly try) - whether someone 'looked a bit shifty' etc, and they won't / cannot print the 'gory details' of the assaults - they certainly wouldn't miss reporting on independent witnesses or some bit of physical evidence.
I can't imagine there's some tangible bit of evidence that was a major part of the case that's been missed by the press.
Without specifically referring to the Harris case (as you might understand) that is why reports, charges. prosecutions and convictions of abuse are so few. All in all, if you're looking to commit a crime and to get away with it abuse, all the moreso abuse of children or vulnerable people, is one of your better choices. I can't imagine there's some tangible bit of evidence that was a major part of the case that's been missed by the press.
That's not a recommendation, of course.
I guess we'll see if Harris' team come up with successful grounds for appeal. I doubt a lack of funds will prevent them from looking hard and deep - so atleast he has that in his favour. Similarly we shall see if any of the additional alleged abused will have sufficient evidence to meet the criteria for further charges. It'll be interesting to see if any charges are made in foreign climes, too.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-281908...
'a vile outpouring of misogyny', does Feltz have a PH account?
'a vile outpouring of misogyny', does Feltz have a PH account?
Zeeky said:
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.
It's a difficult balancing act. Part of me feels the bad character provisions and bundling of unrelated allegations are generally speaking too broadly allowed and, there's a danger of convictions by virtue of cumulative weight of allegation rather than the merits of each. On the other hand, cases such as historic sexual abuse are by their nature reliant on witness evidence with little or no physical evidence or independent corroboration.Are we to effectively bar prosecution of defendants by preventing grouping of allegations? Aside from the moral questions of this, would hearing counts separately serve the interests of justice with regards to both the costs and justice being seen to be done (bearing in mind hearings would have to remain effectively secret until the verdict of the final count to prevent influencing later juries)?
My own opinion is that offences such as these, involving multiple victims over significant periods of time, are likely to feature similarities in MO. By grouping the counts and hearing them together it allows that MO to be unearthed when otherwise it might not have done. This might provide witness evidence that would otherwise be considered weak to gaun its proper significance.
The safeguard here, is that a jury must be sure of guilt to convict. Anything less will not do. In cases of one word against another, juries are often loathe to convict. I think it's proportionate in these kind of cases to, as you say, give the witness evidence proper context.
Prawnboy said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-281908...
'a vile outpouring of misogyny', does Feltz have a PH account?
I find Feltz irritating. I believe she talks absolute rubbish and on air is something of a bully. For the first time ever I complained about a radio presenter, this about a year ago when she shouted down a quiet and reasonable bit of input from a well qualified chap on the subject. I didn't agree with the chap's point of view as expressed but I wanted to know how he'd arrived at that decision. This we were not allowed to hear.'a vile outpouring of misogyny', does Feltz have a PH account?
The reply to my complaint was to find that something I had not complained about was perfectly all right.
Now disliking Feltz is not misogyny. I don't believe she should not be on prime time radio because she is a woman but because I consider her inept and a bully. I might be wrong of course, but that is the impression I got when I last (in more ways than one) heard her.
It seems she has not improved. If she is criticised she brings out the M word, as if this is a total shield. I like women. I don't like Feltz. She takes up valuable prime-time air space and is on TV purely because she is a name and not on her abilities.
As I say, my opinion. It is not misogyny but a qualitative opinion.
With regards her being assaulted by Harris: it is a crime and, if true, perhaps he should be charged with something that might be easy to prove. If only to shut up the doubters.
She makes an appeal less likely as well.
Prawnboy said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-281908...
'a vile outpouring of misogyny', does Feltz have a PH account?
I call this the 'Rantzen effect' Feltz, as per all the strained lengths she went to in her original column she had nothing to fear by reporting it to the police - yeah she could be in all sorts of bother if she revealed it was Harris in the press - but nothing if she went through the same channels as the rest of us - but she decided for whatever reason she didn't want to do that - she'd rather say nothing and allow a dangerous criminal to carry on, well until there was some exposure free from risk of a libel suit to be hand anyway. 'a vile outpouring of misogyny', does Feltz have a PH account?
In all these 'Yewtree' cases, second only to the perpetrators the most vile people are the ones who "knew all about" all along and did nothing.
tenpenceshort said:
It's a difficult balancing act. Part of me feels the bad character provisions and bundling of unrelated allegations are generally speaking too broadly allowed and, there's a danger of convictions by virtue of cumulative weight of allegation rather than the merits of each. On the other hand, cases such as historic sexual abuse are by their nature reliant on witness evidence with little or no physical evidence or independent corroboration.
My thoughts exactly. As far as I'm concerned grouping allegations together is equally valid or invalid irrespective of the type of allegation. Allowing the bundling of allegations simply because it's difficult to convict otherwise is very close to saying a lower standard of proof must be adopted in order to get conviction rates up.If I were to bring a prosecution against the bloke who gave me a black eye in 1975, the decision as to whether other convictions he had could be mentioned would depend purely on the nature of the convictions. The difficulty I would have in proving anything in the absence of witnesses or physical evidence would be the prosecution's problem not the court's.
P-Jay said:
I call this the 'Rantzen effect' Feltz, as per all the strained lengths she went to in her original column she had nothing to fear by reporting it to the police - yeah she could be in all sorts of bother if she revealed it was Harris in the press - but nothing if she went through the same channels as the rest of us - but she decided for whatever reason she didn't want to do that - she'd rather say nothing and allow a dangerous criminal to carry on, well until there was some exposure free from risk of a libel suit to be hand anyway.
In all these 'Yewtree' cases, second only to the perpetrators the most vile people are the ones who "knew all about" all along and did nothing.
Ah yes, back to blaming the victim. In all these 'Yewtree' cases, second only to the perpetrators the most vile people are the ones who "knew all about" all along and did nothing.
carinaman said:
The CPS have kindly decided to save poor innocent Rolf's blushes and sweep those times he watched kiddy porn under the carpet. Poor old innocent Rolf. Free the Oz one and all that. Aside from the various unconnected woman who came forward with remarkably similar stories of abuse when they were kids, and the paedophilic images, what evidence is there? It's obviously a stitch up.Don't worry St. Rolf, we won't let the son go down on you.
Another TV presenter tell us more. It's interesting that Harris' wife was always close by.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/news...
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/news...
Langweilig said:
Another TV presenter tell us more. It's interesting that Harris' wife was always close by.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/news...
Yes but to say 'was she watching and protecting me, I was pregnant at the time`http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/news...
I'm the first in the queue to thump Rolf but if my auntie had balls she'd be a bloke and all that - good to see various TV stars speaking out but sometimes it's dignified to be silent if you have nothing to say.
Says me on a forum
Guam said:
The opinions on Feltz claims, go way beyond these hallowed halls apparently.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2683410/Va...
Surely the cameramen, floor manager, producer etc will all have seen this happen?!http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2683410/Va...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff