Rolf Harris

[logbox]

Today in court Rolf sang part of Jake the peg and demonstated how to play the digeridoo, tomorrow he might do two little boys.

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

---

@evoman3957 wrote:

 However, it is not just good that evolves; it is evil as well......

---

Well ... the thing is ... evolution would not recognise "good" and "evil" in the terms we do.  Both concepts are manmade.  Evolution works on the principle that anything (... and I do mean anything) that increases your chance of survival until you have got your genes in the next generation counts as success.  So, within this premise, men (and women too) think up ways and means that give them an advantage.

Many older men are attracted to young women.  We have put the age of 16 in as a barrier, but that is never going to be a watertight dam.  Not all those who find themselves in such a position act on their attraction because other factors get in the way, eg they value their position in society more, or feel a "moral" brake, or whatever.

I'm not saying its desirable.  I'm just saying it is.

[cee-dee]

Finally, the jury is out considering its verdict.

[rose2008-2008]

Oooeeerrr i wonder how this will turn out?,, interesting.

[cee-dee]

Will anyone make predictions?

I don't mean their opinion, I mean "Guess the verdict"? I'd guess "Guilty".

[right-then-petal]

not guilty

[rose2008-2008]

GUILTY

[right-then-petal]

i should mention here and now i also pick the winning lotto numbers eack week

       ( gone shopping )

[lambsy_uk]

Not Guilty.

[tommy.irene]

Not Guilty on most charges.

[evoman3957]

As it has to go on there being no shadow of a doubt and as the CPS have deemed that they had enough of a case, to take it this far; I think He will be found Guilty on one or two charges and not Guilty on the rest.

[saasher2012]

Guilty! But not on all charges.

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

Finally, the jury is out considering its verdict.

---

It seems to have taken an inordinately long time to get to this stage.  I realise the defence council was taken ill and that caused a three day delay, but the judge has taken an absolute age to sum up. 

I think the jury will struggle to agree and the judge will agree to a majority verdict.

[astrologica]

It has to be 'Not Guilty'.

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

I hope so too, Astro.  It does seem to me things have been drawn out unnecessarily, which is not fair on a man of his age.  The judge told the jury not to restart deliberations till 2 pm yesterday, even though they were sent home by 5 pm the day before (ie did not have a particularly long day).  It's almost as though the judge wants to prolong things.  The result is another weekend with no verdict.

If he is innocent, he's been through one heck of an ordeal.  If he is guilty, the sentence should be the punishment, not the trial.

[i-am-legion-too]

This is from a live online update by the Mirror's reporter at the Crown Court. I've seen it on other newspaper's websites too, so maybe it's partly  syndicated.

2:35 pm

Here's the latest from Vicky Smith at Southwark Crown Court.

The jury passed the judge a note with five questions about the case.

Here they are: 

1) can we discuss the legal directions given, as there seems some confusion. A juror is making behavioural assumptions which is taken into account as evidence on many counts?

2) we are to judge each count independently, please clarify?

3) is it allowed to stereotype what the victim should have done prior to an alleged offence taking place in more than one count and using it against them?

4) as opposed to using patterns within counts to help an outcome of one count, surely it is non advisable to take evidence from one count in the future to judge the count in the here and now, NB counts three to nine, please clarify?

5) can the voracity of a witness statement in one count be taken into account when judging the voracity of a witness statement in another count?

My question would be who made the spelling mistakes, the journalist or the jury!?

I'm not usually a pedant on the subject unless it alters the original meaning, or at best makes it unclear.

That aside, it does give us a few clues on which points there is no agreement atm.

[i-am-legion-too]

This is from a live online update by the Mirror's reporter at the Crown Court. I've seen it on other newspaper's websites too, so maybe it's partly  syndicated.

2:35 pm

Here's the latest from Vicky Smith at Southwark Crown Court.

The jury passed the judge a note with five questions about the case.

Here they are: 

1) can we discuss the legal directions given, as there seems some confusion. A juror is making behavioural assumptions which is taken into account as evidence on many counts?

2) we are to judge each count independently, please clarify?

3) is it allowed to stereotype what the victim should have done prior to an alleged offence taking place in more than one count and using it against them?

4) as opposed to using patterns within counts to help an outcome of one count, surely it is non advisable to take evidence from one count in the future to judge the count in the here and now, NB counts three to nine, please clarify?

5) can the voracity of a witness statement in one count be taken into account when judging the voracity of a witness statement in another count?

My question would be who made the spelling mistakes, the journalist or the jury!?

I'm not usually a pedant on the subject unless it alters the original meaning, or at best makes it unclear.

That aside, it does give us a few clues on which points there is no agreement atm.

[cee-dee]

It also illustrates how lacking the jury are on aspects of evidentiary matters? However, I think the judge waffled on too much and for too long in summing up, problably confusing the jurors rather than helping them?

[lambsy_uk]

Illustrates why I'd rather have a majistrate or 3 bring a verdict, at least I could expect it to be based on the evidence presented rather than the whims of jury members!

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

It also illustrates how lacking the jury are on aspects of evidentiary matters? However, I think the judge waffled on too much and for too long in summing up, problably confusing the jurors rather than helping them?

---

I'd agree.  And surely, after over 5 days deliberation and no result, the judge should move towards accepting a majority verdict?  The stress of this past week must have been unimaginable for a man of Rolf's age.

[cee-dee]

I think the judge, up to a point, played to the gallery and from what I've read in various places during the trial seems almost biased.

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

I've been thinking the same, I have to say, CD. 

I wonder if it will go to a retrial if the jurors can't agree.