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.

[astrologica]

Yes Caution....I agree with what you say. There is something about this that doesn't seem right. If Rolf has been found guilty just on the evidence that the public has been told about, then it doesn't seem right somehow. But there could be other facts that we know nothing about. I feel very sad for him and especially for his family. It just seems that the witch hunters have managed to 'win one'.

[rose2008-2008]

It is very saddening as he is the biggest yet was the nicest (it seemed at the time). It is sad for the families,, it must be awful for them!!. Remembering watching these Celebrities on television when i was young,,, i feel quite horrified now. Oh My!

[i-am-legion-too]

**caution**opinion_ahead wrote:

Well ... I must say I'm very surprised.  I can't see why the jury were out so long if there was no element of doubt.

As someone said earlier in the thread, approx 38hrs isn't overly long to decide on 12 counts, and to deliver a unanimous verdict. Are you suggesting that juries have the clock called on them? So if no verdict has been reached after a set amount of time, what next, automatic not guilty or retrial?

As I understand it, there was no evidence apart from the accusers' complaints.  No one else had seen any of the assaults, even though some of them happened in crowded places.  None of the accusers told anyone that anything had happened, either at the time or later, until the police started investigating other famous people.  None of them recorded events in diaries they kept at the time.  No evidence was put forward that others close to them noticed anything was amiss. 

His daughter's friend confided in her brother in 1996, and told the rest of her family the following year.

To me, her evidence was pivotal to the whole case. It wasn't disputed that he made it clear he found her sexually attractive as a 13yr old, so asking us to believe that he kept those urges under control for another 5yrs before indulging in a full 'relationship', is one reason why I'm more inclined to believe her version than his.

[upthecreekyetagain]

I feel sorry for his daughter - knowing that her father has been found guilty of assaulting her best friend over a period of 6 years.

There was never any doubt that some sort of relationship between Harris and this girl took place and the letter he wrote to the girls father also indicated accusations that she had been assaulted were made at the time. 

If the girl hadn't complained at the time then Harris would hardly have written a letter to her father containing the following, ""I fondly imagined that everything that had taken place had progressed from a feeling of love and friendship - there was no **bleep**, no physical forcing, brutality or beating that took place."

Seven of the charges he faced were based on alleged offences against this girl - I suspect the jury felt from the beginning that these had been proved and the delay in the verdict were the charges related to the other three girls - remember they asked the judge a series of questions basically asking if behaviour in one of the charges could be used as an indicator of behaviour in the other charges.

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

---

Sorry ... something went amiss with that post.  I'll try again.

>>>>>>>>

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

I was saying ...

I don't think juries should have time limits, no.

But ... take the charge about an assault at an event in Portsmouth.  Surely, a name as big as this making an appearance would warrant a story in a local newspaper?  Surely hundreds of others must have attended?   Yet, the police could find nothing - no evidence at all that he was ever there.

He may be guilty of some, or even all, the offences.  Only he knows the full story.  My point is historic claims where there is no corroborative evidence are problematic.   I understand other victims have come forward during the trial.  Some may be telling the truth.  All may be telling the truth.  But no one can say for sure, unless non-victims can support the claims, eg an assault was witnessed, a parent or friend was confided in at the time, etc.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@**caution**opinion_ahead wrote:

I was saying ...

I don't think juries should have time limits, no.

But ... take the charge about an assault at an event in Portsmouth.  Surely, a name as big as this making an appearance would warrant a story in a local newspaper?  Surely hundreds of others must have attended?   Yet, the police could find nothing - no evidence at all that he was ever there.

He may be guilty of some, or even all, the offences.  Only he knows the full story.  My point is historic claims where there is no corroborative evidence are problematic.   I understand other victims have come forward during the trial.  Some may be telling the truth.  All may be telling the truth.  But no one can say for sure, unless non-victims can support the claims, eg an assault was witnessed, a parent or friend was confided in at the time, etc.

---

Being found guilty of the 5 charges relating to the three women from various parts of the country fit your description regarding corroborative evidence but the 7 charges relating to his daughter's friend don't.

Those 5 verdicts are obviously important to the victims and to those close to Rolf Harris but as regards anything else they are unlikely to make much difference to either the sentencing nor to his now non-existent reputation.

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

---

Those 5 verdicts are obviously important to the victims and to those close to Rolf Harris ...

---

Oh, I understand that.

[tommy.irene]

Rolf Harris is found GUILTY of 12 charges of indecent assault and is warned by judge that jail is 'i.....  12 charges of indecent assault - including a seven-year-old child 

[tommy.irene]

BREAKING NEWS: Rolf Harris is found GUILTY of 12 charges of indecent assault - including a seven-year-old child and told it is 'inevitable' he will go to prison

• The 84-year-old Australian abused four women between 1968 and 1986
• Victims included a seven-year-old autograph hunter and daughter's friend
• Entertainer remained impassive as the unanimous verdicts were returned 
  
• Harris told by judge that jail is 'inevitable' and will pass sentence on Friday
• Police and CPS say he used his celebrity status to abuse, often in plain sight
  
• NSPCC has had 28 calls from 13 people who claim they were also abused
• Harris set to be stripped of his Bafta fellowship and his CBE from the Queen

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2675160/Rolf-Harris-GUILTY-12-indecent-assualts.html#ixzz368... 

[upthecreekyetagain]

"During his long stint in the witness stand, Harris was questioned at length about why he expressed abject remorse to the father for his actions, offering a little more credible explanation than he felt ending the relationship had upset the woman.

What bolstered her case was evidence showing she had given a virtually identical story to a series of counsellors and therapists for more than 15 years, based on their professional notes she allowed the court to see. It was perhaps a factor in the jury's deliberations that Nicholls also underwent counselling on learning of her father's affair, but opted not allow her own notes to be released."

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/30/rolf-harris-guilty-indecent-assault

[right-then-petal]

a sad day for everyone

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@right-then-petal wrote:

a sad day for everyone

---

Except maybe for the victims

[right-then-petal]

hello Creeky yes maybe they are happy with the result

[upthecreekyetagain]

Hiya Petal 🙂

[al**bear]

Australian authorities asking any 'silent' Aussie victims to contact them

[lambsy_uk]

---

@i-am-legion-too wrote:

To me, her evidence was pivotal to the whole case. It wasn't disputed that he made it clear he found her sexually attractive as a 13yr old, so asking us to believe that he kept those urges under control for another 5yrs before indulging in a full 'relationship', is one reason why I'm more inclined to believe her version than his.

---

Sexual attraction does not necessarily lead to sexual urge and loss of control. Men see sexually attractive women every day but they do not get uncontrolable urges to indecently assault them! Also I'll guarantee that many men find adolescent girls sexually atractive, but this again does not lead to uncontrolable urges. Most men manage to keep themselves under control and to admit an attractraction for someone in no way suggests that they had urges they could not control! To suggest otherwise is to suggest that most men are predators who would assault females of all ages if they thought they wouldn't get caught!

[saasher2012]

Most men know right from wrong is what your saying & that is how it should be! It is beholden of the adult to take control in all situations, attraction is one thing assault quite another , respect for another's feelings should be uppermost in most peoples minds, mistakes are made of course but a sincere apology & backing off goes along way to diffusing what could become a frightening experience .

[lambsy_uk]

---

@saasher2012 wrote:
Most men know right from wrong is what your saying & that is how it should be! It is beholden of the adult to take control in all situations, attraction is one thing assault quite another , respect for another's feelings should be uppermost in most peoples minds, mistakes are made of course but a sincere apology & backing off goes along way to diffusing what could become a frightening experience .

---

Absolutely, the adult should take control and most do, so for someone to suggest that a mere attraction is evidence of likely guilt is a bit off the mark.

[lambsy_uk]

---

@evoman3957 wrote:

Just a short tale, whether relevant or not to this particular case, to demonstrate how juries are just people and some are useless judges of character and can't accept facts; even when they are in their faces............just like in life !!

Some years back, I was on Court duty; escorting a prisoner from the Cells in the Old Bailey, up to the Dock and sitting next to him through the trial. The trial was some weeks long and involved some serious violent and non violent offences. When it was time for the Jury to deliberate their verdict, they could not reach a unanimous decision and were sent back 3 times, by the Judge, to try to resolve the issue. I, along with others in the know, becames aware that the trouble was because of 2 Jurors, who were digging their heels in and were not in agreement with the rest. After three days of deliberation and still no agreement, the Judge told the Jury He would accept a 10 to 2 majority verdict. The Jury duly returned with a verdict of Guilty and at that stage the defendants previous convictions were read out. It took 20 minutes to read out his previous convictions, for all sorts of offences; some exremely serious and for exactly the same thing as He was on trial for in this instance. From My position, next to the prisoner, I could see clearly who the two Jurors were; who had caused so many problems, by refusing to believe he was Guilty. It was evident, from the glares given to them by the other Jurors.

---

A verdict is to be based upon the evidence presented; the 2 jurors who refused to fall in line should hold their heads up high if they believe that the evidence presented in that case was not compelling enough to secure a conviction, no matter whether the accused actually committed the crime or not, and no matter what their previous record holds!

Jurors are not there to believe if someone is guilty or not, they do not refuse to believe someone is guilty, they decide if evidence of guilt has been presented, beyond reasonable doubt!!!