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.

[cee-dee]

All along with these "high profile" cases I've been saying that with only the "evidence" of verbal accusations, there's as much chance of them being found guilty if they're innocent or being found not guilty if they really have committed the crimes.

[bankhaunter]

What other evidence apart from verbal accusations could there be, there is very rarely any sort of a witness or physical evidence.

Verbal accusations have to show some veracity with relevant factors to back them up.

[al**bear]

Cyril Smith case

I wonder why the Labour party are quiet on this, is it that they covered up his crimes, when they ousted Him from the Rochdale Labour party

Note - they were in charge of Council at the time, so the Council also knew

They did not inform the Liberal party that Smith joined next.

Yes silence might be their best option

Yet again  -

Go hunting outside UK jurisdiction -

Due to the recent court cases a lot of attention and stories are focused on

A certain very Senior ex-Tory Cabinet (Thatchers) ministers crimes, that are wildley reported, asking why no action has been taken against him

Note 3 past Major frontpage stories, involving child abuse & **bleep** ( close to rope) are directly linked to this individual , but He is so powerful, He seems to be immune

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

---

@bankhaunter wrote:

What other evidence apart from verbal accusations could there be, there is very rarely any sort of a witness or physical evidence.

Verbal accusations have to show some veracity with relevant factors to back them up.

---

But you do need the back up of relevant factors.  If someone kept a detailed diary at the time of the alleged offence, but made no mention of it happening there, that has got to reduce the weight of the verbal evidence.  If someone makes an allegation and specific details (location, date) are shown to be false, that has got to reduce the weight of the verbal evidence.  If someone attempts blackmail prior to going to the authorities, that has got to reduce their credibility as a witness.  And so on ...

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@**caution**opinion_ahead wrote:

---

@bankhaunter wrote:

What other evidence apart from verbal accusations could there be, there is very rarely any sort of a witness or physical evidence.

Verbal accusations have to show some veracity with relevant factors to back them up.

---

But you do need the back up of relevant factors.  If someone kept a detailed diary at the time of the alleged offence, but made no mention of it happening there, that has got to reduce the weight of the verbal evidence.  If someone makes an allegation and specific details (location, date) are shown to be false, that has got to reduce the weight of the verbal evidence.  If someone attempts blackmail prior to going to the authorities, that has got to reduce their credibility as a witness.  And so on ...

---

Then of course there is the converse situation which would increase the credibility of a witness.

A detailed diary that included details of the allegation, specific details, (location, date), are shown to be credible.  Evidence that the alleged victim was pressurised into keeping quiet or as in the JS case evidence that a complaint was made at the time but was ignored.

[cee-dee]

That would certainly give a great deal of credibility to complaints and be worthy of a trial.

Without that, like I said above you've as much chance of the guilty being found innocent as you have of the innocent being found guilty.

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

Yes, indeed.  My point was, where such corroborative "evidence" is lacking, any allegation is weakened.  The offence may still have happened, but it is not fair or just to assume it did just cos someone says so.  Of course, if more than one person comes forward with similar allegations, that does strengthen the likelihood, especially if all the "victims" were previously unknown to each other.

[cee-dee]

But then you have to ask "What prompted you to come forward now?"

[saasher2012]

Safety in numbers perhaps?

[bankhaunter]

Totally different atmosphere today and indeed safety in numbers, being the sole complainer against a well known person takes more courage than some people have.

[rose2008-2008]

---

@bankhaunter wrote:

I don't have any opinion on Rolfe Harris's guilt or innocence but in any trial when character witnesses say what a nice person the accused is, I am reminded how the friends of a wife beater will say what a pleasant person they are and how often neighbours of a mass murderer say they were a polite quiet person who kept himself to himself.

---

No doubt,there have been people put away for crimes they did not commit,, or putting someone else away then finding the real culprit. Yes ,, but i think there are more people who come across as a lovely person,,"oh he was a family man", a very quiet person,,,, who have been found out to be the guilty party. Its very easy for some to put on a persona or act of appearing perfectly innocent,,BUT their not. Very Sad.

[cee-dee]

When such a trial has gone on for weeks and weeks, the defence, the prosecution and the judge will all "sum up" and by that time, how many jurors will have really "made their mind up" even though they probably wouldn't say so?

To go through all the "evidence" again is surely a waste of time and effort? If you've not "decided" by then and are finally swayed one way or the other by argument in the jury room, is your "decision" really reliable?

[saasher2012]

Also I think it's nearly impossible not to be influenced by outside opinions no matter that you aren't supposed to listen or read about the case.

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

But then you have to ask "What prompted you to come forward now?"

---

Indeed!  And if they came forward because they heard the person had been arrested, then that should hold different weight to if they came forward of their own volition, IMO.

[evoman3957]

I have no pre-conceived ideas, over this, one way or another. Jurors have the benefit of seeing a defendants body language and reactions to questions put to them. This is important, along with all the other evidence, because people are so plausible; even when telling bare faced lies. I remember the Phillpots, crying and wailing over the deaths of their 6 Children in a House fire; when they were guilty themelves of being party to setting the fire. I remember the girl ( name escapes me ) who cried and wailed on camera, because Her boyfriend had been killed in a Road Rage incident; whe She herself had stabbed him to death. It is very rare to get what you see, when it comes to modern mankind. Evolution has taught "Man" how to lie, cheat, murder and commit untold amount of convoluted deceits; while giving the impression they are saints. Indeed, when men of religion ( priests ) have now been proved to have committed child abuse, over so many years, one has to realize............not only is perfection a pinacle to high to ever achieve; but it appears honesty and goodness are also out of reach for many.

[saasher2012]

Yes I agree, & it makes it very hard because of this for a genuine complaint to be heard with an open mind, those who lie & are proved to have lied should face severe punishment so that the genuine victims of these disgusting crimes can come forward in the knowledge they will get justice & they hopefully will report the offence at the time it happened not years later when there is no evidence to support them!.

[tommy.irene]

You know Jack the Ripper and his wife were nice people said the people next door...He wouldnt harm a fly..

[saasher2012]

A classic case of people accusing others because of their religion, race, & profession & in the end the real guilty party was never caught because of it ! ( as far as we know this man/ woman was never found , although many were in the frame for it)

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

People are complex beings though.  It is perfectly possible to be "normal" in some areas of your life and "deviant" in others.  That doesn't make one part an act.  If it did, then which part is the "act" - the normalcy or the deviancy?  People follow deep seated drives and some are unable or unwilling to override these with logic or empathy or social responsibility.

Powerful men (whether this power is conferred through birth position, wealth, fame, incredible looks, whatever) have since the beginning of time used that power to get sex.  Women, since the beginning of time, have been attracted to powerful men because it confers advantages for any future offspring.  That doesn't mean we find it socially acceptable where youngsters below the age of consent are concerned of course.

[**bustysinclaire**]

---

@evoman3957 wrote:

I have no pre-conceived ideas, over this, one way or another. Jurors have the benefit of seeing a defendants body language and reactions to questions put to them. This is important, along with all the other evidence, because people are so plausible; even when telling bare faced lies. I remember the Phillpots, crying and wailing over the deaths of their 6 Children in a House fire; when they were guilty themelves of being party to setting the fire. I remember the girl ( name escapes me ) who cried and wailed on camera, because Her boyfriend had been killed in a Road Rage incident; whe She herself had stabbed him to death. It is very rare to get what you see, when it comes to modern mankind. Evolution has taught "Man" how to lie, cheat, murder and commit untold amount of convoluted deceits; while giving the impression they are saints. Indeed, when men of religion ( priests ) have now been proved to have committed child abuse, over so many years, one has to realize............not only is perfection a pinacle to high to ever achieve; but it appears honesty and goodness are also out of reach for many.

---

Could you please explain how evolution has taught "Man" how to commit these atrocities?

If you are saying that evolution has made people that way then you are saying that they cannot help what they are doing and can't be brought to account and held responsible for their actions. Punishment would be unjust. We all have a choice of whether we are law abiding or not. Good or bad.