Rolf Harris – What sentence will he get?

Photo from the Express

Photo from the Express

Introduction

On 30th June 2014 Rolf Harris, everyone’s favourite children’s TV entertainer of old, was convicted of 12 counts of Indecent Assault. Sentence was adjourned until Friday, 4th July.

What sort of a sentence will he get?

 

Offences

  • Count 1: Indecent assault between 1/1/68 and 1/1/70 on a girl A, aged 7-8

Details :

A was queuing for Mr Harris’s autograph. “When she reached the front of the queue, Harris had touched her inappropriately with his “big hairy hands”, she told the jury. She said she had initially thought it might have been an accident but then he touched her again.”

 

  • Count 2: Indecent assault on a girl B, 14, between 1/1/75 and 1/1/76

Details:B was working as a waitress at a charity event when Mr Harris put his arm around her and down her back and over her bottom.

 

  • Count 3: Indecent assault between 5/4/80 and 4/4/81 on girl C aged 15
  • Count 4: Indecent assault between 5/4/80 and 4/4/81 on same girl, 15
  • Count 5: Indecent assault between 5/4/80 and 4/4/81 on same girl, 15
  • Count 6: Indecent assault between 5/4/80 and 4/4/81 on same girl, 15
  • Count 7: Indecent assault between 1/1/84 and 1/1/85 on same girl, then aged 19
  • Count 8: Indecent assault between 5/4/80 and 4/4/81 on same girl, 15
  • Count 9: Indecent assault between 5/4/80 and 4/4/81 on same girl, 15

Details:

C was a childhood friend of Mr Harris’s daughter. The news reports indicate that C was aged between 13 and 15 at the time of the offences. Some of this (seemingly the earlier parts) was behaviour that was alleged to have occurred outside of England and Wales, and so cannot be tried in this country. We don’t know if the jury accepted that evidence or not, and so Mr Harris should not be sentenced on the basis that the abuse started when C was 13.

We are told that “The court heard that the abuse began when she had been on holiday with the Harris family at the age of 13. Later, the woman said Harris had performed a sex act on her at the Harris family home, with Bindi [Mr Harris’s daughter] asleep in the same room.

Further assaults took place at the Harris home and in her bedroom at her own home while her parents were downstairs, she said

The exact details are not clear, but it seems that the most serious is the ‘sex act’ (although it is not clear what that sex act is.

 

  • Count 10: Indecent assault on 31/5/86 on girl D, aged 14
  • Count 11: Indecent assault on D on same day
  • Count 12: Indecent assault on D on same day

Details:

The allegation, as reported by the BBC, is that Mr Harris “asked her to sit on his lap before moving his hand up her leg and assaulting her. He was moving back and forth rubbing against me,” she said. “It was very subtle, it wasn’t big movements.”

The jury heard that Harris had then patted her on the thigh and moved his hand upwards. She said she had “started to panic” and rushed to the toilet. When she came out, she said, Harris was waiting for her and gave her “a big bear hug” before putting his hand down her top and then down her skirt.

Note – D has been widely named as it is reported that she has waived her anonymity. There is (probably) no power for her to do this, at least without having a waiver for this blog, as so we won’t name her as this would be a criminal offence. Clearly, all the other news outlets don’t agree with that!

[Information courtesy of the Daily Mail and BBC]

Sentencing Powers

The maximum sentences for Count 1 is 5 years, for Counts 2-9 it is 2 years on each count. The maximum for Counts 10-12 is 10 years each.

 

Approach to Sentencing

We have a factsheet on sentencing in historic sexual abuse cases. Also worth a read is this on sentencing for multiple offences.

The rule nowadays is that you start with the sentence that would be passed had the offences been committed today, before making allowances (sometimes) for the maximum sentence at the time.

For that reason, the first port of call is the Sentencing Guidelines for Sexual Offences 2014.

 

So. What’s he going to get?

We think that the ‘sex act’ was digital penetration. Today, this would be charged as assault by penetration (s3 Sexual Offences Act 2003).

Count 1 would be Sexual Assault on a girl under 13 (s7 Sexual Offences Act 2003). The remaining offences would be Sexual Assaults (s3 Sexual Offences Act 2003).

The most serious offence is Assault by Penetration. This would be (page 14 Guidelines), probably a Category 2A Offence, giving a starting point of 8 years with a range of 5-13 years. Count 1, we would imagine, would be a Category 3A Offence, with a starting point of 1 year, with a range going up to 2 years.

The other offences differ in seriousness. Count 2 is probably 3B – giving a Community Order and Counts 10-12 are probably 3A, so 6 months or so.

The other offences on C are less clear, as the details are hazy. Of course, we have to remember that there is the assault by penetration.

On that basis, the sentence today for each complainant would be about :

A – 1 year

B – 9  years (8 years for the penetration, 1 year for the other offences)

C – Community Order

D –  6 months

It would not be right to roll all these sentences together. Stepping back, a sentence of about 9 years in total would appear to be about right. This would probably be achieved by shortening the sentence on B and making the other sentences consecutive (and giving a short custodial sentence for C).

But. But. The maximum sentence for the most serious offences is two years – how will the Judge square that circle?

On principle, there ought to be a reduction to take account of that. We would have thought that the appropriate sentence is about 2-3 years (before reduction for his age and good character). However, we got the sentence badly wrong in Max Clifford when we made the same approach, so who knows?

I would doubt the need to send him to prison, given his age and personal circumstances. We live in more draconian times however, and being a celebrity means his chance of getting a non-custodial is lesser. It would not surprise me if he were to get a sentence in the range of 4-5 years.

 

Conclusion

It is always difficult to predict a sentence, especially when you are relying on the newspaper to give the facts. That is before you even begin to consider that sentencing, as is often said (particularly by the Court of Appeal when dismissing an appeal against sentence) ‘is an art, not a science‘.

For that reason, this should be taken with a large pinch of salt. It’s not a definite guess, more a guideline to the parameters, and the approach that the Judge will likely take.

Advertisements

276 thoughts on “Rolf Harris – What sentence will he get?

  1. mjr

    yeh community service in my community where folk have kids for him to perv on, infact why don’t you put him in your back garden, pat him on the head and tell him , oh its ok for wot you done you naughty boy,
    seriously he is Evil open your eyes pal

    Reply
    1. martin

      If he was so bad , he would of still been doing these offences, but all they could drum up was people who claimed he did this 30 years ago….. ITS MONEY PURE AND SIMPLE……., and if it wasn’t for the Jimmy Saville , this case would never of come to court……Why on earth didn’t the police ever have any complaints held on Record over this time period about Harris, surely someone must have gone to the Police? or all of a sudden they all waited until now>….I think you need to open your eyes?…….. SIMPLE…..There was no money to be made until now.

      Do you know it was possible that all the victims may had spoken with the prosecution , prior to trial and amended their stories

      Where a prosecutor conducts a pre-trial interview to assess the reliability of a witness’s evidence, the witness may be asked about the content of their statement or other issues that relate to reliability. This may include taking the witness through their statement, asking questions to clarify and expand evidence, asking questions relating to character, exploring new evidence or probing the witness’s account.

      Reply
      1. Emma

        The Defence got the matter of his child porn – (unless trawling sites like little vaginas and tiny teen girlfriends wouldn’t lead to pubescent girls or worse – unlikely) taken out of the evidence the prosecution could present. Maybe if Rolf Harris could have got his jollies 30 odd years ago by looking at half naked little girls with their legs open he may not have fiddled with them but child porn is still children being abused so he got what he deserved.

      2. mjr

        oh don’t be silly you fool he is guilty get over it, are you a relative of harris perhaps

      3. mjr

        mayb you could visit him in jail , sure that would make you both happy, take him some magazines too read ,

      1. IAN

        Calm down dear [mjr] – if “he is sick in the head” he needs treatment then………!

  2. Asquith

    The jury seem to have been all over the lace in their taking 2 weeks to decide and then asking strange questions towards the end which seemed to indicate they weren’t going to convict since the 12 charges entirely depend upon 4 women who claim offences committed within 6 yr, 3 yr and 2 yr time spans but in only one was there any evidence Harris had been in the town and no evidence he met the accuser. I find the whole case frankly absurd as it means any woman can lay claims against any man and on the ‘Harris precedent’ every man is guilty if accused. Reading the accuser’s claims of 1 or 2 seconds groping, I frankly find the court has gone stark staring mad. As for the woman who went on to have a 12 yr consenting affair with Harris, I simply don’t believe any woman or any man would ever go on to do such a stupid thing. I hope Harris lodges an appeal if not for the sake of all 32 million males who on this case can be charged with and set up by any woman. This case is I believe about money, pure and simple and one wonders why the judge did not say that Witness C had sought £100,000 off Harris before going to the police and Tonya Lee has already got £50,000 and will apparently do anything for money according to one witness to Harris’s barrister.

    Reply
    1. IAN

      Even though I sympathis with you Asquith, even if Harris wins an appeal he is still tarred re the computers downloads. The law is the law I’m afraid and his whole career/life is in tatters !!

      Reply
    2. mraemiller

      “As for the woman who went on to have a 12 yr consenting affair with Harris, I simply don’t believe any woman or any man would ever go on to do such a stupid thing”

      They might do if they’d been abused for years and had other psycological problems. People like Harris seek out the most vulnerable people they can find because they’re the least likely to be believed. I dont believe Harris was responsible for all her problems but I do believe he groomed her? What kind of grown up wants to take someone else’s kid on a five week holiday with them? What kind of a holiday is that? Of course there are lots of adults who like children but for an adult to have a very close relationship with one child like that is … well … why did he take her to Hawaii …perhaps because he knew he couldn’t be prosecuted for what happened abroad? The more you look at it the dodgier it is. As Sam Spade would have said maybe some of these things are unimportant I wont argue about that but look at the number of them…?

      Reply
      1. asquith

        mraemiller, sadly the jury was all over the place and your notion that this woman aged what 55 or so now can lay the entire blame for her life on Rolf Harris is simply ridiculous. Frankly while I find the notion that it is alleged that Harris had porn with suggestions of under age sex (but his defence team said the women were clearly NOT under age) to be worrying.
        It ought to be one person’s word against another and as the woman had apparently previously sought to blackmail Harris to give her £50,000 which he refused says to me that the woman’s claims to be opportunistic.
        As for her claims that Harris described in a bikini at 13 as attractive which is her recollection of events 40 yrs ago to be as reliable as an ice cube in a furnace and not the basis for destroying a man of 85…

  3. Asquith

    mjr, you don’t know the truth and if the women had all been groped in public places before hundreds of people, why was there neither any actual corroborating dates or any witnesses or any complaints made to anyone until 30-45 yrs later…It’s absurd. Maybe you will next be accused if you have £10m or even a few £000.

    Reply
  4. mjr

    no such luck there with the money from me, I aint 2 pennies to rub together, there must be more truth than lies and im sure there is lies on both sides, but you have to trust the justice system rather than us being barrack room lawyers or running around doing what we think is justice, we could talk about this for years to come but id say I put my 2 pennies if I had them on theres truth there somewhere and the genuine people who was abused , im on there side all the way, theres been other celebs where people has come forward and found not guilty ie coronation street actors that’s 2 actors not guilty many accused them the justice system said not guilty, harris has went through the same process and found Guilty

    Reply
  5. teejay

    The thing that worries me most is that the whole trial seems to come down to the luck of the draw. A different jury, a different outcome. I think where evidence is so subjective and the defendant is famous, a jury system is the wrong way to go. Was Harris convicted because Clifford was? Was Clifford found guilty because a publicist is not the most popular of professions? How would DLT have faired had his trial been post Harris?

    When dealing with people’s lives, be it the victims or the accused, it is unfair to use such a random and unscientific way to decide a) if they’re guilty and b) how long they should be punished. I suspect future historians will look back on this whole yuetree episode in horror and shame. Law seems to have missed the fantastic advances of the 21st century altogether!

    Reply
  6. IAN

    I just don’t understand why Harris, his family and his defence team don’t shout his innocence from the rooftops more if that is really he case. Out of interest who were the defence witnesses for Harris – where were all Harris’ so called celeb friends when he really needed them I wonder ?

    Reply
  7. mjr

    they will be keeping a low profile, as they may be next to be sent down like the paedo harris

    Reply
  8. Harry

    Interesting to read the “Exclusive” in today’s Mirror Online which tells in which another “victim” comes out of the woodwork without identifying herself (funny how the smell of money never fails) to “tell her story”

    According to the Mirror’s superb journalism we now know that Rolf Harris slipped his arm around a fellow guest for a photograph just moments before he “sexually assaulted” her at a Buckingham Palace garden party in 2012.

    And the nature of this dreadful “sexual assault”? Erm…..well he put his hand on her arse. Well, that’s what she says so it must be true.

    And I guess that if placing you hand on a woman’s backside at a party is now a “sexual assault” half the male population of Britain should reasonably expect to do a stint at Her Majesty’s pleasure.

    You really couldn’t make this stuff up. And the gullability of you people that buy into this crap is beyond comprehension.

    Reply
  9. Harry

    I’ve just re-read that Mirror “Exclusive”. I missed the bit where it says that the “palace victim” cannot face going to the police as she has suffered depression in the past. Bu that’s nothing. Her husband is suffering from post traumatic stress disorder!

    So let me get this straight. In broad daylight, Rolf Harris puts his arm around this woman so her husband can take a photograph. She claims (and remember, this is just a claim) that he basically pinched her arse (the sort of thing Sid James would get up to on a “Carry On” movie) which resulted in her having depression and her husband having post traumatic stress disorder.

    It makes my eyes bleed reading this crap. MJR, and others like you – you are so unbelievably gullible its heartbreaking.

    Reply
  10. james

    Question from the Jury Raises doubts.

    One of the questions the jury asked the Judge worries me a lot;

    “As opposed to using patterns within counts to help decide 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 count 3-9 please clarify?”

    Could the count in the future be the knowledge that Rolf face a trial for child pornography at
    a later date?????????????

    The word “child pornography” is a RED FLAG for this jury. Even though it is not part of the charges it seems Rolf is being judged for this. The “common folk” do not know and have no
    idea that child pornography is not only adults having sex with children but can also be a video of a girl in swim suit dancing, in fact most of the convection for chld pornography are of this type of content. I supect this is probably what Rolf had on his laptop.

    But i understand the confusion of the jury. With terrible vision’s of what they thought was on
    rolf’s computer and the enormous media hype over Jimmy Saville and also the words of the judge “a brave verdict” they really had no choice except to follow the hype.

    That Rolf was unlucky enough that his defence lawyer became sick(mental?) and the jury
    spent a whole weekend with only the words of the prosecution in there heads most also have
    had a big influence on the jury. The replacement advocate seemed to me to give a very bad
    speech. Saying things like “some may think Rolf Harris has been punished enough”; which to
    me as a layman seems to be an admission of his guilt.

    so in short a very bad defence team, bad judge because he should have made it very clear to
    the jury that they must not take into consideration Rolf’s future trial for child pornography. Plus
    purely circumstantial evidence from 4 woman in there 50’s, two of then alcoholics. one of whom was an ex-girlfriend who had tryed to extort money from Rolf.

    The whole thng stinks. The new allegations seem to be largely from adult woman who complain
    about inappropriate touching. No man is safe in this present climate! It is madness.

    Reply
  11. emma

    Iwas around in the 70s in my twenties when it was apparently par for the course (according to commenters here) for women to be groped by older men. Well guess what? It wasn’t and as for a man fingering a little girl or teenagers, justice would have been swift and personal if found out. Supporting this sicko makes me wonder about you. As for “No man is safe in this present climate!” No, you’re not safe if you do what Rolf Harris did to those children – not if I get hold of you first.

    Reply
    1. mjr

      well said emma, you are right 100% it makes me wonder who writes on this site too, its obviously ok what Harris done to them which makes me sick to think sickos on here thinks he should be released
      well said emma

      Reply
    2. asquith

      emma, dear dear me. What a man alleged somehow (as most men are rather taller than women and Rolf Harris is apparently 6ft 2inches, a man does what you claim in 1-2 seconds. It is both I would suggest almost physically impossible and time-wise impossible. It is strange how allegedly Harris did all this in full view of hundreds of people and allegedly on national live TV…Wow what were all the 20 men and women on set doing if this was even vaguely true.
      Most commenters are not saying it was OK if what was alleged was done. They are just saying that the women had clear financial motives and I wonder why the woman who attempted to blackmail Harris was not initially investigated for attempted extortion and blackmail…To me she is so unreliable that the conviction I find to not be beyond reasonable doubt and that the benefit of the doubt should thus go to an 85 yr old man who created a lot of happiness to millions of us.
      You seem to live in a very sad and indeed very man hating little world. Perhaps you can explain why this is?

      Reply
  12. mraemiller

    I think I’ve solved the mystery of the gig in Portsmouth. Reading the testimony again I see the witness told the jury that she saw Rolf at a Community Centre with Diana Dors…. according to Hurricane in Mink by David Bret the dates of 1968->1970 tie up almost exactly when Diana “sex party and mates with Max Clifford” Dors returned to the UK and embarked upon a tour of Working Men’s Clubs.

    “As for “No man is safe in this present climate!” No, you’re not safe if you do what Rolf Harris did to those children – not if I get hold of you first.”

    If it is true that innocent men are accused as result of Harris’s actions that is no one’s fault but Harris’s. What he did is, as the Judge said, a breech of trust. Looking backwards at the trial it’s all so obvious isn’t it? The Harris family sound like the Timpson clan … covering up for their own for years … probably in many cases without even knowing they’re being used. Maybe Harris’s brother just thinks it’s normal for women to accuse famous men of sexual assault… Bindi worked really had to try and convince the jury that if her dad had abused her friend she’d have noticed… it was all wasted breath when Harris explained without even realising it was incriminating that Bindi’s friend had masturbated him without her noticing when they were watching TV. Bindi’s friend’s mum says she trusted Harris because he was “boring”. In other words he wasnt interested in adults. When, as Poirot would say, “we look at the psycology, Hastings…” Was Tonya Lee’s evidence made up for money? It didn’t matter …what mattered is that Harris’s brother leaned on one of the witnesses to the event … a witness who ironically hadn’t actually seen anything. When all the arguments about cross admissability were over the defence were simply holding back the tide like King Canute. Simon Ray couldn’t even be bothered to argue he was innocent in his final speech it was the “burden of criminal proof has not been met”. One could almost see Horace Rumpole giving his “golden thread of British justice” speech…

    Reply
    1. IAN

      During my recent researches into Diana Dors for my project MEMORIES OF DIANA DORS :

      https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=IAN+PAYNE+AND+DIANA+DORS

      I asked Rolf, via his secretary, whether he had any memories of Diana Dors or had ever worked with her during his career, I was sent this e-mail on 16th January 2012 :

      “Dear Ian,

      Thank you for your email.

      Rolf didn’t know Diana Dors and sadly can’t help you on this occasion.

      Kind regards”

      Reply
      1. Outlying Florist

        Which hardly surprises me. Diana Dors and Rolf Harris appealed to quite different audiences, so it was hardly likely that they would be on the same bill.

  13. emma

    Hames – child porn is children being abused. Rolf’s child porn was girls who looked like children half undressed with their legs open, posing with teddybears and from sites like tinyteen girlfriends and little vaginas. The jury wouldn’t have known anything about the porn because it was the subject of a suppression order and not allowed to be printed or on line for the duration of the trial. The defence barrister being ill could just as easily worked in Rolf’s favour as the the prosecution’s case would not be fresh in their minds. If Rolf had got off it would have been on some kind of legal technicality – but that is not justice – that is escaping justice. He did so much more that groping someone’s behind and Vaneesa Feltz has not contiributed to the court case nor likely to. Let him rot where he is and save your concern for all the victims who are about to re-live their ordeals in upcoming cases.

    Reply
    1. Outlying Florist

      Rolf Harris couldn’t have been convicted beyond reasonable doubt on any of the charges, yet he was for no other reason than the poisoned thinking and influence of the abuse industry (of which I suspect you are a part) and the luck of the draw regarding the jury that he got. The fact that his defence counsel was unable to do the summing up owing to illness didn’t help either. This was a miscarriage of justice – it is absolutely shocking.

      Reply
      1. Dan Bunting Post author

        He was found guilty presumably because the jury believed the woman and were sure that they were telling the truth, and that Rolf was lying. That’s what juries are there for.

        I imagine that there will be an appeal, and the absence of leading counsel will feature in it. It’s actually quite a good ground and if Rolf Harris was not a celebrity, there is a chance it might succeed. It is much less likely to given the high profile nature of this case. It depends on what other grounds there are as well.

      2. nihil

        sorry this is really a reply to Dan Bunting but I can’t get it to appear lower down.

        Dan seems well versed in the behaviour of courts, juries etc.. It is shocking to me that there is so much scope for subjectivity taking precedence over objective reasoning. Nobody can be sure “beyond reasonable doubt” that somebody is lying. If two people present opposing testimonies then the situation is inconclusive. Only real physical evidence should be strong enough to convict in the criminal court beyond reasonable doubt.

        Every effort should be taken to eliminate irrelevancies, such as celebrity status, from the decision process.

      3. Liberte, Egalite, Sororite

        There is no miscarriage of justice here, shocking or otherwise, a child abuser got justice. So what he was famous he should have thought about that at the time and kept his hands to himself.

  14. nihil

    I am keen to find out what actual evidence has led to Rolf Harris being sent to prison. What people say decades later doesn’t to my mind constitute evidence at all. Even if they say similar things about him, or if it is determined that he was in the same town as the accuser, that still doesn’t constitute evidence firm enough to be “beyond reasonable doubt” which is supposed to be the criterion necessary for criminal conviction.

    Am I missing something? Is there any real evidence?

    Reply
    1. Dan Bunting Post author

      Yes you’re missing something – evidence comes in many forms, one important form is what someone says they saw.

      The evidence of the four victims here is all to the evidence needed to find Mr Harris guilty. If I say I saw Mr X do something a jury may be sure I’m right, they may however think I’m lying or mistaken, and if they think the latter I’ll be acquitted.

      My own view is that there should be a statute of limitations as in case from 20-30 years ago it’s generally impossible to find evidence to support your defence (if it would have existed) and I would rather guilty people go free than risk innocent people getting sent to prison (however rare that may be). But that doesn’t change the fact that what someone says happened is evidence and is enough for they jury (if it makes them sure) to find the defendant guilty.

      Scottish law has a requirement of corroboration for all offences. I don’t know enough about how it operates however to say whether it’s a good idea or not.

      Reply
    2. mraemiller

      There is evidence that the main complainant told the same story to many people over many years including her therapists and her story was backed up in the fact that it fits with what other witnesses said. Her medical notes showed that she had not simply made the complain up because of Yewtree – she had been telling the same story for many years. She had also told the same story to Bindi’s ex-partner. There is nothing physical with which you can corroborate it but it doesn’t not corroborate with anything. Her story fits the facts. She had the letter from Harris in which he virtually admits grooming her – this is physical evidence – although denies anything physical took place. There was also the film that Harris made of her at the swimming pool at the time she claimed he assaulted her … this again was physical evidence. The Jury asked to see it again. The only parts of her testimony that the defence could shed doubt on and label as suspicious were that she carried to the affair with Harris on so long into adulthood for quite a long time and clearly also had concensual sex with him and that she did not record the abuse in her diary as a child. On the other hand she was open about these facts and did not lie about them. Harris’s claims that, for example, he was being blackmailed simply could not be substantiated either by physical evidence or any other 3rd party.

      There was physical evidence to to substantiate the Star Games allegations. The complainant’s description of Harris’s behaviour fitted with the film footage – again the Jury asked to see this footage again during their deliberations.

      There is no physical evidence of the assault in the London pub but there is convincing evidence that the event happened and that the girl was on Harris’s knee.

      There is no corroborative evidence of the Portsmouth gig ever having taken place as far as I know …but I guess the jury convicted Harris of the other assaults because the assaults that may have taken place in Hawaii could not be charged as they were abroad.

      Reply
      1. IAN

        Surely some archive link is available about the place of the gig, what about the newspapers from the time, just means trawling through them. I have found gigs in old newspapers in library archives for my researches, it takes a lot of laborious effort, but it come sup eventually…….

        Somebody must be around in Portsmouth who remembers Rolf as a guest at this Community Hall, surely ?

    3. Outlying Florist

      There was no real evidence. Just memories that could have been altered by counselling or changed over the years. It was a shocking miscarriage of justice but at least the paedo-haters have something to feast on until the next elderly victim comes along.

      Reply
      1. Liberte, Egalite, Sororite

        “Outlying Florist” Your comment suggests it is wrong to be a “paedo-hater” when it’s not. Paedophiles are perpetrators, they deserve to be hated, the children they prey on are the victims.

  15. nihil

    thanks. Do you agree that the overriding criterion is that it has to be “beyond all reasonable doubt”? It is not just the balance of probabilities, is it?

    Reply
  16. nihil

    and then I would ask you Is anybody’s recollection of something decades later “beyond reasonable doubt”?

    We are not talking here about how convinced the witnesses are. The mind is a wonderful thing but it is not a video-recorder whose tape can be forensically analysed, and there are many motivations in this case that might influence recall.

    Though I am sure you know more about that law than I do, I would require reproducible forensic tests on something physical that can be independently verified before sending somebody to prison. The mind and its memory are not amenable to this.

    Reply
  17. nihil

    the knowledge of mraemiller is very impressive. I am grateful for giving me these details.

    Again I am drawn to the need for evidence “beyond reasonable doubt”. Agreed, the main complainant’s account has not changed over time. There is a letter from Rolf Harris and there is a film shot by him in a swimming pool. These last two do constitute physical evidence but neither are to my mind incriminating “beyond reasonable doubt”.

    The ability to weave a story that fits unsubstantiated “evidence” again does not mean that beyond reasonable doubt it actually happened.

    For a long time in my adult life I told people that when a child, a crow once settled on my shoulder and nibbled my left ear. I have the indentations to prove it and I could visualise it happening. Or so I thought until my now elderly mother told me a different explanation.

    Reply
  18. mraemiller

    “Somebody must be around in Portsmouth who remembers Rolf as a guest at this Community Hall, surely ?”

    You would think so … but the police searched the papers over a 6 year period and could find no listings of the event. They also did letter drops and local appeals for evidence …nothing. But it was 46 years ago … and if it was a club booking there may be no record of it because it was last minute. Promoters come and go all the time in entertainment – I cant tell you exactly who we booked 14 years ago and even if we found the documents it’s possible that someone may have cancelled and a replacement was found. It does seem unlikely but some very high profile acts will do some very low level gigs if it’s last minute and they want the stage time … it also gives you the chance to push the price up …supply and demand. I mean if you asked me where I was last month I’d have no idea … I’d have to look it up. Harris was very busy in 1968-1970 but…. They story is just about plausible. Is it proven though…? This is where I think the cards are unfairly stacked against the defendent. If the prosecution put up a 2 year time window how can he find an alibi? If they said “It happened on Tuesday 23rd of October 1968” he may know where he was that date? Even if they said it happened in the winter that might help? But moving events around in some cases by as much as 3 years (Star Games) is not fair on the defendent.

    I cant say I feel sorry for Harris …he clearly is a sad old man who likes peado pictures … but I feel uncomfortable the effort that’s gone into mounting some of these prosecutions. I think in part it is a political attack on the entertainment industry. Just because you manage to burn a witch doesn’t mean it isn’t a witch hunt – it’s the number of people you drown along the way too. As with the Max Clifford case I worry about the number of victims who just happen to 15 years old when the perp had sex with them? Is this because the PoPo cant get them for what they really want to get them for … underage sex abroad before 2003? As Columbo once said… we cant have criminals convicted on the wrong evidence, can we?

    Reply
  19. james

    Child porn charges dropped! What a surpise!

    So the child porn was adult porn. The Purity Police(spanish inquistion) are not dropping these charges out of sympathy for Rolf; it was just a stitch up. Rolf looked at porno like most of the male population.The prosecution used this to sow doubt in the jury’s mind. Dispicable!

    The jury then convicts Rolf because they belive he had bad stuff on his computer. When the
    reality was he had nothing. I think if there had been no pending child porn trial Rolf might well
    have been acquitted.

    Basically after loosing the Coronation Street Show trials they felt that they had to win this one. No matter what. They where looking very silly.

    Should i be surprised after The guildford 4 and the Birmingham 6, M25 3, The Cardiff 3 and on and on and on for ever.

    A leopard doesn’t change its spots! Its always going to be easier to set up and innocent man then convict a guily one. The mob( public) is happy, the politicians and police are happy.

    And meanwhile real offenders some of whom high ranking politicians are left along.

    Shame on you!

    Reply
    1. emma

      It is only Rolf Harris’ defence who claim the porn was adult – they claim the explicitly sexual pictures of children were actually adults posing as young girls. As the websites trawled were My Little Neices, Tiny Teen Girlfriends and Little Vaginas amoungst others, the chances are they were child porn.

      The jury didn’t get to hear about any of the porn because it was the subject of a suppression order granted by the Judge at the request of the Defence.
      Had the jury received this information i doubit it would have taken them so long to convict.

      The prosecution are not persuing the porn charges now – not because there isn’t evidence but he is already locked up (briefly) and it would look draconian and in any event – the resources are needed to convict other child molesters – high profile or not.

      Reply
      1. Sam

        We’ll never know the outcome of the porn charges. The suggestion is that the pictures were of young girls, but not blatantly underage. I think the fact that charges are not being brought suggests that it’s possible the girls were older than they actually looked. It’s not an offence to find an 18 year old girl sexually attractive, providing it stops at that.

        Rolf Harris has lost everything, career, honours, reputation and respect. Locking up an 84 year old man is a waste of tax payers money.

      2. emma

        The point is they did not look like attractive 18yr olds – they were possibly 18 but they looked like children.
        Because Harris has more to lose than a bus driver or an accountant does not mean he should not do the time for the crime.
        As a taxpayer – i consider locking up a child abuser young or old, money well spent

    2. mraemiller

      The thing is it is all messed up. There is no doubt that the central allegations about Harris are true. He clearly did groom his daughter’s best friend for sexual abuse. No one takes someone else’s kid on a 5 week holiday to Hawaii out of the goodness of their heart…. he had a relationship with her that was unusual. As the prosecution pointed out it was extremely mechanical sexually. He even admitted to having her masturbating him while his daughter was in the same room without her noticing… then you think …well, if he could get her to do that …couldn’t he get her to suck his penis without his daughter noticing. It’s not actually that unusally for abuse to carry on into adulthood – I think it’s a Stockholm syndrome thing. Okay there’s a slight possibility it was innocent but really there are more red flags than at a USSR rally here…

      Some of the others I’m not so sure about but I guess they put in the cases that fitted with the complex cross-admissibility rules. There may have been more solid cases that were ruled inadmissiable by the judge.

      The child porn… well, it makes the CPS look silly to say it’s not in the public interest to charge him for that and then start talking about charging him for more indecent assaults. The thing is I’m sure there’s plenty more he could be charged with …so whether he’s actually guilty of all the charges on the indicitment is kind of accademic. There’s also the possibility that actually the woman who says he abused her in 1968-70 knows exactly what did happen but is being vague because she wants to protect other people … that is that a peadophile ring was involved somewhere. I tried to work out if Sid James (who was also mentioned) was in Portsmouth at this time … he was there in 1966… but that’s 2 early. He made 3 carry on films during these dates and a sitcom. Unfortunately virtually everybody involved is now dead so hard to find witnesses. But I think the reason she was asked to give evidence is because her description of his modus operandi fitted with that of the other accusers.

      The thing is I think you could have tried him on the main case and he’d have gone down. Some of the weaker charges seem like distractions. But they cant charge him for what he did abroad, can they? I mean I think he did things like taking the girl to Hawaii because he thought he was beyond the law there.

      Reply
  20. Sam

    Presumably you were delighted with the 16 years served by a guy called Stefan Kiszko. Ever heard of him? Try Google.

    Reply
      1. Sam

        It’s relevant because that’s exactly what they said about Kiszko when he was carted of to prison!

  21. nihil

    As I have said earlier, I am uncomfortable with the quality of so-called evidence that has secured this conviction. It doesn’t seem to me to be “beyond all reasonable doubt”.

    I am also unclear as to what actually constitutes Indecent Assault. There is a huge degree of subjectivity here, and the definition would seem to change with time and the culture you are in.

    Artists spend a lot of time drawing naked people. The models stand in a room while everybody else is clothed and the artists scrutinise the naked body intently in order to draw it. To people who haven’t experienced this it could seem voyeuristic or even pornographic. I mention this simply to illustrate varying culture.

    There is another point which is what is the purpose of imprisonment in this case? I do get the impression from this thread that there is a wish to have the man punished, so there presumably is a vindictive motive behind the imprisonment. Or perhaps it is to show others who might do similar things (should they have been done) that they will be sent to prison. I don’t think there is going to be much potential for rehabilitation here.

    These things make me question the validity of both the conviction and the punishment.

    Reply
  22. emma

    Most people know the difference between posing naked and art and sticking fingers into little girls – crude as it is that is the crime (and it is a crime). No amount of deliberation and dissecting the verdict for legal flaws will alter what he did. If there was no jurisdiction for what he did (but thankfully there is) i would still want him punished. If it’s ok for grown men to finger your daughters – get help.

    Reply
    1. nihil

      I don’t wish to antagonise, but is there actual proof (other than what somebody said a couple of decades later) that he actually did this?

      Reply
      1. Dan Bunting Post author

        The problem is that that is proof. It’s like saying “other than it being caught on CCTV, is there any actual proof” of what happened. You can quibble with whether a jury should have convicted, but the complainant saying ‘this happened to me’ is more than enough. It is certainly capable of being proof, whether it is or not is a question for the jury.

  23. nihil

    I think I can say this without being done for perjury, but on my only jury service the issue was whether there was “intent”. I argued successfully that nobody can tell beyond reasonable doubt what is going on in somebody’s mind.

    Though this is not quite the same, the need for surety is still “beyond reasonable doubt”. It was something that allegedly happened to a child and it happened decades ago. My own story of the crow (see above) illustrates the way the mind works.

    You are right, Dan, that it is a question for the jury. I think that possibly in my own jury service if I had not argued as I did the defendant may have gone down. Somebody else in this thread has suggested that trial by jury was not well suited to this case.

    Reply
  24. Sam

    The problem I have is that everyone is looking at Harris and seeing Savile. When you look at the victims in this case we have one that sold her story for £33,000, another that continued with a consensual relationship until she was 32 AND demanded money from him. Then a third who seems confused as to whether the incident ever even happened at all. Beyond reasonable doubt, I personally don’t think so.

    Emma I’m not saying he’s innocent, but at the same time I’m far from convinced he is guilty.

    Reply
    1. Liberte, Egalite, Sororite

      Why are you looking at the victims and attempting to victim blame. So a victim sold her story instead of wearing a hair shirt. She was paid by a newspaper not by Rolf Harris and even if she sues him, so what. Who gets to determine how a victim should act or behave. Mike Tyson, convicted rapist is not vilified for making money post conviction and he IS a rapist. Instead of victim blaming, look at Rolf Harris and what HE did. I would stake the shirt on my back that were Jimmy Savile alive today (and this is what happened when he was alive) his defence was to attach his victims. They’re after money… and HE was vulnerable because of HIS celebrity… ad nausea This allows manipulative abusers to deflect attention away from what THEY did and you will note this is exactly what they do all the time..

      Reply
      1. mraemiller

        “She was paid by a newspaper not by Rolf Harris and even if she sues him, so what”

        It was at the least a very stupid thing to do because it was potentially prejudicial to the case. That is why they had to ban anyone from Australia or New Zeland from being on the jury. She should have waited till after the trial and she could still have had her £33,000 – probably more.

  25. Sam

    Reasonable doubt exists. In Scotland we have a verdict option of “not proven”, it’s a pity this is not available in England.

    Reply
    1. nihil

      A judge is supposed to be disinterested in the Saviles that have gone before, the tears of the petitioner, the raised voice of a witness, the possibility of pornography yet to be discovered, an inner revulsion and wish to get even.

      Trial by jury is supposed to relieve the judge of hard decisions, but the twelve good men and true are not trained in the discipline of disinterest. The things they had available to make a decision are not sufficiently hard evidence to be beyond reasonable doubt.

      Reply
      1. Liberte, Egalite, Sororite

        Clearly the evidence they [the jury] had available was sufficient because have considered it carefully and note they took their time to do so eventually having done so they reached a unanimous decision – guilty.

  26. andrew graham

    Rolf will spend just 4 weeks at HMP Wandsworth before moving to a low security facility in Gloucester!

    Reply
      1. mjr

        after they put the paedos balls in a pickle jar the sick man, he may be old but I wouldn’t have him looking at my family or friends

  27. nihil

    “Clearly the evidence they [the jury] had available was sufficient” – indeed the jury felt it was sufficient. There has been uncertainty cast over whether it was truly sufficient for the criminal conviction criterion of “beyond all reasonable doubt”.

    Reply
    1. Liberte, Egalite, Sororite

      I can’t see anywhere where… “there has been uncertainty cast over whether it was truly sufficient for the criminal conviction criterion of “beyond all reasonable doubt” other than from those who believe sex offenders should get away with it unless they leave behind a corpse and or a badly badly body.

      Reply
  28. james

    This article is extremely relevent and useful to this discussion

    http://beforeitsnews.com/libertarian/2014/07/rolf-harris-beyond-reasonable-doubt-2-attachments-2569834.html

    Rolf Harris has been convicted and for many that is conclusive proof of his guilt. However, we should not forget that the British justice system is not

    perfect, it can make errors, as these high profile miscarriages of justice show.

    I do not know if Rolf Harris committed the crimes he was accused of. However, I find the fact that he was convicted, based on the evidence reported by the

    BBC, alarming.

    Let me explain why:

    COUNT ONE – VERDICT: GUILTY

    “The woman said she was aged seven or eight when she queued to get an autograph from Harris at a community centre in Hampshire in 1968 or 1969. When she

    reached the front of the queue, Harris had touched her inappropriately with his “big hairy hands”, she told the jury.

    The court heard that no evidence could be found that Mr Harris had been at the community centre. He also showed his hands to the jury and denied they were

    hairy.”

    When they say that no evidence could be found that Mr Harris had been at the community centre, they don’t mean a cursory glance turned nothing up. They

    searched local newspaper archives between January 1967 and May 1974, council records and even conducted letter drops appealing for witnesses. Nothing, not a

    single piece of independent evidence that he was ever there!

    It is hard to see how the uncorroborated recollection of an event alleged to have happened 45 years ago, when the witness was eight, can constitute proof

    beyond reasonable doubt.

    Consider for a moment, what you can accurately remember from when you were eight? I am not as old as the witness but I can’t remember the name of my best

    friend, my teacher, my birthday party, frankly anything. I have a childhood scar, it must have been caused by a significant trauma. I remember it hurt and

    bled a lot, but I can’t remember how it happened, let alone where, when or who was with me at the time.

    Even if the victim is sincere in believing her own recollection of events, she may simply be mistaken. Memory is not a flawless recording device. It is very

    common for people to believe they remember things that can be proven to have never happened. If you find that hard to believe there is a very good TED Talk

    dealing with it

    As a principle of justice it seems absurd that anyone can be convicted simply on the unsupported “evidence” of someone else accusing them of a crime.

    Only a few days ago a trainee barrister was convicted of falsely accusing a former boyfriend of rape. Here is another recent case and another. People make

    false allegations, for many different reasons; to take revenge on a former partner or in some cases for financial gain. In this case the “victim” made $1.5

    Million before admitting years later that she made the whole thing up.

    Making a claim against a celebrity is a heads I win, tails I don’t lose proposition for any opportunist!

    If the accuser is believed they make a huge financial windfall. If not, they still ruin their target’s reputation (no smoke without fire) and they almost

    certainly won’t be charged with making a false claim.

    Nobody charged the false accusers of celebrities such as Bill Roache, or Dave Lee Travis or Jimmy Tarbuck or Jim Davidson or Michael Le Vell or the

    footballers Nile Ranger, Christian Montano, Ellis Harrison, Loic Remy or another 11 innocent footballers here.

    No one who wasn’t there can be sure what Rolf Harris did or didn’t do in this case, but I know that there is an £11m incentive for people to make up

    accusations and without any corroborating evidence there has to be a reasonable doubt in favour of the accused.

    COUNT TWO – VERDICT: GUILTY

    Another woman said she had been working as a waitress, at the age of 13 or 14, at a charity event in Cambridge in 1975 when Harris had put his arm around her

    shoulder.

    “To start, it was a very nervous but a good feeling,” she said. “However his hand then moved and his hand went up and down my back and his hand went over my

    bottom and it was very firm.”

    Again all we have is uncorroborated allegations.

    I know that Rolf Harris said that he had never been to Cambridge and that this was shown to be a false statement, for many this was the silver bullet that

    proved his guilt. But, failures of memory are not proof of indecent assault!

    Remember, Rolf Harris is 84 years old and has been in show business for 60+years. He has been all over the country for various events and it is not at all

    unreasonable for an 84 year old man to forget having been somewhere 40 years previously.

    Indeed Crime Watch presenter Sue Cook admitted she had forgotten being in the same show

    If you think it through it would make no sense for Rolf Harris to deliberately lie about this.
    He was not on trial for being in Cambridge and being there is not the same as committing the offence. If he knew he had been in Cambridge he would

    presumably know it was for a television show. In the internet age there had to be a chance it would come to light and undermine his credibility as a witness.

    Why take the chance? If he didn’t believe totally that he had never been to Cambridge why not simply say, “I don’t remember being in Cambridge at that time,

    I travelled around a lot”

    Then there is the seldom mentioned fact that the show actually took place in 1978, three years after the alleged indecent assault incident.

    This would make the alleged victim 16 or 17 not the child of 13 claimed. If the accuser cannot remember whether she was a child of 13 or a teenager of 17,

    can we really ruin a man solely on the strength of her memory?

    She also got the location wrong:

    “The alleged victim had suggested the event had taken place on Parker’s Piece, a large green in the centre of Cambridge.”

    The show was actually filmed on Jesus Green a much larger, wooded park about a 6 minute drive north

    So the accuser couldn’t remember when it happened (or how old she was), she couldn’t remember where it happened and yet the jury found her 36 year old memory

    of the indecent assault to be evidence beyond a reasonable doubt!

    When we talk about the indecent assault we are not talking about something so traumatic, like rape, that it would understandably be burned into her memory.

    We are talking about a 17 year old having her bottom touched in the 1970′s, a time where bottom pinching was considered mainstream enough for popular TV

    shows such as Are You Being Served and on billboards for respectable brands such as Fiat .

    Again, nobody who wasn’t there can be sure what Rolf Harris did or didn’t do in this case, but I know that there is an £11m incentive for people to make up

    accusations and

    without any corroborating evidence there has to be a reasonable doubt in favour of the accused.

    I will come back to counts 3-9, but first lets deal with:

    COUNTS 10 TO 12 – VERDICTS: GUILTY

    Tonya Lee was a 15-year-old on a theatre trip from Australia to the UK when, she said, the entertainer fondled her.

    Ms Lee has waived the right to anonymity granted to alleged victims of sexual offences. The three charges relate to one day in May 1986.

    She said he asked her to sit on his lap before moving his hand up her leg and assaulting her.

    “He was moving back and forth rubbing against me,” she said. “It was very subtle, it wasn’t big movements.”

    The jury heard that Harris had then patted her on the thigh and moved his hand upwards. She said she had “started to panic” and rushed to the toilet.

    When she came out, she said, Harris was waiting for her and gave her “a big bear hug” before putting his hand down her top and then down her skirt.

    Harris denied ever meeting Ms Lee.

    It was also revealed that she had sold her story for £33,000 to an Australian TV station and a magazine. She said accepting the money had been a “huge

    mistake”.

    Here we have the uncorroborated accusation of a woman who has already cashed in, to the tune of £33,000!

    She also claimed in her evidence that the sexual assault caused her to lose six kilos in weight during the six week theatre tour. It was then proven in court

    that the alleged incident could only have taken place in the final week of the tour!

    As the defence QC pointed out:

    “Are you really saying between this alleged incident on May 30 and six days later that you lost all that weight….in six days? You have blamed the loss of

    weight and inability to eat upon Rolf Harris.”

    At best it appears that the witness has a confused recollection of events, not surprising after 28 years, at worst she was simply lying for financial gain.

    Again,

    we don’t know what Rolf Harris did or didn’t do in this case, but I know that there is an £11m incentive for people to make up accusations and without any

    corroborating evidence there has to be a reasonable doubt in favour of the accused.

    The remaining allegations concern the childhood friend of Rolf Harris’ daughter Bindi.

    COUNTS THREE TO NINE – VERDICTS: GUILTY

    Seven of the 12 charges related to a childhood friend of Harris’s daughter Bindi. Six charges related to alleged abuse when she was aged between 13 and 15,

    and the seventh to when she was 19.

    The court heard that the abuse began when she had been on holiday with the Harris family at the age of 13. Later, the woman said Harris had performed a sex

    act on her at the Harris family home, with Bindi asleep in the same room.

    Further assaults took place at the Harris home and in her bedroom at her own home while her parents were downstairs, she said.

    The convicted celebrity admitted having a sexual relationship with the woman – but stressed that it had been consensual and had begun after she had turned

    18.

    However, the relationship had “ended in a very
    acrimonious way,” he said.

    The court was shown a letter Harris sent to the woman’s father in 1997, after the end of the relationship.

    The letter said: “I fondly imagined that everything that had taken place had progressed from a feeling of love and friendship – there was no rape, no

    physical forcing, brutality or beating that took place.”

    Here we do have actual evidence, of sexual activity between an older man and a much younger woman.

    Rolf Harris admits to having a sexual relationship with her when she was 18 years old. She is now 49, so at the time Rolf Harris would have been 53, an age

    gap of 35 years.

    To many of us such a large age gap seems unnatural, but it is certainly not unusual for famous older men to have relationships with younger women: 73 year

    old Patrick Stewart Recently married Sunny Ozell, 38 years his junior Michael Douglas is 25 years older than Katherine Zeta Jones. James Woods has a

    girlfriend 46 years his junior, Alec Baldwin’s wife is 26 years younger, Doug Hutchinson is breaking up with his wife who is 34 years younger, Woody Allen’s

    wife is 35 years younger than him, Dick Van Dyke’s wife is 46 years younger and the biggest age gap I could find was Hugh Heffner whose wife is 60 years his

    junior.

    The fact that large age gap relationships make most of us uncomfortable, does not make them a crime, or evidence of sexual abuse. Some women find famous,

    rich or powerful men sexually attractive regardless of their age and almost all men find at least some 18 year old women sexually attractive!

    The letter evidence proves a sexual relationship that we may disapprove of, however, it is not evidence of criminal activity.

    If the alleged abuse started when she was 13 it was in 1978. They had, by all accounts, a consensual relationship from when she was 18 in 1983 until it was

    ended in 1997 when she was 32.

    They had an adult sexual relationship for at least 14 years, whatever trauma she alleges she had suffered, she had clearly forgiven him. Or could it be that

    there never was any abuse? At the age of 30 or 31 she was clearly an adult, so why stay in a sexual relationship with a former abuser?

    The relationship ended acrimoniously, so she certainly had a motive to turn vindictive.

    In addition, Harris told police in 2012 that Bindi’s friend had threatened to expose his affair in the tabloid press in the Nineties and had demanded £25,000

    for an animal sanctuary. Harris refused.

    “The court has previously heard that she was an alcoholic by the time she was in her late 20s”

    There is, considerable scientific evidence that alcohol abuse is linked to confabulation (also called honest lying) where people make things up and honestly

    believe them”

    The standard of guilt in a criminal trial is supposed to be, beyond a reasonable doubt. Without any corroborating evidence of under-age on non-consensual

    sexual activity can it really be beyond doubt that this could simply be a vindictive attack by an ex-partner, or a confabulated tale from a confessed

    alcoholic, or an attempt to gain financial advantage ?

    Some will doubtless say that even if individually these are not compelling, when taken as a whole they paint a picture of an abuser. This is a very dangerous

    conclusion, lots of nonsense is still nonsense:

    Many people have claimed to be abducted by aliens. Individually their accounts are not compelling, but (even though there are lots of them) taking them

    together they still don’t paint a picture of extra-terrestrial attack!

    The media, in its orgy of “Savilization”, has been encouraging people to come forward. The press is also awash with stories of compensation for “victims”, if

    any social climate was perfect for false accusers to try their luck, this would be it.

    I really don’t know (and nor do you!) whether Rolf Harris is an evil paedophile monster or an 84 year old national treasure who has been ruined by

    greedy/malicious opportunists.

    I do know that if all it takes to send a man to prison and ruin his life is an uncorroborated accusation from 45 years ago, then no man is safe under British

    justice.

    http://www.libertarianview.co.uk/current-affairs/rolf-harris-beyond-reasonable-doubt

    Reply
    1. Liberte, Egalite, Sororite

      Consider what can you remember as an 8 year old – in other words let’s try to deflect from what was done by the perpetrator by discrediting the victims. Can I remember what I had to eat at eight years old. No. Drawing a blank. Would an eight year old remember if they witnessed a murder, seeing someone get run over, someone spitting on their fingers and then shoving them inside your private parts, yes beyond all reasonable doubt. It goes to show that even with a guilty verdict victims of sex offenders are still not believed (by some). Rolf Harris is a sex offender. As for his victims, to be clear, I believe them.

      Reply
      1. Sam

        Oh well if you believe them that’s good enough for me. He must be guilty after all.

      2. mraemiller

        ” Can I remember what I had to eat at eight years old” I have very vivid memories of being 8. I certainly remember different important events that happened when I was 6 and 8. I remember what class I was in… because the teacher changed each year. I remember where we had our holidays. I remember where we hung out. When buildings were built. Scraping wallpaper down, putting wallpaper up. I remember the pantos and plays we went to. I remember school dinners vividly and being forced to eat them by dinner ladies. I remember the difference between being 14 and 17 vividly… because I remember the immense sense of freedom of being thrown out of school and becoming an adult – which was 16 in those days. How someone can be muddled up about the difference between being 14 and 17 …do me a favour. And they got muddled up about which green in Cambridge it was on. I also remember all our holidays vividly. I had a box brownie and photographed things so can fix dates a bit that way… I dont remember being sexually assaulted but I remember being punched in the face by a teacher. Bindi’s friend … I buy her story. The woman who says she had her bum pinched in 1975 or 1977 pull the other one. The woman who says she was sexually assaulted at a Working Men’s Club in 1968-1970 … sounds like she was assaulted but was it by Rolf? What was Diana Dors doing there? And what was Sid James doing there? How did he find the time out from making 3 Carry On films and Thames TV sitcom to be in Portsmouth? We cant ask the cast – they’re all dead and so are the writers. I mean 46 years is over half a lifetime …there should be a statutary limitation on indecent assault somewhere. It isn’t fair on the defendent to expect them to come up with witnesses when everybody dead. Tonya Lee… there was a witness who agreed she was on Rolf’s knee so her story is possible. Some of the other bad character witnesses tell plausible stories. Some of those excluded from evidence tell plausible stories. But a lot of this is just pastures… and it distracts from the real issues. What they should have spent their time doing is discussing when Rolf’s sexual relationship with Bindi’s friend started. Instead we have surreal discussions about gigs no one can prove happened and TV shows the PoPo should have known existed if they’d done any background research.

      3. asquith

        Sadly while you sign your name ‘liberty equality’ that is in fact about the furthest from the truth as to what your name ought to be as you are in fact most decidedly in favour of liberty or equality. However you are very much in favour of 4 oldish people- the principal one who claims she was a raging alcoholic for most of the past 40 years who have each sought large amounts of money off the defendant. No complainant can in all honesty really remember what day or which year their relatively hard to believe allegations related to, so it is pretty hard to have any belief in a fair and proper trial…
        Moreover the sole piece of contemporaneous documentation, the diary of the principal accuser, says how wonderful Rolf Harris was to her by generously paying for her Hawaiian holiday acting as Rolf Harris’s daughter’s companion.
        Pray tell me, how is a man to defend himself when he is not even told what year and where the alleged incident took place and where there is not one single witness or any CCTV?
        Maybe if this allegation happened to your husband or son, you might begin to show a little bit of common sense?

    2. asquith

      Thank you. this appears to have all the evidence used in the trials of the Witches of Salem. In other words none and the only contemporaneous evidence of the principal witness was that Harris did nothing on the Hawaiian holiday. That he and she engaged in a consensual relationship after she was over 18 (2 yrs after the age of consent) I disapprove of such an age gap but it doesn’t mean he should be banged up until he dies.

      Further, rather confirming the falsehood of the allegation she was 14 the Cambridge Council laws are that someone cannot do paid work before the age of 15. This has been the law since about 1926 as I understand. Why did the defence QC not mention this too. The most likely fact is that she was at least 18 when- or if- she ever met Harrison which again significantly has never been proven.

      I wonder if Harris will appeal?

      Reply
  29. Liberte, Egalite, Sororite

    As for his victims, to be clear, I believe them and so did the jury. That’s enough for me. He is guilty, after all.

    Reply
    1. Sam

      Stefan Kiszko was guilty for 16 years until somebody proved he was innocent. The jury got it wrong.

      Reply
      1. Liberte, Egalite, Sororite

        Harbinder Khatkar freed by a jury to rape at least seven other women.

    2. asquith

      It seems the real victims are Harris, his 84 yr old wife and daughter, but of course Sorority’s comments are all the bitter man hating type…Never heard of the witches of Salem, Sorority?

      And PS please change your name to something a little more real than Liberty Equality Sorority. You don’t show any hint of knowing what they are actually about and your lack of reasoning powers ‘Oh all men are guilty cos 4 of them said things about a rich man in order to relieve him of his hard earned wealth’…I hope the next person charged is your son if you have had one or your (presumably) ex husband. You just sound sadly very very consumed by bitterness and not a charitable or even pleasant thought in your mind…

      Reply
      1. Liberte, Egalite, Sororite

        Askew, whoops I mean Asquyth, I mean Asquith (finally got it right). It’s Sororite actually, not Sorority, but let’s not quibble let’s look instead at what and how you ignored what Rolf, the child abuser Harris, did in favour of attempting (pitiful) to have a go. Rolf spat on his fingers and then sexual assaulted children – like OMG, OMG!!!!!!! But let’s not focus on that, Askew, because Rolf, the child abuser Harris, can’t be “othered” he seemed, looked and behaved like a normal bloke (I refrain from comment on that point) and yet beneath the surface, hiding in plain sight, he abused children. It shows, pardon while I choke on bitter bile of feminism, that one can’t tell and that there are no distinguishing marks that sets the abuser apart. They act, look and behave just like your normal everyday bloke. And that is the fault of Sorority/Sororite because bitter women assault children, except they don’t they call out those who do and shine a light under the dark deeds that your everyday, regular bloke does unpalatable as that might be. And that is the sad and unpalatable truth of this sordid tale. Just a normal bloke who felt entitled to assault children. Take it up with your brothers. Yours In Sisterhood.

  30. nihil

    “Would an eight year old remember if they witnessed a murder, seeing someone get run over, someone spitting on their fingers and then shoving them inside your private parts, yes beyond all reasonable doubt. ”

    I’m not actually sure about this. There are some fairly random things I remember, many things I don’t and some things I remember incorrectly. I think the fact that some things are remembered incorrectly may be relevant here.

    It has to be “beyond all reasonable doubt”.

    Reply
  31. mraemiller

    asquith

    “Moreover the sole piece of contemporaneous documentation, the diary of the principal accuser, says how wonderful Rolf Harris was to her by generously paying for her Hawaiian holiday acting as Rolf Harris’s daughter’s companion.”

    Let’s face it …it could have been innocent that he asked her along… Bindi was an only one ….but … when you combine it with the sleepovers …it does sound like child grooming? I mean why would they have sleepovers …they both lived on the same street! All these things may be innocent but there are so many of them and they are classic grooming tricks. Maybe it was a more innocent time and stuff but even in 1981 I really think if you didn’t think that you were laying yourself open to charges of child grooming you’d have to be thick as ****. Put aside male/female identity politics and think about protecting children from sexual predators and its not very sensible. It’s not often the case that children record abuse in diaries.
    Maybe we should update our propaganda.
    Instead of “Dont accept sweets of strangers”
    “Dont accept holidays off children’s TV stars”

    ” No complainant can in all honesty really remember what day or which year their relatively hard to believe allegations related to”

    Tonya Lee got pretty close (within a week or so)

    A lot of it is nonsense though …
    http://www.pearshapedcomedy.com/Rolf.html
    I mean who’s running Yewtree …Inspector Clouseau?
    Surely we should have hear from more people who know the main accuser on the main charge…?
    Still, it’s got to be better than the 1980s system of never arresting any nonces at all…

    Reply
    1. asquith

      mraemiller: you don’t really explain at all why the sole piece of contemporaneous evidence fully supports Harris and discredits the principal witness. I would far rather go on something written at the time than someone’s hazy allegations which may or may not have been greatly affected by her alcoholism. I am very surprised the judge didn’t make this and the other clearly questionable evidence his principal point.
      Perhaps the judge is simply a repressed typical public school and Oxbridge and his Inn of Court and snobbily looks down on entertainers, and especially any from Australia who’ve made far more money than the judge will ever make…Convict stock after all, what-oh?!?!
      (Harris’s parents were in fact hard working Welsh folk who moved to Perth for its equable climate and the fact a family member had asthma)

      Reply
      1. mraemiller

        It doesnt “fully support” Harris it just doesnt contradict him. The purpose of child grooming is to normalise abnormal perverted behaviour …thus if she was being abused she’d be unlikely to write about it particularly with Harris supposedlyin loco parentis. It was a travel diary not a personal diary. I never kept a personal diary as a kid because I knew my nosey parents couldn’t help themselves but to read it. There’s a reason it takes people decades to talk about abuse. 4 decades might be pushing it but 3… Maybe

    2. asquith

      Sorry but you are entirely wrong about Tonya Lee. She said the incident had happened in the first week of her visit to England on a 4 month touring trip when in fact Harris was not even in the country. Tonya Lee also claimed she had lost 2 stone in weight as a result of the ‘shock of the assault’. The only time Harris was in the country was in the last week of her tour and thus her allegation was 4 months out and her claim to have lost weight because of Harris’s alleged assault was proven to be made up.
      Maybe she was assaulted but it wasn’t by Harris or if it was she didn’t lose any weight because of Harris. Clearly as her boyfriend said ‘She will say anything for money and publicity’
      This was all determined in cross examination by Harris’s barrister…

      Reply
  32. mraemiller

    Also while Rolf says he was blackmailed he failed to produce any evidence to prove it.
    Conclusion… it’s probably another lie …like the ones he told to cover up his “affair”.
    The real problem of his defence is having told the court he’s untrustworthy …erm…

    Reply
  33. Liberte, Egalite, Sororite

    How strange that children/women who’d never met one another each reported similar patterns of behaviour prior to it being reported in the press. Massive coincidence I suppose, aka, the truth about Rolf Harris. I believe her.

    Reply
  34. Sam

    The truth about Rolf Harris? aka, jumping on the bandwagon of media hype for a slice of £11 million. You believe her that’s your privilege, I’m not convinced.

    Reply
  35. nihil

    Perhaps it is relevant to make the observation that reports of alien abduction are all rather similar to one another. It does not mean they are true.

    Reply
    1. Liberte, Egalite, Sororite

      Rolf Harris sexually assaulted children and that’s why he is now in jail.

      Reply
    2. IAN

      If I was to choose between a trial by jury or a trial without jury, I’d go for the one with a jury every time, especially as Rumpole is my hero !!!!!

      Reply
  36. Sam

    I really feel sorry for these victims. It must be awful having to live with amnesia for all those years.

    Reply
    1. Liberte, Egalite, Sororite

      It’s interesting reading the words of the supporters of sex offenders and rapists attempting to manipulate the truth. They’d want us to believe the perpetrator is a victim. Rolf Harris is no victim. It must be awful for that sort to find there are laws and people dedicated to catching up with perverts and putting them in jail where they belong.

      Reply
      1. asquith

        Sadly Ms Liberty ( the things you are definitely not interested in are Liberty Equality and Sorority, because you want to attack an old man on the basis of memories which are 40 yrs old and probably untrue ), you do not know the truth and alcoholic women are much more likely to be strangers to the truth and to have invented their stories or to at least have substantially gilded the lily especially when the incentive is to seek substantial compensation.
        You seem to think you are God because a jury probably got it wrong and has convicted someone whom on the lack of evidence was not there in 2 of the 4 allegations. Now if you were alleged to have committed an offence and there is no evidence you were in the towns for 3 or 4 yrs either sides of the alleged years, most judges would not permit such evidence since it fails to meet the basic test of credibility.
        As the other person said: just because 4 people claim they have seen UFOs out of maybe a million people who have met Rolf Harris over 50 years, does not make it that UFOs exist.
        When they also have a massive financial incentive to suggest they ‘have all seen a UFO’ in our lifetimes doe not make it true.
        I just hope Harris appeals

  37. Sam

    I think beyond a shadow of a doubt Mr Harris is a groper of women. For this he should be punished, but not to the extent that he has been. The evidence that he assaulted children (which of course would make the whole thing much more serious) is largely circumstantial and has certainly NOT been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. I actually think an appeal would throw that out and see him given a much lesser term in prison. Like Asquith, I too hope there is an appeal.

    Reply
    1. emma

      An appeol would only increse his prison term, now that his web downloading preferences are in the public domain it is easier to assume his guilt than before. To pre-empt answers that the girls in the photos were over 18 (but looked like young gilrs with their teddy bears) – the web owners would say that wouldn’t they – otherwise they would be admitting to breaking the law.

      Reply
      1. Sam

        Emma it wouldn’t matter if they were wearing a romper suit with a dummy in their mouth providing they were over 18. It’s not an offence to look at naked adult women because if it was the male population of the entire country would be in prison. Was the material in question clearly images of children being abused or was it not? If it was then guilty as charged but if not there is no case to answer.

      2. asquith

        Sam. I don’t think Emma knows anything about the law. Apart from her ‘if its a man he’s guilty’ attitudes, it seems impossible to get beyond her obvious bitterness and cynicism to get her to appreciate the facts…
        Even appealing to common sense and a modicum of good nature just gets her ‘I hate all men’ attitudes. I daresay that’s probably why the jury instead of focusing on the actual facts of the case and the clear paucity of the evidence and strange refusal of the judge to question the 4 women’s motives and how groping can lead allegedly to 40 yrs of drug abuse and why there was and is not a single witness when Harris’s alleged gropings all took place in public with in 2 instances their mothers just 2 feet away!

        Its rather like Vanessa Feltz’s allegation that somehow Harris’s hand and arm mysteriously extended themselves mid way through an interview at least 4 feet into her skirt and not one cameraman or a single TV operative saw what she alleges. And all with Harris’s wife allegedly 10 feet away too. Clear fantasy from a constant self publicist…And all while Harris is allegedly being interviewed on breakfast TV on her bed. I think any psychiatrist would say for a man to give a TV interview while allegedly groping someone with cameras on him and her is simply impossible. It is (almost) utterly implausible

        Not only that, as many people have said, no man would ever find someone with Feltz’s looks even vaguely attractive. She looks like an awfully ugly fat man

      3. Emma

        FYI Asquith I don’t hate men – I do hate child abusers both male and female.
        Your personal attacks are childish and emotional – try not to get into a state because it sounds like you have issues with women – I’m not going to speculate but you need to get over it..

      4. asquith

        Emma, you say you hate child abusers and yet are condemning a man who has provided much fun and entertainment to millions. Assuming Rolf Harris has been introduced to and held hundreds of thousands of children, one complainant who thought it was an accident is not proof of anything. You condemn on the basis of not one shred of coentemporaneous evidence and indeed the only contemporaneous evidence is that the girl was having a wonderful time with his family.
        No I don’t have issues with women and yet you condemn on the basis of nothing. That shows a very inhumane and exceedingly cold and bitter person.
        Even appeals to how would you feel if it were your son or father so convicted, elicits nothing but cold unpleasant bitterness.
        Harris was clearly convicted by a jury which had lost all sense of reason and I am frankly amazed any judge could even allow a trial, with not one single piece of reliable evidence and the sole reliable evidence in Harris’s favour, to go to a jury.
        On this evidence every male is now potentially open to false allegations. Even if a judge is handed a signed letter or note from the complainant dated on the date of any alleged sexual offence, that will be ignored and instead more reliability placed upon anyone’s memory of 40 yrs ago, and even an alcohol soddled or drug addled brain.
        I have always taken the view never to have my office door closed if I have a woman alone with me in it and always avoid women who repeatedly try to flirt, since the old adage ‘a woman spurned is a vengeful creature’ is very true. In my experience women have very fertile imaginations and if spurned will often stoop very low indeed if they see potential money to be made from false allegations.
        Morally I find Harris’s affair with the 20-28 yr old a bit shady but she repeatedly continued the affair and she has every bit as much responsibility for the affair as Harris. There are countless examples of women 30 or 40 yrs younger than their husbands. Just visit any luxury hotel or resort and you see them everywhere. It is women’s time-honoured traditional route to making money for the past 10,000 years and it will probably continue to be so for the next 10,000 yrs too sadly. Have you never seen girls flocking around footballers, entertainers or indeed any wealthy men at functions.
        They are everywhere and sadly as a poll of teenagers found, their principal aim/dream/wish in life which teachers find hard to overcome.
        Harris was a top entertainer, rich and good looking and I daresay could have had countless affairs from female admirers if he had so wanted. Basing allegatiosn solely on 40 to 45 yr old memory is so likely to be wrong or unreliable as to be no evidence at all for a ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ requirement.

      5. Liberte, Egalite, Sororite

        Well said Emma and ignore the one who appears only capable of trotting out abuse to anyone who has an opinion which differs from his.

  38. nihil

    Is there some significance to a bed being the interview platform in Vanessa Feltz’s programme? What “scene” is it supposedly hinting at? I am not sure I would want to be interviewed on a bed by Feltz.

    Getting back to the debate about whether the trial was just, if the jury consisted of a sample of the correspondents on this forum it could well be that a verdict of guilty was arrived at since a significant number appear to have surety of conviction without referring whatsoever to the available evidence, or lack of it. Fortunately this number appear to be slightly in the minority but the random selection process could have meant the jury could have consisted of such people.

    Reply
    1. asquith

      Nihil,
      not only were there no witnesses or any evidence placing Harris in either of the 2 locations (in only the Cambridge one was there any evidence and when it was the girl was 17 or 18 and not 14 as claimed. Moreover the law has not allowed 14 yr olds to work for third parties (since 1926 I believe), and anyway as she claimed to be a waitress, that would also be illegal. Not one witness was able to confirm anything.

      Yet despite these amazing glaring inconsistencies, and in spite of the jury asking a series of bizarre questions, it seems that the jury after 2 weeks of obvious substantial indecision, determined that Harris was guilty on all counts.

      Now I understood that to convict someone there has at absolute minimum to be reliable proof (eg fingerprints, CCTV, mobile phone records etc) that the accused was at the location at the time and date alleged. Yet Harris has not even been found to have been at 2 locations and at one location when the girl was 17 or 18, 4 yrs AFTER she claimed he assaulted her…

      An academic study was recently done where 10 juries were empanelled and given clear evidence of guilt, yet in 8 of 10 instances the jury found the accused NOT guilty.

      I simply do not believe that the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ test has been established and unless some more compelling factors proving Harris’s guilt are disclosed, we have yet another gross miscarriage of justice…

      NB I wouldnt worry about the ‘he’s gulty’ bods. They seem to have the knowledg of Sun tabloid readers

      Reply
      1. Dan Bunting Post author

        You do not need any evidence other than the word of an individual in England and Wales. Whether that should be the law, or whether there should be some form of corroboration as there is in Scotland (and used to be a requirement in England and Wales in sexual cases) is a different matter of course.

        Memory is a difficult area, and one to which the scientific community are just getting to grips with, and the Courts are miles behind. This will need to be addressed at some point.

        My own view from what I know of the scientific literature and my own experience in Court, is that memory is very fallible and, more importantly, the ‘rules of thumb’ that we use to tell whether someone is lying or not is hopelessly inaccurate.

        That cuts both ways and means that truthful witnesses get written off because their reaction is ‘wrong’ and inaccurate witnesses have their evidence accepted wrongly. Not in all cases of course, but there is more of a risk in historic cases.

      2. asquith

        Dan I agree with much of what you say. I recall when I first took a law course at the LSE, a well known Professor arranged a staged fight in the first lecture. He then asked students to say what happened and who attacked who. Even amongst this highly intelligent group something like 45% of students got the whole thing wrong. Juries are very fallible and obviously witnesses who have a financial incentive to exaggerate their memory, will often do so. Given there wasn’t a single witness to the allegations of the 4 women and it is well known people dream about famous people, this may simply be a combination of fantasy and greed…
        As to 40 (or in one instance 45) yr old memory, I think any expert witness would seriously question the alleged events.
        In the sole contemporaneous document, the 14 yr old friend’s diary, she says nothing about her allegations and only talks about what a wonderful time she was having. She didn’t even mention her ‘nice bikini claim’ which strongly suggests her memory is in fact a fiction and all made up.
        While you comment upon the porn videos, and while I do not approve, I think there is a world of difference between some porn star dressing up as a school girl and paedophile.
        If it is not so I would ask the police to monitor the internet and arrest every person who looks at similar porn. That’s probably what 100,000, 200,000 or even 500,000 people

      3. nihil

        “to convict someone there has at absolute minimum to be reliable proof (eg fingerprints, CCTV, mobile phone records etc) that the accused was at the location at the time and date alleged.”

        Other people have said that what a person says constitutes some kind of evidence, however this does not seem to be tenable in a court of law when “beyond all reasonable doubt” level of surety is needed and also in less testing situations according to HItchens’ Razor . There is no other evidence, is there?

        “An academic study was recently done where 10 juries were empanelled and given clear evidence of guilt, yet in 8 of 10 instances the jury found the accused NOT guilty.”

        The criteria “innocent until proven guilty” and “beyond all reasonable doubt” are and should be very compelling. Do you have a reference for this study, please?

        However you can see how, if a jury was composed of a few of the people on this forum who appear not to need evidence, incarceration of innocents would inevitably follow. These people evidently do exist in society and this is, I fear, a disincentive for the use of juries. Actually what emerges from sound argument on a forum such as this is probably better than a jury.

  39. Liberte, Egalite, Sororite

    The only people who need worry about the Rolf Harris and Max Clifford verdicts are; rapists, sex offenders and child abusing paedophiles. If you don’t fit this category, sleep easy. If you do… they’re closing in you.

    Reply
  40. Liberte, Egalite, Sororite

    Dan, is it likely that witness is going to wrongly recall someone spitting on their hands and then sexually assaulting them – that’s a very specific memory and how did so many witness recall this same action they didn’t know one another so no colluding.

    The description of looking over at his sleeping daughter while sexually assaulting a child has a chilling ring of truth about it.

    Harris confirmed he had a relationship with his daughter’s friend but not, according to him until she was 18, well he would say that wouldn’t he. This from the man who liked to look at porn picture of underage looking girls.

    I’m curious what bits do you imagine victims imagine due to fallible memory; sexual assault or their age at the time of the assault?

    Reply
    1. Dan Bunting Post author

      That was more a general comment, than about the facts of this case. I don’t think you can say ‘this memory is specific’ or corroborated by many others, so it must be true, and ‘this memory is vague and contradictory, so it must be false’.

      I’ve seen cases where someone is utterly specific about the instance of abuse and it looks certain that they are accurate, but turn out that other evidence shows they must be incorrect. Equally I’ve seen witnesses all over the place – vague and implausible, and in some ways inconsistent, and changing the date of when the alleged abuse happened by years, and yet it transpired that they were correct.

      The point is not limited to historic cases at all, we place a premium on witness evidence in English law, which may be overplaced. As humans, we think that we are very good at remembering things, but we are actually terrible. It’s probably most acute in identification cases.

      A good read is Henderson v New Jersey – https://www.psychology.iastate.edu/~glwells/A808StatevLarryHenderson.pdf – it gives a complete breakdown of many of the problems with identification evidence.

      I was not surprised at all that Mr Harris was convicted for Complainant C (the friend of his daughter) – it looked pretty inevitable to me. It would not have surprised me had he been acquitted of the others. But in both cases, the jury heard all the evidence, so I’m just going on what I read in the papers.

      Reply
    2. Dan Bunting Post author

      Sorry, I should have said that in terms of multiple people saying the same thing, I don’t actually think that that counts for very much (especially when Mr Harris was named in the media). It’s sort of a version of the sharp-shooter paradox.

      Reply
      1. Liberte, Egalite, Sororite

        With respect abusers and would be abusers use that sort of argument in an attempt to destroy the credibility of witnesses… you can’t possibly remember…, further the celebrity abusers and again their chorus consisting of; would be padeo’s, rapists, sex offenders and your dirty old man sprinkle in words like money and compensation. All of this is their attempting to create a smokescreen and red herring to deflect attention away from what the perpetrator has done.

        I do not accept that four (or however many more they are) victims all invented exactly the same actions by their abuser and that it is mere coincidence. What they allege is too specific to ignore.

        I do understand why victims don’t want to come forward unless their attacker is ‘good enough’ to rape/assault them in front of CCTV and or group of independent witnesses, or cause them significant harm whereby they will get sent down for murder/gbh (see the case of Jane Clough) rather than the sexual assault victims are simply not believed. As most victims are female and the overwhelming majority of perps are male it suits a patriarchal society just fine to let things continue like this.

  41. Sam

    Rolf Harris verdict …..

    Inappropriate sexual harassment of adult females – Guilty (12 months, suspended)
    Rapist – not guilty
    Paedophile – not proved, therefore not guilty

    Reply
  42. Emma

    Sam – there were no witnesses when Stuart Hall abused little girls either. He said the accusations were “pernicious, callous, cruel and, above all, spurious” – where would you have stood had he not pleaded guilty?

    Reply
  43. Sam

    Can’t really comment on that one Emma because there was no trial by jury. He admits to being guilty so he is guilty, end of. Harris denied the charges so we had a trial and looked at the “evidence” and for me there just wasn’t enough to convict him. Don’t get me wrong, it’s all about opinions and I fully respect that you are entitled to yours. I think if me and you were both on the jury we’d have had a right old ding dong :)

    For the record I also think the Michael Le Vell jury got that one wrong too, I’m not always on the side of the defendant.

    Reply
  44. Alexander Baron

    I am shocked that Harris could have been convicted of that Portsmouth non-incident. If you are a man, and especially if you are a teacher, doctor or some such, best look over your shoulder for the next 45 years. If some demented female accuses you of touching her arse and ruining her life, you must be guilty.

    Check these out to begin with

    http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/17393058-rolf-harris-and-the-rape-of-english-justice—part-1

    http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/17459235-the-roots-of-the-current-paedophile-scare

    and re the so-called child porn, here is my correspondence with the CPS from 13 years ago:

    http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/click-here-to-become-a-paedophile.html

    Reply
    1. IAN

      Have you sent your above findings to the Attorney General yet ? I found them extremely interesting indeed !!

      Reply
  45. Emma

    May I ask – as you bring up the subject of child porn – if it had been reported by a journalist that he had knowledge that child porn was in your house – and that the source was someone who was in your house to burgle – what would your response/action have been?

    Reply
  46. Asquith

    Glad to see that Harris is appealing his decision and hopefully the Court of Appeal will determine that to convict someone of a serious crime on the basis of no witnesses (even though all the crimes, barring the ‘friend of the family’ allegations, were alleged to have occurred in public places with hundreds of potential witnesses and given the passing of time and the fact that in 2 of the 4 cases the police and prosecution had found not one instance of Harris having been in the locality within 3 yrs either side of the alleged years and, in the Cambridge case, the alleged victim claimed he was there when she was 13 or 14 , when in fact the only date he was in Cambridge was when she was 19. Moreover the fact the lady in question claimed she had been waitressing (which has been illegal for 13 or 14 yr olds since the 1920s).

    As for the alcoholic family friend, the fact she had written in her diaries, the only contemporaneous document, that she had been having a wonderful holiday and subsequently engaged in a 12 yr long affair with Harris from the age of 19 to 31 and he ended it, tends to suggest she is both an unreliable witness and has an axe to grind and possibly was making up the allegation to get money as she had also attempted to bribe Harris by extorting money from him for some charity she said she was attempting to help.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s