Rolf Harris arrested on sexual charges

If he goes to jail, I would likely expect him to die in there, simply due to his age and the stress he would endure. Of all things, pedophiles are the most hated of criminals in jails.
 
FoxEye said:
Given that the case was purely his word against theirs, how can he be found guilty?

I don't understand.

Are you automatically guilty if 5 or more people accuse you of something?
Click to expand...

That's the problem with being judged by your peers. Your peers carry the same innate prejudices as you do.
 
Turambar said:
Those expecting jail time might be disappointed. Depending on the nature of the assaults the sentence can be as minimal as a community order.
Click to expand...

Count One: A woman said Harris touched her inappropriately when she was just seven or eight while he was signing autographs in Hampshire in the late 1960s
Count two: Harris was accused of groping a teenage waitress's bottom at a charity event in Cambridge in the 1970s
Counts three to nine: A childhood friend of Mr Harris' daughter said he repeatedly indecently assaulted her between the ages of 13 and 19, including once when his daughter was asleep in the same room. He admitted a relationship with the woman, but said it began after she turned 18.
Counts 10 to 12: Australian woman Tonya Lee, who has waived her right to anonymity, said he fondled her three times on one day while she was on a theatre group trip to the UK at the age of 15.
 
Theophany said:
That's the problem with being judged by your peers. Your peers carry the same innate prejudices as you do.
Click to expand...

But surely if there's no evidence apart from witness testimony, that can't be enough for a conviction?

It's well known that memory if fallible. We can be tricked into "remembering" things that are just plain wrong.

So how can someone's word be enough for a guilty verdict?

It seems backwards in an era where we have forensics and big brother cameras and all the rest.

But here we have a man being sent to jail because a few people accused him of things that are alleged to have happened decades ago. It's odd.
 
lsg1r said:
I'll be honest and say I've always felt the charges were a little suspect with the timing and everything... not to mention the background check he'd have had when doing the Queens painting and his cbe/obe etc.

But in the current climate the Jimmy Saville effect is still going to be at play in jury rulings and even people who say they're impartial will have heard about Jimmy Saville if nothing else. No matter what anyone says it will have an effect on the way you see a 'celebrity' being accused of sex crimes.

You can see it in posts in this thread and most of us here have only heard whats been given by the press etc.
Click to expand...

Much like you are affected by the lovely Rolf you watched on TV all these years.

What would background checks have picked up at that time? Probably not much. It's only since the Savile accusations came out that victims felt able to come forward. He has just gone through an intense 7 week trial with a guilty verdict given, I think its extremely likely that he is guilty.
 
Spit said:
Much like you are affected by the lovely Rolf you watched on TV all these years.

What would background checks have picked up at that time? Probably not much. It's only since the Savile accusations came out that victims felt able to come forward. He has just gone through an intense 7 week trial with a guilty verdict given, I think its extremely likely that he is guilty.
Click to expand...

Based on what? There is no evidence. None.

His daughter says the accusations made by her former childhood friend are nonsense.
 
BBC News said:
It was a familial show of support for a self-confessed double adulterer. This was a man who had an affair with his housekeeper under his wife's nose and had, by his own account had "just sex with no frills" with his daughter's childhood friend when she was just 18 or 19.
Click to expand...

"It happened when I was 18 or 19". Not being funny but, if I was a victim of a sex crime, I would have damn well remembered if I was 18 or 19 when it happened to me! E.g. I woke up in an ambulance following a car accident, and that was in the year 1990 when I was 11. It's just one of those things you remember, innit. Therefore I do doubt the integrity of some of the victims' allegations in the Rolf Harris trial.
 
Spit said:
Much like you are affected by the lovely Rolf you watched on TV all these years.

What would background checks have picked up at that time? Probably not much. It's only since the Savile accusations came out that victims felt able to come forward. He has just gone through an intense 7 week trial with a guilty verdict given, I think its extremely likely that he is guilty.
Click to expand...
The human way of thinking will always remember the negative things over the positive things, I grew up with both Saville and Harris on tv yet the things that stick out the most are the current trials because they're happening 'now'.

I'm not saying whether he should be found guilty or not (I wasn't in the court room), all I said it seems suspicious to me that it came out during a period when Saville was still fresh in the memory of people in the UK and one of the accusers waived their anonymity to get some 'press time' (possibly money?).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying coming out about the issue is easy either but they could have come out at any time over the last 10-20 years but (deliberately) chose to come out at a time when 'public perception of older celebs has been tainted by Jimmy Saville'

As to background checks, I'm sure the checks would have at the least checked with close family friends about the character of the person if nothing else....and seeing as it's the Queen I would have expected it to go deeper than that.
 
I wonder if he will give art lessons to the fellow inmates?

I still say these victims are upset mainly for not getting a signed Donald Duck sketch.
 
Last edited:
FoxEye said:
Based on what? There is no evidence. None.

His daughter says the accusations made by her former childhood friend are nonsense.
Click to expand...

Therein lies the problem of being judged by a jury of your peers, they carry the same innate prejudices we all do.

wannabedamned said:
How come theres so many coming out the woodwork. It's weird
Click to expand...

Witchhunt, innit. It's open season for people to accuse elderly celebrities of molesting them now that it determining which are real and which are out for what they can get is impossible.

I'm not saying Rolf is or isn't guilty, but I fear that this relentless drive to put these people to trial, irreparably damaging their names in the process, is doing more harm than good.
 
Rozzy85 said:
Peoples emotional words and 50 year old fragmented memories, the most solid evidence there is.
Click to expand...

Also he said he wasn't in Cambridge before 2010 when in fact he'd been there in the 70s for a TV show, his mistake was saying anything.
 
Tombo said:
Count One: A woman said Harris touched her inappropriately when she was just seven or eight while he was signing autographs in Hampshire in the late 1960s
Count two: Harris was accused of groping a teenage waitress's bottom at a charity event in Cambridge in the 1970s
Counts three to nine: A childhood friend of Mr Harris' daughter said he repeatedly indecently assaulted her between the ages of 13 and 19, including once when his daughter was asleep in the same room. He admitted a relationship with the woman, but said it began after she turned 18.
Counts 10 to 12: Australian woman Tonya Lee, who has waived her right to anonymity, said he fondled her three times on one day while she was on a theatre group trip to the UK at the age of 15.
Click to expand...

I read that already. However 'assault' covers a lot of ground. Touching with hands and touching with gentials are both covered under sexual assault, sentencing guidelines are different for both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom