I bet Max Clifford massaged your story as well.
Rolf Harris arrested on sexual charges
- Thread starter ColdAsIce
- Start date
I bet Max Clifford massaged your story as well.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 5,480
I think we are on a slippery slope of 'he said / she said' type justice here. Whilst I feel those who have perpetrated crimes should face justice, the backbone of that system is burden of proof.
What proof has there been in this case? A letter, and an admittance he had a relationship with his daughters friend, so at least some credence to that claim. But the others? Seems to me like the evidence has simply been "he touched me 30 years ago" and we have taken their word for it. Whilst his relationship with his daughters friend seems dubious, I cant help feeling like the other charges have simply been an attempt to prove him guilty by association because if he had one inapropriate relationship he must be guilty of all the other accusations, right?
Definitely feels like a witch hunt, and a money making exercise for those who see an opportunity to make an accusation and get some compensation for 'distress'. As someone mentioned above, it is an insult to those who have been genuinely abused and does nothing but undermine the justice system in my opinion.
It really seems like an attempt by the authorities to be seen to be doing something and as we all know, the mob will accept sacrifical scapegoats eagerly.
What proof has there been in this case? A letter, and an admittance he had a relationship with his daughters friend, so at least some credence to that claim. But the others? Seems to me like the evidence has simply been "he touched me 30 years ago" and we have taken their word for it. Whilst his relationship with his daughters friend seems dubious, I cant help feeling like the other charges have simply been an attempt to prove him guilty by association because if he had one inapropriate relationship he must be guilty of all the other accusations, right?
Definitely feels like a witch hunt, and a money making exercise for those who see an opportunity to make an accusation and get some compensation for 'distress'. As someone mentioned above, it is an insult to those who have been genuinely abused and does nothing but undermine the justice system in my opinion.
It really seems like an attempt by the authorities to be seen to be doing something and as we all know, the mob will accept sacrifical scapegoats eagerly.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 12,488
- Location
- Bath
Hmm...
The fact that it's soo long ago seems to weigh the odds against the defendant.
One of the problems with it being so long ago, is that the defendant can't really get himself an alibi. I don't doubt that Rolfy did it, but when it's 30 years ago, how is he supposed to look at his diary and say "actually I didn't go there, I was in X with a meeting with Y", and produce Y as an alibi.
The fact that it's soo long ago seems to weigh the odds against the defendant.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,086
- Location
- Berkland
But it has been reported that incidents reported to the police where very similar in events. If those victims don't know each other, then surely that does will raise suspicion.
Is this something he can appeal, or has been been mentioned that he will appeal?
The Arts and entertainments industry has always had above its fair share of perverts and deviants! (Just because people are talented doesn't mean they are nice!)
As has the "Corridors of Power"!
I find it remarkable just how few ageing politicians (and their friends) etc have been implicated in all this (And then mostly only dead ones)
So yes, I suspect that there is a lot of "distraction" going on!
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 13,310
- Location
- The Orion Spur
Agreed.
I'm sorry but there is a line to be drawn and like you say this is an insult to 'real' victims of sexual assault imo.
What has happened to our legal system.
Done it or not, no way should this have got a conviction from witness reports so long after the event. It's impossible to prove, impossible to defend. And seems to appeasing the public rather than upholding our legal system. Unless theirs stuff we don't know about.
Done it or not, no way should this have got a conviction from witness reports so long after the event. It's impossible to prove, impossible to defend. And seems to appeasing the public rather than upholding our legal system. Unless theirs stuff we don't know about.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2006
- Posts
- 1,632
Agree 100%, this situation we have at the moment makes me very uneasy. The burden of proof lies solely with the prosecution, they have to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that he did what he was accused of. From the reports we have seen in the media I can't see how that's possible so long after the event. I've no idea whether the man was guilty of what he was accused, I can't see any way that anybody else can be either.
You were not on the jury were you ? So it's safe to assume you never heard the reams of evidence provided by prosecution right ? Therefore you can not objectively dismiss or criticize the jury's verdict can you ?
Well obviously that... Do you think they're a bunch of amateurs or something?
In cases like this appease public and slacken the proof needed. What do you think they've got hidden away, video evidence?
It's almost certainly witness account only. Which is the worst and most unreliable source of evidence. On top of that you have the 20-30 year gap to reform memories.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 5,480
True, we dont know all of the facts. But as someone previously mentioned, a jury of your peers also has the same innate predjudices as everyone else. One such very strong one is we hate kiddy fiddlers. Sometimes the strength of feeling can cloud a persons objective thought process.
Here is my issue with these cases:
Anyone with an internet connection can research where a person was and at what time then fabricate a plausable story without having to provide hard evidence. All they have to do is drum it into their own head so they can withstand cross examination and add a few crocodile tears and hey presto. Plausable and believable to any person looking on. I wonder if any of his accusors had to take a lie detector? This can also be said of Police reports, which after so long may well also be available in the public domain.
This process is even easier if a person is famous because of the abundance of information available online, or the ability to get information sent to you that is not online. I could do it right now just using Google.
I do not think it is unreasonable to treat some of these accusations with a degree of skepticism, or view the entire situation with suspicion.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
I have not heard the witness testimony but like i said, from what i have heard of it. I would not classify an inappropriate kiss from a celebrity as a sexual assault. We also have feminism to consider, i dare say it, how many women were on the jury? It does seem to me that this not a trial against rolf harris but against womanizing men in general. These women involved think they are doing women right by claiming to have been victims of sexual assault 30 years ago. Ive seen those videos of top of the pops for example, with young girls literally throwing themselves at celebrities. I am sure if they tried hard enough they could get 10+ women who could claim sexual assault against any celebrity even in this day and age. The reason they didn't go to the police at the time is because even by today's standards an inappropriate kiss is not seen as sexual assault, well unless you are feminist or at work.
The one girls said that she was assault in front of other people, yep rolf harris was touching her up in front of loads of other people, right there in public he had his hand up my skirt. That seems very unlikely even by 1970s standards. If he denies then that should be enough as there is no evidence, 10 people saying that "he touched me inappropriately" dose not mean that its proof, even if they apparently never knew about each other. How difficult could it be to make up a similar story, all you have to say is he touched me here and there and that's it. Oh look they all have the same story what a surprise. The women are also always 100% victims and never played any part.
The one girls said that she was assault in front of other people, yep rolf harris was touching her up in front of loads of other people, right there in public he had his hand up my skirt. That seems very unlikely even by 1970s standards. If he denies then that should be enough as there is no evidence, 10 people saying that "he touched me inappropriately" dose not mean that its proof, even if they apparently never knew about each other. How difficult could it be to make up a similar story, all you have to say is he touched me here and there and that's it. Oh look they all have the same story what a surprise. The women are also always 100% victims and never played any part.
Last edited:
Your entire post is supposition. You can't prove anything you said, all you have done is present a hypothetical which you think supports your line of thought.
Again. You also were not in court and listened to the evidence presented. I'll take the jury's word over yours every single time.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 5,480
I can prove that it is easy to get information about someone and make up a story if you really want me to, but you are a smart person so I will refrain in the hope you can see the relevance my point within the context of this discussion.
I am not saying anyone should take my word over a jury's, I was merely highlighting my personal misgivings about this case, and others like it as well as the innate flaw with guilty/not guilty verdicts being decided by a Jury.
I'm struggling to watch that, just wtf is all that about? It's horrific.