You'll need to expound on that remark as I'm unclear what 'innate flaw' you are referring to. Jury's can be sequestered by a Judge if the Judge feels that contemporary media coverage would be detrimental to their decision making. In this case the jury was not sequestered so it's safe to say that the Judge had no immediate concerns regarding jurors being prejudiced in their decision making. Also, all jurors in this case were instructed to ignore everything they had heard and knew about Rolf Harris and to just focus on the facts presented. So the jury was well aware all along not to bring in subjective emotion or bias into their decision making.
Rolf Harris arrested on sexual charges
- Thread starter ColdAsIce
- Start date
You'll need to expound on that remark as I'm unclear what 'innate flaw' you are referring to. Jury's can be sequestered by a Judge if the Judge feels that contemporary media coverage would be detrimental to their decision making. In this case the jury was not sequestered so it's safe to say that the Judge had no immediate concerns regarding jurors being prejudiced in their decision making. Also, all jurors in this case were instructed to ignore everything they had heard and knew about Rolf Harris and to just focus on the facts presented. So the jury was well aware all along not to bring in subjective emotion or bias into their decision making.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 5,481
Impossible to achieve with such a well known celebrity. Additionally - the flaw I mention is that of being human. Part of that is to be judgemental, whether we allow it to show openly or not, everyone judges others every day of their lives.
This flaw is compounded with such emotive subjects such as sexual abuse/assault on children.
Then there is the political correctness and the expected responses to that subject matter. Nobody in that room would want to put their hand up and say "I think he is not guilty" because the rest of the room would look over and automatically think "paedo".
It is just how we are as people, and this is why having a Jury is flawed, in my opinion.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
This is what our society is saying now. Men are pervs if they interact with children. It was in the news a while back a man was arrested by the police for hugging his own daughter in public.
I have good video series on this feminist misandry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0GYv6qpUPY&list=PLE3ACFBB3E7EEB762&index=43
If someone is genuinely a child abuser then they should be locked up no doubt, but this constant attack on men regarding their interactions with children has known to be over the top. Although feminists wouldn't agree with that.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,590
This is what I been thinking about since Jimmy. How can they find people guilty over what people say has happened to them from 10-30 years ago. It's surely one's person word against a other. Even if more people speak out, it's still their word against a others.
I have to admit to not really understanding how you can go back 30 years and say "Mr X fondled my <insert bodypart" and get it to stand up as "proof".
Even if they were in the same place at the same time how on earth do you prove that beyond "reasonable doubt" without it be witness and corroborated by somebody else!
I'm pretty ignorant of the Law so if anybody can give me (others) a quick overview it would be appreciated
Even if they were in the same place at the same time how on earth do you prove that beyond "reasonable doubt" without it be witness and corroborated by somebody else!
I'm pretty ignorant of the Law so if anybody can give me (others) a quick overview it would be appreciated
How is going back 30 years any different to going back 30 days ? It's still the defendants word against the accusers.
Too many people in this thread that think time is an important factor. Evidence is what counts and the accusers/prosecution had enough evidence to convince a jury.
Time is very important.
You don't seem to know how memory works. Memory is the worst form of memory their is and the longer you wait the worse it is. The longer you wait the less evidence there is. It's hard to get corroborating witnesses from either side.
So no, it's you who don't seem to understand it.
You don't seem to know how memory works. Memory is the worst form of memory their is and the longer you wait the worse it is. The longer you wait the less evidence there is. It's hard to get corroborating witnesses from either side.
So no, it's you who don't seem to understand it.
Last edited:
Dear old Rolf admitted in court that he was attracted to 13 year-olds, he wrote a letter begging forgiveness to a victim's father and various victims had maintained consistent accounts over the past 30 years. He's guilty.
Because I can remember things I did 30 days pretty well, ask me what I was doing 30 years ago and I wouldn't have a clue
I've seen the letter. Working on an impressionable child until they are old enough to have sex with you legally is called grooming.
The jury doesn't need a smoking gun to convict; they are told to look at the evidence as a whole. He's a groomer, he fancies children and there were four women offering very similar accounts of abuse while he was drawing doodles in the dock.
Haha come on post the letter for everyone to see. It is nothing like you are saying. Every single one of your three points is twisted.
It's not an offence to fancy. they didn't keep an accurate log for 30 years.
A lot of us have issue, nothing to do with if he is guilty or not, I don't care. It's the high chance that the burden of prove is being diminished to secure convictions to appease public. Which is an extremely bad slope to be on.
It's not an offence to fancy. they didn't keep an accurate log for 30 years.
A lot of us have issue, nothing to do with if he is guilty or not, I don't care. It's the high chance that the burden of prove is being diminished to secure convictions to appease public. Which is an extremely bad slope to be on.
Because I can remember things I did 30 days pretty well, ask me what I was doing 30 years ago and I wouldn't have a clue
I think you'd still remember quite vividly if some pervert fondled/abused you 30 years ago.
Tome aside, whatever that is. Is your position that Rolf is innocent and that all allegations are fabrications ?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
I would be interested in hear some of these accounts, only to see if they were over blown in my opinion. Not that my opinion matters, but just see what sort of activity we are talking about. I think the details make a big difference. I read one dm article about a women who was kissed and based on that i think it is a bit of a farce. I am not saying that he is innocent, i am just saying from the accounts that i have heard, i think he was guilty in the minds of the jury and the media and everyone else before the trial even started.
I'm not convinced that's true, I had an open fracture on my thigh when I was about 12 which was pretty traumatic, can't say I can really remember any detail now.
The issue is how hard it is to defend yourself against an accusation that long ago, not how far back you can remember if you're a victim.
No, how did you come to that. I don't care if he is or isn't but it seems that the burden off prove has been lowered for this and other cases, which is not something we should want as a society. There seems to be nothing other than 20-30 year old witness. Which again witness is the least reliable source if evidence and it only gets worse with time. this is well known about and researched. It is also harder for both sides, other potential witness etc, aren't going to remembered or easily traced etc.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...ning-letter-that-sealed-his-fate-9573864.html
A 50+ man 'admiring' and complimenting a teenager in swimwear. All perfectly innocent of course, except (by his own account) he started having sex with her when it was legal or (by the jury's determination) even before then.
It's pretty damning evidence in a trial about sex offences against children.