Rolf Harris arrested on sexual charges

DailyGeek;30484118 said:
I still don't understand how they convict on things like a bum grope from 40 years ago. I mean, it's not like there is any actual evidence? Not saying there is nothing in these things but it seems ripe for people to take advantage.
Click to expand...

Surely they wouldn't throw you into jail for a bum grope, espically after 40 years. So i must have been a much more serious act. Otherwise the justice system has lost it's marbles
 
Hades;30485315 said:
EDIT: I was on a jury recently (nothing as serious as this) and we found the person not guilty because, based on the evidence presented to us, we could not be ABSOLUTELY SURE they had committed the crime they were accused of. The prosecution had not proved their case to our jury.
Click to expand...

I thought it was supposed to be 'beyond reasonable doubt' not 'beyond any doubt'
 
robgmun;30485470 said:
Surely they wouldn't throw you into jail for a bum grope, espically after 40 years. So i must have been a much more serious act. Otherwise the justice system has lost it's marbles
Click to expand...

Hey, if you go for the front instead of the back you might become the President of the United States of America!

Oh ... :(
 
kindai;30484196 said:
Doesnt matter, he already knows hes going to die in prison. What does it matter if these additional claims are proven or not.
Click to expand...

He's out this summer, how is he likely to die in prison?
diamount;30484244 said:
He's not a spring chicken, he is very likely to die in prison at this point.
Click to expand...

again what?
 
FoxEye;30485306 said:
I'm no lawyer... does it still have to be "beyond reasonable doubt" in these cases?

Because it's hard to see how it can be beyond reasonable doubt, with no evidence except the alleged victim's testimony.

Is there a thing that if enough people say something, it is a "fact"? So if I could find 5 people to say they were abused by... let's say John, Paul, George and Ringo... then they're guilty?

What evidence could there possibly be, that survives 40 years? Certainly not forensics! Beyond "we can prove you were in the same city"; "we can prove she went to your concert".
Click to expand...

It is the fine details that matter.
If loads of girls casme forwars and saids that Jimmy Savile groped them, there wouldn't be enough evidence.
If the same girls came forward and gave fine details about the incidnts such as: he gave me a Mars Bar, he then pushed me into the wall, his hand went straight on my left boob etc then that tells more of a story.


I'm leaving the spelling mistaKES IN cause I can't be botherred..
 
He's only being released from prison so he can testify in person. He'll be back in the cooler soon enough!
 
SexyGreyFox said:
It is the fine details that matter.
If loads of girls casme forwars and saids that Jimmy Savile groped them, there wouldn't be enough evidence.
If the same girls came forward and gave fine details about the incidnts such as: he gave me a Mars Bar, he then pushed me into the wall, his hand went straight on my left boob etc then that tells more of a story.
Click to expand...
You made up that example - I mean the "fine details" - in literally 20 seconds.

Anybody could make up a story and insert some details such as those. As long as they were consistent in their story, they'd be believed, right?

If there were no financial incentive for these girls to make a claim - ie, if the only outcome was a criminal prosecution for the defendant - you might assume there was no reason to lie (although this isn't strictly true). But the fact that a share of £11 million is also involved...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom