Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Wed Jul 02, 2014 10:09 pm  

One of his guilty verdicts was his alleged groping of a 13 or 14 year old girl in 1975.

Harris said he was unaware of ever being in Cambridge until 4 years ago.

Video evidence was then shown of a TV show IN 1978 of a Star Games show taped in Cambridge. That proved him to be a liar and proved her claims, according to the prosecution.

She said the show was It's a Celebrity Knockout in 1975. He was alleged to have felt her ass.

She couldn't remember whether she was 13 or 16 when her ass was felt in broad daylight by a TV star with hundreds of people around. She couldn't remember that it was Star Games and not It's a Celebrity Knockout.

Just how do you prove that you didn't feel the ass of a 13 year old girl, who actually turned out to be 16, 40 years ago?

If you're happy with this conviction then that's your right. I think it is utter BS. If he punched the girl in the face and broke her nose the statute of limitations would say there's no way he could be placed on trial. Touching her butt though, hell yeah that's serious.

I can totally understand murder, rape and GENUINE child abuse always being open to prosecution. But this 5hit is utter effing nonsense.

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Thu Jul 03, 2014 2:04 am  

So a number of very similar accusations by totally unconnected women doesn't mean anything? You may have a point if it was one case - but it wasn't.

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Thu Jul 03, 2014 4:18 am  

you'd be surprised..no shocked at some outcomes from jury's even given firm concrete evidence.
An example this year was when a jury were swayed by the 'guilty' person being a church go-er and cancer specialist and the person killed an 'inexperienced' 'foreign' cyclist.
Yes, not guilty was the jury's decision, yet the killer was overtaking on a blind bend at speed and ploughed straight into her & her fiance (whom was seriously injured) whiilst they were cycling along minding their own business.
The defendants team had the disgusting temerity to partially blame the fiance for buying her a new bike..then the defendant said the girl 'wobbled' (though was still on the correct side of the road). The judge nor CPS questioned vital aspects and the jury basically said it was the girls fault for wobbling that killed her

So as much as I don't know what the true evidence was in the Harris case (An apology letter to a father of a victim apparently came up) & personally I have zero feelings about the case and those involved as a whole I still do not think that the jury system we have is absolutely without its faults and/or fallibilities.
Conscious bias has being shown time & again in courts, even by judges confirmed by their innacurate/bias words.

As for the CPS, not fit for purpose.

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Thu Jul 03, 2014 6:20 am  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

One of his guilty verdicts was his alleged groping of a 13 or 14 year old girl in 1975.

Harris said he was unaware of ever being in Cambridge until 4 years ago.

Video evidence was then shown of a TV show IN 1978 of a Star Games show taped in Cambridge. That proved him to be a liar and proved her claims, according to the prosecution.

She said the show was It's a Celebrity Knockout in 1975. He was alleged to have felt her ass.

She couldn't remember whether she was 13 or 16 when her ass was felt in broad daylight by a TV star with hundreds of people around. She couldn't remember that it was Star Games and not It's a Celebrity Knockout.

Just how do you prove that you didn't feel the ass of a 13 year old girl, who actually turned out to be 16, 40 years ago?

If you're happy with this conviction then that's your right. I think it is utter BS. If he punched the girl in the face and broke her nose the statute of limitations would say there's no way he could be placed on trial. Touching her butt though, hell yeah that's serious.

I can totally understand murder, rape and GENUINE child abuse always being open to prosecution. But this 5hit is utter effing nonsense.

Ok so that's one of the twelve charges you've dealt with and a fairly minor one at that. Where do you stand on the charges that involved digital penetration of, and oral sex with, underage girls ?

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:04 am  

Derwent wrote:

Ok so that's one of the twelve charges you've dealt with and a fairly minor one at that. Where do you stand on the charges that involved digital penetration of, and oral sex with, underage girls ?

Okay, if you look at the charges closely you'll see that he doesn't have charges of that with underage girls, there is just the one girl, his daughters friend. All the other charges, apart from one, are "fairly minor".

The other one was an allegation of putting his hand in the crotch of an 8 year old girl.

IMO that charge is so serious that he shouldn't have been tried for that while he was tried with the utter BS merchants. If he's genuinely guilty of that crime then TBH I'm a willing advocate of leaving him in a crowded room for 15 minutes while all the guards fill in their paperwork.

But IMO they wouldn't have been able to secure a conviction in a standalone trial for that, so instead they bury this ultra serious charge under a pile of compensation seekers and get the conviction that way.

On his daughters friend, which took up 7 of the charges. She says he molested her when she was 13 and it carried on until she was 19. He admits he had a full sexual relationship with her that started when she was 18 and carried for nearly a decade until he moved on to some other woman he was having an affair with.

I can't defend him for having an affair with his daughters friend. He's an utter c*** for doing that. But I do have a problem with believing her claims of being molested by him on holiday when she was 13 and then going on to have a seemingly consensual full sex affair with him when she was an adult. She admits asking Harris for help over a family argument when she was an adult and that simply seems unbelievable given that she's now claiming he abused her for nearly all her teenage years.

Like I said in my first post, he's painted as an evil paedophile in the papers and on TV. IMO neither the charges nor the words of the alleged victims support that. My suspicion is that rather than this being the unmasking of an evil serial child molester it's simply a miscarriage of justice by accusing a group of men of 40 year old crimes that it is simply impossible to defend themselves against.

IMO every single woman claiming to be out for justice will end up with compensation settlements in the tens, if not hundreds of thousands of pounds. Genuine survivors of real sexual abuse deserve payouts like that, along with sympathy and compassion. A 16 year old girl who possibly had her booty felt for 2 seconds simply doesn't.

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:27 am  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

My suspicion is that rather than this being the unmasking of an evil serial child molester it's simply a miscarriage of justice by accusing a group of men of 40 year old crimes that it is simply impossible to defend themselves against.

It isn't impossible to defend themselves against though, or else Bill Roache and DLT would have been convicted. They managed to mount successful defences against their accusers. In the Harris case there must have been evidence shown to the jury that hasn't yet been made public. The judge's full sentencing remarks will be published sometime tomorrow which will contain much more details about the offences. Until those full details are published its difficult to say what the weight of evidence was against Harris.

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:54 am  

Derwent wrote:

It isn't impossible to defend themselves against though, or else Bill Roache and DLT would have been convicted. They managed to mount successful defences against their accusers. In the Harris case there must have been evidence shown to the jury that hasn't yet been made public. The judge's full sentencing remarks will be published sometime tomorrow which will contain much more details about the offences. Until those full details are published its difficult to say what the weight of evidence was against Harris.

Wrong choice of words on my part. It's not impossible to get a jury to give a not guilty verdict. It is impossible to prove that you didn't commit the crime though.

Is there anyone who really believes DLT was innocent of everything he was charged with?

On Harris. The charge in Cambridge from what I read was that he was guilty of an offence that took place between 1/1/75 and 1/1/76. From video evidence that emerged during the trial, and was reportedly crucial, it emerged that the alleged offence took place in 1978. Is the English legal system so loose that it can convict a man of a charge in one year which is that proved to be out by 3 years? I'm not a lawyer, my total experience with the law is appearing as a witness over some trivial nonsense, but that seems to be a blatant error that convictions get thrown out for. I doubt it will be thrown out for a convicted "paedo" like Harris though, even if it is completely unsafe.

I just wish the awesome CPS and we have now were around for all the kids who were murdered by the satanic cults in the 80s when I was growing up

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Thu Jul 03, 2014 1:31 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

Wrong choice of words on my part. It's not impossible to get a jury to give a not guilty verdict. It is impossible to prove that you didn't commit the crime though.

Is there anyone who really believes DLT was innocent of everything he was charged with?

On Harris. The charge in Cambridge from what I read was that he was guilty of an offence that took place between 1/1/75 and 1/1/76. From video evidence that emerged during the trial, and was reportedly crucial, it emerged that the alleged offence took place in 1978. Is the English legal system so loose that it can convict a man of a charge in one year which is that proved to be out by 3 years? I'm not a lawyer, my total experience with the law is appearing as a witness over some trivial nonsense, but that seems to be a blatant error that convictions get thrown out for. I doubt it will be thrown out for a convicted "paedo" like Harris though, even if it is completely unsafe.

I just wish the awesome CPS and we have now were around for all the kids who were murdered by the satanic cults in the 80s when I was growing up

Rolf Harris must've retained the shitest legal counsel in the UK

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Fri Jul 04, 2014 12:45 pm  

Judge's sentencing remarks. Not a newspaper report

Judge's sentencing remarks. Not a newspaper report

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Fri Jul 04, 2014 12:57 pm  

Chris28 wrote: Judge's sentencing remarks. Not a newspaper report no, he cant be convicted Lord God AHole said so! 5years and 9 months is 20 years too few for me, he stole the childhoods and innocence of so many, the fact he'll be out in 2 and a half years disgusts me, I am sure he'll have some new frineds inside. Amazing isn't it, defraud the VAT/HMRC officers and you get 8 years plus, touch up children and you get a few years...!

Chris28 wrote: Judge's sentencing remarks. Not a newspaper report no, he cant be convicted Lord God AHole said so! 5years and 9 months is 20 years too few for me, he stole the childhoods and innocence of so many, the fact he'll be out in 2 and a half years disgusts me, I am sure he'll have some new frineds inside. Amazing isn't it, defraud the VAT/HMRC officers and you get 8 years plus, touch up children and you get a few years...!