Rolf Harris Trial Verdict

[Jomlett]

Rolf Harris Guilty on all charges

[Barmaid]

Well the 12 people who heard the evidence were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. Clearly they weren't sceptical.

[jackthehat]

It does if you are basing your 'scepticism' on nothing more than gut-feeling, or an unwillingness to believe that friendly, twinkly Rolf Harris couldn't possibly have done the things of which he has been found guilty in a British Court of Law and a belief that his unfortunate victims have exaggerated the assaults....

[Khandro]

Barmaid; True! But with your legal knowledge you wont need a list of past wrong decisions.
I ask you: why would any man, let alone one in so much limelight, do such a thing in full view of lots of people? Why are there no witnesses? and why isn't the prosecution able to establish that he was even there? - surely Rolf Harris in town would have attracted the local newspaper of the time.

[DTCwordfan]

Ask Jimmy Savile that one, Khandro. We all would be interested in the reply. Compulsion me thinks.....do it once, get away with it but guilt; do it twice, get away with it but maybe a little less guilt, and so on.

[inksplotter]

He was there, we have film evidence.

[Khandro]

DTC; No need to bring Jimmy Saville into it, the post is about Rolf Harris and no one else.
inksplotter; According to the BBC there was no evidence produced of him being there at all, can you direct me to this film please?

[inksplotter]

First video.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2646721/TV-game-video-proves-Harris-liar.html

[hc4361]

inksplotter, that doesn't involve the 8 year old for which there is no proof on any kind

[jno]

I dont know what people mean by "proof". You give your evidence to a court; the accused gives evidence; the jury decides which one they believe. HD film footage is not required. That's the way courts work.

[hc4361]

jno, the point was raised that there was no evidence that Harris was ever at the place where the assault took place, where he was signing autographs at a public event.

[jno]

he didn't have an alibi either, though, hc4361 - that is he couldn't "prove" he was elsewhere. Given that one of his alibis (that he'd never been to Cambridge at the time) was undermined, the jury might well have taken a dim view of his statements about where he was or wasn't. Again, that's what trials are for: juries weigh the trustworthiness of those giving evidence.

[ummmm]

Methyl....there was an interview with a makeup artist who worked with him. She claimed he touched her inappropriately at least 2 dozen times throughout the course of the day...

She probably felt able to fight off his advances but also probably didn't know he was doing it to young girls...

[naomi24]

Khandro, //why would any man, let alone one in so much limelight, do such a thing in full view of lots of people?//

Why indeed - but some do.

[ummmm]

They certainly do. I can vouch for that!

[anneasquith]

methyl............so is it your opinion that RH is in fact innocent of all charges ?

[Khandro]

anneasquith: I don't think anyone would say that he is completely innocent, but the witch-hunt following the Saville case has produced some irrational and unfair results, including your own earlier post; //the only positive part of this sorry tale, is that RH is still alive to be judged...//
From this extraordinary assertion you would appear to feel happier if this man was dead. Why?

[anneasquith]

no khandro/ you miss understand me. my grievance is that JS died before he could be brought to justice.

[naomi24]

Ummmm, you were assaulted by someone famous?