GUILTY UK - Rolf Harris for molesting underage girls, child *advertiser censored*, 2013

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

THE jury in the Rolf Harris indecent assault trial will have to return for deliberations next Monday after failing to reach a verdict late Friday.

The jury recalled the court on Friday afternoon local time to ask three questions related to evidence including the steps police on the case took to establish the 84-year-old had been at a community centre in 1969 when it was alleged he groped an eight-year-old autograph hunter.

The second question related to their desire to again watch home footage believed to have been shot by Harris of another alleged girl victim who had claimed she had been sexually assaulted from when she was 13.

They also wanted to watch TV footage of Harris partaking in a celebrity sports carnival in Cambridge which he initially denied, saying he’d never been to the city. The court answered and granted access on these questions.

But the last question sought clarity on what steps had to be taken if a unanimous decision could not be reached by jury members on each of the 12 counts of indecent assault.

http://www.news.com.au/world/rolf-h...return-next-week/story-fndir2ev-1226962022776
 
'They asked Justice Nigel Sweeney three questions on Friday, including what steps they could take if they were unable to reach a unanimous verdict.'

"At the moment the only verdict on each count I can accept from you is one upon which you are all agreed," the judge said in reply.

'However, Justice Sweeney noted that position could change, in which case he would give "further directions".'

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ven-a-break-after-asking-judge-for-directions
 
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ven-a-break-after-asking-judge-for-directions

1 "The jury also asked about police inquiries that were made to try and determine whether Harris was in Portsmouth in the late 1960s or early 1970s.

One of the four complainants in the case alleges Harris indecently assaulted her at a community centre in the area when she was seven or eight years old"


2 "Jurors also asked about the possibility of watching again footage of Harris in a 1978 episode of Star Games, which was filmed in Cambridge "

3 "The jury on Friday further asked about a home video of Harris's main accuser shot in Australia around the time she alleges the entertainer first indecently assaulted her as a 13-year-old "

4 "They asked Justice Nigel Sweeney three questions on Friday, including what steps they could take if they were unable to reach a unanimous verdict"


That seems to me that the Jury asked four questions, not three.
 
Supernovae said:
What makes you think not guilty, Zwiebel?
Click to expand...

It's just a feeling really. Rolf Harris is a much-loved Brit 'tradition' almost, and I think the jury will want really hard proof England missed a darker side for all those years.

The fact the jury is back asking questions, indicates the verdict is not cut and dried?

I also think people in England (including jurors) have become very cynical about any possibility of fame/cash seekers now, because of recent News of the World phone hacking stuff, and I think that one victim was paid for her story might have been extremely damaging to the prosecution's case.

I am not personally casting doubt on the credibility of any victims, I'd like to add. But I don't think prosecutions are working particularly well in all the Operation Yewtree cases. There is something almost incestuous about the BBC, the police and the media in all these cases.

Gulp. Better shut up now. But I do have some knowledge about the attitudes of the above (NOT about sex crimes - I'd have been banging on doors) from the past 30 odd years. What I heard always disturbed me. there was something deeply wrong there.....
 
Gary Glitter's been charged and appeared in court again, under the same OP Yew flipping tree.

Still trying to find where the heck to put it.
 
zwiebel said:
It's just a feeling really. Rolf Harris is a much-loved Brit 'tradition' almost, and I think the jury will want really hard proof England missed a darker side for all those years.

The fact the jury is back asking questions, indicates the verdict is not cut and dried?

I also think people in England (including jurors) have become very cynical about any possibility of fame/cash seekers now, because of recent News of the World phone hacking stuff, and I think that one victim was paid for her story might have been extremely damaging to the prosecution's case.

I am not personally casting doubt on the credibility of any victims, I'd like to add. But I don't think prosecutions are working particularly well in all the Operation Yewtree cases. There is something almost incestuous about the BBC, the police and the media in all these cases.

Gulp. Better shut up now. But I do have some knowledge about the attitudes of the above (NOT about sex crimes - I'd have been banging on doors) from the past 30 odd years. What I heard always disturbed me. there was something deeply wrong there.....
Click to expand...

You're right in that the prosecution is very much working uphill in these kind of cases but RH hasn't helped himself at all: firstly the spell was broken very early on by that letter, then singing Jake the peg from the stand, and finally getting caught out by the Star Games video. Then there's the credible bad character evidence regarding the make up artists in Australia.

What you've said should have been especially the case for Max Clifford. In many ways it's surprising that he should have been the sole conviction to come out of all of this. His longstanding role as kiss and tell merchant has associate him with a high number of dubious women and that's well known to the public. But he behaved sleazily on the stand and, as I said above he got caught obfuscating the truth, and that's fatal.
 
yes but its historiacal, Why did'nt they complain then?? because it was part of life, you learn to stay out of arms reach, i just had to put up with bosses or your pervy friends dads, and these trials make me feel sadder because even at the time they were hanging with a famous($$$$) pervy dudes. i would understand if they were brutal but they were just groped, if it did'nt freak them out then why now , oh money.
 
I hold a strong opinion that people who make false accusations of rape *need* to be heavily prosecuted. If they were, perhaps less people would feel it's fine to make false accusations, they'd have a greater risk to face in doing so..

I liken it to vandalism. If they up and took and a baseball bat to someone's houseful of belongings, they'd go to jail, no question. I am sure every man who's been falsely accused of pedophilia or rape would *rather* all his belongings were smashed, because those, unlike a life, a family, a reputation, are easily replaced.. How should we punish a person who takes a metaphorical baseball bat to someone, like that?

I don't have any patience or sympathy for people who bring charges 30 years after someone groped their boob. None. I cannot imagine right now going to police over the gropey old-world Italian boss I worked for as a 16 yo, serving coffee in his back room to all his elderly, mafiosi pals. I regularly got my bum patted. It was annoying, but even as a person who *was* sexually abused in childhood, it wasn't 'traumatic'. I would actually question the mental health (and the motives!) of anyone who -did- find it so traumatic as to bring charges of sexual assault, 30-40 years on.

Rape is another issue, though. If I had been groped in my privates, that would be *different* and I would have been *terrified* and felt very, very victimised. Anyone who has been digitally raped will know it's not any different to any other kind of rape, as far as one's feelings of shame and disgust and violation go.

Just to offer a balanced view - I never brought charges against ANY of the several people who raped and molested me as a child. For several reasons, some of which I regret and some I do not.

If, however, a woman was to bring one of my rapists to trail, damn right I would speak up. I might not have felt able to cope with the consequences of taking action, but I would support anyone who did so.

I have every understanding of how and why women come forward after so many years...

But on the other hand, if you're going to accuse, let alone charge a man for something you claim happened thirty, forty years ago? You better bring the proof and, IMO, a LOT more proof than most of these 'witnesses' have, despite being obviously coached by Yewtree. I see the majority of the charges against Rolf as profoundly problematic that way.

I would rather see him charged with ONE inarguable case, than a dozen as dodgy as these were.

False and conflated accusations demean and devalue real rape cases. And they *ruin* lives. Shame, eternal shame, on the people who do so.
 
*Crickets* Court will be over for the day now, so obviously no verdict has been reached today.

https://mobile.twitter.com/NickPisa

ETA, I started another thread today, again for Operation Yewtree. Now BBC former employees are to be questioned about historical allegations of sexual assaults by Rising Damp actor, Leonard Rossiter. He died in 84 though, so no idea where that one's going to go....
 
"I don't have any patience or sympathy for people who bring charges 30 years after someone groped their boob."

I think Bindi's friend was the original complainant. The others came forward as a result of the investigation, they may have felt that they were helping by contributing information towards a pattern of behaviour. What is significant is that more than one of them made disclosures to family members before the whole Jimmy Saville thing blew up.
 
Ausgirl said:
I hold a strong opinion that people who make false accusations of rape *need* to be heavily prosecuted. If they were, perhaps less people would feel it's fine to make false accusations, they'd have a greater risk to face in doing so..

I liken it to vandalism. If they up and took and a baseball bat to someone's houseful of belongings, they'd go to jail, no question. I am sure every man who's been falsely accused of pedophilia or rape would *rather* all his belongings were smashed, because those, unlike a life, a family, a reputation, are easily replaced.. How should we punish a person who takes a metaphorical baseball bat to someone, like that.
Click to expand...

It does occasionally happen (http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Bristo...guilty-false/story-21193128-detail/story.html) but the reality is that with these type of allegations often it's impossible to prove one way or another. You have to have pretty extensive evidence to pursue those kind of charges otherwise you just end up revictimising victims for fluffing minor details in their testimony and deterring people from coming forward in the process.
 
I'm not sure that kind of hierarchy of victimhood stuff is helpful, either. On one level, obviously, rape is vastly more serious and traumatic than a breast grope, but "low level" sexual assault should absolutely not be tolerated. It's all part of a spectrum of behaviour that is driven by and contributes to an atmosphere where women's bodies are considered up for grabs by anyone who feels like it. Men should (and most do) know to keep their hands to themselves.
 
Agree, we know why people come forward when much older or not at all, it's because at the time you don't know enough to know what happened is illegal, victims may blame themselves, the full impact doesn't happen until later and then you also need the confidence to come forward, if you choose to, and it is a choice, if you were indecently assaulted you most certainly have the right. We see cases a lot where one victim comes forward, then others also do (Robert Hughes case for instance) .. this may simply be because coming forward knowing you have the support of other victims may be the only way some people could ever do so. Simple fact is, what he is charged with is illegal, prosecution chose to present these cases to the jury, this case is a bit confusing because some of the witnesses who spoke of abuse were not part of the case, but showing a pattern of behaviour, an illegal one, involving very young girls.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 108 more.
Total: 318 (members: 109, guests: 209)

Online statistics

Members online
109
Guests online
209
Total visitors
318
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,565
Messages
18,241,375
Members
234,401
Latest member
CRIM1959
Back
Top