Before the jury comes back with a verdict, here’s my own summary of the evidence, with both pros and cons listed for each complainant’s case:
1. Leigh Park Lady
Claims Rolf molested her at an event in Leigh Park, age ‘7 or 8’. Gradually pinpoints the year at 1975, somewhere around July.
PROS:
-- Two witnesses say they recall Rolf appearing in Leigh Park in the 70’s, listing various other celebrities who also appeared.
CONS:
-- Yewtree and local cops knocked themselves out trying to find record of this event, and failed to find any at all.
-- The witnesses fail to remember that two of the celebrities they mentioned in conjunction with Rolf (Diana Dors and Sid James) appeared in Leigh Park anywhere between 6-10 years apart, from 1963 to the “seventies”, and neither of them at the same venue Rolf is claimed to have been at. So how they can their testimony shore up the complainant’s story at all?
-- Rolf was in Australia for several weeks, until at *least* the 8th of August that year.
2. Cambridge Lady
Claims Rolf molested her, age ’13 or 14’ (or ’14 or 15’, depending on which version you read) at an event in Cambridge in 1975.
PROS:
-- Despite swearing he was never there at all until recently, Rolf was indeed proved to have attended at an event in Cambridge in 1978.
-- The video evidence shows landmarks that match the complainant’s description of the event.
CONS:
-- 1978 is *three years* later than 1975. This puts the complainant closer to 17 than 14. We are asked to believe that the complainant somehow mistook her 14 y-o self for her 17 y-o self.
3. Tonya Lee
Claims Rolf molested her twice during a dinner event at a pub in England, when she was 14.
PROS:
- Rolf and the complainant were certainly both at this event.
CONS:
-- Tonya Lee has *quite visibly* changed her story several times according to changing details in the case presented.
-- Fudged details of the attack in a TV interview.
-- Lied to the police twice, regarding substantial payments she’s gotten for her story from the media.
4: Bindi’s Friend
Claims Rolf groomed and molested her from age 13 , and continued to force her to periodically have non-consensual sex with him until age 29.
PROS:
-- Rolf admits having an affair that started when BF was 18. Letter proves the affair happened.
-- Rolf admits finding complainant ‘attractive’ in a bikini, age 13.
-- Rolf admits to several sexual encounters, one of these while sitting *next to* Bindi and that the two never spoke during sex.
CONS:
-- Complainant asked Rolf for a substantial sum of money after the affair ended. When challenged on this, claimant immediately claims she was drunk at the time.
-- Complainant until age 29 said nothing to Bindi at all about having sex with Rolf, until Bindi mentioned another affair (with boatshed lady), whereon BF immediately admits affair with Rolf, and also claims Rolf molested her.
-- Complainant was confronted by her family over bad behaviour and alcoholism not long after the affair ended. Complainant immediately claimed Rolf molested her, and this was to blame for her bad behaviour and drinking.
-- Rolf did NOT state he found BF sexually attractive, age 13. He was badgered into an admission that ‘he supposed’ his compliment to the complainant referred to how a bikini looked on her body, rather than admiring the bikini by itself.
-- Complainant swears *all* sex was non-consensual. When challenged on this, changes story to that some of the sex *was* consensual, but she was "brainwashed".
-- BF as a mature adult drove clear across the country to visit Rolf in Bindi’s absence, for the purpose of having sex with him. Despite that she only visited one or twice a year for many years, we are expected to believe that she continued to sleep with him until she’s nearly 30, because he somehow during these few annual visits managed to ‘brainwash’ her, and ‘train her like a puppy’.
_____________
Now, if the jury comes back with "guilty", I'll be mighty peeved. I see NO hard PROOF up there, regarding the specific charges. I see a LOT of fudging of dates and changing stories, unreliable witnesses and things which do NOT add up.
I see *plenty* of reason to have reasonable doubt on all four cases.
