Rolf Harris Guilty Of 12 Counts Of Indecent Assault

[black_knight1337]

Isn't that what a trial is for? Y'know, where the jury - having examined all the evidence and testimony - decide whether someone did the crime or not.

That's exactly my point, there was no evidence. No footage, no witnesses, nothing. Despite most of them supposedly happening in public places with dozens of people around.

OH for god sake man ITS THE JURY THAT DECIDES IF YOU ARE INNOCENT OR GUILTY. Its their job to to say which witness is more believable than the other, thats the whole point of the trial. I really don't care about what reason that you come up with to rationalize your dislike of the verdict but at least bother to have some basic understanding of the legal system.

One of the basic principles of the legal system is the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. Keyword there being proven. It can't be proven if there's no evidence provided. And no, it's not their job to decide who is more believable, it's their job to decide if the prosecution has provided enough evidence to prove that the defendant committed the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, there was no evidence, only accusations. This whole thing just highlights the serious flaws in having a jury in the first place.

 

[Albino Boo]

Isn't that what a trial is for? Y'know, where the jury - having examined all the evidence and testimony - decide whether someone did the crime or not.

That's exactly my point, there was no evidence. No footage, no witnesses, nothing. Despite most of them supposedly happening in public places with dozens of people around.

OH for god sake man ITS THE JURY THAT DECIDES IF YOU ARE INNOCENT OR GUILTY. Its their job to to say which witness is more believable than the other, thats the whole point of the trial. I really don't care about what reason that you come up with to rationalize your dislike of the verdict but at least bother to have some basic understanding of the legal system.

One of the basic principles of the legal system is the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. Keyword there being proven. It can't be proven if there's no evidence provided. And no, it's not their job to decide who is more believable, it's their job to decide if the prosecution has provided enough evidence to prove that the defendant committed the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, there was no evidence, only accusations. This whole thing just highlights the serious flaws in having a jury in the first place.

He has been found guilty by jury of his peers just like everybody other trial. The evidence has been heard in open court the jury has decided that he is guilty in the same process that every other criminal trial that takes places in the UK. Repeating innocent to proven guilty does not make you more intelligent and doesn't make you morally superior to the common heard, it just means that you don't understand that he has been found guilty.

 

[black_knight1337]

He has been found guilty by jury of his peers just like everybody other trial. The evidence has been heard in open court the jury has decided that he is guilty in the same process that every other criminal trial that takes places in the UK. Repeating innocent to proven guilty does not make you more intelligent and doesn't make you morally superior to the common heard, it just means that you don't understand that he has been found guilty.

Repeating 'he has been found guilty' does not make you more intelligent and doesn't make you morally superior to the common herd, it just means that you're being ignorant. I'm not questioning the what, I'm questioning the why. There wasn't any evidence provided that supported any of the claims that were made. No footage, no witnesses, only accusations. If you want to keep being ignorant to the facts at hand, then there's no point in continuing.

 

[Albino Boo]

He has been found guilty by jury of his peers just like everybody other trial. The evidence has been heard in open court the jury has decided that he is guilty in the same process that every other criminal trial that takes places in the UK. Repeating innocent to proven guilty does not make you more intelligent and doesn't make you morally superior to the common heard, it just means that you don't understand that he has been found guilty.

Repeating 'he has been found guilty' does not make you more intelligent and doesn't make you morally superior to the common herd, it just means that you're being ignorant. I'm not questioning the what, I'm questioning the why. There wasn't any evidence provided that supported any of the claims that were made. No footage, no witnesses, only accusations. If you want to keep being ignorant to the facts at hand, then there's no point in continuing.

They are thousands of cases that appear before juries every month which boil down to one person's word against another and its the jury's job to decided. The Harris case is no different from any other. The juries decided to believe the victims, note the plural, and not Harris.

 

[Mr_Spanky]

He has been found guilty by jury of his peers just like everybody other trial. The evidence has been heard in open court the jury has decided that he is guilty in the same process that every other criminal trial that takes places in the UK. Repeating innocent to proven guilty does not make you more intelligent and doesn't make you morally superior to the common heard, it just means that you don't understand that he has been found guilty.

Repeating 'he has been found guilty' does not make you more intelligent and doesn't make you morally superior to the common herd, it just means that you're being ignorant. I'm not questioning the what, I'm questioning the why. There wasn't any evidence provided that supported any of the claims that were made. No footage, no witnesses, only accusations. If you want to keep being ignorant to the facts at hand, then there's no point in continuing.

I'm sorry but I can only assume from this statement that you were one of the jurors? If not then how on earth is it that you know exactly what transpired in the trial? What evidence and testimony was given? I understand that the lack of physical evidence does, of course, make it more difficult for a conviction, but to disregard the verdict specifically because of that fact is, i think, unreasonable.

Innocent until proven guilty simply means that the man or woman on trial will not be condemned before they are put before a trial with a judge, jury, defence and prosecution. They will be, however, condemned or exonerated by the proceedings of that trial.

It's also worth mentioning that the jury's verdict was unanimous under the "beyond all reasonable doubt" statement of British criminal law. That means that each of these members (12) of the jury were certain, under the same trial proceedings as any other criminal trial, that this man was guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

In any case denying his guilt at this point is a purely academic matter. He has been brought to trial and been found guilty. That is the fact - whether you agree with it or not. Personally I would suggest refraining, perhaps, from making sweeping statements about a trial at which you were not present at or involved in - for more than reading about it in newspapers or websites as the rest of us.

 

[Rozalia1]

Sorry but this is a joke, the core of the paedophile ring at the core of British entertainment and politics is still going unpunished. Operation Yewtree has thrown a few of the disgusting bastards like Rolf Harris to the wolves and thats it, its right he finally faces punishment and I am glad he has but its not enough.

What about the dozens or even hundreds of people that must have either ignored or actively allowed Jimmy Saville to do what he did? He had complicity with the government and authorities on so many levels, a government which at the time had a cabinet minister which to this day continually faces accusations about paedophile activities.

Except I cannot post his name as the government and courts slapped an anonymity order on the issue and they are have even tried to sue people for using his name on social media, we know peados work in groups and rings and we know Jimmy Saville had to have had help from the government and authorities to get into those institutions like the NHS, Her Majesty's Prison system and the secure education facilities.

Then you have all the people within those institutions that either turned their backs and ignored what was going on (yeah, young girls where lead one by one for an "interview" in his caravan and any girl that got upset was punished till she shut up) and those that helped him, the authorities have made a show trial of a few of the ones that they couldn't tie to the wider ring with a hoorah about "look we did something" while ignoring the cancer at the core of the old British establishment.

Not often I agree with you. Where are the punishments for those who let it all go on indeed.
As for MPs that are hiding over such things, they'll likely get "punished" after their death.

 

[black_knight1337]

I'm sorry but I can only assume from this statement that you were one of the jurors? If not then how on earth is it that you know exactly what transpired in the trial? What evidence and testimony was given? I understand that the lack of physical evidence does, of course, make it more difficult for a conviction, but to disregard the verdict specifically because of that fact is, i think, unreasonable.

Of course we don't know everything that was said but we do know what evidence was put forward. If a witness had of come forward, it would have been reported on. If footage was shown, it would have been reported on (and most likely shown). Nothing was reported, thus we can safely assume that none was ever provided. And if no evidence was provided, I can't see how you could fairly convict someone.

Innocent until proven guilty simply means that the man or woman on trial will not be condemned before they are put before a trial with a judge, jury, defence and prosecution. They will be, however, condemned or exonerated by the proceedings of that trial.

It also means that the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

In any case denying his guilt at this point is a purely academic matter. He has been brought to trial and been found guilty. That is the fact - whether you agree with it or not. Personally I would suggest refraining, perhaps, from making sweeping statements about a trial at which you were not present at or involved in - for more than reading about it in newspapers or websites as the rest of us.

I know, I merely stated my opinion on the matter and my reasoning behind it.

 

[Dragonbums]

It will also help others come forward with their own stories and that might prevent others from being abused.

I don't want to start a fight over what people neither of us have met must be feeling, particularly when we're arguing about how they must feel about having been molested, but I will personally assume that the victims cannot help but feel that the abuse they endured is a life-defining event, and that seeing their attacker brought to justice will not be a magical wand that will cure whatever traumas they suffer but will offer some measure of comfort.

I agree with both of your points. I'm not saying the victims in question won't feel a sort of justice, but I figure it would be an empty sort of justice.

Like yes, he and a few other are now rotting in jail for the crimes they have done. However they had to suffer decades of emotional trauma of them being assaulted with the knowledge that he's been getting away with it scott free for years.

That's not a good feeling at all.

 

[Uncle Comrade]

Of course we don't know everything that was said but we do know what evidence was put forward. If a witness had of come forward, it would have been reported on. If footage was shown, it would have been reported on (and most likely shown). Nothing was reported, thus we can safely assume that none was ever provided. And if no evidence was provided, I can't see how you could fairly convict someone.

What about the evidence of the 10 or so different women who testified to the court that Harris had assaulted them? Does that not count? I suppose you could claim that they made it all up, but if that was the case you'd think the defence would've been able to build a stronger case. You've also got to ask the question of why that many different people would all decide to lie about something like that, and maintain the lie all the way to court.

Innocent until proven guilty simply means that the man or woman on trial will not be condemned before they are put before a trial with a judge, jury, defence and prosecution. They will be, however, condemned or exonerated by the proceedings of that trial.

It also means that the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

And seeing as he was convicted, I'd say the prosecution must've done a good job.

 

[Mr_Spanky]

I'm sorry but I can only assume from this statement that you were one of the jurors? If not then how on earth is it that you know exactly what transpired in the trial? What evidence and testimony was given? I understand that the lack of physical evidence does, of course, make it more difficult for a conviction, but to disregard the verdict specifically because of that fact is, i think, unreasonable.

Of course we don't know everything that was said but we do know what evidence was put forward. If a witness had of come forward, it would have been reported on. If footage was shown, it would have been reported on (and most likely shown). Nothing was reported, thus we can safely assume that none was ever provided. And if no evidence was provided, I can't see how you could fairly convict someone.

You're mistaking, I think, a lack of physical evidence with a lack of evidence. Evidence is simply any information given to the court (by whatever means) that is relevant to the case. Physical evidence is usually brought forward (as I think you know) in terms of DNA, fingerprints, video, paper or electronic documentation etc. Physical evidence is often more conclusive of either guilt or innocence - but a trial, and the verdict reached after, is still perfectly valid without it.

Given the fact that he was convicted on twelve different counts, I think it's fairly safe to assume that there was a lot of evidence given by the testimony of his alleged victims and their friends and family members, his acquaintances, friends and (surprisingly in this case) his family. This is all perfectly admissible and appropriate testimony and, when there is as much of it as I suspect there was in this case, makes for a compelling argument for the prosecution.

Innocent until proven guilty simply means that the man or woman on trial will not be condemned before they are put before a trial with a judge, jury, defence and prosecution. They will be, however, condemned or exonerated by the proceedings of that trial.

It also means that the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

Yes it does - as it has been in British law for a great many years. The fact that the prosecution made their case without physical evidence is indicative of nothing. Proof, beyond all reasonable doubt can be given without physical evidence - and has been in a number of cases. This case is not "special" in that regard. Indeed it is usually true that particular attention to detail is made in the case of prosecuting public figures in order to make sure that, whatever verdict is given, there is no "fallout" ie accusations of police misconduct and the like.

Also, in British law all criminal cases are reviewed first by the Criminal Prosecution Service - that is by one (probably several in this case) legal experts who decide if there is enough evidence to bring the case forward to trial. All evidence is gathered, reviewed and then a decision is taken as to whether it is worth perusing a potential conviction. That is to say that those legal experts, if they decide upon taking the case to trial, must be certain that there is at least a chance of the evidence supporting a guilty verdict. If not there would be no point in having a trial in the first place.

In any case denying his guilt at this point is a purely academic matter. He has been brought to trial and been found guilty. That is the fact - whether you agree with it or not. Personally I would suggest refraining, perhaps, from making sweeping statements about a trial at which you were not present at or involved in - for more than reading about it in newspapers or websites as the rest of us.

I know, I merely stated my opinion on the matter and my reasoning behind it.

I appreciate that, however, I must say that I'm not sure your argument stands up against a closer examination of the British legal system.

 

[medv4380]

I thought we lived in a world where you're innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.

Check your "World" coordinates again. The US and UK are Innocent util proven guilty in a court of law. This article is about the verdict on 12 counts so his Guilt is not a moot point unless he appeals. So by US, and UK standards he's been found guilty. His presumption of innocence is gone know via due process.

Significant portions of the world are actually Guilty until proven innocent. Mexico is a large one. Most countries that have a presumption of innocence don't have the rights that go with that. For example, France allows for lengthy detainment without charges were we only allow for 24 hours. Italy had an Inquisitorial, legal term for guilty til proven innocent, util 1988, and is probably why they still look like a corrupt inquisitional system. Heck, the US usually uses Inquisitorial systems for processing traffic tickets.

Pure Inquisitorial, or Adversarial systems don't exist, but to claim that the whole world follows an "Innocent until proven guilty" mentality is naive. And no one has a "they're still considered innocent after the verdict" naivety.

 

[black_knight1337]

You're mistaking, I think, a lack of physical evidence with a lack of evidence. Evidence is simply any information given to the court (by whatever means) that is relevant to the case. Physical evidence is usually brought forward (as I think you know) in terms of DNA, fingerprints, video, paper or electronic documentation etc. Physical evidence is often more conclusive of either guilt or innocence - but a trial, and the verdict reached after, is still perfectly valid without it.

By evidence I'm meaning anything beyond the accusations of the 'victims' and their families. No-one could confirm any of the events that were supposed to have happened. Even though many of them were in public places with plenty of people around.

All I'm trying to say is that I, personally, don't think it's right for someone to end up being convicted on a handful of accusations. And as I said before, it's what I feel is a problem with the system as a whole.

What about the evidence of the 10 or so different women who testified to the court that Harris had assaulted them? Does that not count? I suppose you could claim that they made it all up, but if that was the case you'd think the defence would've been able to build a stronger case. You've also got to ask the question of why that many different people would all decide to lie about something like that, and maintain the lie all the way to court.

Personally, I don't think accusations should count as evidence. Especially when they raise questions on their legitimacy.

 

[asinann]

Your actually wrong on that last point. The majority of convicted paedophiles aren't actually paedophiles. They are in fact opportunistic rapists who targeted a child because they where easy to control and manipulate.

Most pedos I've seen are actually mentally challenged in some major way (I mean actual diagnosed problems that cause them to not understand, like Downs syndrome.)

 

[Mr_Spanky]

You're mistaking, I think, a lack of physical evidence with a lack of evidence. Evidence is simply any information given to the court (by whatever means) that is relevant to the case. Physical evidence is usually brought forward (as I think you know) in terms of DNA, fingerprints, video, paper or electronic documentation etc. Physical evidence is often more conclusive of either guilt or innocence - but a trial, and the verdict reached after, is still perfectly valid without it.

By evidence I'm meaning anything beyond the accusations of the 'victims' and their families. No-one could confirm any of the events that were supposed to have happened. Even though many of them were in public places with plenty of people around.

All I'm trying to say is that I, personally, don't think it's right for someone to end up being convicted on a handful of accusations. And as I said before, it's what I feel is a problem with the system as a whole.

What about the evidence of the 10 or so different women who testified to the court that Harris had assaulted them? Does that not count? I suppose you could claim that they made it all up, but if that was the case you'd think the defence would've been able to build a stronger case. You've also got to ask the question of why that many different people would all decide to lie about something like that, and maintain the lie all the way to court.

Personally, I don't think accusations should count as evidence. Especially when they raise questions on their legitimacy.

To both of these I would say this: when enough testimony is brought by enough people against an individual a pattern tends to emerge. Remember that most (if not all - the only reason I say most is because I do not know for certain) of the people speaking at his trial had no knowledge of each other before the trial. Indeed it is against the law to bring either yourself or anyone that you know is participating in the trial into any form of communication if you know you or they will be brought to testify.

It is very likely (again if not certain because *read above*) that many of the testimonies given shared so many similarities and similar "operating procedures" that it became very difficult to believe in the innocence of the accused. At the very least in this case that is exactly what has occurred. The argument you seem to be using is that it's "their word against his" perhaps forgetting or neglecting to think about the fact that there many a great many accusations and a great number of testimonies from people that did not know each other even a little. Once you've heard maybe a dozen or so of these it stops becoming so hard to believe as you seem to think.

The prosecution must prove to the jury "beyond all reasonable doubt" that the evidence convicts the accused. And they did - from the testimony of (I don't know how many but let's say at least 20-30).

In any case I sense I'm not going to convince you - although I believe you are speaking against both logic and common sense. As I said before - it is academic now anyway.

Feel free to protest against the current legal system in Britain if you like - but remember perhaps something that I believe Winston Churchill said: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried". Replace "democracy" with "legal system of your choice" and "government" with "law" and I think you'll see what I'm trying to get at.

I still think hes a great artist.

Its a real shame he couldn't keep it in his pants. But then boys will be boys.

No they won't and they fucking well shouldn't. If that phrase means what I think it means it is, quite simply, one of the most odious and unpleasant indictments of the entire male species that I have ever heard and I utterly refute it with every molecule of my blood, body and soul.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

The song 'Tie me Kangaroo Down, Sport' suddenly has sinister conontations that I never noticed before.

 

[V4Viewtiful]

Ugh, life is cruel. All the good he has done is wasted. I hope his victims grew past or can get past this ordeal, apparently more women are surfacing.

I was... in a way I still am such a fan :/

It makes you wonder "who else?" I know there was a time promoters agents and stuff brought in younger girls for men for decades (arguably hundreds of years) but during the last century who else took advantage of underaged children?

Anyway maybe cases like these will show people who are abused that something will be done (and stop the liars from ruining mens lives).

 

[Briantb]

Not sure how he ended up being guilty. Can't see why seemingly baseless claims are actually holding any weight. Especially when several of the cases were supposedly in public in front of dozens of people and yet no witnesses came forward.

His daughter corroborated some aspects of the evidence, there was also a contemporary written diary by one of the victims. Harris lied in when giving evidence by saying he hadn't been to Cambridge when there the TV of recording of him being in Cambridge at the time. In short the jury did not believe a word Harris said in his defence and even his own daughter thinks he did it.

Still seems like a lot of the evidence is shaky or hear say at the least.

 

[Albino Boo]

Not sure how he ended up being guilty. Can't see why seemingly baseless claims are actually holding any weight. Especially when several of the cases were supposedly in public in front of dozens of people and yet no witnesses came forward.

His daughter corroborated some aspects of the evidence, there was also a contemporary written diary by one of the victims. Harris lied in when giving evidence by saying he hadn't been to Cambridge when there the TV of recording of him being in Cambridge at the time. In short the jury did not believe a word Harris said in his defence and even his own daughter thinks he did it.

Still seems like a lot of the evidence is shaky or hear say at the least.

Thats your opinion but your, or my opinion, does not matter, the only ones that count is the opinions of the jurors. They are the ones who sat in court all day and heard the all the witness testimony. Its their task to weigh all the evidence not just the edited highlights that appears in on tv and newspapers.

 

[Elaine]

It's terribly sad, for those concerned. But there were many signs that seemed to be based on seemingly innocent insider-jokes, like Jake the Peg with his 'extra leg'; little boys with little toys etc etc.


Please read this articles about Monsters, and their "third leg" see link below):

https://theconversation.com/dreamings-and-place-aboriginal-monsters-and-their-meanings-25606


It's a great irony that Harris launched his defence with a performance of Jake the Peg...