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

New Posts

And then there are the people like this young woman that RH groped … in front of other people.

Ms Marwick told Radio 6PR that Mr Harris grabbed her breast while posing for a photo after an interview in 2001.
She said it “wasn’t just an accidental bump or bush”.

Ms Marwick said the idea of her “childhood idol” changed on that day in 2001 but she never spoke about what she described as the story “she never wanted to tell”.
“I was deeply mortified and embarrassed,” she said.

She said in addition to her embarrassment she was concerned about upsetting Mr Harris’ family.
Ms Marwick said she put it down to “inappropriate behaviour by a grubby old man”.
She said if she knew it was more than that she would have taken action.
“Had I realised that there were allegedly people of very tender years involved I would have done something about that.”

http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/r...-radio-host-20140526-zro4t.html#ixzz35VoQl4QU
Click to expand...
 
"Allegedly" groped.

And did any of those other people come forward? I would hope at least one was produced. There were other women claiming to be groped in front of others, who don't quite add up:

That woman in NZ was SO upset and her daughter was SO traumatised by Rolf's behaviiour that they queued for their pictures that were taken with Rolf. And after this alleged incident, they went home and hung a signed picture by Rolf on the daughter's bedroom door.

So how do those pieces of information change the way that 'witness statement' is seen?

How do they fit into the 'pattern of behaviour', with those details in mind?

With so many of the accusers having gigantic holes in their stories in this case, I am left to wonder whether this 'pattern of behaviour' was not helped along a good deal by Yewtree cherry picking stories to fit, no matter how thin or flawed they are.

Because really, how do we otherwise account for the holes, and there's some really large ones here, and yet Yewtree still chose to put these people on the stand?

Cumulative mud, I think.
 
Supernovae said:
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.
Click to expand...


Of course I cannot and do not argue with this, at all.

But a boob-grope thirty years ago cannot carry the same weight as a boob grope yesterday - because the social context is completely different. The era of Benny Hill and derogatory comments about race and homosexuality every day on TV, in which it was perfectly okay for men to be a little 'handsy' is not the same as the very hands-off awareness we have now.

The boob gropers of thirty years ago were not just left to it, they were *encouraged* by the prevailing culture. If your bum was patted, or someone's dad commented on how your *advertiser censored* have grown, it wasn't anything to blink at. It just was not.

And I think, given this context, a boob-grope from thirty, forty years ago cannot convincingly carry the same level of weight as say, an actual rape.

And if Yewtree is bent on prosecuting every British man who ever groped a boob in the 60's and 70's... well, they'd perhaps they'd better reintroduce the convict ships, cause they're going to run out of prison room real fast.
 
The jury still has yet to reach a verdict and I don't think they will until the judge issues a majority direction. After that things could move quickly.
 
Here they are:

1) can we discuss the legal directions given, as there seems some confusion. A juror is making behavioural assumptions which is taken into account as evidence on many counts?

2) we are to judge each count independently, please clarify?

3) is it allowed to stereotype what the victim should have done prior to an alleged offence taking place in more than one count and using it against them?

4) as opposed to using patterns within counts to help an outcome of one count, surely it is non advisable to take evidence from one count in the future to judge the count in the here and now, NB counts three to nine, please clarify?

5) can the voracity of a witness statement in one count be taken into account when judging the voracity of a witness statement in another count?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/rolf-harris-trial-recap-updates-3766860#ixzz35o11GgTz


This is really interesting.
 

Harris jury in 8th day of deliberations

The jury in the Rolf Harris trial has started an eighth day of deliberations in London as the entertainer's senior defence barrister reappeared in court after being hospitalised almost three weeks ago.

Jurors have been considering their verdicts in the complex child sex abuse case for 34 hours in total.

As they returned to Southwark Crown Court on Monday morning, Justice Nigel Sweeney told them there was good news with Harris's senior lawyer, Sonia Woodley QC, back from illness.

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/worl...ay-of-deliberations.html#sthash.PyyWcxtM.dpuf
 
I'm surprised, I expected a mixed verdict given the evidence which has been reported in the media. Obviously the jury had the complete picture though, so I'm not criticising the verdict.

Sympathy to all the people who were victimised by this man. I understand he's been bailed till Friday when he'll be sentenced. I wonder what kind of sentence he'll get?
 
After the last questions from the jury I guessed that one juror was not in agreement with the others.
I could only think that most of them thought he was either innocent or most thought he was guilty.
My thought was it was more likely that most thought he was guilty so I was expecting this to be the verdict.


My sympathies to all the victims as well.
I also feel sympathy for his family.
Disappointed in him, he's not the person I thought he was, I was a big fan :(
 
Several unnamed women who alleged assaults were not called.

'Miss F wrote a newspaper article in 2012 about being groped by a “household name” – though she didn’t name him.
She said they were live on air with two TV cameras trained on them, when she felt his hand “inching under my bottom and worming its way beneath my skirt” until his fingers were “grasping at the elastic of my panties”.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/rolf-ha...-alleged-grope-on-live-tv-20140701-zsrjc.html

'the time I was groped on live TV....Suddenly, I felt his hand inching under my bottom and worming its way beneath my skirt. Shocked doesn't even begin to describe my emotions. What on earth was this married, avuncular, much-beloved national treasure thinking of?'

http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/vanessa-feltz/351029/The-time-I-was-groped-on-live-TV
 
Really seems like there was a pattern. He seemed to get a thrill out of people being nearby.

'While they were at the pub, Harris told Tonya to come and sit on his lap. When she did, he abused her under the table, all the while acting as if nothing was happening.'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ctims-the-stories-behind-the-convictions.html

I think the assault with his daughter sleeping in the same room follows that pattern too.
 
Wow .. guilty on all charges, I expected a mixed verdict too. All these stories are so similar to each other and completely agree that he seems to have got a bit of a thrill out of doing this when other people were around. I was watching some findings from the royal commission on sexual abuse last night and they said in average it takes 22 years for a victim to come forward and there is a longer report coming on what road blocks there are, both psychological and external which stop victims reporting .. it's a shame that it took so long for RH to be called to task for his actions IMO, it's just foul to use such young girls as objects for his own sexual gratification in the way he did.
 
This is just wrong. All 12, seriously wrong.

Now, there doesn't even need to be the barest shred of proof to show an alleged event even happened. An accusation alone is apparently enough, if it sounds vaguely like other accusations.

Now, flubbed details and changing stories = no doubt of veracity.

I was expecting guilty on the BF charges, I really was. But Leigh Park?

I don't like the precedent this case is setting.

I have little doubt Rolf behaved inappropriately with at least some of the women who came forward (and what a pity those ones were not on the stand). I am very glad for their sake that they can percieve justice is done.

But with the cases presented -- this verdict is IMO just wrong.
 
I was surprised he was found guilty of all the charges.
But there is also alot being daid about others who where
Not included in this case who had also similar stories.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 179 more.
Total: 4,571 (members: 180, guests: 4,391)

Online statistics

Members online
180
Guests online
4,392
Total visitors
4,572
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,464
Messages
17,969,326
Members
228,774
Latest member
truecrime-hazeleyes
Back
Top