Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Rolf Harris indecent assault conviction overturned
Carol Barker
London, United Kingdom
16 NOV 2017 — Though Harris was not in court for the ruling, he said in a statement: "I have said all along that I did not attend and had never attended the location in Portsmouth as this complainant alleged at my first trial.
"I was not believed and she was... I have served a nine-month prison sentence based on her word."
He thanked his legal team, led by Stephen Vullo QC, for "finally" proving his innocence of the alleged crime, which he said was backed up by a "fantasist" claiming to be the sole witness.
He added: "I hope the press supply the facts to the public to let them decide if I am a monster or the subject of a frenzied witch hunt which focused more on grabbing headlines than finding the truth."
Carol Barker
London, United Kingdom
16 NOV 2017 — Though Harris was not in court for the ruling, he said in a statement: "I have said all along that I did not attend and had never attended the location in Portsmouth as this complainant alleged at my first trial.
"I was not believed and she was... I have served a nine-month prison sentence based on her word."
He thanked his legal team, led by Stephen Vullo QC, for "finally" proving his innocence of the alleged crime, which he said was backed up by a "fantasist" claiming to be the sole witness.
He added: "I hope the press supply the facts to the public to let them decide if I am a monster or the subject of a frenzied witch hunt which focused more on grabbing headlines than finding the truth."
Show More
Still guilty of the other 11 indecent assaults. It's almost as if your posts are deliberately trying to mislead people.
Regardless of anything, the recording of the tune Two Little Boys is unforgiveable!
Yes you are correct sd, unfortunately they have refused permission to appeal those.
Announcing their decision on Thursday, Lord Justice Treacy, Mrs Justice McGowan and the Recorder of Preston, Judge Mark Brown, refused to give Harris permission to appeal against the rest of the convictions.
They ruled that "stepping back and looking at the totality of the evidence" on those remaining counts, "we find nothing that causes us to doubt the safety of those convictions".
They ruled that "stepping back and looking at the totality of the evidence" on those remaining counts, "we find nothing that causes us to doubt the safety of those convictions".
What ought to concern us is that the CPS chose to prosecute on this incredibly flimsy evidence. It is worrying that a public body sees racking up convictions as more important than achieving justice.
"What ought to concern us is that the CPS chose to prosecute on this incredibly flimsy evidence."
Why wouldn't they prosecute on the evidence they had? On the "flimsy evidence" they had they got a conviction. Fresh evidence was put forward at the appeal which led to the appeal court to consider the conviction was unsafe.
Why wouldn't they prosecute on the evidence they had? On the "flimsy evidence" they had they got a conviction. Fresh evidence was put forward at the appeal which led to the appeal court to consider the conviction was unsafe.
@Shrewd_dude -- it depends what you think their purpose should be: convictions or justice. There is a perfectly legitimate argument that convictions should be the priority but imo it is wrong. In this case, even at the original trial, there was no evidence Harris was even there (aside from the allegation itself).
So even though there was enough evidence to convince 12 members of a jury beyond reasonable doubt you think the CPS should have just thought "Rolf might say he wasn't there" so lets not bother putting it to a jury at the trial?
You do realise they don't have a crystal ball before a trial starts. They can't fast forward in time to the part at a trial where Rolf gives evidence and says I was never there.
You do realise they don't have a crystal ball before a trial starts. They can't fast forward in time to the part at a trial where Rolf gives evidence and says I was never there.
in any case CPS should be pretty much certain the accused is guilty when they decide to charge them not just do it on the off chance a jury might find them guilty on flimsy or non existent evidence
"in any case CPS should be pretty much certain the accused is guilty when they decide to charge them not just do it on the off chance a jury might find them guilty on flimsy or non existent evidence"
That really is nonsense.
That really is nonsense.
Would Rolf not have stated he was never there in pre trial police statements?
"Would Rolf not have stated he was never there in pre trial police statements?"
Suspects don't give police statements. Witnesses do. He may have been interviewed under caution and if he did he may have or may not have said anything at all.
Suspects don't give police statements. Witnesses do. He may have been interviewed under caution and if he did he may have or may not have said anything at all.
Shrewd_dude 16 Nov 17 17:30
You do realise they don't have a crystal ball before a trial starts. They can't fast forward in time to the part at a trial where Rolf gives evidence and says I was never there.
Sorry for using the wrong word, your above post still looks silly though. You think he never told them before the trial?
You do realise they don't have a crystal ball before a trial starts. They can't fast forward in time to the part at a trial where Rolf gives evidence and says I was never there.
Sorry for using the wrong word, your above post still looks silly though. You think he never told them before the trial?
Any hear would Leave their Kids/Grand kids in the Care of Mr Horris ?? Kenny ?
How does it look silly? At what point would he tell them before the trial? If he was interviewed under caution before a prosecution begun he would have been asked about the allegation. He has a right to silence which he may have used or he may have not. If he chose to answer police questions then he may have simply denied having assaulted anyone or he may have said he was never there.
I don't know and you don't know but you seem to be trying to imply that he did.
I don't know and you don't know but you seem to be trying to imply that he did.
Yeah, never forgive him for his version of 'Stairway to Heaven'. Now he WAS guilty of that!
kenny mann
kenny mann 16 Nov 17 14:13 Joined: 29 Apr 10 | Topic/replies: 35,905 | Blogger: kenny mann's blog
So many liars out there.
Yes, PETA being one such organisation with a history of fabrication. Yet you post their links and lies with frequent regularity.
kenny mann 16 Nov 17 14:13 Joined: 29 Apr 10 | Topic/replies: 35,905 | Blogger: kenny mann's blog
So many liars out there.
Yes, PETA being one such organisation with a history of fabrication. Yet you post their links and lies with frequent regularity.
I have 2 grown up kids.
To my knowledge I haven't posted stuff from Peta, there's a small chance I have if the information needed spreading. Sounds like you're lying like some or all the women did against Rolf. I'm not a great fan of the company. Much prefer compassion In World Farming, that's who I quote from.
To my knowledge I haven't posted stuff from Peta, there's a small chance I have if the information needed spreading. Sounds like you're lying like some or all the women did against Rolf. I'm not a great fan of the company. Much prefer compassion In World Farming, that's who I quote from.
I think on balance he is guilty but this is blurred by people seeing pound signs and jumping on the bandwagon
Guessing is common sense is what you are saying Kenny. You really are a dim one.
Two posts by me deleted very strange,i wonder who got them deleted..
how could they get deletrd when said nothing
how could they get deletrd when said nothing
I fail to see what there is to discuss here. Harris was found guilty of 12 charges one of which was subsequently overturned on appeal. The evidence for the other eleven convictions was reviewed by a panel of senior judges and considered safe. According to the law he is guilty of them.
I fail to see what there is to discuss here. Harris was found guilty of 12 charges one of which was subsequently overturned on appeal. The evidence for the other eleven convictions was reviewed by a panel of senior judges and considered safe. According to the law he is guilty of them.
The appeal court did not review the other eleven convictions in detail -- what it said was that quashing one conviction did not automatically make the other convictions unsafe, so yes, you are right that: According to the law he is guilty of them.
The slightly bizarre finding of the appeal judges was that no-one at the original trial spotted the absurdity of one witness claiming to have been on leave from the Korean War, which was more than a decade earlier.
The appeal court did not review the other eleven convictions in detail -- what it said was that quashing one conviction did not automatically make the other convictions unsafe, so yes, you are right that: According to the law he is guilty of them.
The slightly bizarre finding of the appeal judges was that no-one at the original trial spotted the absurdity of one witness claiming to have been on leave from the Korean War, which was more than a decade earlier.
Ramruna - Have you read this? It is the judgement in full.
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/r-v-rolf-harris-judgment-1.pdf
To save you wading through it all. although you probably should before posting again, here is a relevant extract....
"The issue for us is whether the removal of Count 1 from the picture renders the remaining
convictions unsafe. Our conclusion is that it does not. The primary evidence relating
to GP and JH remained intact, as did the body of bad character evidence. The
subtraction of a single allegation does not in our view have significant impact where
there was abundant remaining evidence".
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/r-v-rolf-harris-judgment-1.pdf
To save you wading through it all. although you probably should before posting again, here is a relevant extract....
"The issue for us is whether the removal of Count 1 from the picture renders the remaining
convictions unsafe. Our conclusion is that it does not. The primary evidence relating
to GP and JH remained intact, as did the body of bad character evidence. The
subtraction of a single allegation does not in our view have significant impact where
there was abundant remaining evidence".
Ramruma - Apologies for misspelling your id. I forgot to add to my post, that you said...
"The slightly bizarre finding of the appeal judges was that no-one at the original trial spotted the absurdity of one witness claiming to have been on leave from the Korean War, which was more than a decade earlier".
Correct, but this is now irrelevant evidence since it only relates to the Count 1 which has now been found to be unsafe. It has no bearing on any of the other convictions.
"The slightly bizarre finding of the appeal judges was that no-one at the original trial spotted the absurdity of one witness claiming to have been on leave from the Korean War, which was more than a decade earlier".
Correct, but this is now irrelevant evidence since it only relates to the Count 1 which has now been found to be unsafe. It has no bearing on any of the other convictions.
Usual suspects defending nonce. Extremely worrying behaviour.
You said "The appeal court did not review the other eleven convictions in detail what it said was that quashing one conviction did not automatically make the other convictions unsafe.......
Your opening sentence seems to be contradicted by the report.
You said "The slightly bizarre finding of the appeal judges was that no-one at the original trial spotted the absurdity of one witness claiming to have been on leave from the Korean War, which was more than a decade earlier".
This point was accepted by the appeal court but is irrelevant to the rest of the offences since it relates to appeal 1 which has been allowed.
Your opening sentence seems to be contradicted by the report.
You said "The slightly bizarre finding of the appeal judges was that no-one at the original trial spotted the absurdity of one witness claiming to have been on leave from the Korean War, which was more than a decade earlier".
This point was accepted by the appeal court but is irrelevant to the rest of the offences since it relates to appeal 1 which has been allowed.
thegigolo - My posts are still on here, not sure which of yours are not.
"Jimmy will be waiting for rolf at the gates of hell...surely this one couldn't get deleted..Wink" Not sure why this would be deleted, unless it is lack of humour and taste.
"Jimmy will be waiting for rolf at the gates of hell...surely this one couldn't get deleted..Wink" Not sure why this would be deleted, unless it is lack of humour and taste.
A few of my posts have been deleted as well. One which only described what he was convicted of and why that might make some people construe him as a diddler of kids.
Rolf molested me on a chilly day around the tome of the Moon landings.
.
.
I always thought he was guilty...........I just had dificulty believing in the one who went on to have a relationship with him after the supposed crime....that's just crazy
wonder where that painting of the queen is now..............I felt sorry for one woman who bought a load of his art work.....some expert told her they were worthless now........she had spent a shedful of money on them
wonder where that painting of the queen is now..............I felt sorry for one woman who bought a load of his art work.....some expert told her they were worthless now........she had spent a shedful of money on them
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539