A juries verdict is a juries verdict as it is the system we live by but does anyone else feel uneasy about the way things have turned out?

http://www.libertarianview.co.uk/curren ... able-doubt

One allegation of "inappropriate touching" in 1969 based on the recollections of an 8 year old which would've taken place in front of dozens if not hundreds of people.
One allegation of touching where the accuser appears to be confused as to whether she was 13 or 17 at the time.
3 counts of touching where the accuser has sold her story for £33,000 and has demonstrable inconsistencies in her statement.
7 counts relating to a woman he had a 14 year relationship with (from the age of 18) that ended acrimoniously.

British Juries have got it wrong before and it could be that letter he sent to the girls father which convicted him. The jury would have seen that as a tacit admittance of a relationship with the girl taken the view well it did start prior to her becoming 16 and then convicted him on the other counts as collateral.

To be honest unless the case is not as the BBC and others are reporting it and there is a smoking gun we are not yet aware of I cannot see this conviction standing the tests at the Court of Appeal. There is a reason the appeal court is heard before three judges and not a jury......

Now Harris may have been a bit of a sex pest but that it still quite some way from being a paedophile sexual predator.....

Saville I think is also a case where a mountain is being made of a molehill. I have no doubt he was also a sex pest but then so were pretty much all male (and in some cases female) figures back then.

Ask yourselves. Saville touching a girls bum. Yes it was probably against the law at the time but so was common assault it went on in our schools every day and I am sure most here will remember being whacked with javelins/training shoes/the cane or having blackboard erasers thrown at them.

Where on earth is all this going to end?

Saville I think is a diversion and the attention is it being given with statements in the HOC promising taxpayers funds for compo ect is to draw attention away from where they do not want the press looking.

The Westminster dossier..............

When you put Harris's case that way with seemingly unreliable witnesses it does sound like a witch hunt. I haven't been following it but has he said anything in his defence ?

_________________
Lets be careful out there !

Was there more than 'Two little Boys' who had their didgurydo? played with, talk about in your face, and the public bought it. Watch out Chuck Berry.

Reading the linked article, I feel uneasy that the writer thinks that events of so long ago could not be remembered accurately and uses the example that he cannot remember the name of his teacher and also how he was hurt, leaving a scar. Speaking from experience, traumatic experiences are like unhealed wounds and go on hurting, whether over 50 years ago or yesterday. The memories remain clear
because they are never forgotten and scar someone for life.
In some cases, you couldn't make it up but, without knowing all the details which were heard at the Rolf Harris trial, it is hard to decide whether it all adds up or not.
It is a pity that compensation claims throw suspicion into the arena of whether people are telling the truth or not.

Do you know who has written the article, Geezer? Thanks.

This chap I think. I don't know him

https://plus.google.com/+JamesRothbard/posts

I only linked it as I thought it put the 'problems' with the evidence very well. The writer is clearly Libertarian in his views but we shouldn't hold that against him.

Here is another blogsite which has gone into detail on the NHS report and allegations against Saville. It would appear the narrative being portrayed in the press and the truth of the matter are some way apart.

http://annaraccoon.com/2014/04/29/exclu ... -part-one/

British Juries have been known to get it wrong before, indeed innocent people have been hung because of it.

I have read elsewhere that the jury asked shortly after they went out whether a unanimous verdict was needed, which strongly suggests at least one member was unconvinced. They also asked other questions of the judge that has led to some commentators asking as to whether they were indeed fit for purpose.

A case in point as to why we have the appeal court..

This one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Thom ... k_Bywaters

Edith Thompson was more or less hung for admitting she had an affair with Bywaters. There was no evidence she had colluded in her husbands murder.

My impression of the trial as it proceeded was that there was no real evidence against Harris - but the article linked crystallised things entirely. He is going to jail for the fact that the jury morally disapproved of his (non-criminal) behaviour.

It is the latest in a line of miscarriages of justice - and funnily enough South Wales Police who fitted up the Lynette White Three (Cardiff prostitute murder) have today been totally absolved of any serious misconduct.

This case is like the Cardiff Three, the Birmingham 6, the guy who was put inside for Jill Dando's murder and on and.

Prison Officer - ''look on the bright side Rolf, you've got four big murals to get started on !''

Whilst I accept that this forum is here for people to express their views, I do get a bit flabbergasted when some seem to either know so much, or make such strong judgements from a few internet based words.

This trial was nearly two years in the making. It lasted for a month in which time tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of words of written words plus photographic and spoken evidence would have been heard. The jury would have heard every single syllable, every word and selected written evidence. We, the general public (and those who write these articles) only ever hear a tiny percentage of what was said. Then the jury considered the evidence for nearly two weeks - that is a very long time for a jury to be out.

I am not a legal expert, but I was recently a member of a jury on a sexual offence case

So to doubt a jury's decision based on the say so of a journalist or blogger is a bit weak

I am honestly gutted about the conviction as there are few celebs that hold (IMHO) such a warm and likable public persona. But its official, he is a paedophile and that is fact - whether we like it or not.

I believe he is sentenced tomorrow. Another chance for the armchair legal and moral experts to throw more stones perhaps

We were all discussing this at a family get together this evening, and my two brothers are very unconvinced of Harris's guilt.

I have to say, the daughter's best friend's case seems very odd to me. She claims she was terrified of Harris, so terrified she turned to drink and had to take a bottle of gin with her when she went for sleepovers.

WHAT?!????!??????? That doesn't make any sense. Why would she ever go back to Harris's house for sleepovers if he'd done what she claims and if she was terrified of him????? And then, why have an affair lasting several years with a man she claims was a monster she was afraid of as a child. That just doesn't add up at all.

I hear what you're saying about juries etc SOT, but forums do indeed exist (as you concede) for people to talk about these things and say what they think. And to a very large extent, I think court cases often turn on which side has the cleverest barrister.

This is what makes the verdict so difficult to understand. The link quoted in the first post may be an internet bloggers take on the proceedings but seems to be inline with the evidence reported BBC and in the daily press.

Is there some smoking gun we are not aware of?

As I also pointed out in post 1 juries have got it wrong before.

Unless there is that smoking gun then it would appear the jury has ruled on the verbal evidence of the witnesses. Evidence which has no independent corroboration and evidence which may well have been tainted with the prospect of a compensation payment. It wouldn't be the first time.

It would appear the bidding process has already started...... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28140334



Then there is the Australian Tonya Lee who had already sold her story for £30,000 to the Aus press. Of course that could never have tainted her verbal evidence?

I think what might be interesting is when the 'victims' go in search of compensation as they will have to drop their anonymity in a civil court and may find the press suddenly turn unsympathetic when they pull their private lives to pieces. It would be highly embarrassing for Yewtree if the criminal case end in conviction and any civil claims with their lower levels of proof get bounced out of court or are awarded derisory damages

Almost 6 years inside, so out in 3 with his reputation in tatters

_________________
Lets be careful out there !