IMPORTANT NOTE: You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
Topic History of: MWT and the Rolf Harris case Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
Author
Message
Question
Did Mark Williams-Thomas inadvertently tell a claimant (3/12 charges) in the Rolf Harris case about claims from the first and main complainant (7/12 charges), or did this leak out in some other way?
The first complainant went to police in late 2012 and apparently told them that Rolf Harris, amongst other things, groped her intimately when she was 13 as she emerged from the shower, after lurking outside in wait. 13 was the youngest age at which she appears to have alleged he abused her. An old schoolfriend later told the court the claimant had told her he would fondle her on his lap. Presumably the claimant would have told the police this too.
On 29 November 2012, on the day the Leveson report was published, MWT tweeted that Rolf Harris was "currently" being questioned under caution at a police station in connection with "Savile" other "sexual offences", clearly information that could only have come from the police. Disclosure of the name suggested that corroborating claims were sought.
In March 2013, Rolf Harris was arrested and in April 2013, his name was published by The Sun.
A woman in Australia came forward to claim, including in paid media interviews in May 2013, that Rolf Harris had fondled her on his lap when she was 14 and groped her intimately as she emerged from the toilet, after lurking outside in wait.
So the Australian claims backed up the first crucial 13-year-old claims about abuse on lap and after emerging from bathroom.
The Australian woman's paid interviews (TV + magazine):
She also did an interview after the verdict, where she expressed her reaction (e.g. "gobsmacked" "I can't believe it" "just unbelievable" Was there a sense of relief? "haha, that came later")
She obtained a transcript of her testimony after the trial.
After the verdict, MWT gave an interview to Channel 4 where he mentioned that a victim had approached him in early 2013 and he had passed that information to the police. The video is embedded in an article about the Australian woman.
A Telegraph article reads: "Mark Williams-Thomas, the former detective who was contacted by one of the original Harris victims".
The day after the verdict, he was also interviewed on This Morning. The blurb under the video reads that he had been "liaising with the victims of Rolf Harris for many months". His interview with another alleged victim was also broadcast that day. Two days after the verdict he tweeted that other claimants had contacted him. Shortly later, he tweeted a response to another Twitter user that he would "make sure you & the many others I have heard from are able to give evidence".
So which of the "original victims" contacted him and when? Was it the Australian woman with her corroborating story? What did "liaison" involve? The Guardian reported that the "trial rested on what the prosecution argued were significant similarities between many of the assaults, beyond the bounds of probability given all but two of the alleged victims had never talked to each other.
Claimants in other cases have also been contacting MWT. Why do they contact him rather than 101 or Crimestoppers? Are they running their stories past him first?
Max Clifford:
"without her, Clifford might not be in prison. She was the first victim to come forward, approaching me just after the Jimmy Savile scandal broke"
(0:30)
What is his role in this? Does he act as a go-between? If he is in contact with claimants in a case, is there not a risk that information could inadvertently leak from one to the other? Why does a man whose anonymously written IMDb bio, linked on his own website, describes him as "something of a renegade", in The Guardian as having the "air of a maverick" and by his former boss as a "nightmare to manage", seem to be involved so unquestioningly in these cases and be such an accepted part of the process that he shares a TV sofa with the director of public prosecutions?
(Regarding that porn allegation against Rolf Harris, there is apparently an explanation (see all comments from Chr*s Br*sn*n) that would leave any defendant, particularly anyone with a sense of loyalty or concern for other people, completely hamstrung.)
Forums 