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.
|
Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Rolf News
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
Jo |
In The Know wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
The thing is, this lorry driver who gave evidence might have never been in the army, and never left the country as he claimed, but if those things had been true, he STILL could have made it all up, and presumably the conviction have remained?
Quite likely ... but as the Jury was convinced of his guilt on ALL the other charges, it was more than likely he was guilty of this one too.
Thats simply logic, isn't it?
Moral - Don't be dodgy (otherwise people will assume you are always dodgy).
Barrister Matthew Scott:
The jury system, indeed much of the legal system, is based on the – I was going to say “premise” but I think I’ll go instead with “comforting hooey,” that jurors (and judges and magistrates too) are able safely to determine who is telling the truth merely by looking and listening. Juries are assumed to be shrewd enough to pick up on an inconsistency here, a suspicious evasion there, a significant mistake somewhere else; they are even entitled, if they like, to take into account the “demeanour” of a witness, whatever that may be (“he looked thoroughly shifty .. her tears looked genuine”). In a multi-complainant case, the assumption is, they can stir up all the allegations to reach a safe conclusion: they are asked to return separate verdicts on each count, but are often entitled, as here, to consider the evidence from one complainant as supporting that of others.
Don’t worry about liars and fantasists, the British (or strictly English and Welsh) justice system is the best in the world and if you’re not telling the truth the jury will find you out.
Assuming that juries are generally able to sniff out a liar is a comforting myth, but even if it is true the fact is that this particular jury wasn’t much good at it. It was bamboozled by the evidence of WR and David James. Moreover, the standard of proof being what it is, we can say that the jury was not just inclined to believe them; it must have been “sure” that the pair were accurate. They may well have been fantasists or mistaken rather than liars, but the fact is that every member of the jury swallowed their untrue evidence without reservation. However good juries might generally be at teasing out fact from fiction, it is inescapable that this particular jury proved itself unable to do just that, at least on this part of the case.
Just as importantly, the jury must also have decided that when Harris said in evidence that he had never been to Leigh Park during the relevant years he was lying, even though we now know that he was telling the truth.
The entire blog post is worth a read: barristerblogger.com/2017/11/19/rolf-harris-given-retrial/ |
|
Randall |
JK2006 wrote:
5000 quid each to my 5 false accusers was the going rate 17 years ago
As a budget for... making sure witnesses are *ahem* indisposed due to an accident and can't attend trial (permanently), 25k is very generous. It compares well to what you're reported to have spent on your defence playing by the rules.
If men don't start getting a fair shake, more and more will make the rational choice and circumvent whatever it is that's masquerading as rule of law. If one of my loved ones were accused, I would certainly ensure that there could not be a trial. |
|
Randall |
Jo wrote:
'Youngest victim' of Rolf Harris may have to pay him back £22,000 in compensation after his conviction for groping her is overturned on appeal
Ok now I'm confused. I thought the quashed conviction was the Cambridge one. How the tapdancing fuck... was that one allowed to stand, given the judges comments and the change in almost every element of the accusation??? |
|
Jo |
'Youngest victim' of Rolf Harris may have to pay him back £22,000 in compensation after his conviction for groping her is overturned on appeal |
|
JK2006 |
5000 quid each to my 5 false accusers was the going rate 17 years ago; I turned it down without a pause. All statements would have been withdrawn and claims dropped. In the end my main (7 years) false accuser made 80,000 thanks to media. Sold his story to The People and The Sun for 50,000, bought a house, sold it for 80,000. Spent it all on heroin. Isn't British Justice grand? |
|
|
|
|
