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 Harris: will he ever clear his name?
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
honey!oh sugar sugar. |
PaulB wrote:
robbiex wrote:
She kept her compensation because there is no indication that she was lying, only that the eyewitness was lying, and therefore the conviction was unsafe, rather than completely false. We can't have a law whereby if the case can't be proven 100% then you are found guilty of a false allegation, otherwise no one would ever report a crime. The police are at fault again for not checking out the eyewitness, wasting £1000s on court costs, not to mention putting someone away falsely for several months.
Maybe there's an argument for freezing any compensation payouts, in all legal cases, until all the stages of appeal have been exhausted.
I am not sure. I hate the thought of someone afraid to spend their money in case they have to pay it back, and if new evidence turns up, the appeal could be twenty years later, couldn't it? |
|
PaulB |
robbiex wrote:
She kept her compensation because there is no indication that she was lying, only that the eyewitness was lying, and therefore the conviction was unsafe, rather than completely false. We can't have a law whereby if the case can't be proven 100% then you are found guilty of a false allegation, otherwise no one would ever report a crime. The police are at fault again for not checking out the eyewitness, wasting £1000s on court costs, not to mention putting someone away falsely for several months.
Maybe there's an argument for freezing any compensation payouts, in all legal cases, until all the stages of appeal have been exhausted. |
|
Jo |
I can't understand why the fact that no-one, including the police, could find evidence that he attended the venue wasn't sufficient proof that she was lying.
There are several references to that lack of evidence in the appeal judgment (www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/e...1849.html&query=(%22rolf+harris%22)). |
|
honey!oh sugar sugar. |
robbiex wrote:
She kept her compensation because there is no indication that she was lying, only that the eyewitness was lying, and therefore the conviction was unsafe, rather than completely false. We can't have a law whereby if the case can't be proven 100% then you are found guilty of a false allegation, otherwise no one would ever report a crime. The police are at fault again for not checking out the eyewitness, wasting £1000s on court costs, not to mention putting someone away falsely for several months.
But there was no evidence of the hugely popular chart topping singer with a prime time television programme ever appearing at the very minor community centre, despite notices in the paper and leaflet drops asking for witnesses.
In the unlikely event of the hugely popular chart topping singer with a prime time television programme playing at the tiny community centre, dont you think somebody would have remembered? |
|
robbiex |
She kept her compensation because there is no indication that she was lying, only that the eyewitness was lying, and therefore the conviction was unsafe, rather than completely false. We can't have a law whereby if the case can't be proven 100% then you are found guilty of a false allegation, otherwise no one would ever report a crime. The police are at fault again for not checking out the eyewitness, wasting £1000s on court costs, not to mention putting someone away falsely for several months. |
|
|
|
|
