Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Rolf. Is this true ?
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
'M' |
Jo, I found this a little bit of a strange read, maybe it's me but I felt like it was a non story just made up to fill a page and use the word Paedophile a few times although I must admit that word is fading a little now.
I would like to see Rolf prove his innocence I think he was an over friendly man and easy targets, but not in the second trial as things have changed |
|
Jo |
False alarm apparently.
"I'm sure this is an old story, re-hashed to make their advertizers money when they get 'hits' online. I've written to someone who will know for sure and will let folks know when I hear. The phone call is the Tonya Lee story, which was up for Appeal in '17."
twitter.com/LizzieCornish/status/1120060757989908481?p=v
"Had it verified. It's an old story re the Appeal from 2017. Probably re-hashed purely for 'click-bait'. I think any vile story on Rolf brings them in ££s from advertizers. They shouldn't be allowed 2do this. The way they write about him....just stirring up hatred, yet again…"
twitter.com/LizzieCornish/status/1120219130559332353?p=v |
|
Jo |
I hope it is true, but don't hold out much hope, since the source is the Daily Star. They could have learned from the post pinned to the top of the Support Justice for Rolf Harris Facebook page that he'd been using that PI for the past four years. The rest could be invention.
I don't understand why they're calling that woman a victim either, since he wasn't convicted of her allegations. She was also quoted recently by the Mirror over the story of him being on school premises (source).
The tweeting of his name in that way was grossly prejudicial, IMO. A fishing expedition dropping hints that genuine victims of crime wouldn't need. |
|
Sheba Bear |
Do some people not understand what NOT GUILTY means? Why is the Daily Mail giving this woman the time of day when he was found not guilty of assaulting her?
I do wish the tabloids would stop trotting out the line about 'sexual attacks on young girls'. There were no young girls. None at all. His conviction for assaulting the liar who claimed that he abused her at a community hall when she was seven or thereabouts was overturned in 2017.
Hence he is not the paedophile that the Daily Mail claims he is. I see that so far there is only one (negative) comment - usual for the Mail when they don't want any supportive-of-RH comments.
And one might ask to what extent, if any, the tweeting of his name at an early stage in the investigation prejudiced his trial. |
|
'M' |
Is this true? I hope so and it turns out they lied and who helped the lies, police, cps, ex cop?
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6944227...tims-clear-name.html |
|
|
|
