There is rarely if ever any evidence in sex cases. Just one person's word against another's.
Media covers the great story ("God it was awful") and is bored by the defence ("I didn't do it").
Likewise jurors, who are also suffocated by boredom as the language of Archbold rumbles tediously on.
I - like everyone (including the jurors) - have no idea whether Rolf, Stuart Hall or anyone else is guilty.
They should be presumed innocent.
These days, of course, they are not. Judges can prattle on but defendants are considered guilty (often after they are found to be innocent).
How can you prove a negative - that you didn't do something? The answer, of course, is you can't.
As I discovered 14 years ago.
These trials are a gross misuse of public funds and of time wasted by police and CPS which could be far better used elsewhere.
They are also cruel and abusive treatment of human beings, whether or not the offences were committed.
You don't right one wrong by committing another.
Society should be ashamed of itself and Government should put a stop to this immediately.

the Blackmailer's Charter in force now and just accepted.

What happened to the "indecent images" that were earlier reported but seem to have vanished since the trial started?

Also. If you are "abused" at aged 13 why do you continue a relationship with your "abuser" till your 29!

answers on a dirty seaside postcard please.

I do agree. From what I've read so far of this case it's astonishing it even got to court, but the coverage has been hopeless.

I'm getting strong vibes that the majority of the great British public are sick and tired of hearing about these cases. Whether true or false, they simply don't want to read or hear about it anymore.

Rigsby wrote:
What happened to the "indecent images" that were earlier reported but seem to have vanished since the trial started?

Also. If you are "abused" at aged 13 why do you continue a relationship with your "abuser" till your 29!

answers on a dirty seaside postcard please.

I gather the four pics were amongst 100s of legal porn photos and it is difficult to tell the ages- which means they could be just over or under 18 years of age.

But it looks good for the CPS doesn't it..a damning "child porn" bust to ramp up the other charges. Guarantee the charge is dropped.

what concern's me is the notion that so many of the mindless moronic public accept via media pressure : they have a "right to know" or that it's in "the public interest" which is not the same as fevered lurid media headlines ala Freddie Starr.

It might be worthwhile bearing this commentary in mind whilst reading or watching media coverage of the case.

www.kingofhits.co.uk/index.php/Attitudes...be-believed-NOT.html

Snippets from today's cross examination. What a farce that this sad person has been indulged.



Tonya Lee is back on the stand, and being cross-examined by Harris' defence barrister.

She claims Harris groped her in a busy London pub in 1986 when she was 15.

She is being asked about a magazine interview she gave in Australia about her ordeal. The witness denies it was "spiced up".

She's asked why she called Australia's Daily Telegraph instead of the police. The defence says the paper is "akin to the Daily Mirror".

Ms Lee says contacting the Met Police is almost like a "mythical thing" and she couldn't just get the number from the phone book.



The defence asks Ms Lee why she lied to police about being in a car accident on the day she was supposed to go in for interview. She denies this.

The witness is asked about her debts, and owing $10,000 to the tax man.

The defence says: "You were hoping to make some money by selling your story."

Ms Lee denies wanting to sell her story to ease money worries and making up parts of her account when speaking to media.



The defence uses an itinerary from the theatre group's 1986 tour to prove the group did not meet Harris at the pub until the end of the six-week trip.

Ms Lee claimed it happened at the start.

The witness claimed yesterday she lost 6 kilos during the tour after the incident with Harris. She now changes her story, saying her weight loss was due to being away from home.

She also blamed an eating disorder on the alleged assault by Harris.

She now says: "Obviously I can't blame Rolf Harris because it happened at the end of the tour."



Yesterday Ms Lee claimed she gave up on acting after the alleged assault. The defence shows the jury an article about Ms Lee landing a part in a TV show.

No Pru - it's WONDERFUL this delightful and typical witness is being indulged; she is exactly the kind of person to convince every juror in every other case, as well as this one, that many allegations are false or inflated for various reasons. And she sounds like precisely the kind of person who damages the truly abused women and men who will now never be believed when they seek justice for being truly and honestly abused.

I suspect Hedda will have a lot more to say about her and her "bravely waived anonymity".

Even the tabloids may be starting to blush. If they ever do.

JK2006 wrote:
No Pru - it's WONDERFUL this delightful and typical witness is being indulged; she is exactly the kind of person to convince every juror in every other case, as well as this one, that many allegations are false or inflated for various reasons. And she sounds like precisely the kind of person who damages the truly abused women and men who will now never be believed when they seek justice for being truly and honestly abused.

I suspect Hedda will have a lot more to say about her and her "bravely waived anonymity".

Even the tabloids may be starting to blush. If they ever do.

Good point, yes. Poor old Rolf, though.

I do hope the defence lawyers read these posts and the ones on the other thread, where Hedda links to a very useful article that should be read out to the jury.