"Rolf Harris Why I Believe He Is Innocent" by John Marsh. On Amazon Kindle
This is my attempt to stand up against the madness. Everything I have written is from the media reports. So nothing new in that sense, but clearly in these particular trials it is not hard to challenge the case, because it is so obvious. But some of those general old cases are real tricky. And that is was is tragic. In RH's case easier than the DLT and the reporter witness at his house because that is a clear case of 1. His word against her word 2. because of 1. ...beyond reasonable doubt can not be proved with the exception of a UK court. But for the last thinking people in the UK it can not.

Rolf is guilty of nothing more than upsetting his daughters friend by dumping her for hos wife and family.

beyond reasonble doubt does not exist in our courts any more the term now the judge will ask the jury is "so you are sure"
In a jury mind doubt is, yes i have doubt is far more plausable than , am I sure ?

must get it- should be a fascinating read.

hedda wrote:
must get it- should be a fascinating read.

Let's hope its better written than the posting (which is barely coherent).

Re:Rolf Harris Why I Believe He Is Innocent 9 Hours, 27 Minutes ago
hedda wrote:
must get it- should be a fascinating read.

Let's hope its better written than the posting (which is barely coherent).

ITK - Thanks, I am very glad you have taken time to read my postings. Much appreciated. At least I am not ignored even by ITK. Have a good one as they say. John

John Marsh wrote:

ITK - Thanks, I am very glad you have taken time to read my postings. Much appreciated. At least I am not ignored even by ITK. Have a good one as they say. John

Never ignore anyone - you never know what you may learn !

well I understood what you were saying but you must forgive ITK. The thought of a pending Labour government is doing his head in.
But we still adore him and indulge him with his posts.

(he is also from a once venerable family who sadly married into trade and thus brought about their own downfall. We never let him forget it)

hedda wrote:

(he is also from a once venerable family who sadly married into trade and thus brought about their own downfall. We never let him forget it)

at least I know where my ancestors came from (and didn't have to be sent to "down under") LOL

Just discovered something about the family tree, hedda, which has left me in shock (and NO I'm not going to tell you what / who it is LOL !)

any relatives I have in Oz (few) arrived of their own free will.

they didn't marry into trade either.

I am not related to White Dee. other relatives are incredibly grand and have not polluted the tree by associating with corner shop Tories.

On the whole, they are Champagne Socialists and wish only for their fellow citizens to drink the stuff as well. But given half the proles are Lager Louts it just leaves more bubbly for the likes of me.

I do hope the outrageously dogmatic and blinkered prosecuting barrister from Rolf's case is watching the Pistorius judge at the moment. Whereas one misremembered detail by Rolf was deemed sufficient to brand him definitively as a liar and pervert in any and every possible situation, Pistorius is acknowledged to have lied repeatedly, contradicted himself on multiple occasions and evaded clear answers, without those facts being treated in themselves as 'proof' that he therefore deliberately killed someone. Rather than judging the person, the judge is judging the case. What a contrast.

Watch the judge's summing up in the Pistorious case it's clear she is sticking to the law no matter how unpalatable that may be.

It makes me re-think the whole idea of a jury who could be made of sane. insane, vindictive, nice , nasty etc people