I stopped reading the Narcissists tweets many month ago now due to seeing what type of person he is.
He is someone who looks at child abuse images when he should be arrested for that.
he set up the attempt to meet arrests of many tens of men.
He had a twitter account RONALDTHEDOG he used to find out who people were going up against him in twitter.
The man will have a mighty downfall.
This person was the main indirect link between police and media for the Sir cliff raid filming.

Money Money Money

Jo, here is the entire transcript of Caroline's interview, which has, as you say, now been removed from Youtube. It was put there in May 2012, I believe, one year prior to Tonya Lee's story coming out, which was put on Youtube in May 2013. This too has now been removed in UK, but is still available in Australia I believe.

The transcripts of Tonya's interviews, pre and post trial, and her magazine interview are also on here in the 'comments' section, just scroll down to find the. (with thanks to the very kind folks who helped me with these transcripts.)

www.facebook.com/SupportJusticeForRolfHa.../?type=3&theater

Kindest wishes
Lizzie

Wonderful. Thank you!

1. They were invited onto Jimmy Savile's/Rolf Harris's lap
Caroline Robinson: "he calls you over to come and sit – CR: Sit on his knee."
Tonya Lee: "He said, Tonya, you’ve got a lovely voice. Um, you know, why don’t you come over and chat to me. Come over and have a – a little chat to me about, you know, about, you know, what you’re doing and all that kind of stuff. So come and – and sit on my lap, so I sat on his lap."

2. Were wearing a skirt
CR: "I had such, like, a short skirt on"
TL: "that’s when he moved his hand up my – my skirt"

3. Had their legs either side of/on the outside of his legs
CR: "usually when you’re sat on a – a person’s knee you always put your legs down the side or in the middle, but I was literally sat here on the groin part of him"
TL: "my legs were on the outside of his legs"

4. Felt him moving around
CR: "the more he rubbed his hand up and down my back and went closer towards me pants, I thought, something’s hard here, something’s uncomfortable, you know, what am I sat on? Not car keys or whatever, and I thought - so the more I wiggled, the more excited Jimmy got."
TL: "And I could feel him sort of moving a little bit. Um, actually I felt that first. He was sort of moving – sort of moving himself a little bit around, while I was sitting on him, but I didn’t – I didn’t think anything – I didn’t think anything of that…"

5. Were groped
CR: "next minute I know, his hand is on me bum. He’s gone into me knickers and his hand was on me bum"
TL: "then he put his hand on my thigh, so then I started to feel a bit weird, so the hand he had on me he sort of moved around across my thigh... that’s when he moved his hand up my – my skirt...then it started to go up quite high, up towards um, my pants."

6. Were in a room with other people
CR: "And this is in a room full of people? CR: A room full of people."
TL: "After a day of sightseeing in London, the excited Theatre Group went to dinner at a local pub with Rolf Harris. T: I wasn’t drinking ‘cause I was only 14, so obviously I wasn’t allowed. Um, everyone was just telling stories. I know, um, we had a guitar or two there."

7. The other people didn't notice
CR: "So nobody saw what was going on? CR: No. It were perfect. Perfection. He’d got it down to perfection."
TL: "And no-one else in the room, in the pub, could see what was going on? TL: No. There was a tablecloth on the table so I think that was dangling down, so, you know, like you couldn’t see straight through into the table"

8. They got upset/scared and 9. went to the toilet
CR: "I – I like, wet myself. I know it sounds a bit rude, but it were like, I’ve wet meself, and I thought, I’ve got to go to the toilet, so I jumped up and I went out and I just cried. I just couldn’t - couldn’t believe it. Out of fear, did you say – do you think? CR: I think because I didn’t understand what were going on. It were strange."
TL: "Then I started to get worried and started to get scared, … The conversation was still going on and people were still singing and stuff like that, but then I’m – I’m – I could – I knew that – that was really making me feel scared…. I was gonna get out of here, so I went to the toilet. Frightened and confused, Tonya hid in a bathroom cubicle."

And more similarities pointed out by the Support Justice for Rolf Harris Facebook page:

10. They were subsequently groped again top and bottom.
CR: "What did he do to you? CR: Touched me. Breast, tried to fondle"
TL: "then he put his hands, um, on my top then put his hands down, um, my top, um, and started to push my breasts, and then really quickly, with the same hand, um, before I knew it he put his hand up my skirt and he put his hand, um, down my tights and pants"

11. They both tried to scream but couldn't.
CR: "but the music was that – that – that – that loud, and the people were talking, that, no matter how much I tried to shout, nobody heard. It was like I opened my voice, my mouth, but the words didn’t - didn’t – didn’t come out"
TL: "I just – I wanted to scream but I couldn’t."

There are so many similarities, it can't be a coincidence.

What we do know is that either Harris or someone that had access to his computer looked at adult pornography on the net.

The police among other things tried to proffer a charge of 'producing child pornography'.

Subsequently evidence was produced showing that the pornography accessed on his computer was not illegal.

That in itself raises huge questions over the modus operandi of the police.

At this point I have grave doubts about many aspects of the charges against him.

hedda wrote:
problem is no-one saw the ghastly Tonya as I did here on Oz news TV reports,

she was interviewed after British cops left her house and her excitement was a wonder to see.

Broad grins and no Carl like statements like 'do crime do time blah blah" just "they're going to fly me to London and put me in a hotel etc etc"

## this is after she had already made around $60,000 for magazine & TV interviews,

She was acting like someone had just told her she had won the lottery.
One of the British cops who went to Australia (named here and here, where reference is made to his questioning by Dave Lee Travis's barrister (now Rolf's) regarding the police tipping off accusers) is named in acknowledgements in a book on Google books called "Suggestibility in Legal Contexts: Psychological Research and Forensic Implications". The acknowledgement ("The authors thank ... and ... for their comments on a previous draft of this chapter") comes at the end of Chapter 1 "Suggestibility: A History and Introduction", which, among other things says that "psychosocial vulnerability is associated with higher levels of immediate suggestibility".

What 'torture' do you mean, exactly, Carl? Which particular 'victims' are you talking about?

Don't tease the afflicted Lizzie. Sadly the majority believe everything they read in the papers or see from the courts and simplicity rules; that is the way society has gone, so people can essentially commit suicide whilst murdering others by shouting Allahu Akbar or even Brexit Means Brexit. Let's keep thinking simple your honour; love the wig.

Carl’s apparent belief – that an alleged grope could in itself constitute a form of torture and lead to lifelong torment – remains an unquestionable assumption, without exception so far as I can see, of the entire mainstream media and of most online conspiracy theorists.

I would have thought that the bloodthirsty lowlife brigands of ISIL, or Auschwitz’s Josef Mengele or Stalin’s murderously sadistic crony Lavrentiy Beria, were rather more culpable of the charge of torture than Rolf Harris, even if he did ‘cop a feel’ as it used to be known. I personally have very serious doubts that he ever did, but his character has been successfully immolated by post-Savile witchfinders in law enforcement and the criminal justice system, rendering him vastly more likely to be presumed guilty of any and all wild and unevidenced accusations levelled against him.

This is the problem as I see it, Carl, although I don’t pretend to be a purveyor of Absolute Truth: it’s vastly easier to persuade someone that their negative outlook on life and their relentlessly destructive behaviour are someone else’s fault than it is to persuade them that they’re responsible for their beliefs, feelings and actions, whatever they’ve been through.

Politically correct victim ideology is founded on this excrementally turbid quicksand. It’s my belief as an old Freudian dinosaur that release from genuine adversity is only possible when you adopt the latter route, and can never be achieved by pointing accusing fingers at others. And it can certainly never be achieved by pretending that an adverse experience that never actually happened ‘ruined’ your life.

The ability to live a good life can NEVER be achieved by spuriously embracing a victim identity, as sex-obsessed religious fanatics and ‘radical’ PC feminists (what a peculiar alliance) seem to believe. A kind of perverted, nasty satisfaction is all that can be attained. Along with a deep and indelible sense of corrosive guilt, no matter how much one tries to bury it: if you act like a shit, you eventually pay the price, even if it’s not immediately apparent when you bank your compo cash.

When Stalin suffered the catastrophic stroke that eventually killed him, his physicians reported that while he lay paralysed and speechless on his deathbed, there was a look of unmistakable terror on his face. I could never be certain, of course, but I can’t help wondering if the horrors he had committed were coming home to roost as he breathed his last, foul breaths.

Falsely accusing others of crimes perceived by their contemporaries as heinous was summed up admirably in 1742 by the Enlightenment lawyer, Charles-Louis de Secondat, otherwise known as the Baron de Montesquieu:

There is no crueller tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.

I'm talking about the victims of Rolf Harris and the effects the sexual abuse will have had on their lives.

I think JK and all his brainwashed deluded followers are the afflicted ones, he believes everyone convicted of sex crimes is innocent and that every victim of sexual abuse is a liar.

If I had the impression JK thought that, I wouldn't be posting on this site, I can tell you.

pete v. Carl = complex v. simple, thinking v. non-thinking, communicating to provoke thought v. communicating just to provoke

Carl wrote:

I'm talking about the victims of Rolf Harris and the effects the sexual abuse will have had on their lives.

Given the malignant consequences of the law lords’ decision in the 1990s to relax the rules governing similar fact evidence, I fear it’s now something of a presumption to refer to Mr Harris’ accusers as “victims”. This is bad for people who have suffered cruelty in childhood every bit as much as it’s bad for those accused.

This decision, we ought to remember, was taken well before the mass uptake of the internet. The learned judges clearly couldn’t have anticipated just how easy it would become for accusers to conspire with one another over the Net, or weave allegations made by others (but seen on the Net) into their own fantasies of childhood or the distant past more broadly. Memory is profoundly influenced by fantasy, including the most widely circulated fantasies and beliefs of the present. It’s a gigantic error to assume it’s just some kind of playback of a digital recording.

This reckless decision by the law lords, in the age of the internet, has facilitated similar fantasy evidence, even similar fib evidence, a prospect that some perspicuous observers (such as the late Richard Webster) warned about at the time. These critics were simply ignored and the relaxed rules stood.

Convictions made today on the of basis bundled together charges allowed on the back of these dangerously relaxed rules are, I fear, inherently unsafe.

I’d still like to know what “the effects the sexual abuse will have on their lives” actually consists of.

Most people encounter unwelcome traumata that disrupt the course of their lives sooner or later. It’s what happens afterwards that matters, by which I mean, how we choose to respond.

Becoming a lifelong victim after an untoward event isn’t an inevitable consequence, it’s a decision. And from a psychoanalytic point of view, it’s one that needs to be kindly but insistently challenged, because it usually poisons potentially beneficial relationships and ends up in embittered, resentful loneliness – something that will swamp those who embrace victim identity again once they’ve spent their compo money.

And one of the most thoroughgoing and important studies into the supposed traumatic effects of childhood sexual experiences (Harvard psychologist Susan Clancy’s) concluded that the lifelong torture narrative was an unevidenced myth.

Most of the 200 or so adults she interviewed in depth for her study reported that they did not feel traumatised or permanently afflicted by their childhood experiences. Some felt a little confused by the experience but most had never told anyone else because they’d assumed they were atypical: their lives hadn’t been ruined, they hadn’t become drug addicts and they suffered no mental health problems.

Clancy estimates that what she calls the ‘trauma myth’ is only applicable to 1-3 percent of people who experienced unexpected sexual encounters as juveniles at the hands of adults or older adolescents. These were people who had been violently raped (and possibly more than once). The vast majority had had far milder experiences with no long-term effects, but the trauma myth is routinely applied to all who claim to have been sexually abused.

Clancy’s work has been systematically ignored by those who most need to avail themselves of its findings: members of the judiciary, prosecutors, cops, social workers, etc. It doesn’t fit the PC victim narrative that they’ve been steeped in, so it must be disregarded. And yet it’s there for all to read if they wish.

So, just what are the effects that an unpleasant grope ‘causes’? I’m certainly not excusing such repellent and intrusive conduct, but it’s hardly equivalent to being raped, or being forced by armed, laughing soldiers to have sex with a sibling in front of your parents, as happened in the Bosnian conflict. Or, as Peter pointed out in the suicide in prisons thread, being subject to chronic emotional coldness and psychological cruelty over many years by rejecting parents.

How does a grope, deeply unpleasant though it must be, result in lifelong torture? It’s unjustifiable to assume that there’s a simple, linear, x-causes-y process at work, because it ignores the human subject who chooses to respond to unwelcome events in specific ways.

Carl wrote:
I'm talking about the victims of Rolf Harris and the effects the sexual abuse will have had on their lives.

I think JK and all his brainwashed deluded followers are the afflicted ones, he believes everyone convicted of sex crimes is innocent and that every victim of sexual abuse is a liar.

Yes, the reaction is real with so many false claims and so many involved in corrupting justice one begins to think all complainants are lying. Not intentional but Carl you are right to caution that in general there could actually be a real victim in the historic sex abuse cases that come up.

In Rolf Harris case in particular the defence counsel has noted that any solid , real evidence (my summary words) shows the allegations to be false the real evidence strenghtening the defence.

The real problem with most (not all) non recent sexual abuse cases (even reported a few days after the alleged event) is time (if real) has destroyed any possibility of obtaining evidence. A person and/or connected person's word alone on it's own is not evidence as it never can meet the standard. The "sure" "Beyond A Reasonable doubt" standard is in direct conflict with the law that the court/jury can accept a person's and/or connected person's word alone.

www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-38861805
This trio with real victims get a light sentence compared to Ray Teret who had no real evidence submitted certainly not as reported in the media. Still no idea if the names on the wall were there because teenagers gathered sometime in the premises when vacant and scribbled. Not stated. No context.

Carl would you really believe and be concerned about historic reporting of burglaries or would you think maybe compo is involved. Even when the police do investigate a burglary reported at the time still have to consider that it may be a setup for an insurance claim.

Finally, the basics are ignored like in the Rolf Harris trial, the first question the police need to ask is can they verify a crime did actually happen and certainly not believe the story of the complianant as evidence in itself. They wouldn't for other reported historic crimes.

The only person who had evidence and agreement with Rolf Harris to sexual activity was Bindi friend and the agreement was to a handful of encounters over eleven years when the friend was of consenting age. And the only evidence to the alleged underage sex had evidence in a number of cases that discredit the claim.

And thus the only other evidence that can be known is character evidence and once looked for the real Rolf Haris the noted comment is he was kind. And as to the character refence of the complainants that is been hidden Why?????

I personally feel auguish for those poor girls from Hungary as they were abused terribly and the police seem real slow to track human traffic when even under there noses. They are victims of horrible abuse.

Carl's comment is not worth answering. Regarding "similar fact" evidence - I like "similar fantasy" - but in my case 17 years ago I found a different, lethal angle. Juries are given true facts - how we met, what we liked, food, music - so by the time the sex element came in jurors had been groomed to see all the other similar details as evidence that totally different sexual details were similar, when they clearly weren't. Or "victims" were provided with facts by helpful police (blue door?). Do watch www.VilePervert.com for a viewpoint.

I think it's worth answering.

Carl wrote:
I'm talking about the victims of Rolf Harris and the effects the sexual abuse will have had on their lives.

Rolf Harris doesn't have any victims. Elsie and Vi demonstrate pretty clearly here www.rolfharrisisinnocent.com/ that the accusations from his first trial were a load of rubbish. Even if he did pinch a few bums, anyone who can't get over such a minor incident is a pathetic wretch with no strength of character. It is their own weakness in the face of life's challenges that makes them suffer.


I think JK and all his brainwashed deluded followers are the afflicted ones, he believes everyone convicted of sex crimes is innocent and that every victim of sexual abuse is a liar.

JK speaks for his own beliefs. Brainwashed and deluded are apter descriptions of those who believe that UK criminal justice is the envy of the world, every man receives a fair trial and guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. It's just not true, despite how many times we're told it by politicians. Several of us have pointed out glaring flaws on this site. One of these flaws is that we have no reliable way of testing at trial whether an accusation is true, knowingly false or mistakenly false. That's because no evidence is required in so-called sex crime trials.

I think I'm alone here in believing that there is no such thing as a sex crime. Groping boobs or bums or having sex with someone when they don't want it causes no objective harm or material loss: it just makes people feel bad. I don't think the criminal law should punish people on behalf of those who say they've had their feelings hurt. Of course, if the incident does cause injury through coercive violence, that's already catered for elsewhere in the law.

JK2006 wrote:
Carl's comment is not worth answering. Regarding "similar fact" evidence - I like "similar fantasy" - but in my case 17 years ago I found a different, lethal angle. Juries are given true facts - how we met, what we liked, food, music - so by the time the sex element came in jurors had been groomed to see all the other similar details as evidence that totally different sexual details were similar, when they clearly weren't. Or "victims" were provided with facts by helpful police (blue door?). Do watch www.VilePervert.com for a viewpoint.

JK the prosecutions are all mind games, manipulation not evidence. The first trial of Rolf Harris the turning point was the production of the 1978 Games clip and the Ray Teret case was the wall and names. So interesting in your trial the same "true facts" used so that the jury thinks it all must be true. Nonsense of course! Just because one was in the UK in 1964 does not imply they meet the Beatles at say Hammersmith serious of shows. But that is the level of logic used and followed. And in Rolf Harris' case the prosecution called him the liar and not the girl for changing everything and she never was asked to prove she was in Cambridge in 1978. They are all crazy, the lot who follow this logic and reasoning.

JK is obsessed with simple thinking and simple slogans.

My belief is, why try and over analyse and complicate situations where there is no need to?

You can write all the long winded essays you want on here, it does not distract anyone from the truth.

They say Bullshit baffles brains.

John Marsh wrote:
And in Rolf Harris' case the prosecution called him the liar and not the girl for changing everything and she never was asked to prove she was in Cambridge in 1978. They are all crazy, the lot who follow this logic and reasoning.

Yes, that was really strange. Woman accuses Rolf of groping her on It's A Knockout filmed on Parkers Piece, Cambridge in 1975 when she was working there at the age of 14. Rolf says he has no recollection of taking part.

Then a member of the public provides video footage (I find this a bit strange. Who was this person and how did he/she know the footage was of interest to the prosecutor?) showing Rolf hopping about in Cambridge. Trouble is, it's Star Games (ITV) instead of It's A Knockout (BBC). It was filmed at Jesus Green instead of Parkers Piece. The show dates from 1978 not 1975.

Normally, we'd raise an eyebrow and say ok nice try, close but no cigar. But that's normally. Woman says whoops no it wasn't It's A Knockout in 1975 when I was 14. It was Star Games in a different park in 1978. And I was 17. And I had a different employer. And this, apparently, is an indication that Rolf is being dishonest!??

Carl wrote:
JK is obsessed with simple thinking and simple slogans.

My belief is, why try and over analyse and complicate situations where there is no need to?

You can write all the long winded essays you want on here, it does not distract anyone from the truth.

They say Bullshit baffles brains.

Yes indeed, let's not complicate things, Carl.

Tell us, why do you think Rolf Harris did grope the girls?

Carl wrote:
I'm talking about the victims of Rolf Harris and the effects the sexual abuse will have had on their lives.

I think JK and all his brainwashed deluded followers are the afflicted ones, he believes everyone convicted of sex crimes is innocent and that every victim of sexual abuse is a liar.

Well I most certainly dont, and I very much doubt that Mr King does, either!

Not even including cases where the accused has been vindicated, There is such a high number of prosecutions for false accusations that we have to accept that it happens, and it happens quite often.

In the court process for sex crimes, one person's testimony is all the evidence needed to convict, which I believe makes a fair trial impossible.

It is not about Rolf Harris groping people or not (although if you look at the evidence presented it is astonishing that he was convicted of some of the accusations) but about fair trials.

We currently have a situation where I could accuse you of molestation with no record of us even having met, and you could still be convicted.
None us want that, do we?

Randall wrote:
John Marsh wrote:
And in Rolf Harris' case the prosecution called him the liar and not the girl for changing everything and she never was asked to prove she was in Cambridge in 1978. They are all crazy, the lot who follow this logic and reasoning.

Yes, that was really strange. Woman accuses Rolf of groping her on It's A Knockout filmed on Parkers Piece, Cambridge in 1975 when she was working there at the age of 14. Rolf says he has no recollection of taking part.

Then a member of the public provides video footage (I find this a bit strange. Who was this person and how did he/she know the footage was of interest to the prosecutor?) showing Rolf hopping about in Cambridge. Trouble is, it's Star Games (ITV) instead of It's A Knockout (BBC). It was filmed at Jesus Green instead of Parkers Piece. The show dates from 1978 not 1975.

Normally, we'd raise an eyebrow and say ok nice try, close but no cigar. But that's normally. Woman says whoops no it wasn't It's A Knockout in 1975 when I was 14. It was Star Games in a different park in 1978. And I was 17. And I had a different employer. And this, apparently, is an indication that Rolf is being dishonest!??

Then she say it was the Crystal Maze.