Has it occurred to anybody on here that he could be guilty and got away with it???

Such thoughts never entered anyone's head ... lol !

Carl wrote:
Has it occurred to anybody on here that he could be guilty and got away with it???


Interestingly, I watched Louis Theroux in the US interviewing detained mental health patients, most interviewed suffering from some form of schizophrenia. They heard voices telling them to kill somebody and followed the voice. Plus other bizarre actions. And of course seeing things.

Now let's come to the endless public appearances and alleged claims of the complainants in the case of both trials of Rolf Harris. To me the incredible belief of media, jury and all involved including of those leading up to the trials and the public, are putting themselves on the level of hallucinations and hearing voices mentality. The actions described are ludicrous and in the setting described I have never heard of such actions of “feeling up a girl” in public with everybody watching and the recipient remaining still.

I know the naked walker exhibitionist practices openly and seen by all close by, his practice of exposing those in range to a full eye view thus clouding the beautiful or not so beautiful view the bystanders were previously enjoying, by his body. The other public demonstration was the guy watching female shoppers and masturbating openly. Both well publicised actions are bizarre and well observed, no problem with those close seeing or reporting at the time.

Could Rolf Harris be guilty. Well the first question is until Yewtree or some other time in the past when people were manipulated to push their thinking in line with schizophrenics it does not happen. People, even the most serious narcissist, practice sexual practice in private or if open at some crazed public and accepted venue where the behaviour by all and sundry is consensually adult. Like those Ibiza holiday young people desperate for sex and needing tons of alcohol to gain some courage to move to the next stage of whatever it is they want.

Yes, one must not join “the mad crowd” and form an opinion based on “belief” from whatever camp one is in.
I like to think that JK has attracted that rare breed of people who know how to use their “little grey cells” and reason for themselves. So in assessing an opinion to guilt or possible guilt then all one can follow is the known evidence. This has to be independent of a jury' findings as information put to the court and jury may not be evidence in the scientific sense only in the emotional sense.

Example, of evidence put to jury, by the one key complainant of Rolf Harris' in the first trial that did have a case. She the friend of Bindi, alleged both to her parents previously and to the police that Rolf Harris had engaged in consensual sex when she was thirteen.

The prosecution's evidence to confirm this allegation was that in an apology letter to the girl's parents he admitted he was guilty.

The prosecution and the public schizophrenics who hear voices, believe he confessed to having sex when she was under age. Their logic why would he admit guilt otherwise. Their split thinking (personality!) can not see what is actually written. That is why people are just as mental as the other mental patients. The reality is Rolf Harris clearly stated that the first time never happened when she was thirteen rather the date he gives when she was around eighteen I think, age of consent. So why is he feeling guilty. I'm not sure he states in the letter why but the normal reason would be that she was the daughter of family friends and Bindi's friend. More a moral general view question not legal.

So the question Carl raised would relate in reality to the first reported case only.

In the evidence presented for this one complainant at the first trial there were a number of inconsistencies apart from her "word only".

Could he be guilty, well possible but decent people, who would not want the same standard appled to themselves would rather in this instant in the one complainant with a valid, credible possibilty would rather consider him to be innocent both by the wise standard of law "innocent until proved guilty" and secondly by comparing the overall characters of the two individuals, Rolf Harris and the girl who clearly seduced him. The prosecution Sasha Wass advertised to the jury a new character Dr Jeykell and Mr Hyde (Something that actually applies to almost all in the human race) for Rolf harris whcih was not in line with the known facts only dragged up bandwagonners sourced worldwide with unstandiated stories. A Nigerian scam approach.

Once all that is taken into account then unless someone is clearly able to show me otherwise then I would expect reasonable people to accept the same conclusion of not guilty and the alleged complaints lacked credibilty and most were on the level provided by schizophrenics. I often wonder if someone is guilty or not but when the evidence is clear or as reported in the media seems to be a clear case then I can accept it because all that should ever matter in these cases in judging another indivdual is the evidence.

So who is guilty in the two Rolf Harris trials, well the police are because they manipulated everything and did not investigate objectively. The CPS and prosecution are guilty because they did not even follow their own code. The judge(second trial) is "not guilty" from the evidence provided he seems to conducted a case that should not of come to court objectively and with skill and so on. The media go on about the freedom of the press yet as part of the protectors of society have failed, they are regulary guilty. The public at large are guilty because they stand idly by and accept most things.

"... he could be guilty and got away with it???" is on the same logic as the aliens kidnapped various people returned them and got away with it. And for me that is too far out to consider.

That is what has occurred to me. I am the last of the sane people around!!! Feels that way some days but thanks to you guys and JK it gives me hope. (Of course you may not be sane either!!!)

Well put John.

That's an excellent post, John.

Carl wrote:
Has it occurred to anybody on here that he could be guilty and got away with it???
No, not after considering the allegations (in the first case, we can't discuss the second). It's not just the nature of the allegations (e.g. one allegation in a paid TV interview being so similar in its details to an earlier Savile allegation that, in my view, it can only have been copied; another about a modest community centre venue at which there was no record that this major star touring venues such as the Royal Albert Hall had ever appeared; another from a woman who had already asked him for thousands and threatened to go to the media if he didn't pay up; another from a woman who couldn't remember the venue or her age) but how and when they emerged and the probability of them being true reports of actual crime as opposed to being the result of opportunism for personal gain. If they're true, then all the victims waited decades to report crime on their person, all failed to react at the time or for years afterwards (e.g. squealed, squirmed, shouted, slapped him, pushed him away, told their mum, went to the police or even the media), no-one else noticed although most of the alleged crimes were alleged to have happened when other people were around, no-one captured it on camera or film, even accidentally, no-one witnessed anything and reported it to the police or even the media. None came forward until after the Jimmy Savile allegations/compensation claims and they all claimed compensation.

I think the probability of the claims relating to actual crime is much less than the probability of them being like whiplash injury claims after a motorway accident, with accusers exaggerating a non-criminal encounter into a crime (like when you see a motorway accident and suffer no injury but claim anyway) or completely inventing an encounter (like when you were never there) for a compensation payout. Plus, as when you copy a bad piece of homework, if the first person to come forward was exaggerating or inventing, anyone else who says "me too", no matter how many, is in my view exaggerating/inventing. So it is not absurd to imagine, as argued by the prosection in the first case, that so many people could all have been exaggerating/inventing.

Carl wrote:
Has it occurred to anybody on here that he could be guilty and got away with it???
No.

Has it occurred to anybody on here that Carl is guilty of treating these abuse cases as if they were football matches? The team Carl roots for: Compensation Seekers United who claims to be a member of the FA, but if you look closely, FA in their case actually stands for false allegators. Never mind. Carl is onto a winner with his team. They can do no wrong. No matter how many vicious fouls they commit, the referee never sees them. No matter how good the opposition, all their goals are disallowed. And at the end of each game, Compensation Seekers United is paid wonderfully obscene amounts of cash for admirable dishonesty and skilful brutality.

How’s about that then?

I think Carl just has faith in the justice system. As anybody does (and should) unless the injustices are forcibly shoved in your face!

I do find it a bit peculiar though, that people's reaction is not "oh thank God that no children were hurt" but one that suggests that they actually wish it were true.

(Not Carl in particular.In general)

Peter wrote:
Has it occurred to anybody on here that Carl is guilty of treating these abuse cases as if they were football matches? The team Carl roots for: Compensation Seekers United who claims to be a member of the FA, but if you look closely, FA in their case actually stands for false allegators. Never mind. Carl is onto a winner with his team. They can do no wrong. No matter how many vicious fouls they commit, the referee never sees them. No matter how good the opposition, all their goals are disallowed. And at the end of each game, Compensation Seekers United is paid wonderfully obscene amounts of cash for admirable dishonesty and skilful brutality.
That's a great analogy, Peter.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
I do find it a bit peculiar though, that people's reaction is not "oh thank God that no children were hurt" but one that suggests that they actually wish it were true.
It is very odd. I suspect that some of those who make the loudest noise in support of historic allegations and/or in criticism of child abusers, as if most normal people didn't think child abuse was abhorrent, may not bear close scrutiny as to their own thoughts and lifestyle.

What's this? The Daily Mail tries to stir up the pitchfork brigade but many readers refuse to take the bait, even criticise the DM for the story (see comments). Could public opinion be turning?

New primary school opens just 500 YARDS from Rolf Harris's home sparking calls for the disgraced star to move when he is released from prison

The article doesn't say who is "sparking calls". Perhaps they made that up.

Spot on Jo just like these online Paedophile hunters who have been on the radio today they remain annon and why ? Seriously they need looking into just like The Gay Bashers types who turned out to like going with other men very strange indeed

Carl wrote:
Has it occurred to anybody on here that he could be guilty and got away with it???

Which part of "he IS guilty and IS already in prison" are these people failing to comprehend ?

In The Know wrote:
Carl wrote:
Has it occurred to anybody on here that he could be guilty and got away with it???

Which part of "he IS guilty and IS already in prison" are these people failing to comprehend ?

There is a little misunderstanding here in the discussions on this JK site though the issue should be obvious as JK hsd been proclaiming that he was falsely accused since forever. That he was not guilty in spite of the legal decision.

The "not guilty " part is a declaration of JK's knowledge that he did not do what the jury decided he had done.

So with Rolf Harris it is sooooooooooooooo obvious he is currently in prison and secondly at the first trial that eleven jurors believed him to be guilty of the stated crimes and juror number twelve after holding out under tremendous pressure from the eleven others on the day before the judge was going to throw the vote over to a majority decision threw his/her lot in with the eleven "true believers". Why I do not know at that precise time whether he/she could not take another day with such prejudiced people or by that time the person's job was on the line and they had to get back to work.

The concern is not the legal position but injustice as in the trail and before not meeting Article 6 of a fair trial and of "real guilt or real innocence".

What clearly comes out in the Rolf Harris case is the justice system is corrupt. The first Rolf Harris trial tested the system and found it lacking. Like say a maintenance crew and it's practices of an airline who have practices that are risky/unsafe but as no crash has taken place until one does could say well this is just a blip as we have had no crashes before therefore our maintenance system is perfect and you can ignore the current crash ( example is if the investigator found the maintenance crew practices were in reality putting the airplane at risk)I am raising an example to try and illustrate that a system's real success / strength / reliability is only ever shown when "tested".
So when straight forward cases in general get the thumbs up or thumbs down based on generally obvious good evidence or lack of good evidence the system is declared the pride of the world. Enter JK or Rolf Harris and what do we have. "A crap system" that has obvious injustices that did not clear even the first hurdle.

ITK your point is valid BUT in the discussions "misplaced". A bit like the use of the words victim and complainant can make the world of difference how the police approach a crime report.

It hasn't escaped any of us. The fact is, Rolf should NEVER have been charged in the first place, right from the very start of this insanity.

The fact a jury finds someone guilty does not mean they ARE guilty and many people these days have the IQ of a Jeremy Kyle contestant. Indeed, the first Judge, in Trial 1, actually dismissed an entire jury in the case of Vicky Pryce, because he couldn't take anymore of their lack of intelligence. There was also, of course, a Met Police officer on Rolf's first jury, officially confirmed in July 2015.

If you knew anything about his trial, you'd have deep concerns over what has been done to him already and what is still being done to him now.

To have to SPLIT an allegation into two, which is what the CPS have now done, shows you how DESPERATE they are and how devious too.

Of course, they've been helped hugely by the Sociopathic Press in the UK who have reported this as a 'new charge' making people think it's yet another woman who's come forward.

The people are accountable to no-one it seems, in the CPS that is. How many more �£MILLIONS are they now going to spend on Trial 3? His poor family being put through this yet again, Rolf himself, Alwen, Bindi, all his friends, beside themselves with anxiety.

This is Brutal Cruelty by BRUTAL people.

I sincerely hope that one day in the not too distant future, heads will roll over this, good and proper, jobs lost, those responsible brought to court themselves and thence, to prison, for the excrutiating agony they've caused, are still causing.

And yes, Jonathan, in answer to your earlier comment, it is FOUR charges acquited. One has been dropped, that of Rolf allegedly 'touching' a woman's back (please, don't even get me started!!) and the FOUR to be sent to re-trial include one of the former charges being split into two separate ones.

They won't stop until they've killed him, in my view and the press won't help one bit, not one bit. I've spoken to more journalist these past few years than ever before..and they do NOT want to know about helping Rolf. They work to the agendas of those at the top and that is all they're interested in doing.

It is heartbreaking...truly heartbreaking what so many good men are being put through, yourself included Jonathan.

I was well aware, Lizzie, that I would be needing to structure a good alternative route to traditional media; that was why I built up this site; why I published books myself; why I made my own films and distributed them through the Internet; two million viewers to Vile Pervert alone plus millions more on other videos illustrate the sense of my decision (plus the fact that these days everyone is doing it).

What surprises me is why traditional media, whose only morality is "is it a good story?", haven't yet cottoned on to this great story.

Lizzie Cornish wrote:
It hasn't escaped any of us. The fact is, Rolf should NEVER have been charged in the first place, right from the very start of this insanity.

The fact a jury finds someone guilty does not mean they ARE guilty and many people these days have the IQ of a Jeremy Kyle contestant. Indeed, the first Judge, in Trial 1, actually dismissed an entire jury in the case of Vicky Pryce, because he couldn't take anymore of their lack of intelligence. There was also, of course, a Met Police officer on Rolf's first jury, officially confirmed in July 2015.

If you knew anything about his trial, you'd have deep concerns over what has been done to him already and what is still being done to him now.

To have to SPLIT an allegation into two, which is what the CPS have now done, shows you how DESPERATE they are and how devious too.

Of course, they've been helped hugely by the Sociopathic Press in the UK who have reported this as a 'new charge' making people think it's yet another woman who's come forward.

The people are accountable to no-one it seems, in the CPS that is. How many more Â�£MILLIONS are they now going to spend on Trial 3? His poor family being put through this yet again, Rolf himself, Alwen, Bindi, all his friends, beside themselves with anxiety.

This is Brutal Cruelty by BRUTAL people.

I sincerely hope that one day in the not too distant future, heads will roll over this, good and proper, jobs lost, those responsible brought to court themselves and thence, to prison, for the excrutiating agony they've caused, are still causing.

And yes, Jonathan, in answer to your earlier comment, it is FOUR charges acquited. One has been dropped, that of Rolf allegedly 'touching' a woman's back (please, don't even get me started!!) and the FOUR to be sent to re-trial include one of the former charges being split into two separate ones.

They won't stop until they've killed him, in my view and the press won't help one bit, not one bit. I've spoken to more journalist these past few years than ever before..and they do NOT want to know about helping Rolf. They work to the agendas of those at the top and that is all they're interested in doing.

It is heartbreaking...truly heartbreaking what so many good men are being put through, yourself included Jonathan.



Wont stop until they have killed him?
After they have killed him is when they can REALLY go to town!

Jo wrote:


Carl wrote:
Has it occurred to anybody on here that he could be guilty and got away with it???
No, not after considering the allegations (in the first case, we can't discuss the second). It's not just the nature of the allegations (e.g. one allegation in a paid TV interview being so similar in its details to an earlier Savile allegation that, in my view, it can only have been copied; another about a modest community centre venue at which there was no record that this major star touring venues such as the Royal Albert Hall had ever appeared; another from a woman who had already asked him for thousands and threatened to go to the media if he didn't pay up; another from a woman who couldn't remember the venue or her age) but how and when they emerged and the probability of them being true reports of actual crime as opposed to being the result of opportunism for personal gain. If they're true, then all the victims waited decades to report crime on their person, all failed to react at the time or for years afterwards (e.g. squealed, squirmed, shouted, slapped him, pushed him away, told their mum, went to the police or even the media), no-one else noticed although most of the alleged crimes were alleged to have happened when other people were around, no-one captured it on camera or film, even accidentally, no-one witnessed anything and reported it to the police or even the media. None came forward until after the Jimmy Savile allegations/compensation claims and they all claimed compensation.


That's it in a nutshell. Brilliant paragraph, Jo.