The old thread is now too blocked by posts - with over 20,000 views to it, please paste further thoughts in this thread.

From reading media coverage (not the best way to get accurate information, I agree with ITK) it seems he has admitted having an affair with his daughter's friend but only after she was 18. It appear that any activity before that event is her word against his, with no other evidence.

It also appears that all the other allegations range from the utterly ridiculous to the unlikely.

The first jury found him guilty. Subsequent juries have rejected other false allegations.

The question is - can he now get the original verdict overturned? Many, many appeals are granted - far more than we see in the media. Thousands a year.

Juries get it wrong again and again. Many false accusers are found to have been mistaken or have deliberately lied - to make money, compensation, media fees if the accused is a celebrity.

It was this site that pointed out the total flaw in the "No smoke without fire" cliche. In show business we know that, with dry ice, there is often smoke without fire. Sir Cliff Richard quoted this many times.

We wish Rolf good luck in his appeal if he is, indeed, innocent of the convictions against him. But it is sad that the judicial system is now so broken that people have to prove their innocence, sometimes years after spending time in prison for crimes that never took place.

A very sick and serious situation.

Perhaps a simplistic approach - but is not the best defence (if it is possible/available) for an accused to prove they were elsewhere when an alleged crime was committed?

By airline tickets, confirmations of hotel reservations, restaurant receipts, verifiable attendance at events - and the like. This type of evidence would appear to be very difficult to dispute.

Yes and far easier said than done - when the allegation is over a calendar year (as usually attempted by false accusers with assistance from police eager to conspire in perverting the course of justice in order to get increased budgets, media praise and promotion). So, if you CAN prove you were in Australia for the entire year of 1970, great. But should one have to prove ones innocence in this century's legal position (unofficial) of Presumed Guilty?

[quote]Randall wrote:
In The Know wrote:
...people (especially when being questioned and cross-examined, often for many hours) give "hints" about their reliability (or otherwise). Are they "shifty / evasive? etc. Does their story "stack-up"?
That's a very odd thing about the first Rolf trial. The trial process revealed that three complainants were talking shit. First the visit by a big star to a tiny community centre where exhaustive investigation found no indication it had ever happened. Second, the story about groping in the pub which contained obvious lies, logical impossibilities and extreme improbabilities. Then there was Miss Cambridge who came out with a different TV show, different TV channel, different location and different year when her first version was proved untrue.

We're well beyond hints, shiftiness and things not quite stacking up. These were barefaced, obvious lies told in court. It's astonishing that anyone could genuinely think they indicate guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
That's a very good summary. I think the fact that the police/CPS sought to bolster the main accuser with those three also casts doubt on her reliability. Like the others she had a financial motive, having asked him for thousands before and been turned down, and did not consider her involvement with him worth reporting to police until after the Jimmy Savile allegations and associated prospect of compensation. "Hm, Jimmy Savile, that reminds me of another celeb who destroyed my life" doesn't ring true, in my view, whereas "Hm, Jimmy Savile, that gives me an idea about a celeb I once knew" seems more plausible to me. I suspect that she revised her age downwards and reconfigured a legal relationship as abuse but hadn't ever taken that to the police as it was a lie, until the Savile scandal gave the green light. In fact, it seems that she didn't go straight to police even after the Savile scandal, but told her story to the NSPCC, which suggests to me being tentative and testing the water with an elaborated tale ("Police assigned to investigate were soon widening their inquiry to look at other entertainment figures and within weeks they had a tip from the NSPCC: a 47-year-old woman had told her counsellor she was sexually abused by ­Harris in her teens." source). All four of them reportedly sought and presumably received compensation after the trial.

Ah yes - compensation! Funny how money often plays a part, innit? I see another false accuser is accusing Ahmet Ertegun of abuse (fingering her at a rock gig - almost as bizarre as the Mark Pearson/Victoria Station story but far more worthy of belief as Ahmet is now dead. Wonder if she'll cash in on this appalling abuse by a respected music industry figure? Bet she'll write a book about it.

Ooops.

variety.com/2017/music/news/sexual-haras...carvello-1202591488/

False Allegations are SUCH a Growth Industry - especially against dead people. Lawyers love them too; No Win No Fee is a no-brainer. And the sympathy you get these days! "Oh you poor thing! Harvey WeenSteen once pecked you on the cheek? No wonder your career since then has been a total failure and your marriage collapsed. Go for Compo. He's incredibly wealthy; you can get at least five grand!".

Not that proof seems to matter these days. Didn't you have proof that you were in the U.S.A. when one of the instances you were accused of happened?

Sadly the accusers word is law and it seems only a jury not brain washed is the only hope these days.

Thanks Jonathan, To be honest I was never your biggest fan but I admire you greatly.

Thank you; yes; "it's not when but whether that matters" said the CCRC - refusing to send it back to the Court of Appeal. To them it was not important that the Age of Consent laws make one second the difference between a crime and no crime. The jury might still have decided I did have sex with the man but if he had been sixteen or over it would not have been a crime. Justice, sadly, is blindfolded.

Came across this by accident


www.rolfharrisisinnocent.com


Most of it news to me...

Spee32HR wrote:
Came across this by accident


www.rolfharrisisinnocent.com


Most of it news to me...




Really? I've posted the link several times, and so has hedda too, I think.

Sorry...

Spee32HR wrote:
Sorry...

It cant be posted too many times, Spee. The more people who read it the better.

Spee32HR wrote:
Perhaps a simplistic approach - but is not the best defence (if it is possible/available) for an accused to prove they were elsewhere when an alleged crime was committed?

By airline tickets, confirmations of hotel reservations, restaurant receipts, verifiable attendance at events - and the like. This type of evidence would appear to be very difficult to dispute.




it seems in these cases of sexual assault such evidence is not really accepted.

In Rolf's first case the judge was highly critical of him regarding the fact Harris couldn't remember if he had been in a certain town making a TV show decades ago.

Yet when a claimant was shown to be giving dates that couldn't possibly match what she claimed the judge said that it was perfectly reasonable for her get mixed up due to the trauma.
I call bullshit on that as the one devastating assault on me is firmly fixed in my mind- date,location..every detail even though it was in the 70s.

Thus Harris was in a no win situation.

Recall Jim Davidson who conclusively proved to police that he could not possibly have have assaulted a woman at the London Palladium and when they put this to the claimant she simply changed the location to another theater right outside London.

The terrible..and utterly fraudulent meme forced on to police of "believe the victim" which I believe borders on an attempt to pervert the course of justice when police take an oath before they are sworn in to "investigate impartially" but simply ignore that.

Now of course- the spotlight is on politicians who have sat by and watch British law be perverted. They seem to think it would never happen to them..but we told them otherwise.

## coppers seem oblivious to the fact they too can be destroyed by an accusation..and it will come

Appeals against two convictions commencing today, by Harris.

here endeth the News !