After Rolf Harris's conviction of the Portsmouth "he molested me in an autograph queue at my local community centre when I was 7/8" allegation was overturned on appeal, he issued a statement saying, amongst other things:

"I hope the press supply the facts to the public to let them decide if I am a monster or the subject of a frenzied witch hunt which focused more on grabbing headlines than finding the truth."

Source: Rolf Harris indecent assault conviction overturned

Yet the press are doing nothing. Not David Rose, not Private Eye, not one journalist Down Under. They don't react to correspondence on the subject either.

At the very least they could be asking why the woman who made the Portsmouth allegation shortly after being declared bankrupt seems to have redonned her cloak of anonymity and kept her compensation.

Simon Warr has written an excellent blog post on the subject:

Lies and Damned Lies on Oath

Is there any hope that the press will investigate what happened in this case?

Jo wrote:
After Rolf Harris's conviction of the Portsmouth "he molested me in an autograph queue at my local community centre when I was 7/8" allegation was overturned on appeal, he issued a statement saying, amongst other things:

"I hope the press supply the facts to the public to let them decide if I am a monster or the subject of a frenzied witch hunt which focused more on grabbing headlines than finding the truth."

Source: Rolf Harris indecent assault conviction overturned

Yet the press are doing nothing. Not David Rose, not Private Eye, not one journalist Down Under. They don't react to correspondence on the subject either.

At the very least they could be asking why the woman who made the Portsmouth allegation shortly after being declared bankrupt seems to have redonned her cloak of anonymity and kept her compensation.

Simon Warr has written an excellent blog post on the subject:

Lies and Damned Lies on Oath

Is there any hope that the press will investigate what happened in this case?

Not without admitting how stupid they were to believe it in the first place. ( we did say it was ludicrous, didn't we?)

Ah, yes, good point. It's difficult to admit to being duped.

She kept her compensation because there is no indication that she was lying, only that the eyewitness was lying, and therefore the conviction was unsafe, rather than completely false. We can't have a law whereby if the case can't be proven 100% then you are found guilty of a false allegation, otherwise no one would ever report a crime. The police are at fault again for not checking out the eyewitness, wasting £1000s on court costs, not to mention putting someone away falsely for several months.

robbiex wrote:
She kept her compensation because there is no indication that she was lying, only that the eyewitness was lying, and therefore the conviction was unsafe, rather than completely false. We can't have a law whereby if the case can't be proven 100% then you are found guilty of a false allegation, otherwise no one would ever report a crime. The police are at fault again for not checking out the eyewitness, wasting £1000s on court costs, not to mention putting someone away falsely for several months.

But there was no evidence of the hugely popular chart topping singer with a prime time television programme ever appearing at the very minor community centre, despite notices in the paper and leaflet drops asking for witnesses.

In the unlikely event of the hugely popular chart topping singer with a prime time television programme playing at the tiny community centre, dont you think somebody would have remembered?

I can't understand why the fact that no-one, including the police, could find evidence that he attended the venue wasn't sufficient proof that she was lying.

There are several references to that lack of evidence in the appeal judgment (www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/e...1849.html&query=(%22rolf+harris%22)).

robbiex wrote:
She kept her compensation because there is no indication that she was lying, only that the eyewitness was lying, and therefore the conviction was unsafe, rather than completely false. We can't have a law whereby if the case can't be proven 100% then you are found guilty of a false allegation, otherwise no one would ever report a crime. The police are at fault again for not checking out the eyewitness, wasting £1000s on court costs, not to mention putting someone away falsely for several months.


Maybe there's an argument for freezing any compensation payouts, in all legal cases, until all the stages of appeal have been exhausted.

PaulB wrote:
robbiex wrote:
She kept her compensation because there is no indication that she was lying, only that the eyewitness was lying, and therefore the conviction was unsafe, rather than completely false. We can't have a law whereby if the case can't be proven 100% then you are found guilty of a false allegation, otherwise no one would ever report a crime. The police are at fault again for not checking out the eyewitness, wasting £1000s on court costs, not to mention putting someone away falsely for several months.


Maybe there's an argument for freezing any compensation payouts, in all legal cases, until all the stages of appeal have been exhausted.

I am not sure. I hate the thought of someone afraid to spend their money in case they have to pay it back, and if new evidence turns up, the appeal could be twenty years later, couldn't it?