JK2006 wrote:
Was that the silly bit he admitted having an affair with when she was 18 and simply said something like "You look nice" when she was 13 in a bikini?

No, that was the child that was NOT in a crappy community centre watching his concert that never happened, and not abused at all.

Even the thirteen year old wouldn't have been pre-pubescent, though it is my opinion that that charge will be shown to be hogwash too eventually.

Judging from the media reports, the prosecution barrister ran rings round him on the bikini issue. If only he'd had the defence team he had for his second and third trials and appeal, maybe the outcome would have been different.

I agree, Jo.

And what a lot of people have forgotten is that the defence barrister at his first trial was taken ill at a critical point in the trial (I think it was after the prosecution had summed up) and had to be replaced by a junior. While people can't help being ill, it left Rolf at a huge disadvantage as for several days during the will-she-or-won't-she-return limbo there was nothing to balance the prosecution's case.

As for Ms Community Centre, how the CPS could ever have thought that to be, er, 'credible and true' is beyond me.

Sheba Bear wrote:
I agree, Jo.

And what a lot of people have forgotten is that the defence barrister at his first trial was taken ill at a critical point in the trial (I think it was after the prosecution had summed up) and had to be replaced by a junior. While people can't help being ill, it left Rolf at a huge disadvantage as for several days during the will-she-or-won't-she-return limbo there was nothing to balance the prosecution's case.

As for Ms Community Centre, how the CPS could ever have thought that to be, er, 'credible and true' is beyond me.

It horrifies me that people that gullible are involved in the law.

That's my recollection too, Sheba Bear, and I was surprised that the trial was allowed to continue. I wonder what the jury did during those days. Would they have been sent home until the junior gave the defence summing up or would they have had to come into court and, if so, would they have been somewhere together where they could actually discuss the prosecution summing up?

Regarding gullibility, I initially thought the police must have let themselves be misled, but now I'm not so sure. There were rather neat parallels between the main accuser's story and Tonya Lee's story, and I don't see how that could have happened without some help. I think they wanted to nail him.

And of course the Cambridge one involved nothing more than an alleged bottom pat - not some lurid pounce-and-rape while waving a sharpened didgeridoo - and it was her word against his. The actual charge was, "Between the 1st day of January 1975 and the 1st day of January 1979 indecently assaulted a female person aged 12 to 16 years, by rubbing her buttocks'.

Because Rolf couldn't remember having been to Cambridge - and with respect, that is something that would not be unusual in a man of his age - he was branded a liar. She couldn't remember which TV show was being filmed, where it was being filmed or how old she was and was lauded for being brave and courageous.

It seems very unfair that she was allowed to change her story in court to align with his appearance in Cambridge but that his memory lapse should be interpreted as lying. She was interviewed by ITV. (I also seem to remember a video clip of her being interviewed by Susannah Reid, wearing what looked like a long dark wavy wig and with her back to the camera...Google, Google...here's the image.) What she claims were the effects of the alleged encounter seem far out of proportion with what she alleged he did all those years ago. She's all over the place, saying her recollection was so vivid it felt like five minutes ago, but couldn't remember in court how old she was, what event it was or where it happened, saying she couldn't bear to look at his picture for 25 years, yet tried to catch his eye in court. Wouldn't be surprised if she never got near him, merely remembered he had attended an event in Cambridge. Interestingly, police did not release her full victim impact statement ("At the request of 'B', police did not release the full statement from complainant 'B'. source)

Sheba Bear wrote:
And of course the Cambridge one involved nothing more than an alleged bottom pat - not some lurid pounce-and-rape while waving a sharpened didgeridoo - and it was her word against his. The actual charge was, "Between the 1st day of January 1975 and the 1st day of January 1979 indecently assaulted a female person aged 12 to 16 years, by rubbing her buttocks'.

Because Rolf couldn't remember having been to Cambridge - and with respect, that is something that would not be unusual in a man of his age - he was branded a liar. She couldn't remember which TV show was being filmed, where it was being filmed or how old she was and was lauded for being brave and courageous.

I think it was at this trial that lawyers quite shamelessly were allowed to brand Rolf Harris's failure to remember things entirely accurately as 'lies' and the accusers' faulty memories as mere faulty memories. That was when the system really slid down the rabbit hole.

I'm not as old as Rolf but I can't remember things from the 70s that I have photos of me at not a scooby but it's definitely me

If the Mirror's coverage of Rolf Harris near a school didn't already seem sinister and a possible risk to his and his family's safety, this seems to clinch it:

"Keeping our children safe is the number one concern and paedophiles released into the community either respect there are boundaries limiting where they can go and who they see, or law and order will break down.

Harris either stays away from schools or there will be trouble."

www.mirror.co.uk/news/voice-mirror-rolf-...is-entering-13958183

Plus, the photos in the article apparently show him much closer to the school than he actually was. They also don't show him waving at anyone. Did the photographer see that but wasn't quick enough to capture it, or did it not happen and was it inserted into the article in order to give it some substance and stir up the readers by implying that he posed a risk to children by interacting with them?

Jo wrote:
That's my recollection too, Sheba Bear, and I was surprised that the trial was allowed to continue. I wonder what the jury did during those days. Would they have been sent home until the junior gave the defence summing up or would they have had to come into court and, if so, would they have been somewhere together where they could actually discuss the prosecution summing up?

Regarding gullibility, I initially thought the police must have let themselves be misled, but now I'm not so sure. There were rather neat parallels between the main accuser's story and Tonya Lee's story, and I don't see how that could have happened without some help. I think they wanted to nail him.

That is a very good point, Jo, but I think anyone can be taken in if they allow themselves to be.

I remember even posters here (Mostly with higher than average intelligence, I suspect?) firmly believed the codswallop about the crummy community centre even when the impossibility was pointed out.

I think once we are told something we tend to hold onto the belief even when contrary evidence presents itself.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
Was that the silly bit he admitted having an affair with when she was 18 and simply said something like "You look nice" when she was 13 in a bikini?

No, that was the child that was NOT in a crappy community centre watching his concert that never happened, and not abused at all.

Even the thirteen year old wouldn't have been pre-pubescent, though it is my opinion that that charge will be shown to be hogwash too eventually.

I was giving free tickets to see him live, I stayed for one song then there was an exodus of several walkouts. No one in their right mind stayed.