Disabled woman tells court Rolf Harris 'groped' her at hospital
 

http://news.sky.com/story/disabled-w...pital-10731259

Rolf Harris is a sex offender, this has been proven in a court of law. He was found guilty by US. The public of 11 Jurors.

BUT, l strongly believe that we now have to draw a line. This crime that he has 'supposed to have committed over 30 YEARS AGO. 1977 to be precise.

How can a anyone remember what happen then. Members, may say that if he has committed a crime against young girls, or boys.

Well, as l have stated. I was abused for FIVE years. And l mean sexual abused. And yes, the ******* is now dead. He led me to things l could not imagine in todays life.

So l simply cannot understand what will it achieve of bringing it to court NOW.

We have had many sex cases brought against well known famous stars. Which have proved fruitless.

In the 1950/60/70s. there was lots of things going in that era. I can always remember waiting outside the Hammersmith Odeon (now the Hammersmith Apollo) and you would have girl's and Women, throwing everything possible at men waiting outside, or the bands, coming from the side entrance.

Or outside the Hammersmith Broadway Cinema. Notorious for sex offences with boys.

And Now, some 30 years later, people, now decide to bring charges against stars of that era - for what.

I strongly believe that the law should be changed. That IF a sex offence is to be brought against ANYONE it should be within the last TEN YEARS.

The only verdict that will be brought against Harris, that IF found guilty. He will get a further five years. which will be appealed.

But at the end of the day - WHAT WILL IT ACHIEVE, AND WHO WILL BE NEXT.

Re: Rolf Harris Sex Crimes
 

But Arthur, would you be of the same opinion if Rolf Harris had been the one feeling you up when you were younger?

Pervs have to know there is no hiding place, FOREVER.

Re: Rolf Harris Sex Crimes
 

Paedos, need a whole life sentence. Preferably a rope.

Re: Rolf Harris Sex Crimes
 

Well lets put it this way.

Yes, l can still remember to this day what happened. But, l feel that when it happened. I think the police should have taken action then.

But the police did nothing.

I strongly believe that there should be the death penalty for this crime. As it scars you for life.

My wife only knows half of what happened. But, crimes such as RH. further prosecutions are creeping up all the time. But all that will happen, is probably an extension of his sentence. And would almost certainly be appealed.

I suppose in a 'sick' way. What came out AFTER Jimmy Saville issue came out. There was so much 'cover up' from all quarters.

Just remember, there was an item about Dolphin House. That has now gone quiet. We had MPs in the news - that's all gone quiet. All this is being covered up. And the authorities will try and say ' It must be in your mind' Is this what l was told.

The only good thing that will come out of it, is that Inmates of prisons deal out the punishments. Which l applaud.

I also feel that without damn good evidence against the culprit. They will walk.

Re: Disabled woman tells court Rolf Harris 'groped' her at hospital
 

A crime is a crime no matter when or how long ago it happened. Many people were too scared to come forward.

However as adults they now feel they will be believed.

Similar thing happening in football now and historic crimes by coaches and other staff are now coming to light and people are getting prosecuted.

Who needs specific evidence when there are so many people saying that the person did something and in most cases more than once.

I don't believe for a moment that you don't think people should be punished for a crime!

Re: Disabled woman tells court Rolf Harris 'groped' her at hospital
 

So which is it to be off-the-hook after 10 years or strung up? You seem to be blowing hot and cold.

Re: Rolf Harris Sex Crimes
 

Actually, in a way, I think what happened after Jimmy Saville was good. It exposed various cover ups, and some of those involved are, I believe, now in jail.

Apparently the problem with the Operation Midland investigation was that at least one of the witnesses has since said he never met the people who he had claimed abused him. Other cases failed apparently due to lack of evidence.

I suspect you are now going to claim that the evidence was removed as part of a cover up and you may be right. However, the problem is that to persue a legal case, you *need* evidence. How does a jury know that a victim isn't just making up their stories of abuse just to get back at someone they don't like? Before you say that doesn't happen, I've actually met a woman who did. Our legal system assumes the accused is innocent and asks that the authorities (usually the Police) prove otherwise.

It's easier for Journos. They aren't really interested in evidence (unless they are likely to face legal action as a result of an article). They are interested in people reading or watching their report. They may get sued, but seemingly more often than not, all that happens is that the owner of the paper settles out of court, or loses, pays up and prints or broadcasts an almost insignificant apology.

The problem there is that if we give these criminals the death penalty, they won't get any punishments from other prisoners, as they won't be in prison (or, indeed, alive).

That's the problem the authorities have. They need evidence for a prosecution, and more often that not in any abuse case, there will be two people present. The accused and the victim. No witnesses, and any DNA based evidence really needs to be collected within a few hours. There may be other evidence (such as CCTV) but in the event of a cover up, this can vanish.


Put simply, it's one thing for a journalist to write an excited article that seems to almost drool over accusations than someone is a paedo, but when the person being accused may actually end up in prison as a result of the accusations, they need proof.

Re: Rolf Harris Sex Crimes
 

This is the thing about these cases that bothers me.

You have the accused, and the (alledged) victim, and all you appear to have is the word of one against the other about events 10/20/30+ years ago , and yet they seem to be found guilty. How is that possible ? Where is the evidence/proof ?

From what Ive seen (which may not be the whole story of course) anyone can claim to be a victim of a random star/person, and that star/person end up in court.

Re: Rolf Harris Sex Crimes
 

Typically in the high profile cases we've seen there are a number of victims whose stories independently collaborate each others. That was the case with Harris anyway.

Re: Rolf Harris Sex Crimes
 

I think 'corroborate' is the word. Collaboration implies something other than independence! :)

Apologies for my pedantry but it seems a disservice not to mention it.

Re: Disabled woman tells court Rolf Harris 'groped' her at hospital
 

So, if you want to nail someone you dont like, group up and make sure your stories match ?

With no actual evidence, other than old stories, I dont see how they can be convicted.

Re: Rolf Harris Sex Crimes
 

In cases like this there will often be information/evidence not made public and if any new accusers step forward their evidence would need to reasonably match it.

---------- Post added at 05:50 ---------- Previous post was at 05:47 ----------

Pre-court, that's the job of the CPS. They'll decide if there's a reasonable prospect of conviction. They don't always get it right obviously but that's a different story.

During court, it's the job of Harris' defence team to cast doubt on what the accuser is saying happened all those years ago.

Re: Disabled woman tells court Rolf Harris 'groped' her at hospital
 

Yes absolutely! Very important distinction. I did mean corroborate. Cheers

As Russ says there would be details unknown to the public that victims come forward with which, in court, would help convince a jury. That's a key detail here. 12 random people listened to the evidence and became convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that people like Harris were guilty. So it's not as if they've been arbitrarily convicted by the police or anything.

Re: Disabled woman tells court Rolf Harris 'groped' her at hospital
 

Unfortunately unless the members of such a jury were exclusively from a hemitage on a remote island then they would be familiar with RH's lurid past and thus are likely to give creedence to any accusations even if the evedence is weak. "He's a convicted kiddie fiddler so he MUST be guilty"

Not that I'm defending RH, just saying.

Re: Disabled woman tells court Rolf Harris 'groped' her at hospital
 

Maybe but he wasn't a convicted pedophile when he was first found guilty. I don't know how you ensure a jury doesn't factor in his existing conviction now but I can't think of any other way to do it.