Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Rolf Harris conviction: a miscarriage of justice?

12 posts in this topic

 

The former police constable turned journalist who presented programmes airing posthumous allegations about Jimmy Savile in October 2012, allegations since examined and called into question by several bloggers and the subject of academic research, who released Rolf Harris's name on Twitter nine months before he was charged and on the day the Leveson report was published ("it should be made abundantly clear that save in exceptional and clearly identified circumstances (for example, where there may be an immediate risk to the public), the names or identifying details of those who are arrested or suspected of a crime should not be released to the press or the public" Vol. 2, pp. 791, 984), said in a BBC Radio 5 live interview (4:00) in February 2015:

"If we can ta… if we can prosecute or have prosecuted the most untouchable, then everybody is fair game".

 

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everybody mark these 2 posts down.How dare someone post links to a petition.Let's mark her down without actually stating why we marked her down.

Can someone explain why they marked her down purely on the content of this post ?

Maybe you have a different viewpoint (I presume she thinks Harris is innocent) well then why not express that opinion and explain what your problem is with her post.

This is a discussion forum but judging by this post the discussion isn't worth it let's just merely mark someone down even though that person has actually expressed no opinion on this matter.

 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say it's Lorelei's job to explain why she's posted a link to the petition. It's only because she's a regular poster that the thread wasn't deleted as spam.

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not marking anyone down. If I wanted to read Facebook and Twitter, I would be on Facebook and Twitter.

​Exactly,but if you think that and mark someone down without explaining why you marked them down it is really kind of pointless.

Not on either of them myself and when I read this thread it didn't interest me and was just about to leave it and notice the -'s she got just for posting and had no idea why.

Did people think it was spam ?

Do people hate FB and Twitter ?

Or more likely did some people see Rolf Harris/Appeal and think child molester/no appeal so just mark it down.

I didn't even realise he had been convicted I think I need to follow the news a bit more :)

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Explaining the reason for posting would take more than a couple of sentences. To keep it simple, I think the points raised in the petition and Facebook page are worth considering for anyone who values a fair justice system.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Explaining the reason for posting would take more than a couple of sentences. To keep it simple, I think the points raised in the petition and Facebook page are worth considering for anyone who values a fair justice system.

If you're going to raise a new thread about the 'possible' innocence of a convicted sexual predator, then the onus is on you to explain, in your own words why you think it is justified.

7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I heard of his being a suspect I was not him... Sweet cuddly Ralf. Now there's truly been a mistake. Emotional mistaken reaction.

Barring a witch hunt, why would they falsely convict him? What's in it for anyone other than belated justice

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I heard of his being a suspect I was not him... Sweet cuddly Ralf. Now there's truly been a mistake. Emotional mistaken reaction.

Barring a witch hunt, why would they falsely convict him? What's in it for anyone other than belated justice

​This might go some way to explaining it, from someone who actually experienced the process:

Jim Davidson (esp. starting at 4:35): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67Kb-Dirrrw
Less restrained in his book: http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.com/2014/08/jim-and-fix-it-squad.html#!/2014/08/jim-and-fix-it-squad.html




 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The petition now has over 1600 signatures and is due to be sent to Michael Gove in the New Year.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I'd update this thread, as I still believe Rolf Harris was convicted of crimes he didn't commit. I was a bit abrupt back in 2015 when I posted and will flesh things out a bit. The reason why I posted the two links in the first post was not to spam the board. It was because the petition provides a very eloquent potted summary of why many people think he experienced a miscarriage of justice, while the Facebook page gives further details.

 

Rolf Harris (now 88, soon to turn 89) was released on licence in 2017, having been jailed in 2014 after being found guilty of 12 counts of sexual assault based on allegations by four accusers, and has since faced further allegations and two further trials. These subsequent trials did not result in a conviction. He has also been cleared on appeal of one conviction resulting from one of the four accusers' allegations in his first trial, i.e. molesting an 8-year-old in an autograph queue. The other convictions related to allegations by three women claiming they were 15/19 (seven counts), 15 (three counts) and 16 (one count) at the time of the alleged offences.

 

All four women did not come forward until after news broke about the Jimmy Savile allegations/compensation claims and all claimed compensation, including the woman whose allegation was overturned on appeal. She reportedly netted many thousands of pounds and there has been no word as to whether she has had to pay it back. Another of the four, from Australia, waived her anonymity, and sold [sic] her story to the Australian media before the trial. She also gave another interview to one of the same media outlets after the trial. Another, whose story changed considerably mid-trial regarding her age and the location/event at which she alleged the offence took place, gave a media interview after the trial with her face hidden and wearing a wig, claiming she had never been the same since Rolf Harris assaulted her (she claimed he squeezed her left buttock, according to the judge's sentencing remarks). The main accuser, with whom Rolf Harris admitted to sexual involvement when she was between 18 and 29, had previously asked him for thousands and been turned down.

 

I think the context in which his accusers came forward is important.

Rolf Harris's name was released on Twitter with the hashtagged words #Savile and #sexual offences in November 2012 months before he was arrested or charged by the ex police constable who presented the October 2012 ITV programme airing allegations about Jimmy Savile that triggered the media frenzy over Savile and sparked further claims of abuse and claims for compensation against the Savile estate, the BBC, etc.:

"Breaking : Rolf Harris currently being interviewed under caution at police station as part of #Savile other #sexual offences"

 

https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/274181776283406337?lang=en

 

The tweet attracted several hundred retweets (the tweet now says 767 but it was nearer 900 when I first saw it). I don't use Twitter, but saw chatter about the tweet elsewhere online, so many more than the actual re-tweeters and their followers could have seen it too. I believe that, in the context of the Savile allegations/compensation claims, the tweet with that wording and/or related online chatter could potentially have sparked ideas in anyone anywhere in the world with an internet connection.

(For the ex police constable's views on other people being "fair game", see second post in this thread.)

 

Coincidentally (or perhaps it wasn't a coincidence), the tweet went out and Rolf Harris was questioned by police on the day the Leveson report was published, which said:

"I think that it should be made abundantly clear that save in exceptional and clearly identified circumstances (for example, where there may be an immediate risk to the public), the names or identifying details of those who are arrested or suspected of a crime should not be released to the press nor the public."

I believe the release of Rolf Harris's name in this way may well have undermined his ability to get a fair trial.

 

So why was he unable to appeal successfully against the other three accusers' claims?

 

It is apparently difficult to provide new evidence of not having committed an historic crime of this kind, especially if the crime did not in fact occur, as explained in this article:

We are surviving victims of a false accuser and wrongful conviction. Our family is in trauma.

 

Moreover, according to the barrister Rolf Harris employed for his (successful) second and third trials and (partially successful) appeal (incidentally the same barrister employed by Dave Lee Travis, who also faced historic sex allegations), appealing a criminal conviction is notoriously difficult:
Video: Appealing a conviction

Hope this helps to clarify the reasons behind this thread and perhaps make people consider whether Rolf Harris really is a paedophile/pervert/sex offender, etc., as he is repeatedly referred to in the media (e.g. in recent news about him foolishly waving to children behind glass inside a school while talking to a wood sculptor working on school grounds near his home).

 

 

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0