This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I can't help thinking what an enormous task it must have been for them to consider the evidence without being unduly influenced by the television and public persona.
I don't envy the juries in such cases.
I don't envy the juries in such cases.
In reply to mypyrex:
I think the evidence was so overwhelmingly damning that you would have to be Sepp Blatter not to come to a fairly easy verdict
I think the evidence was so overwhelmingly damning that you would have to be Sepp Blatter not to come to a fairly easy verdict
In reply to mypyrex:
Apparently he sang 'Jake the peg' in front of the jury. I'd have sent him down pronto if he'd inflicted that on me.
Apparently he sang 'Jake the peg' in front of the jury. I'd have sent him down pronto if he'd inflicted that on me.
In reply to mypyrex:
The cornerstone of the evidence was a letter of apology he had sent to the father of one of the victims. Pretty damning stuff. I doubt his fame operated to cloud their judgement.
The cornerstone of the evidence was a letter of apology he had sent to the father of one of the victims. Pretty damning stuff. I doubt his fame operated to cloud their judgement.
In reply to M0nkey:
> I doubt his fame operated to cloud their judgement.
Thankfully it appears not to have doneIn reply to mypyrex:
I'm not so convinced we do but then maybe I lead a rather sheltered life.
jk
> I would imagine that some are. Is that not why we have a "celebrity culture"?
I'm not so convinced we do but then maybe I lead a rather sheltered life.
jk
What I find so abhorrent about the way it's finished is that he has shown no remorse. This to me suggests that he - and I believe this is a characteristic of paedophiles - does not believe he has done anything wrong. The apparent lack of emotion throughout also suggests(to me)that he is guilty.
He could, surely, have done himself a favour by showing some remorse and perhaps been treated (even) more leniently.
Post edited at 17:03
In reply to jkarran:
Yes. That's why stage door groupies have always existed and why a thousand rock stars must be shitting bricks waiting for that knock on the door.
At one time I would have envied them, and I don't think that makes me a paedophile.
Yes. That's why stage door groupies have always existed and why a thousand rock stars must be shitting bricks waiting for that knock on the door.
At one time I would have envied them, and I don't think that makes me a paedophile.
In reply to mypyrex:
>The apparent lack of emotion throughout also suggests(to me)that he is guilty.
I hope to God your never on a Jury.
>The apparent lack of emotion throughout also suggests(to me)that he is guilty.
I hope to God your never on a Jury.
In reply to Indy:
I actually meant that his lack of emotion AFTER the verdict probably confirms his guilt.
> >The apparent lack of emotion throughout also suggests(to me)that he is guilty.
> I hope to God your never on a Jury.
I actually meant that his lack of emotion AFTER the verdict probably confirms his guilt.
In reply to mypyrex:
If you were innocent, would you so remorse?
Yeah if you were on a jury you'd lock up everyone.
Remorseful, lets be lenient (guilty)
Not remorseful, definitely guilty.
If you were innocent, would you so remorse?
Yeah if you were on a jury you'd lock up everyone.
Remorseful, lets be lenient (guilty)
Not remorseful, definitely guilty.
In reply to mypyrex:
How does that line of thought work with say err Gerry Conlon one of the Guilford 4? Are you saying he should have shown remorse for a crime he didn't commit?
How does that line of thought work with say err Gerry Conlon one of the Guilford 4? Are you saying he should have shown remorse for a crime he didn't commit?
In reply to jkarran:
Isn't that the whole point? Young and vulnerable people,as well as a whole bunch of adults, were star struck and so Saville and Harris were able to operate with impunity for decades.
Isn't that the whole point? Young and vulnerable people,as well as a whole bunch of adults, were star struck and so Saville and Harris were able to operate with impunity for decades.
In reply to mypyrex:
If it was anything like a trial I sat on, the jury were probably under strict instructions not to watch TV nor read anything about the trial in newspapers; nor Google. Only to go on the evidence presented in the court.
If it was anything like a trial I sat on, the jury were probably under strict instructions not to watch TV nor read anything about the trial in newspapers; nor Google. Only to go on the evidence presented in the court.
In reply to FreshSlate:
You almost appear to be suggesting that Harris in not guilty; in which case I would have expected a display of indignation when the verdict was announced.
You almost appear to be suggesting that Harris in not guilty; in which case I would have expected a display of indignation when the verdict was announced.
In reply to mypyrex:
I've done jury service - twice - and on the basis of that experience I certainly wouldn't assume that a jury's verdict is inevitably correct.
In short, if someone is declared guilty - or not guilty - I can't kid myself that that's the last word.
There are some weird, illogical, ill informed, unimaginative and bitter people out there, and a fair proportion make it on to jury service.
I've done jury service - twice - and on the basis of that experience I certainly wouldn't assume that a jury's verdict is inevitably correct.
In short, if someone is declared guilty - or not guilty - I can't kid myself that that's the last word.
There are some weird, illogical, ill informed, unimaginative and bitter people out there, and a fair proportion make it on to jury service.
In reply to mypyrex:
To whom? A baying mob out for a lynching?
> You almost appear to be suggesting that Harris in not guilty; in which case I would have expected a display of indignation when the verdict was announced.
To whom? A baying mob out for a lynching?
In reply to Tom Valentine:
I've been thinking along those lines since all this kicked off. The only thing I can assume is that the groupies willingly obliged. I know legally some may have been too young to consent but if in their own mind they were willing and have no regrets they aren't going to go to the police.
Still, it must be playing on a few rock star's minds.
> Yes. That's why stage door groupies have always existed and why a thousand rock stars must be shitting bricks waiting for that knock on the door. >
I've been thinking along those lines since all this kicked off. The only thing I can assume is that the groupies willingly obliged. I know legally some may have been too young to consent but if in their own mind they were willing and have no regrets they aren't going to go to the police.
Still, it must be playing on a few rock star's minds.
In reply to M0nkey:
Damming , but only if the evidence makes to to the jury.
Rebekah Brooks and Coulson , for example, both admitted paying police for information
( "within the law" !!!!)
It is of course illegal .
I heard them admit it myself see clip, but apparently ,somehow, the footage was never shown to the jury in court, or her words entered in evidence.
Does that now make her innocent?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v1AJjnl2y8U&autoplay=1
An interesting addition to the subject of police taking bribes.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2538282/Pay-police-theyll-tempted-a...
If Harris had managed to suppress that 'damming' letter, and got off, would that make him innocent too? ( or at least as 'innocent ' at Brooks)
Alas, ( I have served on a jury) but I don't have much trust in the Jury system, nor the police, who patently had been taking money for information. who is to say they do not also take money to pervert the course of justice?
> The cornerstone of the evidence was a letter of apology he had sent to the father of one of the victims. Pretty damning stuff. I doubt his fame operated to cloud their judgement.
Damming , but only if the evidence makes to to the jury.
Rebekah Brooks and Coulson , for example, both admitted paying police for information
( "within the law" !!!!)
It is of course illegal .
I heard them admit it myself see clip, but apparently ,somehow, the footage was never shown to the jury in court, or her words entered in evidence.
Does that now make her innocent?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v1AJjnl2y8U&autoplay=1
An interesting addition to the subject of police taking bribes.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2538282/Pay-police-theyll-tempted-a...
If Harris had managed to suppress that 'damming' letter, and got off, would that make him innocent too? ( or at least as 'innocent ' at Brooks)
Alas, ( I have served on a jury) but I don't have much trust in the Jury system, nor the police, who patently had been taking money for information. who is to say they do not also take money to pervert the course of justice?
In reply to pec:
They might have spent the last twenty years living off the buzz of having been shagged by a leatherclad lead singer when they were 14, then realised that there is money to be made in pointing the finger at him.
It's a minefield and i'm glad i never got my fifteen minutes of fame.
They might have spent the last twenty years living off the buzz of having been shagged by a leatherclad lead singer when they were 14, then realised that there is money to be made in pointing the finger at him.
It's a minefield and i'm glad i never got my fifteen minutes of fame.
In reply to Tom Valentine:
Wow.
> They might have spent the last twenty years living off the buzz of having been shagged by a leatherclad lead singer when they were 14, then realised that there is money to be made in pointing the finger at him.
Wow.
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
I've also done it and I agree. I wouldn't want to put my fate in the hands of a jury.
> I've done jury service - twice - and on the basis of that experience I certainly wouldn't assume that a jury's verdict is inevitably correct.
I've also done it and I agree. I wouldn't want to put my fate in the hands of a jury.
In reply to mypyrex:
I think the Jury system is robust and fair. 12 people selected at random to listen to the evidence and use their common sense when it comes to reaching a verdict. I can't think of a fairer system.
And, yes, I have served on a jury
I think the Jury system is robust and fair. 12 people selected at random to listen to the evidence and use their common sense when it comes to reaching a verdict. I can't think of a fairer system.
And, yes, I have served on a jury
In reply to AndyC:
Having served on a jury I agree.We came to the conclusion the guy was innocent. he was promptly rearrested on the spot and charged with 20 other offences. I was not impressed with the legal system after that.It was clear that if we had known that we would have decided guilty as we had a split jury. Instead I know believe the jury system is flawed.
Having served on a jury I agree.We came to the conclusion the guy was innocent. he was promptly rearrested on the spot and charged with 20 other offences. I was not impressed with the legal system after that.It was clear that if we had known that we would have decided guilty as we had a split jury. Instead I know believe the jury system is flawed.
In reply to neilh:
I don't agree. You were trying him for a specific offence on the basis of the evidence fot THAT offence, and found him not guilty. That's all you were being asked to do.
If you had known about other impending charges, could you have remained impartial when it came to deciding on the specific offence you were trying? I doubt it.
It's quite possible that he was innocent of that offence as you found. You will never know, but you and your fellow majority jurers did your duty.
How else would you have it?
> (In reply to AndyC)
>
> Having served on a jury I agree.We came to the conclusion the guy was innocent. he was promptly rearrested on the spot and charged with 20 other offences. I was not impressed with the legal system after that.It was clear that if we had known that we would have decided guilty as we had a split jury. Instead I know believe the jury system is flawed.
>
> Having served on a jury I agree.We came to the conclusion the guy was innocent. he was promptly rearrested on the spot and charged with 20 other offences. I was not impressed with the legal system after that.It was clear that if we had known that we would have decided guilty as we had a split jury. Instead I know believe the jury system is flawed.
I don't agree. You were trying him for a specific offence on the basis of the evidence fot THAT offence, and found him not guilty. That's all you were being asked to do.
If you had known about other impending charges, could you have remained impartial when it came to deciding on the specific offence you were trying? I doubt it.
It's quite possible that he was innocent of that offence as you found. You will never know, but you and your fellow majority jurers did your duty.
How else would you have it?
It's apparent that some people are sceptical of the jury system. I'd be interested to know what it could be replaced with. I think there are few, if any, viable alternatives.
In reply to mypyrex:
Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful comment. What alternatives are YOU aware of?
Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful comment. What alternatives are YOU aware of?
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
The worst thing about it is that it is utterly opaque. We simply don't know how decisions are reached
.
The worst thing about it is that it is utterly opaque. We simply don't know how decisions are reached
.
In reply to MG:
Especially after listening to 8 months of evidence. Unfortunately, it may come down to the personalities of people on the jury in the end, that's the weak point in the system from my experience.
A reliable lie detector would make the whole process redundant.
> The worst thing about it is that it is utterly opaque. We simply don't know how decisions are reached
Especially after listening to 8 months of evidence. Unfortunately, it may come down to the personalities of people on the jury in the end, that's the weak point in the system from my experience.
A reliable lie detector would make the whole process redundant.
In reply to Trangia:
Absolutely. One of my work colleagues did jury service and the case was a guy who was on trial for nicking a car.
Unfortunately, whilst the guy was obviously an entirely disreputable individual, and equally obviously had nicked many, many cars, he equally obviously *hadn't* nicked the one he was on trial for nicking.
(Cast-iron alibi and his mate (not an intellectual giant) stood up in court and under cross-questioning admitted that *he* had nicked the relevant car).
Apparently most of the jury were up for a guilty verdict on the basis of generalised car-nicking...
> I don't agree. You were trying him for a specific offence on the basis of the evidence fot THAT offence, and found him not guilty. That's all you were being asked to do.
Absolutely. One of my work colleagues did jury service and the case was a guy who was on trial for nicking a car.
Unfortunately, whilst the guy was obviously an entirely disreputable individual, and equally obviously had nicked many, many cars, he equally obviously *hadn't* nicked the one he was on trial for nicking.
(Cast-iron alibi and his mate (not an intellectual giant) stood up in court and under cross-questioning admitted that *he* had nicked the relevant car).
Apparently most of the jury were up for a guilty verdict on the basis of generalised car-nicking...
Post edited at 22:38
In reply to mypyrex:
If you come from a country that has juries you can't think of an alternative. If you come from a country without juries you might think "what, you can't let untrained amateurs decide somebody's fate!".
If you come from a country that has juries you can't think of an alternative. If you come from a country without juries you might think "what, you can't let untrained amateurs decide somebody's fate!".
Post edited at 22:34
In reply to Trangia:
Save that the prosecution can object, and also the people selected can turn it down , the initial selection is random.
How many, and what type of people are objected to, or turn down the jury service, I don't know, but just say this process , of objection, or declining , was to weed out people who were more likely to find accused innocent, then , in theory, there would be a bias there.
But I don't have stats showing that it does or does not.
> I think the Jury system is robust and fair. 12 people selected at random to listen to the evidence and use their common sense when it comes to reaching a verdict. I can't think of a fairer system.
Save that the prosecution can object, and also the people selected can turn it down , the initial selection is random.
How many, and what type of people are objected to, or turn down the jury service, I don't know, but just say this process , of objection, or declining , was to weed out people who were more likely to find accused innocent, then , in theory, there would be a bias there.
But I don't have stats showing that it does or does not.
In reply to mypyrex:
I was a juror on an abuse case. Most difficult thing I have ever been involved with.
I was a juror on an abuse case. Most difficult thing I have ever been involved with.
In reply to AndyC:
Are you serious?
> A reliable lie detector would make the whole process redundant.
Are you serious?
In reply to mypyrex:
Maybe it could be replaced with, oh I don't know, er, JURYLESS courts.
There is an internationally high-profile case ongoing right now, which has no jury. I would be surprised if you are unaware of the case in question.
> It's apparent that some people are sceptical of the jury system. I'd be interested to know what it could be replaced with.
Maybe it could be replaced with, oh I don't know, er, JURYLESS courts.
There is an internationally high-profile case ongoing right now, which has no jury. I would be surprised if you are unaware of the case in question.
In reply to Simon Caldwell:
So why is he not now vehemently protesting his innocence? I would have thought that would be what many people would instinctively do.
Some years ago I was the victim of a thankfully relatively minor but malicious and false allegation. Thankfully the police were never involved and I had appropriate witnesses. When I was confronted with the allegations I refuted them with all the resources available to me. I eventually found out the identity of the complainant and even considered a civil action against them.
To put it another way; you find yourself in the dock charged with an offence which you know in your heart of hearts you did not commit. The jury retires and then comes back and you hear the word from the foreman of the jury: "Guilty". Can you honestly say that you would stand there impassively and accept what comes to you as Harris appears to have done? I doubt it somehow.
So why is he not now vehemently protesting his innocence? I would have thought that would be what many people would instinctively do.
Some years ago I was the victim of a thankfully relatively minor but malicious and false allegation. Thankfully the police were never involved and I had appropriate witnesses. When I was confronted with the allegations I refuted them with all the resources available to me. I eventually found out the identity of the complainant and even considered a civil action against them.
To put it another way; you find yourself in the dock charged with an offence which you know in your heart of hearts you did not commit. The jury retires and then comes back and you hear the word from the foreman of the jury: "Guilty". Can you honestly say that you would stand there impassively and accept what comes to you as Harris appears to have done? I doubt it somehow.
Post edited at 15:27
In reply to neilh:
How on earth do you arrive at that conclusion? Just because he had a record doesn't mean he committed the crime you were deliberating over.
> (In reply to Trangia)
>
> the point was we did not do our duty, we failed.
>
> the point was we did not do our duty, we failed.
How on earth do you arrive at that conclusion? Just because he had a record doesn't mean he committed the crime you were deliberating over.
In reply to mypyrex:
In cases like this it would be easier for the juries if they had a 'Not Proven' verdict available. That way they can indicate there isn't enough evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt without suggesting they are sure he didn't do it and by implication they didn't believe the witnesses.
> I don't envy the juries in such cases.
In cases like this it would be easier for the juries if they had a 'Not Proven' verdict available. That way they can indicate there isn't enough evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt without suggesting they are sure he didn't do it and by implication they didn't believe the witnesses.
In reply to mypyrex:
I can't tell whether you think Rolf Harris is:
a) guilty
b) innocent
c) the first person ever to have betrayed no emotion upon being sentenced
> So why is he not now vehemently protesting his innocence? I would have thought that would be what many people would instinctively do......
> .... Can you honestly say that you would stand there impassively and accept what comes to you as Harris appears to have done? I doubt it somehow.
I can't tell whether you think Rolf Harris is:
a) guilty
b) innocent
c) the first person ever to have betrayed no emotion upon being sentenced
In reply to mypyrex:
I read that article and found it very interesting. While I am all in favour of people coming forward to report crimes that happened in the past I am uncomfortable with people being convicted purely on the say so of individuals concerning events from so long ago. I would hope that in the Harris case there was more evidence than the article suggests.
Imagine that your false accusation was more serious, then imagine that it took place so long ago that you couldn't even be sure when it was supposed to take place, then imagine that other people came forward with the same accusation! Before long you are in a Kafka novel!
Drawing conclusions from people's reactions as to whether they are guilty or not is akin to throwing witches into lakes to see if they float.
Victims have a right to be heard and no one should be able to hide behind celebrity status but equally people have a right to expect any accusations made against them to be backed up by hard evidence and the further back in time the all edged offence took place then the more robust should be the evidence as memories can be false and witnesses harder to find. It is hard on those who may have a legitimate complain but it has to be the law otherwise we are back to the Salem witch trials
I read that article and found it very interesting. While I am all in favour of people coming forward to report crimes that happened in the past I am uncomfortable with people being convicted purely on the say so of individuals concerning events from so long ago. I would hope that in the Harris case there was more evidence than the article suggests.
Imagine that your false accusation was more serious, then imagine that it took place so long ago that you couldn't even be sure when it was supposed to take place, then imagine that other people came forward with the same accusation! Before long you are in a Kafka novel!
Drawing conclusions from people's reactions as to whether they are guilty or not is akin to throwing witches into lakes to see if they float.
Victims have a right to be heard and no one should be able to hide behind celebrity status but equally people have a right to expect any accusations made against them to be backed up by hard evidence and the further back in time the all edged offence took place then the more robust should be the evidence as memories can be false and witnesses harder to find. It is hard on those who may have a legitimate complain but it has to be the law otherwise we are back to the Salem witch trials
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...