UKC

So here I am sat here with a cup of coffee perusing the Sunday papers when I notice that Lord Brittan has been interviewed under caution for rape. He's got to be in his 70's think so WTF!. Read further and find out that the incident took place wait for it.... 47 years ago.

Watching the revolting on-going spectacle of Rolf Harris being publicly 'lynched' while the 'victims' cash in is sickening.

I can only ask wheres it going to end?

In reply to Indy:

Wtf are you on?

Why did you put victims in quote marks?

Do you think its ok for children to suffer so a man can her his sexual gratification?

In reply to Indy:

yeah, after all, it was different time back then, wasn't it?

when it was ok for a male celebrity to stick his penis wherever he wanted with no consequences other than his own sick gratification. when the criminal justice system didn't listen to the boys and girls who were abused by predatory scumbags. when women were expected to open their legs to any man who demanded access.

bollocks to all that, i'm glad that we live in a time where we listen to the stories of the abuses of power and we doing something to give justice to the victims and scare the living daylights out of all abusers across the country. if you had been raped 47 years ago, i'm pretty damn sure that you would have noticed the affect that it had on you on every single one of the 17,155 days since, and that you'd still want to your rapist in the dock to answer for his crime.

In reply to Indy:

Are you suggesting RH is innocent based on the historicity of his crimes? Really?

In reply to marsbar:



Why did one of the 'victims' who was in substantial debt waive her rights to anonymity and then immediately sell a 'spiced up' version of her allegations to a magazine for nearly £40,000 BEFORE she'd even given a full account to the police? Why has this 'victim' used her lawyers to try and get a court transcript of her evidence while feeling the need to say she wasn't looking to monetise them.

I note that some of the 'victims' have suddenly decided to waive their right to anonymity after its been suggested that media organisations are offering 6 figure sums for their stories.

So to sum up you have allegations of offences which occurred decades ago and which can never be independently verified. You also have life changing sums of money begin waved around on sole condition of a guilty verdict. Remember, Michael Le Vell's and Bill Roach's accusers got NOTHING as they were found not guilty. Don't you think that there is a serious temptation to not tell the truth or embellish evidence?

Its also interesting that nearly 300 people came forward in the 24 hours after conviction to make fresh accusations. Only a very small percentage made those allegations to the police. I wonder if the fact that RH was worth £11 million and now a convicted low life paedophile had anything to do with it?

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

Nope, I'm suggesting that life changing sums of money might affect what version of the truth gets told in court.

In reply to Dom Whillans:
>if you had been raped 47 years ago

Could I take you back to the first word of that.... 'IF'

Are you suggesting it might not have happened? If you were accused of a rape 47 years ago that you hadn't committed how would YOU defend yourself? Would you be happy that the allegations were in all the papers and that from that moment forward you'd alway be known as the nod nod wink wink rapist?

In reply to Indy:


I hope they wipe him out with compensation claims and costs. It is just money that he would not have had, if he had been jailed earlier.

It may not end anytime soon. We have still to get to the facts on the Westminster Paedo ring, ( not that I believe the politicians want to of course, they don't )
Power corrupts, so it will do so right across the board wherever the oppertunity arises.

So not ending soon, but as the victims are now likely to feel they will believed, and allegations properly investigated, if the evidence is there, then they should be prosecuted.

So there is a lot to fear in the future for the current and past abusers.

My guess is , ( just a guess) the next one will be a Youth football Paedo Ring, it has all the ingredients of power over young hopefuls that can be exploited.

In reply to Indy:


There is a tension between delivering justice and the risk of abuse of the system: that someone may falsely accuse another of a crime for ulterior motives, causing harm to the accused.

I don't really know what you're saying, but it sounds like you believe that preventing such abuse of the system is more important than delivering justice? Which thankfully is not the view that the system takes.

In reply to Indy:


So we assume you believe that if a criminal, of whatever kind, can go undetected for a period, he should be immune from prosecution?

The deterrent idea is, that if you commit a serious crime that crime will be open to investigation, and follow you to your grave.

What IS the period ,after which criminals are immune to prosecution , that you have in mind?

In reply to Jon Stewart:


What a strange idea you have of what justice is. Are you saying that a person lying under oath to get an innocent person jailed and so collect £500,000 is justice?

In reply to Indy:


Are you saying RH's victim is lying about their abuse claims?

In reply to Indy:

I don't know what you're on about, sorry.

When I said "delivering justice" I meant convicting and sentencing the guilty for their crimes.

A person lying under oath for financial gain is "abuse of the system".

I thought that was perfectly clear in my post.

In reply to Jim C:


It's not some non-existant period of time he's trying to create, it already exists for some cases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitation_Periods_in_the_UK

Prosecuting people for things they did 50-60-70 years ago is insane. It's like the nazi camp guards/cooks who are being tried for it in their late 90's.

In reply to Indy:
Willful misinterpretation there... The key word was "you", not "if". Must try harder.

In reply to Jim C:


Yes, the qualifier should be can the person accused be guaranteed a fair trial. We already understand the legal concept with the Statute of Limitations.

In reply to Removed User:

Both of your examples don't have a bearing on criminal cases. These limitations refer to the time barr for prosecution/legal action to be brought. As I understand it, if a crime is committed 50 years ago the barr would not prevent a prosecution being brought

In reply to Jon Stewart:
>When I said "delivering justice" I meant convicting and sentencing the guilty for their crimes.


I have no problem with guilty people being convicted my ONLY concern here is that an accused person gets a fair trial.

How do you suggest we deal with people lying under oath to get a conviction who then benefit financially from that conviction?

In reply to Indy:


Lying under oath Indy is a criminal offence, it is called Perjury, and should be prosecuted with the full rigour of the law. If someone wants to take the chance to lie, they should expect no leniency.

In reply to Indy:


I thought that in a trial, evidence was presented on both sides? There are strong deterrents in place to discourage lying under oath. So I suggest it is already dealt with.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


Looking at the circumstances you'd have to be pretty damn naive to think that there wasn't a very serious temptation to do so with the huge amounts of money on offer.

In reply to Indy:

A risk inherent in compensating victims is creating an incentive for false accusations. So the system needs to

1. examine evidence when someone is accused of a crime to test whether the accusation is true

2. dissuade people from making false accusations by giving them something to lose (perjury)

Which it does.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

In reality how would you gain a conviction for perjury for an alleged offence that occurred nearly 30 years ago in a 'he said, she said' trial????

One of the accusers heavily in debt had to admit in court lying to police about a near £40,000 payment for a 'spiced up' account of the supposed assaults that was brokered by her publicist the Australian version of Max Clifford (Oh the irony)

In reply to Indy:
So, to take your argument to its logical conclusion, 12 people have made false accusations against Harris and lied under oath and yet the jury have seen sufficient consistency in those false allegations to return a guilty verdict.

I'm sorry but, unless all twelve colluded in some way, I don't think their answers to the police and defence and prosecution lawyers would have been sufficiently consistent with each others' to convince the jury.

Oh, wait a minute, perhaps the jury...

No, let's not go down that road.

In reply to Jon Stewart:




Examining the evidence in a 30 year old case where the evidence is no more than 'he said, she said'??

The chances of being convicted of perjury based on 30 year old evidence is what.... ZERO?

In reply to Indy

I'm with Mypyrex on this, I think. Though it's hard to be sure what your point is.

If you're saying that there is a serious danger that accusations of molestation and rape can turn into a hysterical witch-hunt, and that the presumption of innocence can then be threatened--especially when money is involved--then I agree.

But if you're saying that there's reason to think that the Rolf Harris verdict is flawed because the court failed to take proper account of this first point, then I really don't see why you think that. You'd need to show us that there was something flawed about the way the trial was conducted. You haven't done that.

In reply to Indy:

I don't know, nor do I see that it matters. The point is simply that the system is designed to try as best as possible to manage the risk of false accusations for financial gain. You imply that it does not do that sufficiently well, but without any justification.


So the system worked then.

In reply to Indy:


Did you hear the evidence?

In reply to mypyrex:

I think we need to look at it in context..... at the time of Rolf Harris's appearance on the police radar there was an ongoing hysteria around Saville and celebrity sex abuse.

Within hours of Rolf Harris's questioning under caution and his house being searched in early '13 you could find that information on the web despite the police not officially releasing it.

Now, if you were in debt, had a minimum wage job and life generally sucked might it not cross your mind that 30 years earlier you'd verifiably met RH and that maybe he'd grabbed your breasts while you were alone with him in a lift. After the passing of time nobody could prove it one way or the other. You can make your allegations with complete anonymity and its well know that newspapers pay huge sums for stories when celebrities are involved.

From what I have read the allegations are pretty varied from 'tongue kissing' a minor to groping etc so hardly a consensus. Its also worth bearing in mind that the accusers in court were a small selection of the total number of woman making accusations. There are also the 100's that have made accusations since his conviction yet there wasn't a single rumour or bad word against him before the charges which seems odd. There had been rumours about Saville going back to the 60's.

In reply to Indy:

I really don't think the police are so inept as to be unable to identify the inconsistencies in the evidence provided by different witnesses.

In reply to Indy:

You are implying that RH is innocent without having heard the evidence and without any justification other than the incentive for people to make false accusations. It's a load of rubbish.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

It would have been a bit hard to miss in a highly publicised article she wrote about a national treasure celebrity in a million+ selling magazine 9 months before the trial. A bit different from an alleged encounter 30 years ago when it is her word against his.

>"the system is designed to try as best as possible"
Sorry that's just not good enough! I wouldn't expect you or one of your loved ones to have your life destroyed by a false allegation made on the basis of some sort of gain to the accuser.

This is all and solely about the right to a fair trial.

In reply to Indy:

A jury of his peers found him guilty. end of story.

In reply to Indy:




But you haven't shown that anyone hasn't had a fair trial.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Im not saying he's innocent or guilty because as you said I've not heard all the evidence. What I am saying is that he has a right to a fair trial. Under the circumstance i.e .the last alleged offence was nearly 30 years ago I think that with the huge financial incentive that the accusers have for a guilty verdict the chances of a fair trial are minimal. At least one accuser has shown a very keen interest in maximising her financial gain from accusations.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


Juries have found many innocent people guilty what is your point?

In reply to Indy:


As Tim says above,

In reply to Indy:


You have absolutely no faith in the justice system here at all? A jury's verdict is worthless? What is your point?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

A link from another thread that pretty much sums up what I think about the Harris trial...

http://www.libertarianview.co.uk/current-affairs/rolf-harris-beyond-reasona...

Also it wasn't my intention to focus this thread on Harris but more the right to a fair trial.

In reply to Indy:

1. Any jury has to be sure, on the evidence, of guilt. Nothing less will do.
2. All of the arguments that you and others properly raise about compensation seeking, the difficulty in responding to historical allegations, a 'witch hunt' and so on are all arguments that can be raised in the trial for the consideration of the jury. After considering all of those arguments made by prosecution and defence they then have to consider whether the defendant is guilty or innocent, as to which see (1) above.
3. Short of stopping all cases based on old allegations as an abuse of process (an argument which has been pursued to the Court of Appeal and House of Lords but which has found little favour) then the trial process itself has to deal with the competing arguments.
4. What then is unfair?

In reply to Indy:



So the author of that article thinks he can do a better job of defending Harris using only information available in the press, than Harris' lawyers did in the courtroom... It isn't compelling.


So what change is it that you think will guarantee a fair trial in such cases? Or do you think that a defendant should be able to say "this trial isn't fair, there's a financial incentive for these accusations to be made against me" and then be instantly acquitted? What you're saying just doesn't lead anywhere sensible.

In reply to Jon Stewart:



Did you? All the evidence that has been reported in the media is pretty much 'he said, she said'. Not saying there isn't any other evidence, but it hasn't been widely reported.

In reply to nw:


No, and consequently I have no grounds to debate the verdict.


The media's job is not to report the evidence so that we can all come to our own, well-informed verdict. Even the most objective and thorough journalist is still only trying to tell a story. I think it's ludicrous that people should profess to come to a better judgement using information from the press.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Making financial remuneration in connection with a criminal accusation unlawful?

In reply to Mr Lopez:


By the courts or by others, e.g. the press? The courts can't compensate a victim of theft? What's the incentive for pressing charges?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Wow, so people have no right to an opinion or a debate on court cases they aren't directly involved in?

In reply to Jon Stewart:



Agreed, they are trying to sell copy, it is the only reason for their existence. Which makes it all the more likely that if there was any bombshell
evidence we would be hearing about it. Especially now that the trial is over.

In reply to nw:


What are you on about? Anyone can have an opinion, but "I know better than the jury because I read all about it in the newspaper" is not an opinion worth listening to.

In reply to nw:


Perhaps it wasn't "bombshell" evidence that would sell papers, just a load of consistent facts and reports that together convinced the jury.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

It's the logical implication of what you said above:


"Did you?

No, and consequently I have no grounds to debate the verdict."

According to you, unless you were in the court room, you have 'no grounds to debate the verdict'.

In reply to Indy:

The press are 'pussy footing' around the former politician story. There has been a difficult to remove odour of moral decay for decades.

D

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Fair point.

In reply to nw:

"Grounds to debate the verdict" is not about the right to an opinion. It means that if you profess to know better than the people who've heard the evidence, you're talking crap.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

A sensible reply.

In reply to mypyrex:


Unlike in say the Steven Lawrence case

In reply to Indy:
Part of why RH has been convicted is people who don't know each other have given stories similar enough to convince the jury.

Can you explain again why you think some of them possibly aren't telling the truth?

I've struggled to grasp your reasoning.

In reply to Timmd:

I think it isn't a case the stories are similar, after all there can't be much variety in an abuse case, but I feel that there was probably more to it than that (ie the robustness of Harris's defence, etc.)

In reply to Duncan Bourne:
I did hear it commented that there were striking similarities shared by the different accounts, but I'm sure you're right.

In reply to Timmd:

I think that might refer to similarities in operandus modi. After all anyone could say he put his hand down my blouse etc. but if everyone said he used a specific phrase or set of actions (whistling two little boys or standing on one leg) and it was pretty certain that they had not been collaborating then that is stronger indication than a generic one

In reply to Jon Stewart:


This.

In reply to Indy:


It skips over the fact that both Dave Lee Travis and Bill Roache were found innocent, with just a vague reference to accusers not being charged themselves.
So you would need to explain why the system worked in that case but not, apparently, in Harris case?

In reply to off-duty:

OK, so it's about OK to have an opinion, just not one about the evidence, or by extension the outcome...what does that leave us exactly?

In reply to nw:


Have an opinion, debate away, but coming out with statements that an accusation IS false and a person is innocent based on a third hand opinion of ONE victims evidence, where ALL the reasons for attacking that account have been raised by the defence in court, and where the jury have had the opportunity of hearing the original allegation and the accusers answers to the allegations that she is lying, then unfortunately as Jon says - you are going to get told you are talking crap.

In reply to Indy:

I share your concern, but I have the problem that I am, opinion-wise, pulled in two directions.

1) That I (strongly) believe that the way in which claims of this nature are prosecuted at present is vastly at variance to "innocent until proven guilty" and that a number of, what I consider to be basic tenets of a fair justice system appear to have been ignored or simply don't apply anymore.

In the case of two areas - terrorism and sex allegations - it appears to be the job of the accused to prove themselves innocent rather than the prosecution to prove them guilty. Often in the case of extremely historical allegations there is no way of doing this, so the burden of proof is on the accused.

Particularly in the case of some terrorism trials the degree to which the justice system is being utterly abused by the authorities makes me very, very worried and unhappy.

2) That I strongly believe that no-one should get off with a crime simply because of time passed since the offence.

However, it is interesting that the UK is one of the few countries in Europe with no statute of limitations on sexual accusations.

My general view is that where you have allegations that are approaching 50 years past, of a nature which is likely to boil down to the jury believing one person or another, there can be no way of proving or disproving beyond reasonable doubt.

In reply to John_Hat:


Unless 2 people or more are saying very similar things without knowing one another?

I realise RH is more recent than 50 years ago.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

Tell that to Timothy Evans or Derek Bentley. Oh, sorry, you can't.

In reply to off-duty:

OK well I haven't done any of those things, however I do think people can plausibly question the quality of some of the evidence, which does appear to contain uncorroborated assertions that are many years old. I take on board that I haven't been presented all or even most of the evidence and that the accumulated weight of it may be convincing, but to assert as Jon did before backtracking somewhat that unless you were in the court you should just accept the prosecution version wholesale, no questions asked is ridiculously deferential and naive. This particularly surprised me because in most of his posts he comes across as thoughtful and intelligent.

The criminal justice system in this country is not bad - I would rather be accused of something here than in most other countries I have worked in or visited, but it can and does get it wrong. This is shown by the long list of high profile miscarriages with which you are no doubt familiar.

In reply to nw:


I stand by what I said. The jury have seen the evidence, they came to a verdict on that basis. When someone disagrees with that verdict on the basis of what they've read in the press, it's wholly unconvincing (they "have no grounds" to refute the verdict).


But miscarriages of justice are never uncovered by the public making a more accurate verdict than the jury on the basis of a tiny, cherry-picked, third-hand portion of the evidence.

In reply to Jon Stewart:
No, but the pressure to do anything about them (miscarriages) has often come from public opinion, largely formed by third hand accounts. This wouldn't happen if everybody just said "well I wasn't in the court room so I couldn't possibly say".

In reply to Indy:


I'd suggest we prove beyond all reasonable doubt to a jury of their peers that they perjured themselves for financial gain then punish them as is deemed appropriate.

Let's just be very clear, who are you accusing of what is a very serious offence and on what grounds?

jk

In reply to nw:


There might be examples, I don't know. I can't see any reason in this case why opinions based on what's in the press might be worth listening to.

In reply to John_Hat:

Thankyou you pretty much sum up my views in that post.

If you commit a crime then you should be held liable for it no matter how much time has passed the only caveat to that is that a trial should only proceed if the accused is absolutely guaranteed a fair trial. There have been a number of advances in technology that have allowed prosecutors to re-visit decades old unsolved crimes. If the perpetrator(s) are subsequently brought to justice then so much the better.

I admit that I've taken a substantially keener interest in the trial of RH than other Yewtree investigations/prosecutions as RH was so much a part of my childhood. If he's guilty of the crimes alleged then he should be convicted and sentenced accordingly sad as it would be.

I do have issues with other convictions. Looking at the conviction of Max Clifford, one of the accusers claimed he forced her to give him oral sex. She admitted that there was no threat of violence. Now, how do you force a woman to give you a blow job when she doesn't want to?? also more importantly would you want a woman and her teeth anywhere near your penis when she's giving your oral sex under some sort of duress?

The huge issue I have with the RH's conviction is that the burden of proof on the prosecution is "BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT"

I'm not going to regurgitate stuff from the internet but as I've already mentioned doesn't the information at....
http://www.libertarianview.co.uk
seriously suggest that the "BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT" hasn't been proved?

In reply to Indy:

You really are quite naive.

In reply to marsbar:
Explain my naiviety or provide the additional information that proves RH's guilt beyond reasonable doubt that the jury seems to see but rather a lot of others can't

In reply to nw:


The convictions tend not to get overturned unless someone can find fault with the evidence, to do this you need to know exactly what the evidence is. The first recourse would be the court transcripts.

In reply to Indy:


You've decided to be doubtful because of what one person is reported to have said?

In reply to Indy:

There are none so blind as those who don't wish to see.

You seem unable to comprehend that a scared woman might be too frightened to refuse oral sex and too scared of the concequences to cause damage.

In my opinion you don't want to believe nasty things happen or that your childhood heros would do such things.

In reply to Timmd:

He HAS said it.... as the website shows.

It doesn't matter if 1 person says it or a million the question is still perfectly valid. Where is the proof that shows RH is guilty beyond reasonable doubt?

He was convicted of sexually assaulting a girl of 8, 45 years ago. Despite a huge search spanning 7 years worth of public records and local newspapers , despite a leaflet drop appealing for witness's there was not a single shred of evidence, not 1 to place RH at the scene.

So what I'm asking not unreasonably is what evidence was the jury presented with that made them sure "beyond reasonable doubt" that RH had in fact sexually assaulted an 8 year old 45 years ago?

In reply to Indy:


Putting something in capitals doesnt make it any more useful. Also I am not sure why you feel that a blog which has selected which bits of evidence it will use overrules what the jury will have seen.
Beyond reasonable doubt has been proved to the satisfaction of the jury.

As for your comment about oral sex and dismissing it since there was no threat of violence. Have you not heard about abusing position of power?

In reply to Indy:




Wow. If only the British criminal justice system had someone to speak up for the accused. Someone who could present the defendants view of the evidence, someone who could challenge the weaknesses in the prosecution case and actually cross examine the witnesses in court, in front of the jury so that those charged with making the decision could see and hear their reactions.

We could call them something like "a barrister for the defence".

I guess until that day we will have to settle for websites that can parrot one side of the case and throw in some inadmissible evidence and theories.

In reply to marsbar:



I'm happy to see whatever needs to be seen.

Why is there always an excuse as to why it can't be reported to the relevant authorities, an excuse why there's never any corroborating evidence? To which your going to reply with another excuse no doubt!

I've said time and again if RH is found guilty based on hard evidence then so be it sad as it would be but despite asking repeatably there has been no hard evidence presented that takes me over the "beyond reasonable doubt" conviction threshold for a number of his convictions.

In reply to Indy:

Whatever.

In reply to off-duty:
Another post that skirts the issue.... Why is it so difficult to find such a small piece of information from such a high profile case?

What evidence was the jury presented with that made them convict RH beyond reasonable doubt in light of the information I've already stated.

Is it a National Secret?

In reply to marsbar:


Translated..... holy crap hard evidence!

In reply to Indy:

Because it isnt a "small piece of information". You seem to be assuming there was one piece of evidence which made them decide he was guilty as opposed to several pieces.


We dont know. You could request the transcripts and review them yourself if it helps.
It would actually be interesting if some studies got done on juries but I dont think it would add anything special to this case.


yes. You have hit the nail on the head.

In reply to Indy:




I haven't got the time or inclination to go through the post fisking it.
I have sat through defence summaries of a case where I have seen the person commit the crime, and thought "Bugger me, he's going to get found not guilty".

That website is a defence summary.
RH is excused lapses of memory due to his age and job, victims are criticised for their lapses.
Motives (without evidence) are ascribed to accusers, RH motives are dismissed.
And there is a good old dose of minimising of offences, always good when trying to muddy waters.

In reply to Indy:




No, because its missing big chunks of evidence. Like, for example, the evidence that his daughter's friend had given an identical story to counsellors and therapists over 15 years of therapy, demonstrated by their professional notes.

In reply to Bob Hughes:


The sanest version of the trial I've read is from the The Sydney Morning Herald which seems to say that because RH was guilty of abusing his daughters friend he was also capable of doing it to all the other accusers....

"But each of the accusers’ stories, essentially, came down to their words against his. To the jury looking them in the eye and wondering "did they make all of this up?"
We will never know which of these witnesses the jury believed, and which they didn’t, and what effect that may have had on their verdict.
We only know they decided that Rolf Harris had lied to them."

http://www.smh.com.au/world/rolf-harris-guilty-the-woman-who-brought-down-o...

Does that override the "beyond reasonable doubt" or the fact that there is no proof that RH was at the scene of the alleged attack?

In reply to Indy:


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means

In reply to dissonance:


My understanding of its meaning is purely "is he guilty?"

The guilt derives from the evidence shown to the jury.

It appears that because the jury believes that he lied about molesting his daughters friend it [somehow] follows that he also sexually abused all the other accusers. It appears his whereabouts at the time of the alleged attacks, the financial motives for the accusations etc aren't relevant.

In reply to Indy:


Oh really? I am curious as to how you are so confident this is the case. Considering juries arent allowed to be interviewed about why they reached a decision.


So you think the jury wont have been given this sort of argument by the defence? Poor choice in lawyers in that case.
Of course juries can get it wrong but you simply seem to be deciding they are wrong based on a couple of random websites, which will be selective in what they publish, and the fact it happened a long time back.
If you look at Operation Yewtree (or some of the other cases at the same time but yewtree is the simplest example) arrests vs convictions it is fairly clear that it is not simply a case of people being found guilty because they are unable to mount an effective defence.