Translate

Tuesday, 1 July 2014

Rolf Harris is not guilty beyond all reasonable doubt

Is he?

At the most he is guilty only on the balance of probabilities, which is the civil standard of proof.

But that is not the criminal standard of proof, is it?

Guilty on the balance of probabilities can be expressed numerically as any number over 50 in 100.

Guilty beyond all reasonable doubt should perhaps be expressed numerically as any number over 75 in 100.
Do you really think the jury understood the difference?

I rather doubt it was even put to them, and if it had been most layman are not capable of such nuanced thinking.

Most people prefer to think he is guilty just to sleep easy at night.

I am saying it should never have come to trial.

I am saying it is a LOGICAL error. A complainant's uncorroborated testimony cannot amount to to proof beyond all reasonable doubt.

1 x 0 = 0

999,999 x 0 = 0

Even if there are many accusations, that in itself does not amount to evidence of the veracity of those accusations.

Probably, if you tried all those accusations SEPARATELY, they would not amount to proof BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT.

If they fail individually, then they cannot be bundled up together. The law used to give the accused such protection, but no longer. Because of this paedo hysteria, it was adjudged "compassionate" to make it easier for the complainant to succeed, presumably because the victim could only be an alpha male that the matriarchy wanted to be revenged upon.

The floodgates of witch-hunting have been opened. Who else will be next? Rupert Murdoch?

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Rolf-Harris-is-not-guilty-beyond-all-reasonable-doubt/581502161968627

12 comments:

james said...

Question from the Jury Raises doubts.

One of the questions the jury asked the Judge worries me a lot;

"As opposed to using patterns within counts to help decide an outcome of one count surely it is non advisable to take evidence from one count in the future to judge the count in the here and now NB count 3-9 please clarify?"

Could the count in the future be the knowledge that Rolf face a trial for child pornography at
a later date?????????????

The word "child pornography" is a RED FLAG for this jury. Even though it is not part of the charges it seems Rolf is being judged for this. The "common folk" do not know and have no
idea that child pornography is not only adults having sex with children but can also be a video of a girl in swim suit dancing, in fact most of the convection for chld pornography are of this type of content. I supect this is probably what Rolf had on his laptop.

But i understand the confusion of the jury. With terrible vision's of what they thought was on
rolf's computer and the enormous media hype over Jimmy Saville and also the words of the judge "a brave verdict" they really had no choice except to follow the hype.

That Rolf was unlucky enough that his defence lawyer became sick(mental?) and the jury
spent a whole weekend with only the words of the prosecution in there heads most also have
had a big influence on the jury. The replacement advocate seemed to me to give a very bad
speech. Saying things like "some may think Rolf Harris has been punished enough"; which to
me as a layman seems to be an admission of his guilt.

so in short a very bad defence team, bad judge because he should have made it very clear to
the jury that they must not take into consideration Rolf's future trial for child pornography. Plus
purely circumstantial evidence from 4 woman in there 50's, two of then alcoholics. one of whom was an ex-girlfriend who had tryed to extort money from Rolf.

The whole thng stinks. The new allegations seem to be largely from adult woman who complain
about inappropriate touching. No man is safe in this present climate! It is madness.

Claire Khaw said...

Everything about this stinks to high heaven. So, even Harris' barrister abandoned him at the last moment? Was *she* threatened or did *she* just chicken out?

Leading counsel was Sonia Woodley QC, her replacement was Simon Ray.

If I were Counsel I would have just gone on and on about the uncorroborated testimony of alcoholics and vindictive women and it not being enough that they thought Harris was guilty on the balance of probabilities; they had to think he was guilty BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT.

Anonymous said...

We are living in an evil, insane world that hates men. And my folks wonder why I'm happily single - I can't imagine!

George Gissing said...

"I am saying it is a LOGICAL error. A complainant's uncorroborated testimony cannot amount to to proof beyond all reasonable doubt.

1 x 0 = 0

999,999 x 0 = 0"

The tiny problem with this argument is that if juries never convicted on uncorroborated testimonies we'd never convict a single nonce.

Also there was physical evidence to substantiate the main charge ...
...although you can argue about the veracity of it...

http://www.pearshapedcomedy.com/Rolf.html

The biggest problem is that the oldest charges are from 68-70 ... how do you find an alibi from 46 years ago? The human lifespan is only 81 years - almost everyone grown up at the time will be dead.

Fortunately most of the suspects in Yewtree are in their 70s or 80s so if there are miscarriages of justice they wont have to worry about the endless appeals as soon everyone will be dead.

George Gissing said...

"So, even Harris' barrister abandoned him at the last moment? Was *she* threatened or did *she* just chicken out?"

She was ill.

Claire Khaw said...

"The tiny problem with this argument is that if juries never convicted on uncorroborated testimonies we'd never convict a single nonce."

Not necessarily. If there are other reports of the same nature independently made to the police of the same individual, over time it can add up. There is also such a thing as DNA evidence.

I have already proposed a limitation period of 4 weeks after the date of attack.

If enough of these reports are made independently these could be deemed to corroborate each other, but not if they are made 40 years later when the entire nation just so happens to be convulsed in paedo hysteria.

Your attitude of "they are old and will soon be dead so we needn't worry about having falsely accused them" must be very reassuring for men worth suing up and down the country.

George Gissing said...

"I have already proposed a limitation period of 4 weeks after the date of attack"

The problem is with children they can take decades to come forward because the perpetrator will usually have groomed them. They are imagining it is consensual but are not mentally mature enough to give consent. It's only in later life that they sometimes fully recognise that the relationship was abusive.

DNA evidence is useful for putting people at the scene of the crime but sexual crimes are not all about whether the accused was at the scene of the crime ...they are about consent. Thus DNA while helpful is not a silver bullet. There may be complicated reasons why a woman would not make a contemporaneous accusation of rape even if she was over the age of consent if she was in an abusive relationship where she feared for her safety and/or that of her children. Sadly the more you look at some of these cases the more murkier they get...

Possibly 4 decades is too long to leave it ... most of the potential witnesses and/or alibis may be dead then.

"If I were Counsel I would have just gone on and on about the uncorroborated testimony of alcoholics and vindictive women"

The biggest problem for the defence, if you ask me, was Bindi's friend's friend who gave evidence that she had told her contemporaneously (when she was 16) about the abuse. Her testimony sunk the "made up in therapy years after the event" argument and Harris's case went down as fast as the Lusitania

Claire Khaw said...

"The biggest problem for the defence, if you ask me, was Bindi's friend's friend who gave evidence that she had told her contemporaneously (when she was 16) about the abuse. Her testimony sunk the "made up in therapy years after the event" argument and Harris's case went down as fast as the Lusitania"

Huh?

Claire Khaw said...

Hard cases make bad law and if you are out of time you are out of time so you had better forget about it and stop whingeing and going on about it, OK?

Actually, knowing that you are out of time will make you get on with your life.

You seem to be of the school of thought that just because a crime is terrible you must make it easier to have a go at just anyone.

If the crime is terrible then you should afford the accused some protection against malicious accusations.

If you want perfect justice, believe in God.

But you are a feminist, atheist and a liberal, aren't you?

George Gissing said...


"But you are a feminist, atheist and a liberal, aren't you?"

No, no and no.

Tell fortune of her blindness
Tell nature of decay
Tell friendship of unkindness
Tell justice of delay
And if they will reply,
Then give them all the lie.

Raleigh. Just came to mind ... I dont see what's wrong in principle with convicting people on just verbal evidence alone. After all, what do you think we did before forensics? And I dont see a problem with crimes being prosecuted years after the event so long as witnesses are still living and there is enough evidence. I recently discovered millions of pounds of art was stolen from Croydon Council in the last 1960s ...should no one now be prosecuted because it's only just come to light?

However, there should be checks and balances. One problem is that so much other scientific evidence is inadmissable in our courts. We cannot use polographs for example... and it's notable in the Harris case that the jury asked about the medical conditions of several witnesses but the judge isn't allowed to call expert medical evidence if the prosecution and defence dont. The jury are simply told to "use your common sense". But when common sense tells them they need expert advice the Judiary barks "No!". Why? Is it because they care about justice or is it because they theatre of the adverserial system which makes them look so important just isn't there anymore when anyone from outside their judicial establishment is brought in? The Oscar Pistorius trial was stopped for medical reports ... you hardly ever hear of that in the UK till after sentencing.

It's all a muddle... another problem is politicians look at the statistics for the number of people who complain they've been raped and the number of people who've been convicted and say well, how come it happens to so many people yet so few are convicted? But just because so many people say it happened to them does that mean it did? Particularly if you go fishing for complaints ... grey areas...

Claire Khaw said...

The importance of corroboration is a unique feature of Scots criminal law. A cornerstone of Scots law, the requirement for corroborating evidence means at least two different and independent sources of evidence are required in support of each crucial fact before a defendant can be convicted of a crime. This means, for example, that an admission of guilt by the accused is insufficient evidence to convict in Scotland, because that evidence needs to be corroborated by another source.

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

This USED to be the case until the feminazis took over from the emasculated and enfeebled men who seem helpless to fight back. After observing Sir Paul Coleridge's pathetic performance against Julie Bindel on The Daily Politics, how can there be any doubt that British masculinity is undergoing a crisis?

It is both pitiful and disgusting.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/sir-paul-coleridge-how-to-let-lesbian.html

Michael John Elliott said...

I was a police officer and prosecuter from 1953 to 1973 when I retired.

We were always very careful with statements from young girls, as experience taught us that many have vivid imaginations. They were brought up on romantic stories, and when faced with situations in the real world cannot always handle it very well.

We were told that within the first 24 hours was a good time to take a statement but 48 hours was OK if the person had a good reason, i.e. in hospital. The idea of accepting so called "Facts" many years later would have been laughable.

This is a result of what amounts to a obsession over porn and child abuse. There is nothing wrong with a person viewing porn in their own homes, it would possibly prevent them from roaming the streets looking for sex.

Its long overdue that the community accepted that Sex is natures way of promulgating the species. But of course what would Hollywood and the advertising industry do without it.

Michael John Elliott.