Confused Rolf Harris jury wrongly thought finding him guilty on one count making him guilty of all the others

@ntfem No. He is being sentenced for indecently touching /assaulting young girls.
— David Candlish (@David_Alton) July 4, 2014

@ntfem I think you will find that your views are in the minority
— David Candlish (@David_Alton) July 4, 2014

@ntfem You think he is innocent. I do not. Neither did the jury of 12 men and women who bought in the unanimous verdict.
— David Candlish (@David_Alton) July 4, 2014

@ntfem @David_Alton in what way has the standard not been reached?
— Tim Ashmole-Farren (@timfarren041) July 4, 2014

@timfarren041 @David_Alton The criminal standard of proof has been lowered for the worst crime you can be accused of http://t.co/asNq5ujOcO
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 4, 2014

@timfarren041 @David_Alton The average jury member would not understand the point being made at http://t.co/69H2pxs0Yo
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 6, 2014

@timfarren041 @David_Alton It is pretty clear that the #RolfHarris jury were hopelessly confused. http://t.co/Ja5qkR2Ssj
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 6, 2014

@timfarren041 @David_Alton The requirement for independent corroboration protects the accused and should be kept in the interests of justice
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 6, 2014

@timfarren041 @David_Alton The requirement for independent corroboration also existed in English law. http://t.co/38MO6aptC7
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 6, 2014

@timfarren041 @David_Alton The questions they asked indicated that they were confused. http://t.co/1Dd9Mwz9Fm
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 6, 2014

@timfarren041 My point is that an accusation must be independently corroborated or it should not reach trial. These were the old rules.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 6, 2014

@timfarren041 What was that specific direction on uncorroborated evidence? Do you have access to this? Do you think they understood it?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 6, 2014

@timfarren041 I repeat that it is my view is that any accusation must be independently corroborated or it should not reach trial.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 6, 2014

@timfarren041 It is my view that there shd b a limitation period of 4 weeks for complainant to report the assault. That is nice and clear.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 6, 2014

@timfarren041 I don't think u wd b happy if I said u keyed my car 40 years ago n u were convicted without my having to produce any evidence.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 6, 2014

@timfarren041 I would be very grateful to you indeed if you could tell me where to find this or cut and paste it for me.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 6, 2014

@timfarren041 On the contrary, it would allow victim to get closure knowing that he or she was out of time and had better forget about it.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 6, 2014

@timfarren041 If complainant sufficiently upset about the assault/rape then s/he would have no trouble going to the police within a month.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 6, 2014

@timfarren041 That it would have at least 75/100 chance of convincing a jury of the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 6, 2014

@timfarren041 I was giving you a random example. u would be aggrieved if I and others falsely accused of keying our cars n were believed.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 6, 2014

@timfarren041 The more promiscuous the woman the more likely she is to get raped and the more promiscuous she is the less she should mind.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 6, 2014

@timfarren041 This is a logical deduction for which I have no independent empirical evidence.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 6, 2014

@timfarren041 These rules can be found at http://t.co/n4oWGRr7U9
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 6, 2014

@timfarren041 It is shame you cannot accept that #RolfHarris was convicted on the balance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 6, 2014

@timfarren041 It shd b obvious to any rational thinker that uncorroborated testitmony cannot ever be proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 6, 2014

@timfarren041 What is Article 6?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 6, 2014

@timfarren041 It is pretty clear that the CPS have actually ignored their own rules at http://t.co/n4oWGRr7U9
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 6, 2014

@timfarren041 Whose right to a fair trial are you referring to?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 6, 2014

@timfarren041 The purpose of these charging tests is to see that the charges stand up in court as sufficient evidence to convict.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 6, 2014

@timfarren041 Obviously, corroborated testimony is stronger evidence than uncorroborated testimony.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 6, 2014

@timfarren041 Article 6 seems irrelevant. #RolfHarris didn't get a fair trial cos the criminal standard of proof was unilaterally lowered
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 6, 2014

@timfarren041 Justice Sweeney's directions were described as "lengthy" and were no doubt also confusing.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 6, 2014

@timfarren041 It is also clear the jury thought that they were supposed to find him guilty on all counts if they found him guilty on one.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 6, 2014

@timfarren041 It is astonishing how so many lawyers are so indifferent to the erosion of the criminal standard of proof .
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 6, 2014