How long will rofl harris get?

[tractor]

...

That sounds like enough to start a case on, not to end it. "Beyond reasonable doubt" requires much more than a bunch of people all claiming they were abused, surely? OK if they all independently claim some specific detail like he stuck is willy in their left ear, or remember he had a mole shaped like a kangaroo on his arse, but it seems unlikely.

I'm not saying the cases aren't correct but just wondering how they get convincing evidence -this is a man's life so a bunch of people claiming something isn't enough IMO. If I found some event he'd been at when I was 8 and claimed he abused me, do they even keep records of every person there that day?

I have been wondering this too.

IIRC in this case where he was supposed to be in Cambridge on the date that was alleged, he proved that he wasn't and it was found he was there some 4 years earlier (or later - can't remember) but the Judge allowed that margin of error for the prosecution.

I don't doubt now that he did it. There was a lot of evidence that was not allowed to be in the public domain. The jury saw heard it all and made their decision based on that. None of us have a clue how convincing it was but for a unanimous verdict for such a previously loved character it must have been convincing.

[speling bee]

That sounds like enough to start a case on, not to end it. "Beyond reasonable doubt" requires much more than a bunch of people all claiming they were abused, surely? OK if they all independently claim some specific detail like he stuck is willy in their left ear, or remember he had a mole shaped like a kangaroo on his arse, but it seems unlikely.

I'm not saying the cases aren't correct but just wondering how they get convincing evidence -this is a man's life so a bunch of people claiming something isn't enough IMO. If I found some event he'd been at when I was 8 and claimed he abused me, do they even keep records of every person there that day?

So the 12 members of the jury were negligent?

[SueEllen]

Oops - they left 'C's name in there.

If it's the woman I think it is, she waved her right to anonymity.

Edited - no it's not they have removed the pdf

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

From the 'damning letter'

Until she told me that, I had no idea that she was scared of me. She laughs in a bitter way and says I must have known that she has always been scared of me. I honestly didn’t know. [the woman] keeps saying that this has all been going on since she was thirteen. She’s told you that and you were justly horrified, and she keeps reiterating that to me no matter what I said to the contrary. She says admiring her and telling she looked lovely in her bathing suit was just the same as physically molesting her. I didn’t know. Nothing took place in a physical way until we had moved to Highlands.

Is it just the same?

[northernladuk]

Yes, I noticed that. I assume somebody will be getting a severe bollocking for that.

Not working for me but expect that will be a lot more severe than a bollocking surely? A couple of laws broken and an opening for a civil claim from C etc etc?

[d000hg]

So the 12 members of the jury were negligent?

Were you not able to understand my questions? Did you perhaps misunderstand the question mark and think I was making assertions rather than questions?

[SueEllen]

I have been wondering this too.

IIRC in this case where he was supposed to be in Cambridge on the date that was alleged, he proved that he wasn't and it was found he was there some 4 years earlier (or later - can't remember) but the Judge allowed that margin of error for the prosecution.

I don't doubt now that he did it. There was a lot of evidence that was not allowed to be in the public domain. The jury saw heard it all and made their decision based on that. None of us have a clue how convincing it was but for a unanimous verdict for such a previously loved character it must have been convincing.

Harris wrote a letter about his "affair" with the under age victim. He sealed his own fate.

Also we aren't allowed to hear/read all the evidence that was in court as it is too distressing for the public.

[mudskipper]

That sounds like enough to start a case on, not to end it. "Beyond reasonable doubt" requires much more than a bunch of people all claiming they were abused, surely? OK if they all independently claim some specific detail like he stuck is willy in their left ear, or remember he had a mole shaped like a kangaroo on his arse, but it seems unlikely.

I'm not saying the cases aren't correct but just wondering how they get convincing evidence -this is a man's life so a bunch of people claiming something isn't enough IMO. If I found some event he'd been at when I was 8 and claimed he abused me, do they even keep records of every person there that day?

The jury heard all the evidence and unanimously decided it was 'beyond reasonable doubt'. It's fair to assume that most of them, like us, would want it not to be true.

Similar modus operandi doesn't have to be as extreme as sticking a willy in an ear. It can be similar phrases used, similar patterns, e.g. (and not saying this is true of Rolf, just a made up example), sit on knee, rub back, then hand up skirt.

[d000hg]

Harris wrote a letter about his "affair" with the under age victim. He sealed his own fate.

That's one victim.

But as I explicitly stated, I wasn't asking about this case specifically.

[tractor]

.....

Harris wrote a letter about his "affair" with the under age victim. He sealed his own fate.

Also we aren't allowed to hear/read all the evidence that was in court as it is too distressing for the public.

I had forgotten that even though I made the point here last week doh!