I was such a fan of Rolf, so disappointed I loved his cartoons, singing, painting but what has come to light is unforgiveable and taints what I knew, I thought he was a harmless hero of my childhood
I was such a fan of Rolf, so disappointed I loved his cartoons, singing, painting but what has come to light is unforgiveable and taints what I knew, I thought he was a harmless hero of my childhood
I think a lot of people feel like this, I know I do.
For those that think that 'word of mouth' shouldnt be enough to bring a prosecution and then conviction, what do you say about historical trials involving the clergy or the bloke next door when his daughter or whoever finally feels strong enough to disclose that he abused her when she was little?
I recall reading that thread last year, cannot remember why I happened on it but I do recall looking at it. Seems the general consensus is that he's a nice bloke albeit with wandering hands around the ladies. Only one mention of it on the thread though.
As an example (as I don't know the details of current cases)...
If dozens unconnected come forward and, independently of each other, provide similar testimony that backs up each other's allegations, then suddenly the accused protestations of innocence look on a lot shakier ground.
.
This is why I don't understand Bill Roache's acquittal because it was reported that several people who weren't connected came forward with very similar complaints - I just don't see how that can be if it isn't true?, As someone has already said though - I wasn't at the trial.
This is why I don't understand Bill Roache's acquittal because it was reported that several people who weren't connected came forward with very similar complaints - I just don't see how that can be if it isn't true?, As someone has already said though - I wasn't at the trial.
The case against Roache simply wasn't as strong, he denied everything, whereas Harris had already admitted a relationship with his daughter's friend.
But then who's to say if the Harris jury had been sitting at the Roche trial instead it might have come to a different conclusion?
The case against Roache simply wasn't as strong, he denied everything, whereas Harris had already admitted a relationship with his daughter's friend.
But then who's to say if the Harris jury had been sitting at the Roche trial instead it might have come to a different conclusion?
IIRC, there were some large discrepancies between the evidence given by Roache's alleged victims and the established facts. In the case of Harris, the discrepancy was between the evidence given by him and the established facts.
In other words, in Roache's case the facts gave credence to his defence, whereas in Harris' case the facts gave credence to the prosecution.
Here's something else on Rolf Harris that is highly suspicous, given what we now know about him. This was an interview he did with the DS here about Rolf's Animal Clinic, his Channel 5 series which premiered around the time he was taken in for questioning. Read his answer for how he feels when he looks back at his career. Was he hinting at something? Had he had a tip-off that he was about to be questioned over the allegations about his private life, and was hinting at something improper?
If only the police would devote even a fraction of the time they've spent on this to preventing the barbaric and widespread crime of female genital mutilation. It makes even Savile's crimes pale into insignificance.
Comments
I think a lot of people feel like this, I know I do.
For those that think that 'word of mouth' shouldnt be enough to bring a prosecution and then conviction, what do you say about historical trials involving the clergy or the bloke next door when his daughter or whoever finally feels strong enough to disclose that he abused her when she was little?
http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/archive/index.php/t-112225.html
I recall reading that thread last year, cannot remember why I happened on it but I do recall looking at it. Seems the general consensus is that he's a nice bloke albeit with wandering hands around the ladies. Only one mention of it on the thread though.
This is why I don't understand Bill Roache's acquittal because it was reported that several people who weren't connected came forward with very similar complaints - I just don't see how that can be if it isn't true?, As someone has already said though - I wasn't at the trial.
The case against Roache simply wasn't as strong, he denied everything, whereas Harris had already admitted a relationship with his daughter's friend.
But then who's to say if the Harris jury had been sitting at the Roche trial instead it might have come to a different conclusion?
IIRC, there were some large discrepancies between the evidence given by Roache's alleged victims and the established facts. In the case of Harris, the discrepancy was between the evidence given by him and the established facts.
In other words, in Roache's case the facts gave credence to his defence, whereas in Harris' case the facts gave credence to the prosecution.
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/interviews/a431442/rolf-harris-qa-rolfs-animal-clinic-shows-vets-are-amazing.html#~oIXQmO83gPTXzO
No nothing sinister there it was the 70s and the BBC wiped tapes for re-use thats all.