Rolf Harris guilty beyond reasonable doubt ?

[frightened spouse]

Rolf Harris applied for leave to appeal today, this article has been doing the rounds on the internet for sometime.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...72197243,d.ZGU

[Rights Fighter]

It's what the press / police / CPS don't want anybody to see. There are similar articles and blogs relating to Jimmy Savile too.... again it's not what the press /police/ CPS want the public to see......

[can it get worse]

............ It keeps them in a job.

[frightened spouse]

Absolutely is all about self interest and nothing to do with truth or justice.

This is another good article/podcast

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite...bsession/15510

[is there justice?]

It's a good article and quite a few people I know have expressed some of the points made. The trouble is that too many people are scared to speak out now in public.

[Rights Fighter]

Absolutely is all about self interest and nothing to do with truth or justice.

This is another good article/podcast

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite...bsession/15510

Why not post the same stuff on PAFAA? Saves me having to do it! x

[frightened spouse]

Hi RF

Will try to do so later, have had a few probs signing into paafa as my disabled daughter has pulled majority of keys off my laptop (she likes to chew the rubber circles under the pads !) which means I'm typing blind which isn't a problem when the text is visible and can be corrected but is extra difficult when putting in passwords when it's just dots.

[whatsgoingon?]

Thanks for posting those FS - Once you've been through the process it's easy to see how anyone can fall foul of the justice system. The key words which every judge should pronounce loud and clear are '....... without reasonable doubt' - in view of the the EVIDENCE presented. That one person's word and back-dated memory can be considered evidence on it's own is baffling.

I've no opinion on whether he was guilty or not but one thing that struck me about RH's trial is how his wife and daughter stood by him, going to court with him everyday (except for the sentencing which is totally understandable). If they had had an inkling that any of what was alleged had gone on, I doubt very much if they would have.

[Rights Fighter]

From a few years back the words "beyond all reasonable doubt" was removed from the Judge's summing up. In their place is "you must be sure".

The would "sure" does not always mean "I definitely believe...."

How often have we said along the lines of "I am sure I left my keys on the table....." when in fact, it's often a halfhearted belief.... I don't think being "sure" is enough. But sadly that is the way it is. Anything to fill the prisons up with very cheap labour and bolster shares .......

[whatsgoingon?]

I stand corrected. I can't remember the exact wording, but the judge in our case was quite insistent when he told the jury that they should only bring a 'guilty' verdict if they were sure/certain/not have a shadow of a doubt that, based on the evidence given either or both defendants was guilty.

I believe not all judges as so clear.

[Rights Fighter]

I think they can still say "beyond doubt" but it is no longer part of the Judicial Standards Boards directions to the jury. The word 'sure' is.

I have known a couple of appeals succeed where the judge said that the jury had to be 'satisfied' on the decisions. Satisfied is not enough apparently.....they have to be sure. Sometimes they say that they must be 'sure they are satisfied' or 'satisfied they are sure' on the verdicts..... aaarrrggghhhhhh!