Printable View
With reference to someone recalling child abuse that happened when that person was very young, I do have my doubts about their powers of recollection.
I know that I don't recall events, good and bad, from my childhood very well. The same applies to seeing an incident and being able to accurately give a witness statement to police. I do wonder if the seeds of recalling abuse are placed in the complainant's mind by counsellers.
I wouldn't be very good on a jury for that very reason.
I guess it depends how traumatised you were as a child. If something horrific happens to you as say, a five you old, you would remember it.:(
On the other hand if something very pleasant happens, you would also remember it. I remember as a five year old riding on trams in Newcastle, I loved it and looked forward to a tram ride every time mum took me into the city.:)
But I guess, memory (particularly childhood memory) is a tricky business.
This is where complaints in numbers count. I had a mate who was accused of molesting his kid by an ex-partner. She believed something had happened but when it all went to court no-one could be sure exactly what took place, and it was quite possible it was the woman's new partner who was the perpetrator. An individual child's recollections can be very imprecise. In the end it was thankfully all thrown out as there was no other evidence to suggest my mate had done anything and a lot of evidence to suggest the ex-partner was just out to get him.Quote:
Originally Posted by p38arover
If however, there is a second complaint against the same person, that's when it gets serious. Even with sketchy details you have to consider the accused is dodgy if there is more than one unrelated complainant. There are no coincidences when it comes to crime. Then in Rolf Harris' case, several unrelated complainants, the outcome was just about guaranteed.
As for people questioning why victims might only come forward after a conviction, well, nobody wants to be first. As I just said, if you are the only complainant then it is unlikely there would be a conviction without irrefutable evidence, and this is hardly likely in a case where the offence took place decades ago. Many other victims might have just not thought their abuse was that significant until they became aware of others' who had suffered much more. For example, say a person convicted of murder once punched you in the face and you didn't report it. If you found out he was convicted but the sentence was perhaps lenient, you might then come forward to make sure the bastard says in jail longer as they are obviously a danger to society.
So any claims that new complaints are maybe-victims hopping on the bandwagon are rubbish. They are just the ones who were either too scared to come forward earlier, or didn't have a strong enough case for it to go before the courts. If there is one complainant accusing multiple people then maybe they are attention seeking, but when it's multiple complainants against one perpetrator, it just reinforces how bad they were.
Now what about Harris' family & management team? How long before police start investigating whether or not they knowingly helped protect him? You cannot get away with this stuff for so many years without some sort of assistance. At best they were ignorant or negligent, at worst they were part of a co-ordinated cover up.
This is all a bit silly and speculative.
He was found guilty on all counts in a unanimous verdict in what most would regard as one of the best court systems in the world.
Much of the information given to the jury would probably not have been released for various reasons.
There was also information not used in the original court case but which could be admitted if he is to stand trial on further counts - this includes underage pornography found on his computer in 2012.
For those who are saying why didn't the victims come forward at the time - I bet if they had it would have been swept under the carpet due to the different culture of the time. E.g. there were widespread rumours about Robert Hughes when I was growing up (and it seems that the producers of the TV show were aware), but nothing was done.
I know you can. So if there is any other Rolf Harris' out there be afraid. Be very afraid. As they say, one day those chickens will come home to roost.Quote:
Originally Posted by p38arover
5/6/7 year olds can remember. Is this very young?
Regards
Andrew
Yep, just ask the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four, and the Maguire Seven (to name but a few). It didn't matter, they were only Irish. (BTW, there's no Irish in me! :D )Quote:
Originally Posted by isuzurover
Still, I'd trust the British legal system long before I'd trust the USA's police force.
Or the Egyptian court system.Quote:
Originally Posted by p38arover
Keep the art, or not? Bob
BBC News - Rolf Harris art: Should owners feel guilty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by p38arover
Sorry about this, but probably very few here know about the Birmingham 6. We should tell them , Bob . I do not say Harris is anywhere near the same as these men, nor do I stand for them. This is history, just that. Bob
INNOCENT - Birmingham Six
The Guildford Four: in the name of justice - Telegraph
Maguire Seven: Fighting for freedom from wrongful conviction - Telegraph
Now, I begin to understand how Harris & Co. got away with child molesting for so long, Bob
BBC News - Child abuse claims: Paedophile gang 'included 20 ex-MPs'