Aussie wrote on Jun 10^th, 2014 at 11:38am:



If they do let him go, will you accept the finding?

Will you say Rolf is innocent?

Aussie wrote on Jun 10^th, 2014 at 3:06pm:



Yes.

You could say that the jury got it wrong.

Aussie wrote on Jun 10^th, 2014 at 1:36pm:


Saying;

"My position is ~ on the evidence, I have no idea as I have not followed it all closely enough"

is fine. It is a neutral position. You are not saying he is innocent or guilty as you don't really know. However, saying;

"I reckon the Jury will let him go ~ sympathy for an old bloke, reverence to his long and successful career and a bit of rub-off from his clear close association with the Queen.  crappy reasons, I know, but I've seen Juries do the most unexpected things"

is anything but neutral. They are not declaring him not guilty because he is innocent, they are declaring him not guilty because of his fame. In other words he is guilty, but he will get away with it anyway. So whatever the jury decide, he is always guilty in your eyes.

Aussie wrote on Jun 10^th, 2014 at 4:22pm:



Alleged abuse.

Quote:


S/he instructs them about the Law relevant to the case.  The usual expression, when s/he is addressing the Jury is....."I am the sole Judge of the Law, you are the sole Judges of the facts."  They also get to make observations concerning the evidence and if you read what they said, you'd find that pretty much neutral.  However, Judges (if they have a mind to) do get to make their personal opinion about facts well known to a Jury with body gesture of facial expression or tone/inflection of voice, while always saying for the transcript "You might find my observations of value or not, but you, and you alone are the sole Judges of facts."

Quote:


In a Jury Trial:

1.  The Jury decides the verdict, after being addressed by the Judge about the Law.  If s/he makes errors about the Law in that address, and the Jury convict, there will be an appeal against conviction.

2.  If the Jury convicts, then it is over to the Judge to sentence, and that is always open to appeal on various grounds.

Quote:


I have, and I was probably more likely to hear it than you, given circumstances.

Quote:


It happens after a Jury has acquitted, or in some rare cases, and I was involved in one, where after hearing all the evidence, the Judge will intervene as they may, and take the matter out of the hands of the Jury, and s/he will instruct them to deliver a 'Not Guilty' verdict.  That is rare, because if the situation gets as bad as that for the Prosecution, they will ordinarily go for what is known as a nolle prosequi. (Do the Google.)

But:

Click here.

Whatever the verdict the jury brings in, one thing is for certain. Rolf Harris' reputation is smashed beyond repair already.

Does anyone out there seriously think that if Rolf gets a 'Not Guilty', that a huge part of the population already has him hung, drawn and quartered will change their minds about him?

This episode in his life, will kill him as surely as a spear through the heart.

You don't walk away from something of this scope without damage, lots of it.

red baron wrote on Jun 10^th, 2014 at 7:36pm:



I have often thought if that was me...and I was worshipped like he was/is.. I think I would have looked to find a settlement...he could have said he was too sick and old to face this..

if it was more than touchy feely I wouldnt have a bar of not seeing it through.. but it doesn t look as if it is.....so I am wondering what possessed him to take the route..surely he could have paid them and apologised..I dont know.. seems to me he paying a huge price no matter what the outcome..bet he doesnt get any more invited to the Paladium..