Amadd wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 12:54am:


Conviction in a court of law is one thing, but people don't necessarily have a 'lynch mentality' every time they make a decision without hard proof.
We do it every day, in lots of small ways. It's about balance of probabilities and it usually works well. It's one reason I am delaying travelling on the roads today till after 9am. I have no 'proof', it hasn't even happened yet, but I suspect the roads will be clogged with traffic before then.

In a similar way, some years ago a friend told me in confidence about how a priest had made a suss suggestion to her son. She immediately pulled her son out of being an alter boy and changed his school. Another adult told me her husband had once, decades earlier, been assaulted by that same priest.
So that was 3 of us who never witnessed a thing, but going on the evidence from people who were normally reliable, we believed the stories completely. Years later, that man was convicted after other people pressed charges.

Lynch mob mentality on our part? No, I don't believe so. Just the balance of probability.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 7:34am:



what good would it do???......

are we that hungry for revenge... I dont think so.

he is suffering more now than any of us can possibly imagine..its awful to watch to be honest..
but we cannot turn a blind eye to this behavior just because of who someone is..

sherri wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 7:28am:


Yes, any parent should easily tell when something is going on with their children. I'm not sure about the statements of the parents in Rolf's case. Maybe you can enlighten me on that one.

Of course people make judgements based on probability, and if it were a civil case (which it isn't) then the judge would do so also.

Cods, I don't think think that this forum has any specific power, however, it is a reflection of society as is a jury. I think many of the people here would be thrown off a jury due to their prejudices.

ROLF Harris’ guilt or innocence on 12 counts of indecent assault will have to be determined with a unanimous verdict, a London court has heard.

In given directions to the six man, six woman jury in the 84-year-old’s trial, Judge Nigel Sweeney said he will not accept a majority rule but rather only a unanimous verdict on each of the 12 indictments.

He said they could find Harris guilty or innocent on all 12 or on some of the 12 but a decision on each had to be agreed to by all 12 jurors.

In a lengthy address, Judge Sweeney reminded the jury of their duty as “judges of the evidence” and said he hoped they could “see the wood for the trees and recognise a red herring when you see one and ignore it”.

He said the defendant relied strongly on his good character and asserted he did not commit any of the offences alleged although accepted he did have sexual contact with one victim but that did not start until she was 18.

The prosecution, he said, relied on so many women having given evidence from Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Malta and said there was no reason for any or so many to lie about alleged assaults, for no reason.



He said it was up to the jury to decide on evidence what was more truthful. He instructed it could be, as the prosecution had asserted, the evidence from one independent witness was supportive of the other independent witness then taken collectively it was less likely to explain away as coincidental lies.

He said the jury could view the evidence in this way.

His summing up is expected to continue tomorrow with direction on the evidence on two central alleged victims who make up the bulk of the indictments before the jury will be discharged to reach a verdict.