cods wrote on Jun 17
th, 2014 at 5:28pm:
Amadd wrote on Jun 17
th, 2014 at 1:13pm:
sherri wrote on Jun 17
th, 2014 at 7:28am:
Amadd wrote on Jun 17
th, 2014 at 12:54am:
Baron, don't get your knickers in a knot. You read it wrong yet again buster
Cods is still on your side and y'all still don't require evidence to convict.
Happy now sunshine?
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.
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. rubbish half a dozen people... get real...
btw you still havent answered my question??..
you are convinced no evidence no case...
ok what evidence would stand up to your high expectations.....if you were writing the new laws on this one???
Cods, I suppose the question should be, “What evidence do you need to convict?” as the burden of proof is on the prosecution.
For mine, I would like to see more witnesses of the alleged events, more substantiated evidence and a lot more from the parents.
There could be a number reasons the alleged victims have made a case against Rolf. It could be a perceived lost chance at fame and fortune, it could be the promise of notoriety now, it could be the promise of money from Rolf and/or the tabloids, it could be an affair gone wrong, they may be sympathy seekers, it could be a personal vendetta of some other type, ..or of course, it could be that they merely want justice done for his wrongdoings.
It’s been shown that one of the alleged victims has lied to the police and made up a story for a magazine without any care of what her lies could cost Rolf.
The term “Octopus” seems to be the words of just one person and he was in fact not referred to in the industry as the octopus.
The alleged “groping” at the television show event was claimed to have occurred two or three years earlier than when Rolf attended which of course would make the alleged victim 2 or 3yrs. younger and make the charges sound much worse. So what did the prosecution do? They just widened the range to make it from ‘75 to ‘79.
I have no doubt that he’s done some morally wrong things in his 84yrs (and those who haven’t cast the first stones as they say), but I don’t see enough evidence there for an “assault of minors” conviction. I know a lot of women who would like to see him locked up because “all men are bastards”.
If the only conviction that will hold up at all is for “groping” (and I don’t see enough evidence for even that) then I suppose you’ve gotta ask what would you consider a grope back in the 70’s and 80’s?
I remember having my bum pinched and todge tickled on occasions at nightclubs back in the 80’s and 90’s ..ah the good ol' days. Maybe I should’ve gotten a better look at their faces. If they turned out to be famous today, I could have had some easy money coming my way couldn’t I? Or is it different because I’m a bloke and I enjoyed it?
I could always say that I felt cheap and abused and it caused me alcohol problems. Especially (or maybe only) if I’d heard that others were filing complaints.
My point is to not trash his career before the jury decides. If he is found guilty, then trash away. It’s up to the jury to decide. I’m not on the jury so I can’t judge all that’s transpired, however, the words of the judge seem be directing a guilty verdict.
Forum
Pages: 
Rolf facing the music (Read 107627 times)
