cods wrote on Jun 19^th, 2014 at 6:36pm:


Cods I'm not saying that it's a parent's "fault" if their child is abused. There can be an almost equal amount of damage done by wrapping them in cotton wool, depending on the severity of abuse..imo. No I don't blame anyone for being uneducated if there is no source for education.

I feel for Emma's experience immensely, and a lot of times it can go by the wayside because the child thinks they will get into trouble if they say something.
I'm just saying that there needs to be better education for the parents to be able to get the message across in a non-threatening manner that the child must say something at the time.
And the parent should be able to recognise signals immediately as well. Unfortunately, work often dictates that the children are largely ignored, such is the state of the nation.

I had an experience of the likes myself as a child, but luckily for me, I wasn't alone in it. The reason we didn't say anything was because we wouldn't be allowed to go down to the river by ourselves again.

I couldn't take the evidence into account like the jury has, but I'd reckon that if I was on the jury I'd want to find him guilty on some counts even though the years passed makes it more difficult to do so.

Within this, I'm also lead to a point.
That point is that the longer you live, the more rotten apples you will encounter, and hopefully more good ones too. I would imagine that Rolf has been in fairly close contact with 10's of thousands of people over his lifetime.

It's far more likely that you will get a load of band wagoners jumping upon the money ship where the alleged offences occurred in history than if they were recent happenings. That's just a mathematical fact.

I think it's been well proven that some of these allegations have been doctored to suit the prosecution.
Alarmingly, the judge seems to point to the number of allegations as worthiness for the prosecution where it probably just points to the percentage of rotten apples out there over a long period of time.

I suppose you must ask yourself, have you encountered more or less rotten apples now than a combination of 20, 30, 40 or even 50yrs ago? It's a mathematical no-brainer really.

take your meds Amadd.

I didn't say anything at the time because my mind hid it from me.. i knew I was not riding to school that way anymore .... because I didn't want to think about it I guess... It wasn't a conscious decision ... It wasn't till some time later.. I said 18 mths earlier, but I really have no idea how long it took,  before I told my Mum..  and that was ONLY  because Mum and I were in the car,  driving past the shop.  It just sort of popped out of my mouth.. Mum cringed.. 
I found out relatively recently that long before this.. in fact before I was born.. my oldest sister had also experienced inappropriate treatment.  It apparently went all the way to the Local Court.  The details  ..NO IDEA..  but like I said...  my Mum cringed... and we never spoke of it specifically again.

But..  I had been told not to talk to strangers etc....  previously.

  Understand,  i'd been to the shop fairly regularly, and he was always behind the counter.  I didn't like or dislike him.. then.. he was a shopkeeper,, an adult. 

I think the only BLAME  lies with HIM.

NO ONE ELSE.  JUST HIM.!!!!!!

Amadd wrote on Jun 20^th, 2014 at 1:31am:



WHAT THE?????....WHAT IS A ROTTEN APPLE????.. FOR GOODNESS SAKE..


.HOW MANY IVAN MILATS ARE THERE???......NOT JUST ONE THAT I AM SURE OF...

SO SHOULD THEY HAVE SAID ... WELL NOT MUCH POINT IN LOCKING HIM UP AS THERE ARE MORE OUT THERE LIKE HIM...SO WHY BOTHER?......



stick to the point amadd.....this has got nothing to do with rotten apples..

and because it was a long time ago & there is no tangible evidence and it was a child..

it should not be dismissed...as if it didnt happen. ..people need to be heard..

Emma wrote on Jun 20^th, 2014 at 2:32am:



really sorry to hear you had such a bad experience emma my son in law.. had the same thing... and when you hear cases like this it all comes back to you doesnt it??...this is what people dont understand...you cannot forget it or dismiss it.. because of the constant reminders..

my son in  laws was due to the catholic School..so its in his face at this time as well..it must be horrible.. yet you have to deal with it alone...I agree its now out there.. and you can talk about it.. it isnt your crime after all and some may think it is.. and that just plain not right....Harris should have put his hand up he should never have gone this road....instead he has made it worse for everyone...I doubt these women have enjoyed one minute of this...but it had to be done...I trust they and you will get some form of relief this is out there..I wish you well.

Quote:


Cods you are the one who has a presumption of guilt.

I'm sure that you can't get this image out of your head that you've painted for yourself, and others, that he was widely known in the industry as an "octopus" when it was only a term used by one person.
You can't understand that there could be multiple reasons that people are choosing to testify against him as I stated earlier. A couple of  other reasons may be a distorted memory of events or a misunderstanding.

One thing for sure is that the longer you live, the more people you will meet who are willing to take you down at a drop of a hat.
Again, don't twist my meaning to say I'm defending child abusers, I'm defending a fair trial.

Amadd wrote on Jun 20^th, 2014 at 9:44am:



that one person happened to say.. WIDELY KNOWN IN THE INDUSTRY..

WHAT DOES WIDELY KNOWN..MEAN TO YOU?

or would you only be happy if everyone in the industry said it.??

as it is I have never claimed he is guilty??... what would I know....I am mainly talking about what he has been CHARGED WITH...

we cannot claim anything on here.. ok one or two do.. but as many that claim hes guilty there are those who say otherwise.... or even worse.. it should never have been brought up... those who complain should shut up..because of the time thats gone by.... pathetic..

we are mainly saying  or I am at least YES he should have been brought before the courts..the police took a heck of a long time going over all that the accused brought before them.. they would not have charged him had they thought it would fail....there were 4 accusers in court and 10 witness'

you are also pointing the finger calling the accusers liars and looking for money an d distorting the truth...and on and on...he is by law innocent until proven otherwise....he chose to defend himself..not very well from what I have read..

what I am saying is.. just because this is a celeb.. doesnt make it any the less evil...

I think I also said I wouldnt want to be on the jury,....
because I am sure even if its only one or two.. they must be asking themselves what point is this doing....

which I think was behind the judge directing them to have a unanimous finding...
because he knows it wont be easy....