thommo2010 Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 She has came forward 18 years after the event why didn't she come forward when the allegations about Harris started coming out especially if there is video footage of it? She is nothing but a publicity hungry attention seeker and is giving this story purely for her own ends and probably doesn't give a toss about any other victims Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alibaba Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 She's a fantasist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Thanks, but its brown sauce for me as I'm Northern. Whereabouts in the north? Ramsey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 She's a fantasist. Fantaandafewcheeseburgerswithfriesist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Thanks, but its brown sauce for me as I'm Northern. Whereabouts in the north? Ramsey? Sunderland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
somewhatdamaged Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 The whole Rolf Harris thing smells a bit fishy to me. Smacks a bit of wanting to "do over" a high level celebrity just because they missed the boat on Saville. If he did do what is "claimed" he did then OK, but some of the stories i've heard read like pure fantasy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulgarian Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 How is the veracity of victims' claims determined in cases like this where there may be no witnesses, and no evidence? What's to stop fantasists, attention seekers, people with false memories (surprisingly common), and those simply exaggerating the true events, from ruining someone's life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 How is the veracity of victims' claims determined in cases like this where there may be no witnesses, and no evidence? What's to stop fantasists, attention seekers, people with false memories (surprisingly common), and those simply exaggerating the true events, from ruining someone's life? Or even those with an eye on the dreaded compensation urged on by the compy lawyers all after their cut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 It's the DPP who decides to prosecute, after stringent examination of the evidence. Not the ''compy'' lawyers. Fantasists, attention-seekers and such-like are usually weeded-out by the intensive questioning of the investigating police officers who take the original complaint. They do sometimes get it wrong, obviously, but when, as in Rolfie's case, there was such a weight of incriminating evidence and testimony, there is no choice but to prosecute. Oh, and then, of course, there's the small matter of a jury to convince.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 It's the DPP who decides to prosecute, after stringent examination of the evidence. Not the ''compy'' lawyers. Fantasists, attention-seekers and such-like are usually weeded-out by the intensive questioning of the investigating police officers who take the original complaint. They do sometimes get it wrong, obviously, but when, as in Rolfie's case, there was such a weight of incriminating evidence and testimony, there is no choice but to prosecute. Oh, and then, of course, there's the small matter of a jury to convince.... Yes. It's a difficult balancing act. Number of cases been prosecuted recently though and failed to convict. Hell and back to be there in the glare of publicity with your reputation traduced by an anonymous accuser. The "compy" lawyers are definitely around looking at what assets they might get their teeth into after the fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 did savile visit nobles or childrens home when he was here ?? Bump. A valid question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 did savile visit nobles or childrens home when he was here ?? Bump. A valid question. Is it possible you're posing the question in the wrong place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Should I ask in the Woodbourne? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Did he go in there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SafeAsMilk Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 No, he came. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.