Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Book recommendations.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Weren't there 4 or 5 of them? They broke up in the mid 1960s.

    Comment


    • I didn’t even know there was a band called The Beau Brummels until they were mentioned in this book Scott.
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes

      “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

      Comment


      • Hello Herlock,

        Beau Brummel reminds me of a colorful character in American History, Diamond Jim Brady. He lived in a time when the motto was if you've got it, flaunt it. If you are not familiar with him here is a little introduction:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_Jim_Brady

        By the way, I know the American Civil War is on your reading list? When are you going to get around to that? Just wondering.

        c.d.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
          Hello Herlock,

          Beau Brummel reminds me of a colorful character in American History, Diamond Jim Brady. He lived in a time when the motto was if you've got it, flaunt it. If you are not familiar with him here is a little introduction:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_Jim_Brady

          By the way, I know the American Civil War is on your reading list? When are you going to get around to that? Just wondering.

          c.d.
          Hi c.d.

          Being a Bob Dylan fan I was wondering if he was the figure behind a character in the Dylan’s song Lily, Rosemary and the Jack of Hearts? Apparently he might have been.

          Ive currently got around 12 books on my ‘to read’ pile but like an idiot I keep buying them! I really should stay out of charity shops for a while. One of them is Battle Cry Of Freedom by James McPherson which is very highly rated so I’m hoping to get onto that one pretty soon. I did read The Hour of Peril by Daniel Stashower which is about the plot to kill Lincoln as he travelled to Washington to take office. Excellent book.
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes

          “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

          Comment


          • I’ve just finished a real cracker of a true crime book. It’s the Dublin Railways Murders by Thomas Morris. It’s about the bloody murder of a railway cashier in Dublin 1856 called George Little. One man was tried for the murder but found innocent although many believed him guilty. This is a really well written book which keeps you interested all the way through. Some books imo tend to add pointlessly irrelevant detail simply as padding but there’s none of that here. Definitely recommended.

            Curiously the last two books that I’ve got from Amazon are both signed copies despite not being advertised as such. I might order The Pickwick Papers next
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes

            “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

            Comment


            • A few years ago I went out for a drink with an old mate and a few others. One of the others was his brother who was a Solicitor and we got talking about crime. Someone mentioned Jimmy Savile and someone else mentioned the celebrities who had been arrested and found not guilty after lengthy periods (Cliff Richard, Paul Gambaccini, Jim Davidson, Jonathan King, Dave Lee Travis [apart from one trumped up charge]). Then the conversation got around to Rolf Harris. A couple of those present were quite vocal in their opinion which was the opinion expressed in all of the media. The solicitor though said “I wouldn’t be so quick to judge if I were you.” He then starting talking about ‘witch hunts’ after Savile and pointed out about the Carl Beech who spoke about being abused by a huge government level paedophile ring (which included murder) involving well known names like Leon Brittany and others. The guy was found to be a liar and he’s now serving a lengthy sentence. Anyway the solicitor said that he knew of quite a few people, intelligent, educated, legally-minded people, who had very serious doubts about Harris’s conviction after a virtual trial by media; especially in the wake of the undoubtedly guilty Savile.

              After this I did a bit of checking up online, there’s a group campaigning for him, and found some extremely alarming facts. Not conspiracy stuff or wild imaginings or just a desperate family trying to salvage a reputation either. Proper, provable facts. Then a few days ago I saw an Ebook written by a former NZ police officer who was brought in for as an investigator on Harris’s 2nd and 3rd trial. It’s called Rolf Harris: The Defence teams Special Investigator reveals the truth behind the trials by William Merritt.

              Miscarriage of justice cases get plenty of interest and traction but less so when alleged crimes of this type are involved because of our very natural revulsion but this book is worth reading. It might not be a ‘popular’ opinion but I do think that that Harris was probably the victim of a miscarriage of justice and was part of this witch hunt. A combination action of the ‘no win no fee’ offers and the guarantees of anonymity are real temptations and while all potential victims should be listened to with sympathy and fairness (something that certainly hasn’t always happened in the past especially in rape and sexual assault cases) it was made public at the time that possible victims “will be believed.” So an assumption of honesty?

              He had three trials. In the first there were 4 complainants, Harris had no investigator working for him and so was completely reliant on police evidence and he was found guilty on all. In the second and third there were a total of 7 complainants, by this time he had his own investigators to look into the evidence thoroughly and he was found either not guilty or the jury could convict on all complaints. To add to this, at the first trial the very first complainant was the most serious because she was very young at the time of the alleged offence (8 years old rather than a teenager) so this set the tone for people’s opinion of Harris. They took this one to the Appeal Court and it was shown categorically that Harris had never met her and it was 100% proven that he’d never been at the venue that was claimed. The charge was thrown out on appeal. The doubts about the 3 remaining complainants just mount up.

              With Savile you had so many people claiming over the years that everyone knew that he was ‘creepy.’ It was common knowledge. There’s just none of that with Harris. He had 2 affairs but one of the girls claimed that it began before she was 18 but the evidence doesn’t back this up. This is a worrying case and a book worth reading imo.
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes

              “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

              Comment


              • So in this case all the victims including the 8 year old girl are mistaken or lying that it was rolf harris that abused them ?, and he is completley innocent ?

                Is that the case in your opinion after reading the book?
                'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                Comment


                • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                  So in this case all the victims including the 8 year old girl are mistaken or lying that it was rolf harris that abused them ?, and he is completley innocent ?

                  Is that the case in your opinion after reading the book?
                  I believe him to have been innocent and a victim of a miscarriage of justice.

                  The woman who made the claim about something occurring when she was 8 was proven to be lying. The Appeal Court agreed. That incident allegedly occurred at a tiny community centre on an estate at a time when Harris was a huge, international star. Numerous people from the area were contacted, some who even worked there and every single one said that not only did no celebrities ever appear at a place that was just a community centre on a housing estate, but that there was no way that Rolf Harris did. They even spoke to retired local Police Officers who said that if Harris had appeared they would absolutely undoubtedly have known. He very clearly was never there. Plus there was very clear evidence that this woman wasn’t honest. Even her family said this. That’s why the conviction was quashed.
                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes

                  “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                  Comment


                  • Hi Herlock,

                    To echo Fishy, is your opinion now that Harris is completely innocent?

                    I've not read anything about his case, I'm happy to take your word for the allegations regarding the child. Do you think he never committed any criminal acts? Or was it a case of others seizing the opportunity to jump in on the legitimate charges?
                    Thems the Vagaries.....

                    Comment


                    • Unless im mistaken he had one charge overturned due to being ''unsafe'', that of the one involveing the 8 year old girl . In all there were 12 charges, 11 convictions still remain today.

                      I also believe [ maybe someone can confirm this ] the court of appeal dismissed the application to challenge the remaining convictions
                      Last edited by FISHY1118; 11-03-2022, 07:01 AM.
                      'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                        Ive currently got around 12 books on my ‘to read’ pile but like an idiot I keep buying them!
                        Nah. Don't stop buying them.

                        I too regularly buy 2nd hand books and have a number of them that I haven't tackled yet.
                        My other hobby is PC gaming and i have quite a few games that I haven't played yet.

                        Thing is, I do get through these piles of books and games slowly. Also, some of them that I start reading, or playing, don't grab me. But I got them as I thought they might.

                        If you stopped getting books, you'd reach a point one day where you'd say, ok what's next on the to read list? But there wouldn't be anything as you'd stopped adding to your to read pile.​
                        These are not clues, Fred.
                        It is not yarn leading us to the dark heart of this place.
                        They are half-glimpsed imaginings, tangle of shadows.
                        And you and I floundering at them in the ever vainer hope that we might corral them into meaning when we will not.
                        We will not.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
                          Hi Herlock,

                          To echo Fishy, is your opinion now that Harris is completely innocent?

                          I've not read anything about his case, I'm happy to take your word for the allegations regarding the child. Do you think he never committed any criminal acts? Or was it a case of others seizing the opportunity to jump in on the legitimate charges?
                          Hi Al,

                          After reading what I’ve read , I think so. I think that people jumped on a bandwagon after being told that they could get 200,000 in compensation. It’s happened so many times in the past. Look at Carl Beech. Look at Paul Gambaccini, Cliff Richard, Jonathon King, Jim Davidson, Jimmy Tarbuck. We know it happens. The first case (the girl who was 8) was a woman called Wendy Rosher. She waived her right to anonymity because she sold her story to the papers. A complete and very obvious pack of lies.
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes

                          “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                            Unless im mistaken he had one charge overturned due to being ''unsafe'', that of the one involveing the 8 year old girl . In all there were 12 charges, 11 convictions still remain today.

                            I also believe [ maybe someone can confirm this ] the court of appeal dismissed the application to challenge the remaining convictions
                            They appealed the case because it was proven that Harris, a world renowned international celebrity at the time, never appeared at a tiny community centre on a housing estate. They interviewed numerous people including police officers and they all said that if Harris had appeared they would have known about it. It would have been big news. People who were massive fans would have been straight there with their autograph books had he appeared at a community centre yards from their house.

                            In the first trial there were four complainants and twelve counts. Harris was found guilty on all. The charge by one complainant (one count) was dismissed on appeal. Which leaves three complainants and eleven counts remaining.

                            With one of these remaining complainants her boyfriend said that she was forced to admit that she ‘added’ things when caught in a lie.

                            The second trial there were 7 complainants and 8 charges. He was found not guilty on four but the jury couldn’t come to a verdict on the remaining four.

                            The third was a retrial which covered three of the four counts on which the jury had been unable to reach verdicts in the second trial, with one additional count. One complainant had decided (unsurprisingly) not to proceed, which left three complainants from the second trial. The jury still couldn’t reach a verdict and the Prosecution decided not to proceed further so he was formally declared not guilty.

                            So at the end of the day he was convicted on three complainants and eleven charges. And reading the details it’s difficult to see how on such flimsy and frankly dodgy evidence. There are many very senior Barrister’s and others who believe that there should be a retrial but it’s not going to happen due to his age and poor health.
                            Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 11-03-2022, 11:27 AM.
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes

                            “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              They appealed the case because it was proven that Harris, a world renowned international celebrity at the time, never appeared at a tiny community centre on a housing estate. They interviewed numerous people including police officers and they all said that if Harris had appeared they would have known about it. It would have been big news. People who were massive fans would have been straight there with their autograph books had he appeared at a community centre yards from their house.

                              In the first trial there were four complainants and twelve counts. Harris was found guilty on all. The charge by one complainant (one count) was dismissed on appeal. Which leaves three complainants and eleven counts remaining.

                              With one of these remaining complainants her boyfriend said that she was forced to admit that she ‘added’ things when caught in a lie.

                              The second trial there were 7 complainants and 8 charges. He was found not guilty on four but the jury couldn’t come to a verdict on the remaining four.

                              The third was a retrial which covered three of the four counts on which the jury had been unable to reach verdicts in the second trial, with one additional count. One complainant had decided (unsurprisingly) not to proceed, which left three complainants from the second trial. The jury still couldn’t reach a verdict and the Prosecution decided not to proceed further so he was formally declared not guilty.

                              So at the end of the day he was convicted on three complainants and eleven charges. And reading the details it’s difficult to see how on such flimsy and frankly dodgy evidence. There are many very senior Barrister’s and others who believe that there should be a retrial but it’s not going to happen due to his age and poor health.
                              The first trial still has the original 11 convictions tho , isnt it the 2nd and 3rd trial were new charges, the ones you mentioned that were unable to reach a verdict ? the original 11 convictions still stand today do they not ? that the court of appeal dismissed the challenge against? .
                              Last edited by FISHY1118; 11-03-2022, 11:42 AM.
                              'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                                The first trial still has the original 11 convictions tho , isnt it the 2nd and 3rd trial were new charges, the ones you mentioned that were unable to reach a verdict ? the original 11 convictions still stand today do they not ? that the court of appeal dismissed the challenge against? .
                                In the first trial there were 4 complainants and and 12 counts.

                                One complainant who was responsible one count was dismissed later on appeal. Leaving 3 complainants and 11 counts still standing.
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                                “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X