Book recommendations.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

By sheer coincidence I was out at my friends house for dinner last night.

There was a woman there who told a story about Rolf Harris grabbing her bum when she was waitressing at an event in Henley on Thames aged 17.

She was completely credible and it would be fair to say that everyone who heard the story was 100% inclined to believe her.

Now, I get that in terms of evidence "some woman from the casebook forum met another woman who claimed to have been manhandled by Harris" is on a par with "a bloke down the pub told me..."!

Also she was not underage when the incident occurred, but I thought it was interesting in light of the discussion on here.

Sounds like there are some people who can attest to his "creepiness" after all.

Hi Ms D,

Yes, who knows. Maybe in the case as a whole an element of truth is combined with an element of jumping on the bandwagon? Also there certainly was a culture in the fairly recent past where this kind of unacceptable behaviour was considered par for the course and ‘harmless.’ We’ll never know the full truth and any historical case is fraught with problems especially when it’s one persons word against another’s.

[Ms Diddles]

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.

Hi Herlock,

By sheer coincidence I was out at my friends house for dinner last night.

There was a woman there who told a story about Rolf Harris grabbing her bum when she was waitressing at an event in Henley on Thames aged 17.

She was completely credible and it would be fair to say that everyone who heard the story was 100% inclined to believe her.

Now, I get that in terms of evidence "some woman from the casebook forum met another woman who claimed to have been manhandled by Harris" is on a par with "a bloke down the pub told me..."!

Also she was not underage when the incident occurred, but I thought it was interesting in light of the discussion on here.

Sounds like there are some people who can attest to his "creepiness" after all.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks for this tip, Herlock.

I was looking for something a bit different to read and gave this a shot on your recommendation.

I really enjoyed it.

It was extremely well written and well researched.

I liked the historical context too of Dublin (and bits of rural Ireland) after the famine.

I second your recommendation.

Cheers Ms D. I really liked that one.

[Ms Diddles]

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

Thanks for this tip, Herlock.

I was looking for something a bit different to read and gave this a shot on your recommendation.

I really enjoyed it.

It was extremely well written and well researched.

I liked the historical context too of Dublin (and bits of rural Ireland) after the famine.

I second your recommendation.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Perhaps in the end somewhere in all this lies the truth , theres more i could say but i wont go int that as you said its a senitive subject one that im all to familiar with . But having studied and followed the case with close attention when it was covered by our Aust media extensively, i have formed my own opinion which ill keep to myself . Maybe there were false claims made by some, some may also be telling the truth, the remaining 11 convictions may well attest to that . Seeings how the appeal for the convictions was rejected which covered the 1st trial , and never re applied for by his Lawyers at the time,this one detail might sway peoples opinions in favour of those perticular victims.

But the appeal was against one of the ones from the first trial. To sum up, over the 3 trials, there were 11 separate complainants. Of the 11 there were 3 guilty’s and 8 not guilty’s.

[FISHY1118]

Perhaps in the end somewhere in all this lies the truth , theres more i could say but i wont go int that as you said its a senitive subject one that im all to familiar with . But having studied and followed the case with close attention when it was covered by our Aust media extensively, i have formed my own opinion which ill keep to myself . Maybe there were false claims made by some, some may also be telling the truth, the remaining 11 convictions may well attest to that . Seeings how the appeal for the convictions was rejected which covered the 1st trial , and never re applied for by his Lawyers at the time,this one detail might sway peoples opinions in favour of those perticular victims.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So not including the first and second trials , does the book give any evidence that might change ones mind regarding the victims version of events that led of the remaining original 11 convictions that still apply today.?

The 11 convictions do remain from the first trial. The writer does go into one (or maybe more) of them. He says this in the ‘conclusion’ section:

“The calls for a retrial have come not just from Rolf Harris supporters but also from leading barristers who have read the judgments and studied the evidence that led to the convictions. Should there be a retrial? The answer to that is a resounding YES. Will there be a retrial? The answer to that is no. The chance of the Appeal Court allowing a retrial is very slim. Even if a retrial were granted, there is no way that the Harris family would want Rolf to go through this again. He is now in his nineties and, contrary to speculation in the media, his resources are limited.”

Obviously it’s up to individuals to come to their own opinions Fishy but all that I’d say is we shouldn’t just go with what appears in the newspapers. There is much more to it than that though of course it’s a very sensitive subject that none of us would want anyone to escape justice on. I certainly had no preconceptions about the case until I read about it. Operation Yew Tree was a huge crusade in the wake of the clearly guilty Savile. We only have to look at the list of exonerated celebrities to give us at least pause for though. When the Press jump on board and paint someone as a monster it’s difficult for people to see otherwise. It all began with the accusation of Wendy Rosher. This is what branded Harris and let to an outpouring of hatred. Then when it was announced that alleged victims would automatically be believed, that they would have anonymity and that they could get £200,000 it’s perhaps unsurprising that people came forward. It should at least give cause for doubt especially, and this is vital, now that we know for certain that the first alleged victim clearly made her accusation up. I do have to stress this. There is absolutely no doubt that Harris never met her.

Anyway Fishy. The book is there and I think that it’s worth a look. Others might disagree.

[FISHY1118]

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.

So not including the first and second trials , does the book give any evidence that might change ones mind regarding the victims version of events that led of the remaining original 11 convictions that still apply today.?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[FISHY1118]

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? .

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[Ozzy]

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.

[FISHY1118]

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

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

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?