Very interesting. I was just about to post that exact link Steele, when I noticed that you have beaten me to it.

Now THERE is something to really be concerned about. This judge’s thinking is terrible!

In an earlier post (Thursday, 10 July 2014 12:14:34 PM) you said regarding my comments about ‘A’,

<< Well sir I think that is outrageous. >>

However you did not address my main concern, which was whether ‘A’s assertions about the effect it had on her were properly scrutinised in court or basically just taken entirely at face value.

I would suggest that there is a very large reasonable doubt there about the extent of the claimed effects. It is quite probably totally true, but it could also be blown right out of all proportion.

It is surely the role of the court to make sure that something is true beyond a reasonable doubt, or else treat it very carefully if not dismiss it completely. I don’t think the court did this.

I also note that you said:

<< …lifted her dress and rubbed her vagina not once but twice… >>

Judge Sweeney said:

< you twice put your hand up her skirt between her legs and touched her vagina over her clothing >

He just touched the front of her pants by all accounts. Where does your ‘rubbed’ reference come from?

See, you’ve overstated it, Steele. Not deliberately of course, but overstated and incorrectly stated nonetheless.

continued

This is exactly why I have taken the approach that I have – because I perceive a whole lot of this tendency to assume that Harris’ actions are worse than they really are, that all are interpreted in the worst manner that they can, or are just not viewed at all in a level-headed manner.

So I have set about to show that it all can be viewed really quite differently, in a much less terrible manner.

I think my views here have at least much merit as the views of those that can’t help but see the worst interpretation.

OK, maybe my suggestion of a $300 fine for Count 1 regarding ‘A’ was a little light-on. Maybe. But nine months jail for this, for a first offence, or what had to be assumed by the court to be a first offence, is surely completely outrageous.

Ludwig,

"This is exactly why I have taken the approach that I have – because I perceive a whole lot of this tendency to assume that Harris’ actions are worse than they really are, that all are interpreted in the worst manner that they can, or are just not viewed at all in a level-headed manner.

So I have set about to show that it all can be viewed really quite differently, in a much less terrible manner."

But you aren't viewing Harris's crimes in a level-headed manner. You are viewing them from a skewed vantage point - one where you've sought to mitigate nearly every action he perpetrated.

If we examine your defence of Harris, we'll notice that as the details of his actions emerged, your defence has been ratcheted up incrementally to match your knowledge of the gravity of crimes.

You initiated this thread claiming Harris was no-more than a playful groper - and everyone knew what he was doing.

We've gone from that to you forensically itemising his actions - even his most heinous ones (not denying them, mind you) - but instead, in the most grave case, attempting to pin partial responsibility onto his victim.

I'll repeat that a 39 year-old man putting his hand up a "small" child's" dress and interfering with her private parts, even over her knickers, is worthy of jail time....especially in conjunction with all the other similar crimes he was found guilty of in the same trial.

Paul,

You said "I am opposed to incest if for no other reason it is genetically dangerous. Just take one look at the British Royal Family! I rest my case."

That's a cheap shot, care to illustrate your point with reference to any of the current members of the Royal Family?

The Judge's remarks seem reasonable to me and I fail to see what the furor is about.

Poirot, regarding your reply to me re: ‘C’…

There was a whole series of very similar touching events, which all seemed to last for about one minute. After multiple episodes of touching by Harris, the girl slept over in Harris’ house with Bindi, entirely voluntarily, not with her parents present. She then continued to have occasional contact with Harris, clearly of her own volition, for years after her childhood.

What does this tell us?

Sorry, but it just flies in the face of the interpretation of ‘C’s experiences amounting to serious pedophilia. or of the girl becoming an alcoholic as a result.

Hey, you might be right in your interpretation, but please see the very real possibility that I might be right, or that the truth might lie somewhere in between.

<< So instead of analysing "C", I hope you don't mind if I analyse you. It seems to me that you, Ludwig, are taking Harris's fall from grace "personally". >>

No Poirot. I explained in my previous post to SteeleRedux why I see the need to take a different interpretation to the predominating one.

<< You don't seem to be able to digest the fact that your hero has been found guilty of these crimes. >>

Hey, that’s exactly what I have done – very carefully digest it. And I think you will agree that the judge’s sentencing comments is just about the best single document on which to base this ‘digestion’.

<< If it was anyone else, I believe you wouldn't give two hoots. >>

Careful, you wouldn’t have a clue about that. You set yourself up to be knocked down with statements like that. Maybe you would remember a thread I started on Bill Henson. And I was also very close to starting one on Robert Hughes.

continued

<< That's why you're going to such ridiculous lengths to diminish the actions of Harris… >>

I implore you to not close your mind. It is all too easy to just dismiss the different interpretation that I am putting forward, or to consider the very real possibility that the truth lies somewhere in between your interp and mine.

<< Your, lament, Ludwig, appears to have less to do with the actualities of the case, and more to do with a facade torn asunder exposing the sordid underbelly of all-round nice guy, Rolf. >>

Maybe not such a ‘sordid underbelly’, Poirot. You use strongly emotive language. You see, you’ve totally made up your mind on this issue, based on a hard-line interpretation of all that has eventuated in the trial, and with no consideration that there is enormous scope for it all being interpreted quite differently, and not actually being anywhere near as bad as what you have come to believe.

Maybe your interp is right.

Maybe it is a long way off the mark. Please consider that possibility.