Poirot, you are so dismissive. Surely if you had any open-mindedness at all, you would say something like:

‘Ok I can see your point Ludwig, but I would consider it extremely unlikely. Surely the defence lawyers did as thorough a cross-examination of the complainants as they could possibly do, at the end of which the jury and the judge were satisfied that the complainants’ Victim Impact Statements and accounts of events were accurate.'

But no, you just outrightly dismiss my suggested possible inconsistencies point blank.

Sorry, but this indicates one thing to me very clearly – that you are just not open at all to any sort of real debate, and are determined to uphold your hardline stance, end of story.

This just reinforces my great concern that a lot of people, probably the vast majority who have been involved in all parts of the process of getting Harris convicted and sentenced, are of the same sort of mindset…. and that this could potentially mean that he has been very hard-done-by here.

<< I put it to you, M'Lud(wig)...that it is a wafty silken thread (woven by you) that leads precisely ....nowhere. >>

And I put it you, my dear Belgian sleuth, that you are not in a position to assert that. You are not privy to the detail of the court proceedings, or to what was in the head of Justice Sweeney when he wrote his ‘I’m sure’ comments in his sentencing remarks… and that you therefore cannot logically just be dismissive of the possibility that he wasn’t sure, and that some things that he has accepted were not shown beyond a reasonable doubt to be as such.

It seems that if you were the open-minded one here, my good Inspector Poirot, that your highly-renowned detective talents would have led you to a similar conclusion to what I have reached.

And to reiterate my conclusion: that there is a real possibility that things are not as they seem with this whole case and that Harris could have been too harshly treated…… or he could be a lot worse.

Ludwig,

"....Surely if you had any open-mindedness at all, you would say something like:

‘Ok I can see your point Ludwig..."

But I don't see your point, Ludwig...or at least I do see the points you are making - but I think they are bunkum.

What I do see, however, is you contorting yourself ridiculously to paint Harris as hard done by.

You haven't raised one tangible point that mitigates his actions. They are all based on your subjective view - and the one you came to this thread with - that your hero got pinged for abuses....and that makes you unhappy.

"....You are not privy to the detail of the court proceedings, or to what was in the head of Justice Sweeney when he wrote his ‘I’m sure’ comments in his sentencing remarks..."

And nor are you.

I might add that if a judge says "I'm sure..."....then it is deliberate.

You, for some odd and desperate reason, have been going hell for leather trying to assure us that the judge must mean the opposite of what he said.

"It seems that if you were the open-minded one here, my good Inspector Poirot, that your highly-renowned detective talents would have led you to a similar conclusion to what I have reached."

Lol!...Poirot uses the little grey cells...but he doesn't let them go skipping off by themselves to the fun fair.

Maybe you should respect his conclusions!

"…… or he could be a lot worse."

Au contraire, my dear Ludwig...you don't think "he may be worse" at all. You merely include such lines to give the illusion of balance and open-mindedness.

You think Harris was hard done by...and you have paraded that view ad nauseam and conclusively up and down this very...long....thread.

So Ludwig continues, in his dismissive, close minded way, to accuse Poirot of having a closed mind because she doesn't share his conclusions.

He then proceeds to lecture Poirot regarding how she should respond to him, and he tells her the exact words she "should" use, word by word by word. This process Ludwig calls debate.

Ludwig outrightly dismisses any Poirot view, point blank.

Doing this indicates one thing very clearly, that Ludwig is not open to any sort of real debate and is determined to uphold his hardline stance, end of story.

Ludwig then goes on to say if Poirot had come to the conclusions that Lugwig has reached, she would then be "open minded". In other words according to Ludwig, only Ludwig's opinions are open minded, and if Poirot doesn't agree with Ludwig's opinions she couldn't be open minded. This proves that Ludwig is arrogant, completely close minded, a non listener, juvenile and a bully.

<< Au contraire, my dear Ludwig...you don't think "he may be worse" at all. >>

Oh well done there Poirot. You tell me what I really think. You tell me that what I’m really saying is different to what I keep repeatedly saying about open-mindedness and the POSSIBILITY that things might not be accurately portrayed in the whole Harris saga.

You tell me directly that my position is quite different to what I keep stating it to be.

Sorry, but you’re way worse than I thought. Very very polarised and blinkered.

You’ve got no qualms at all about asserting things just completely off the top of your head, with no foundation, and in stark contrast to my real position and motivation, which I have very clearly elucidated and with copious explanation.

<< Maybe you should respect his [the judge’s] conclusions! >>

Maybe one should respect, but not worship the judge or the whole legal process. And if one really cares about it, one SHOULD question things if they seem to need questioning, and seek debate, instead of just blithely accepting it.

So, Ludwig in his closed minded way continues to lecture Poirot, because she does not share "his" opinions.

Ludwig shows he is very polarised and blinkered. He proves yet again he blithely accepts only his own opinion, and is not man enough to admit he has been thoroughly out debated over the past 66 pages.

Ludwig shows he's incapable of change, incapable of questioning his own beliefs and prejudices and incapable of graciously accepting that other people have the right to have opinions that are not Ludwig's opinions. Closed minded children like Ludwig are their own worst enemy, and they never comprehend that fact.

Ludwig, there is a substantial difference between questioning and assuming that they got it wrong and chasing every angle to try and make that case.

Its not just a judge, there was a jury as well. There has been intense media coverage. Nothing about the case so far except for the time gap between the offences and the trial including your efforts over the last 66 pages has given me reason to think they got it wrong enough to make any difference. From the ongoing tone of your posts on this topic you never seem to have seriously questioned your own views on the topic from april last year which from memory went something like "not good old Rolf" (link to that post posted earlier in the thread). A couple of grudging admissions that the sentence might be about right and a token acceptance that it may have been worse than found but overall you have continued to push the line that he was hard done by and what Harris did wasn't really that bad.

On the side topic of mixed identities I'm pathetic at picking them but Lester remindes me of the back to front John far more than jay123 does. But then occasionally the posts look like they could be serious rather than satire, yikes.

R0bert