R0bert,

The US system of 'plea barganing' is well known as unjust, particularly towards the poor sections of society. Gives the law a great clean up rate, but thousands of "innocent" (and I do use that term loosely) people will plead guilty, trying to avoid a far more extreme penalty. I fail to see the correlation between the US legal system and the British legal system as applied in the Harris case.
Next thing you know Ludwig will come up with a web site that will claim, the police planted Rolf's 'Wobble Board' at the crime scene and produce a new star witness that saw "a three legged bearded man running away singing a catchy little ditty about a kangaroo!
I think its called clutching at straws.

<< When your article said "Hundreds of people have been exonerated through DNA testing." It does not mean that they were first found guilty and then exonerated. >>

Yes it does Paul, as with Michael Phillips: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/24/dallas-mans-exoneration-makes-national-history/13040299/

You wrote:

<< Your mate in the article pleaded guilty, did he not? Strange! >>

R0bert, you replied:

<< Plea barganing, threatened with a very very long sentence and told it would be much shorter if he pleaded guilty, combined with knowing it was a black mans word against white girls word. I see why they do plea barganing but there is so much potential for it to be abused. >>

Exactly!.... which brings to light another sinister aspect of the legal system. I wonder how many innocent people have pleaded guilty when they haven’t actually been guilty, because they have been coerced into it or advised that it is the lesser of two evils, in a situation where there is no hope of them being found not guilty.

<< Somehow I don't think there was any chance of mistaken identity in the Harris case. >>

But there is plenty of possibility that the victim impact statements of the complainants were beat right up and that the effects on those girls, or some of them, were far less than asserted…. and that Harris’ contact with ‘C’ was of a mutual understanding.

POSSIBILITY I said. That’s all. Not saying it happened. I’m just considering the possibilities.

If those things are true, it wouldn’t exonerate him, but it would amount to considerable mitigating circumstances.

<< Next thing you know Ludwig will come up with a web site that will claim, the police planted Rolf's 'Wobble Board' at the crime scene and produce a new star witness that saw "a three legged bearded man running away singing a catchy little ditty about a kangaroo! >>

Haaaaaaahahahahaaa!!

Have a great weekend Paul.

{ :>))

Stalin's show trials of the 1930's and how they relate to good old Rolf. The Russians put people on trial, Britain put good old Rolf on trial, a similarity already. The Russians found people guilty, the British found good old Rolf guilty, another remarkable similarity. Stalin saw individuals as rivals to his leadership, what did Cameron see in good old Rolf, a threat to his leadership no doubt! He didn't actually say it, but there is no evidence he wasn't thinking it. The Russians put many in jail, the British put good old Rolf in jail, conclusive proof no less that there was a miscarriage of justice for both Russions and Rolf. I haven't even mentioned the fact that both Russians and Rolf both begin with the letter "R" and did any one also notice that the judge in the Rolf case, surname, started with "S" I ask you what does Stalin begin with hummm! More conclusive evidence of an unsafe verdict!
This can all be proven on a very reliable web site, I want everyone to go to that fantastic web site and have a good read of the proof I speak. once you have, like me you will be totally convinced by the evidence I present. Sorry, I clicked post before I could post a link to that fantastic web site, and unfortunately I'm up to 350 now, sorry OLO want let me post anymore than 350 words, so better luck next time, sorry about that.

Ludwig,

"...and that Harris’ contact with ‘C’ was of a mutual understanding."

Still twisting poor old Rolf's culpability into something you think exccuses his actions.

It is against the law to sexually interfere with a minor.

"C" was a minor when Rolf initially sexually interfered with her.

Ergo, Rolf has been found guilty of that crime.

"POSSIBILITY I said. That’s all. Not saying it happened. I’m just considering the possibilities.

If those things are true, it wouldn’t exonerate him, but it would amount to considerable mitigating circumstances."

"C" was a child - and you are "again" suggesting that Harris's abuse of her may have been partially her fault.

You continue to insult our intelligence by pretending to be a neutral thinker on this subject...when it is patently clear to most us that this thread is merely a vehicle for you to make excuses for Harris's deliberate abuse of minors.

Poirot, there is such an enormous difference between you, R0bert and Paul. Even though there is strong disagreement, I can have a very good discussion with R0bert, and a pretty good discussion with Paul. And then there’s you, who seems incapable of keeping your cool and keeping the perspective when dealing with those with whom you disagree.

What you have done on this thread is to assert, many times, that I hold much stronger views which are much more geared towards ‘exonerating’ Harris than what I do, despite my frequently repeated statements about the context of what I am saying, which is no more than that one should consider the POSSIBILITIES that things could be quite different to what the court has found and to what the likes of yourself and many others perceive to be the case.

You have attributed a position to me that I just don’t hold, and then you lambast me for it!!

Fascinating!!

As I keep saying; this tells me so much about how many people think, and thus how things can get blown out of all proportion and result in people being convicted of much worse things than what they have actually done.