I like Rolf.. Since a young child when he did his 'Willaby' sketches on BBC 1 Television I thought he was such a nice guy and very good with children. I also don't believe he is anyway as bad as people think. He was so good with Queen Elizabeth when she sat for a portrait of herself. A very talented man.
I believe he is an innocent, good man who has been unfairly smeared, but please tell me, what did he actuwlly supposedly do? As I gather is was a weak moment with a 17 year old family friend involving no abuse whatsoever. Is thwt true, and how is thwt loving instinct in any way deserving of his absolute ruination and prison which I eouldn't eish on anybody having once spejt teo months there grossly unfairly too, but that's another story and it wasn't for these offences.
Thank you for keeping such an open mind. He was charged with 12 counts of indecent assault. This is where the lines get really dangerous because 12 counts doesn't mean 12 women. The accusations actually related to four women and I will deal with them in turn. The first woman was a woman called Wendy Wild. She alleged that he had assaulted her at a community centre in Portsmouth in 1969. The police did a thorough investigation, visited nursing homes, trawled through local newspapers, made door to door enquiries and even approached the community centre and nobody could place Rolf there. The only people who could definitively put Rolf there at the time was Wendy and her brother. She even claimed that she had attended the community centre with a friend and neither the friend nor Wendy's extended family could vouch for her. In fact, it is doubtful whether the friend ever existed and one of Wendy's relatives spoke out against her. Rolf actually had an alibi. In 1969 and 1970 he was a huge star and had just released "Two little boys". His management team all testified that he couldn't possibly have been there simply because he was too busy and they even confirmed that they would never have allowed him to go, he was in such demand. Rolf himself was also filming "Rolf's Walkabout" in Australia and even confirms this in his autobiography "Can you tell what it is yet?" (written in 2001). Wendy was very vague. She said he had assaulted her around the time of the moon landing. Rolf was in Australia when the moon landing happened and was watching it live with his daughter in front of television shop. Again he testified to this in his autobiography written 13 years previously. Wendy subsequently changed her story and said it was around the time of her birthday which was in October 1969. The problem with all these changes was that it was difficult for Rolf to accurately tell the court where he was. In the end the CPS pinned it down to "in or around 1968 or 1969". Well as you can imagine, you can't refute being at a non existent party with such vague dates. Rolf was convicted and sent to prison for 9 months for this accusation. The conviction was subsequently OVERTURNED on appeal. The second allegation related to a woman from Australia called Tonya Lee. She alleged that Rolf assaulted her in a pub in Greenwich, London. There were so many holes in her story. A simple look at the pub layout will confirm that she was AT BEST mistaken. She claimed he fondled her under a tablecloth and she had to make an excuse to run away to the toilets. She said the venue was packed and he followed her to the toilets and waited outside for her. Yet, not one person can corroborate this. The layout going into the toilet is so unbelievably narrow that it would have been impossible for Rolf not to have been noticed. Also the "tablecloth" suggestion is a very Australian idea. We don't do tablecloths in British pubs (especially in the 70's). It was a packed venue and nobody saw this horrendous assault and harassment. She said she was with a theatre group and a teacher aged 14. Not to mention the fact that Tonya Lee sold her story to an Australian magazine for $66,000 pre-trial AND she hired the services of an agent so that her story would go viral. Her husband (or partner depending on which newspaper is correct) threatened to expose her as a liar and he subsequently was arrested and imprisoned for assaulting her. She seems to make a bit of a habit of accusing people of assault, doesn't she? The third woman was Rolf's daughter's friend. She claimed that Rolf assaulted her when she was 13 on a family holiday and broke down and told his daughter all about it years later. She claimed that she had an affair with him for twenty years. The only problem with this story is that it wasn't twenty years. She had 8 one night stands with him over a period of twenty years. He claimed it was when she was over 18. She claimed it was when she was 13. The jury believed her but there's more.... it turns out, she made these outlandish claims years previously because Rolf had started an affair with someone else. She became neurotic and started to demand £25,000 so that her husband could open a bird sanctuary. When Rolf refused to be blackmailed, she threatened to "ruin him" and go to the newspapers about their affair. It would seem that she was bitter that she had been "replaced". The jury seem to have been swayed by this because up until that point the image of Rolf Harris had been one of "squeaky clean". We may all have different opinions about cheating on your spouse but that doesn't mean someone is guilty of assaulting someone. There's a huge difference here. Bindi's friend seemed to have played on these accusations of assault but a letter was produced to the court which Rolf had sent to the girls Father in which Rolf testifies "there was no beating, no rape, no physical assault of any kind". The Father sat on the letter for SEVENTEEN YEARS. I repeat, her OWN FATHER sat on the letter for SEVENTEEN YEARS until it was used as evidence at the trial in 2014. Why would a Father sit on a letter for that length of time if he thought his daughter had been assaulted? The likelihood is she was bitter that Rolf no longer wanted a "relationship" with her and became volatile. In the same letter, Rolf apologises to her Father for his behaviour and admits that he had been foolish and flattered that a younger woman had given him attention. Rolf may have been foolish and going through some kind of mid-life crisis but he was certainly not guilty of assault. The jury believed otherwise. The last woman accused him of assaulting her in Cambridge in the 1970's. She originally claimed he had assaulted her on Parkers Piece on "It's a celebrity knockout". Rolf had no memory of ever being in Cambridge and was adamant that he had never been UNTIL a member of the public (or so they say) sent in an anonymous video which placed him in Cambridge but this time it placed him on Jesus Green on Star Games four years later to that which she had originally claimed. The woman then changed her story to say that it had been Star Games all along! When questioned, Rolf maintained that he genuinely had no recollection of ever visiting Cambridge and that it was likely they had been bussed in as celebrities. People working with him confirmed that this was normal practice and you wouldn't necessarily know where you were while on tour. People like Rula Lenska and his management team took to the stand to testify on his behalf. When the woman was asked what happened, she confirmed ONLY that he had "pinched her bottom". While Rolf was convicted of this charge, the ONLY thing that she claims he was guilty of was "pinching her bottom". It is also worth mentioning that ALL of these women were represented by the same law firm. They are no win, no fee lawyers who act like PPI salespeople. They claim they can help you make compensation but won't charge unless there's a conviction. I wonder how similar people's stories can be if they are represented by the same people (which is a conflict of interest in my personal opinion). Rolf tried to appeal all of these convictions and was denied. The reason he was given was "on the balance of probability, all these women are telling the truth". The likelihood that Rolf even had a fair trial is questionable since the trial had been publicised to a global audience before the jury had even arrived in the courtroom. If it wasn't so serious, it would be laughable.
@@supportjusticeforrolfharri8379 this is highly compelling information. I gather Rolf was at the same hellhole prison I was at - Bullingdon. Anyway, are you in touch with him and do you know how he is doing, in his family life too? Unlike Savile who some have compared him to, anyone (I believe) with any empathy can see this man is no snake or predator - whilst flawed. I agree, I don't think he deserves it and my sympathy is also inspired by my own experiences of legal miscarriages of justice. People are dreadfully quick to judge when the system itself is stinkingly corrupt.
Hi I and my children are biggest fans of yours take care hope everything goes well for you all the best
I like Rolf.. Since a young child when he did his 'Willaby' sketches on BBC 1 Television I thought he was such a nice guy and very good with children. I also don't believe he is anyway as bad as people think. He was so good with Queen Elizabeth when she sat for a portrait of herself. A very talented man.
He was a good artist
He was a bloody good artist.
You are blessed...so gifted.
Genuinely nice guy
A nice guy u got no soul he’s a pedo
Its that Harold Shipman the mass murderer?
Do you know where i can get copies of the early series of Rolf on Art?
If ya you tube them they are here I have them saved Rolf on welsh art there are four
I believe he is an innocent, good man who has been unfairly smeared, but please tell me, what did he actuwlly supposedly do? As I gather is was a weak moment with a 17 year old family friend involving no abuse whatsoever. Is thwt true, and how is thwt loving instinct in any way deserving of his absolute ruination and prison which I eouldn't eish on anybody having once spejt teo months there grossly unfairly too, but that's another story and it wasn't for these offences.
Thank you for keeping such an open mind.
He was charged with 12 counts of indecent assault. This is where the lines get really dangerous because 12 counts doesn't mean 12 women. The accusations actually related to four women and I will deal with them in turn.
The first woman was a woman called Wendy Wild. She alleged that he had assaulted her at a community centre in Portsmouth in 1969. The police did a thorough investigation, visited nursing homes, trawled through local newspapers, made door to door enquiries and even approached the community centre and nobody could place Rolf there. The only people who could definitively put Rolf there at the time was Wendy and her brother. She even claimed that she had attended the community centre with a friend and neither the friend nor Wendy's extended family could vouch for her. In fact, it is doubtful whether the friend ever existed and one of Wendy's relatives spoke out against her.
Rolf actually had an alibi. In 1969 and 1970 he was a huge star and had just released "Two little boys". His management team all testified that he couldn't possibly have been there simply because he was too busy and they even confirmed that they would never have allowed him to go, he was in such demand. Rolf himself was also filming "Rolf's Walkabout" in Australia and even confirms this in his autobiography "Can you tell what it is yet?" (written in 2001).
Wendy was very vague. She said he had assaulted her around the time of the moon landing. Rolf was in Australia when the moon landing happened and was watching it live with his daughter in front of television shop. Again he testified to this in his autobiography written 13 years previously. Wendy subsequently changed her story and said it was around the time of her birthday which was in October 1969. The problem with all these changes was that it was difficult for Rolf to accurately tell the court where he was. In the end the CPS pinned it down to "in or around 1968 or 1969". Well as you can imagine, you can't refute being at a non existent party with such vague dates. Rolf was convicted and sent to prison for 9 months for this accusation. The conviction was subsequently OVERTURNED on appeal.
The second allegation related to a woman from Australia called Tonya Lee. She alleged that Rolf assaulted her in a pub in Greenwich, London. There were so many holes in her story. A simple look at the pub layout will confirm that she was AT BEST mistaken. She claimed he fondled her under a tablecloth and she had to make an excuse to run away to the toilets. She said the venue was packed and he followed her to the toilets and waited outside for her. Yet, not one person can corroborate this. The layout going into the toilet is so unbelievably narrow that it would have been impossible for Rolf not to have been noticed. Also the "tablecloth" suggestion is a very Australian idea. We don't do tablecloths in British pubs (especially in the 70's). It was a packed venue and nobody saw this horrendous assault and harassment. She said she was with a theatre group and a teacher aged 14. Not to mention the fact that Tonya Lee sold her story to an Australian magazine for $66,000 pre-trial AND she hired the services of an agent so that her story would go viral. Her husband (or partner depending on which newspaper is correct) threatened to expose her as a liar and he subsequently was arrested and imprisoned for assaulting her. She seems to make a bit of a habit of accusing people of assault, doesn't she?
The third woman was Rolf's daughter's friend. She claimed that Rolf assaulted her when she was 13 on a family holiday and broke down and told his daughter all about it years later. She claimed that she had an affair with him for twenty years. The only problem with this story is that it wasn't twenty years. She had 8 one night stands with him over a period of twenty years. He claimed it was when she was over 18. She claimed it was when she was 13. The jury believed her but there's more.... it turns out, she made these outlandish claims years previously because Rolf had started an affair with someone else. She became neurotic and started to demand £25,000 so that her husband could open a bird sanctuary. When Rolf refused to be blackmailed, she threatened to "ruin him" and go to the newspapers about their affair. It would seem that she was bitter that she had been "replaced".
The jury seem to have been swayed by this because up until that point the image of Rolf Harris had been one of "squeaky clean". We may all have different opinions about cheating on your spouse but that doesn't mean someone is guilty of assaulting someone. There's a huge difference here. Bindi's friend seemed to have played on these accusations of assault but a letter was produced to the court which Rolf had sent to the girls Father in which Rolf testifies "there was no beating, no rape, no physical assault of any kind". The Father sat on the letter for SEVENTEEN YEARS. I repeat, her OWN FATHER sat on the letter for SEVENTEEN YEARS until it was used as evidence at the trial in 2014. Why would a Father sit on a letter for that length of time if he thought his daughter had been assaulted? The likelihood is she was bitter that Rolf no longer wanted a "relationship" with her and became volatile. In the same letter, Rolf apologises to her Father for his behaviour and admits that he had been foolish and flattered that a younger woman had given him attention. Rolf may have been foolish and going through some kind of mid-life crisis but he was certainly not guilty of assault. The jury believed otherwise.
The last woman accused him of assaulting her in Cambridge in the 1970's. She originally claimed he had assaulted her on Parkers Piece on "It's a celebrity knockout". Rolf had no memory of ever being in Cambridge and was adamant that he had never been UNTIL a member of the public (or so they say) sent in an anonymous video which placed him in Cambridge but this time it placed him on Jesus Green on Star Games four years later to that which she had originally claimed. The woman then changed her story to say that it had been Star Games all along! When questioned, Rolf maintained that he genuinely had no recollection of ever visiting Cambridge and that it was likely they had been bussed in as celebrities. People working with him confirmed that this was normal practice and you wouldn't necessarily know where you were while on tour. People like Rula Lenska and his management team took to the stand to testify on his behalf. When the woman was asked what happened, she confirmed ONLY that he had "pinched her bottom". While Rolf was convicted of this charge, the ONLY thing that she claims he was guilty of was "pinching her bottom".
It is also worth mentioning that ALL of these women were represented by the same law firm. They are no win, no fee lawyers who act like PPI salespeople. They claim they can help you make compensation but won't charge unless there's a conviction. I wonder how similar people's stories can be if they are represented by the same people (which is a conflict of interest in my personal opinion).
Rolf tried to appeal all of these convictions and was denied. The reason he was given was "on the balance of probability, all these women are telling the truth". The likelihood that Rolf even had a fair trial is questionable since the trial had been publicised to a global audience before the jury had even arrived in the courtroom.
If it wasn't so serious, it would be laughable.
@@supportjusticeforrolfharri8379 this is highly compelling information. I gather Rolf was at the same hellhole prison I was at - Bullingdon. Anyway, are you in touch with him and do you know how he is doing, in his family life too? Unlike Savile who some have compared him to, anyone (I believe) with any empathy can see this man is no snake or predator - whilst flawed. I agree, I don't think he deserves it and my sympathy is also inspired by my own experiences of legal miscarriages of justice. People are dreadfully quick to judge when the system itself is stinkingly corrupt.
@@deejayhart his 92 now and suffering from throat cancer his lovely wife of 62 years has dementia 🥺🥺 he can’t even eat now
Trial by jury in this instance was a complete sham and is generally this way when emotion tends to overrule facts - period!.
@@Kandlelite He's better now. The media tried to make out that he was dying just to sell newspapers. He isn't dying at all and is in good spirits.