Rolf Harris singing in court. WTAF?

[nevergoogle]

I don't get it. Why would he do that? What point was he making?

Seems to be like some cringey, disrespectful, desperate attempt to charm a jury. I'm assuming no juror is going to think that the man responsible for inventing the wobble board couldn't be an abuser.

Unless some cruel lawyer set him up to do that and he's too stupid to realise it would be the nail in the coffin of popular opinion???

bump

Didn't think it would be aloud, sounds ridiculous

From BBC news:

"He was asked about his musical background, telling the jury he had invented the wobble board instrument in 1959 while coating a portrait painted on a piece of hardboard with turpentine.

Mr Harris also gave details of his musical recordings, singing a section of his song Jake the Peg to the jury and demonstrating the sounds made by a didgeridoo and wobble board."

He was asked about his background. He gave a demo. Unsure I find that very earth shattering tbh.

I bet it was a set up. Not for the jury but for the press.

I find it bizarre that he would sing in that situation.

I did wonder why it was relevant to his case and how anyone thought it would help it or is it that he 'just can't stop being an entertainer'?

Presumably his lawyers thought it would play well to the jury - I really hope not.

I doubt it was a full chorus complete with wobble board. The Judge might have been chosen for lack of knowledge. The Judge may even have asked about the content/tune of his songs!?

And sketching, apparently. He sounds quite mad. Maybe he has lost the plot.

Starlight- I'm struggling to see the relevance to the trial of his singing/ occupation etc? Yes we know what a great family entertainer he was - but that does not mean he doesn't have a predilection for and lack of respect for teenage girls. Loads of abusers come across as likeable, family oriented etc etc - this is how they get access to children and then get away with it as their character ensures they- not the victim- will be believed. People aren't all "evil", or all "good" for that matter, so therefore his lawyers will be keen for him to demonstrate his fun side to hone in on the idea that he couldn't possibly have a bad side to him. Agree with the pp who said him making light of the whole thing is with v bad taste.

Is it a great idea to comment with opinions on this whilst the trial is ongoing?

Motivation for becoming a child's entertainer, content of songs, use of the material etc. all potentially relevant.

When I was listening to the radio earlier I though I must have misheard but no it's true. Yes, it's a case of humanising the accused.

Jury chosen for their lack if knowledge? I'm trying to think who would know if RH.

crikey, what got deleted? (in general terms)

Even if it was just for a bit of background, he didn't need to sing the damn thing. A colleague surmised that he's setting himself up as a doddery, senile old man as part of his defence. Who knows?

I imagine what got deleted was assertions as to the verdict!?

I guess.

I couldn't believe this when I heard it. Surely regardless of innocence/guilt (which obviously we can't comment on) it is disrespectful to the court and suggests one isn't taking the allegations and due process seriously.

The crimes he is accused of are extremely serious and whether they occurred in his case or not, surely some respect ought to be given to victims of similar crimes.

It seems to be attempting to remind the jurors of what a charismatic entertainer he was and bring back fond memories. I'm surprised such things are allowed in a court tbh.

yes, regardless of innocence/guilt, it's very odd isn't it.

You've got to question why a man on charges of sexual assault would be advised to sing a comic song containing more than a little innuendo about someone with 'an extra leg'....

What was he saying about his extra leg? Jake the peg, yes bad taste if he mentioned that.