There seems little comment on this thread about the jurors.

They are the ones who, in the light of the evidence and its presentation, either got it dead right or dead wrong.

The one thing that I remember from my time doing jury service was how very seriously everyone took it. They were very aware of how major it is to judge someone and to live with the consequences of that decision - especially if it entails removing someone's liberty.

I would guess that they, like many people who have offered views in the media and here, would have been enormously aware of the reputation and image of the defendant. I dare say that if they are a cross section of the population that a number of them will have previously had warm feelings towards him. I would think that is an even greater reason to weigh the evidence and be as sure as they could of the decision they came to.

They also have the benefit of being there in person and seeing the defendant - their body language, their gestures, their tone of voice. None of which come across unless you are there.

I'm guessing that Rolf Harris also had a decent legal team who presumably had some clue of what of they were doing.

Personally I have no real idea whether he did or didn't do it. I didn't follow the trial that much. I know from personal experience that going to the police in matters of indecent assault is not something that you'd do lightly. In the case of accusing someone in the public eye I would think it even harder as the scrutiny you are likely to come under is that much higher if the complaint fails. It is not something that you'd do lightly.

A unanimous decision on every count is quite a measure of certainty where the burden of proof rests on the prosecution. On a such a high profile trial I am tending to favour the jury as they were actually there.

To quote a newspaper article, I'm thinking that this would have a pretty strong effect on me as a juror. It's also probably not the brightest thing to commit to writing -

QUOTE
"There was one key that unlocked the complex child sex abuse case against Rolf Harris and led to his conviction and probable jailing.

It was a letter Harris wrote to the main victim's father in 1997.

"This is a confession of child abuse," prosecutor Sasha Wass QC told the jury in her closing address.

Seven of the 12 indecent assault charges related to the main victim.

She was a childhood friend of Harris's daughter Bindi. The two girls were like sisters.

The victim was abused from the age of 13 until she was almost 30.

In the letter, Harris talked of being in a "state of abject self-loathing" and being sickened by himself "when I see the misery I have caused".

The prosecution argued, successfully, that didn't make sense if, as Harris claimed, his daughter's friend instigated sexual contact after she was 18.

Harris had effectively "nailed his colours to the mast".

"You've given away rather too much in this letter," Wass told Harris when he moved from the dock to the witness box.

The crown went on to prove the star targeted, groomed and dehumanised his daughter's friend until she performed "like a prostitute" in her 20s.

The letter meant Harris couldn't deny sexual relations with the complainant.

And explaining how he had a 10-year "affair" with someone to whom he barely spoke proved difficult.

Wass was withering. There'd been no passion, no love, no friendship - just "no frills sex".

When pressed on the detail of his sexual encounters, Harris was reticent.

At one stage, he told the court his daughter's friend once performed oral sex on him in public. He couldn't remember specifics but noted it was "very enjoyable".