it is easy to understand an event from so long ago, is forgotten. the matter becomes more murky, when one of the claimants (or whatever), refers to the event, in her claim - but rolf harris had been claiming, that he was not there.
the claimant is vindicated, by the footage, which was eventually discovered... ok - vindicated insofar, as that there was a celebrity event.
murky waters indeed.... but TRUST BRITISH PAINTS ha ha - no wonder that we no longer see those ads on the tv screens.
whatever the outcome of the trial is, but with a bit of luck, the verdict will reflect the true circumstances.
for what it is worth, but watso recalls a family incident to which his elder sister was a witness - watso eventually confronted his mother about the incident, and she did not believe that it happened - and she subsequently informed watso that she had asked her daughter (ie watso's elder sister) about the alleged incident - and it seems that she did not know (ie did not recall- or was simply siding with the mother) about the incident.
what is important to some people, and what sticks in the memory, may not be important to others.. in the rolf harris case, the claimant has referred to a situation, which eventually has proven to have occurred, but to which mr harris orignally denied.
as watso mentioned, hopefully the trial outcome reflects the true position
