geared Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 OK, I'll ask the question again..so given the reports which came to light, what would you like to see happen to Savile had he been alive to face his accusers? He should have gone to court to answer for what he'd done?? ---------- Post added 14-02-2014 at 14:09 ---------- Should their be a re evaluation of the evidence against Saville? Whats the point, he's dead and gone now. He can't give his side of the story so we will only ever know half of it. I don't know if there's any kind of civil suit going, I heard his surviving family were pretty thick and left all the money in his estate (or something like that??) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emily Moore Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 OK, I'll ask the question again..so given the reports which came to light, what would you like to see happen to Savile had he been alive to face his accusers? It doesn't necessarily require a smoking gun to find someone guilty of a crime, it just makes it easier for a jury to arrive at that conclusion. I suspect that had Savile been alive there would have been far fewer accusations. However I do not doubt that some of those accusations were more substantial and able to stand on their own merit in which case he should have faced justice. That is completely different from a your word against someone else's 40 years after the so called event. That and the idea of one false accusation backing up other false accusations is nothing short of a kangaroo court scandal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 I suspect that had Savile been alive there would have been far fewer accusations. However I do not doubt that some of those accusations were more substantial and able to stand on their own merit in which case he should have faced justice. That is completely different from a your word against someone else's 40 years after the so called event. That and the idea of one false accusation backing up other false accusations is nothing short of a kangaroo court scandal. But how would they do that given most Roache/Travis post trial commentators seem to be demanding DNA evidence and/or independent corroboration of witness statements before prosecutions can be pursued? ---------- Post added 14-02-2014 at 14:18 ---------- He should have gone to court to answer for what he'd done?? Are you asking or telling me? Incidentally, until he'd gone through a trial process and been convicted, he'd done nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Are you asking or telling me? Incidentally, until he'd gone through a trial process and been convicted, he'd done nothing. bit of both really, I agree nothing can be proven now But how would they do that given most Roache/Travis post trial commentators seem to be demanding DNA evidence and/or independent corroboration of witness statements before prosecutions can be pursued? Sensible really as it seems many storys have been made up. IIRC a nightporter claimed he witnessed Saville taking 'girls' into a special room at a hospital in Leeds. A day later that same hospital released a statement saying he never worked there :hihi: If there are some genuine victims amongst the accusers I feel sorry for em', because it's idiots like that who cast doubt on the entire situation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 If there are some genuine victims amongst the accusers I feel sorry for em', because it's idiots like that who cast doubt on the entire situation ..and this is part of the problem geared, the police have long been vilified for treating reporters of rape allegations as criminals, that approach certainly won't have assisted the genuine victims from 30/40 years ago. The police have learnt their lessons and have a more sympathetic approach, but that doesn't necessarily circumvent the need for evidence that might convince a jury, but given the nature of rape/sexual assault, it's not a crime generally enacted in the public eye or where the assailant will be easily implicated-from what some appear to be saying regarding the pre-trial burden of proof-those features play straight into the hands of rapists. When I hear all the sensational claims for women to be named/hauled through courts for perjury, my first thought is with the genuine victims (and the men who abuse them and get away with it), those of the present and the future who will be reluctant to complain about the predatory criminal behaviour of some men because the consequences of not having her testimony believed by a jury will be catastrophic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emily Moore Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 But how would they do that given most Roache/Travis post trial commentators seem to be demanding DNA evidence and/or independent corroboration of witness statements before prosecutions can be pursued? If I were with the CPS I wouldn't have brought those cases to court 30 years down the line when the only evidence was one persons word against another. 30 years ago there would have been DNA evidence and even witnesses who could back up stories, perhaps even CCTV footage. Unless you rely on one persons false testimony adding weight to someone else's false testimony there was no chance of a prosecution other than an unsafe one. So the whole thing has been a colossal waste of time and money. Now that folk have had their lives ruined, and their bank accounts emptied should they not be compensated for that? If so who should pay them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 If I were with the CPS I wouldn't have brought those cases to court 30 years down the line when the only evidence was one persons word against another. 30 years ago there would have been DNA evidence and even witnesses who could back up stories, perhaps even CCTV footage. Unless you rely on one persons false testimony adding weight to someone else's false testimony there was no chance of a prosecution other than an unsafe one. So the whole thing has been a colossal waste of time and money. Now that folk have had their lives ruined, and their bank accounts emptied should they not be compensated for that? If so who should pay them? Back to my earlier point, so do you think they should all be pre-requisites before a woman's allegation of rape/sexual assault should be investigated and committed to trial proceedings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emily Moore Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Back to my earlier point, so do you think they should all be pre-requisites before a woman's allegation of rape/sexual assault should be investigated and committed to trial proceedings? If you were falsely accused of a crime and the court case bankrupted you whilst you cleared your name would you expect to be recompensed for the damage caused to your life and bank balance, or would you sleep rough on the streets happy in the knowledge that you had cleared your name. Answer that and you answer your own question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 If you were falsely accused of a crime and the court case bankrupted you whilst you cleared your name would you expect to be recompensed for the damage caused to your life and bank balance, or would you sleep rough on the streets happy in the knowledge that you had cleared your name. Answer that and you answer your own question. That's an entirely separate issue from determining someone's guilt or innocence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Back to my earlier point, so do you think they should all be pre-requisites before a woman's allegation of rape/sexual assault should be investigated and committed to trial proceedings? Usually DNA evidence and a doctors exam are required these days. Due to the nature of it there's unlikely to be any witnesses or anything, it's a very tough thing to approach. IMO the police were in a tough spot, they had to be seen to do something, but at the end of the day they had nothing to go on and were given the run around by liars and fools. Damned if they did and damned if they did not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.