Would you go to see 'An audience with Jimmy SaVILE?'

[Bigthumb]

I hear what you're saying. Inquiry after inquiry has sifted through this evidence - victim reports, eye witness reports, evidence from staff at the numerous hospitals he was involved in.

 

It's all evidence. We need to test this in a court when we're talking about convicting someone, but that's not what's at stake here.

 

We're looking back at the huge amount of evidence and trying to work out what the hell went wrong. Right across society - in the police force, the CPS, how kids were treated in kids homes, how victims of abuse were/are not believed.

 

If this thread was about Jimmy Savile being in prison without a trial, then fair enough, but he isn't and nobody's trying to put him in prison (obviously), so the court trial aspect is a bit of a red herring.

 

It boils down to someone saying Savile stuck his hand up my kilt, at which point his lawyer says "at the time my client was on a yacht off Bali"

That won't happen. Once the case became front page news anyone could come forward and make an accusation with the certainty it would be believed. Compo is a great motive. Undoubtably he did most of the things folks claim. Not the same as doing them all.

[cassity]

Undoubtably he did most of the things folks claim. Not the same as doing them all.

 

Yet you are of the opinion he undoubtedly did most things his victims claim...which victims are you doubtful of? Which pseudo victims are claiming only on the pretext of 'claim culture'?

[Anna B]

It boils down to someone saying Savile stuck his hand up my kilt, at which point his lawyer says "at the time my client was on a yacht off Bali"

That won't happen. Once the case became front page news anyone could come forward and make an accusation with the certainty it would be believed. Compo is a great motive. Undoubtably he did most of the things folks claim. Not the same as doing them all.

 

And yet when there is a case to be answered, all the evidence is there, both the victims and the accused are alive, and everything in place to be tested in a court of law, there is still no trial.... I refer of course to Lord Janner and other alleged Westminster paedophiles.

 

Not much chance of any of the victims ever achieving justice. What about them? It must be such a kick in the face every time they hear someone say 'Of course he never came to trial and it's innocent until proven guilty...'

What about the victims...?

[Olive]

It boils down to someone saying Savile stuck his hand up my kilt, at which point his lawyer says "at the time my client was on a yacht off Bali"

That won't happen. Once the case became front page news anyone could come forward and make an accusation with the certainty it would be believed. Compo is a great motive. Undoubtably he did most of the things folks claim. Not the same as doing them all.

 

We're not just talking about a victim's story, or even a few victims' stories. There's a whole body of evidence that's been collected, from all sorts of sources, as I mentioned.

 

There are many ways of establishing what happened in different situations. Trying a person in a criminal case is the prices we use if we're thinking of sending someone to prison. There's civil cases, or industrial tribunals, public enquiries, for example. The process used is the one appropriate to the situation.

 

So in Savile's case, it's been about collecting a whole host of information, through many different inquiries. A criminal prosecution is irrelevant now.

[Bigthumb]

Yet you are of the opinion he undoubtedly did most things his victims claim...which victims are you doubtful of? Which pseudo victims are claiming only on the pretext of 'claim culture'?

 

No one knows which of the "victims" were or were not victims. That is because the evidence has not been tested in court. I certainly wouldn't rule out the posibility that once the story broke a few compensation chasers or even publicity chasers joined the band. This is a sad state of affairs, because it is quite possible that a film or a play could focus on the evidence of someone who wasn't actually a victim. Folk who join the race purely for compensation are the most likely to try to cash in on the story.

 

---------- Post added 13-06-2015 at 10:34 ----------

 

We're not just talking about a victim's story, or even a few victims' stories. There's a whole body of evidence that's been collected, from all sorts of sources, as I mentioned.

 

There are many ways of establishing what happened in different situations. Trying a person in a criminal case is the prices we use if we're thinking of sending someone to prison. There's civil cases, or industrial tribunals, public enquiries, for example. The process used is the one appropriate to the situation.

 

So in Savile's case, it's been about collecting a whole host of information, through many different inquiries. A criminal prosecution is irrelevant now.

 

So is Lord Janner guilty of child abuse?

 

---------- Post added 13-06-2015 at 10:41 ----------

 

And yet when there is a case to be answered, all the evidence is there, both the victims and the accused are alive, and everything in place to be tested in a court of law, there is still no trial.... I refer of course to Lord Janner and other alleged Westminster paedophiles.

 

Not much chance of any of the victims ever achieving justice. What about them? It must be such a kick in the face every time they hear someone say 'Of course he never came to trial and it's innocent until proven guilty...'

What about the victims...?

 

That is certainly not what I said. I believe Savile to be guilty of many crimes. But we will never know which crimes because the evidence cannot be tested. No one can ever appear in Savile's defence to say he was elsewhere on one particular aledged incident, or even for Savile to saysomeone led him on.

So whilst there have almost certainly been many who were abused by Savile, because his side of the story can never be heard, he will remain unconvicted of any crime.

[cassity]

 

That is certainly not what I said. I believe Savile to be guilty of many crimes.

 

Why, 'he's never been tried or the evidence tested'. You have to ask yourself "WHY" you believe?

 

False claim seekers are a totally different subject, the thread isn't titled "An audience with a false claimant". Does a false claimant lessen the crimes you believe Savile to be guilty of? IMO it's a distraction used by the pro Savile camp in order to instill a semblance of innocence.

 

No one knows which of the "victims" were or were not victims.

 

Yes we do..it's just a case of whether you believe or not. Who do you disbelieve? You believe Savile is guilty (not tested), yet you believe some of his crimes are or maybe false (not tested), on what grounds?

[Bigthumb]

Why, 'he's never been tried or the evidence tested'. You have to ask yourself "WHY" you believe?

 

False claim seekers are a totally different subject, the thread isn't titled "An audience with a false claimant". Does a false claimant lessen the crimes you believe Savile to be guilty of? IMO it's a distraction used by the pro Savile camp in order to instill a semblance of innocence.

 

 

 

Yes we do..it's just a case of whether you believe or not. Who do you disbelieve? You believe Savile is guilty (not tested), yet you believe some of his crimes are or maybe false (not tested), on what grounds?

 

Actually I'm allowed to believe exactly what I like. I believe that Savile is guilty of the majority of the crimes for which people have come forward. I also believe that there is a probability that some of the claims against him might be false. WE have no way of knowing which of the claims are true and which are bogus, or indeed folks making genuine mistakes of memory after 40 years.

 

On what grounds? ...Common sense. Judging by the outcry the mere suggestion causes, it is a clear motive for those wanting attention by jumping on the bandwagon. The case of Lord McAlpine springs to mind.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/feb/19/newsnight-lord-mcalpine

Edited June 13, 2015 by Bigthumb

[Olive]

So is Lord Janner guilty of child abuse?

 

 

Well, we don't know at the moment. If he's not fit (different discussion) to stand trial, it doesn't mean there can't be some kind of enquiry into what went on. Wasn't there some talk of having a "trial of facts" or some such? Just making my point that there are different processes for different situations.

 

If someone can't be tried in a criminal court, because they're unfit (or dead), it's not always the case that we have to forget about it and assume, or pretend it didn't happen. Sometimes there are serious issues to be addressed and sweeping them under the carpet doesn't do anyone any good.

 

---------- Post added 13-06-2015 at 12:25 ----------

 

On what grounds? ...Common sense. Judging by the outcry the mere suggestion causes, it is a clear motive for those wanting attention by jumping on the bandwagon. The case of Lord McAlpine springs to mind.

 

There's also witnesses who had a hell of a lot to lose by coming forward. It's not just people claiming to be witnesses you know. What about staff at hospitals and care homes who knew what was going on? By admitting they knew they'll have put themselves in a difficult situation.

[Bigthumb]

Well, we don't know at the moment. If he's not fit (different discussion) to stand trial, it doesn't mean there can't be some kind of enquiry into what went on. Wasn't there some talk of having a "trial of facts" or some such? Just making my point that there are different processes for different situations.

 

If someone can't be tried in a criminal court, because they're unfit (or dead), it's not always the case that we have to forget about it and assume, or pretend it didn't happen. Sometimes there are serious issues to be addressed and sweeping them under the carpet doesn't do anyone any good.

 

---------- Post added 13-06-2015 at 12:25 ----------

 

 

There's also witnesses who had a hell of a lot to lose by coming forward. It's not just people claiming to be witnesses you know. What about staff at hospitals and care homes who knew what was going on? By admitting they knew they'll have put themselves in a difficult situation.

 

There are indeed witnesses who can corroberate SOME of the alegations against Savile. That's not the same as proving all of them. I keep saying I'm convinced Savile is guilty of many of the cimes for which he is accused. That's not the same as him being guilty of all of them. On the other hand I have no idea what you are trying to claim. Perhaps you should reflect on that and then tell us what you believe.

 

There were folk who made claims about Lord McAlpine. It just so happened that his private secretary kept diaries of his every appointment and could prove he wasn't at the locations where the abuses took place.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/feb/19/newsnight-lord-mcalpine

Edited June 13, 2015 by Bigthumb

[cassity]

 

There were folk who made claims about Lord McAlpine. It just so happened that his private secretary kept diaries of his every appointment and could prove he wasn't at the locations where the abuses took place.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/feb/19/newsnight-lord-mcalpine

 

That being the case the evidence (by a 3rd party) discounted the accusation made by a false claimer. What 3rd party evidence discounts any false claim made in the case of Savile? Or is your assumption based on probability only?

 

If McAlpine had been dead at the time of the accusation there was evidence to counter the false claim.