cassity Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 (edited) Apparently when found dead in bed, Savile had died with his fingers crossed. He also expressed wishes that when buried, his coffin be encased in concrete once in the ground. Maybe the worm didn't want to be cannibalized by other worms. Maybe he just recognized something in himself. ---------- Post added 15-06-2015 at 11:51 ---------- Bottom line here is Savile wise , there was no trial given he's no longer with us and can't be tried. Evidence for the 'prosecution' suggests significant substance but at the end of the day he can't be convicted. No trial does rather leave a bit of a gap. The question n my mind is why wait 40 years to bring this to light after he's gone and it's all a bit late in the day? He gave me the creeps and I did meet him once in Glencoe in a cafe abt 17 years ago and yes he was creepy. Did he do the things that are alleged - honest answer - I don't know and sorry I do believe in innocent til proven guilty. That's not to say I'm saying anyone who came forward is lying because I don't think that at all. Fred West never went to trial..innocent? How do you get justice from a dead man? Yes Olive but body of evidence for what? There can be no trial given he's pushing up daisies. You don't, that isn't the intent unless you can resurrect him. Inquests are held every day surrounding the circumstances of those who are dead. I don't see why a similar inquest/trial can't be carried out surrounding the circumstances of someones life. What harm would that do to Savile? You can't 'dead' him twice. What is this 'trial of facts'. How can you have a trial of any sort when the defendant is deid? Everyone no matter what they have done/might have done is entitled to a fair trial. I agree we shouldn't forget about it and i doubt anyone will in the Savile allegations. But they are just that - allegations, not proven (and no I'm not defending him). Everyone in this country is entitled to justice. Did he do it? We don't know for sure which is tough on those accusing him because their case will never be proven. But obviously not the victims. The trial isn't a trial of guilt, it's a trial/inquiry of facts. Once the facts have been recognized, those that were the victims will become less than just being seen as accusers, rather than what they are..victims. An inquiry of facts would likely open a can of worms that may lead to areas best kept secret. Edited June 15, 2015 by cassity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
annbaker Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Maybe the worm didn't want to be cannibalized by other worms. Maybe he just recognized something in himself. ---------- Post added 15-06-2015 at 11:51 ---------- Fred West never went to trial..innocent? You don't, that isn't the intent unless you can resurrect him. Inquests are held every day surrounding the circumstances of those who are dead. I don't see why a similar inquest/trial can't be carried out surrounding the circumstances of someones life. What harm would that do to Savile? You can't 'dead' him twice. But obviously not the victims. The trial isn't a trial of guilt, it's a trial/inquiry of facts. Once the facts have been recognized, those that were the victims will become less than just being seen as accusers, rather than what they are..victims. An inquiry of facts would likely open a can of worms that may lead to areas best kept secret. The trial isn't a trial at all. You can't try someone who's no longer with us. Nor would you have an inquest - you only have them when someone dies . So the only alternative is a public enquiry which would be the only type of 'justice' the alleged victims would have. However it doesn't seem that the powers that be have the appetite for that which is a real shame in my view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassity Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 The trial isn't a trial at all. You can't try someone who's no longer with us. Nor would you have an inquest - you only have them when someone dies . So the only alternative is a public enquiry which would be the only type of 'justice' the alleged victims would have. However it doesn't seem that the powers that be have the appetite for that which is a real shame in my view. Ok, let's have an inquiry of the facts. Which ever way you dress he's still unable to attend, and I never suggested trying him. An inquest of evidence could at the least cite in favour of the victims and could give closure. A lot has to do with probability, and that alone may be sufficient considering he's dead. As far as innocent or guilty is concerned you haven't addressed the Fred West issue of not being tried, so therefore innocent? Personally It's unimportant to me, I think he's as guilty as hell, but for those victims who by some, are simply seen as accusers and parasites without understanding what its like to be a victim. Recognition is important when dealing with the abused, you can't give that with a question mark over their heads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
annbaker Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Ok, let's have an inquiry of the facts. Which ever way you dress he's still unable to attend, and I never suggested trying him. An inquest of evidence could at the least cite in favour of the victims and could give closure. A lot has to do with probability, and that alone may be sufficient considering he's dead. As far as innocent or guilty is concerned you haven't addressed the Fred West issue of not being tried, so therefore innocent? Personally It's unimportant to me, I think he's as guilty as hell, but for those victims who by some, are simply seen as accusers and parasites without understanding what its like to be a victim. Recognition is important when dealing with the abused, you can't give that with a question mark over their heads. Sorry I didn't realise you wanted me to comment on Fred West. He died when he had been charged and was on remand so not quite the same circumstances. But technically under the law because he wasn't actually tried then he wasn't found guilty. Fact is tho he wasn't getting out with the evidence they had so he took what I'd suggest was the cowards way out. With the evidence they had against him including substantial forensic evidence, I think it doubtful he'd have been set free. Savile is a totally different kettle of fish. You were the one who mentioned a trial in relation to Savile. Neither a trial nor an inquest would be the appropriate way to resolve this. There should be an enquiry and if it's proven he did indeed do what he was accused of them the victims would at least have some closure which currently they don't have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olive Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 Sorry I didn't realise you wanted me to comment on Fred West. He died when he had been charged and was on remand so not quite the same circumstances. But technically under the law because he wasn't actually tried then he wasn't found guilty. Fact is tho he wasn't getting out with the evidence they had so he took what I'd suggest was the cowards way out. With the evidence they had against him including substantial forensic evidence, I think it doubtful he'd have been set free. Savile is a totally different kettle of fish. You were the one who mentioned a trial in relation to Savile. Neither a trial nor an inquest would be the appropriate way to resolve this. There should be an enquiry and if it's proven he did indeed do what he was accused of them the victims would at least have some closure which currently they don't have. There's already been several inquiries. North Yorkshire Police, CPS, various NHS trusts to name but a few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
annbaker Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 There's already been several inquiries. North Yorkshire Police, CPS, various NHS trusts to name but a few. Indeed but there is an overarching one underway at the present time chaired by Justice Lowell Goddard, a New Zealand High Court judge, which has yet to report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olive Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 Indeed but there is an overarching one underway at the present time chaired by Justice Lowell Goddard, a New Zealand High Court judge, which has yet to report. So I'm not sure why you were saying that there should be an inquiry, if there's been lots already and there's one about to start? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
annbaker Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 So I'm not sure why you were saying that there should be an inquiry, if there's been lots already and there's one about to start? Because what had been done up to date was all just bits and bobs and this needed something that was a bit more co-ordinated which as I understand it is about to happen. When I posted I didn;t know it was imminent because they've been umming and ahhing about it for ages Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olive Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 Because what had been done up to date was all just bits and bobs and this needed something that was a bit more co-ordinated which as I understand it is about to happen. When I posted I didn;t know it was imminent because they've been umming and ahhing about it for ages Ah, I get it now, thanks. On one level it does make sense to have an overarching investigation, but it'll cost a lot of money to bring together what the individual inquiries already found out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 And it would achieve just what, exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now