[Jake.]

Originally Posted by Livia

You don't know though, do you. You don't know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that these things are true. It wouldn't be the first time people jumped on a bandwaggon. One piece of evidence. Just one. That's all I need to change my mind.

But you don't know that it didn't happen? To assume that every single one of these alleged victims is lying is hardly fair imo. He might not have literally raped everysingle one of them, but sexual assault can be anything from groping to rape. And how can you get evidence for that kind of thing?

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Livia

Again... IF.

Lots of evidence for the good works, none for the bad stuff except a gaggle of unsubstantiated claims and tittle-tattle blown out of proporation by the scummiest sections of the press.

"the scummiest sections" that I have quoted from are the BBC, C4, Daily Record, Mirror, Sun, Mail, Telegraph, Express, Independent and Guardian - other posters have used other sources .....

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by JH95

But you don't know that it didn't happen? To assume that every single one of these alleged victims is lying is hardly fair imo. He might not have literally raped everysingle one of them, but sexual assault can be anything from groping to rape. And how can you get evidence for that kind of thing?

I agree with your comment above that the sheer numbers now coming forward lend more weight to the likelihood that he probably was a dirty old man , but as I've said before in this thread I would need to see one piece of solid evidence beyond testimony from any of his alleged victims before I would assume his guilt. And even then I'm still not happy with the very long time interval since these alleged crimes were committed , coupled with the fact the man is dead and cannot defend himself.

Easy to make up allegations against a dead person ( no legal comebacks re slander or libel)

[Jake.]

What evidence would surfice? You can't just assume that every single 'victim' is an attention seeking ***** hoping to make a dime. It must have originated from somewhere, and I think its a tad ridiculous to write off all allegations on the grounds on 'no evidence'. Savile was hardly going to write down in his notepad 'assaulted a girl today! hope no body finds out though!'

[Nedusa]

But allegations are just that allegations not evidence of guilt. Even though the sheer number of allegations seriously suggest there is some truth to the stories, without evidence we must reserve judgement otherwise we would end up in a very scary place, a place some people might argue we have already arrived at.

[Jake.]

Will have to agree to disagree then, I'm certainly not writing off all 40 allegations on the basis of 'no proof', the sheer amount of allegations is pretty much proof in itself.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by the truth

I dont take anything the tabloids write as proof of anything.
jimmy saville worked with kids for 50 years , raised £40 million for charity. now after hes dead a few women decide to sell diirty stories about him to tabloids? where have they been for 40 years? why didnt they do it when he was alive to answer these questions and to seek justice in courts? I think the way theyve gone about it is disgusting. a dead man cant defend himself. I got my jim'll fix it badge, I was inspired by his magnificent deeds and charity work and probably benefitted from it in one way or another. none of these unsubstantiated trial by tabloid, kangaroo court angry mod rule lurid claims will make a tiny difference to my opinion of sir jimmy. provide evidence, some proof, take it to the courts and then we will see if he is guilty or not. I seem to recall michael jackson was accused by even more people, thnakfully he was alive to defend himself and he was in fact cleared 100% innocent. both whacky, both eccentric, both vastly rich , both made tens of millions for charities. but neither has been proven guilty of any paedophilia. these are easy targets for the get rich quick chavs in america and uk. if there is a genuine victim, she or he needs to get to the police and provide as much evidence as possible and fight in court. sadly its still 30 years too late. doing it for money through the tabloids gets no respect from me.

My thoughts on the matter highlighted above.

I never liked the man, always thought there was something untoward, but I find this witch hunt now that he is dead a bit hard to swallow, especially with the 'alleged' numbers now coming forward.

find it hard to believe that so many 'abused' managed to keep their mouths shut for so many years and only managed to find their voice now that the man is dead and cannot defend himself.

Hard thing for a dead man to try to prove his innocence......

I'm perturbed that none of them managed to utter a word when all the coverage of Jonathan King came to light in 2001 - would have been the ideal time for the lid to be lifted...... but I cannot recall this ever coming to light way back then, when someone else in the business was being charged with the same thing.

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by JH95

Will have to agree to disagree then, I'm certainly not writing off all 40 allegations on the basis of 'no proof', the sheer amount of allegations is pretty much proof in itself.

No I take your point I really do, he is most likely guilty as charged the weight of allegations are pretty overwhelming , but what worries me is the idea that without evidence, without a trial , without his right to defend himself he is guilty on the say so of a number of women.

It's more about the point of law and not wanting to set a legal precedent where providing you have enough people saying something is true it then becomes true. Other cases may come to light where a group of vindictive people could allege all sorts against a third party, and that person could be found guilty on allegation alone.

[Kazanne]

Wonder how people would react if it was their daughter/sister/mother,would they still tell them to just 'leave it' as they have no proof?or advise them to go to the police,I am not having a pop at anyone here,I am just curious as to how we would feel and what advice we would give them and how we would deal with it.I hear now a male has also complained.

[Suze]

Originally Posted by kazanne

Wonder how people would react if it was their daughter/sister/mother,would they still tell them to just 'leave it' as they have no proof?or advise them to go to the police,I am not having a pop at anyone here,I am just curious as to how we would feel and what advice we would give them and how we would deal with it.I hear now a male has also complained.

I sort of agree with you there, Kazanne. Also maybe not much can be done with those who are no longer here to defend themselves apart from strip their awards maybe, but even that will make no difference now except maybe to the family and friends of them, but those who were victims would have a bit of peace of mind to know that it is being looked into at last. And maybe those who tried to sweep it under the carpet about what they knew and if true, then let young children suffer at the hands of those who should have known better, well maybe those left can be brought to some kind of justice. I have to say that Esther rantzen speaking out now whilst at the time turning a blind eye to anything, totally disgusts me, as she was a champion of so many things and has children of her own.

It is easy to say why now, but the truth of the matter is that if a lot of what is coming out is true, then Jimmy Savile and possibly others seem to have held a lot of sway in the world of media, and any victims might have seen no point in trying for justice at the time. Some obviously did try, and little came of it, so that must have put others off trying.

On the subject of the rags, scum as they are, I don't blame some of the percieved victims taking the rags monies for interviews, after all the rags would print stuff anyway, so why not make some money from the rags.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Suze

I sort of agree with you there, Kazanne. Also maybe not much can be done with those who are no longer here to defend themselves apart from strip their awards maybe, but even that will make no difference now except maybe to the family and friends of them, but those who were victims would have a bit of peace of mind to know that it is being looked into at last. And maybe those who tried to sweep it under the carpet about what they knew and if true, then let young children suffer at the hands of those who should have known better, well maybe those left can be brought to some kind of justice. I have to say that Esther rantzen speaking out now whilst at the time turning a blind eye to anything, totally disgusts me, as she was a champion of so many things and has children of her own.

It is easy to say why now, but the truth of the matter is that if a lot of what is coming out is true, then Jimmy Savile and possibly others seem to have held a lot of sway in the world of media, and any victims might have seen no point in trying for justice at the time. Some obviously did try, and little came of it, so that must have others off trying.

On the subject of the rags, scum as they are, I don't blame some of the percieved victims taking the rags monies for interviews, after all the rags would print stuff anyway, so why not make some money from the rags.

It's all very messy Suze,I read today that John Peel is now in the frame too as is Freddie Star(who is very much alive)the BBC seems to be more at blame here for seemingly covering up complaints,I just think there must be something in it for so many to come forward,the dead cannot be punished,but it may appease some of the victims to get it off their chests{so to speak).

[Livia]

Originally Posted by JH95

But you don't know that it didn't happen? To assume that every single one of these alleged victims is lying is hardly fair imo. He might not have literally raped everysingle one of them, but sexual assault can be anything from groping to rape. And how can you get evidence for that kind of thing?

Maybe I am looking at this a different way than some of you are because of my profession. But people have to be proved to be guilty. No one has to prove themselves to be innocent, that isn't how the law works. And to have waited decades until he died seemms very suspect to me. No one - not one person - came forward at the time. And yet, suddenly, there are tens, of not hundreds of people with a story to share with the nation.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by kazanne

Wonder how people would react if it was their daughter/sister/mother,would they still tell them to just 'leave it' as they have no proof?or advise them to go to the police,I am not having a pop at anyone here,I am just curious as to how we would feel and what advice we would give them and how we would deal with it.I hear now a male has also complained.

I wonder how people would react if it was their son/brother/father who was dead, unable to defend themselves and being accused of being a paedophile and a pervert by people who did not speak out in his lifetime.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by JH95

Will have to agree to disagree then, I'm certainly not writing off all 40 allegations on the basis of 'no proof', the sheer amount of allegations is pretty much proof in itself.

That isn't how the law works, thank God.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Livia

That isn't how the law works, thank God.

... and may it never be so that the law ever does work that way too. I agree with your posts on this issue.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Livia

And to have waited decades until he died seemms very suspect to me. No one - not one person - came forward at the time.

Another one of the alleged victims, Charlotte, says she was 14 when she was indecently assaulted by Jimmy Savile in a caravan parked in the grounds of her residential school said she was punished for making a complaint against Savile at the time.

She said:

“I was taken upstairs to the isolation unit, left there for two or three days and said that I could come back into the building when I refrained from saying such filthy things and retract the accusations and you know, that was it.

When I came out I just didn’t say anything more because I hated it in the isolation unit, it was a padded cell.

http://www.itv.com/news/2012-09-30/b...e-documentary/

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Omah

http://www.itv.com/news/2012-09-30/b...e-documentary/

If a complaint was made at the time there will be documentary evidence somewhere. I look forward to seeing something. Anything.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Livia

I wonder how people would react if it was their son/brother/father who was dead, unable to defend themselves and being accused of being a paedophile and a pervert by people who did not speak out in his lifetime.

I wonder how people would react if it was their daughter/sister/mother who was, as a child, unable to defend themselves from the sexual attentions of a middle-aged smelly paedophile and pervert, but who was not believed by people who sanctified Savile in his lifetime.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Livia

If a complaint was made at the time there will be documentary evidence somewhere. I look forward to seeing something. Anything.

"there will be documentary evidence somewhere"

Really ? As if .....

Even before shredders were invented, there were fires and furnaces .....

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Omah

I wonder how people would react if it was their daughter/sister/mother who was, as a child, unable to defend themselves from the sexual attentions of a middle-aged smelly paedophile and pervert, but who was not believed by people who sanctified Savile in his lifetime.

You have just repeated the post of Kazanne's I replied to which raised the very points you are repeating.

I would believe the claims. I really would... if there was ONE bit of real evidence. One. Not quote after quote from the tabloids.

[Jake.]

Things were far less documented back in those days. Look at the Moores Murders. They got caught because of something ridculous I think.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Omah

"there will be documentary evidence somewhere"

Really ? As if .....

Even before shredders were invented, there were fires and furnaces .....

Firstly, the emoticons to not strengthen your argument, quite the reverse.

If there is no evidence, then in the law there is no claim to answer. I have not made that up.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by JH95

Will have to agree to disagree then, I'm certainly not writing off all 40 allegations on the basis of 'no proof', the sheer amount of allegations is pretty much proof in itself.

Originally Posted by Livia

That isn't how the law works, thank God.

Well, yes it is, actually :

The vast majority of sexual offences committed against children and young persons are committed by family members or by persons well known to the victim. Most of those who are convicted of sexual offences against children and young persons are convicted primarily because the jury believes the complainant’s evidence and does not believe the defendant’s denial. The defendant may allege that the abuse simply did not occur or that it was not the defendant who was responsible. Most offences are committed when the victim and offender are alone, and there is rarely any scientific or other corroborative evidence. It follows that a key issue in most applications to the Commission will be the complainant’s credibility.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/...l-offences.pdf

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by Livia

Firstly, the emoticons to not strengthen your argument, quite the reverse.

If there is no evidence, then in the law there is no claim to answer. I have not made that up.

I agree, just because 40 people say something happened doesn't prove that it happened..!!!

[Tom4784]

I'll await what the police's conclusions are, they're the ones who has access to all the statements and evidence (if there is any) not a bunch of manipulative rags that have declared innocent people guilty of crimes they didn't do in the past.