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

[Bigthumb 10]

If someone is murdered, but the culprit is never found, does that mean the murder didn't happen?

 

Hitler was never tried, but I think we can be fairly certain the holocaust happened.

 

That's the thing about murder. It leaves behind a dead body. I'm pretty clear that Savile did most of what he is accused of. The problem with cases like this is there is no tangible evidence as DNA disappeared when folk failed to report crimes. So all we have is a whole bunch of accusers and no one to answer the charges and no court case to test the evidence, the alibis or even counter alegations. So as I said before, Savile was never charged with anything and certainly not convicted of anything. So regardless of the evidence and facts it is merely hearsay.

 

Hearsay evidence is "an out-of-court statement introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein."

Edited June 12, 2015 by Bigthumb

[speedypete0 12]

making money from the life of a peodo ?

[Penistone999 10]

A legal defence, but certainly not an historical defence. The evidence is insurmountable.

 

But the fact remains he was never found guilty of any offence regardless of any evidence against him.

[Olive 10]

But the fact remains he was never found guilty of any offence regardless of any evidence against him.

 

A criminal investigation - no. No-one to convict, no-one to sentence.

 

Several inquiries, lots of evidence heard.

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to say - that there are no victims?

[cassity 10]

making money from the life of a peodo ?

 

Making money from terrorist victims: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_93_(film)

 

Making money from child abuse victims:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1896788/plotsummary?ref_=tt_ov_pl

 

Every bit of media regardless of content is profit based largely, even down to Porcelain mugs depicting the twin towers as they collapse. All tasteless one could argue, but never the less a human trait. Even worse would be to ignore it.

[Nijinsky 10]

But the fact remains he was never found guilty of any offence regardless of any evidence against him.

 

Because he had arse holed his way into the Establishment. A bigger brown nosing ******* you will never meet. He was the procurer of children for the elite. These people were/are untouchable. Savile crimes and necromancy were common knowledge for 30 years.

 

---------- Post added 12-06-2015 at 23:42 ----------

 

 

---------- Post added 12-06-2015 at 23:44 ----------

 

[cassity 10]

But the fact remains he was never found guilty of any offence regardless of any evidence against him.

 

Yes, we know the bleedin obvious. His victims know of his guilt. Many sadistic perverts haven't been brought to book because they are dead. The point is, if he was alive and the present evidence submitted, would you personally regard him as guilty?

 

Being dead doesn't absolve you of a crime you committed in the eyes of others.

[Olive 10]

That's the thing about murder. It leaves behind a dead body. I'm pretty clear that Savile did most of what he is accused of. The problem with cases like this is there is no tangible evidence as DNA disappeared when folk failed to report crimes. So all we have is a whole bunch of accusers and no one to answer the charges and no court case to test the evidence, the alibis or even counter alegations. So as I said before, Savile was never charged with anything and certainly not convicted of anything. So regardless of the evidence and facts it is merely hearsay.

 

Hearsay evidence is "an out-of-court statement introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein."

 

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.

[Bigthumb 10]

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 10]

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 1,401]

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 10]

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.