Sir Jimmy Saville

[thecollectorssurplus]

No thread about this on here, so I thought I'd start one. 

My starter for ten is this: Okay, I'm not saying anybody is making anything up, but why did all these people wait till he was dead before accusing him of all this stuff? And quite frankly, now he's dead, what can come from it other than tarnishing a reputation that was spotless and upsetting his grieving family even further. Seems basically wrong to me. Why does someone always have to bring down our heroes and role models? They should have done what they're doing now ten years ago or not at all if you ask me.

Nick

[kreemeemunkee]

Rather than this matter being a series of investigations it would appear to resemble a frenzy.

Here we have for all to see that such allegations ..ie..word of mouth are more than adequate to lead to a fairly large scale police investigation...evidence it would seem is a secondary concern.

[cee-dee]

Same as I've been saying here?:-

http://community.ebay.co.uk/topic/Round-Table/People-Say-Evidence/1700107258

[upthecreekyetagain]

"evidence it would seem is a secondary concern"

And what evidence do you have for making such a claim?

Or is that of no concern?

😉

[cee-dee]

Latest, the link at #219 has been updated.:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20781149

[kreemeemunkee]

"evidence it would seem is a secondary concern"

And what evidence do you have for making such a claim?

Or is that of no concern?

😉

The evidence that i have to substantiate my claims are that no evidence has been offered to support the claims made ....why ask such a thing?

Unless of course of course that you have no belief in true justice and instead prefer to see people arrested and humiliated on the basis of the word of an individual who may have a personal axe to grind.

One persons word is nowadays treated with the same gravity as actual evidence and this should be a cause for alarm to all people who believe in real justice.

Why the attitude?

[upthecreekyetagain]

"The evidence that i have to substantiate my claims are that no evidence has been offered to support the claims made ...."

Until a investigations are completed and any court case is initiated you wouldn't expect any evidence to be presented.

". . . why ask such a thing?"

Perfectly fair question when you are accusing the system of acting without evidence.  It wouldn't be right for you to say that action is being taken without evidence to support that action if you haven't any evidence that that is the case.   Presumably you do have the evidence to support your claim, I was simply asking what that evidence was.

[kreemeemunkee]

The evidence that would be required to be presented would be by way of DNA evidence.

I assume that you are describing the same set of allegations that i have heard of.

If a sexual assault has taken place then there should be a requirement for the forensic evidence to be put forward.

In the case of no forensic evidence existing then you and every other commonsense thinking person would sensibly conclude that there is no case to answer.

This though, is a perfect world situation and the now legal reality is that where no forensic evidence exists the Authorities will rely entirely on the word of mouth of a i dare say a group of people looking to make gains of one means or another.

We are living in very dangerous times where all of us can be severely disadvantaged due to the words of any other individual.

I will use the  example of Dave Lee Travis....her was arrested and held and subsequently embarrassed as the result of a woman saying that at sometime in the 1970s he had touched her inappropriately.

what evidence will exist to support such an allegation?

Yet...what evidence will exist to disprove the same.?

However....this and similar arrests and attempts at investigation will wholly rely on word of mouth and it is this that i am highlighting.

I genuinely fear that the allegations will be taken very seriously even where no absolute evidence is provided, this in turn could  encourage certain lobby groups along with the police and influential members of the judiciary to push parliament for more amendments to the law as to what will pass for evidence.

The bar has already been lowered to a low level already.

This was the result of the various cries that "Too many guilty people were walking from court"....of course this was never the case.

The truth of the matter was that there was no evidence to convict as  many people as these certain lobby groups wished for.

In order to appease them and Government wishing to appear to be acting tough on crime they merrily lowered the evidential bar

Many offences have now been politicised and there is little chance of securing the right result under these conditions.

This is the core of my point.

[kiss*my*pixel]

Yet, Kreemee, some sexual assaults do not leave DNA. Some assaults on a child do not involve the necessary means of obtaining DNA. Also, the child (or adult) may not say anything for several days/weeks/months/years, hence will be washed away.

Does that, by your reckoning, mean it didn't happen? Just because there is no DNA proof? This child/adult may have had nightmares about their ordeal for years, but just because there is no DNA they cannot be believed?

At the same time, I do think there should be a concrete allegation before someone is named. It isn't fair for someone to be splashed all over the newspapers and television before they've had the chance to defend themselves.

This is just such a revolting, distressing, filthy business, too horrible to comprehend.

I used to have Gary Glitter posters all over my walls as a teenager (VOMIT)  Makes me feel dirty just thinking about it - what on earth have his (and other's) victims gone through all these years?

[kreemeemunkee]

This is the problem that you have made clear entirely.

"This is such a revolting, distressing, filthy business, too horrible to comprehend."

Then to further skew matters there is no burden of proof required when an allegation is made.

this is where these matters become of major concern, they always stir up extreme emotion and under such a situation there is too great a danger that emotion will supersede legal process.

In this country too much legal regard is given o word of mouth and this is very dangerous.

When such claims are made then if no actual evidence can be provided then it must be assumed that any such allegations cannot be substantiated.

Also...many of the recent changes have opened up a situation where people are now making all manner of allegations for a variety of reasons that are not in relation to a real offence but rather as a means of settling old scores or as in the course of an ongoing agreement..

Such allegations are frequently levied against others as the burden of proof has been lowered to such a degree that it makes this so straightforward and there is no chance of being called to account should your allegations seriously fall down.

the sole reliance on word of mouth "evidence" has also had severe and far reaching implications within the ~Family court system also.

[kiss*my*pixel]

But there are too many allegations in the same vein against the same person (even some of his colleagues are agreeing with the comments on his bizarre behaviour). Why could you not think there is substance to these allegations? What would these people (many of whom were children, some of them seriously ill) now have to gain? What "scores" would they have to settle with a man who is now no longer here? I can't believe it is money, as who would put themselves out into the public domain purely for that reason, having to admit such a terrible thing happened to them years ago? I think it is just relief, that they are finally able to talk about it, and close the book on something truly dreadful that happened in their past. You cannot possibly believe that he is innocent of all these accusations, can you, Kreemee?

[upthecreekyetagain]

The real problem lies not with the arrest of people suspected of crimes, whatever the evidence that suspicion is based on, but the readines many have to suppose that a person is guilty just because they have been arrested.

In this country people are assumed innocent until proved guilty and it is high time that this principle is drummed into the psyche of the general public.  There is far too much of the mob mentality for my liking.  Put the blame for the "ruining of a persons reputation" not on the police who have to act on reports but where it belongs, on the ignorance of the general public.

As for the use of verbal evidence often this is the only evidence that is available but that doesn't mean that it is not evidence.  We have a jury system in this country that hears all the evidence and makes a decision based on that evidence.  Not perfect but about as good as it can be.

Where a defendant comes before a court and there is only verbal evidence to support the prosecution then that will often fail as is demonstrated by the low conviction rate for rape - of all rape cases reported less than 7% result in a conviction - only a third of reported cases get as far as a trial and of those less than a quarter result in a conviction.  More than half of those were due to the defendant pleading guilty.  Those figures seem to demonstrate that it is very difficult to be convicted on the basis of verbal evidence alone.

Ignoring and/or discounting verbal evidence can lead to a tragic outcome as demonstrated by the Soham murders

"April 1998: Rape
Huntley is arrested after a woman claimed he had raped her. She met Huntley at a nightclub, they shared a taxi home and went back to her house. The alleged victim did have a medical examination. Huntley admits they had sex but claimed it was consensual. The police took the view there was not enough evidence to take the matter any further. "

"May 1998: Rape charge
Another woman claims Huntley raped her while she was walking home from a nightclub. She said Huntley attacked her in an isolated spot and threatened to kill her. Huntley again claims the sex was consensual. Huntley is charged with rape. After viewing CCTV footage from the nightclub, the Crown Prosecution Service decided there was no chance of a conviction and dropped the case. "

"

July 1998: Indecent assault
A young girl claims she was subject to a serious indecent assault by a man called Ian 10 months before, when she was 12 years old. Huntley, who was living in her street at the time is arrested and denies the allegation.

Huntley had been living in a caravan with his then 15-year-old girlfriend - she was away that day. The 10-year-old told police he threatened her with pressure points saying he was an expert in martial arts, he had his hands round her neck and told her if she told anybody he would kill her.

She was interviewed but Humberside Police decided not to proceed with the case."

"February 1999: Rape
A 17-year-old girl alleges that Huntley had raped her in February after meeting him at a night club. She had met him before and Huntley claimed the sex was consensual. The police decided there was not enough evidence to proceed."

[blackburn_stevie]

IMHO, the only way to stop this kind of witch hunt is to stop the Press from reporting any arrests that the Police make.

As soon as a culprit has been found guilty of a crime, set the dogs on them but until that time why do reporters need to know?

[lhasa.two]

I thought this was the Jimmy Savile thread,  not a generalist thread about " verbal evidence" per se and frankly I'm a bit tired of reading about the "verbal" evidence requirement not being very important...

In Savile's case there's nothing more to go on, the man is dead but his "victims" are still alive and live with the scars of his actions, deep ones in some cases. Yes, it's emotional, rape and abuse is emotional, something that a lot of men just don't seem to recognise... Stop intellectualising the process, it's emotional and if verbal evidence is all they have, allow them to bring it forward. This enquiry began because 4/5 women independently came forward with reports about Savile, so they can't all be wrong can they?

Times have changed enormously from the attitudes and actions men in their behaviour towards women and the subsequent reactions of the police. Back in the 60's/70's - 80's even, as a woman raped or assaulted by a man, very often the last place they would go would be the police because it would not be generally taken seriously and very little support would have been available. 

The same applies to young children and teenagers. They are not believed. They know this, so nothing is said to either a parent guardian or anyone else in authority because of this attitude.  This is why Childline was set up...

It's these very same attitudes that stopped these people coming forward sooner in the Jimmy Savile case when he was still alive. He was the great fund raiser, he was the presenter of children's shows so he had to be a good person... He was also very bright, knew people in high places and had his feet well and truly under the table and had the power. So some young girl had no chance of reporting him to anyone and being believed!  The fact that there were people who knew him and some of those people were suspicious and witnessed some of his behaviour and yet still didn't speak up about him were, in my view, complicit in not helping to stop him sooner. But... those were mostly the times when even they would not be believed but they are coming forward now.

creeky makes a very good point about Ian Huntley and the Soham murders. No evidence, just the word of the women in most cases. Is it any wonder women/girls don't report attacks and rapes when they are met with this sort of response. 

[tommy.irene]

Jimmy Savile detectives arrest two men on suspicion of sexual offences A 53-year-old and a 59-year-old have been taken into custody Detectives have arrested ten men in connection with Operation Yewtree Both have been arrested under the 'others' strand of the investigation

By Anna Edwards

PUBLISHED: 14:07 GMT, 2 January 2013 | UPDATED: 15:43 GMT, 2 January 2013

Share

Two men have today been arrested by Jimmy Savile detectives on suspicion of sexual offences as part of Operation Yewtree.

The duo have been taken into custody after one was arrested at an address in Hampshire and another in west London.

The two men have been arrested under the strand of the investigation labelled 'others' as detective sort through hundreds of accusations made after the revelations about the late disgraced Jimmy Savile.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2256047/Jimmy-Savile-detectives-arrest-men-suspicion-sexual-offences.html#ixzz2Gq0lNwFT

[tommy.irene]

Jim Davidson is arrested by Savile police: Comedian taken into custody after he flew to UK to take p...

By

Arthur Martin

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2256223/Jim-Davidson-arrested-Savile-police-Comedian-taken-c...

[tommy.irene]

'Savile groomed the nation': Official police report into DJ's 60 years of abuse reveals that he raped 34 women and girls and sexually assaulted up to 450 Met officer in charge of investigation Peter Spindler says Savile targeted victims in almost every corner of Britain
Scotland Yard detective says he must have spent 'every minute of every waking day' thinking about sexually offending
Savile was 'without doubt one of the most prolific sex offenders we have ever come across', police and NSPCC say TV host used Jim'll Fix It to seek out victims after they wrote letters to hit show
BBC Trust Chair Lord Patten accused of blocking victim helpline Victims speak of their shock at scale of abuse


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2260589/Jimmy-Savile-scandal-Report-reveals-raped-34-women-girls-sexually-assaulted-450.html#ixzz2HgpHFReB

[tommy.irene]

Police warned Savile victim his lawyers would make 'mincemeat' of her if she pursued sex claim as QC...





http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2260834/Jimmy-Savile-victim-warned-police-lawyers-make-mincemeat-pursued-sex-claim.html#ixzz2Hh6Ic76v

[tommy.irene]

How the BBC created a monster: Savile's star status gave perfect cover to seek out victims

Perfect cover: Big questions are being asked as to how the BBC allowed Savile to cover his tracks

The BBC transformed Jimmy Savile into a national treasure with almost unparalleled power and status which he ruthlessly exploited.

He was the driving force behind TV and radio shows including Top Of The Pops, Jim’ll Fix It and Savile’s Travels, which made him a trusted household name.

But his position also gave him the perfect cover to single out vulnerable youngsters for his sexual gratification across six decades, the police said last night.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2261070/Jimmy-Saviles-star-status-gave-perfect-cover-seek-victims.html#ixzz2HkANtER4

[merehazle]

Well, do you think Saviles victims should receive financial compensation?

It seems some lawyers do.

Then they would ;-).   Just think of the claims fest.

I don't, it seems they got by without it for all those years so I think they just might be able to now.

My sympathies, but it was not the tax payers fault. And it has cost us millions already. 

[algasmoon]

Im sure its his estate that will pay the victims.

If you mean the investigation costs then it actually always puzzles me how they work out what these things cost. Do they employ people who are not normally on the payroll already? I dont get it, detectives are being paid anyway, or is it overtime that they get paid above their normal wages that is the reason the 'cost' is always mentioned when something extraordinary happens?