What is it that he could have said or proven himself to prove his innocence? if there is no physical evidence...im curious what his legal team would have used to prove innocence?
I think this is the point. We don't know, because it never happened, and can never happen. The usual procedure is that the police gather evidence which is then presented in court. The defendant also puts his or own arguments to the court. Each side's evidence is tested by the other side, and the jury eventually decides which party has the most compelling case. It's this "due process" on which our democracy is built, at least in part. Unfortunately it is not a perfect system, but I think it is preferable to people being convicted based solely on the fact that the police think they are guilty - no matter how much evidence they have.
When this story first erupted, I was sceptical. Yet, because of the number of people the police say have made credible allegations of assault against Savile, I quickly came to believe that he was as is alleged - a serial, predatory sex offender, and possibly one of the worst ones this country has ever seen. But I also recognise that due process has not been followed, because in the circumstances it is simply not possible.
Part of what makes the whole thing so horrific is that there were clearly many opportunities missed where the matter could have been brought to court, the evidence tested, and (I believe) convictions subsequently obtained. These opportunities were missed because of many factors: Savile's celebrity, his reputation as a "good egg", the tendency to disbelieve or belittle those who allege abuse, general police incompetence...
There will always be a feeling that the whole story is not known, and that Savile "got away with it".