I'm sickened by these juries and our so called justice system . No way can they say that all these women, independent of each other, are lying .
Very sad state of affairs for any future victims of abuse to expect any justice in our appalling court system.
And yes OP Saville would have walked free, as would Stuart Hall .
My feelings too. More women have come forwards after both of the recent acquittals. I think fear of not being believed holds a lot of people back sadly.
What ARE you talking about?? Stuart Hall was not only convicted, but also had his sentence doubled when doubts were expressed over the original. Your post is idiotic.
He admitted his guilt . None of his victims had to give evidence in court . If he had been tried in court and the case decided by a jury he would have walked free . Same goes for Saville .
The court system is a farce and heavily biased in favour of the accused .
The prisons are way overcrowded and they are looking for any excuse not to send people to prison.
Even more ridiculous than your first post. People are tried, convicted and sent to prison every day - how else do you think there would be overcrowding?
And you have no basis whatsoever for stating that Hall and Savile would have been acquitted. None. Using imaginary and impossible scenarios to 'prove' a point doesn't actually prove anything...
My feelings too. More women have come forwards after both of the recent acquittals. I think fear of not being believed holds a lot of people back sadly.
So these victims were too scared to cone forward, even after others had made the first steps, and when it was obvious that the more evidence given against the 'attackers' the greater the chance of conviction. Instead, they wait until the men are very publicly cleared before making their allegations. Odd decision. I haven't seen these new accusations, do you have a link please?
I'm sickened by these juries and our so called justice system . No way can they say that all these women, independent of each other, are lying .
Very sad state of affairs for any future victims of abuse to expect any justice in our appalling court system.
And yes OP Saville would have walked free, as would Stuart Hall .
Totally disgaceful post. In the William Roache trial, not only was there insufficient evidence to convict him but there were enough inconsistencies and contradictions to suggest that three of his five accusers were, as far as I can see, very likely to have invented the accusations. Two of the accusers are sisters by the way.
Whilst in the DLT case there were not as many glaring contradictions, he was nevertheless found not guilty and I see no reason to question that verdict.
There was an excellent article in The Times the other day, questioning the current practice of lumping a vast number of very weak cases together in the hope that the sheer number of accusations, none of which would stand up on it's own would in itself would secure a conviction.
This practice was first used about 100 years ago in the "brides in the bath" murders. A new bride was found apparently drowned in her bath, weeks after her wedding. Although the husband's surname was different, a landlord recognised similarlities between this case and an earlier death at one of his properties. It turned out that the man had on 3 occasions and using 3 different names married women who had weeks later drowned in their bath. This was regarded as conclusive evidence of murder.
The difference between that and the Roache case is that according to the article I read (now burnt), the only common circumstances in all the Roache accusations are a woman accuser and a rape allegation. There is no other common factor.
All but two of the allegations in the DLT case were made after the police issued an open invitation for any cranks or gold diggers to come forward with spurious allegations.
I understand that a class action against the BBC for compensation was being prepared by the DLT prosecutors. The man lost his house and went through 18 months of hell just so that the authorities (police and CPS) could, in their view make up for letting Savile "get away with it".
The conclusion of the article was that the reliance on sheer numbers alone was something that should not be allowed to continue.
He admitted his guilt . None of his victims had to give evidence in court . If he had been tried in court and the case decided by a jury he would have walked free . Same goes for Saville .
The court system is a farce and heavily biased in favour of the accused .
The prisons are way overcrowded and they are looking for any excuse not to send people to prison.
Yes, what happened with Stuart Hall was his lawyer told him that he would be found innocent but he should do the right thing and just confess anyway.
When does a certain number make it a certainty though? How many allegations did DLT have against him..or Bill Roache? Far less but nevertheless more than one or two. ;-)If they weren't alive to be tried would they go down in history as being undeniably guilty?
Just playing Devil's advocate as I'm sure Saville was guilty but it can only ever be a probability not a certainty as there has been no trial.
We can never be sure without a trial. To me he was only guilty of being a little creepy from what I saw on tv. One thing I am also certain of is that the vast majority of people who have come forward in these cases are liars.
We can never be sure without a trial. To me he was only guilty of being a little creepy from what I saw on tv. One thing I am also certain of is that the vast majority of people who have come forward in these cases are liars.
Why are you certain of that? Is this just a gut feeling or do you have more to go on?
Comments
My feelings too. More women have come forwards after both of the recent acquittals. I think fear of not being believed holds a lot of people back sadly.
How? He confessed.
Even more ridiculous than your first post. People are tried, convicted and sent to prison every day - how else do you think there would be overcrowding?
And you have no basis whatsoever for stating that Hall and Savile would have been acquitted. None. Using imaginary and impossible scenarios to 'prove' a point doesn't actually prove anything...
So these victims were too scared to cone forward, even after others had made the first steps, and when it was obvious that the more evidence given against the 'attackers' the greater the chance of conviction. Instead, they wait until the men are very publicly cleared before making their allegations. Odd decision. I haven't seen these new accusations, do you have a link please?
Totally disgaceful post. In the William Roache trial, not only was there insufficient evidence to convict him but there were enough inconsistencies and contradictions to suggest that three of his five accusers were, as far as I can see, very likely to have invented the accusations. Two of the accusers are sisters by the way.
Whilst in the DLT case there were not as many glaring contradictions, he was nevertheless found not guilty and I see no reason to question that verdict.
There was an excellent article in The Times the other day, questioning the current practice of lumping a vast number of very weak cases together in the hope that the sheer number of accusations, none of which would stand up on it's own would in itself would secure a conviction.
This practice was first used about 100 years ago in the "brides in the bath" murders. A new bride was found apparently drowned in her bath, weeks after her wedding. Although the husband's surname was different, a landlord recognised similarlities between this case and an earlier death at one of his properties. It turned out that the man had on 3 occasions and using 3 different names married women who had weeks later drowned in their bath. This was regarded as conclusive evidence of murder.
The difference between that and the Roache case is that according to the article I read (now burnt), the only common circumstances in all the Roache accusations are a woman accuser and a rape allegation. There is no other common factor.
All but two of the allegations in the DLT case were made after the police issued an open invitation for any cranks or gold diggers to come forward with spurious allegations.
I understand that a class action against the BBC for compensation was being prepared by the DLT prosecutors. The man lost his house and went through 18 months of hell just so that the authorities (police and CPS) could, in their view make up for letting Savile "get away with it".
The conclusion of the article was that the reliance on sheer numbers alone was something that should not be allowed to continue.
Yes, what happened with Stuart Hall was his lawyer told him that he would be found innocent but he should do the right thing and just confess anyway.
We can never be sure without a trial. To me he was only guilty of being a little creepy from what I saw on tv. One thing I am also certain of is that the vast majority of people who have come forward in these cases are liars.
Why are you certain of that? Is this just a gut feeling or do you have more to go on?
How many more ex-BBC employees will be used as an excuse for delaying this report I wonder?
I bet the BBC just hate how long this is all taking to come out.......