[IzzyS]

Originally Posted by lexi22

Yes, it IS all a bit ludicrous, isn't it... but it does suggest that 'people' didn't want him exposed while alive because of who else he might bring down with him. Dead men don't talk. It's the only explanation that makes sense imo and the one that makes me very cynical about these 'investigations' and their findings.

I'm a bit cynical too but probably shouldn't judge until its all said and done, there's still ongoing investigations. I guess its wrong to judge without knowing the full details but I hope everyone who should be held to account and is able to be held to account (ie anyone who isn't dead etc.), is.

[Black Velvet]

Originally Posted by jack patterson

To say that out of all these hundreds or thousands of people that have come forward since 11/2012 not one single one came forward in his 50 +years 'reign of terror' remains totally ludicrous.
To also say out all those people thay were all too scared to come forward is also ludicrious when two 8 year old girls sent actor Peter Adamson to court in the 1980s.

As for the police saying "he groomed a nation" is quite pathetic because if it were true what the hell were they doing?

Just one explanation that I can give to your question and what you have said I too have thought. But looking back having been a teenager and a young woman back in the seventies and eighties it was a time where people did not talk about things where things were not out in the open the way they are today and this could explain the delay?

Originally Posted by lexi22

Yes, it IS all a bit ludicrous, isn't it... but it does suggest that 'people' didn't want him exposed while alive because of who else he might bring down with him. Dead men don't talk. It's the only explanation that makes sense imo and the one that makes me very cynical about these 'investigations' and their findings.

That's a fair enough point and could be true.

Originally Posted by IzzyS

If im remembering correctly, it all started with the original Newsnight investigation in 2011, in which Karin Ward came forward to talk about what happened, partly because she was due to get surgery and she wasn't sure she'd pull through, she wanted to help the story break but knew she may not be there to witness the after effects so that somehow gave her more confidence to go ahead and take part (there's an article that states as much, I remember reading last year). That show ended up being canned but MWT caught wind of it and basically continued it, making it into the ITV Exposure documentary, getting Karin to take part in that show as well as a few others - I think thats it?. It all started after he died though, yes, as far as im aware.

If the death threats are true (let alone connections he had) it wouldn't surprise me if they wouldn't have felt they could say anything - some people would find it hard enough to speak to the police about it, let alone talk to the press or media. It sounds like he had the internet or at least a computer at one point a few years ago, so I wonder if he checked for people talking about such things online and somehow threatened them online as well? the internet has been around for quite a while...people could have possibly talked about it here but there's at least one article where someone said they saw a PC switched on in his flat and he claimed to know how many websites there were about him, so maybe he did check what was being said and threatened people who tried to talk up? or warned them off making charges? I have no idea. I have heard that he made it clear if anyone pressed charges, he'd go to the Old Bailey and have the best team possible to fight his case ie. you'll have a very tough time getting a conviction, good luck with that :-/

Also, didn't the police tell some alleged victims that they couldn't keep their names anonymous, only to have to admit recently that, that was a lie and they would have been perfectly entitled to have their name made anonymous?.

Yes it was Karin Ward whose story started the whole thing off. Having read both Karen's book Keri and Keri Karin she does mention JS FS and GG. But the one thing Karen does say is that looking back they didn't realise that it was abuse. Which brings me back to my reply to Jack there that people didn't talk about things back then the way they did now.
Just to say though that originally Karin was told about by a doctor because she had suffered a nervous breakdown to write down all her feelings and she did then she put them online where Mark Thomas was doing research about JS and Duncroft approved school for girls for a project/documentary and he just happened to come across Karin's story and that is how this lady came to be involved as BBC asked her along with Mark Thomas if they could do an interview with her for the programme.

[cookie_princess]

Originally Posted by loonattic

is there any actuall proff that saville did what he's been accused of? all i've heard in the last few months is people saying this and that but without any evidence.

My thoughts exactly!!! There is no evidence to prove that he has committed any crimes, only circumstantial evidence!!

[Saltydog1955]

Originally Posted by cookie_princess

My thoughts exactly!!! There is no evidence to prove that he has committed any crimes, only circumstantial evidence!!

Historical evidence and Savile's MO is compelling in this case, and just because he's dead isn't a reason to ignore what he did.

A lawyer on the Exposure programme and others have said if he had been prosecuted, there would definitely have been a conviction.

[stargazer61]

Originally Posted by cookie_princess

My thoughts exactly!!! There is no evidence to prove that he has committed any crimes, only circumstantial evidence!!

None of us have access to any of the Police documents, statements, etc. However, even after subtracting a very few dubious claims, the sheer numbers of complaints suggest that he was indeed guilty of some forms of sexual abuse. Given the nature of the complaints, it would be impossible to gather forensic evidence after such a passage of time but circumstantial evidence, collaboration of accounts, verification of dates and places, witness statements, previous formal complaints, etc., all build up a picture of someone who committed sexal abuse over a long period of time.

[kimindex]

Originally Posted by loonattic

is there any actuall proff that saville did what he's been accused of? all i've heard in the last few months is people saying this and that but without any evidence.

Testimony is evidence. They don't usually manage to get CCTV of every crime.

[jamtamara]

Who said no-one came forward? They did. The police admit that.

[jamtamara]

Originally Posted by cookie_princess

My thoughts exactly!!! There is no evidence to prove that he has committed any crimes, only circumstantial evidence!!

You are right, there is no forensic evidence. The 'circumstantial' evidence and the picture that is being built up now by the police is all there is to go on along with testimonies. Some people think that is substantial evidence. Others may never be satisfied that it is. Leave it to the police and the law is or should be all that is necessary now.

[Eurostar]

Originally Posted by jamtamara

You are right, there is no forensic evidence. The 'circumstantial' evidence and the picture that is being built up now by the police is all there is to go on along with testimonies. Some people think that is substantial evidence. Others may never be satisfied that it is. Leave it to the police and the law is or should be all that is necessary now.

Sworn testimony is usually a vital part of any sexual abuse case. Rarely, if ever, are such incidents caught on camera or witnessed by other people. I'm not exactly sure what "proof" people are talking about when they say they are sceptical about such cases.....if we took that to it's logical conclusion, very few sexual abuse cases would ever end up in court.

[rumandlime]

Originally Posted by Eurostar

Sworn testimony is usually a vital part of any sexual abuse case. Rarely, if ever, are such incidents caught on camera or witnessed by other people. I'm not exactly sure what "proof" people are talking about when they say they are sceptical about such cases.....if we took that to it's logical conclusion, very few sexual abuse cases would ever end up in court.

CORRECT


Hence the reason that it is so ridiculous that 'michael jackson' apologist's continue to scream at anyone who might cast doubt over his own questionable activities with children [young boys].
the kind of 'proof' some are calling for as 'eurostar' clearly stated above is almost always going to be impossible to produce.
Make your own minds up folks,look at the evidence that does exist and you decide if 'jimmy savile' is guilty or not...To me its a 'no-brainer' and im glad that to 99% of people it is also beyond serious doubt,without obtaining some kind of definitive conclusive evidence !

[jamtamara]

Originally Posted by Eurostar

Sworn testimony is usually a vital part of any sexual abuse case. Rarely, if ever, are such incidents caught on camera or witnessed by other people. I'm not exactly sure what "proof" people are talking about when they say they are sceptical about such cases.....if we took that to it's logical conclusion, very few sexual abuse cases would ever end up in court.

Exactly. And still saying no-one came forward and why did no-one come forward. Everyone is entitled to their take on this but it does help to keep informed.

Some people think JS is the tip of the iceberg. That is one explanation of his 'power'.

ETA it's as if this thread had just started all over again. Groundhog Day

[Bus Stop2012]

Originally Posted by Eurostar

Sworn testimony is usually a vital part of any sexual abuse case. Rarely, if ever, are such incidents caught on camera or witnessed by other people. I'm not exactly sure what "proof" people are talking about when they say they are sceptical about such cases.....if we took that to it's logical conclusion, very few sexual abuse cases would ever end up in court.

Yes, but in this case the evidence can't be tested as the Defendant is not around. Convenient for the accusers, that.

[Eurostar]

Originally Posted by Bus Stop2012

Yes, but in this case the evidence can't be tested as the Defendant is not around. Convenient for the accusers, that.

I would agree with that in principle, but the sheer volume of accusers (hundreds of people telling police they were abused by Savile) makes an extremely compelling case. Even if 50% of them were lying, it would still mean the other 50% were telling the truth.

[Sad_BB_Addict]

An abuse lawyer being interviewed a few days ago on Sky News
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opkwcMUBw1g

[Asmo]

Vis a vis the Express 'Satanism' story, some interesting reads elsewhere that popped up in response:

Bearing in mind that the long time Satanic-panic peddling Dr. Valerie Sinason is the source of the Express's Savile stories -

http://www.anorak.co.uk/344898/celeb...orn-ring.html/

Reportedly, one of her papers appeared at Number 2 in the Independent’s “THE TEN WORST PUBLICATIONS IN THE HISTORY OF PSYCHIATRY.”

But the Express does respect her. As do others. Dr Sinason features on the website of Norwood.

The Dr is on the The Norwood Advisory Council, which “comprises a select number of people who are experts in their particular field of work and whose expertise is relevant to Norwood in one of its service divisions“.

The charity is supported by the likes of Alesha Dixon and Rt Hon George Osborne MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Cherie Blair QC, Norwood’s Patron of Children’s Services. It’s President is Richard Desmond, owner of Express.

Helpfully reproducing stills from 'The Devil Rides Out' and 'Eyes Wide Shut', also worth a visit:

http://wideshut.co.uk/satanic-panic-...avile-scandal/

[IzzyS]

Out of curiosity, for those who question the validity of the claims based on lack of evidence, how do you feel about other people who have similar accusations and are found guilty at trial by the same thing, mainly witness testimony and not necessarily any physical evidence, if the victim may have showered after being raped for instance and the person claims their innocent? its not very often that such crimes lead to convictions but it has happened.

-----

Also, I was having dinner with my family when we heard the story on the News at Six about the court case in Oxford against 9 men abusing and raping young teens and they mentioned a guest house that was used to carry out the abuse. My parents were asking why the property allowed it to go on, saying surely it should have been obvious the number of people going in to the same room - do such places have a legal obligation to prevent, I don't know, renting out rooms to people who may be committing illegal acts? especially in this day and age, how does that work, legally? its pretty seedy.

[belinus]

It has occurred to me that people begin to switch off when the spectre of Satanism raises its head regardless of what subject matter it appears.

I remember attending a few after parties during the 90's at which were a big group of anarchists and members of the Golden Dawn. I one room particular there was hung on the walls pictures of lizards and other creepy images, this room was for real live orgies as I found out later.

The simple fact is until those not involved in activity such as the opposite of what we deem acceptable behaviour, then it continues unabated and without any serious action to stop it.

[Asmo]

With Sinason's connections to the Express and it's 'Satanic' Savile stories in mind, it looks as if the second one in particular bears an uncanny resemblance to Valerie Sinason's original 'Satanic abuse' case.

The case of Carol Felstead - Sinason's first 'SRA' patient:

http://www.justiceforcarol.com/

In Carol’s psychiatric notes, it states that her parents were the High Priest and High Priestess of a Satanic Cult.

The 2nd Express story with Savile in it includes the details that the alleged victim's parents were "well known satanists". Different description, but notable similarity.

It's suggested that Sinason may have links to Christian fundamentalists who propogate the Satanic panic - see this page:

http://www.saff.ukhq.co.uk/dohreply.htm

Another eye opener with Sinason's fingerprints, mentioned before but worth inclusion -
http://www.saff.ukhq.co.uk/indyhoax.htm

[Bus Stop2012]

Originally Posted by IzzyS

Out of curiosity, for those who question the validity of the claims based on lack of evidence, how do you feel about other people who have similar accusations and are found guilty at trial by the same thing, mainly witness testimony and not necessarily any physical evidence, if the victim may have showered after being raped for instance and the person claims their innocent? its not very often that such crimes lead to convictions but it has happened.

-----

You've pretty much answered your own question there, as you are referring to cases where the Court has been able to hear all parties and decide which they find the more credible. Exactly what isn't happening here. The complainants that we have heard from, because they have given newspaper and tv interviews, I and many others do not find credible, and I am confident that they would not stand up to scrutiny in a Court. The fact is, they are only making their allegations now that they can't be challenged, and when there is money in it.
I don't know why people find it so hard to believe that in a nation with a population of 50m (or whatever it is), some few hundred are prepared to lie for gain - or because they are mentally challenged. Never heard of crash for cash?

[Bus Stop2012]

Originally Posted by Eurostar

I would agree with that in principle, but the sheer volume of accusers (hundreds of people telling police they were abused by Savile) makes an extremely compelling case. Even if 50% of them were lying, it would still mean the other 50% were telling the truth.

Only if he were alive, and then you'd be right - it would be dynamite.
But the question was, 'why do some people want evidence other than witness allegations'. Answer = because he's dead, because the witness allegations can't be tested, because there is money and attention in it............... etc.

[Keyser Soze]

Originally Posted by Bus Stop2012

Only if he were alive, and then you'd be right - it would be dynamite.
But the question was, 'why do some people want evidence other than witness allegations'. Answer = because he's dead, because the witness allegations can't be tested, because there is money and attention in it............... etc.

Or because they are genuine and they are finally getting the opportunity to put their experiences or things that they witnessed on record.

As I've said before: if people wanted money from this; they would go to the red tops about it. If people want justice or closure; they go to the police and make a statement. Which is what they've done in this case.

Look at the Hillsborough case. The victims were unable to speak for themselves because they were dead. But witnesses and those who lost loved ones kept going. It took many years, but they kept at it. Not for money, but for answers. For recognition of what happened. For the truth.

[IzzyS]

Originally Posted by Bus Stop2012

You've pretty much answered your own question there, as you are referring to cases where the Court has been able to hear all parties and decide which they find the more credible. Exactly what isn't happening here. The complainants that we have heard from, because they have given newspaper and tv interviews, I and many others do not find credible, and I am confident that they would not stand up to scrutiny in a Court. The fact is, they are only making their allegations now that they can't be challenged, and when there is money in it.
I don't know why people find it so hard to believe that in a nation with a population of 50m (or whatever it is), some few hundred are prepared to lie for gain - or because they are mentally challenged. Never heard of crash for cash?

I think its very likely that if he were still around, he'd flatly deny the claims but that doesn't mean that he couldn't still be found guilty. Other people can protest their innocence and still be convicted based on witness testimonies by a jury, as far as I know. 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? since he's dead and the police presumably have been able to gain access to his properties etc., they could find enough evidence (if such exists) to help them come to their conclusions as to whether there's any substance to the claims but again, sometimes people are convicted without the presence of physical evidence.

[soundcheck]

Originally Posted by IzzyS

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.

However...

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".

[skp20040]

Originally Posted by rumandlime

CORRECT


Hence the reason that it is so ridiculous that 'michael jackson' apologist's continue to scream at anyone who might cast doubt over his own questionable activities with children [young boys].
the kind of 'proof' some are calling for as 'eurostar' clearly stated above is almost always going to be impossible to produce.
Make your own minds up folks,look at the evidence that does exist and you decide if 'jimmy savile' is guilty or not...To me its a 'no-brainer' and im glad that to 99% of people it is also beyond serious doubt,without obtaining some kind of definitive conclusive evidence !

Apologists, I dont think you can equate this case with Jackson, after all how many people have come forward since Jacksons death to say he abused them ?

[skp20040]

Originally Posted by jamtamara

I'm sure i'm not the only one who wishes there were no announcements about imminent arrests. It sets people agog for names and gives time for people to set their affairs in order if there is anything to hide or defend - which would defeat the object.

I agree with that, it could give a person who is guilty time to disappear, hide evidence , create false alibis etc. It also gives the press and internet plenty of time to start guessing names, some of which may be totally wrong and unfair.

I also wish the media had not printed such detail of Saviles or indeed anyones abuse until after the investigation , you can ask for victims to come forward without such detail, this has given any bandwagon jumpers the opportunity to make up a claim and for compensation and possibly get away with it, not only does that annoy me it cheapens the genuine victims in all of this.