Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
That evidence has to be verified by what? The Jury decides if it's reliable or not. They will check if the accuser was in the place they said and such but they don't need CCTV footage or DNA evidence. Think about the times when people are convicted of historical abuse, they pretty much only had accusers' testimony.
|
I know all that and have not said any different but even a jury will not convict soley on person A saying person B did something it would need to corroborated .In this case the only corroboration is the claims of other women saying he abused them also whether or not a jury would accept that or even if the cps would allow a trial to go ahead on such flimsy evidence we will never know .We can all have our own personal 'verdict' if you like ,but that is all it will remain .
My own personal view is that a lot of the accusations are simply people applying standards from 30-40yrs ago to modern standards .He may have had under age sex or he may not but i will not accept the word of people who had ample opportunity to out him without some proof or strong corroboration of their accusations.
---------- Post added at 16:19 ---------- Previous post was at 16:14 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vieil Homme
I think you will find he bravely threw Savile off his ship because he was a pervert ie pushing his attentions onto a 14 year old girl. I say bravely because Savile used to get free travel until this incident.
|
Then perhaps Hitchen should have done some investigating and produced the ships log to back up the story he was told by someone
who was not the ships captain
---------- Post added at 16:24 ---------- Previous post was at 16:19 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy
Not in slander or libel claims it isn't iirc. Wouldn't it be great if his estate started taking people,to court...
|
That i would like to see ,at least it may show one way or the other if he was guilty and put pay to celebrity wagon jumping