Operation Yewtree - Page 22

danielf · 07-10-2012, 14:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparkle

Like noone saw this coming...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...e-victims.html

Lets see how many more "vitims" come forward to claim their share of the compo.

If you read the article, the suggestion would be none.

Quote:

Trustees for the Jimmy Savile Charitable Trust and Jimmy Savile Stoke Mandeville Hospital Charitable Trust are considering the change of identity worried that allegations about his behaviour will taint the organisations.

They are also thinking about giving some of their funds to "support charities that work with survivors of sexual abuse".

However they are barred by charity rules from giving the money as direct compensation to victims and fear their money may be seen as tainted by other good causes.

devilincarnate · 07-10-2012, 14:58

I read these today?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/j...v-star-1364931

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...denies-1364933

But this?

Quote:

Shamed pop star Gary Glitter could be jailed again over claims he raped a 13-year-old girl in Sir Jimmy Savile’s BBC dressing room.

The convicted paedophile, 68, will be arrested if his alleged victim is willing to speak to police, a source has revealed.

After an ITV documentary about Savile last week, a woman claimed she saw Glitter raping the teen at the height of his 1970s fame while the Jim’ll Fix It presenter was fondling a 14-year-old a few feet away.

Scotland Yard has launched a *nationwide investigation after scores of women came forward to claim they had been molested by Savile, who died last year aged 84.

A source close to the investigation said Glitter, real name Paul Gadd, is almost certain to face questioning. The identity of the alleged victim is known to police.

The source added: “These are very serious offences and as long as the woman gives evidence to the police there is a very good chance Glitter will be nicked.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...-probe-1365105

TheDaddy · 07-10-2012, 14:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

do i really need to explain the concept of proof

if there isn't any do we rely on rumor and gossip for justice ?

How about you provide some proof that he did and don't forget that the onus of proof is on the alleged victim not the accused

Not in slander or libel claims it isn't iirc. Wouldn't it be great if his estate started taking people,to court...

danielf · 07-10-2012, 15:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vieil Homme

Ok no problem. I defend your right to be wrong. I have been aware Savile was not to be left alone with children from the early 80s and was amazed to see him on television with children

I just think it's an extremely poorly written article,and I'm dubious as to some claims it makes as a result. That doesn't mean I don't think Jimmy Savile was a serial rapist and paedophile.

07-10-2012, 15:24

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

**Chris** · 07-10-2012, 15:28

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...

You can't libel a dead man.

danielf · 07-10-2012, 15:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

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 captaing

He must have. He's using quotation marks. Surely you wouldn't suggest he made the quotes up on the spot? Not Brian Hitchen of all people

**Damien** · 07-10-2012, 15:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

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 .

Yes they could convict on the basis of evidence from the accusers. If all the women were believable, i.e no reason to think they are lying, then that isn't flimsy evidence at all.

07-10-2012, 15:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

Yes they could convict on the basis of evidence from the accusers. If all the women were believable, i.e no reason to think they are lying, then that isn't flimsy evidence at all.

Yes that's true ,and the decision for a jury not the press or people taking advantage of a dead man who cannot be libeled or refute them .This must be a red tops dream knowing they can print practically anything and not have any recourse

TheDaddy · 07-10-2012, 16:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

You can't libel a dead man.

so they say but his estate could go for them under malicious falsehood...

**Chris** · 07-10-2012, 16:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

so they say but his estate could go for them under malicious falsehood...

How? Such a claim could only succeed if it could be proved that the stories being written about Saville were intended to harm the ongoing business interests of his estate, and had actually done so. "Malicious falsehood" isn't simply an interchangeable complaint that remains available in circumstances where a claim of libel is not. It is quite different.

Ramrod · 07-10-2012, 16:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

Says who ? presumably if such an event took place it would be in the ships log ,but Hitchen would sooner rely on a story told to him by someone who was not the ships captain

Again more hearsay and rumour

I agree, it's hearsay and rumour but when placed with the things that Esther Rantzen & Paul Gambachini (?sp) have also said about him it's looking pretty damning.
..............and who's to say that it wasn't in the ships log?

---------- Post added at 17:45 ---------- Previous post was at 17:44 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielf

I just think it's an extremely poorly written article,and I'm dubious as to some claims it makes as a result. That doesn't mean I don't think Jimmy Savile was a serial rapist and paedophile.

---------- Post added at 17:46 ---------- Previous post was at 17:45 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

Yes that's true ,and the decision for a jury not the press or people taking advantage of a dead man who cannot be libeled or refute them .This must be a red tops dream knowing they can print practically anything and not have any recourse

I get the feeling that they (and others) have been chomping at the bit for this moment.......and probably for good reason.

danielf · 07-10-2012, 17:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramrod

I agree, it's hearsay and rumour but when placed with the things that Esther Rantzen & Paul Gambachini (?sp) have also said about him it's looking pretty damning.

And if you combine that with the things that Savile himself has said and written it becomes very hard to dismiss the allegations as just hearsay and rumour. There comes a point where it's actually far more likely that the allegations are true.

Ramrod · 07-10-2012, 17:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielf

And if you combine that with the things that Savile himself has said and written it becomes very hard to dismiss the allegations as just hearsay and rumour. There comes a point where it's actually far more likely that the allegations are true.

Indeed......that's what made me change my mind

link

07-10-2012, 17:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramrod

I agree, it's hearsay and rumour but when placed with the things that Esther Rantzen & Paul Gambachini (?sp) have also said about him it's looking pretty damning.
..............and who's to say that it wasn't in the ships log?

.

Maybe it is ,any decent reporter would have got the log to back his claim instead of printing "i was told by by someone about a captain......."