Practically Classics Forum

Not in any trouble myself but I'm a bit puzzled by the Jimmy Saville case. As I undestand it, you are innocent until proved guilty. In this case there does seem to be a lot of smoke (Perhaps some are jumping on the bandwaggon), suggesting there may well be some fire. I'm not sure how you go about trying a corpse (Who appears for the defence?); it would have been much simpler if this had all come out years ago. At least then he could have been tried and aquitted or convicted and sent to jail.

I have heard of people being convicted in absentia but I think in those cases, the people concerned have been on the run and have failed to give themselves up.

There is no "case" as such, but there can still be an investigation.

Can the investigation find him guilty post mortem For example, if they take his knighthood away, I suppose that's as near to punishment as they can get but it's still done without Jimmy Saville being given the chance to answer his accusers. I suppose if they find evidence of a cover up, at the BBC, that’s in one way another issue but in another its relevant. It seems a bit of a mess to me.

Martin Evans wrote:Can the investigation find him guilty post mortem

Martin, to repeat the above again, this isn't a trial, therefore nobody gets found guilty or not guilty. The Investigation is to see if any other party failed in their duty to protect the vulnerable people/children involved, and if there were failings, then to hold THOSE people to account and to make changes to ensure that this could not happen again.

I've not heard anything about taking away Saville's knighthood, and I expect the reason for that is that it's beside the point.

Cheers!

Some MPs have raised the issue of taking away Saville’s MBE and his Knighthood and such a move would normally be interpreted as a sign of guilt, no matter what process preceded such a move.

... theres me, thinking of a gag line.

"Any solicitors on here?"

"YES... we have an offer this week, three questions for £10... what're your other two?"

alfaSleep

alfaSleep wrote::"YES... we have an offer this week, three questions for £1,000... what're your other two?"
alfaSleep

Lol - there, just corrected that for you AlfaS....

it annoys me that witnesses to this alleged abuse didnt come forward earlier.... & now some solicitors seem to be thinking of legal action against the beeb etc for some compensation.

My understanding is that a lot of the 'victims' did report the problem and some to the police, it appears they were swept under the carpet.
As mention this is the reason for the investigation.

I was talking about this earlier, and it all seems very strange, why did no one bring this up sooner if it happened? Why has it taken almost a year for these allegations to come to light? Is it merely a chancer who saw a way to get some cash seeing as the person who faced the allegations was dead and could do nothing about it, and left a considerable estate? Did others think they could jump on the bandwagon? Why was/has everything been brushed under the carpet for so long?

Now, don't get me wrong I'm not defending Savile for one moment, and even if the police did try and sweep the allegations under the carpet as Jimmybob says, why didn't they then go to the press as we all know how they love to get their teeth into a story such as this?

If it were me who had apparently suffered his attentions then I would have been looking for justice while he was still alive to face the charges in a court of law, not waiting till now to say "and me!" Yes things were very different back in the 70s and 80s, but we all know how these child abuse cases changed (for the better with proper investigations taking place) over the past 10-20 years, so why didn't people speak up sooner even if they had brought it to the attention of the police before?

I'm not saying this is all untrue, and I'm not defending Savile for one minute, if he did these things, then his name deserves to be besmirched until the end of time, but its a bit late for PROPER justice to be served, and make him pay for the crimes that had been committed if it was found to be so.