To not understand how jimmy saville issue can be resolved?(56 Posts)
Maybe I'm missing something here. I completely agree that the allegations against him are hideous if true. Question I'm finding difficult is how will the justice system decide if they are true or not, seeing as he is deceased?
Can you be tried on a court of law if you are deceased? Or will it forever be speculation? Can anyone ever prove beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty without him being here to answer the allegations?
I really do not want to offend anyone, I am just truely interested in the legalities of this scenario.
I don't think you can be convicted posthumously. I think it's a horrible shame these allegations never came to light while he was alive, because he is neither able to defend himself or face justice if they prove to be true.
He can't be charges and be convicted of anything because he's dead. The damage is done to his reputation.
I would like to see the people who colluded/facilitated the abuse brought to justice but I can't see how that can happen now.
He can't be tried. There will be hundreds. My DH told me tonight that two sisters from Leeds told him they had been abused by savile when they were children. They are now dead suicide! I said he should tell the police but will it do any good?
That's my point, true or not... Surely it's too late? I feel for his family either way and I feel for his victims if its true but where is this going? Is it a battle between itv and bbc? Sorry to reduce something so horrific to that but that is the way it seems. Will we ever know the truth? It's a very complicated and seemingly damaging and futile situation?
For what it's worth, I feel it may be true but I'm well aware that what I feel or the general public feels is not enough to go on. Why the hell didn't these people speak out earlier if true and why were the allegations dropped in 2007? Either we have an incompetent police force or people haven't spoken up when they should of or people have gone out of their way to cover it or it's propaganda. We will never know? All options are ugly and vile and a sign that something is wrong somewhere.
Leena49, I guess you should tell the police anyway.
i suppose it may give some closure for the victims, perhaps now they can try and put this horrible situation behind them.
I think the victoms just want people to know what he was realy like, it must have been upsetting when he died with everyone preaching and saying 'what a lovely man he was'. I feel it is true and i understand why they want people to know, i think they are very brave because i could not do what they are doing.
I am in a similar situation, a few weeks ago my ex died in a accident, i have had to listen to my my mum saying 'what a shame', 'poor lad' etc..etc.., i wish i was brave enough to tell her what he was really like, that he raped me several times. TBH i dont want to bring it up, he's gone now, he cant hurt anyone but it does piss me off when i hear people saying 'what a shame it is and how nice he was' it is tempting to tell people the truth.
I completely see both sides. Very difficult. But what if it's not true? What of people are taking advantage of the fact he is dead? I'm not saying this is the case but a possibility?
* But what if it's not true?*
i belive them
What have they got to gain though? do you think they are after money?
Do you know how hard it is to admit that a man has taken advantage of you? it took me years to admit it to myself let alone tell anyone.
I have a strong feeling it is true , maybe they want closure? maybe it will help them move on? i don't know.
I suppose what people want is their abuse to be acknowledged, but more importantly the extent of it to be known and the culture to be understood.
From what people are saying, it's really clear that there were a lot of people involved directly and a lot of people who knew but could not speak out.
It will be a landmark if it can be proved that high-ranking BBC officials effectively condoned and assisted in the abuse of girls on their premises (condoned by not speaking out and assisted by providing a venue for the abuse).
But he was investigated in 2007 so it is nothing new
I understand your viewpoints and I also have a tendency to believe it could be true but... Purely from devils advocate... How can you acknowledge something if there is no definitive proof it happened? Where do you draw the line? Do you need definitive proof to take something as true or can you base it on several witness statements? I agree, if it's true, lessons surely need to be learnt but if it's not? Surely this approach is unethical? Very confusing.
He was investigated but cleared? If he's guilty than that's a massive wrongdoing by the police?
He wasn't cleared, it was decided there wasn't sufficient evidence. That means that they couldn't prove he did it.
I think that the weight of allegations coming out are increasingly persuasive. None of the victims will gain anything material from this and will have to go through some painful memories. I hope they get an acknowledgment of the wrong that was done to them.
It does make me wonder about celebrity culture and why people like Jimmy Savile, Bill Wyman and Roman Polanski seem to be allowed to operate by a different set of dubious rules.
I agree with Kenleee Its such a shame he wasn't tried while alive.
Times were different then. The press didn't get hold of these stories and Savile was always in the news raising money for the Royal Marines (he was awarded a green beret by them, one of only two civilians to receive that honour),Stoke Mandeville fundraising,running marathons etc and stuff like sex abuse was not mentioned. People didn't believe stories about Priests/Nuns etc until recently. He was in a position that as long as was careful he would be ok. The fact he had a caravan in the grounds of a care home should have been a clue but no-one questioned the 'eccentricity' of him. But he wasn't the only one. 2 of the Bay City Rollers (bass player and manager) were caught out. Probably no different today with boy-bands whose target audience is pubescent girls.
my persernal feeling is the victims didn't want to see JS to get away from it, so they waited till he died.
there will always be speculation, but the knowledge is out there and nobody can say oh well it never happend he was cleared
i believe them.
i was talking to DH about this the other day and i asked why he thought it was just all emerging now.
his answer was that its only now that people are being asked about what happened.
once one person speaks up, you find a lot tend to come forward.
nothing will ever be proved and nothing will come of this particular allegation because he is dead - but i think there will be a lot more to come out yet.
i think there was a huge cover up from the 70;s, that went right to the very top of government.
It's very sad when abuse is revealed after the death of the abuser, it gives no resolution to the abused person. The people who colluded with this vile man and his mate Paul Gadd should at the very least be ashamed, I would prefer it if they were prosecuted.
I guess it's a lesson to anyone who thinks its ok not to raise suspicions. Victims also need more support and encouragement to come forward. I'm sad that there will be no resolution for anyone involved.
I also wonder what would have caused him to possibly do these things, maybe a cycle of abuse... It needs to stop and the only way is educating children about these things and listening to them. I hate the way abuse is passed down through generations. Unfortunately, it seems unstoppable so far
There's been a lot said about things being done in plain sight, he groped, kissed and even had sex in fairly public places. That has a double edged affect. Firstly witnesses hardly believe what they are witnessing and maybe because they are not alone in witnessing it they rely on someone else to do something about it. Eg the de ath man in the restaurant. Secondly the victim thinks the whole world knows and supports what's happening. When I was abused I didn't tell anyone for a long time because I thought they already knew. What can be done now? A social conscience for the protection of vulnerable girls, a method of reporting in appropriate behaviour and zero tolerance of men having sex with girls underage and/or much younger than themselves. I'm not sure how we make that happen though.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.