MilitantDogOwner Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 Some things can be impossible to prove, or disprove. Some of these people, the mentally damaged, the elderly, the physically disabled, the groomed teens or the children, could have found themselves in a position of being totally unable to protect themselves, or prove actions that could be put in front of a court. Lack of proof does not indicate moral innocence. Lack of proof also does not indicate guilt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 I maintain though I am still uncomfortable with anyone not being able to defend themselves. Like the people he's abused? Evidence or its just speculation. The testimony of many people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 I maintain though I am still uncomfortable with anyone not being able to defend themselves. Like the people he's abused? Evidence or its just speculation. The testimony of many people. That is circumstantial evidence, not actual physical evidence. Testimoney can be falsely made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 http://news.sky.com/story/997166/savile-victims-prepare-to-sue-nhs-and-bbc I see the pounds signs are rolling already for some. And there hasn't even been a full investigation yet....hmmmmm its almost too easy to predict.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierrot Lunaire Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 That is circumstantial evidence, not actual physical evidence. Not really. Witness testimony of the type that I have heard on the news this week would, in my opinion, be considered direct evidence, not circumstantial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boswellian Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 From 1987 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PMYK9hqG9jo "JS an expert on the topic" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GD4ELI Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 Not really. Witness testimony of the type that I have heard on the news this week would, in my opinion, be considered direct evidence, not circumstantial. And it's also the sheer volume from all directions. The Jersey fiasco will have some men shaking in their boots, of that I'm sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisenchuk Posted October 13, 2012 Author Share Posted October 13, 2012 In Jimmy's caravan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 Does anyone who read Ecstasy by Irvine Welsh, remember Freddy Royle from the short story 'Lorraine goes to Livingstone'? Freddy Royle was a TV celebrity who got off on paedophilia and necrophilia but hospital trustees would turn a blind eye because he did so much for the hospital and NHS. He had a deep Somerset drawl, perhaps a reflection of the yorkshire drawl, and similar eccentric attitudes. I remember reading this at the time (1996) and discussing with friends that we thought it was based on a real celebrity, but maybe exaggerated. I'm not insinuating anything, just commenting. “Freddy Royle had had, by his standards, a tiring day prior to his late afternoon arrival at St. Hubbin’s. He had been in the television studios all morning filming an episode of From Fred With Love. A young boy, whom Fred had sorted out to swim with dolphins at Morecambe’s Marineland, while his grandparents were brought back to the scene of their honeymoon, was all excited in the studio and writhed around in his lap, getting Freddie so aroused and excited that they had to do several takes.” “Yes, the trustees knew all about Freddy Royle, Glen reflected bitterly. They knew the real secrets of the chat-show host, the authors of several books, including Howzat! – Freddy Royle On Cricket, Freddy Royle’s Somerset, Somerset With a Z: The Wit of the West Country, West Country Walks With Freddy Royle and Freddy Royle’s 101 Magic Party Tricks. Yes, those trustee bastards knew what this distinguished friend, this favorite caring, laconic uncle to the nation did with the stiffs they got in here. The thing was, Freddy brought millions of pounds into the place with his fund-raising activities. This brought kudos to the trustees, and made St Hubbin’s Hospital a flagship for the arm’s-length trusts from the NHS. All they had to do was keep schtumm and indulge Sir Freddy with the odd body.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GD4ELI Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 Yes, This behaviour of JS's was talked about when he was alive, it's on a forum from 2008 even. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Smelly Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 Well he did do some good fix it's and the people around him did some fix's for him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 I maintain though I am still uncomfortable with anyone not being able to defend themselves. Like the people he's abused? Evidence or its just speculation. The testimony of many people. That is circumstantial evidence, not actual physical evidence. Testimoney can be falsely made. Circumstantial evidence is someone in a gold chain and shell suit being spotted near where someone was abused. Someone saying "I was abused by Jimmy Saville" is testimony. If you discount victim's testimony and eye witness testimony as a matter of course, what's the point of having witnesses in a court of law, the judge could just review the paperwork and reports by the prosecution & defence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 I maintain though I am still uncomfortable with anyone not being able to defend themselves. Like the people he's abused? Evidence or its just speculation. The testimony of many people. That is circumstantial evidence, not actual physical evidence. Testimoney can be falsely made. Circumstantial evidence is someone in a gold chain and shell suit being spotted near where someone was abused. Someone saying "I was abused by Jimmy Saville" is testimony. If you discount victim's testimony and eye witness testimony as a matter of course, what's the point of having witnesses in a court of law, the judge could just review the paperwork and reports by the prosecution & defence. No, the point people are making is that in a trial in a court of law there is a prosecution, a defence and a judge - and the trial involves the accused. All we are seeing here is the case for the prosecution across the media. In a trial a judge decides what evidence is substantial enough to be used in the case. If anything will come out of this I hope it will be 'report a crime when it happens and someone can be held accountable' - in a court of law at the time. The BBC, Health Service and other organisations that seem to be 'culpable by testimony' can only be sued following a judgement, and that judgement cannot happen now as there is effectively no defence for any trial because the accused has died. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Smelly Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 Me personally always enjoyed watching "jim ill fix it" as a child but now i just don't know what to think. Soo many people now saying virtually the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 Albert - Not really, a civil case could be made against an organisation on the basis that a child was abused in its care, even if the abuser was dead. But really this is a smokescreen you're putting up. We know his defence would be "now then, now then, now then Uncle Jimmy rattle jewellery didn't do nothing govenor" Leave aside the criminal element though there's often posthumous revelations about public figures. An extension of your stance on this case is that historians, biographers etc. would have to draw the line at what's public knowledge at the subject's death. Let me ask you, do you think all these girls are lying, and all the witnesses are making it up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.