Sir James Saville

[gizmo]

A rape conviction is difficult enough to get even with modern forensics how they ever thought they could get a conviction 50 years on, God alone knows... I havent paid any attention to either this trial or Jim Davidsons and I dont suppose I will for DLTs, if they deny the charges the chance of a conviction after all this time is pretty slim....
Assuming, as we must, they are all innocent,it makes you wonder how many of Savilles victims are genuine.
I believe someone asked that question on here a while back and got abused roundly for it.

[bill]

As you say Gizmo.....

. I havent paid any attention to either this trial or Jim Davidsons

If you had you would know that Jim Davidson did not stand trial. All charges were dropped.

[gizmo]

I did say I didnt though.

[bill]

And I did say you did say you didn't.

[gizmo]

I didn't say you did say I didn't, did I?

[bill]

Possibly you did,but if you did I didn't notice.

[LANDROVER ROGER]

A rape conviction is difficult enough to get even with modern forensics how they ever thought they could get a conviction 50 years on, God alone knows... I havent paid any attention to either this trial or Jim Davidsons and I dont suppose I will for DLTs, if they deny the charges the chance of a conviction after all this time is pretty slim....
Assuming, as we must, they are all innocent,it makes you wonder how many of Savilles victims are genuine.
I believe someone asked that question on here a while back and got abused roundly for it.

That was cynical me at that time.The decision to take to court must be extremely difficult.It is one person`s word against another and then for a jury to decide.As someone stated earlier the lack of forensic evidence puts it back to a yes you did,no I didn`t situation.Very difficult.

[lochend]

What does not help the real victims of sexually motivated crimes,and there are many, is the shocking number of women who pile in on the act for reasons known only to themselves (possibly with a view to financial gain?) In the most recent case one of the plaintiffs said in court that Johnie Briggs the Coronation St. actor had told her to keep clear of William Roache because he was a "bad un" or words to that effect.The defence pointed out that Johnnie Briggs did not join the cast until ten years after the offence was alleged to have taken place! Another alleged that she was molested in Roache's gold Rolls Royce! Roache was able to prove that he did not have this type of vehicle then! These dubious claims are bound to have an influence on the jury when the offences are alleged to have taken 40-50 years ago!

[Govangirl]

I know of a recent court case where those involved were known to me more than thirty years ago from where I worked. A man who had been abused as a child only had the courage to come forward after all the news about Savile, priests, etc. and it came down to who they would believe in the Crown Court. Of course there was no evidence but the man was still - thank God - convicted, mainly because the guy making the complaint was so convincing.

Please don't let some cases that the CPS had no right in putting forward make you think any differently about the monster Savile. Yes, some may have jumped on the bandwagon and the CPS may have got a bit silly after Savile and Hall but hopefully the Roache case will have put things in perspective. There were thousands of cases decades ago of abused children up and down the country and they deserve justice.

[lochend]

GG.Of course you are right.Everyone deserves justice.I wished to point outthat genuine victims chances of getting justice are not best served by the opportunists who muddy the waters and create an element of doubt where there should be none.

[Govangirl]

I understood that Lochend, sorry if that was not clear. I totally agree with your last statement too.

[odds]

And another one bites the dust ......... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26177136

Becoming quite embarrassing for the CPS and the investigators involved now.

[gizmo]

This is becoming a bit of a farce. DLT found to be innocent but possible further action over a couple of undecided cases.
Bill Roache found to be innocent but possible civil cases pending. Jim Davidson has all charges dropped before it reached court apparently. Freddie Starr and Rolf next up on cases that wll be their word against the accusers with no chance of any back up evidence. Even if they are all exonorated there will still be some doubt, are they really innocent or is it just difficult to get the charges to stick after the passage of time? Is this fair to anyone?

[odds]

Even if they are all exonorated there will still be some doubt, are they really innocent or is it just difficult to get the charges to stick after the passage of time? Is this fair to anyone?

If that's the case then it should never even go to trial, you can't just go around taking people to court hoping to get lucky and get a conviction. You need solid proof, any doubt whatsoever and the jury will be directed to find not guilty. It would seem that the prosecutors were targeting 'easy' targets but it has all backfired, god help us if/when they try to prosecute any public figures, although that is now very unlikely.
It would seem that theses cases were put forward just to keep the masses happy and divert attention away from the real paedos that are in the public office.

Pete.

[gizmo]

That was my very point, which caused an arguement with the good lady wife .
Peoples attitude to these men will undoubtably have been changed now. If there was any truth to the allegations but just impossible to prove, fair enough. If totally innocent, what then?
The, erm, discussion, with the wife was over my contention that conviction wthout a confession was very unlikely. Her argument was if Salville was alive and people agreed with me, then he would get off without trial.
Not sure that a bar of Turkish Delight and a £4 bunch of flowers from the garage will swing this one, but here's hoping .