Savile again

[peterperfection]

Funny thing is- I haven't seen much evidence yet- only allegations

 

[chapeau]

That just demonstrates you don't understand the meaning of 'evidence'.

So where is the doubt?

 

[alumni]

Bad thinking...the outcome of a police criminal inquiry is either lack of evidence to go any further or enough evidence to put before a jury, in other words a court case.

Or no case to answer in the first place!!

We already have more than enough evidence for a court case (but will never get one, hence the police stating at the start that they couldn't do a criminal inquiry but would compile a report) and any inquiry into Savile can only enhance that evidence not disprove it, and maybe reveal other offenders. Of course I would want to see that.

So what evidence is this you refer to?
Neither the Police or the CPS do Court without first checking any claims, allegations etc.

Like I asked previously. If you were ever wrongly accused you'd hope checks were made before being dragged through a trial which may or may not decide in your favour.

 

[ajstoneservices]

chapeau,
So you have had access to evidence have you?

 

[peterperfection]

That just demonstrates you don't understand the meaning of 'evidence'.

So where is the doubt?

Evidence is NOT something a person or persons have said .(whoever they may be or whatever their own personal motives) (££ching ££ ching)
Evidence is seeing something that CAN be proven !!

 

[chapeau]

Google testimony

Where is the doubt?

 

[peterperfection]

Bad thinking...the outcome of a police criminal inquiry is either lack of evidence to go any further or enough evidence to put before a jury, in other words a court case.

Or no case to answer in the first place!!

We already have more than enough evidence for a court case (but will never get one, hence the police stating at the start that they couldn't do a criminal inquiry but would compile a report) and any inquiry into Savile can only enhance that evidence not disprove it, and maybe reveal other offenders. Of course I would want to see that.

So what evidence is this you refer to?
Neither the Police or the CPS do Court without first checking any claims, allegations etc.

Like I asked previously. If you were ever wrongly accused you'd hope checks were made before being dragged through a trial which may or may not decide in your favour.

.

Very true indeed. But in reality- Police and CPS get things wrong very very often.
CPS are a joke-- they go with whoever puts most pressure on them.

This case- will test them to the limits I am sure.
Unfortunately- lots of people have held 'kangaroo courts' in their front rooms (thanks to the press)-- and until the 'front room brigade' take a look at it 'from the '''other'' side'-- -- the saga will go on and on and on.

 

[chapeau]

Well the CPS might be a joke but at least they know what the word 'evidence' means, which you clearly don't.

So where is the doubt? Are we up to 100 yet? People are convicted all the time on the testimony of one person. So lets say half the victims are lying, that still leaves dozens who said he did it.

Where is a single person who knew him who said he didn't do it?

So where is the doubt?

 

[ajstoneservices]

Where is a single person who knew him who said he didn't do it?

You mean Like Janet Cope who knew and worked for him for more than thirty years. How about the producers he's worked with at the BBC who say they have no knowledge of the alleged abuses.

 

[chapeau]

None of them said he Didn't do it.


This forum must have the only people in the UK who thinks Jimmy Savile is a decent chap. What plonkers

 

[ajstoneservices]

Well I guess you'd know as you've seen the evidence.

 

[misterdubya]

The Vatican has revealed that Jimmy Savile was only two rapes away from getting his own Parish.

 

[sooey]

 

[sooey]

None of them said he Didn't do it.


This forum must have the only people in the UK who thinks Jimmy Savile is a decent chap. What plonkers

I 100% agree with that, hear that tone 100%

 

[sooey]

Where is a single person who knew him who said he didn't do it?

You mean Like Janet Cope who knew and worked for him for more than thirty years.

She was out of his range....age range that is.

How about the producers he's worked with at the BBC who say they have no knowledge of the alleged abuses

What would you expect them to say if they had. "Oh yeah guv. we used to get them pizzed for him before they went into his dressing room"
Do me a favour.