Thread: Jimmy Savile Paedophile accusations

Very worrying reading really , but cheers CMN .

i think it provides a semblance of balance and it's well reasoned

something the witch hunting tabloids rarely attempt to achieve

No point Bill suing those five girls, they will have stuff all anyway, but they seriously need to do some jail time. Or at least pay all associated court costs.

I have said all along how do you prove these sort of allegations after all those years.

It just boils down to a he said, she said argument.

Originally Posted by Lantern

No point Bill suing those five girls, they will have stuff all anyway, but they seriously need to do some jail time. Or at least pay all associated court costs.

I have said all along how do you prove these sort of allegations after all those years.

It just boils down to a he said, she said argument.

It's not really 'he said, she said'.

It's 'he said, five people said'.

And thats the case. That whilst there is no physical proof, there are a number of people - who don't know each other (and that bit is important) - who are making identical accusations.

In Bill 'Cock' Roache's case, there were enough inconsistencies in their stories - hardly surprising after 50 years - to constitute reasonable doubt.

In terms of his accusers doing jail time for their slanderous accusation or perjury - I can't see that happening - as it disincentivises women to report rape. I can't see him suing the Crown either.

However, as I say, the CPS is going to feel less inclined to prosecute this type of case, and the moral panic over celebrity sex maniacs may now start to subside.

Originally Posted by The Ghost Of The Moog

may now start to subside.

not convinced

here is a survey from today's independent that shows the british public is totally wrong about nearly everything

British public wrong about nearly everything, survey shows - Home News - UK - The Independent

Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon

Originally Posted by The Ghost Of The Moog

may now start to subside.

not convinced

here is a survey from today's independent that shows the british public is totally wrong about nearly everything

British public wrong about nearly everything, survey shows - Home News - UK - The Independent

let's just hope Texpat doesn't hear about this

Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Whoever decided on this particular witch hunt should be made to pay the costs out of their own pocket.

i think it might have been ENT

Fek I must be influential!

Dave Lee Travis trial: DJ cleared of indecent assault




Dave Lee Travis said he wanted to try to regain his reputation

Related Stories

• Profile: Dave Lee Travis
• DLT: 'Year and a half of hell' Watch
• Ignore Roache case, Travis jury told

Former BBC DJ Dave Lee Travis said he had been through "a year and a half of hell", after he was cleared of 12 counts of indecent assault.

The jury at Southwark Crown Court failed to reach a decision on a further indecent assault count and one of sexual assault.

Mr Travis, 68, of Mentmore, Buckinghamshire, denied all charges against him during the four-week trial.

The alleged incidents dated from 1976 to 2008 and involved 11 women.

Speaking outside court after the not guilty verdicts were read out, Mr Travis said: "I am not over the moon about any of this today. I do not feel like there is a victory in any way, shape or form.

"On the contrary, I think you already know that I have been through a year and a half of hell on this."

Appearing emotional, he said he had not only endured a crown court trial but also a trial by media - and had had to sell his home to pay legal fees.

"I did lose my reputation as well, which I may try to get back later," said Mr Travis, adding that all he wanted to do was go home to be with his wife Marianne, who stood by his side on the court steps.

Mr Travis was released on bail until a further hearing, to be held at the crown court on 24 February, to decide if there should be a retrial on the two outstanding charges.

The counts the jury could not decide on were an alleged indecent assault on a woman working on a pantomime in the early 1990s and an alleged sexual assault on a journalist who interviewed Mr Travis at his home in 2008.


'Nonsensical'



DLT was tried at Southwark Crown Court under his real name, David Patrick Griffin

The jurors had deliberated for about 20 hours before delivering the verdicts, with Mr Travis staring straight ahead as they did so.

He had maintained his innocence during the trial, telling the eight women and four men on the jury that the claims against him were "nonsensical" and that he was "cuddly" rather than "predatory".

The former Top of the Pops presenter told the court: "I'm a normal, decent human being. I play jokes on people. I cuddle people. And if there have been some sexual interactions in the past, it has been consensual."

Prosecutors had alleged that Mr Travis was an "opportunist" who had assaulted young women over decades, including during his time working at the BBC and for commercial radio stations.



But the jury found Mr Travis not guilty of the following charges:

• Indecently assaulting a 17-year-old BBC worker in a Radio 1 studio in the 1970s
• Indecently assaulting a 15-year-old girl at a Showaddywaddy concert in 1978
• Indecently assaulting a 17-year-old audience member while he was filming Top of the Pops in 1978
• Indecently assaulting a Radio 4 announcer in the early 1980s
• Indecently assaulting a student in his camper van in 1983
• Indecently assaulting a hotel worker in Bude, Cornwall, in 1984
• Indecently assaulting a British Airways worker at two of the company's corporate event in the 1990s - two counts
• Indecently assaulting two colleagues he worked with at Classic Gold radio in the early 2000s - four counts in total.

Mr Travis was arrested under Operation Yetwtree, set up by Scotland Yard after abuse allegations were made against Jimmy Savile, and was tried under his real name, David Patrick Griffin.

Det Ch Supt Keith Niven of Scotland Yard said outside court that the force takes allegations of sexual abuse "very seriously".

He said: "We fully investigate every case and once sufficient evidence is obtained, investigators work with CPS lawyers and a decision on whether to charge is made.

"In the case of Mr Griffin, a prosecution was brought, he was tried and the jury have reached their decision


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26177136

I note that in today's press, Sir Jimmy Savile is still being labelled as a 'predatory paedophile' (the dead can't be libelled)

But the likes of DLT and Ken Barlow are being lauded as innocent men whose character has been stained by the evil Sir Jimmy.

Sir Jimmy would probably also have been acquitted in Court. He didn't get punished, but his character is in shreds.

So those who have been found not guilty might complain that their reputations remain blackened. But that's the price they have to pay.

They probably did commit all they were accused of - and more, but it just can't be proven. They're no Saints.

if an accused person is found not guilty by a jury, then surely that implies that his accusers were lying, and it follows they should be named, shamed and prosecuted.

A friend of mine is a barrister. I will ask him about the point Tax Exile raises and post his reply here.

Originally Posted by The Ghost Of The Moog

Sir Jimmy would probably also have been acquitted in Court. He didn't get punished, but his character is in shreds.

.

Savile really probably woulnt have been found not guilty in Court .
400 Children accused him of sexual abuse , including rape .
The evidence against him was overwhelming .

Originally Posted by Fluke

Originally Posted by The Ghost Of The Moog

Sir Jimmy would probably also have been acquitted in Court. He didn't get punished, but his character is in shreds.

.

Savile really probably woulnt have been found not guilty in Court .
400 Children accused him of sexual abuse , including rape .
The evidence against him was overwhelming .

We will never know. But not even one brought a case, let alone 400, and the forensic evidence is very sparse. Of course 400 accusers in a witness box would be overwhelming.

In the absence of any conviction, I can't see why there should be any reparations given from his estate. I bought my trousers on the understanding that the money would go to charity, not to some Top of the Pops bird who he shagged on a promise he'd introduce her to Gary Glitter or Elvis, then didn't.

Incidentally, Gitter was acquitted in the early nineties when there was no real evidence to support claims made against him.

Originally Posted by taxexile

if an accused person is found not guilty by a jury, then surely that implies that his accusers were lying, and it follows they should be named, shamed and prosecuted.

Just because someone is found not guilty doesn't mean they didn't do what they were accused of just that the jury decided that there wasn't enough evidence to convict them beyond reasonable doubt. And also all these 'celebs' have the best barristers money can buy and that alone increases your chances a million % of getting off, had the accused been your average Joe Blogs with a two bit lawyer defending then probably a guilty verdict.

i'm sure that in such a high profile case as this the crown will have secured the services of some high powered counsel as well.

it would appear that just like the last two cases, (kevin and barlow from coronation street) there was no real evidence backing up the claims of the accusers.

its a witch-hunt, nothing more, at least with those three.

[QUOTE="Mr Lick"]and had had to sell his home to pay legal fees.

but if he is found not guilty,,, does he still have to pay up.

someone told me that he doesn't and that it is the police who brought the charges that have to pay.

anybody know.

^ There remain two charges DLT has yet to be cleared of. The prosecution authorities are currently deliberating whether to request a retrial relating to these.

If not then I suspect DLT's counsel will be requesting costs from the crown who brought the case.




His £1m property in Buckinghamshire which was sold to pay legal costs.




His now modest bungalow in Buckinghamshire

And let's not forget, there were two charges to which the judge and jury failed to reach a decision in, the press title is thus false. He was and is not 'cleared' of [all] charges, just that the could not find him either guilty or not guilty.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Originally Posted by taxexile

if an accused person is found not guilty by a jury, then surely that implies that his accusers were lying, and it follows they should be named, shamed and prosecuted.

No. It follows that there was insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no implication, at least not from the court, that the plaintiff lied - only that they failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. That reasonable doubt is the essence and central point of English law and while there are many yobbish thugs who would like to replace it with vigilantism and trial by retard it remains, for now, one of the few remaining vestiges of civilisation in this benighted country.

Trial by retard !! good one .

Originally Posted by Mr Lick

Indecently assaulting a 17-year-old BBC worker in a Radio 1 studio in the 1970s
Indecently assaulting a 17-year-old audience member while he was filming Top of the Pops in 1978

One of the funny things with these indecent assault charges that date back decades is that the accused are being judged by the social standards of 2014 for actions taken in the 1970s which was a culturally different planet.

The wording of the law may not have changed in that time but the interpretation between the lines may be different now to what it was then so I wonder if some of these fellas are going to come off worse than if they had been tried in the 1970s.

Dont forget, that the judge said he would except a majority decision from the jury in DLT`s trial...which suggests that some of the jury did`nt believe him.

Yahoo News UK & Ireland - Latest World News & UK News Headlines

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by Mr Lick

Indecently assaulting a 17-year-old BBC worker in a Radio 1 studio in the 1970s
Indecently assaulting a 17-year-old audience member while he was filming Top of the Pops in 1978

One of the funny things with these indecent assault charges that date back decades is that the accused are being judged by the social standards of 2014 for actions taken in the 1970s which was a culturally different planet.

The wording of the law may not have changed in that time but the interpretation between the lines may be different now to what it was then so I wonder if some of these fellas are going to come off worse than if they had been tried in the 1970s.

It certainly begs the question whether jury members are old enough to recall the 70's prior to the inception of PC and 'Respect in the Workplace' and what direction, if any, they may have received on these issues.

I believe that the law and sentencing which were in existence when the assaults were committed would need to be applied if the accused is found guilty and not that which exist currently.


A few years ago I attended a tribunal of a guy who was 'old school' and used to 'cuddle' the ladies at work (NHS hospital). A member of staff complained and he was suspended (6 months). His employers wanted to dismiss him for gross misconduct although their procedures in going about it were flawed, which was duly pointed out to them. He never returned to the workplace but was put on gardening leave until his natural retirement some 4 months later (full pay of course)

Originally Posted by Mr Lick

I believe that the law and sentencing which were in existence when the assaults were committed would need to be applied if the accused is found guilty and not that which exist currently.

Are you sure thats what you mean?

Or do you mean that the social mores of the time should be applied - (one in which no pair of boobies would appear on television without a 'titty' sound effect like a quacking duck plus a Sid James 'phwooaarrr' leer) And in which ladies were delivery systems for knockers ?

Because if you do mean that the law in existence should be applied, then indecent assault and a 16 year old age of consent were very much on the statute books then.

The law back then was there to protect kids,and I was a kid protected by the law.
Not that I knew that,the law was for lawyers and big people.
What protected Me was My own instinct.
A venomous look followed by "Don't touch Me"