IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
|
Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Could Jimmy Savile Be Innocent?
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
honey!oh sugar sugar. |
robbiex wrote:
Its a fair point that there is no concrete evidence of abuse and we don't know either way. However there isn't usually concrete evidence of this type of offence. Abusing people is usually something that goes on behind closed doors.
Also the guy says that nothing was found on his computers. Saville never had a computer, he was more interested in going out and meeting people and doing work for charity and generally getting attention for himself, which is all fine. He was nearly 85 when he died in 2011 and would have been in his 70s when the internet became mainstream. Hardly a time when people start to become computer literate.
I don't know what the answer is with historical child abuse, there can never be concrete evidence in the form of photographs or forensics, we just have to go on a juries decision that they believe the defendent more than the accuser. This country has gone hysterical over the last few years, with an 84 year old man recieving a 5 year sentence for having sex with someone he later went on to have a 13 year affair with. If someone had ruined your life would you go on and have an affair with them? At the same time in South Africa a man receives a lesser sentence for a crime which resulted in the death of a young woman with clear evidence and an admission that he had killed. The only dispute with who he believed he had shot through the toilet door.
In my opinion, it is very wrong to convict unless there is no reasonable doubt, and how could there not be if it depends on believing either the defendant or the accuser without evidence?
Even if the child is willing it is still child abuse and can be very damaging indeed. Often a "relationship" of imbalanced power will continue for years. ( in general, not about Rolf)
The crime is the same.
The shocker about the Rolf trial was the conviction for molesting somebody at a venue which was very unlikely to have accommodated him, that nobody remembers taking place, with his hairy hands that turned out to not be hairy at all! |
|
Pattaya |
robbiex wrote:
Its a fair point that there is no concrete evidence of abuse and we don't know either way. However there isn't usually concrete evidence of this type of offence. Abusing people is usually something that goes on behind closed doors.
Also the guy says that nothing was found on his computers. Saville never had a computer, he was more interested in going out and meeting people and doing work for charity and generally getting attention for himself, which is all fine. He was nearly 85 when he died in 2011 and would have been in his 70s when the internet became mainstream. Hardly a time when people start to become computer literate.
I don't know what the answer is with historical child abuse, there can never be concrete evidence in the form of photographs or forensics, we just have to go on a juries decision that they believe the defendent more than the accuser. This country has gone hysterical over the last few years, with an 84 year old man recieving a 5 year sentence for having sex with someone he later went on to have a 13 year affair with. If someone had ruined your life would you go on and have an affair with them? At the same time in South Africa a man receives a lesser sentence for a crime which resulted in the death of a young woman with clear evidence and an admission that he had killed. The only dispute with who he believed he had shot through the toilet door.
Very few crimes,except sexual are found guilty without any evidence.
In fact where any evidence exists to disprove the facts they often dismiss it,and say times and dates are irrelevant...wrongful convictions as a result,but also more and more guilty people getting away because juries are now aware that the system is corrupt!
The system is broke,and will not be mended with hysterical man hating feminists and a baying media having too much input. |
|
robbiex |
Its a fair point that there is no concrete evidence of abuse and we don't know either way. However there isn't usually concrete evidence of this type of offence. Abusing people is usually something that goes on behind closed doors.
Also the guy says that nothing was found on his computers. Saville never had a computer, he was more interested in going out and meeting people and doing work for charity and generally getting attention for himself, which is all fine. He was nearly 85 when he died in 2011 and would have been in his 70s when the internet became mainstream. Hardly a time when people start to become computer literate.
I don't know what the answer is with historical child abuse, there can never be concrete evidence in the form of photographs or forensics, we just have to go on a juries decision that they believe the defendent more than the accuser. This country has gone hysterical over the last few years, with an 84 year old man recieving a 5 year sentence for having sex with someone he later went on to have a 13 year affair with. If someone had ruined your life would you go on and have an affair with them? At the same time in South Africa a man receives a lesser sentence for a crime which resulted in the death of a young woman with clear evidence and an admission that he had killed. The only dispute with who he believed he had shot through the toilet door. |
|
steveimp |
Funny, I'm currently watching the Louis Theroux documentary with Savile.
Criminal mastermind, able to keep quiet all these attacks? Not a chance.
But using a dead man to change laws for the worst? Of course the Establishment would do that. As Dusty Springfield sang, nothing has been proved..... |
|
corevalue |
And never told anyone at the time or later, and made no efforts to intervene, of course..... |
|
|
|
|
