Something that would he still have been alive, would have led to a successful conviction.
Jimmy Savile - Sexual Predator
- Thread starter fidget
- Start date
Something that would he still have been alive, would have led to a successful conviction.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
You asked for evidence, not a suspect.
Are you saying then that if someone dies all their past crimes should just be forgotten?
Can you seriously not work out the joke there?
it was savilles "udder" ofcourse being milked
Ok then, something that could be capable of a conviction in his absence. Clearly no court in the Western civilised world would convict on hearsay alone.
Edit: If previous experience serves me well, no court or jury (for that matter) concerning such crimes is allowed to convict should an element of doubt persist (hearsay).
Edit: If previous experience serves me well, no court or jury (for that matter) concerning such crimes is allowed to convict should an element of doubt persist (hearsay).
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
But what exactly? You can't say you want concrete evidence and then say "something", what 'something' do you want?
I can because I'm not a judge and am not qualified in law to make such a statement. I do realise however that acting on hearsay alone would render our understanding of justice inoperable in a court of law and so leave that definition of what would qualify to a judge.
...and you have about as much evidence for that as .....? In fact that is one of the most stupidest and morally reprehensible statements I have ever come across from someone pretending to be intelligent. So someone you have never heard of is potentially connected to an assumed peodophile?
Might have been a joke....
so you didnt post
you talk about having heard first hand accounts yet seem very defensive of it all and even attempt to justify it as a matter to be brushed under the carp
so he was a perv ewith the ladies felt up a few under age teenage girls , what other celebs didnt? perfectly normal behavior...Your quite right . In this day and age those actions would have placed him in a cemetary; especially if he did something like that to someone connected to me. Regardless, theres not very much there to warrant the seizing of his assets. Much ado about something that never really amounted to anything if you ask me. So he was a "perv" with the ladies who used his celebrity staus. How many more actors/celebrities must there be that have done this. Roll on the witch-hunt
or so you would have us think from what you have posted in this thread
Last edited:
Your quite right . In this day and age those actions would have placed him in a cemetary; especially if he did something like that to someone connected to me. Regardless, theres not very much there to warrant the seizing of his assets. Much ado about something that never really amounted to anything if you ask me. So he was a "perv" with the ladies who used his celebrity staus. How many more actors/celebrities must there be that have done this. Roll on the witch-hunt
You just make him sound like a stud.
wrong 4 letter word...
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
What about the young boy he promised a badge to and fondled?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-tells-Jimmy-Savile-sexually-abused-NINE.html
If you ever actually read the thread in the original manner in which it was written/intended you would have realised I wasn't stating anything about under-aged girls or being defensive in that respect. Are you also suggesting that celebrities haven't or don't abuse their status to their advantage and that this could be construed as perfectly normal behaviour for them : Context being the key here as normal is quite often used to mean typical more than anything else . Oh, and if you are going to quote me, it might be useful not to quote out of context in future.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
I can because I'm not a judge and am not qualified in law to make such a statement. I do realise however that acting on hearsay alone would render our understanding of justice inoperable in a court of law and so leave that definition of what would qualify to a judge.
You said you wanted concrete evidence but can't tell me what you would satisfy you as concrete evidence, how is that a consistent argument?
Also, I'm not sure you know what 'hearsay' means...
Ergo the victim's testimonies are not hearsay because they are first hand accounts.
I wasn't necessarily referring to the alleged victims comments as such but for "evidence" not given under oath. Section 114 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 defines hearsay evidence as a statement not made in oral evidence in criminal proceedings and since there haven't been any criminal proceedings yet, it was made in that context.
It has nothing to do with consistency of argument. One would imagine concrete evidence would consist of expert "witness" testimony and pathological diagnosis: but since the alleged victims have held onto their experiences for up to 40 years, it remains unclear as to how this could be perceived useful?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 May 2004
- Posts
- 4,488
- Location
- Tall building nearby
I always liked Freddie Starr (that's a past-tense unless he is proven innocent), if he really has anything to do with what that cigar smoking scum-bag was doing I hope he gets his testicles ripped off and shoved down his throat so he chokes on them.
If there is anything that makes me want to go postal it's sexual predators of any kind.
If there is anything that makes me want to go postal it's sexual predators of any kind.
