Operation Yewtree

Originally Posted by Russ

OK granted but if I went to my local police station and claimed I witnessed a BBC presenter hoovering up some showbiz sherbet but couldn't prove I was ever anywhere near where I claimed it happened then the police are unlikely to consider it worthy or usable evidence.

True but here we have multiple accounts and we'll see if these people can prove they were there. I mean it all comes down to how reliable the accuser's testimony

[Vieil Homme]

Originally Posted by martyh

Thank god you lot aren't in charge of justice in this country

Had they been a certain person would have arrived in the USA on day one

That aside I can't see it going anywhere due to the fact the would be defendant is no more he is a dead Pearson pushing up the Daisies

It's just a fact people in the 50s 60s and 70s just felt they could getaway with being a perv.

Like I said before there are quite a few adults who had been in the care of Dr Barnardo's who were raped and abused and have found the strength to come forward only to be told the perpetrator is dead so no action can be taken.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Damien

True but here we have multiple accounts and we'll see if these people can prove they were there. I mean it all comes down to how reliable the accuser's testimony

That's what I mean, it will depend on the police and CPS if what they say can be considered to be good enough evidence to be presented to a court. On one end of the scale it might be as weak as 10 armchair experts saying they have proof or as strong as 5 genuine victims in possession of CCTV and a written confession.

Anyway we'll see. The police are investigating as are the BBC.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Chris

What we're starting to see now is just another good old fashioned British paedophille witch hunt, this time conducted by proxy because the apparent perpetrator isn't available to be run out of town in person.

Paediatricians had better board up their windows.

Didn't someone overhear somebody say in a pub that they were a paediatrician, so they and a load of thick pedo haters attacked his house?

Originally Posted by Russ

OK granted but if I went to my local police station and claimed I witnessed a BBC presenter hoovering up some showbiz sherbet but couldn't prove I was ever anywhere near where I claimed it happened then the police are unlikely to consider it worthy or usable evidence.

Exactly, so don't suggest I am wrong for not going to the police

I believe a paediatrician had their house front vandalised after the News of the World, under the editorship of Rebecca Brooks, ran its infamous name-and-shame campaign.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Exactly, so don't suggest I am wrong for not going to the police

So you don't know that the 49 year old likes underage girls, you only think he does.

If you'd said that in the first place then I wouldn't have said anything.

Originally Posted by nomadking

How would dates and times being verified, prove anything one way or another. Even DNA evidence is not definitive proof because it doesn't show context. If a criminal wore gloves and left behind no DNA, would that mean that no crime had taken place? How many abuse and rape convictions have(and could have) verifiable evidence?

They would help corroborate the statements that Saville abused them .If the women can show they where in the same place as Saville at the same time then it would give some credence to their accusations .Merely stating that Saville abused them in a hotel room is not enough and nor should it ever be

Originally Posted by Damien

How can you effectively prosecute abuse cases then? DNA doesn't last a long time and fingerprints don't really prove anything. Witnesses are rare since the abuser is unlikely to do it in such circumstances.

This is the justice system anyway. The victim's testimony is evidence and the question is if it's reliable or not, if there are many of them and they are dependable then that can be used in court and the jury can decide.

That is the problem ,a lot of the time such cases rely on flimsy evidence ,not because the victim is lying but because proving anything is so hard

[Russ]

And this is a good example of how using DNA is not the 'golden ticket' of getting convictions.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Russ

And this is a good example of how using DNA is not the 'golden ticket' of getting convictions.

You can't be convicted based on DNA alone iirc

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Russ

So you don't know that the 49 year old likes underage girls, you only think he does.

If you'd said that in the first place then I wouldn't have said anything.

But, I do know that he likes underage girls, he is now living with the first underage one he went with (to my knowledge) who is now of legal age. There are other reasons which I do not wish to go into.

The rumour is concerning him going with another underage girl and you, rather crassly if I may say so, said that I was "assisting an offender" by not going to the police.

It might be worth contemplating for a bit before making such rash posts.

It should also be noted that it is not against the law to be a paedophile in itself. It is the act of sexual activity in front of/with a minor or possessing some types of child porn that is against the law.

Do you now understand what I was getting at by the term "guilty"? Stuart explained it far better than myself.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

But I do know that he likes underage girls, as previously explained, he is now living with the first one (to my knowledge) who is now of legal age.

The rumour is concerning him going with another underage girl and you, rather crassly if I may say so, said that I was assisting him by not going to the police.

Say whatever you want - if you know for certain he's "going with another underage girl" and are not doing anything about it then yes, I say you're helping him get away with it.

If you have no evidence then perpetuating a rumour that could see someone get in a lot of trouble unnecessarily is pretty crass in itself really.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

But I do know that he likes underage girls, as previously explained, he is now living with the first one (to my knowledge) who is now of legal age.

The rumour is concerning him going with another underage girl and you, rather crassly if I may say so, said that I was assisting him by not going to the police.

you are the one who keeps saying that you know he goes with under age girls ,if that is true then you know he is committing a crime ,you are helping him to commit a crime by your inaction

Sandi Toksvig has just added to the list of people who have alleged misogyny at the BBC back then and that she heard the allegations against Saville as well. It definitely was an open secret that these suspicions were there.

[Sirius]

It beggars belief that all these celebrities knew or heard that this was going on over the YEARS and did NOTHING, but now when they can get a bit of free publicity they speak out