On the one hand we must be willing nay, enthusiastic about putting aside the normal rules of criminal evidence in order to protect 50 year old groupies from the past, on the other is the very real fact that Saville has not and cannot be now convicted of any offence. So it is all based on rumour and complaints unproven. The passage of so much time makes it almost impossible to convict as we have seen recently, and I wonder, just wonder, whether Stuart Hall 'confessed' under such duress? We all know how torturers get their victims to say anything in order to stop the torment.
Yewtree is, in my opinion, the seediest and nastiest persecution campaign we have seen since the days of witchcraft trials.
I believe there is possibly some truth in the suggestion of the smell of compensation for these people. Up to 27 grand each I understand from the CICB.
Yes I hear them squeal "We couldn't say anything while he was alive 'cos we wouldn't be believed!"
Conversely, they come out now because he's dead and cannot defend himself.
I have no way of knowing if there is truth in the allegations; however much of it came over as pretty silly when more than one girl was asked "How many times did he do this to you?" and she replied she'd GONE TO SEE HIM OVER A DOZEN TIMES!! These were not girls captive in a home but totally free agents, well, they should not have been: what were their parents doing letting then go off here and there all the while?
Let Savile's will be distributed as he intended. Let the 'victims' show that it wasn't for the money by allowing that to happen... don't hold your breath.
Be very careful of taking a press article as if it was a fait accompli. All this boiled down do is a theoretical possibility, which may happen in litigious places like the USA but would face mountainous difficulties here.
Victims of Jimmy Saville are entitled to claim compensation from the organisations who hosted him at the time he committed the various offences. But it's not an open door to getting money; the claimants must establish very precisely what happened and when, and whether the organisation could have prevented the offence (ie. did they know or suspect that it was happening).
Regarding claiming from the estate. That is much more complicated and would be unlikely to succeed. The money no longer belongs to Jimmy Saville and the claimant would have to prove that any money in the accounts of the beneficiaries was still remaining from the legacy. Presumably this would also include Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs who took their share. I suspect that the only people who would actually benefit from this action would be the lawyers. It would be fraught with difficulties, especially as nearly all of them reported their attacks retrospectively by many decades; and this certainly would not reflect well on the claimants themselves. One of the dangers is that of setting a precedent for other victims of crime to claim from the estate of a deceased criminal.
The money he has left to his family is what he bequeathed in his will, and would be very difficult to overturn. His estate has not been realised yet, and as such there is no cash value attached to it - but when there is, it would be distributed amongst his victims. But first, These victims must be determined in the 'Savile enquiry' which will take many years to conclude. You cannot try a dead person before Judge and Jury. He got away with his crimes because he was very clever, famous and his victims were young and 'star struck'. I very much doubt that he would be acquitted if he was alive, look at the Stuart Hall case.
The people who automatically believe every claim against him are to my mind a little naive.? Compare it to the fact most of Leeds turned out for his funeral. They have never found any hard evidence against him. I would be looking for child abuse evidence,videos,photos,drawings,etc,etc,... as far as we have been told there is none. Does that strike one as odd ?
I am not his defender.He means nothing to me. I only know what I see and read. It does puzzle me in England everything is believed,yet in America there are conspiracy theories galore. They question everything
As you say anything about his will needs to be legally sorted out.
EDIT His "victims" are only his victims because they tell us they are.?.
They have several dossiers of evidence including statements from a relative. Being an apologist for a paedophile must be hard work. He assaulted a young teen on live T.V such was his brazenness. His driver commited suicide when the sh!t hit the fan and the charges mounted against him. He already had numerous convictions for child abuse which Saville would have known about as his employer. Sh!t sticks together. I hope you all remember how you stood by this paedophile when the whole sordid affair is out in the open. Those doubting the numbers and claims would do well to remember the Detroux case in Belgium which went all the way to the top and brought down the govt. The higher up it goes the harder it is to break and the more likely victims would fear not being believed. I see nothing wrong with claiming from a deceased criminal.
The NSPCC and the police have concluded ,based on the extensive Yewtree investigation that Saville was a prolific paedophile, hence the apology from the BBC his employer during his reign of terror.
Yeah why should his family suffer why not BBC there the ones whop used to employ him his family got nothing to do with this and how can you have a trial for a dead person any how it's like trying to sue a any ones who's dead imagine the mess though are we going to have a trial for people who murdered 1000 years ago or something doesn't make sense.
For once I think I agree with you......wonders will never cease....!
So Sir Jimmy saviles estate is to be shared amongsr his so called victims.
but money he left to family and freinds etc must be paid to them, and they are not guilty of anything.
Remind me that Savile has not been convicted of anything anyway and so he has been found guilty with no trail or evidence put to a jury in a court of law.
they must take the claim to his estate to the high court to have his will paid out.
It was always about money and how a man abuses 600 people over 60 years i do not know.
I bet if he faced a trail he would be accuitted for lack of evidence.
