Now then Jimmy, what did you do?

What do you believe?

I was torn a couple of days ago.  Really torn. 

On the one hand, I regularly despair for our society and the inherent implications for trial by jury when I see people jump to conclusions about a person's guilt or innocence of a serious crime without knowing any of the facts of a case themselves.  "He looks just the sort!", or, "Hang the bastard!", are comments often seen on Twitter before someone has even been charged of an offence. 

On the other hand, I've seen too many tearful press conferences on television myself where I KNOW the stepfather did it, and why can't anyone else see this obvious fact?!  And as for that bloke who looks like a right paedo in that mugshot? - yeah, he's DEFINATELY guilty.  (And Chris Huhne is CERTAINLY guilty of perverting the course of justice!*) ... *For the avoidance of doubt for any CPS lawyers reading, this is satire.

So, I guess we're all human - we all make snap judgements sometimes.  Particularly if the person we're judging is eccentric or looks different or odd.

All of which perfectly describe Jimmy Savile.

I was actually disappointed to hear Esther Rantzen all over the news pretty much saying that all the accusations publically levelled on Jimmy Savile over the past few days were unequivocally true, based merely on her watching of a documentary preview.  And, almost immediately afterwards, came out Savile's friends and family, saying that it was impossible that the man they knew could be capable of such heinous things.

It seemed unfair that a dead man's entire reputation could be ruined by rumours and a couple of statements made decades after the events they alleged.

But then I watched the programme.

The verbal evidence supplied was overwhelming, particularly that from Sue Thompson, who worked for the BBC in Leeds.  She told of opening Savile's dressing room door and finding him with a girl, who looked about 14, on his knee.  "It was his tongue, that was just sort of coming out of her mouth, that stuck in my head," she said.  It was this horrendous mental image that stuck in mine, too.

The statement of the woman who was a young girl at Duncroft Approved School, describing how she was sent to the school's isolation unit after complaining about Savile's wandering hands broke my heart.

Top QC Ian Glen confirmed that, in his opinion, were Savile still alive, there would be more than enough evidence to have him arrested.  This was key for me.

And then came Esther Rantzen, who days earlier I had somewhat dismissed.  Visibly upset, she conceded that "The jury isn't out any more ... We all blocked our ears to the gossip.  There was gossip, and there were rumours".

At the end of the day, sadly, there is often little more than verbal evidence in these kind of situations.  Even if Savile were not dead, it would still essentially boil down to a "he said; she said" matter.  And there are plenty of cases where lives have been ruined and people imprisoned over false accusations.

But when the pile of circumstantial or oral evidence becomes so great; when you see the whites of the victims' eyes, and hear the damage done to them in their voices, there can only be one conclusion.

As I write this, it has just been announced that Scotland Yard is to launch a full investigation.  This is, of course, to be welcomed, although I have no idea what good it will do - you can't prosecute a dead man.  But why ... WHY did it take so long, given that the rumours seem to have been so abundant, and around for so long?  Some people have been saying that times have changed and young women would find it much easier to come forward these days, but sadly the facts simply don't support this rose-tinted view - there are disturbing parallels with today.  One girl bravely came forward years ago about Savile, only to be told by the CPS that there wasn't sufficient evidence to prosecute.  The very same thing happened to at least one of the poor victims of the Asian paedophile ring in Rochdale.  There was undoubtedly an overwhelming view in the 1970s and 80s that post-pubescent girls were perfectly capable of "asking for it" by the way they dressed or bahaved, despite being legally underage.  The poor girls' social workers in Rochdale had written them off as "promiscuous", too.  Little has changed.

The burden of criminal proof is, of course, 'beyond reasonable doubt'.  It's one thing to make a snap judgement on a person's guilt or innocence, but to see in this programme what would essentially be the full prosecution evidence placed before a court, and then make an informed decision is quite another.  It's why it is absolutely vital that trial by jury is protected above anything else in our legal system. 

I've now seen the evidence.  I think I'm reasonable.  And I have no doubt.  

Simon

For more from I Like Being Right follow us on twitter, @ilikebeingright or our Facebook page