|
Yes but it was made clear that many of them are not, and were not, interested in monetary compensation.
|
|
I don't think money's the motive for any of them, they just want to be heard and believed. Money doesn't come in to it.
|
|
Almost everything comes down to money these days; yes, in those cases where there are injuries that will be costly in future such as a person crippled in an accident, etc, there should be compensation sought and given but where there are no dependants and no on-going costs due to the injury people are too quick to think that a few quid will put it right.
|
|
Question Author
If money is not an issue, why have his executors frozen his estate?
|
|
Good point
|
|
..unless (speculating a horrible thought) he actually made money from his perversion...?
|
|
Question Author
Whilst I'm certainly NOT proclaiming his innocence, I don't know how a court could find him guilty and liable to pay comensation when he is unable to defend himself.
|
|
Could you consider the fact that if the victims were awarded money, no matter how little, it could mean closure? That they were believed?
|
|
Question Author
Yes. It would show that the courts recognised they had been wronged and bring possible closure. It certainly won't damage Savile himself, so if revenge is the motive I'm afraid it's too late.
|
|
Yes, they can make a claim, and would have had to take legal action to freeze his account had not NatWest, the executors of his will, not volunteered to do so.
If and when anyone comes forward to make a claim against the estate as a form of compensation for damages, they will have to satisfy psychiatrists and courts as to the verity of their claim before any kind of cash award were to be made.
|
|
No doubt lawyers contacting them.
|
|
Is that a bad thing?
|
|
Question Author
LazyGun. Can they place a claim and go to court even though Savile is not around to defend himself?
I must stress, I am not attempting to defend him or his actions.
|
|
Not in my opinion, absolutely not. His niece has claimed her family members turned a blind eye to what he was up to, but they knew, rightly so his victims benefit from his estate and not the people that wouldn't speak....that was the true greed!
|
|
@Graham - I am no lawyer, so cannot answer with any authority - but it certainly seems so. If those claiming abuse can satisfy a court of law, lawyers,police and psychiatrists that their experience is genuine, then I would imagine they would have a legitimate claim for some compensation from his estate.
|
|
They don't put numptys in charge of cases like this. Abuse tends to follow a pattern. They are trained to weed out the chancers.
|
|
Civil cases are decided 'on the balance of probability' rather than 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
The evidence given is not subject to the more rigorous tests of the Criminal Court.
|
|
I expect there will be some chancers, there always are. Proving you and Savile were in the same place on the date of the alleged abuse will be a start I suppose and some could be weeded out at this early stage if they are not telling the truth.
|
|
Whilst he's not here to defend himself, his estate (ie executors) takes on that responsibility.
Same as if someone deceased has been engaging in benefit fraud - their estate has to pick up the pieces. It doesn't just get forgotten.
|
|
works out that each victim will receive 50p from the 4 million estate
|
