 Originally Posted by shootemindehead
I think the Saville doc came off as relatively poor because there isn't an awful lot to go on other than he was a creepy individual who increasingly hid his creepiness less and less. But actual proof, in support of what people have said about him, is pretty thin on the ground it has to be said. There's tons of allegations against Saville and there's loads of people who say he was a creepy bugger, but that's not the same thing as bone fide evidence and proof. Into the bargain, Saville was dead before any real kind of investigation happened into his activities. While it was well put together, it also came off as a bit anaemic.
The most interesting thing about that Saville documentary was the influence he had over the Royal family and how hard Thatcher lobbied for his Knighthood.
In contrast, I'm watching the Netflix doc about the Yorkshire Ripper and it's far more interesting because there was an actual criminal investigation going on while he was carrying out his particular deeds in the 70's and 80's. It's a much fuller documentary as a result and far more...satisfying...if that's the word to be used.
I suppose that's inherently part of the problem with that kind of a case - sexual abuse, violence etc - versus, say, The Yorkshire Ripper, where you have bodies and all sorts of potential evidence left behind (blood, semen, footprints, tyre prints, potential witnesses, maybe a phone call, a piece of clothing/fibres etc etc etc). Plus, there's the added mystery aspect as the serial killer is unknown until they're caught.
There's inherently a massive difficulty with sex abuse cases because it so often comes down to very little physical evidence (unless, say, the victim goes directly to the authorities and is properly dealt with, examined, and has their clothes/belongings taken in for various tests). It's even worse in cases of historical abuse, because it's so many years or even decades later and then it becomes quite impossible to have anything more to go on than testimony.
In the Savile case, what was found was a lot of correlation between the statements made, so there was a clear pattern of behaviour. Plus, there was the sheer volume of allegations and statements made with several hundred lines of inquiry pursued. It's not a case of one-on-one, or two-on-one. But of course, sexual abusers aren't necessarily going to leave behind a nice tidy package of evidence, like a video or photographic record of the act (although this does of course happen in various cases, moreso now than back in Savile's day that's for sure). Savile groping someone, for instance, you're only going to come away with testimony unless someone else saw it to corroborate the story or it was somehow recorded on video etc.
That's always going to be the problem with that sort of a case, or many cases of sexual abuse, because physical evidence can be very hard to obtain and then it does just come down to things like statements, allegations, and trying to draw points of connection (e.g. across multiple statements, or establishing the accused's whereabouts at the time of the alleged crime etc).
The two cases are very different. The Savile doc is fascinating from a 'group psychology' standpoint, the way the public at large thought about Savile, how Savile worked with his image and reputation, the way he targeted specific groups of people who were vulnerable and/or unlikely to be listened to (e.g. the girls at Duncroft), the way he wedged himself firmly within the establishment, the way he tackled rumours about himself, the way society operated at the time and so on. It wasn't until, as they say in the doc, with websites like Friends Reuinited that people were able to talk more easily and openly with people who had similar experiences. Before that so many thought they were the only one.
Back to that Netflix Yorkshire Ripper doc - yes, it was very well made. Fascinating, too, to see just how ineffective some of the policing procedures were at the time, not to mention the inherent biases and discrimination that actually aided the Ripper's crimes (e.g. dismissing victims as "prostitutes" and "bad mothers" and so on). Eventually there was no denying that there was a serious problem on their hands, but even still, so many failiings. Then again, such failings are learned from by others who then help improve detection techniques.
Have you see the Netflix doc about The Times Square Killer? That was quite well done. Very gruesome stuff, too. 
I'll be interested to see the upcoming Conversations with a Serial Killer about John Wayne Gacy (comes out in about a week IIRC).
|
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there--on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam. [click for more]
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks