Innocent Until Proven Guilty?

I don't know whether the late Sir Jimmy Savile OBE sexually molested young girls, taking advantage of his position as a popular radio DJ and children's TV presenter to abuse them.  The fact is that, during his lifetime, despite several allegations being investigated, no charges where ever brought, due, apparently, to a lack of evidence.  Which is why I'm slightly uneasy about this sudden rush of post-mortem allegations, taking advantage of the fact that he can't defend himself and the fact that, legally speaking, you cannot libel a dead person.  OK, I know this seems more than a little hypocritical coming from someone who has written countless stories for The Sleaze taking advantage of the non-living status of various ploiticians and celebrities.  In my defence, I would say that I've never accused any dead person of being a peadophile (as far as I can recall) and all of the stories involved had a clear satirical purpose.  As does the story about Savile currently up on the site, in which I accuse him of being a sex offender after he was dead.  Getting back to the point, what makes me uneasy about these allegations is the clear assumption in many parts of the media and public opinion that they are all true.  Where is the assumption of innocence that our concept of justice is meant to be founded upon?

Don't get me wrong - I'm no apologist for Jimmy Savile.  To be frank, I never liked him when he was alive - I failed to see why so many people thought he was so wonderful.  Personally, I always found him somewhat creepy.  Especially on Jim'll Fix It.  However, being a creepy weirdo doesn't necessarily mean that someone is also a nonce.  I'm also not accusing the women who have come forward of lying.  But the fact is that if their allegations couldn't be substantiated when Savile was alive, it is highly unlikely this will change now he is dead.  But getting back to the lack of any presumption of innocence, this case is symptomatic of a growing trend where the guilt of accused parties is taken by the media as a foregone conclusion.  Just recently I was horrified listening to a radio interview with a US academic and former government official in which he airily dismissed the arguments against the deportation of Abu Hamza and several other British citizens alleged to be terrorists.  All through the interview he acted as if they had already been convicted and any US trial would be a formality.  Is it any wonder they oppose deportation when faced with such attitudes?  Again, don't misunderstand me, I carry no brief for Hamza and his fellow accused, but it is important to remember that they haven't yet been convicted of anything in the US, (or, in some cases, the UK).  Just like Jimmy Savile, whether we like it or not.