Pages

Sunday, 27 October 2013

"There is clearly, insufficient evidence to charge the suspect with any criminal offence" Part 4

We are all looking for the truth are we not ? It is a source of great irritation to all parties that the Metropolitan Police Chiefs decided NOT to investigate ANY of the claims made against Jimmy Savile.  

Well, I've re read  Ornament and Levitt, so, it's only fair to go back to the one the first Savile Report - 'Giving Victims a voice' (GVAV) and see what I can spot, giving what I now know about the matter !

Here is a, sort of, explanation as to WHY the Police chose not to investigate, preferring to merely accept the allegations 


 And now, here's the real reason :


This 'report' took approximately 70 working days to compile.  The complainants were already accepted as being 'victims' even BEFORE Exposure hit our screens !


But, Operation Yewtree did not start until 2 days later :


On 4 October 2012, the Metropolitan Police said it would take the national lead in a process of assessing the allegations.[5][6] The assessment was undertaken by the Serious Case Team of the service's Child Abuse Investigation Command, led by Detective Superintendent David Gray working closely with the BBC. The police said, "Our priority will be to ensure a proportionate and consistent policing response putting the victims at the heart of our enquiries", and that "it is not an investigation at this stage".[5]
The Metropolitan Police announced on 9 October that the inquiry into the allegations would be called Operation Yewtree, and would be undertaken jointly with the NSPCC



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Yewtree

I wonder, how long the various agencies spent deciding how best to manage the public response to the airing of that TV show ?

You see, it was VITAL that the representatives of these groupings ensured that the public did not lose faith in them, after all, they could have caught him earlier - couldn't they ?

 All the bullshit, nobody would have listened to the victims, spin can not, explain WHY Police forces in the UK and abroad did not charge Sir Jimmy Savile with criminal offences in 2009 !

Let's go back to the 2007 - 2009 investigation shall we ?  In December 2007 Jimmy was 'created' as a 'suspect' on the Police National Computer (Holmes). 

Now, what else was going on around this time - oh yes, this :


A wide-ranging government investigation into child abuse had begun in 2006, and escalated into a States of Jersey Police investigation in 2007 during which witness evidence repeatedly indicated Haut de la Garenne, which housed up to 60 children at any one time,[2] to be one of the places where abuse took place.[3]
There was widespread media coverage as forensic teams conducted searches in the building between the end of February 2008 and July 2008.[4]


Which led to this :

 In March 2008, BBC television personality Jimmy Savile started legal proceedings against The Sun newspaper which had, wrongly he claimed, linked him in several articles to the child abuse scandal at Haut de la Garenne.[12] Savile initially denied visiting Haut de la Garenne, but later admitted that he had done so, following the publication of a photograph showing him at the home surrounded by children.[13] The States of Jersey Police said that in 2008 an allegation of an indecent assault by Savile at the home in the 1970s had been investigated, but there had been insufficient evidence to proceed.[


 This wiki article was written after Jimmy died, but, the press attempts to link Jimmy to the scene were not hidden and neither was his response !


On 1 March, Savile’s solicitors said, The Sun carried a photograph of the former Top of the Pops presenter allegedly visiting the Jersey home.
This was followed with a series of articles. One asserted that Savile was unwilling to assist with the police investigation and another that he admitted having visited the home. The Sun also criticised Savile for being unprepared to “go some way to fixing it for the victims”.

 http://www.thelawyer.com/jimmy-savile-turns-to-fox-hayes-for-action-against-the-sun/131780.article





 'The States of Jersey police detective who led the three-year child abuse probe, revealed that Savile's name came up in the initial police inquiry four years ago, but there was not enough evidence at the time.'

 http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/351064/No-reason-to-doubt-Jimmy-Savile-was-involved-in-Jersey-children-s-home-scandal

Here's the Guardian's less censored, version of Mr Harper's words the same day - Tues 9th October 2012

'Harper, the detective who led Jersey's three-year child abuse probe, told the Guardian that Savile's name came up in the initial police inquiry in 2008 – but there were no specific allegations of abuse against the BBC presenter at the time.'

 http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/oct/08/jimmy-savile-jersey-childrens-home.

Emm, censoring what people actually say - I'm seeing a 'pattern' forming here !



The BBC reported that the Jersey investigation had ended on 13th December 2010 with the acting Chief Officer in Jersey declaring that :

"Every allegation or complaint has been given full and proper consideration and all possible lines of enquiry have been pursued.

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-11987007


Surely, IF, Jimmy Savile's name was being bandied about in Jersey during an investigation conducted by mainland British Police, Senior Police Officers involved in Operation Ornament who recommended North Surrey Police to continue handling the Savile case because of their EXPERTISE, must or rather, should have known ? 


Let's go back to 8.7 in GVAV (above).  The Police say that they will not investigate the claims made against JS because the 'majority' are from years ago.  That DID NOT STOP THEM INVESTIGATING THE SAME CLAIMS IN 2007 DID IT SO WHAT CHANGED ?

 We are NOT being told the truth ! Jimmy Savile appears to have been made a scapegoat for every oversight the police etc made, not just in their handling of the claims made against him but in other cases that the media or any other vested interest, might threaten to throw at them at any given minute.  

No one can say that the Police lacked motivation or inclination in 2007Det Insp 3 was adamant that the claims made against Jimmy should be investigated in spite of the verbal briefing with a Senior Prosecutor.

This investigation involved not only Surrey Police.  Social Services, Barnado's Charity and various other agencies were contacted and liased with in an apparently, productive, sensitive and professional manner.  What it did NOT involve, was the MSM.  Better still, the Police had there own POLICY on how to deal with Press contact at the time vastly different to how they would deal with the matter post October 3rd 2012 ! 





Then came Newsnight !


And then the Police changed their minds and their 'lines'


 




 









I found the next entry in Jon Savell's Report particlally interesting :











PAGE 39/44

http://www.surrey.police.uk/Portals/0/pdf/news/operation_ornament_report_11.01.2013.pdf

 

So, there you have it folks.  How, Sir Jimmy Savile was protected as was his right, while he was alive.  Not by so-called powerful friends but by the same force that is there to protect all of us - the Police !

 We all have rights, we all have the right to demonstrate or speak out when we feel that an Injustice has been done either to ourselves or others.

We have a moral duty to stand up and defend those who cannot defend themselves.  Call it a 'Policy' if you will, call it whatever you like, I will be walking the walk for Jimmy on Tuesday.  I hope that you will too !



 


Wednesday, 23 October 2013

"There is clearly insufficient evidence to charge the suspect with any criminal offence" Part 3

I was wrong ! The information printed in the Telegraph was available to the public and whilst the wording of the transcripts of Jimmy's interview were not published in Savell's Report into Operation Ornament, they were published in Alison Levitt's Report also published on the 11th January 2013The whole of the relevant paragraph about Jimmy's 'policy' was NOT however !

The sins of some of the protagonists indirectly, involved in the plot to murder the life of Sir Jimmy Savile appear to be more ommitive than commitive if that makes sense ! Some VERY important words have been ommited from Jimmy's exchange with Det Cons 1 and Det Sarg 6 not only in the press account BUT IN LEVITT'S REPORT TOO ! Here let me show you !

 Here is what is printed in Levitt :


Here's the Telegraph version 

In the report of the taped interview, Savile said: “Because I take everything seriously, I’ve alerted my legal team that they may be doing business, and if we do, you ladies [the two female officers] will finish up at the Old Bailey as well, because we will be wanting you there as witnesses. But nobody ever seems to want to go that far.” The report by senior CPS prosecutor Alison Levitt added that Savile said: “I have no need to chase girls, there are thousands of them on Top of the Pops… I have no kinky carryings-on.” 

Here is what he actually said, according to the transcripts released last week


'Nobody ever seems to want to go that far do they Jimmy ? They don't want to consider those next FIVE words make all the difference do they do not ? Here we go Jimmy, I'll say them one moor time for you : "Yeah, only a bit of fun."
The point is, that they appear to have been deliberately left out by the press AND LEVITT !!!  These five words have not been chopped off the end of a sentence - they form a link to the next sentence so why the hell are they not there ?

Goodness me, surely a Report written by a QC purporting to be an impartial and/or thorough investigation into a Police Investigation into such an important matter would not be attempting to mislead the public would it ?

You see Ladies and Gentlemen, there is a great deal that does not add up in this whole sorry saga and I'm not talking about Operation Ornament, I am talking about the investigation into the investigation that was 'Ornament' !
To be continued !




 



An Inspector Calls Part 2






Anyone remember what actually happened in J B Priestley's famous play adapted for the screen in 

 They were very happy when celebrating their engagement at dinner at the Birlings' home in 1912, Arthur Birling, a wealthy mill owner and local politician, and his family are celebrating the engagement of daughter Sheila to Gerald Croft, Birling's competitor's son. In attendance are Sybil Birling, Arthur's wife and Sheila and Eric's mother, and Eric Birling, Sheila's younger brother, who has a drinking problem that is discreetly ignored. After dinner, Arthur speaks about the importance of self-reliance. A man, he says, must "make his own way" and protect his own interests.

Inspector Goole arrives and explains that a woman called Eva Smith killed herself by drinking strong disinfectant. He implies that she has left a diary naming names, including members of the Birling family. Goole produces a photograph of Eva and shows it to Arthur, who acknowledges that she worked in one of his mills. He admits that he dismissed her 18 months ago for her involvement in an abortive workers' strike. He denies responsibility for her death.

One by one, Goole explains the part that each of the dinner guests played in the tragedy 

 Goole accuses them of contributing to Eva's death. He reminds the Birlings (and the audience) that actions have consequences. "If men will not learn that lesson, then they will be taught it in fire and blood and anguish." Goole leaves.


Gerald returns, telling the family that there may be no 'Inspector Goole' on the police force. Arthur makes a call to the Chief Constable, who confirms this. Gerald points out that as Goole was lying about being a policeman, there may be no dead girl. Placing a second call to the local infirmary, Gerald determines that no recent cases of suicide have been reported. The elder Birlings and Gerald celebrate, with Arthur dismissing the evening's events as "moonshine" and "bluffing". The younger Birlings, however, realise the error of their ways and promise to change. Gerald is keen to resume his engagement to Sheila, but she is reluctant, since with or without a dead girl he still admitted to having had an affair.
The play ends abruptly with a telephone call, taken by Arthur, who reports that the body of a young woman has been found, a suspected case of suicide by disinfectant, and that the local police are on their way to question the Birlings. The true identity of Goole is never explained, but it is clear that the family's confessions over the course of the evening are true, and that they will be disgraced publicly when news of their involvement in Eva's demise is revealed.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inspector_Calls

What has all this to do with Jimmy Savile I hear you ask ? Well, I'll leave you to have a think about that one, after all, that's what Mr Priestley wanted you to do is it not ?



 




 





Saturday, 19 October 2013

An Inspector calls !






Phew, what a week - that was, although, it won't be over for me til I get this post done !  I've been working on this for a few days, hold onto your hats kids - you are going to like this !

I'm not sure if the family, friends and supporters of the late Sir Jimmy Savile realise just what a God send the publication of the transcripts of Jimmy's interview under caution on the 1st October 2009, have turned out to be for all of us ! 

My last few posts may have been a bit scrappy but I will now produce for your entertainment and information the fiasco that was the reaction ACPO to the realisation that Senior Police Officers had been aware, and actively involved in an investigation  into allegations made against one of the most famous men in Great Britain.  This investigation spanned 29 months,involved EVERY Police Force in the UK as well as selective Local Authority Childrens Services and Charitable bodies !

Emm, no wonder, they all couldn't wait to declare their interest in the matter once MWT et al appeared on our screens on Oct 3rd 2011, but that's just my opinion - let's cut to the chase and weed out FACT from FICTION !

On Tuesday 2nd June 2009 a letter was sent to Sir Jimmy recorded delivery so he will have received this the next day.  The following Monday 8th June an Inspector from West Yorkshire Police made contact with another Inspector at Surrey Police on behalf of Sir Jimmy and in response to that letter.

Let's leave the good 'Inspector 5' there for a wee while shall we, for, up until the point he made that phone call the only worry he might possibly have had in regard to Sir Jimmy and the Friday Morning get together's. might have been - who was going to end up with that chocolate biscuit  - the same one that had been in Jimmy's fridge since Louis met Jimmy in 2000 !

This is what happened as a result of '5's contact 







Ok, now we need to back track and I need to introduce you to the cast involved in the epic that was 'Operation Ornament' - the Police investigation into allegations made against Sir Jimmy in May 2007 !  
Please note, that I would never have bothered reading the report of this investigation had it not been for the release of the transcripts.  Yes, I've seen it before, it was published at the same time as Giving Victims A Voice in January 2013 but, as it was more or less re covered as it were by Levitt, I saw no reason to read every report over and over gain.  However, after witnessing the idiotic reaction by all and sundry to the release of the tapes, I became determined to find out ALL ABOUT THIS OPERATION and those who took part in it.

I became particulary angry  upon re reading the Telegraph article from January wherein the writer described how Jimmy bullied the two lady officers who interviewed him.  I also wondered WHERE they got the details of the interview from NINE MONTHS before the trans were released !

Two lady officers ? goodness, I'd quite forgotten that ! My first reaction to the trans was ; who's Jimmy's friend, my second was who are the officers who are interviewing him and HOW did they come to get there ?

Det Sup Jon Savell's Report provided these answers and moor ! 

Straight away, I found out who interviewed Jimmy, they are referred to as DC 1 and DS 6 - I deliberately leave a pace between the rank and number because of my shock to find that such an important matter was left to officers of such low rank ! I'm not being funny here, when you read the rest of this post, you will know what I mean !

Det Con 1 along with Det Insp 3 are the two officers who largely ran the investigation - it's helpful to have the rank explained as I for one was for a time under the impression that DI3 stood for Det 13 !!

Let's do the timeline then shall we ?

13/5/07  - DC 1 Surrey is contacted by Dorset Police in connection with Ms A who says that she witnessed an incident involving JS at Duncroft School sometime around 1977 to 1979 

From the first contact the SIO (senior invest officer) is Det Inspector 3

17/5/07  - Barnado's confirm that there are no records of any incidents involving Ms A or Ms B- the latter of whom has now been identified

22/7/07 DC 1  - checks Police database including the  Police National Computer and finds nothing on JS 

25/7/07  Supervisory DetSup 8 reviews file suggests No Further Action BUT Det Insp 3 disagrees and tells DC 1 to continue as 'case officer' Det Chief Insp 4 takes 'senior oversight' of case he is DET C I of North Surrey Police

19/9/07 Ms A contacts 'Making connnections' see footnotes later

16/11/07 Ms B corroborates what Ms A has said but will not pursue

20/11/07 - DI 3 meets with childrens services Surrey manager 

22/11/07  - Police note JS only involved with 2 charities (his own !)

6/12/06 another child Services manager concerned that Leeds Police have not been told

18/12/07 JS is created as a 'suspect' on Surrey Police computer in order to max info sharing

10/4/08 Sussex find out about Surrey

29/4/08 West Yorkshire Police are advised about existence of the investigation.

20/5/08 First Gold Group meeting chaired by DIV Commander Chief Sup 7' case is listed as a 'critical incident'



21/5/08 the above meet again -agree that the case stay with North Surrey* with 'appropriate senior officer oversight' from CH Sup 7 but there will be no further gold groups 'at force level'
* North Surrey is recognised as specially trained and experienced in historic sex abuse cases 

 2/6/08 Senior Gold Meeting 
Attended by :

Det Sup 9
DC Insp 10 from major crime investigation Unit
Mr 2  former head of Operation Arundel and Head of major crime review Team
made decision to 'engage with CPS'

 3/6/08 Policy decision made NOT to tell Ms F and Ms B and the Sussex 'victim' about other 'victims' Friends Reunited had no doubt saved them the bother !

5/6/08 - decision made to seek out other Duncroft residents from 1977 - 1979

10/6/08 Decision not to tell charities - also NOT TO TELLFormer STAFF of Duncroft Schools.


 10/6/08 DCI 14 and DI 3 meet senior staff at Childrens Services Surrey

18/6/08 DI 3 updates Det Sup 9

15/7/08 First initial brief with CPS - 'verbal briefing' not put in writing but this was the outcome


  18/8/08 Decision made to formally submit file to CPS and interview Jimmy under caution




But see this :

Savell's Report Notes here that the 'only other Senior Officer Oversight recorded is an update to Det Sup 9 on 8/10/09

So, whilst D Insp 3 continued to supervise Det Cons 1 there was no further Senior Senior Officer involvement with the case until it was effectively over !



Take a breather now guys and gals - Why ? Well, because THEY DID !

DC 1 spent the next few months preparing the file and - wait for it ..... reading Jimmy's books !!! 

Det Insp 3 noted staff shortages for the delay in submitting the file to the CPS on 22/01/09

 But here is where things start to get interesting so WAKE UP !



 And now the fun starts !



Det Cons 1 was told by a Senior Prosecutor that having considered the evidence, there would be NFA taken in the matter and that a Senior Officer should meet with JS, let him know about the allegations and advise him of the outcome !

Here is where people's memories appear to become a bit fuzzy - indeed, the author of the Report refers to the now retired Det Inspector 1's - recall as being - wait for it !

'understandably patchy' he was after all recalling events from 6 years back !!! But note that DI 3 reported to DI 4 the latter agreeing that the eventual decision to interview Jimmy despite CPS advice was a Police one !

So the interview with Sir Jimmy was eventually arranged but not before the entry of Inspector 5 from West Yorkshire Police into the party !

Remember him ?, the no doubt, well meaning friend of Jimmy's who thought he' do a good turn and speak to Surrey Police on 8th June 2009 !




 Read that last sentence again !

Then we had the interview conducted by two relatively low ranking Police Officers with Jimmy in his room at Stoke Mandeville on 1/10/09.

Here is the outcome of the meeting :




 Like me, you may be wondering why Surrey Police bothered to interview Jimmy at all ! They appear to have lost interest in the case by the end of 2008.  Certainly. the most Senior Officers have at least. The fact that for a considerable time, very high ranking Officers are closely involved as are other relevant agencies shows that whilst, they took the matter of the claims made against Jimmy very seriously, the actual investigation however, yielded little !

The questions put to Jimmy were in connection to incidents claimed to have taken place in the latter part of the 70's at two locations, Duncroft and Stoke Mandeville Hospital.  For some reason the Report into the investigation that took place indicates that other allegations had been made against Jimmy 


It seems strange that neither the PNC or the other checks made country wide during the course of this investigation did not bring these allegations to light does it not ?

An Inspector called on Jimmy's behalf in June 2009 - No Detective Inspector bothered to interview him in October 2009.  Surely, such an important task should not have been left to a DC(1) and a DS (6) especially as the former had mixed up the testimonies of the possibly only, two witnesses months before ! There seems to be a lot  of information missing from that period between August 08 and June 3rd 09.  DC 1 appears to have been left to get on with the investigation on her own.  I wonder why DI 3 did not attend ?

The Senior Officers took a back seat after August 2008 - They are all over it now ! 


















 








 













 








 










Thursday, 17 October 2013

"There is clearly insufficient evidence to charge the suspect with any criminal offence" Part Two

It's funny when you go looking for one thing you find another.  I knew that at least two offficers interviewed Jimmy but I did not know who they were.  I still don't, I went looking through the Report into Operation Ornament published in January this year and found myself homing in on the paragraph in the appendix


 http://www.surrey.police.uk/Portals/0/pdf/news/operation_ornament_report_11.01.2013.pdf

Read those few words again 'arresting Savile was unlikely to be justifiable ...... with the knowledge that there was unlikely to be a prosecution' ! 










I have no idea what would have happened had Sir Jimmy refused to be interviewed but I am glad that he didn't for obvious reasons.



Now, have a look at this extract from the Telegraph on 13th January 2013 - two days after Det S Jon Savell's Report into Operation Ornament was published :


 Another report contained a partial transcript of Savile’s interview under caution which showed he even tried to bully the two female detectives who were interviewing him. 

 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/9797464/Did-Jimmy-Savile-fix-his-interrogation.html

I strongly suggest that you read this article - perhap's you might find yourself asking this question : Just HOW did this newspaper get access to this information 9 months before it was released as a result of a Freedom of Information Request ? 

Whoever leaked this information to the press, mistakenly presented it as two reports.  There was not 'another report' there were however, two tapes used to record the interview !  It is on the second tape that Jimmy explains his 'policy' for dealing with threatening correspondence.  Let's not have any ambiguity or room for misunderstanding.  Let's read what Jimmy says himself shall we ?








 Was that the bit where Jimmy bullied those two officers ?  Shame, whoever passed this on forgot to add that next bit "Yeah, only a bit of fun"






 Do you think that Jimmy comes across as a bully in this interview, because I don't.  If anything, he comes across as a very open, honest man.

His voice is making me laugh right now as I re read the following words from second part of the interview :



 








Wednesday, 16 October 2013

'There is clearly, insufficient evidence to charge the subject with any criminal offence" Part One




Following the above interview which followed a two year investigation into claims made against Sir Jimmy the following decision was made



Phew, I wonder if Sir Jimmy was as relieved as I was to read those words and to know they are there for us to refer to every time the, not so well informed, repeat their nonsense about crimes, victims and so on and so forth.

The publication of the censured  transcripts of the 59 minute interview has had an effect I'm not sure the person/s who made the Freedom of Information request (FOI) had in mind !

You see, it has given us all a chance to hear Jimmy's voice again.  Last night I felt as though I too was in that room in Stoke Mandeville Hospital in 2009.  I'm glad that I wasn't, I would surely have laughed out loud a few times and certainly during the following few seconds !


Embedded image permalink

Ideally, I'd like to publish the whole of this interview but it's quite an undertaking when you are working with a pdf document as, you I'm having to use Windows snipping tool - But, if I get a lot of demand from folk not able to download the original document, I promise to do just that, after all, we want as many people as possible to see this !

In the meantime, I'll pick out some interesting passages for y'all to digest ! The link to the full transcript is here :

 http://www.surrey.police.uk/tabid/2980/InfoItemId/197/Default.aspx

One thing that struck me about Jimmy during the interview was how willing and relaxed he appeared to be considering the nature of the questions asked.  He obviously knew that the matter was serious, yet he chose not to have a lawyer present.  He asked a friend from the hospital to sit in instead :




Let's hold it for a moment there shall we.  There's something that no one bothered to mention last night and that was the fact that this interview/event did not just happen to Jimmy, someone else was present, someone that Jimmy obviously knew and trusted.

I just knew that I had discussed this whole interview thing before but, as luck would have it, the second web page I came to on googling savile police interview radiographer friend attended 

was this

http://www.annaraccoon.com/annas-personal-stuff/the-merry-knives-of-winsor-and-yet-another-savile-inquiry/

Thank God for Anna Raccoon and the wonderful folk who offer such important information and opinion - 

 Mina Field March 14, 2013 at 20:05
@rabbitway
I’ve just read ‘ornament’ and it seems that as the police had insufficient grounds to arrest him they therefore were not entitled to compel him to be interviewed at all, let alone under caution. He would have been told this fact but he nevertheless agreed to it anyway, knowing what he was going to say and knowing that there would be no questioning of his answers. I bet they felt pathetically fortunate that he agreed to be interviewed, considering by then they’d spent a full 12 months ‘trawling’ and come up with………… zilch.

 Mina Field March 15, 2013 at 13:05
Lucozade @ 11.15 15.3.13
Yes, you’re correct about the CPS not recommending an interview at all. ‘Ornament’ describes this, and is complimentrary about the police for going above and beyond, etc. It then goes on to be slightly contradicting itself, for it says, ‘pity he was interviewed at a place of his own choosing’ – thus having a certain amount of control, but then says, ‘as there was no power of arrest it might have proved problematic getting him to attend at the station’.
No, you can’t blame him for 1) Being a bit arsey if he thought they were asking for it and 2) Having a witness present. As you say, most people would have just got their solicitor to tell them to bog off if they had even bothered to reply at all.


 rabbitaway March 15, 2013 at 11:49
Perhaps Jimmy did not take the interview very seriously. On page 34 of the report it maintains that there was no ‘pre disclosure as Savile elected to be interviewed without contacting a legal advisor or having a legal advisor present’. It goes on to say that the friend (a trustee of Stoke Mandeville) attended as an ‘appropriate adult’ ……? (sorry but I’ve just pictured Dominic West as Fred (no relation) West…….). Ok, so ornament is an investigation into the historic police handling of allegations against Sir Jim ! I still DO NOT see what all the fuss is about. Someone feel free to correct me if I have got this wrong, but the resultant charging decision ( 28/10/09) found that ‘…..there is clearly insufficient evidence to charge the suspect with any criminal offence’. Obviously, there was much to’ing and fro’ing from the initial CPS meeting on the 15th July 2007 (‘did not feel there was a case to proceed’) to the letter asking him to contact Surrey police in June 2009 but all I see here is a failure on the part of the boys in blue to get their act together, especially when they chose to ignore the initial decision. Oh dear, I’m getting a tad lost !

I may have felt as though I was getting a tad lost in March, so I had better try and keep on subject now.  I haven't been able to locate exactly where it was I saw this friend being referred to as a radiographer, but I do remember reading that.  The point is, who is this person and why is he/she not being questioned again ? He/she could provide valuable information in terms of Jimmy's behaviour during, before and indeed after the interview.  Surely, he and Jimmy will have discussed the questions asked of Jimmy that day !

Another voice left unheard, and one can only ask WHY ?

I'm leaving it at that for now.  There's an awful lot to cover, but I thought I'd get out a first part to get you all thinking about some very basic points here.  We have all been discussing the various strands (dare I use this word) associated with the 2007/9 investigation.  From Anna Raccoon to Moor Larkin and back, we've covered it all - WELL ALMOST.  We need to tie the loose ends together.  Over the next few days I'll do more posts. I havn't got past the introductions yet - but I will.  I am determined to give Jimmy his voice !

By the way, I am in no way suggesting that the nice person who helped Jimmy that day be outed or disturbed in any way.  I merely ask the questions I hear no one else bothering to - present company excepted of course !