Pages

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 :



 








4 comments:

  1. "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?"

    Indeed. I'd like to know who the interviewing officers were. Do we know anyone who was working for Surrey Police around that time, who is now working in the media?

    ReplyDelete
  2. The police were feeding the press from the start via ACPO.

    http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/is-that-tin-hat.html

    "In addition to the Gold Command meetings with the Met, CEOP and CPS, there were regular information sharing meetings with others from the BBC, Department of Health and the National Association of People Abused in Childhood (NAPAC). As the inquiry and subsequent investigation progressed, the press teams from the Met and NSPCC also worked very closely together. This was a huge media story, but by working together we were able to keep the media on board and keep what we were saying coherent."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Maybe the Telegraph typist mishead - maybe him and his snout had had one too many pina colada's - GVAV was released at more or less same time as Rep into Op Ornament - maybe that's what he/she/it meant by 'another report' BUT I'm looking through Ornament right now and I'm yet to find any details of the exact conversation i.e the transcript - Det S Savell (the irony !) describes the crank letters etc but nowt about - you two ladies and Old Bailey etc !! ??

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'll be producing me own report later - the cast of thousands involved in Op Ornament - slight exaggeration - give me a few hours !!

    ReplyDelete