Pages

Sunday, 7 September 2014

Case for the Defense - Day 1

Before anyone is convicted of any criminal crime in this country, he/she has the right to a FAIR TRIAL.

 Read (d) in a court of law, the defendant has the opportunity 'to examine 'witnesses against him' . But even before any of this happens, any accusation made against another should be investigated BY THE POLICE and forwarded to the CPS who then have to do this !


 Of course the above is irrelevant if you are DEAD, or is it ?

In January 2013 the late Jimmy Savile was convicted by the Metropolitan Police of a number of serious offences against women and children despite the FACT that no examination of the allegations made against him had taken place. Here's how Commander Spindler saw things on the day Giving Victims a voice was published !


A few months before Spindler and co had abandoned any investigation into Jimmy. They were more interested in LIVING suspects !




October 28th that's just 23 days after Exposure was aired (Oct 3rd 2012) ! I refer my learned friends to item no 1 a blog post by Moor Larkin who covers the case against LIVING suspects and how it relates to the accused (Savile) here 



http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/illusions.html?view=flipcard

Now, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, let us go back to the evidence upon which this TRIAL IN ABSENTIA arose !

I bring now exhibit 1 for the defense. A blog written by an ex pupil of the school attended by the complainants and published shortly after the so-called expose was aired in 2012 !


 Ms Raccoon attended the school in 1965 so what has this to do with Jimmy Savile allegedly abusing girls in the 70's ? Well, read on and on and on because this is only the start of a very long process of investigation by this blogger and those who followed her lead in the quest for the OTHER SIDE, of the OTHER SIDE of the Jimmy Savile story.

Here's the story that caught Ms Raccoon's eye ! The date has caught mine. Bloody hell, this was published TWO DAY BEFORE exposure was aired !


And here is where our 70's accusers come into the story !



 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2211463/Jimmy-Savile-As-pressure-grows-BBC-cover-women-come-forward-ordeals.html
 
Note that the story was 'updated' on 2nd October. Maybe that was because of this !


 http://annaraccoon.com/2012/10/24/past-lives-and-present-misgivings-part-four/

This was NOT the first time ex Duncrofter's had approached the press with their stories about Savile, Ms Raccoon goes on !

And, it would not be the last ! Because, there they were again in 2007, only this time the Police took their stories seriously enough to actually investigate them for TWO YEARS ! 

As in 1994, the complainants did NOT WANT to proceed with their case and so it was dropped as per the CPS CODE that applies to the LIVING. Another law that applies to the living is that of libel and defamation of character because you see, those complainants would have had to SWEAR on oath in a court of law that their evidence is the TRUTH, the whole truth etc etc ! 

However, ladies and gentlemen I digress and I have really no need to because, despite claims to the contrary, the CPS were absolutely right not to proceed against Jimmy with or without the complainants as was their duty to do so if they felt the case to be worthwhile, in the 'public interest'. WHY ? because the complainants are NOT credible witnesses a fact that has been PROVEN in the case against THE LIVING !

 
One commentator reacted to Ms Raccoon's blog post thus 


Ladies and gentlemen, these are my opening remarks for the DEFENSE of the Late Sir Jimmy Savile. It's time for a break now after which I shall set out in DETAIL the factual evidence that NO-ONE including the Police have bothered to evaluate. I shall call witnesses who will PROVE that my client has been the subject of a GROSS act of PERVERSION of the course of Justice by persons KNOWN and, as yet, UNKNOWN !

3 comments:

  1. The key to this would be to know which of the "crimes" reported in the newspapers are also recorded formally as crimes in Operation Yewtree. This angle has always been pounced upon by apologists for Yewtree, who agree that the newspaper stories are not cogent but then excuse their belief in Savile's guilt by sagely saying that of course the police information is confidential; the implied idea is that these stories must be true otherwise the police would not be taking them seriously. It makes the police also the judge and jury of course, as well as investigator. Except the cops never investigated anything, and they have never pretended that they did so, in the matter of Jimmy Savile, since he was dead. It's an awesome Catch 22.

    The paucity of the stories in Yewtree have already been exposed by Anna Raccoon in the blogposts about the NHS Reports, which were prompted by Yewtree. The content of the Yewtree allegations are all as unconvincing as the newspaper stories, and often even less convincing; sometimes clearly the words of the mentally unhinged.

    I have also noted that whilst it has been established that Jimmy Savile had never been at Duncroft prior to early 1974, the Yewtree Graph of his "offending" includes "crimes" from the years prior to that:

    "As you can see from Operation Yewtree’s excel graph they have recorded FIVE crimes that could not have happened. Making the reasonable assumption that the further FIVE crimes linked to BBC TV Centre in 1973 are also associated with Duncroft visitors, this means at least TEN of the crimes recorded by HM Police could not be true."
    http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/looking-glass-war-pt1.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great points Moor especially the first ! The solicitors acting OBO the estatate and the charity should demand to know WHICH of the claims have been recorded as 'crimes' BY THE POLICE. What are the 'crime' numbers ? etc etc. Brilliant as always !

      Delete
  2. You might like to read this interesting thread in which pro and anti Savile people fight it out once and for all; showing how much of the accusations have substance, or not: http://www.pliner.net/appmb2/1c76fb/1206457/
    People who tut tut about Jimmy fail to see that if Savile was innocent of even just one of the allegations they could be next to get lynched just as easily.

    ReplyDelete