Pages

Monday, 15 September 2014

Case for the Defense Day 7

Good Afternoon Ladies and Gentleman of the Jury. Today, I want you to consider that it is almost TWO YEARS since the expose about Sir Jimmy Savile was aired on national television and THREE YEARS since his death and the start of a media campaign to destroy, what had been up until then, his good name !
Hindsight, we know is an amazing thing. I wonder if Meirion Jones et al realised just what he had started when he sent that vulgar email on 31st October 2012. He certainly would NOT have expected anyone else would see it let alone, the whole world. 
But, see it we have ! The Pollard Report was published on 19th December 2012. 

Bear with me on this one Ladies and Gentlemen because although I appear to be getting ahead of myself chronologically, I have very good reason for re- submitting exhibits 3 and 4 along with a new item, exhibit 12. It is a transcript of Nick Vaughan-Barrat's interview with Nick Pollard circa October 2012.
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/howwework/reports/pdf/pollard/nick_vaughan_barratt.pdf

The day after Pollards Report was published, the Telegraph Newspaper printed this article, homing in one ONE PARTICULAR aspect of the BBC SCANDAL !
 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/9757120/Dark-side-of-Jimmy-Savile-glossed-over-at-BBC.html
The Telegraph DID NOT go on to inform it's reader's what this 'dark side' might be. The Fact that there was one, or should I say, the FACT THAT some people who WORKED with Jimmy thought there was one, was obviously enough for them. After all, their interests lay elsewhere. Mine, does NOT !

Now, ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, allow me to play a little game with you if I may ! There is currently a quiz show on BBC2 called 'Only connect' and this is it's purpose !
I want you to engage with me on a bit of 'lateral thinking' if you will and consider this !
Was it common knowledge that Jimmy Savile was 'very ill' as indicated by these emails dated 29th/30th May 2010 ?


Jimmy Savile may have been 'very ill' at the end of May 2010 but, he was very well at the start of that month !
However I digress, my point is, and it is merely a hypothetical one, is, who else could have been aware that Jimmy was near death in May 2010 ? I'll leave you to ponder that thought in your break Ladies and Gentlemen.
However, more importantly, I, and I'm sure you want to know what exactly NVB was on about when he spoke of Jimmy's 'dark side'. Thankfully, Mr Pollard asked him, so, now we KNOW !
One has to fast forward to P23 in order for the two men to GET TO THE POINT !

AT LAST !



  And, there you have it ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury. The reason for Mr B's choice of words 'dark side', not because of ANY allegations of sexual abuse but because, he just thought Jimmy was 'WEIRD' ! 
But, just to confirm that he DOES not mean anything more serious !
 Mr B goes on to make another interesting point and, he is NOT the first to raise it !
 Indeed Mr B, why did the newspaper's never, ever, nail him ?'

I should like to introduce exhibit Lyn Barber's 1990 interview with Sir Jimmy when she ponders the same question. Her answer Ladies and gentlemen of the Jury would be the Defense' submission as to WHY no newspaper EVER printed stories about the man in his life time and that was because they themselves knew that the rumours could NEVER be substantiated ! EVER !
 http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/features/lynn-barber-i-was-nervous-when-i-told-jimmy-savile-people-say-you-like-little-girls-8193169.html

Like Ms Barber, Mr B went along with the sheer force of the msm's one-sided reportage of the Savile case concluding that, the existence of a Police investigation into Savile in 2007 proved conclusively that there was indeed a 'dark side' to the man, just, not the one he'd previously believed !
Moving on, I have another question to put to Meirion Jones and for this purpose I should like to draw your attention to an extract from the 'SCRIPT' dated 29th November 2011 he had drafted for his intended film !  P67 App 12
 How on earth had Colleen Nolan come into things ? Had he contacted her or she him ? She was certainly quick out of the doors to add her Savile story to the mix, even BEFORE the expose was aired ! 
But, Ladies and Gentlemen, I ask you to consider this : Where was Colleen and her story BEFORE October 2012 and HOW did Meirion Jones know what she would say a YEAR LATER ?

Time for a break, after which I'll be submitting the results of some of my LATERAL thinking about Ms NOLAN and others !

4 comments:

  1. The Nolan thing went right back several years, when there was some kind of retrospective show. I can remember watching it back then, and "the sisters" were chunnering about what they would have done if Jimmy had "made a move" on their youngest sister. So it had been in the public domain several years. Colleen was employed by the Daily Mirror by the time of Exposure I think, which 'paper was making a huge splash with the Karin Ward story too, so Collen's involvement seems like no mystery. Follow the buck.
    http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/wandering-hands.html

    I daresay Exposure had to have the permission of the BBC to use the footage though - copyright and all that. The Archives of the BBC were being opened by Meirion's magic key presumably.

    Just a point on Nick Vaughan-Barret. It turned out he was Jimmy's producer for that very same Yorkshire Speakeasy that "Sue Thompson" claimed to be working on. It's be interesting to know a bit more about those Studios. In the Exposure show Thompson talks about rooms near "the bar". I doubt there would have been a bar in such a small local BBC studio. I saw some pictures of the building once and it looked a bit like a run-down DIY store of the "tin-shed" variety. The exposure show had Williams-Thomas walking past the Radio studi building, which looked a bit more classy, but I'm still not sure if it would have had a "bar". It was no Wood Lane.

    It would also seem odd that if Jimmy was behaving in the way Thomspon described, and so brazenly, that Vaughan-Barrett starts talking about stories from nurses at Stoke Mandeville rather than his own direct experience with Jimmy to justify his quote. Vaughan-Barrett never even went so far as to discuss camper-vans, which made a bloody change.... ;-))

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The main thing NVB's testimony gives us is corroboration of the fact that Jimmy was an unknown. His colleagues (some of them) thought he was a 'weirdo'. He also thought he was gay so obviously, he hadn't heard what Lyn Barber had and, he did seem to have worked quite closely with the man for a number of years !

      Delete
    2. Being thought to be a secret Queer generally made you a "Nonce" back then by default. Living with your mum made you even more suspect. The necro-crap was all stemming from those pathetic stories about his old Ma "lying in state". It's just one level if idiocy on top of another and it's quite stunning that the top people in our society have "made it real" - the CPS, ACPO and the whole Establishment really.

      Some echoes here:
      http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/gay-by-name-gay-by-nature.html

      Delete
    3. Your two blog posts have been entered as exhibits 14 and 15 respectively Moor ! I must add your previous offerings too ! Nice to have stuff for cross referencing !

      Delete