Pages

Tuesday, 29 September 2015

Exposure three years on !

On Saturday 3rd October, 2012 at 11.10 pm a program purporting to expose 'the other side of Jimmy Savile' was broadcast. What happened as a result of this 'expose' will, at some point in the future, be accepted as possibly the biggest injustice ever visited on a citizen of our country. A crime made all the worse by the fact that the citizen involved was recently deceased.

Join me here and on twitter for a resume of the facts as we know them now, and what some of us have uncovered in the three years since that program three years ago !


 'It's easier to catch criminals as a journalist than as a detective'

 
 

Friday, 18 September 2015

Jimmy Savile's 'YOUNGEST Victim'

Remember this ?
 This is Francis Rossi's recollections of Savile published on 5th November 2012. The same article features comments ascribed to Liz Dux regarding one of her claimants being an 8 year old girl and a patient in SM hospital in 1986.

For mobile user's 

Rossi’s revelations come on the same day as Savile’s youngest alleged victim came forward to sue the late broadcaster’s £4.3 million estate.
Aged just eight at the time of the abuse, the unnamed woman claims Savile abused her at Stoke Mandeville hospital while she was recovering from an operation in 1986.
Liz Dux, from law firm Slater & Gordon, said of the then eight-year-old victim: 'This was a little girl who went in for treatment and came out an abuse victim. She should have been protected.'

 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/status-quo-frontman-francis-rossi-jimmy-savile-invited-me-to-sex-party-in-his-dressing-room-8282508.html

I've blogged extensively on this story, taking it as face value that Ms Dux actually made this statement. Slater Gordon's press office refers to it on their website, which would lead any reasonable reader to the conclude that the content was factually correct ?
 For those who don't want to wade through previous posts, here's the gist of my story ! It began when I watched Meirion Jones' 'After Savile, No more secrets' broadcast on 4th November 2013 during which Dux recounted a similar story to the above. But this one involved an 12 year old patient in SM in 1977, who contributed in person and claimed a 'porter' raped her.
 I transcribed 'Celia's' story here
http://rabbitaway.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/after-savile-no-more-tears-enough-is.html

The fact that this involved a child in hospital, got my dander up. I wanted to see if this had been reported before to the Police, to anyone. I didn't find her in Yewtree and I didn't find the 8 year old either !

 Bear in mind, the above is a collation of all reports made to the Met Police and the NSPCC between October and early 2013. Dux' 1977 and 1986 claimants are nowhere to be seen.
http://rabbitaway.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/the-jubilee-lie.html

Being an obsessive truth seeker, I asked Ms Dux about the two stories. Was the 12 year old and the 8 year old the same person ? To her credit, she responded, politely advising me to wait for the official report to be published. So I did, and guess what, the only eight year old it contains is a BOY ! 'Victim 36' as it happens 

  There's also a 12 year old girl in 1977 too 

 For completeness read the 'victim' accounts from page 37 of this very badly compiled 300 + page report. No page reference for the statements included so I did it for you. Take my advice, none of the rest of it is worth reading 

http://www.speakingoutinvestigation.com/reports.htm 

OK, let me get to the REAL point of this post and that is the fact that whilst Dux did NOT respond to me, she did respond to another concerned individual, by email, some of the contents of which I shall disclose here, in the public interest and for no other purpose than an attempt to set the record straight ! 

Victim 36.

The press assumed it was a female and I didn't correct them as I wanted to preserve
my client's anonymity which has been of paramount importance.



 When asked about the year 

I would never have given the press the exact year of the assault at that stage so to  avoid any identification of the victim .
Liz
Dux
Head of PI Central and South East


 

Here are my thoughts about Ms Dux' response. 

I for one find it odd that the press would 'assume' this alleged victim was female ? Did they also 'assume' that : "this was a little girl who went in for treatment and came out an abuse victim. SHE should have been protected" ?

Not being able to find the video and the words coming out of Dux' own mouth while her lips move, I set off to find other articles where the alleged assault on an 8 year old is featured, and found this. The eight year old was recovering from  an operation, it's 1986, and, best of all, she's planning to sue !


 

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2227996/Jimmy-Saviles-youngest-victim-launches-claim-sue-estate-builder-52-claims-hes-BBC-stars-lovechild.html


Investigated: There are now 300 child abuse allegations against Jimmy Savile
Jimmy's Savile's youngest victim was just eight years old, it has emerged after she came forward to sue the late DJ's £4.3million estate.
She says he molested her at Stoke Mandeville Hospital, in Buckinghamshire, while she was recovering after an operation in 1986.
Her shocking revelation comes as a man also scarred by the paedophile's legacy admitted he is haunted by the possibility he may be Savile's love child.
The sick BBC star, who has now been exposed as one of the UK's most prolific abusers, had a fling with Mr Biven's mother when she was a teenager.
Liz Dux, from law firm Slater & Gordon, said of the eight-year-old victim: 'This was a little girl who went in for treatment and came out an abuse victim. She should have been protected.'

PART 2

Mmm, I've been busy guys and gals ! I'm sure I still have Meirion's film 'After Savile, no more secrets' somewhere. But I haven't been able to find it YET !

However, I tried the second part of Exposure; Exposure, the update, and guess what ? our EIGHT YEAR OLD GIRL, gets a mention ! 

Scroll to about 18 mins 
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xvaawm_exposure-update-the-jimmy-savile-investigation-full-documentary-21-11-2012_news

MWT "one of her client's claims to have been just eight years old when Savile attacked HER" 

LD "We're talking abiut people who went in as, er patients and came out, abused victims' 

Remember folks, this is near the start of the 'trawl' for 'victims'. This thing was shown on telly on 21st November 2012 and tweeted about two weeks earlier by the man himself

 
Dux was adamant that TWO of her clients TOLD hospital staff at the time. When asked, the hospital stated that they had received NO such complaints. Ms Dux was not a happy woman when the official report was published in June 2014.

Ms Dux followed me on twitter for a short while. She blocked me when I questioned her about 'Celia' the 12 year old and the other girl, an 8 year old. Now, it's one thing to keep an anonymous blogger in the dark. But as a lay person, I cannot help but feel slightly confused as to why, a solicitor would think it necessary to keep the press in ignorance about key features of her client. Especially while she uses the media repeatedly to promote sympathy for her client’s cause. By law the press were prohibited from identifying the man anyway - unless he agreed to waive anonymity. But then, who am I to question the wisdom of experienced lawyers like Ms Dux? 

I'm just some one who wants to know that the media  correctly reported what Ms Dux said in November 2012. Is that too much to ask ?

 

 
 







Tuesday, 15 September 2015

Operation Newgreen Recalled

The reason for the title of this blog post is the fact that the latest Savile report, re-iterates WYP's earlier findings (Operation Newgreen). But, it goes quite a bit further forensically speaking. 

 On 7 November2011 the Home Secretary commissioned Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) to conduct a review to assess the police knowledge of and response to historical allegations made against Jimmy Savile and related individuals between between 1964 and 2012. In response West Yorkshire Police established their internal review, Operation Newgreen, on 21January 2013, to review all past contact between WYP and Savile

Operation Newgreen addressed the issue of a letter received by the
Metropolitan PoliceService(MPS) in 1998 in which an anonymous person
detailed their concerns about Savile’s sexual offending.The letter was
published in HMIC’s ‘Mistakes were made’ report in March2013.
Operation Newgreen sought to establish how the information contained in
the letter was shared with WYP and whether it was appropriately recorded and managed. Issues raised by these enquiries were subject of a separate referral to the IPCC and were not addressed in this investigation.

All those interviewed by Operation Newgreen stated they had never seen,
or were aware of the existence of,any letters making accusations against
Jimmy Savile. They had never been shown or been present when any
such material had been read out or referred to at any fmc gathering.

Given these individuals were acquaintances of Savile ,their accounts given to the police were not relied upon by the IPCC. Corroboration was sought to prove or disprove the existence of any letters which might have been shared with Inspector A. The IPCC traced and interviewed some members of the Friday Morning Club in order to obtain independent accounts which specifically focused on the subject of letters containing complaints or allegations against Jimmy Savile.
 
'Not relied upon' ? 'Corroboration' ? there's a few words we don't here too often these days. And surprise surprise, they did ! 
 
Now, bear with me folks, because I'm trying a new way of presenting extracts from reports today as I've been made aware that my usual way is hard to read on mobiles. And we must reach as large an audience as possible chaps !
Here's the full report so you can correct me if I misrepresent, or indeed miss, anything important. It's the 3rd pdf down 
 
https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/investigations/jimmy-savile-west-yorkshire-police-surrey-police-sussex-police-and-north-yorkshire

Now I cannot publish all the witness accounts here, my head's in a whirl as it is. But, it's clear that the chaps spoke to most, if not all of the folk who attended the Friday tea and biscuits, minus the biscuits, mornings at Savile's Leeds home. They also questioned folk who worked with Jimmy, friends and associates to find out if they'd heard of any such letters. And the responses were the same ish. The only letters most were aware of were the funny one's he'd received FUNNY, not accusatory or sinister.


On 3 March 2014 Mr W1 was interviewed. He met Jimmy Savile whilst on
a cruise in the early 1990s and had become friends with him. He regularly attended Savile’s flat on Friday mornings. He was asked if he had ever seen or heard anyletters being read aloud at the FMC. The only items of
correspondence he had any recollection of were those similar tothe ones
relating to the television programme‘Jim’llFix It ’that‘ made requests for presenter Jimmy Savile to arrange to make their dreams come true’.Savile occasionally sharedthesebecause of their amusing content. He had no
knowledge of any correspondence that made accusations about, or threats toward Jimmy Savile.

The above's son said

He also had never seen or heard of letters/correspondence being read
aloud apart from amusing ‘begging letters’
 
W3 knew Savile from their school days and had attended these get-together's since the 90's. He was unaware of any accusations or threats made towards Jimmy.
 
W4 a neighbour since the 70's 
  stated the only letters he ever saw or heard read aloud were from‘
nutters’who were making ‘outlandish requests’of Savile. Unaware of any menacing type letter he was however aware of a 'stalker' type letter 
stalker’ type letter to police in the late 1990’s or early 2000’s but this was outwiththe FMC gatherings
 Strangely enough, our Insp5 (Mr A) supplied information about this to Newgreen
 Inspector A did recall that Savile had received a letter that was more sinister than the usual begging letters or requests for support. It contained threats of violence but nothing of a criminal or sexual nature and when Savile showed this to the FMC, the advice he received was to preserve the letter for fingerprints and to involve the Police.
 
W7 mentioned Jimmy shared 'begging letters he found amusing' This witness also remarked on Jimmy's propensity to big himself up 
 He felt that Savile had made statements to ‘big himself up’ which,
since his death, had been misconstrued and taken out of context by the
popular press. 
 
Let's just stop there for a minute shall we ? Let's reflect on Savile's Police interview, the contents of which were twisted and presented by the media and others, including Liz Dux as proof of a 'disdain' for his 'victims' etc. The following being a perfect example
Yes Mr Goslett, one really should READ the full transcript, and see how you change the content to suit yourself. The 'midges' reference being a prime example. But that's for another day guys and gals. Plenty of time, the truth won't disappear, it's going no-where and neither am I !

 

 

 
 

 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Monday, 14 September 2015

An Inspector called Ornament Revisited Pt 2

Goodness Gracious, this latest Savile report is interesting. Not just because it exonerates a fine former Police Inspector, but because we finally get to hear a few more voices !
 Now, stay with me as I compare, contrast, and sort of pull the various threads together from Op Ornament (the investigation 2007/9), the Savile interview transcripts and any other report that came to mind whilst burrowing !
The report into Ornament referenced the phone call made by Insp 5 in Leeds to Insp 2 in Surrey in June 2009. BUT, it did NOT go into the finer details of WHY 5 made that call.
 But, here where it gets mucky, because the next paragraph indicates that he's aware of other 'complaints', 'many' of them in fact !
 'These complaints' ? Did Insp5 say this ? It implies that he KNEW the nature of the allegation. Worse still, it set alarm bells ringing in Surrey, were there MORE, had WYP investigated any ? Had Jimmy's friend just dropped his mate in a bigger pile of crap than he was already potentially in ?
NOW, guys and gals this is of the UTMOST importance because it demonstrates just how SERIOUSLY took the investigation, because, not only did they start thinking along the lines of  case-building, they also considered sinister motives on the part of Insp5.
Now, bear in mind that Insp5's BOSSES at WYP have been aware of the Surrey investigation since April 2008 when the information is related via their professional standards Department' !
The officer who took Insp5's call, emailed DI 3 who passed it along his chain of command. A Senior officer in 5's department was also advised and that's just about all the public are told, about this angle of the case in January 2013 when the Ornament report is published. The same day THREE major Savile reports were published, and the msm were handed a new storyline.  Jimmy had 'fixed' his 'interrogation' !
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/9797464/Did-Jimmy-Savile-fix-his-interrogation.html

The 2013 report covered sinister sounding 'letters' and Police 'contacts' and other bits of incriminating evidence from the 2009 interview. BUT, it doesn't tell the truth, the whole truth .. does it ? 
 The transcripts of Jimmy's interview with Police was published in October 2013. The contents clearly demonstrate flaws and/or deliberate, misrepresentations in the earlier reports. But no-one except me seems to notice, or care
 http://rabbitaway.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/there-is-clearly-insufficient-evidence_23.html

Here's a link to the FULL transcripts Part 1 and 2

 http://www.theguardian.com/media/interactive/2013/oct/16/jimmy-savile-police-interview-transcript

How wonderful is it that we now have access to the details of these events, from the mouths of all the major protagonists including Sir Jimmy himself. But let's start with Insp12 shall we (InspB in latest IPCC report) Insp5 is now Mr A 
Here's the email she sent DI 3


 Insp5 has a very different recall of what he said that day 
His intention was merely to pass on Savile's contact information because Jimmy had mislaid the letter.

Jimmy hadn't told him, this makes sense given his personal code of not dropping anyone else in the mud. He does not give the interviewing officers any names
Some might see this behaviour as evasive. In a court of law a jury would be asked to consider the bigger picture, including the man's character and sense of loyalty. Because, you see, some of these guys were still serving officers, they may have been on duty !
As for the phone call ? The IPCC established that a misunderstanding had taken place and that neither officer was at fault
No-one in West Yorkshire Police force, with the exception of the most senior officers, had any knowledge of the investigation. And, as per the findings of Operation Newgreen, no 'allegations' or 'complaints' had been received by them involving Savile EVER ! With the exception of this one 

Our boys and gals in blue, Jimmy and his other friends have so much more to say. But I need a break so, keep 'em peeled guys and gals. 


 



















 




 

Sunday, 13 September 2015

An Inspector called - Ornament revisited Pt 1

On September 10th 2015, the IPCC decided that, had Jimmy's friend (Inspector 1) still been a serving officer, no misconduct case would be brought against him for the phone call he made to Surrey Police in June 2009. I've read through the report guys and gals, and I suggest you do too. Because by reading it, in conjunction with the transcript of Jimmy's Police interview, and the findings of both Operation Ornament and Newgreen, one sees the bigger picture of exactly what went on back then.
Well, almost ! Let me explain ! The link to the pdf document is here 
https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/investigations/jimmy-savile-west-yorkshire-police-surrey-police-sussex-police-and-north-yorkshire

The Operation Ornament report confirmed that Jimmy had spoken to DI 3 after receiving a recorded delivery letter. Apparently, the latter outlined the allegation, BUT, suggested a meeting next time JS was in the area. 
Now, thanks to the latest publication, I can look at Ornament in a different way. DI 3 wasn't treating these allegations lightly, and neither were his bosses, despite the CPS' initial instructions.

The CPS indicate that they saw the alleged incidents as 'relatively minor' 

 'Minor' or not, Senior Police officers met NINE times over the course of 2008.

These Senior officers, mindful of the CPS advice decided that Savile should be given the chance to answer the accusations made against him. There is NO suggestion at any time that he will be arrested. In short, the case is not strong enough and the claims made are minor. 
My previous blog posts on the matter appear to have missed some of this vital information contained in Ornament. Information including the CAUTION exercised by both North Surrey and West Yorkshire Police at the time. After all, Jimmy did NOT have to submit to any interview under caution. 

The Police displayed tact and sensitivity in their handling of the case. Especially after the 'friends reunited' women appeared on the scene.



 Before moving on to Inspector 1's report, let me introduce another interesting fact contained in Ornament previously overlooked. The fact that ALL the women including Fiona (miss D) did indeed receive letters at the end of the investigation. Letter's that outlined the REAL reason for no further action. Which begs a question; was the 'fake' letter really just Fiona's idea, or had someone/s put her up to it ? 
Why on earth have we not seen this letter ourselves ? The fact of it's existence mad all the more startling given the FACT that Barnados appeared to have received a copy too !
Remember the ONE Duncroft allegation at this time relates to incidents alleged to have happened in the late 1970's. No Karin Ward here, no Clunk Click or trips to TOTP's etc etc. This was the time period discussed in Savile's interview in October 2009. But I'll tell you all about that in part two. Hang on to your hats guys and gals, it's gonna be an eye opener. 

Monday, 7 September 2015

Last music teacher standing

Remember this, it's one of MWT's early boasts about his 'Savile film'
 Apparently, brave Mark risked his career and his finances, when he embarked on his dead man destroying, campaign. His career as an 'investigative journalist' that is. Mark's a tad coy about his previous career as a copper, no one seems to know for sure why he left a job he loved, or for how long he was a Detective constable. But, here's something we do know for certain, he was a constable in 1997 and part of a team that arrested this man

Stark had come to St John's in 1995 a year before his previous school, St Paul's in Sussex became entangled in it's own child sex abuse scandal.
For some reason, Surrey Police in 1997 hadn't asked Sussex any questions about the 1996 case, although the latter did confirm that Stark was not in any way involved.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/body-in-sea-thought-to-be-child-porn-teacher-1243446.html 

Post exposure, Thomas bragged about the Stark case as being one of the two most important moments in his Police career, the other one being Jonathan King ! Wikipedia has him leading the investigation ! Stranger still, Thomas appears to have briefed his local press about the case, hardly a role normally associated with an ordinary constable. 
 'worst examples .. ' or not, Stark was well thought of at the school, very well thought of as it happens, and his charges ? apparently just three !
It seems Surrey Police had been concerned for his welfare at the time of his death issuing an appeal, how things change !
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/local-news/police-reassure-school-over-porn-4861013
  
 Thomas reflects on his part in one music teacher's downfall on twitter, in July 2011, three months before Jimmy Savile's death and around the time him and Meirion Jones film involving interpol is featured on Newsnight

The time Jones says he was discussing Savile with the ex-police constable whilst working on this film.
But, what's even more interesting is the fact that a certain law firm has already won £30,000 damages in 2011 after a choir master is convicted in 2009. The school ? St Paul's Cathedral School, and the lawyer pursuing the civil case ? Yes, it's her guys and gals



 No bleating about 'closure' back then, it's all trauma and ongoing counseling for this poor man
 From The Argus Sussex local paper dated 2nd March 2011.

Liz has her sights on another St Paul's school in 2014

Prestigious indeed, for St Paul's in Barnes, London is only George Osbourne's old school. And worse still, who should be assigned to lead the investigation (Operation Winthorpe) but the man who DIDN'T investigate Sir Jimmy but found him guilty anyway, 
 And worse still, just down the road from St Pauls 
 Apologies if this blog post sounds like an entry to exaro news' write a guest blog for us, competition. It's just happened that way, mainly because of St John's as a matter of fact because, even fresher claims have been received about it too !

 Claims that were apparently made to the Police in 2012 !
 And I haven't even got to the choir master yet ! The one from Chethams, no, not the one that has just commited suicide but the one whose trial led to a woman's suicide shortly after she was cross-examined. Apparently Frances Andrade did not initiate the Police investigation ?
 http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/chethams-sex-fiend-michael-brewer-2038174
Mr Brewer continues to protest his innocence after being jailed for six years in 2013. Five years after he graced our screens in a hugely popular show Last Choir Standing !