Pages

Monday, 5 October 2015

Overexposure to the Sun

I've been planning this blog post all week, to coincide with the 3rd anniversary of the broadcast of the above TV show. As usual, something strange happened during my research, this 
 Jamie Pyatt is currently on trial at the Old Bailey along with another Sun 'journalist'  
 The reporter is on trial with the paper’s former head of news, Chris Pharo, accused of paying a Surrey police officer for a string of leaks over the course of a decade.
Expose Savile in 2009 ? What does he mean ? Remember those entries on the FriendsReunited featured in Pollard ? The woman Jones refers to as 'R6' was, according to Fiona, contacted by Jamie Pyatt. This is quite complicated, I've been studying the evidence for months now, but stay with me. Firstly, this 'witness' did not attend Duncroft, that's if Meirions graph is anything to go by


Now, on 4th August 2011, 'R6' posts on the same site used by the Duncroft women including Fiona

 R6 is, I believe Miss A in the levitt Report and the first complainant in Operation Ornament. She appears to have NO obvious connection to the Duncroft women who report to Surrey Police after her.  No obvious connection except ONE or TWO that is. One of these being Jamie Pyatt, the other allegedly being a female reporter. How do I know this ? Well, Jamie's told me, that's how ! Because, according to his court testimony he had 


Police blocked the Sun from publishing allegations that Jimmy Saville was a serial child abuser three years before his death by refusing to confirm the TV star had been quizzed by detectives, a court has heard.
Reporter Jamie Pyatt said he had lined up four sex abuse victims to speak about Savile in 2009 while the former television presenter was still alive.
 http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/oct/02/sun-jimmy-savile-surrey-police

BUT, the Police did NOT 'BLOCK' the Sun from reporting the Savile stories, the Sun blocked themselves. There was, after all NOTHING to stop Pyatt etc from publishing a story that Savile was being investigated. You see, because if Pyatt is telling the truth, he didn't just have ONE woman to go on record, he had 4.

 This is what Miss A told levitt QC

 So, The Sun were aware of the Police investigation involving Savile when they paid out in relation to the Jersey photograph (March 2008). But, Pyatt claims he had a 'Police contact' who only told him about Ornament after it ended.





https://www.byline.com/project/24/article/453

Anyone else out there getting confused as to WHEN the Sun had all these women ready to expose Jimmy Savile ? And what about those Friends-reunited posts ? Miss A, the woman who did not want to go it alone because the cops never told her there might be other complainants, was posting to a thread that had been in existence from at least March 2011 !
Here's what Miss A told levitt 

Now, Levitt etc etc have always made a big deal about the FACT that these women were NOT connected in any way, and that had they been told others existed, they WOULD have supported a prosecution ! The inference being that doing so would mean being identified in public !

BUT here's my question Ms Levitt etc etc :

WHY did the Police need to tell Miss A etc that a claimant in a sex-abuse case CANNOT BE named by the media ? Sure The Sun could have told them that ? I mean, these 'reporter's' would have known that wouldn't they ?

Surely, the point is, that the hacks themselves DID NOT really believe the women ? 


Here's what MWT had to say about his 'investigation' and what he knew he had to do BEFORE his show could pass muster 


The above is an extract from Davies' book. 'Broaden the search' whatever does Thomas mean ? And why weren't the Duncroft women enough to be going on ? 

Mmm, I'll leave it at that for now, but I haven't finished with Thomas and his array of witnesses for the media prosecution ! Next time, guys and gals ! 



Oh, and before I go, take note, Mr Pyatt was arrested on the November 2011 just five days after Jimmy's death. How's about that then ... 















 

3 comments:

  1. Surrey Police state categorically that no Press approach was made to their Press Office about their investigation between 2007 and 2009 so very hard to see how Pyatt's story stacks up.

    That is not to say they would have told him anything useful because they said it was policy then not to name accused. But the point is that they say that nobody even made any inquiry at all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point Moor and to be fair, I did consider that he must be referring to post ornament, say 2010. The Police 'lines' were still closed until they were forced open once Jimmy was dead. Amazingly, Pyatt appears to be blaming the Police and his bosses for not exposing JS in 2007/8/9. He's attempting to portray himself as some kind of hero but not making a very good fist of it is he ?

      Delete
    2. Tempted to say more, but best wait until after he's declared not guilty along with all these other crooks from Fleet Street.

      Delete