Pages

Tuesday, 31 May 2016

A 'Victim centered approach'

The other day I almost became a conspiracy nut after jumping to the hasty conclusion that Det Supt Savell's report into the Police investigation involving Savile (Operation Ornament) 2007-9, published on 11th January 2013, had disappeared from the world-wide-web. Thanks to another twitter contact I found the same, archived, so here it is !
http://web.archive.org/web/20160304195109/https://www.surrey.police.uk/Portals/0/pdf/news/operation_ornament_report_11.01.2013.pdf 
One thing always seems to lead to another once one goes a burrowing, and thing one thing (noseying into DS Savile's background) led me to an answer I shall henceforth use when I'm assailed with the - it must be true because so many people have accused him/mad claims etc etc. Because now, I can PROVE that only TWO women contacted Police in Jimmy's lifetime FACT. One of these, I can, PROVE to be a liar, the other I cannot prove anything, but I'm damned sure that, had I been the CPS reviewing officer at the time, I would not come to the conclusion reached in 2013 by Alison Levitt. Because sensible heads would, and DID decide that there was indeed 'insufficient evidence to proceed' Let me explain, again !!
First, for newcomer's on 11th January 2013 three official reports were published, all of which supported the media claim that Jimmy Savile was a criminal who got away with more than 200 'crimes' because, despite reports being made while he was alive, 'mistakes were made' 'victims' didn't have a 'voice' etc etc etc.
However, anyone with an open mind,who bothers to read the reports, should come to the same conclusion that I have and that is that only TWO complaints were made to Police forces in Jimmy's lifetime
One of these is demonstrably false but involves TWO liars, the other is too ridiculous for anyone to take even remotely serious. Anyone who hasn't developed a 'Victim Centred Approach' to the law that is !
I'm comparing and contrasting DS Savell's report with Alison Levitt QC's again ! My intent being to re-affirm and indeed, PROVE my assertion that Savile was 'stitched-up', not just in 2012 but in 2007, when a certain newspaper prompted at least ONE of the TWO original accuser's to file a Police report against Sir Jimmy before he died !
Right, here is my PROOF that NO claims of alleged abuse etc involved incidents alleged to have taken place before 1970. 

Ms A tells the 2012 'victim centered' investigators that she contacted Sussex Police in March 2008 at the behest of a newspaper reporter who'd been pestering her for months as a result of her writing to them ! She makes a statement that she won't carry through because, according to her, she'll be named in the press and she'll have to have corroborating evidence. 
So, here we have a reporting encouraging Ms A to call Sussex Police on the basis that he/she may be able to link Savile to the fake HDLG abuse case in Jersey, IF the paper gets another accuser elsewhere in the UK. Note that the sun, after publishing said evidence (photo) of Savile at the home, in March 2008, dropped it's part in the 2008 Savile stitch-up, paying Savile substantial damages. Draw your own conclusions to that one, guys and gals ! 
Fast forward to 2012 and our victim centered QC actually forces her 'victim centered' spiel into 'A's' explanation as to why she did NOT pursue her case 
 She 'did not want to be the only one' apparently, inferring that she was not TOLD at the time, by the Police that there were other 'victims' out there. 
'Victims' unknown to ANY UK Police force at the time, except for Surrey who were desperately 'seeking out' anyone who might have been a 'victim' of Savile while he was NOT visiting Duncroft School in the late 1970's ! 
In Levitt this other 'victim' is referred to as 'Ms C' (she is Ms B in Savell while Ms A is the 'witness' who made the report to Surrey in May 2007. The 'victim' herself not identified until November 2007, corroborated the claims made by Ms A, thus ensuring her place in history as a liar too. Despite her best efforts to stay out of the matter that is, to the point of indignation at being pulled into the case in the first place !
Now, guys and gals, this is where our 'victim centered' people slip right up as far as I'm concerned, because fast forward a few years and this woman is singing like a canary in the 'safe-space' that is Ms Levitt's report, agreeing that, had she been approached differently she might just have pursued the matter
 Meanwhile back in the real world in 2007 

Cross referencing with Levitt, we can establish that the alleged 'victim' was contacted by letter and what follows is evidence that she is quite aware that the accused, not identified in the letter, is Jimmy Savile. Which is strange when you consider the FACT that Savile was not visiting Duncroft at the time she was there only making one appearance at some fete in 1978 or 1979. 
Now, where things get really twisted even back in the day, is the decision taken as a result of this 'corroboration'. That is to actively 'seek out' other possible 'victims', initially by letter, and then vis Friends Reunited !
 Nothing wrong the Police trying to establish facts, nothing at all. And the real Police at the time, did a great job in terms of their appropriate role in such cases. They knew they had to have 'admissible evidence' not merely hearsay. But, even by this relatively early stage in the case, more women supposidly unconnected with each-other since leaving the school, were already in on the game ! 
To be continued 



 
 

Sunday, 22 May 2016

A day in the life of Jimmy Savile 1978

Seems like the press had a more or less, constant interest in how Jimmy Savile spent his days, and it wasn't just the tabloids, oh no, the above article appeared in The Sunday Times July 16th 1978 ! I purchased this a few years ago, and having dragged it out of my stash, re-read it and goodness gracious what a gem it is. To those who want the truth that is, and you won't find much of that in dame dimwit's baloney. Now, read Mr Gales article, I really cannot begin to explain how important it is in terms of SEVERAL of the founding stories in the case against Jim. First off, there's his London pad
 OK, we know Jim had a kip in Park Crescent, a mile from Broadcasting House, fine ! 
He didn't say long at the hi-powered do, he presents his cheque and away he goes. 
 Off to BBC TVC in Shepherds Bush to record Top of the Pops. The dame's crew could have at least read this



Spot the venue for his late night feast guys and gals ? Why if it isn't the old Lotus House on Edgware Road, the name De'ath used in his Exposure pitch in October 2012. 
The above photo is said to be the 'Mascot Hotel' circa 1960 ish I guess. I still don't know if a place of this name actually existed, I can only find an Ascot Hotel in Mayfair which is very close to the Radio Luxemberg studios, I know because I've been there.
At least we KNOW that the Lotus Garden did indeed exist in the 1960's thanks to a telegraph article 2006. We even know who ran it and what cigars he enjoyed
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3622178/Spare-ribs-egg-foo-yung-chop-suey-and-plenty-of-fried-rice-how-to-murder-a-Chinese.html

There's a Chinese by the same name on Edgware Road to this day, could this be the same place ? 
 'Days before the recording, Savile, then in his late thirties asked to meet him in a Chinese restaurant in Central London' (MWT voice-over Exposure October 3rd 2012). 
Is part of De'aths story starting to make sense ? Remember, the show he'd asked Jimmy to appear in was made in 1965, when Jimmy was still working at Radio Luxumberg ? After all, the best lies generally have an element of truth in them, maybe he did meet Jimmy in London, but how much of his 2012 tale can we reasonably accept, especially that bit about meeting the 12 year old with Savile on a Friday night in London (he thinks ?). He says Savile told him he'd met the 12, 13, 14 year old girl at Top of the Pops, the night before.
'I think it was a a Thursday night, Top of the Pops went out on a Thursday night ... I would ring him next morning at the Mascot hotel' 
Which makes no sense when you know that De'ath was based in Manchester, his show was to be made in Manchester and best of all, Top of the Pops itself, was being made in Manchester too. Why didn't he just catch Jimmy in Manchester ? 
 Anyways, back to someone who knows exactly where he was in 1978, when TOTP was recorded, what time it generally ended and what tended to happen afterwards !
 Did dame expensive waste of space, Smith not bother speaking to all those other folk that were in and out of the star's dressing rooms while Jimmy was there ? How many technical hitches did they have back then ? Another piece of the jigsaw no-one's bothered to look for. Thank God we have the sort of evidence that would squash these claims long before they were even considered part of a criminal investigation. 
Mr Thomas's crew did some research didn't they ? Problem for him being that his researcher's were no doubt only paid for a few hours/days. Me ? I'm not paid by anyone, I do it because I care about Jimmy and all the other poor dead souls being stitched by these horrible people ! As for the dame, don't make me laugh






Tuesday, 17 May 2016

2003 a Scotland Yard Oddity

Shortly after Exposure aired, the press were pressing the cops about so-called missed chances to bring Savile to Justice ! Here's the scum's offering
 This article is actually very interesting for what it reveals, not so much about Savile but about what Commander Peter Spindler appeared to be UNAWARE of a few weeks earlier. You see, Pete was hoping for a 'swift' conclusion at his end. There would be NO police investigation, just an assessment, whatever that meant, I still don't know. 
OK, let's explain - on 9th October 2012 the cops decided they'd better get involved in the Savile story. Had they missed something themselves, could old Jim have been caught years before ? Well, not according to Pete, because THEY have NO RECORDS of any previous complaints except the one everyone by this time already knew about (2007-9)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19887019

Spindler left his gig at Scotland Yard some time after all this started. You have to wonder if he was pushed, let's face it, he or his researcher's must have been pretty dense not to know that several other Police reports existed prior to this ONE ! Sure enough, a few weeks later he was forced to concede the existence of other Police investigations as far back as the 80's 

Hold onto that 2003 claim, I'll come back to that later ! The telegraph article continues

And so the Savile Gestapo was born/created 
Strange how little Pete knew about Sir Jimmy Savile a whole 10 days after the story fully broke in the press. Everyone and his wife were, by 30th September 2012, aware that their national treasure might not be one after all ! Abusing underage girls ? surely the PR section at the Yard should have been better prepared than this ? Surely, they could have at least had a look for all those Police reports filed back then ? IF THEY EXISTED THAT IS !
First, I'm gonna cover the easiest one; the so-called 2003 Met Report I kid you not !
This gets a mention in Giving the Savile Gestapo informants a voice in January 2013
  And expanded upon two months later in the we'd better correct the mistakes we made earlier, report 
 OK, that's the assessment out of the way, so what happened next guys ? Where's this 'mps registry' does it even exist ?

 Has your head exploded yet ? These muppets have been hundreds of hours overtime just to present this drivel as an official report ! Give me a break 
 Yeah right, the 2007 cops didn't know about the 2003 claim & the 2003 people didn't know about the 1998 letter or the 1980's claim. And NONE of them most certainly, would have been aware of the 1964 ledger also known as the staff holiday book. A piece of evidence first produced courtesy on ITV news the day the mistakes report appeared, Mmmm, as they say
http://rabbitaway.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/case-for-defense-day-17.html

Meanwhile, going back to that 2003 Met Report - this incident said to have happened during an episode of Top of the Pops in 1973 ? Sounds awful familiar doesn't it ? My point being, WHO, if anyone, is making this shit up ? You see Sylvia Edwards did NOT make her claim until November 2012 
And she certainly hadn't filed a police report 
Of course the 2003 claim is one of those seven chances the cops missed, according to the sun in an article published days before Sylvia arrived on the scene (26th October 2012)
 I assume they got this bit from the mirror ??

The sun have rather craftily, juxtaposed the official line from information they have received via sources they refer to as 'cops'. These appear to be ex-cops at that ! Read it yourself, it's one of the few scum articles that's actually worth reading ! 
It's always the sun isn't it ?
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4610347/police-missed-seven-chances-to-catch-Jimmy-Savile.html

Wonder if they've found them police reports yet ? Maybe they're lost, like the Savile diaries, difference being, at least we KNOW Jimmy's diaries existed !

 





 

Sunday, 15 May 2016

Groomin on a Sunday afternoon !

Goodness Gracious, you go looking for an acorn and you find a bloody oak tree ! Earlier today I published a post exposing just ONE of the lies that made the front pages of the gutter & below gutter level press on 12th January 2013. Whilst sifting through those half dozen or so papers, I came across a copy of a daily mirror I'd acquired as part of my research, dated April 27th 2002. Now, one of the reasons this article caught my eye was the fact that it's intention to promote a special weekend of Louis Theroux programmes on UK Horizons. 
  Here's just a few extracts of what Ms Smith managed to get out of Jimmy during her visit to him, covering the usual topics.
She's also interested in his feelings about Louis 
'a sad experience' ? 
Poor Jim, he made an effort to made this humorless woman laugh, she didn't !
Now guys and gals, let me assume the position of a defence brief for the next few minutes or so. You see 'we now Know' something none of us UK Horizon viewer's obviously did in May 2002. Something that the boys at Trinity mirror obviously didn't know, and neither did Jimmy, but Louis Theroux did ! The next bit comes courtesy of Moor Larkin's blog



The strange thing about this for me anyway is WHY these women bothered to write to Theroux in the first place ? They don't want to make a police complaint, they're just annoyed that Savile lies about not having girlfriends !! Doesn't make sense does it ? And, if it doesn't make sense !!

 http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/louis-gals-stories.html
But so what ? What's all the fuss about ? Louis didn't think Savile was a paedophile probably because, up until the arrival of the Savile Gestapo, no one had taken ANY of the rumours about him seriously. Not even the Police, the real police that is, and the real CPS real as in officers who investigated claims as they came in. NOT claims that have been PLANTED after the fact, like the one from 1964. Oh and the one from 2003, but I'll tell you more about them next time. The plot thickens guys and gals, the plots thicken !