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 



 
 

1 comment:

  1. internet cops... innit.

    which makes you the Minority Report... ;-)

    ReplyDelete