IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
|
Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: the Carl Beech Disconnect
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
hedda |
JK2006 wrote:
Both the 1963 and 1964 "notes" seem to me like the kind of things that were often said about celebrities at the time - the most frequent then were paternity allegations but literally dozens a week used to be made and dismissed as time wasting. The "Carl Beech" types were even more prevalent and suitably treated (many were against the Royals and other rich people). The one interesting co-incidence is the Duncroft mention but Anna's details about the girl who invited Jimmy to Duncroft for the first time in the 70s were very specific.
and have you ever heard of a paternity suit since??
Jack Nicholson said in an interview he got tired of paying off paternity suit claimants but it was far cheaper than battling them in court.
Now DNA has stopped false claimants.
I've also met 2 claimants who reckon they are the illegitimate sons of Prince Philip. Who knows? My Aunt who ran hotels told me once she had to tell he and a party of rowdy sailor pals (in the 1950s) to stop making so much noise and that they couldn't take a girl up to their room.
One bloke here in Sydney has been dining out on his claimed heritage to Philip..even had a title (he bought it on-line) and was able to bilk a few businesses including a well known Gentleman's Private Club who believed what he claimed.
Apparently he now lives in a Scottish village and the locals laugh at him. |
|
tdf |
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
tdf wrote:
Misa wrote:
Jo,
My own view is that JS really wasn't very much interested in sex. Many saw him as asexual, and he at some point is on record as saying something along the lines of 'most people are probably not very interested in sex'. If his hand kissing and comments about 'dolly birds' are anything to go by, he really wasn't going about it the right way!
I think moor and rabbit are so close to things that it's immensely difficult for them to summarise – they just know so much, and things get complicated very quickly. And the fact that so many identities are obscured makes it incredibly difficult to lead someone through it all.
Re case zero: if the first person who claimed to have been abused was lying, how should we view all those who say 'me too'?
It looks as though there is a very good summary of the Beech case, and some wider issues, in the current Private Eye. The wonderful Rosie Waterhouse to credit, I believe. I'll see whether I can pick up a copy to post here unless someone else is able to do so.
Funnily enough I always thought Ted Heath, who has also featured in false allegations of late, came across as asexual.
Re Savile, I went from full believer (with the exception of the really wacky 'Jimmy donned satanic robes and chanted in a circle' stuff) to full sceptic in the space of five years.
In a way, I was 'primed to believe' as I remember reading Stuart Syvret's blog way back in 2008 and there were a few commenters dropping hints about Savile. All very vague stuff, gossip and rumours, nothing definitive. I think the case against Michael Jackson is a bit more compelling. Jimmy Savile certainly never took a 12 year old boy on tour with him for months on end.
How on earth can you think the case against the one who was proven innocent in court is the more compelling? 
He wasn't 'proven innocent', he was acquitted because the evidence in that specific case did not reach the legal threshold for guilty, which quite rightly is a high threshold. He paid off many others which never went to court. |
|
Jo |
Good thinking, JK. I searched Anna's blog with Google for "1964" and this was the top result:
Savile – Battersea – Some Facts
"In fact, the only connection between the two entries is not ‘a brothel’, nor Jimmy Savile, nor paedophilia, nor a 60s pop group, only the fact that of three women, one of whom is me, we had all, at some point in our life, been Duncroft girls.
I think I now hold the world record for managing to be in the most places where Savile is alleged to have abused and never even managed to meet him, never mind been abused by him.
I will report back again when the Met police get around to answering my subject access request.
Someone will explain to me one day, why, if Savile did commit so many offences, it is necessary to bolster his story with so many lies.
In the meantime – the ‘1964 document’ was not ‘secret’. DS Grey, who wrote the entry provided it to Operation Yewtree two years ago.
It contains no evidence that a pop group visited a ‘paedophile brothel’.
It contains no evidence that the house which Savile visited was a brothel, paedophile or otherwise." |
|
JK2006 |
Both the 1963 and 1964 "notes" seem to me like the kind of things that were often said about celebrities at the time - the most frequent then were paternity allegations but literally dozens a week used to be made and dismissed as time wasting. The "Carl Beech" types were even more prevalent and suitably treated (many were against the Royals and other rich people). The one interesting co-incidence is the Duncroft mention but Anna's details about the girl who invited Jimmy to Duncroft for the first time in the 70s were very specific. |
|
JK2006 |
I'd never heard of that 1964 report Jo; but dear Anna Raccoon's total forensic findings should be available via Wayback - she made certain that her every post was archived before she died. |
|
|
|
|
