The mad jury acquits him on several claims yet finds him guilty of one (like DLT); proving that when there is no evidence the believability of witnesses cannot be acceptable as proof on its own. 6 guilty verdicts out of 19 cases. Waste of money; proof that there are about four times as many false allegations as true ones if you believe the absurd verdicts. More like four true; twenty slightly true; a thousand mainly false I reckon.

When I saw your post yesterday, I Googled the name but wasn't able to find a news report about it, and was puzzled when the top result was a Wikipedia entry for a BBC presenter of the same name who had died in 2013.

Ex-BBC worker Geoffrey Wheeler guilty of indecent assault

How spooky that the likes of this man and Rolf Harris both plead not guilty and show no remorse. Whatever could be the reason for that?

If you regard DLT as actually an acquittal too (only guilty on one minor count, like Wheeler; neither given a jail sentence); that's 4 out of 19. If Rolf and Clifford win their trials/appeals it's 2 out of 19. What does this say about British Justice?

JK2006 wrote:
If you regard DLT as actually an acquittal too (only guilty on one minor count, like Wheeler; neither given a jail sentence); that's 4 out of 19. If Rolf and Clifford win their trials/appeals it's 2 out of 19. What does this say about British Justice?

From Report "Giving Victims A Voice"

1. Introduction
1.1 An ITV programme broadcast on 3 October 2012 featured five women who
recounted being abused by the late television presenter and charity fund-raiser
Jimmy Savile during the 1970s.
1.2 At the request of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), the
Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) took the lead in assessing and scoping the claims made in the programme....

I have not found any report that supports that the Metropolitan Police in fact did their duty in:

"...in assessing and scoping the claims made in the programme... "

The expectation would be that Operation Yewtree should of initially carried out the exercise to assess the launch programme "Exposure".

The big question did they do the investigation of the complainant?

If not then they are like a construction company building a skyscraper without first putting in a solid foundation thus the building would of collapsed long ago.

Of course it has now been confirmed in historic reporting of sexual abuse the police have thrown away over 150 years of policing practice and just take the complainant word as true thus no need to "assess" thus the report is misleading.

We know this is confirmed in the Henriques Report.

And out of the convictions who is really proven guilty to any stated crime to the "beyond any reasonable doubt level" Chris Denning most likely though his constant convictions make it difficult to know if he is repeatedly punished over and over again. At least I now know why in some places double jeopardy was established. That is to stop courts and people in general retrying individuals until the jury is finally verbally cornered into giving a yes answer.

Perhaps my memory is incorrect but I have a vague recollection of Anna Raccoon blogging about the police being unable to find anything to substantiate the claims in the Savile programme(?) and producing a letter about that(?).

Oh the mighty Raccoon is required reading for anyone even slightly interested in the False Allegations Industry. And if you remove the "easy convictions" from the Yewtree list (those having had so much publicity in the past there could be no chance of acquittal) it manages to get 0-19!

I thought there was one with a screenshot of some kind of official (police?) publication stating that there was no evidence for the allegations made in Exposure, but must have imagined it.

This is the closest I can find:
annaraccoon.co.uk/2015/04/29/savell-on-savile/
This one seems to give a good summary of the whole Savile saga:
annaraccoon.co.uk/2015/03/05/grim-fairy-tales/

Jo wrote:
Perhaps my memory is incorrect but I have a vague recollection of Anna Raccoon blogging about the police being unable to find anything to substantiate the claims in the Savile programme(?) and producing a letter about that(?).

I certainly have not come across anything; letter or otherwise referring to assessing of the Exposure programme by the MPS that included the 5/8 individuals presented.

There is the Surrey police letter that took on a new dimension with Fiona massaging it to quote the "non existent phrase" as saying the Surrey police did not charge JS because he was old and infirm and there was the follow up
Surrey police investigation in regards Duncroft that any actual specifics mentioned are for the defence, but it is very general and includes possibly highly fictional material in the accounts as they combined word and records. So the 16 visits could be both a written record and verbal fantansy, they do not distinguish in the report. Why?

My contention is that after seeing the statement in the "Giving Victims A voice" Report. a joint report between the HSPCC and MPS I was amazed to realise that the MPS/Yewtree never ever bothered to follow up and just believed everything the same as Pollard when he never presented actual evidence to why he used the word cogent evidence.

I suggest that everytime the words cogent, compelling, similar accounts are used everyone should be asking for the detailed list of items that are similar and why and what is this cogent evidence exactly.

No in the report the NSPCC are an extremely bad example for children in that they joined forces with the MPS and did not follow up on the key issue at all. "Just believed". What kind of example is that!!!