It's amazing that the Savile allegations are still treated as gospel. The argument "but there were so many allegations, they can't all be false" seems rather less convincing when once considers the prospect of considerable financial gain from impossible to prove/disprove allegations, even easier against someone who can no longer respond, and the fact that large numbers of (British) people are capable of producing a surge of false claims when the idea strikes or opportunity arises.

Britons’ fake claims of holiday illness fall as hotels fight back

An epidemic of false food-poisoning claims that has cost hoteliers hundreds of millions of pounds and threatened an end to the all-inclusive package holiday has triggered a ferocious legal fightback from the travel industry.

Between 2013 and 2016, a 500% increase in gastric sickness claims by British holidaymakers prompted some hoteliers to warn they would withdraw the holiday deals from the UK market. The vast majority of the claims were brought by claims-management companies who tout for business in holiday hotspots and cold call tourists once home.

Hundreds of British holidaymakers blacklisted after making fake food poisoning claims to get compensation
The prospect of claims for compensation against the conveniently dead Jimmy Savile was raised on the BBC right after the October 2012 ITV documentary airing the allegations that triggered the avalanche of further allegations and compensation claims. Comparing these two "before" and "after" broadcasts reveals two very different tones: questioning and sceptical in the first; utterly accepting in the second, with the prospect of compensation discussed by BBC legal expert Joshua Rozenberg. Surely a watershed moment.





(Second must have been broadcast on 4 October, not 2 October as stated under the video, as the ITV documentary aired at 11.10 pm on 3 October and the presenter refers to the documentary being aired "last night" (timeline).)

If the first person to accuse Jimmy Savile was not telling the truth (and "victim zero" reportedly served time in jail for a crime of dishonesty: "writing cheques that she didn't have the funds to cover" (source), what are the chances that those who came later and said "me too", starting with "victim zero's" fellow former Duncroft approved school pupils who appeared in the ITV documentary, were actually telling the truth? Is it possible to copy a bad piece of homework and still get the answer right?

Jo you have highlighted some great points.
Even today I still feel shocked how gullible the public can be.

The two contrasting interviews is quite something. And one can see the various friends and acquaintances having trouble identifying what they know with the new view. Many just went quiet as who wants to be a lone voice.

Anyhow thought I would add a very brief summary of the Newsnights initial investigation that was dropped then criticized highlighting how lacking BBC senior leadership was and appears still to be the case..

NEWS NIGHT ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION Jimmy Savile

“...they had found clear and compelling evidence that Jimmy was a paedophile...” Nick Pollard remarks in media announcement to the release of his report. December 2012 (note – statement a blatant LIE)

IMPORTANT - This statement was A LIE and is contrary to Nick Pollard's own stated facts in his own report that highlighted only one piece of clear and compelling evidence that supported Jimmy Savile's innocence that a previous police investigation was dropped by the CPS due to lack of evidence .
Additionally stated in the report was that the Duncroft story tellers did NOT produce a letter to confirm their statement that the case was dropped due to Jimmy Savile's age and health, wrongly suggesting as it proved, that there was a case against him.


So in the Pollard Report the only KEY evidence stated that would merit the words “...clear, compelling and cogent evidence...” was a letter confirming Jimmy Savile was investigated with insufficient evidence and nothing to confirm the story that it was dropped because of been aged and infirm. Evidence that supports Jimmy Savile's innonence of the accusations.

Pollard Report
[162] The story suffered its final and fatal blow on 9 December. The CPS provided Mr Jones with a statement:

"Following an investigation by [Surrey] Police, the CPS reviewing lawyer advised the police that no further action should be taken due to lack of evidence".
[163] The statement added: "As this is the case, it would not be correct to say that his age and frailty was the reason for no further action being taken."


EVIDENCE

The question is what evidence did the Pollard Report show to support it's conclusions. Simple answer is NONE.

Pollard Report states

Mr Jones and Ms MacKean were right about Savile. Their belief that Savile had a history of abusing young women was correct. They provided Newsnight with cogent evidence of this.


(NB cogent = strong. Used often by appeal judges, media and others to sell a view with little to no facts to support their position or sometimes actually used correctly.
Here the word cogent needs to be translated to mean “... that actually there is nothing to support the view but we want you to believe there is and not ask questions or see we are lying”)

Pollard Report states further

It has to be said clearly: there is no doubt, in my mind, that


So stated evidence is “in my mind” “their belief” words “was correct”. That's it.


Peter Rippon and his two senior managers, he reported to, examined the evidence and story. In the end they were presented with a possible story that did not hold up to scrutiny.

Pollard Report
[43] Mr Rippon's decision to drop the Savile story was seriously flawed: he made a bad mistake in not examining the evidence properly.


To date Peter Rippon and the other two managers he reported to were and appear still to be the only ones who did examine the evidence as opposed “ to belief”, “in the mind”, and giving an ear to stories and gossip from gossipers.


Finally I still like Nick Pollard's report as he does detail all aspects that include spot on assessments, misleading directions, lies and so on (He has spend a lifetime career in the media after all). But it is ALL detailed. It would be great to see all crown court and appeal courts with the same details. Additionally a critical review as well from more than one quarter with people who have Randall's questioning ability. So that bias and lies do NOT become the facts as opposed to the clear reported and assessed facts.

If this makes sense and is helpful I can also give a brief outline of the ITV Exposure program if interested. Which was the next launch stage of the injustice madness and the main boost to a media savvy opportunist.

all terrific points.

The entire Savile affair has been incredibly frightening.

It's a great example of "group think" and collective hysteria driven by a gutter media (joined by the alleged upmarket titles not wanting to be left out)..basically a horse and couch out of control (add any metaphors you think relevant).

The scary part is that no-one dared to say the opposite as just as in the Salem Witch Trials defenders of the "witch" were deemed tools of The Devil as well and ended up on the scaffold.

Will in time some begin to question the entire narrative?

Difficult as the times move quickly and anyone daring to ask serious questions is claimed to be having a go at the "victims" or frigging "survivors" as they are now called.

## mind you they could then claim they have been "mentally abused" all over again, had flashbacks & even "recovered" more memories ..maybe Jimmy Savile eating their hamster ( was that him or Jim Daidson? ) etc and should have more $$$compo

wjmarsh, you make really interesting points about Newsnight and the Pollard report. I'd be interested to hear what you make of the ITV Exposure programme.

hedda, I completely agree about the group hysteria and witch hunt atmosphere. Here's hoping people start questioning the narrative.

Delighted to read all of this - thank you!

Please ask away if there is anything I can do to help or to provide background information.

It’s stressful but it’s equally a most exciting time.

Might start looking at a new gravestone 😊

wjlmarsh wrote:

Additionally a critical review as well from more than one quarter with people who have Randall's questioning ability.


Thanks, wjlmarsh. Unfortunately I fear that my kind of rational debate and inquiry is worthless nowadays. What counts is who can screech (often online) the loudest and in the most numbers.

Please do post your thoughts about the Exposure programme. It's of great interest to me WHY we are seeing the phenomena we often discuss here. Could be a fertile area of research when the hysteria has blown over. And I do think comparisons with witchcraft or heresy trials, or even Soviet era show trial purges are apt.

A very good post from Jo.

Randall, I do fear rational debate is no longer fashionable. I too would like to see wjlmarsh's thoughts on Exposure.

As Amanda is around, anyone who wants to know something about JS might do well to ask her. She's recently pointed out that, though many sources (including Wikipedia) and at least one legal notice refer to James Wilson Vincent Savile, this was not in fact his name – he was not Vincent, just James Wilson Savile.

Thanks, Misa. That's very interesting about Jimmy Savile's name. Even a legal notice getting it wrong is surprising and just goes to show how much inaccurate information must be out there. I'd be interested to know whether Amanda could recommend any reliable sources, e.g. books.

Amanda has provided this:


Any passing legal experts care to comment on what happens when legal documents are drawn up using an incorrect name?

A start......

Exposure – The Other Side Of Jimmy Savile

Layout and presentation of the documentary was a similar framework as a court trial except this as noted by the interviewee in Jo's clip previously was a “kangaroo court” that had an agenda and did not invite any opposing opinion and reasonable questions. Totally one sided!

Within the key characters I am using my own words and titles, just my strange sense of humour, from my ebook

Jimmy Savile Why I Believe He Is Innocent (Kindle) John Marsh

There are references used to my own set of evidence terms. Will note briefly here.:

Base One = For these type of complaints in order to have a starting point then any reasonable investigator needs to have evidence that have the accused and complainant in the same place at the same time. That is the starting point thus “Base One”.

In The Light example is Peter Rippon dropping the Jimmy Savile story because he reviewed the evidence and it did not support the story thus working within BBC code detailed in the Pollard Report.

Dark Side is the action of Leslie Gardiner (ITV) and Mark William-Thompson broadcasting an expose based on story tellers stories only, some of the story tellers at the time they would have known as unreliable for certain. MWT knew all about the Newsnight investigation as he was fully involved in the Newsnight investigation so of the eight witnesses / complainants. He would have known that Fiona was already in the questionable area even Meirion Jones had doubts about her. He would know that Sarah keep changing her story and the original investigation did not consider her account viable. He had to know about De'Ath's character. He had to know that the TOTP girls Val and Angie also had Duncroft connections and that they had for decades been within gossip groups contacting people as it is likely the two came to him via Louis Theroux and possibly visited Paul Connew of the Mirror who claimed it was about Savile but in this case Fiona may be more on the mark about girls prostitution and Duncorft. (These connections I have no documentation so only a hypothesis for now. Louis talked about the two girls and Paul Connew also. What is not certain but highly possible is they are Angie and Val.
So..... without one reliable and provable reliable witness and story these two. Leslie Gardiner and MWT went ahead and broadcast these stories of eight people as totally reliable. This is the Dark Side in Action.

Four Rotten Apples is my attempt at trying to get the general masses to see reason. That a market vendor can not make any rotten apples good by selling more rotten apples. This is the level of the British legal system. Prosecutor Rosina Cottage (Max Clifford Trial) and Sasha Wass used the four rotten apples to a jury saying collectively they support each other.

DLT + level evidence is the idea an accusation that may or may not be true but on it's own cannot meet the test of beyond reasonable doubt. So DLT- level is where a jury or public convict on word only as happened in one instance on a retrial of David Lee Travis. So DLT+ would be complaint report written at the time of the accusation and held confidentially so no one else knew then if as the case often can be when the complaint is true, the offender repeats and a real pattern and documents emerge. For the real victim that the abuser does not repeat the offense does mean the reported incident and the person stopped their behaviour. That is a very positive outcome as well. In the current system in the UK no jury should be left to decide on DLT- evidence as it runs the risk of the jury making emotional decision either way rather than on provable facts.

Innocent Until Proven Guilty Rule One This rule has been lost in the UK justice system but it is still my standard

The True Believers = Those like Esther Rantzen who are taken in, then once they have brought into the new paradigm nothing or nobody will move them from their belief. (A large number of people are in this camp. In Rolf Harris first trial the numbers were 11 true believers who fell for Sasha Wass new picture even though there was no evidence as such to support it versus 1) This is emotion, feelings versus reasoning. “Please just tell me who is guilty and don't bother me with the facts kinda scenario”

Nolan Effect = exaggeration say for a party story Nolan said in Exposure "I stood next to Jimmy Savile and I was fourteen and he was all over me..." but the clip shows nothing of the sort.

Henkel Effect relates to Cathy Henkel who suddenly can remember Tonya Lee sitting on Rolf Harris' knee after she had meet with her in London. So altered memories. Cathy was a film producer thus visualizing things would come easily to her.

No Body No Missing person Is the problem with not all but almost all historic sexual abuse cases because there is nothing to show that a crime has even taken place.

So to Exposure.....

Supporting Character Witnesses The Three Musketeers

Sue Thompson BBC Leeds Media person Dressing room story

Wilfred De'Ath The Oldie magazine editor?? Media person and well known fraudster, London meeting story and the companion.

Alan Leeke media connection and relates stories of normal activity true or not are nevertheless meaningless

The Complainants The Famous Five

Val [R14] &
Angie [R15] TOTP, Claim underage sex and rape

Charlotte Duncroft School, Claim been groped in public or something.

Fiona [R2] Sexually molested on an car outing. And also Clunk Click as that was the context of her statement.

Sarah [R16] The kiss - it is not clear if she was wishing for such a kiss or never liked the idea

Others / Experts (Who they represent)

Ian Glen QC – (CPS / Prosecution) Expert Witness "That there are grounds to arrest Jimmy Savile."
(Exposure)
Esther Rantzen – (Judge and jury) Expert Witness - Who Is Able To Determine From A Statement Only, That The Person Is Telling The Truth

Mark Williams-Thomas (Investigation and police, of course)
I am a child protection specialist. For twelve years, I served with Surrey Police. I started the investigation into music mogul Jonathan King; back in 2001, he was jailed for seven years for his sexual offences committed against under-age boys. Now for almost a year, I have been investigating Savile. (Exposure)



Overall Issues

The documentary was a fraud in how it presented the investigation and here is why:

All stories are historical given decades after the real events.

No contemporaneous accounts; that is not one account recorded at the time a crime allegedly happened.

Each account is given by an individual refers to sometime from thirty to sixty years ago.

No police report first hand or institutional report.

No DNA, fingerprints or other physical evidence.

No tape record, video, photo or other detailing a crime.

At Duncroft no record or statement current or historically detailing a crime by headmistress, teaching staff, support staff, social workers, psychiatrists, psychologists or any other non ex pupil individual.

BBC premises no record in relation to Duncroft pupils or TOTP girls about dressing rooms or any other misconduct on their premises.

The one clear BBC investigation indirectly exonerated Jimmy Savile who in fact wrote a newspaper article on the subject. Two main BBC scandals in the early 70' s in relation to Top Of The Pops. One was underage girls gaining access to the stars and meeting up with them off site. And the other was to do with inducement payments to promote "a single" called PAYOLA but not sexual abuse related in relation to Duncroft ex pupils or TOTP dressing rooms capers.

All investigations have done no research into the physical locations, dressing rooms, alcoves, staff in and out of dressing rooms. Audience visitations to dressing rooms.

Meirion Jones never ever within his own BBC organisation made any enquiries to the early 70' s dressing rooms, logistics and re-enactments even though his key and almost only witness made a big thing of Gary Glitter having full sex with a girl from Duncroft, like a hardcore porn video scene, in front of a packed dressing room and no mention of the possibly two staff who drove and accompanied them to the studio. That is despite the fact that BBC Crime Watch regularly re-enacts crime scenes. Although, I did note Helen Livington did enquire after BBC staff at the time of Cluck-Click with no
success because it was so long ago.

Exposure did nothing but pick stories and ignored providing documentation or other corroboration of story teller's credibility. The story teller may of suffered from delusions at the time, for example.

No search for documentation and diaries from Jimmy Savile's archives who was clearly one of those people who kept everything.

No confirmed children offspring with DNA proof.

No witnesses sought who could challenge the versions given. No mention of "the two girl friends" in authorised biography who may of challenged accounts of sexual performance. It is personal, but no effort made to verify.

No analysis of time line of girls at Duncroft. What time period each story teller covered. No analysis of vehicles used and times or caravan doing recording.

No finding producer of Clunk-Click to confirm programme numbers and where the bean bag girls came from. What girls may of come one or two or every time from Duncroft.

The presentation and language used was prejudicial.

All interviews are edited to give a completely one sided view.

Reliance on the illegal use of the law as currently in practice causing thousands of legally innocent people going to prison without one shred of evidence that is incontrovertible, reliable, verifiable.

Many more things not pursued like contacting Roger Ordish "… and I was surprised that I had not been approached by the programme..."

Make no mistake this presentation is from The Dark Side of justice, journalism, Crown Prosecution Service and police. The Dark Side approach is considered valid from the government down as not challenged but accepted as "The New Truth".

"... Insufficient evidence to suggest that members of staff ... considered the complaints made to be genuine and wilfully chose to ignore them..." In short no one told the staff about any crime.


Misleading


"... featuring children" (Exposure).
In the TV series Jim'll Fix It was mainly directed at children. This program ran for twenty years from 1975 to 1994. Key BBC producer Roger Ordish comments are in the transcript ".. never witnessed ..". (Exposure) Many other programs with Jimmy Savile's involvement, radio, running dance halls, Top of The Pops aimed at older people but a strong number of teenagers which would range in attendance from around sixteen and up. Not children which gives the emotive sense of paedophilia. And underage sex. Now for the first time.. (Exposure). misleading as already stated Jimmy Savile was in the media sights for any signs of wrong doing that an accusation would not incur too much in legal costs. So the comment implies that Jimmy Savile had been too well respected to be targeted which is clearly a blatant lie. Journalist Dan Davies, obsessed from a young age, Jamie Pyatt SUN newspaper put his name in the Friends Reunited group, BBC's Meirion Jones and Paul Connew are four names I have encountered amongst others. All these individuals had Jimmy Savile in their sights as a predator.


4.21.3 Media Charges

... stands accused of been a sexual predator, charged with, at times, preying on the very teenagers, he invited to appear on his BBC TV shows. (Exposure)

Evidence, what evidence?

.... But we discovered evidence (Exposure) -

Misleading as what is presented are stories not evidence. Barbara Hewson They have made allegations but that's not evidence... (Interview) This is tabloid journalism straight from The Dark Side. In The Light journalism would have verifiable reports from the police and institutions. Meticulously recorded. Such as two or three unearthed and verified reports describing say a rape victim medically examined showing signs of forced entry and identifying Jimmy Savile would be a start on the road to evidence. And better if some clothing was kept then the DNA could be tested now that would be evidence. I use the word verifiable to highlight that the evidence is not manufactured as is a common practice of The Dark Side investigations that happen the world over. Real evidence has the DLT +, Base One standards. Not the story based on the Four Rotten Apples, Nolan Effect, Henkel Effect and No Body No Missing Person type evidence highlighting nothing even to show a crime happened in the first place. Short answer NO! Mark Williams-Thomas has not discovered evidence. Just one or two bandwagoners not seen before but just as highly questionable as the newspapers had been previously. There are literally thousands of opportunists out there looking for some hook that gives them their opportunity to falsely accuse and thus pervert the course of justice for all citizens. And The Dark Side of the police is fully functioning and correctly, unfortunately, Mark Williams-Thomas can state, "I carefully gathered the evidence against Savile as I would have if I was still a fully serving police officer..." (Exposure) -


Afraid? Or Just A Lack Of Opportunity

But when he was alive a number of people were to afraid to speak out. Since this program has become public knowledge a number of other woman have approached us with similar claims . Since Savile death. There has been a trigger for some of those who feared him during his life to finally find the courage to speak out (Exposure).

Afraid of libel action or possibly prosecuted for perverting the course of justice. Repeated crime finds people with the courage to report so if Jimmy Savile even committed a faction of the crimes claimed some would of clearly reported the crimes and investigations would of happened 2007- 2009
investigation and other events shows that. More a lack of opportunity or other but once Jimmy Savile was dead then the Open Door Policy encouraged by all and especially the media who love publishing a good story and do not bother with facts and evidence, why spoil a good story!!!

Sir Jimmy Savile's Statement of Innocent

BBC documentary with film-maker Louis Theroux, asks... You’re basically saying that so tabloids don't pursue this whole "is he, isn’t he a paedophile line basically".

.... a lot of salacious tabloid people off the hunt. Yes. How do they know if I am or not? How does anyone know whether if I am, or not? I know I'm not. (Exposure).

Jimmy Savile gives a very insightful comment in "How does anyone know." Well, of course if he was a practising paedophile then people could well and truly end up knowing because victims could point to him. So what's he really saying. Well someone could in their mind have fantasies about children but not actively practice paedophilia. Like a happily married person may entertain a fantasy of S & M or ménage à trois, and that is where it stays. Just a fantasy.



Narrator: Was there more to that denial than meets the eye (Exposure).

This comment shows that The Dark Side journalist here is hinting at a double bluff without really stopping to consider what Jimmy Savile is clearly saying. The narrator is so focused on accusing Jimmy Savile. The narrator is offering the viewer a twisted view of a plain statement to the less gullible can see it is a highly thought-out respond and a good defence that Jimmy Savile is not a paedophile. Say to yourself "evidence needed" then you will realise if the evidence really did exist then in the 48 minute program there would be no time or need for silly cheap shots.

Gary Glitter - Cheap Shot Missing The Whole Point

They didn’t do anything wrong but they are then demonized...(Exposure).

Jimmy Savile has proved correct, it's frightening. Gary Glitter served his time but now he is back in prison on "no evidence" stories only, simply because as soon as Operation Yewtree commenced they wanted suspects, first on the starting block was Gary Glitter— demonized.

Savile's thoughts... believe the recording is further evidence of Savile warp attitude to sexual abuse. (Exposure). Jimmy Savile's thoughts are not on Gary Glitter having sex with underage girls, in fact he is saying that had not happened, but it is his thoughts on society judgemental attitude. It is Rule Four - Equality. One rule for Gary Glitter and one rule for others. In fact the statement shows Jimmy Savile's heart for people been victimised. Like the patients in need in hospital. Jimmy Savile believed in treating people with equality and respect. That is what this is all about.


The Three Musketeers


Sue Thompson

Location Jimmy Savile's Yorkshire Speak Easy (unverified). Sue Thompson was News Room assistant BBC Leeds then aged twenty-three Speak Easy Show. On this occasion, the invited studio audience included children.

Key Email (Pollard Report Appendix 12 12/ 149)

From: Anna Bolton-News on behalf of NewsNight-INTERNET
Sent: 13 February 2012 11: 57
To: Meirion Jones
Subject: Fw: Confidential
From: [blank] Sent: 10 February 2012 22: 45 To: NewsNight-INTERNET


Subject: Confidential I read with interest the article concerning the late Jimmy Savile and allegations of sexual advances to young women in 1970' s. I worked at the BBC in Leeds during the 1970' s and worked occasionally on a programme transmitted from there called [blank]. Whilst working on the programme one evening I inadvertently walked into the dressing room and witnessed scenes of this nature with a young girl perhaps 13 or 14 years old. To make matters worse this young girl was blind, which was the subject of the programme that evening if I remember correctly. I never mentioned this to anyone before but felt compelled to write of my experience after reading the article.

Sent from iPad


What is known

Jimmy Savile's Speakeasy Radio programmes were broadcast 1969 to 1973?. Yorkshire Jimmy Savile's Speakeasy TV programmes— No details available even if there were ever any programmes at all. Did find one mention and unable to tell what came first "the chicken or the egg" in the sense did the film listing web site add the TV series one liner after Exposure or based on real information. Since starting this chapter our relentless searcher blogger Moor Larkin found a student thesis that researched programmes made that included the 70' s period and noted one series of the Speakeasy Radio programme of four episodes was produced in 1976 before 1978 for TV. And another blogger Rabbitaway from Radio Times found a broadcast around the 10 February 1978. But ITV the promoter of the fraud Exposure only ever provided a date and a get out of jail free comment that the details of the programme were no longer available. THE BIG ONE Sue Thompson tells a straight out lie (and if she was telling the truth no reason for any lies at all especially changing a story from over thirty years ago).

Her original email states:

I never mentioned this to anyone before...( Pollard Report)

In Exposure: Then I went to find my colleague and told him what had happened. And he sort of laughed about it really and nothing else was really said...

What is Not Known

Sue Thompson BBC Newsroom assistant from ITV letter (Unverified) . Yorkshire Jimmy Savile Speakeasy (1978) "Living With Blindness" broadcast 10/ 02/ 1978 (ITV letter Pollard Report Appendix 12 12/ 177) Cast, audience, colleague who spoken to, alleged victim. Cinema visit, from Sue Hymns story Jimmy Savile never went to the cinema. Apart from Sue Thompson's story absolutely NOTHING else is known at all.


Innocent Until Proven Guilty Rule One

Sue Thompson needs to prove her story is an accurate account, that she has integrity and is reliable. Best evidence is CCTV footage dated and not doctored. Base One like Clunk Click, Karin Ward and Freddie Starr at the same location and time. Base One is exactly the place to start. And it is only the beginning. Next would be Sue's account at the time expected minimum to senior management, written statement, filed for posterity and at the least a serious warning to Jimmy Savile. Statement of events signed by the girl herself and something confirming her age. And better still a police report. That is DLT + level evidence. No girl, no colleague just left with a story. No Body No Missing Person. No Base One. Defence here in fact has documented evidence to a straight out lie of Sue Thompson stating in her contact email to the BBC in February stating I never mentioned this to anyone before... then in Exposure she states ... find my colleague and told him what had happened . What the CPS, judges, media, juries love that word veracity (credibility factor). Story strength (veracity) I found Sue Thompson convincing in the telling of the story. That is she had me enthralled. I like that bit where she says "... oh no he's not ... it's a case of just one person in millions ... saying actually no, he isn't".. Public, judge, jury and Esther Rantzen are likely to believe the story is true, purely by the manner it is told. But an analyst like myself even though finding myself also drawn by the story teller. I will then begin to ask questions and re examine the substance. The story is convincingly told. A top rate performance. Certainly it is what we all watch on TV and are drawn past the actor/ actress and the fantasy into believing the story. On TV most of us know it is fantasy. A credible story is just stage one of "The Code for Crown Prosecutors" . It is a wide brush. If the CPS start examining all the various stories of Fiona [R2] the share number, date range and so on makes the credibility level fade as one minute Fiona [R2] is part of the 1976 to 1979 group first police investigation. Then in Exposure she is at Clunk Click in 1974 and Helen Livingston has her quoting the time around the Staines air crash with a story of windows blow in and two girls blown over. This crash was in 1972. Then straight away everyone knows, on the broad brush level, Fiona's [R2] testimony is unreliable except for The True Believers, of course. But no witness, no jury, no investigator should ever allow themselves to be taken on the strength of a story. That is ridiculous. That is the same level where some soap opera viewers get so taken with the events each week that they move happenings over to their real life. When they are on the verge of something they even phone authorities for information and so on. Of the eight stories here we have the one independent actual witness of a crime in the story, great! Then the programme does not establish Base One! That any of the characters in the stated programme "existed" as presented. Any of it. For all anyone knows Sue Thompson with the information and no checks made could be an escaped deranged person from a Canadian mental asylum. Yes a bit strong but the point I am making if any witness is given anonymity in a documentary or court, then to establish reliability so that the recipients know they have the real Gucci bag so to speak then one or more reputable expert agreed witnesses should certify the person's bona fides. Interestingly, Sue Thompson is not suppose to be anonymous as she shows her face and it is her name but there nothing about her.


A small give away in her story she stated "... I don't think I ever saw him have any bad publicity..." (Exposure). as there were a number of stories, people with rumours and Sue Thompson would know


Wilfred De'Ath......

Excellent analysis, wjlmarsh.

Repeated crime finds people with the courage to report so if Jimmy Savile even committed a faction of the crimes claimed some would of clearly reported the crimes and investigations would of happened 2007- 2009
investigation and other events shows that.
That's a very good point. It stretches credulity to imagine that lots of different people with different personalities would all have behaved identically by failing to report to police crimes committed against them, or crimes they witnessed, or crimes someone told them about.

Jo wrote:
Excellent analysis, wjlmarsh.

Repeated crime finds people with the courage to report so if Jimmy Savile even committed a faction of the crimes claimed some would of clearly reported the crimes and investigations would of happened 2007- 2009
investigation and other events shows that.
That's a very good point. It stretches credulity to imagine that lots of different people with different personalities would all have behaved identically by failing to report to police crimes committed against them, or crimes they witnessed, or crimes someone told them about.

Exactly, Jo, and for every one person who froze when they were molested "in plain sight" there would probably be another four who would yell and tell someone.

How would the abuser know which sort he was going to get?

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
Exactly, Jo, and for every one person who froze when they were molested "in plain sight" there would probably be another four who would yell and tell someone.

How would the abuser know which sort he was going to get?
That's a very good point. Uncanny that all those celebs accused of molestation in public places targeted people who didn't pipe up until years/decades later and the celebs apparently weren't captured on camera or film, even when they logically would have attracted that kind of attention.

With Jimmy Savile, it seems to me that you'd need to make far more assumptions for him to be an abuser who got away with it than you'd need to make for him not to be an abuser.

For him to be an abuser who got away with it, you'd need to assume, e.g.
- no victims of crime told police
- no witnesses to crime told police
- no-one told about crime told police
- if told about crime, no
> parents took it seriously
> teachers took it seriously
> colleagues/managers took it seriously
> police took it seriously
> instead, they all kept silent
etc. (probably more assumptions possible too!)

For him not to be an abuser, you'd need to assume, e.g.
- he didn't do it
- he was falsely accused for financial gain
etc. (can't think of more assumptions, though maybe there are!)

Exactly, Jo, and for every one person who froze when they were molested "in plain sight" there would probably be another four who would yell and tell someone.

How would the abuser know which sort he was going to get?

Come on, now, Jo & honey!oh, you should know that paediatricians, erm, peedos are fiendishly cunning and manipulative, and Sir Jimmy Savile was a fiendlishly cunning and maipulative one, at that.

I think some of those who told the more elaborate stories anticipated your question. They tended to have been previously abused, meaning that they were scarred for life, and carried a kind of indescribable sadness, which meant that your cunning peedo could spot them at fifty paces and safely abuse them in the knowledge that they wouldn't resist, or wouldn't report, or wouldn't be believed, or something like that.

Misa wrote:
Exactly, Jo, and for every one person who froze when they were molested "in plain sight" there would probably be another four who would yell and tell someone.

How would the abuser know which sort he was going to get?

Come on, now, Jo & honey!oh, you should know that paediatricians, erm, peedos are fiendishly cunning and manipulative, and Sir Jimmy Savile was a fiendlishly cunning and maipulative one, at that.

I think some of those who told the more elaborate stories anticipated your question. They tended to have been previously abused, meaning that they were scarred for life, and carried a kind of indescribable sadness, which meant that your cunning peedo could spot them at fifty paces and safely abuse them in the knowledge that they wouldn't resist, or wouldn't report, or wouldn't be believed, or something like that.

Yes. The pervert can quickly spot the abused one in a huge queue of people waiting for autographs, and they are never wrong.

And when an accuser claims that a wealthy male celebrity did something like 'in the middle of the room with over fifty people watching he pulled down my drawers and had his wicked way with me' this translates to 'he liked taking risks' rather than 'don't be so silly - he wouldn't have done that with all those strangers watching!'

'He liked taking risks' is a very convenient phrase for explaining the impossible - or, at the very least, the highly unlikely.

Sheba Bear wrote:
And when an accuser claims that a wealthy male celebrity did something like 'in the middle of the room with over fifty people watching he pulled down my drawers and had his wicked way with me' this translates to 'he liked taking risks' rather than 'don't be so silly - he wouldn't have done that with all those strangers watching!'

'He liked taking risks' is a very convenient phrase for explaining the impossible - or, at the very least, the highly unlikely.

Even when they appear to be rather dull and conscientious people.

The following are all “answers” I was given by the Police and Inquiry teams.........

Why didn’t they tell?
He was too powerful and scary

Why wait until he died?
He was too powerful and scary whilst alive

Why didn’t MI5 pick up on him?
Friends in high places

How do you know he did these things?
We know

He always had people around him?
They are in on it, scared of him

Is it because he left so much money?
It’s not about the money, it’s about justice

We’ve found liars and fraudsters
They are no such thing, they have to be believed

How do you know it was him and not someone else?
MO, the stories are so similar

How do you know these people didn’t share stories?
They is no evidence they did

I don’t want to bore you but I could go on and on and on and on - whatever I said there was a smart Alec answer.

How absurd, Amanda. Those answers read like something out of a conspiracy theory manual. It must be incredibly frustrating and depressing for you. I really hope you see some light at the end of the tunnel soon.

Amanda wrote:
The following are all “answers” I was given by the Police and Inquiry teams.........

Why didn’t they tell?
He was too powerful and scary

Why wait until he died?
He was too powerful and scary whilst alive

Why didn’t MI5 pick up on him?
Friends in high places

How do you know he did these things?
We know

He always had people around him?
They are in on it, scared of him

Is it because he left so much money?
It’s not about the money, it’s about justice

We’ve found liars and fraudsters
They are no such thing, they have to be believed

How do you know it was him and not someone else?
MO, the stories are so similar

How do you know these people didn’t share stories?
They is no evidence they did

I don’t want to bore you but I could go on and on and on and on - whatever I said there was a smart Alec answer.

I notice that "no evidence" that the accuser did something, means it didnt happen, yet "no evidence" that the accused did something, means guilt.

You deserve a medal for not thumping them, Amanda!