In the later years of his life, Sir Jimmy Savile still drew the attention of young journalists and other wannabes. He seemed happy to give such people a leg up, or give them a little grandfatherly advice to help them on their way.

Of course, most of the world thought Savile was a bit odd, and he knew it. It was, after all, a carefully cultivated image. He'd been odd since the 50s; indeed, he was famous for being odd. So, well aware that people thought it odd that he'd preserved his mother The Duchess's room since she died, up-and-coming young journalists were given the 'unique' pleasure of sleeping in her room – in The Duchess's bed – if they made the trek up to Scarborough to see him.

One young wannabe writer so honoured was Dan Davies. Since he was a child, Dan had been obsessed with Jimmy Savile, and now wanted to write a biography. Savile, generous to the last, spent many hours and days with the fella. He even took Dan on a short cruise, apparently.

When Sir Jim finally passed away, who better than Dan Davies to write a touching tribute in the Daily Mail?He was kind to me on that journey, and I saw his kindness to others. Our fellow passengers included a couple with a daughter who had Down’s syndrome. I saw him approach her and begin chatting. After a few of his jokes, she positively lit up.Dan said he and Sir Jim had become friends, but he'd never managed to finish the biography.

Then, the following year, the mood changed. The whole nation suddenly remembered that it had known all along that Savile was an evil – indeed, omnivorous – predator.

Dan Davies knew which side his bread was buttered. He quickly wrote repurposed his 'unfinished' biography to produce a wonderful hatchet job, entitled In Plain Sight: The Life and Lies of Jimmy Savile, and filled his boots.

The book would win awards: the 2015 Gordon Burn Prize and the 2015 CWA Non-Fiction Dagger. Non-Fiction ha ha...you couldn't make it up.

I suppose we should all be careful about who we let into our lives. Sir Jim said he didn't care what they wrote about him after he was gone, but I can't help feeling he wouldn't have wanted it like this. He wouldn't have wanted his name to be used to convict innocent teachers and scout masters and football coaches.

Oh, and a word of advice to wannabe award-winning biographers (and to those who bestow such awards): if you can't even get the full name of your subject right, your other 'facts' are really not to be trusted.Sir James Wilson Vincent Savile was born on 31 October 1926.

An excellent and interesting post, Misa. It's too bad that JS trusted Dan Davies. The DM article makes refreshing reading and the comments too. Like something from a different age.

In a smaller way, another worm that turned, and against someone else, was another DM writer: Amanda Platell.

Pre-verdict (April 2013): Why I pray my dear friend Rolf is innocent

Post-verdict (July 2014): My old friend Rolf groomed me too

Jo, that's a fascinating pair of articles to compare. I thought that woman's defence of her 'friend' was a little cautious; her acceptance of his guilt whole-hearted. Still, at least she didn't write a book about him...or did she?!

Dan Davies is a spectacularly poor researcher. He didn't contact any of us, but I guess he only wanted to speak to those who barely knew Sir Jimmy Savile and were happy to lie about him. It made me see red to hear him refer to himself as "the man who knew him best" Ha! As Misa pointed out he couldn't even get his name right.

I hope you read this Mr Davies and I hope you feel ashamed of yourself. The money you earned will not bring you happiness and the awards that sit on your shelf will remind you every day that Karma is on its way. Bad deeds have consequences.

You should've approached us, you'll regret not doing so.

sadly this was an argument I had with the late highly respected Australian broadcaster Mark Colvin when he announced he would be interviewing Davies the following day.

His response put me right off him as I asked if he would also question his great devotion to Savile and his "heart of gold " claim.

Colvin basically accused me of being a "pedo supporter" when I asked if he would ask Davies if he knew Savile so well why didn't he spot "something untoward" about him and if he would consider that if Savile was the most prolific abuser claimed than perhaps it was Dan Davies who was a "pedo supporter" having actively promoted Savile for years.

Answer came there none ..just a click of the phone.

I'm sure Savile would have cared that his small fortune destined for charity was eaten up by greedy lawyers and claimants.

A travesty and very scary case of "Media Group Think" where they fall into line and parrot and echo each other.

They did it with Iraq of course and 100,000s of innocents died needlessly and now they all blame Tony Blair and write their own participation out of it while also condemning the 1000s of refugees who flee for their lives in countries we blow apart with media support.

That interview with Mark Colvin for ABC can be heard here.

Misa wrote:
That interview with Mark Colvin for ABC can be heard here.

interesting hearing it again in the wake of the Carl Beech fiasco which of course Colvin never got to hear about and he missed the overturning of a Rolf Harris conviction.

I think perhaps Davies may have been a pal of his as he just blindly accepts Davies' claims.

I was disappointed going off him as i thought he had such a great voice on the radio and he did cover important subjects.

To be fair, hedda, I thought it wasn't a bad little interview. Both come across quite well, and Colvin does at least ask Davies about his personal impressions of Savile, having spent some time with him. Given that leading figures in the British media, who Colvin would have known well, one imagines, had given their seal of approval to the story, I'm not surprised that Colvin thought Savile's guilt beyond doubt. But, therein lies the problem, as you noted.

Perhaps it was ever thus, and accepted truths are the only truths we really know. What's a heretic to do?