One wonders whether they will ask his main accuser what made her go to police.

www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/max...eversed-9322804.html

His lies and assistance to liars...

When he was arrested on my birthday several friends called me to say it must be the best birthday present ever. I said no, I wouldn't want that to happen to my worst enemy. But I had to admit to a small feeling of satisfaction. Karma had won, with a little nudge by me.

Interesting program and again showed how low and filthy the media are.

I am watching it on the plus channel for as long as I can stay awake. Why do we need to know about people willingly manhandling him while he was phoning his wife? What does that have to do with anything?

As for him leaving the letter by his bed... Bollocks! Just as if that would ever happen.

Which police force was it that searched his house?

I'm afraid that WAS in a drawer by his bed, Honey; the letter was written by the lady who convinced my friends 100% she was truthful. She only brought it up because she knew they were friends of mine and she hated the hypocrisy of Clifford being the main person behind the false allegations behind my situation (see Waxy Maxie in VPTM). She wouldn't take it any further as her parents were alive and would have been horrified, feeling responsible for allowing it. After both parents died, I passed on again that she should expose him and she finally did.

And yes Honey - it was Surrey Police.

JK2006 wrote:
And yes Honey - it was Surrey Police.

I know the letter exists, and why, but the idea of someone with Max Clifford's wiliness leaving an incriminating letter just lying around by the bed is extremely unlikely.
Maybe the police came by the letter by other means?

I had no idea Clifford was an abuser; I knew he was behind the false allegations about me; assumed they were for money. Recently I've also been told they were inspired by my pending position as Global Chairman of EMI. I was keen to expose his direct contribution (as shown in that letter). Then, on release, over lunch with a friend, this was told me.

I was told at the time it was in the bedside table drawer. It was thought he kept it for purposes of sick arousal. Those who found it were truly shocked.

Who wouldn't want you to become the chairman and why? (After your name is well and truly cleared, there is a good film or series to be made of all this.)


So to some, just the idea of or discussion about corrupting a minor is a sexual turn on? Even without the details.
This would explain some people's excessive interest and eager reporting then, wouldn't it?

Was the main accuser the mysterious wig-wearing and baritone-voiced (and slightly Welsh sounding?) "Jessica", who apparently approached MWT just after the airing of the Jimmy Savile allegations?

MWT's voiceover at the start of the video:

"Like so many sex offenders, power was critical to Max Clifford's crimes. He often targeted young women who wanted to be famous, knowing they would find it very hard to report him to the police. He used a casting couch scenario to trap the women, often promising them parts in films or meetings with celebrities that did not exist. The routine is familiar to Jessica. Without her Clifford might not be in prison. She was the first victim to come forward, approaching me just after the Jimmy Savile scandal broke. It was decades before she felt strong enough to speak out. We've disguised her voice to protect her identity..."

Yes that was her (NOT her real name) and MWT had nothing to do with her!
I'd accepted the Global Chairmanship of EMI in 2000 Honey; my arrest killed that.
Rumours have reached me that a top EMI executive (actually the rumour is his wife) who was fired to make room for me knew Clifford and asked him to organise it.
Suspect that's bollocks though.
Read Not A Knee and you'll see - agreed salary £5 million a year (a lot in those days).

JK2006 wrote:
Yes that was her (NOT her real name) and MWT had nothing to do with her!
But he's interviewing "Jessica" in the video.

What was interesting to me is how much was unsaid in the docu. It seems that none of the participants in his sex parties came forward.

I'm prepared to believe that he was a hypocrite, and a very strange man, but I did not find the alleged abuse victims particularly credible.

JO; she may have gone to MWT after the Savile drama but I first begged her to expose Max in 2005 when mutual friends revealed that, when she had found out they knew me, she had revealed her disgust at Max's hypocrisy. But she was definite she did NOT want to do anything due to upsetting her parents. Indeed, she swore us all to total secrecy. Again, when her parents died a few years later, I tried to persuade her. She was more receptive but terrified of the man. Then the Savile drama took place and she agreed.

JK2006 wrote:
JO; she may have gone to MWT after the Savile drama but I first begged her to expose Max in 2005 when mutual friends revealed that, when she had found out they knew me, she had revealed her disgust at Max's hypocrisy. But she was definite she did NOT want to do anything due to upsetting her parents. Indeed, she swore us all to total secrecy. Again, when her parents died a few years later, I tried to persuade her. She was more receptive but terrified of the man. Then the Savile drama took place and she agreed.

Or, you could say that the Savile compensations took place and she agreed.

That was indeed one of the reasons I mentioned to her! The moment it happened I got onto her (via my friends; I've never spoken to her or met her or contacted her direct).

The whole key evidence of the "sent letter" was the most disgusting level of evidence ever used. "Anyone" can send a letter and "anyone" can keep a letter. It is not CCTV, DNA, a report at the time. The letter thing is a typical John Le Carrie fabricated story type situation where the plot is a set-up for entrapment in this case. There may even be inside collusion to ensure a copy of the letter exists and is found.

The letter contained allegations that needed evidence to substantiate them. Finding the letter was a ploy. I say it again disgusting. Dishonest.

My comments do not relate in any way to whether a letter sent is factual or all lies just that the letter sent in no way whatsoever = truth just because someone wrote it and sent it.