I ask for the following reason. Everyone - including the top people at the BBC, appears to be condemning Peter Rippon, the Editor of Newsnight, for dropping the Savile segment.

But if he considered the witnesses untrustworthy (rightly or wrongly), what else should he have done?

The public answer from 99% of media and punters seems to feel he SHOULD have decided "Hey, I don't totally believe these people but it's a great story and he's dead, so what the hell, I'll run it".

Am I the only person to think - it doesn't matter whether these claims are true or false; if he did NOT believe them (like several police, CPS and others before him) surely he was right not to air the segment?

The complaint from the Newsnight reporters is that the investigation was dropped not that it didn't air. The two things are different.
George Entwistle has agreed that the investigation should have continued and a judgement made later if the final evidence was strong enough for broadcast.

quite apart from the program would have come out after the horse had bolted. the bullying is extraordinary.

This is the self appointed child protection industry's greatest coup (although they have been as ignorant as everyone else)and no prisoners are being taken. Heads must roll.

After reading Anna Racoon I am convinced the wheels are going to come off this charabanc in spectacular fashion.

Mind you GG can probably get some peace for awhile as they can't hound him at present.

No, Mr Sane; it's still the Editor's decision when to stop; if he thought it was looking dodgy, surely it was correct for him to pull it, whether right or wrong about why?