"Through The Looking Glass" would have been a better headline - and what, pray, is this "scrutiny" he speaks of?

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-savi...liams-thomas-1509838

I tweeted him (under one of my many guises) that he should donate his profits to a child's charity as he urged Lord AcAlpine to. he ignores me..so sad.

Quite hilarious, as he talks about the evidence he put together! Even more so when one of his evidence pushers, was arrested shortly after the programme (in the form of Wilfred De'ath). Then we had Ms Rantzen going on about how the women could not of colluded. Later we find from the ditched Newsnight story, they all colluded on a chat forum!

2 real facts, that would sound good in any courtroom & also 2 facts, that Mr Williams Thomas failed to find or hid. Plus the Freddie Starr & Gary Glitter fact, that they featured on different shows, so it's not likely they were ever in the same dressing room. Shockingly missed or covered up, by someone that wonders why he's no longer working in the Force!

One day people are gonna look back at this in stitches, lol.

Lets not forget that, even if Freddie Starr did grope Karin Ward on that show, she would not have been '14', as she at one point claimed and the media consistently reported (despite giving her age as '54' and the date of the footage as 1974) - she'd have been 16.

They still haven't been able to find the other two girls she claims she witnessed being molested buy Jimmy Savile and Gary Glitter in Savile's dressing room. You'd really think they would have come forward by now or at least been traced...?

Esther Rantzen believed it all because she thought they'd all come forward or been found independently, but turns out all the ex Duncroft girls had been colluding on Friends reunited and social networking sight for years and one 'witness', presented as totally independent from the others on ITV Exposure actually had a sister who was at Duncroft, that leaves two who were shown in that programme unaccounted for, but i've no doubt they too have either got a connection to Duncroft aswell or were pulled in through MWT's trawling methods...as for the rest that came after...mmm...

And of course the FAKE letter one of the main witnesses handed into the Daily Mail claiming she'd been sent it by Surrey police in 2007... o-kay... Why couldn't she give a copy to Newsnight back in 2011 then when they asked for it and needed it to help verify what she'd said and what they we going to put in the programme...? And why has that been so happily brushed under the carpet? Beggars belief...

All we need now is some woman to point the finger at MWT and that really will be the icing on the cake, lol...

note...500 claim abuse, 7 arrested but not one person has been charged.

and given the amount of time passed are unlikely to be.

the arrests were trawling in the hope others would come forward.

this time next year...perhaps it will have dawned that we have witnessed the beat-up of all time.

yet...like illegal invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan people don't really care or are powerless.

As for MWT- his bubble must burst.

Anoymous wrote:
One day people are gonna look back at this in stitches, lol.

Lets not forget that, even if Freddie Starr did grope Karin Ward on that show, she would not have been '14', as she at one point claimed and the media consistently reported (despite giving her age as '54' and the date of the footage as 1974) - she'd have been 16.

They still haven't been able to find the other two girls she claims she witnessed being molested buy Jimmy Savile and Gary Glitter in Savile's dressing room. You'd really think they would have come forward by now or at least been traced...?

Esther Rantzen believed it all because she thought they'd all come forward or been found independently, but turns out all the ex Duncroft girls had been colluding on Friends reunited and social networking sight for years and one 'witness', presented as totally independent from the others on ITV Exposure actually had a sister who was at Duncroft, that leaves two who were shown in that programme unaccounted for, but i've no doubt they too have either got a connection to Duncroft aswell or were pulled in through MWT's trawling methods...as for the rest that came after...mmm...

And of course the FAKE letter one of the main witnesses handed into the Daily Mail claiming she'd been sent it by Surrey police in 2007... o-kay... Why couldn't she give a copy to Newsnight back in 2011 then when they asked for it and needed it to help verify what she'd said and what they we going to put in the programme...? And why has that been so happily brushed under the carpet? Beggars belief...

All we need now is some woman to point the finger at MWT and that really will be the icing on the cake, lol...
One of the other 2 (unaccounted for) said this on the excuse for a programme "Every time I went to his flat, he always put his hand up my skirt". So then, why did she keep going back there? This too, beggars belief.

Of course the real reason for the Polce ditching the case, was lack of evidence...The same real reason Newsnight's Mr Rippon ditched it, but was kind of scared to say (at the time). The letter goes on about JS being too old & frail. Whoever wrote that was kind of trying to suggest there was evidence, but the police wouldn't act, for the fraility & age of JS. Thus trying to make a clear "evidence" case. I wonder the author of that letter? The lady herself? Ms Jones nephew? Hard to say.

Is it not obvious the author of the letter was Fiona? She (along with others) was the one who told Newsnight she had it, yet she could not supply them with a copy of it when they asked (nor could any of the others). Yet nearly a year later SHE hands a copy to the Daily Mail saying she'd been sent it by Surrey police in 2007. I don't think Newsnight or Merion Jones got involved with this story till 2011 - and certainly not as early as 2007, yet SHE claimed that's when the letter was sent. I can't see what motive Merion Jones or Newnight would have for sending that letter in 2007 as they weren't involved in the story at that point and, from the Pollard review, it seems they weren't aware of the Surrey police investigation of 2007 to 2009 until some of the women told them and they had it confirmed by the CPS. It also seems that it was the women who informed Newsnight and Merion Jones that the case had be dropped because Savile 'was too old and infirm', which is the most obvious explanation I think. It sounds better for them and makes them appear more sinned against if they can say it was dropped because Savile 'was too old and infirm' than if it was just because of plain old insufficient evidence and the fact none of them, at that time, would actually support further investigation or prosecution. Also, if, as Fiona seems to claim, she was involved in the 2007 to 2009 Surrey police investigation, did she actually make her allegations that Savile would take girls out in his car and ask for sexual favours in return and in return for trips to the BBC to the police at that time? The statement from Surrey police regarding their investigation doesn't seem to suggest so.

I think the decision not to show the Jimmy Savile Newsnight investigation was a perfectly acceptable decision based on the fact that there was extremely insufficient evidence and witnesses to corroborate their accusations and they'd been lied too. Even if there had been more evidence and witnesses to corroborate their claims,I still think it would probably have been the most tastefull decision to at least hold off a bit and leave a suitable mourning period for Savile's family, given that the man had only just past away. But as it stood, with the evidence (or lack of) that they had, coupled with the fact that they knew they'd been lied too, I think a decision to show this piece wound have been extremely stupid and insensitive.

Why start an investigation like that and expect it to be shown so soon after the mans death anyway? It had already been 30+ years since these alleged incidents were claimed to have taken place. Why insist on showing it straight after his death? That is something I just don't understand at all...

And your right, if that girl (who I think was claiming to be 15 or 16 at the time...?) disliked Savile so much she would not have kept going back to his flat, I doubt anybody would have been forcing her (which would be a different story). If Savile told her to jump of a bridge would she have done it? Did her mother have as much success in getting her to do as she was asked when it came to thinks like doing the dishes, tidying her room and what she should wear...? I very much doubt it...

As others have pointed out- Fiona's walls were covered in forged credentials and degrees.

In any other matter a nutter who lies and is a criminal would not be taken seriously or would require further proof untainted by this lot conspiring (and the police may well be looking into whether there has been a conspiracy as they have been humiliated by the whole case).

hedda wrote:
As others have pointed out- Fiona's walls were covered in forged credentials and degrees.

In any other matter a nutter who lies and is a criminal would not be taken seriously or would require further proof untainted by this lot conspiring (and the police may well be looking into whether there has been a conspiracy as they have been humiliated by the whole case).
It seems like most of the girls from Duncroft retreated into sick realms of fantasy. A school of delinquents & the mentally disturbed. How can any of them be believed? To think they were allowed to take any part in that "documentary" seems to indicate MWT is much a sick fantasist, as they are...

We can only hope that the Police are getting the facts properly. Though (apparently) they are not really covering the Savile case proper, just the other celebrities. Which may be a mistake, as it all seems to connect.

It's a shame they won't investigate the accusations against Jimmy Savile, but that isn't what they they wanted is it? Because then the truth would have been revealed.

Back in 2007 to 2009 none of Savile's accusers would support a criminal investigation into Jimmy Savile, or a prosecution and Meirion Jones deliberately waited until after he'd died to start his investigation into him for fear he would fight back. I wonder why...?

If these things really happened, they were all just telling the truth and being honest and they truly wanted 'justice', what did they honestly have to fear from a criminal investigation, prosecution and Savile fighting back...?

There may not, in the end, have been enough evidence against Savile to convict him, but none of the accusations would have been revealed as out right lies if there was no evidence that they were out right lies - unless there is evidence that they are outright lies and they do not want the police to discover this...

hedda wrote:
As others have pointed out- Fiona's walls were covered in forged credentials and degrees.

In any other matter a nutter who lies and is a criminal would not be taken seriously or would require further proof untainted by this lot conspiring (and the police may well be looking into whether there has been a conspiracy as they have been humiliated by the whole case).


Oh I do hope the police decide to have a look into this - even to the outsider the whole thing looks extremely iffy...


Maybe Fiona could run up some fake credentials for MWT...? Him and some of these silly women sound cut from a similar cloth...