|
Continued from previous....
Sue Thompson is also in the Dame Janet Smith Review Report on the BBC.
Additional is the film at the cinema is stated as the opening of Star Wars. Some more details like the girl could have been blind and was wearing school uniform. So some small additions. But nothing at all still to confirm the programme was “made” when stated. From Moor Larkin's reference to the student research the programme possibly exised, last produced programmes 1976 broadcast about the time Sue Thompson refers as Rabbitaway Blog noted in the Radio Times a reference. Basics should always be confirmed for these investigations. So as it stands the initial available confirming evidence is that the programme was not made when Sue Thompson was at the BBC, broadcast possibly only. Thus evidence pointing to a possible provable lie!!!
In spite of DJS inquiry ranting and raving about researching and checking the documentary evidence it is not followed up unless in the interests of DJS to ”put down a person” giving a statement. One case been the recalling of De'Ath one of the three musketeers. One of the few times she had documentation that showed De'Ath lied. (I would not be surprised if Moor Larkin's amazing detective work of uncovering documented evidence that showed the event at the London restaurant did not happen had come to someone's notice on the DJS review team.
Wilfred De'Ath
What is known
In 1964/ 65 Wilfred De'Ath was BBC Producer Teen Scene based in Manchester not London Jimmy Savile guest presenter on Monday 26 July 1965. Top of the Pops in 1965 was produced in Manchester not London Wilfred De'Ath had only one daughter (That is one near the time 1964) who would been a toddler in 1965 or not born yet. As Wilfred was twenty-eight at the time and married in 1963. Wilfred De'Ath was never afraid to break the law and commit fraud a number of times. He is a known fraudster that he does not deny. Wilfred De'Ath had his story out in many places and it is known that many of these media outlets pay for stories.
What is Not Known
Jimmy Savile guest presenter at teen scene more than once?
(Postscript -note since publishing book noted that DJS reports had records indicating attending 2 times)
Innocent Until Proven Guilty Rule One
Wilfred De'Ath is one of the most unreliable characters that one would have for a media court witness or a witness for anything. The appearance of such an unreliable witness should of raised serious questions to the strength of this documentary.
Story strength— Wilfred De'Ath spins a good yarn, sets in motion the word use of "predilection". But the story was never credible starting from Wilfred De'Ath himself. Young girl out with Savile and Wilfred guessing the age and then mentioning two daughters for comparison does not add up as neither one would be anywhere near ten plus at the time. There is absolutely nothing to substantiate this story. Yes, unlike Sue Thompson there is information to Teen Scene and Jimmy Savile so we have a Base One in meeting at Teen Scene. But as to meeting in London, young girl, restaurant, hotel and all that, well his imitation voices and words all catchy, but nothing remotely to confirm this London meeting whatsoever.
Credible, No! So if The True Believers like Mark Williams-Thomas want to hang onto this one, then note Wilfred De'Ath still never actually witnessed Jimmy Savile in bed having sex with an underage girl even in this story. No DLT + evidence. Of interest, one blogger Moor Larkin on his site has pictures of correspondence and receipts indicating neither Wilfred De'Ath or Jimmy Savile went from Manchester to London for a meeting over this programme. In addition, Jimmy Savile's known character of minimal involvement in organising things it would be totally out of character to come to London to arrange something that could be easily be done by phone. A time waster Jimmy Savile was not. The big question would any producer out to produce an accurate account, who demonstrates integrity and the public can rely on, put forward a highly questionable witness. Now how come if Jimmy Savile is this prolific child abuser for sixty or more years are there no reliable witnesses and reliable evidence. The Code for Crown Prosecutors (4.6 ) The Evidential Stage Is the evidence reliable? Prosecutors should consider whether there are any reasons to question the reliability of the evidence, including its accuracy or integrity. Is the evidence credible? Prosecutors should consider whether there are any reasons to doubt the credibility of the evidence.
Exposure's take on Wilfred De'Ath Criminal Record and Character.
Narrator: After leaving the BBC Wilfred had his own troubles spending two months in jail for credit card fraud. He has firm views what he witnessed back then
Wikipedia take on Wilfred De'Ath Criminal Record and Character.
Sometime after his marriage ended, De'Ath lived as a homeless person in France, and since 1993, De'ath has appeared in court over 30 times and was sent primarily by remand to prison between 4 and 6 times for petty thefts, by his own admission. He also wrote about staying in expensive hotels for long periods of time without paying. The experiences of these years provided De'ath with both his public persona, as both a "gentleman" and a "scrounger", and the material for his column in The Oldie. He has also written his column from the perspective of a prisoner.
A Review of Wilfred De'Ath Oldie magazine collection of his book.
"The author seems to take pride in lying, cheating, stealing and being dirty and unkempt. It wasn't even funny. I can't think why it was promoted." Amazon Reviewer.
Exposure highlights briefly about Wilfred De'Ath Character reliability. This is evidence of misleading. In Sue Thompson's noting lost of records but not providing anything to give credibility then De'Ath not highlighting the extend of unreliability of character shows how the stories were manipulated. In the Rolf Harris trial the police involvement never checked the facts of the complainants like if the Cambridge woman was in Cambridge in 1978 or of the alleged Pub scene of the crime. They did check the community centre but still allowed a non event to be used in court.
Now to note once again our key investigator Mark Williams-Thomas comment, "I carefully gathered the evidence against Savile as I would have if I was still a fully serving police officer.."
These actions or mostly lack of action of the police in the Rolf Harris case then MWT's comment, it does paint a very disturbing picture of how the police collect evidence.
Add DJS Review BBC final comments
When asked, he (De'Ath) asserted that, apart from that one occasion, he had not come across Savile in a professional capacity.
At the end of that interview, I was minded to accept the essential core of this account, although I thought that some of the details may have been embellished. …
…. That was my view until the Savile investigation reviewed a bundle of BBC documents which included some contemporaneous records of Mr De’Ath’s professional engagement with Savile. There were five documents of relevance to Mr De’Ath’s evidence to us.
The first in time, dated 6 October 1964, was a booking requisition completed by Mr De’Ath in relation to Savile’s proposed appearance on Teen Scene, to be broadcast on 15 November 1964. Savile was to be interviewed for about four minutes. The place of performance was to be at Belle Vue, Manchester and was to take place by ‘line’ to Studio B9 (which was in Broadcasting House, London).
The other four documents all related to a second appearance made by Savile on Teen Scene. The first in time was a letter dated 23 July 1965 in which Mr De’Ath wrote to Savile to make arrangements for a programme to take place the following Monday. He explained that a line had been booked to Studio
Five Piccadilly, Manchester (then Broadcasting House, Manchester). Savile was asked to arrive at about 10pm to allow time for rehearsal before transmission at 10.35pm. Savile was to ‘co-compere’ the show with Mike Hurst. There would be some guests. Mr De’Ath promised to get Savile the best fee he
could. The second document was a booking requisition dated 26 July 1965; it had been completed and signed by Mr De’Ath. Savile was to co-compere Teen Scene at Broadcasting House, Manchester and his contribution was expected to last about 40 minutes. The third document was a letter dated 28 July 1965, written by Mr De’Ath thanking Savile for taking part in Teen Scene “last Monday”. He apologised for the lack of “hospitality” in Manchester. The last letter in this bundle is dated 30 July
1965 and is an invoice or fee note by which Savile was to be paid 25 guineas for taking part in Teen Scene on 26 July 1965. The document implies that the appearance was at Broadcasting House, Manchester. It bears a stamp to show that Savile’s fee was paid on 9 August 1965.
These documents cast serious doubt on the accuracy of Mr De’Ath’s evidence to the Savile investigation. First, it appeared that Savile had worked for Mr De’Ath on Teen Scene twice and
not once as Mr De’Ath had said. Second, it appeared that neither of those appearances had taken place at Broadcasting House, London as Mr De’Ath recalled; both had taken place in Manchester and appeared to have involved conversation over a telephone line. It seemed doubtful that there could have been any occasion on which the two men chatted at Broadcasting House (whether in London or Manchester) at which Mr De’Ath could have suggested to Savile that he was living dangerously.
In addition, it did not appear from any document that there had ever been any reason for the two men to meet in advance to discuss the content of the programme at a restaurant in London.
Mr De’Ath was shown the documents and kindly agreed to be interviewed for a second time. He said that the programme about which he had spoken earlier had been the one which took place in November 1964. He accepted that there must have been a second programme about which he had completely forgotten until he saw the documents. He accepted that that second programme appeared to have been made on a line from Manchester. He still thought that the first programme had been made in a studio in London. However, he accepted that the document suggested that he could be mistaken about that and that Savile could have been at Belle Vue. Mr De’Ath said that he had never made a whole programme of Teen Scene from Manchester. They were always made in London, except for one occasion when they went to Glasgow.
When asked whether the occasion on which he had told Savile .that he was living dangerously had been on the first or second programme, Mr De’Ath asked if this was important for the Savile investigation. I explained that it was important because the inconsistencies between his original evidence and the BBC documents cast doubt on the reliability of his evidence generally. He said that he understood that and he thought that he must have been mistaken about some details of his evidence. He agreed that it was unlikely that he would have suggested to Savile over a telephone line that he was ‘living dangerously’. He thought perhaps there might have been some other occasion on which he had met Savile and said that to him. Mr De’Ath was then asked about the meeting with Savile in the restaurant when he had been with a young girl. Mr De’Ath then apologised and said that he had been doing his best to help the Savile investigation but his mind must have been playing tricks on him. He suggested that all I could do would be to discount his evidence. I thanked him for being so realistic about the reliability of his evidence. I pointed out that I would have to refer in my Report to the inconsistencies in his evidence and Mr De’Ath said that he understood that.
My conclusion is that the account which Mr De’Ath gave to the Savile investigation contained so many inaccuracies that no reliance can be placed upon his claim made on the Exposure programme or on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that Savile had spent a night with an underage girl at a hotel in London.
Contrast with DJS and Angie / Val ( Look at after the last character support witness Alan Leeke)
The London Team
I begin with accounts of the experiences of two women who,when teenage girls, regularly had sexual intercourse with Savile. Both appeared on the ITV programme Exposure, where they were given the pseudonyms Angie and Val. They gave evidence to the Savile investigation in 2013. In addition, each
woman submitted additional written evidence on 4 and 5 February 2016 just before a final draft version of the Report was made available to the BBC. Parts of this additional evidence provided by one of the women, Angie, differed from the evidence provided in 2013. At such a late stage, it was not possible for me to resolve these differences and I therefore decided that I should record all of the evidence provided by Angie, both in 2013 and 2016, in the Report.
In 2013, the women told me that they were part of what Savile described as his ‘London Team’. I accepted their accounts as truthful and as accurate as could be expected given the lapse of time.
Val is still in touch with a few past members of the London Team. One is in poor health and I was told that it would not be appropriate to contact her. I asked Val whether it would be possible for her or Angie to contact the other women to see if they were prepared to assist us. Unfortunately, we have not
heard from any. I have, however, heard evidence about another girl who, I infer, was probably a member of the Team, at least for a short time.
Two noted items of discrepancy one in Angie changed statements and the Val's highly questionable non helpfulness of finding any other London team member for the review. DJS is so desperate to believe these two women she even invents a team member herself. But in De'Ath case documents are available.
Alan Leeke
What is known
Alan Leeke was a reporter on the local newspaper in Manchester. There is a photo of Alan in the news office. (It could be him visiting his father so unverified) Jimmy Savile was based a lot of the time in Manchester around 1964 and one place he ran Belle Vue Top Ten Club. Jimmy Savile did purchase a yellow BMW Isetta bubble car around 1964. It is reported he had an E type Jaguar car and a Rolls Royce. From biography and various sources by 1964 Jimmy Savile appeared to be now making some very serious money indeed as a DJ amongst other appearances like running the Belle Vue and Top of The Pops. Alan Leeke does not accuse Jimmy Savile of any crime at all.
What is Not Known
Who Jimmy Savile dated. One For The Defence Alan testimony would be great for the defence because he has Jimmy Savile courting girls of consenting age. He has injected into popular saying now as well. No birth certificates in those days. There is no information that people ask for birth certificates these days either when they are courting. The general idea has been the courting couple pick up on age range from the time and location of meetings. Like pubs it would be expected the people are over eighteen. Somewhere like Top of the Pops the age of admittance was raised at the beginning of the 1970' s to sixteen.
Final comments on the Three Musketeers
Sue Thompson – Lies and no corroboration. No identified complainant. Evidence that programme possible broadcast 1978 but the latest the programme was possibly produced was 1976.
Wilfred De'Ath – Known fraudster and no corroboration. No identified complainant. Moor Larkin and DJS have documentation that show he lied and De'Ath withdraws his testimony with a statement he must have been mistaken.
Alan Leeke – No crime reported. Mark Williams-Thomas about pattern is nonsense. Most people the world over go out at some time in a car and court. Go to a cafe. This is absolutely normal everyday behaviour. Even Exposure has Mark Williams-Thomas travelling in a car and camera person (not seen) as the passenger at least.
The Famous Five
Val [R14] 1969 and Angie [R15] 1968 - Identical Twins
What Is Known
ITV letter to BBC Excerpt
Tops of the Pops (1968 – 1969) (Pollard Report Appendix 12 12/ 176) [R14] and [R15], two woman interviewed anonymously who are now in their 50' s, claim Savile regularly sexually assaulted them on BBC premises when they were 15-year-old school girls. [R15] alleges the assaults began in 1968, she was 15. She claims Savile had sex with her on a number of occasions in his dressing room when he was attending recordings Tops Of The Pops. She also says he would pin her up against the wall and sexually assault her. [R14] says she was regularly invited by Savile into his dressing room at the BBC. She alleges the assaults began in 1969 when she was 15, when took her into an alcove in his dressing room and put his hand up the skirt and touched her. She claims Savile sexually assaulted her dozens of times both in the BBC dressing rooms and in corridors, during recording of Tops Of The Pops.
(Pollard Report)
[R14] and [R15] are references used by the Helen Livingston [R] codes from the Newsnight investigation, they refer to contacts made from Friends Reunited social web site that relates to those communicating on the Duncroft Approved School Group. So Angie and Val TOTP's identities are connected to Duncroft group Friends Reunited where the initial contacts were made. They were either members of the group at the time or known indirectly by other existing members at the time. In Helen Livingston notes Fiona [R2] makes reference to [R15].
[R15][i] was done for murder ...[/i] R15] for example, she moved to [blank] in France and won't acknowledge what happened
Their designated ages would make them to be likely ex-pupils or connected from the late 1960' s. On the other hand they may not be real and just actors playing made up roles. Fiona [R2] stories are unreliable not that there are no facts. Just it is hard to know what is pure fantasy and what is fact, without another source that is separate from Fiona [R2] influenced circle, to assist in corroborating possible facts. In the documentary some photos where shown and an autograph relating to 1974. Photos provided apart from odd looking one of 1968 supposedly, none of Angie and Jimmy together. Mark Williams-Thomas accepts without question any contact that is passed on. Most of "Exposure" was build from the Newsnight investigation.
What Is Not Known
Where are all those people from the many encounters over five or six years who can confirm Val and Angie as part of this unknown select group? What was this select group all about? Alcoves, dressing rooms and sexual abuse in public places by a recognizable man by the whole nation. Did not one person see and report the abuse? There was a previous investigative meeting with Jimmy Savile based on rumours only according to Panorama that related to Savile's Travels (1968 – 1973) programme. Conjecture on my part is that Jimmy Savile put the outrageous stories in his autobiography, in part in response to the unsubstantiated rumours, in order to shake and stand up to those who would spread rumours. Also interesting, people like Dan Davies, (author), will accept the stories from the autobiography word for word but then when Jimmy Savile clearly states he is not a paedophile it is ignored. I call this Pick 'n' Mix. The judge in the Freddie Starr v Karin Ward civil court case did exactly the same. He quite rightly was skeptical of the four witnesses but to reach his conclusion he done an Esther Rantzen deciding that he knew what he could believe as fact and what he couldn't. What witnesses provide in general is pointers, a gist, a general direction. Where reliable, independent witnesses provide cohesive stories then the truth can start to emerge. Two witnesses here Val and Angie (it would appear that Angie had some memorabilia from contact with Jimmy Savile in 1974 or from another source— second hand bookshop, friends whoever and whatever) have absolutely nothing at all to support their 1968 and 1969 full sex at fifteen story. Val as Angie's friend got on her bandwagon with her own version thus she has nothing. Well two girls sexually and regularly molested on BBC premises must be seen and that has got to be better than rumours. What a scoop! But no one ever reported or noticed all this outrageous activity over five or six years. Why did Val and Angie hang around if abused? Questions, questions and more questions???
Innocent Until Proven Guilty Rule One
Val and Angie need to prove their stories are an accurate account, that they have integrity and are reliable. They have no Base One, no DLT + level evidence nothing to overcome the No Body No Missing Person scenario. The stories do not have any credibility at all! Val and Angie do not even vouch for each other. The stated crime is rape and sexual assault at fifteen— under-age, but the main evidence is 1974 when they are around twenty. And stating a continuous relationship of five or six years to their early twenties is evidence of a consensual relationship. Full stop. The so called 1968 Radio Luxembourg outside building photo means absolutely nothing. Neither I nor anyone on Exposure could authenticate the Angie 1968 photo for time, location and individuals as stated. (Photo may have been Photoshopped! It does not look right!)
Public sex attacks. Dressing room, alcoves or couch by an individual known by all not at Rule Two level for evidence credibility. Both are Triple A Rated witnesses. And guess what if the girls ever managed to get even Base One of 1968 and 1969 that only confirms accused and complainant in the same place at the same time. Nothing else, it is just the first step. Mark Williams-Thomas acting as police, come investigative reporter, states not revealing this and that: I spoke to other people who alleged abuse and five agreed to go on camera and tell their stories. I don't believe I did anything special, I simply used all the techniques and skills I've gathered over my many years as a detective and now as an investigative reporter - to speak with people who might have information. I am very aware of the highly sensitive nature of my investigation as well as the absolute need to protect both my sources and the women involved. What I won't do is give away exactly how I tracked down the women and witnesses because this would expose the very people I said I would protect.
No problem about anonymity, if evidence facts are certified clearly (place names and identities changed) but to accuse anyone of a crime and produce two people each with a story and nothing else. That is not evidence but deception. The two witnesses have Triple A Rating (That is, could be Anyone, from Anywhere, saying Anything). Then to claim to be investigating as you were in the police and to also be like an investigative reporter in reality destroys the credibility of Mark Williams-Thomas.
It must be emphasised very seriously here that Karin Ward did not use grope or alcoves, curtain and so forth until interviewed by Mark Williams-Thomas in the same way as Val, Angie and Fiona. Mark Williams-Thomas talks about MO (modus operandi) and patterns. Well his interviewing techniques show a pattern. In the follow on from Exposure in talking to Janet Cope interestingly Mark Williams-Thomas introduces the word "vindictive" which Janet interestingly does not confirm. He also takes credit for initiating many other investigations. Mark Williams-Thomas takes credit for initiating the investigation into Jonathan King. Jonathan King in his public defence videos claims that the police lead the complainants on with facts or rather so called facts that could be proved wrong and he felt that they were been feed by the police. This kinda police practice has been all too common in the past like in a line up, the police suggest ideas to the witnesses or parading "only the suspect" in front of the witness before the line up.
Conclusion Mark Williams-Thomas as an Expert Witness is not reliable.
As Mark Williams-Thomas is the only link presented to the public to the two individual stories of Angie and Val the only conclusion without details to corroborate the reliability, accuracy and integrity of the stories given by two actors are "totally useless" for evidence either to discredit them as false allegations or for the stories to be credible and reliable statements pointing to the guilt of Jimmy Savile. In the context of what is really known of Jimmy Savile's character, non existence reports of dressing room problems apart for the early 1970' s scandal which was really about under-age girls going off with celebrities after the show and was more to do with a girl's chosen lifestyle than a BBC problem. These stories and the later stories of the dressing room capers are a dreamed up thing of Mark Williams-Thomas and some ex-pupils of Duncroft Approved School that have no grounds, no reasons, no corroboration outside the Duncroft / Mark Williams-Thomas connection. The interviews, and investigative techniques employed by Mark Williams-Thomas do not demonstrate reliability, accuracy, integrity and nothing more than prompting “a story”.
Sarah Choir Girl - The Non Story ........
|
Forums 
