Pages

Wednesday, 16 October 2013

'There is clearly, insufficient evidence to charge the subject with any criminal offence" Part One




Following the above interview which followed a two year investigation into claims made against Sir Jimmy the following decision was made



Phew, I wonder if Sir Jimmy was as relieved as I was to read those words and to know they are there for us to refer to every time the, not so well informed, repeat their nonsense about crimes, victims and so on and so forth.

The publication of the censured  transcripts of the 59 minute interview has had an effect I'm not sure the person/s who made the Freedom of Information request (FOI) had in mind !

You see, it has given us all a chance to hear Jimmy's voice again.  Last night I felt as though I too was in that room in Stoke Mandeville Hospital in 2009.  I'm glad that I wasn't, I would surely have laughed out loud a few times and certainly during the following few seconds !


Embedded image permalink

Ideally, I'd like to publish the whole of this interview but it's quite an undertaking when you are working with a pdf document as, you I'm having to use Windows snipping tool - But, if I get a lot of demand from folk not able to download the original document, I promise to do just that, after all, we want as many people as possible to see this !

In the meantime, I'll pick out some interesting passages for y'all to digest ! The link to the full transcript is here :

 http://www.surrey.police.uk/tabid/2980/InfoItemId/197/Default.aspx

One thing that struck me about Jimmy during the interview was how willing and relaxed he appeared to be considering the nature of the questions asked.  He obviously knew that the matter was serious, yet he chose not to have a lawyer present.  He asked a friend from the hospital to sit in instead :




Let's hold it for a moment there shall we.  There's something that no one bothered to mention last night and that was the fact that this interview/event did not just happen to Jimmy, someone else was present, someone that Jimmy obviously knew and trusted.

I just knew that I had discussed this whole interview thing before but, as luck would have it, the second web page I came to on googling savile police interview radiographer friend attended 

was this

http://www.annaraccoon.com/annas-personal-stuff/the-merry-knives-of-winsor-and-yet-another-savile-inquiry/

Thank God for Anna Raccoon and the wonderful folk who offer such important information and opinion - 

 Mina Field March 14, 2013 at 20:05
@rabbitway
I’ve just read ‘ornament’ and it seems that as the police had insufficient grounds to arrest him they therefore were not entitled to compel him to be interviewed at all, let alone under caution. He would have been told this fact but he nevertheless agreed to it anyway, knowing what he was going to say and knowing that there would be no questioning of his answers. I bet they felt pathetically fortunate that he agreed to be interviewed, considering by then they’d spent a full 12 months ‘trawling’ and come up with………… zilch.

 Mina Field March 15, 2013 at 13:05
Lucozade @ 11.15 15.3.13
Yes, you’re correct about the CPS not recommending an interview at all. ‘Ornament’ describes this, and is complimentrary about the police for going above and beyond, etc. It then goes on to be slightly contradicting itself, for it says, ‘pity he was interviewed at a place of his own choosing’ – thus having a certain amount of control, but then says, ‘as there was no power of arrest it might have proved problematic getting him to attend at the station’.
No, you can’t blame him for 1) Being a bit arsey if he thought they were asking for it and 2) Having a witness present. As you say, most people would have just got their solicitor to tell them to bog off if they had even bothered to reply at all.


 rabbitaway March 15, 2013 at 11:49
Perhaps Jimmy did not take the interview very seriously. On page 34 of the report it maintains that there was no ‘pre disclosure as Savile elected to be interviewed without contacting a legal advisor or having a legal advisor present’. It goes on to say that the friend (a trustee of Stoke Mandeville) attended as an ‘appropriate adult’ ……? (sorry but I’ve just pictured Dominic West as Fred (no relation) West…….). Ok, so ornament is an investigation into the historic police handling of allegations against Sir Jim ! I still DO NOT see what all the fuss is about. Someone feel free to correct me if I have got this wrong, but the resultant charging decision ( 28/10/09) found that ‘…..there is clearly insufficient evidence to charge the suspect with any criminal offence’. Obviously, there was much to’ing and fro’ing from the initial CPS meeting on the 15th July 2007 (‘did not feel there was a case to proceed’) to the letter asking him to contact Surrey police in June 2009 but all I see here is a failure on the part of the boys in blue to get their act together, especially when they chose to ignore the initial decision. Oh dear, I’m getting a tad lost !

I may have felt as though I was getting a tad lost in March, so I had better try and keep on subject now.  I haven't been able to locate exactly where it was I saw this friend being referred to as a radiographer, but I do remember reading that.  The point is, who is this person and why is he/she not being questioned again ? He/she could provide valuable information in terms of Jimmy's behaviour during, before and indeed after the interview.  Surely, he and Jimmy will have discussed the questions asked of Jimmy that day !

Another voice left unheard, and one can only ask WHY ?

I'm leaving it at that for now.  There's an awful lot to cover, but I thought I'd get out a first part to get you all thinking about some very basic points here.  We have all been discussing the various strands (dare I use this word) associated with the 2007/9 investigation.  From Anna Raccoon to Moor Larkin and back, we've covered it all - WELL ALMOST.  We need to tie the loose ends together.  Over the next few days I'll do more posts. I havn't got past the introductions yet - but I will.  I am determined to give Jimmy his voice !

By the way, I am in no way suggesting that the nice person who helped Jimmy that day be outed or disturbed in any way.  I merely ask the questions I hear no one else bothering to - present company excepted of course !















6 comments:

  1. I found an interesting article by a radiographer from last year, which takes an appropriately sceptical viewpoint; the comments are mostly high quality as well.
    http://www.hospitaldr.co.uk/blogs/bob-bury/sir-jimmy-savile-howz-about-that-then

    Apparently Jimmy was an Honorary Fellow of the Royal College of Radiologists:
    http://www.rsm.ac.uk/academ/peb04.php

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I knew about the Fellowship Ambler, but I have not seen that Radiographers blog til now - thanks for sending this - I'll try and contact this man and make him aware of our work - The comment function is a bit wonky ! :-)
      BTW - he retired just recently, but, who knows he may still be reachable !!

      Delete
  2. Spotted a complete Blunder and seemingly the clearest possible evidence yet of deceitful collusion, that appears to have included the misleading of the CPS.

    http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/confusion-in-courtroom.html

    Jimmy is plainly talking of the NEW Stoke Mandevile in 1983, so his memories seem to concur with the Surrey Police, whereas the CPS say the assault happened in 1973.

    It might be over when this fat lady sings!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Our blogs are overlapping - good that we are approaching different angles though - you with songstress me with the McKenzie friend !!! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sorry. I had thought I was done, but had no idea this Transcript was going to be released. That 1983 thing just leaped out the page at me though because I'd always been bothered abut that strange vagueness of age/date of the choir girl, as I mention in my Blog.

    I'll leave you with the rest of the Transcript and add comments as you go, like everyone else.

    ReplyDelete