Sunday, 27 October 2013

"There is clearly, insufficient evidence to charge the suspect with any criminal offence" Part 4

We are all looking for the truth are we not ? It is a source of great irritation to all parties that the Metropolitan Police Chiefs decided NOT to investigate ANY of the claims made against Jimmy Savile.  

Well, I've re read  Ornament and Levitt, so, it's only fair to go back to the one the first Savile Report - 'Giving Victims a voice' (GVAV) and see what I can spot, giving what I now know about the matter !

Here is a, sort of, explanation as to WHY the Police chose not to investigate, preferring to merely accept the allegations 

 And now, here's the real reason :

This 'report' took approximately 70 working days to compile.  The complainants were already accepted as being 'victims' even BEFORE Exposure hit our screens !

But, Operation Yewtree did not start until 2 days later :

On 4 October 2012, the Metropolitan Police said it would take the national lead in a process of assessing the allegations.[5][6] The assessment was undertaken by the Serious Case Team of the service's Child Abuse Investigation Command, led by Detective Superintendent David Gray working closely with the BBC. The police said, "Our priority will be to ensure a proportionate and consistent policing response putting the victims at the heart of our enquiries", and that "it is not an investigation at this stage".[5]
The Metropolitan Police announced on 9 October that the inquiry into the allegations would be called Operation Yewtree, and would be undertaken jointly with the NSPCC

I wonder, how long the various agencies spent deciding how best to manage the public response to the airing of that TV show ?

You see, it was VITAL that the representatives of these groupings ensured that the public did not lose faith in them, after all, they could have caught him earlier - couldn't they ?

 All the bullshit, nobody would have listened to the victims, spin can not, explain WHY Police forces in the UK and abroad did not charge Sir Jimmy Savile with criminal offences in 2009 !

Let's go back to the 2007 - 2009 investigation shall we ?  In December 2007 Jimmy was 'created' as a 'suspect' on the Police National Computer (Holmes). 

Now, what else was going on around this time - oh yes, this :

A wide-ranging government investigation into child abuse had begun in 2006, and escalated into a States of Jersey Police investigation in 2007 during which witness evidence repeatedly indicated Haut de la Garenne, which housed up to 60 children at any one time,[2] to be one of the places where abuse took place.[3]
There was widespread media coverage as forensic teams conducted searches in the building between the end of February 2008 and July 2008.[4]

Which led to this :

 In March 2008, BBC television personality Jimmy Savile started legal proceedings against The Sun newspaper which had, wrongly he claimed, linked him in several articles to the child abuse scandal at Haut de la Garenne.[12] Savile initially denied visiting Haut de la Garenne, but later admitted that he had done so, following the publication of a photograph showing him at the home surrounded by children.[13] The States of Jersey Police said that in 2008 an allegation of an indecent assault by Savile at the home in the 1970s had been investigated, but there had been insufficient evidence to proceed.[

 This wiki article was written after Jimmy died, but, the press attempts to link Jimmy to the scene were not hidden and neither was his response !

On 1 March, Savile’s solicitors said, The Sun carried a photograph of the former Top of the Pops presenter allegedly visiting the Jersey home.
This was followed with a series of articles. One asserted that Savile was unwilling to assist with the police investigation and another that he admitted having visited the home. The Sun also criticised Savile for being unprepared to “go some way to fixing it for the victims”.

 'The States of Jersey police detective who led the three-year child abuse probe, revealed that Savile's name came up in the initial police inquiry four years ago, but there was not enough evidence at the time.'

Here's the Guardian's less censored, version of Mr Harper's words the same day - Tues 9th October 2012

'Harper, the detective who led Jersey's three-year child abuse probe, told the Guardian that Savile's name came up in the initial police inquiry in 2008 – but there were no specific allegations of abuse against the BBC presenter at the time.'

Emm, censoring what people actually say - I'm seeing a 'pattern' forming here !

The BBC reported that the Jersey investigation had ended on 13th December 2010 with the acting Chief Officer in Jersey declaring that :

"Every allegation or complaint has been given full and proper consideration and all possible lines of enquiry have been pursued.

Surely, IF, Jimmy Savile's name was being bandied about in Jersey during an investigation conducted by mainland British Police, Senior Police Officers involved in Operation Ornament who recommended North Surrey Police to continue handling the Savile case because of their EXPERTISE, must or rather, should have known ? 

Let's go back to 8.7 in GVAV (above).  The Police say that they will not investigate the claims made against JS because the 'majority' are from years ago.  That DID NOT STOP THEM INVESTIGATING THE SAME CLAIMS IN 2007 DID IT SO WHAT CHANGED ?

 We are NOT being told the truth ! Jimmy Savile appears to have been made a scapegoat for every oversight the police etc made, not just in their handling of the claims made against him but in other cases that the media or any other vested interest, might threaten to throw at them at any given minute.  

No one can say that the Police lacked motivation or inclination in 2007Det Insp 3 was adamant that the claims made against Jimmy should be investigated in spite of the verbal briefing with a Senior Prosecutor.

This investigation involved not only Surrey Police.  Social Services, Barnado's Charity and various other agencies were contacted and liased with in an apparently, productive, sensitive and professional manner.  What it did NOT involve, was the MSM.  Better still, the Police had there own POLICY on how to deal with Press contact at the time vastly different to how they would deal with the matter post October 3rd 2012 ! 

Then came Newsnight !

And then the Police changed their minds and their 'lines'



I found the next entry in Jon Savell's Report particlally interesting :

PAGE 39/44


So, there you have it folks.  How, Sir Jimmy Savile was protected as was his right, while he was alive.  Not by so-called powerful friends but by the same force that is there to protect all of us - the Police !

 We all have rights, we all have the right to demonstrate or speak out when we feel that an Injustice has been done either to ourselves or others.

We have a moral duty to stand up and defend those who cannot defend themselves.  Call it a 'Policy' if you will, call it whatever you like, I will be walking the walk for Jimmy on Tuesday.  I hope that you will too !



  1. ACPO arse-covering? Interesting points. I must admit that I had given them the benefit of the doubt and thought it just that they were maybe victims of their own political correctness.

    "Most people seem to believe that the process of the stories about Jimmy Savile breaking into the mainstream press is a tale of brave Investigative Journalists battling against the oppressive barriers of the BBC. But it turns out that this is not really the case. Not only was the process of revealing Savile to be a paedophile nothing of the sort, it was actually a Conspiracy!!

    It's okay - no need for Tin hats, it was a good Conspiracy.

    I don't need to make the case for this, the partners in this are quite happy to tell you all about it themselves."

  2. Funnily enough, I was going to add that Peter Watt para from your blog into my post !! You said everything I have back then in April, but now we have the benefit of the transcripts of Jimmy's interview - 'policy' indeed - the bloody cheek of these people !

  3. Commented earlier this am on Moor's Jan 13 post: still trying to get my head round the details. One point that bothers me greatly is the role of the police in all this: I raised it with Moor, also. In my view, the current attempts to blackmail public bodies into out of court settlements based on allegations of historical abuse by deceased individuals would have less chance of succeeding if the police investigating did not seem to automatically support them. However, as regards Savile, the police did investigate him while he was alive and decided there was insufficient evidence to proceed.

    So why not simply say that? Are they genuinely scared that they will be accused of not trawling widely enough in their investigation? Meaning, that they handled the allegations they knew about in the correct manner but and came to the correct conclusion, but didn't go out beating the bushes for allegations they didn't know about which might have been more substantive? We truly are in the realms of Donald Rumsfeld's "known knowns and known unknowns and unknown knowns and unknown unknowns" if that is so. The police cannot be expected to actively solicit allegations against someone unless they have very good grounds for suspecting that person is guilty of a crime, and if they don't have such grounds having investigated the specific allegations against him/her, to keep digging in the hopes of finding something, anything, constitutes harassment.

    So why don't the police just make that clear? God knows they've stuck to their guns in cases where they really were incompetent/corrupt/malicious and continued to deny it right up to the point where the courts/Parliament ruled that they were. And sometimes after (!). So what makes this case different?

  4. Why did the Police acquiesce so quickly and so easily ? Simples, Sir Jimmy's death and the subsequent media interest sparked by Meirion Jones et al, gave Police chiefs etc the golden egg of a scapegoat - Have a look at my post Puppets on a string - it's all there !!