Knowing what we know now, WHAT would possibly suffice as a good enough reason for sacrificing the name of such a popular public figure ? We are, once again, operating at a disadvantage are we not Ladies and gentlemen ? WE, do not KNOW all the facts, but, we DO KNOW NOW know some things we did not in January 2013 when GVAV was published !
We know, that between 2007 and 2009, Jimmy Savile's name was being being linked to Haut de la Garenne in the press. We know that on the 1st March 2008 the Sun newspaper published a photograph of Sir Jimmy at that home and Jimmy reacted by threatening to sue.
Exhibit 25 article in the Lawyer Magazine 17th March 2008
Much has since been made of Sir Jimmy's actions back then. The press now imply that Jimmy was not just protecting himself when he claimed that he could not remember visiting the place. They imply that he was lying, he did visit the place and, worse still, he abused children during this visits.
The day before Exposure aired a number of media outlets both television and press carried a story told by one Dee Coles. Her name actually appears in litigation against Sir Jimmy's estate. Now Ladies and gentlemen, I want to put to you that Ms Coles as she appears in news items is no victim. Like 'Celia' who claims Jimmy raped her in SM Hospital, her statement has been penned for her by someone else. Let's read it shall we ? Not withstanding the story itself, which was examined by Moor Larkin earlier Exhibit 26, her reasons for keeping silent for nigh on forty years just do not ring true !
The UK press were in overdrive on the 2nd October 2012. The telegraph carried not one but TWO stories linking Sir Jimmy to Jersey. This one appeared in the afternoon at 3.37 pm
Whilst this one was published at 08.19 am
Lets examine the contents of the pm offering as it contains some interesting information. Not merely about the new claims but Jimmy's alleged explanation about his action against the Sun in March 2008 !
We are NOT told when or to whom and in what context Jimmy is ALLEGED to have said these words but it does cast Jimmy in a poor light does it not ? But wasn't that the intention Ladies and gentlemen !
Now let's go back to that first headline shall we ? Sir Jimmy Savile was 'investigated for indecent assault .. by Jersey Police'. The second article confirms that they 'investigated' ONE Allegation
Note they use the words VERBAL allegation. No formal investigation of Sir Jimmy took place. WHY ? because the Police were concentrating on what they saw as more serious claims but I'll come to that later !
Mr Alleyne at 08.19 describes Jimmy as being a 'regular visitor' to the Jersey home. He does not expand on this but his afternoon colleague does !
I should like to ask Mr Evans who this 'former resident' is and, if they are the same person referred to as a 'victim'
Ladies and gentlemen, I cannot stress enough the fact that Sir Jimmy and his family are at a huge disadvantage here on so many different levels. Stories are being published in the press, alleged 'victims' are CONSTANTLY appearing on national television, not to mention, ex police Jersey officers re writing history ! But before I come to Mr Harper et al let's hear from Ms Coles. I'm not so much interested in her story aside from the fact that she mentions that she AND her friend were 'attacked' by Jimmy ! I should like to know WHO this person is so that she can be called to give evidence
The same day she's featured on ITV News showing no sign of 'panic'. The alleged experience does not appear to have caused her any harm ! As I'm sure it did not ! Have a look at those photographs she has kept all these years. She's looking very happy with Jimmy is she not ?
And, is that a nervous laugh she gives as she describes being 'sexually abused' by Jimmy Savile at the age of 14 !
The day after Exposure she appears in her local press
Report it, take responsibility ? Is this an alleged victim or a schooled witness ?