Tuesday, 9 September 2014

Case for the Defense Day 3 PM Session

Ladies and gentlemen of the Jury before I submit evidence of the REACTION to the Expose aired on 3rd October 2012, let me take you back to a few of number of stories published in the press in the week leading up to the show !

Two days before, Esther Rantzen told Sky News that she now believes the five women

Exhibit 7 an extract from a video published online on the 1st October by the Telegraph !

The same video also features this woman but I'll come back to her in a moment !

 For now, I want to focus on Ms Rantzen who, herself came in for some harsh criticism around this issue !

Here is what ER says in that clip !
"Before I watched this I had absolutely decided that I would not make up my mind because HE'S NOT HERE TO DEFEND HIMSELF, it seems UTTERLY UNFAIR. But I must say that what these women say is so, matter of fact ... and, er I'm afraid the JURY IS'NT OUT ANYMORE " 

The Telegraph produced an EVEN MORE interesting take on Ms Rantzen's involvement in the program starting with just WHY she was even INCLUDED in the first place !

NOTE this was published on 4th October as a 'review'

 IT ended with this ! Did any of us SPOT a CLUE to what might have been THE REAL REASON for Ms Rantzen's inclusion. Indeed, were WE THE PUBLIC being given a CLUE as to the REAL REASON for the expose and it's aftermath. Something that has ! 


 Read that again Ladies and Gentlemen - 'last week's case in ROCHDALE'

So, back to Sir Jimmy and the Guardian review by Mark Lawson on the 4th October that ended with this statement by MWT !

Other women had 'come forward' even before the show aired. Interesting, but let's see how others responded namely The Metropolitan Police on THE SAME DAY !

Now, ladies and gentlemen of the Jury, bear in mind that this article was online within 24 HOURS of the expose and already Jimmy's former home was being ATTACKED
Worse was to come, within a week the Police were pursuing 120 'lines of inquiry' but not just of sexual assault or abuse or inappropriate behaviour but of RAPE !

  Again remember this is just SIX DAYS after Exposure aired. Also of note is the reference to the NSPCC who have managed to get in on the action and are to be co-authors of a REPORT on the conclusions to be drawn from the alleged abuse by Savile'

Ladies and Gentlemen, imagine if you will what Sir Jimmy's family, friends and fans must have been going through at this time. Somewhere in those press stories are REAL PEOPLE whose hearts were breaking, especially when they had to do this !

 I will consider this and other consequences of the media's vilification of the late Sir Jimmy Savile tomorrow Ladies and Gentlemen. Time for a rest now !


  1. Esther was herself accused by an internet hero who claimed to have been abused by Ken Clarke and a host of theatrical notables whom he didn't name, but not at the same time or venue, should any doubts persist on that score.;) He spun a story of being entertained at her Gingerbread Cottage in the woods (ie the New Forest), where he was plied not with sweets but alcohol and passed around her guests like a platter of hors d'oevres. The story went nowhere of course. But just think - it could, if the powers that be had not decided that Esther was to be given the pass. Some people believe it. I think it's rubbish, but Esther, m'dear, there is quite as much evidence, that is to say none, for this lad's folktales as there is for the ladies who spoke out against Savile.

    Having read the Rotherham Report in great detail, where it was clear the police were not only failing to investigate extremely serious allegations but in some cases actually criminalising the complainants, I am now more than half-way convinced that all of this is a distraction. There is a huge scandal alright, but it has nothing to do with 70s entertainers. If we buy into this, we are not only stupid, we are actually complicit in allowing those responsible for real abuse and the people who enabled them to slip away into the shadows. What is it we can't bring ourselves to look at when we eagerly gobble up fantasies on the same theme?

    1. @PD Esther was attacked by quite a few 'hero's' at the time, for NOT KNOWING what NO-ONE else knew !!!
      Seriously though, I can't believe that reference to ROCHDALE in a review of Exposure. Someone was awake at the time. More on this later !

  2. BTW, apologies I said I would come back to Sue Thompson and I didn't. She's been covered enough already and she's irrelevant save being another fake witness for the prosecution !

    1. Whoever this "Sue Thompson" woman is though, she would be a very important piece in exposing the deliberate fraud part in all of this, if anyone exposes her (and the one or two other players such as Alan Leak/Poppasmurf). Her 'part' is especially suspect because of the Pollard Report email, where "her story" first appears, but not as we were to know it from her lips in "Exposure".

      Plus the weird connection to a former Independent member of the Metropolitan Police Authority...

      Join the dots.

    2. Moor that's a great spot re the 'independent member' etc Reminds me of another similar story involving Stoke Mandeville Hospital which I'll definitely be looking at shortly. WHY have we heard nothing more from this Thompson woman I wonder ?