Tuesday, 9 September 2014

Case for the defense Day 3

Yesterday, Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I told you about the fact that just 8 days after Jimmy Savile's headstone was unveiled an article appeared in the Guardian newspaper advertising the fact that a documentary was to be aired on ITV alleging that he had 'abused girls as young as thirteen' !

Around that time, previews of the show appeared on mainstream television at various times of the day hinting what was to come, namely that there was indeed a 'DARK SIDE' to our dead national treasure !

I myself was NOT going to watch it, but I did and here I submit exhibit 5 a copy of Exposure the other side of Jimmy Savile aired on Wednesday October 3rd 2012 at 11.10 pm

I have no idea how other viewers felt after watching this program but I do know that it seemed pretty convincing to ME AT THE TIME ! Here's the responses and reviews it attracted in the press. Let's start with the AUDIENCE NUMBERS shall we ?

NOTE THE WORDS 'heavily trailed' Ladies and Gentlemen ! Impressive audience for a late-night mid-week show !

I won't go into the program itself or the standard of testimony, credibilty of the content, a great blogger has already done that and I refer you to exhibit 6 a series of 'Expositions' compiled and published from March 23rd 2013 by the blogger Moor Larkin. There are ELEVEN parts in all including the 'conclusion' and I suggest you read them all ! Here is the FIRST ! 

But, let's return to October 4th 2012 now shall we, and the press response to the film ! Here's just one, from Mark Lawson in the Guardian

Mr Lawson's final words are those that interest me most !

Let me read those words to you again ladies and gentlemen of the jury !

By midnight ... the reputation of a peak-time legend had already been convincingly DEVASTATED !

Later today I will describe what happened NEXT because, Ladies and gentlemen, it is truly bizzare and has resulted in one of the greatest TRAVESTIES OF JUSTICE that this country and, perhaps the world has EVER KNOWN !


  1. Interestingly enough, I wasn't convinced by the programme that aired - but it would be true to say I wasn't unconvinced either. Without knowing what I now know thanks to your blog and Moor's, my verdict at the time was the grand old Scots one "Not Proven". What put me off was the stagy, melodramatic presentation, complete with om-NI-ous music and distorted imagery. Call me old-fashioned, which of course I am, but it seemed to me that if you have a serious story to tell, you don't tell it that way. The prog was manipulating the audience to have certain reactions, just like a second-rate drama. But then I am old enough to remember Ludovic Kennedy's documentaries on miscarriages of justice, when all that was required was a few maps, a couple of crime scene photographs and a long, detailed account of the facts, with an emphasis on pointing out inconsistencies. That's how it was done, back in the day.

    1. I found the programme completely unconvincing and was baffled at the absence of Karin Ward who had been "the story" in all the pre-publicity in the 'papers and via Esther's tears. It's important to remember that the entire TV show script had been given to the press some weeks before. Duncroft was being mentioned again and again. So why did we get F when we expected K? It's never been explained.