Saturday, 28 February 2015

Liz Dux's EIGHT year old !

Remember this ? It's a tweet I sent to Liz Dux some months ago. She told me to wait for the Stoke Mandeville Report to be published. So I did just that !
 You see, Ms Dux has, in various publications told us that one of HER claimants was assaulted by Jimmy Savile in 1986. Her claimant was just EIGHT years old at the time. She was in hospital for an operation. Here's an early report from the Independent November 2012
Emm, I wasn't blogging then but I was when I came across another remarkably similar story about a child patient in SMH for an operation. 'Celia' however is 12 and her story places her there in 1977 ? But, let's just double check I've got that right shall I ? Here's a press release from Slater and Gordon on this Independent story
Deffo 8 years old, female in 1986 in SMH !
Now, 'Celia' 12 years old as presented in Meirion Jones' Panorama 'After Savile' and investigated by me in Nov 2013
Hence my question to Ms Dux last September and another blog post that showing proof that neither of these two women's stories were submitted to the Savile Police. Leastways they were certainly NOT recorded as 'crimes'
Naturally, someone may have made a mistake ! But, no one can say that I haven't given Ms Dux time to check HER records !

Anyway, I've now checked the SMH report published Thursday and guess what ? THERE IS NO 'witness' 'victim' aged 8 in 1986 ! There is an 8 year old but, it's a BOY in 1981. Page 52
A 12 year old is there in 1977 though. 'Celia' I take it ? She's referred to as 'victim20'
But, now her story involves alleged further attempts by her to tell others of her experience with Jimmy !
So, where's that 8 year old girl Liz Dux cited as being a 'victim' of Sir Jimmy at the very start of her trawl for claimants ?

Ms Dux still has questions to answer. Problem is, NO ONE is asking them .... YET !
Here's the link to the report - enjoy !



  1. Any mention of the Satanic Rituals in the Basements of Stoke Mandeville?

    I notice the SMH report sections you illustrate contain plenty of "kiddie-porn". Knickers and penises and penetrations. Sometimes I wonder who the real perverts in this circus really are.

  2. If the 'victims' in the published report are the best they could muster (zero verifiable facts) then what does that tell us about the ones they dismissed/ignored?

    I've met S&G staff in my day job - the one's I work with have always been decent, smart people - they do genuinely believe in truth and justice. I also have relatives who knew Savie over many decades and won't have it that he was a wrong-un.

    Could Liz Dux (and S&G) be REAL victims of mass deception/fraud brought about partly by their own attempts to 'believe'?

    Did Savile dupe the people who knew him and the world at large without leaving a trace evidence?

    I'm rambling but it does puzzle me that an International law firm can't be that stupid - can they? An F up on such a large scale would be commercial suicide.

    Apologies if the following observation is OT and do please correct me if I am wrong but..... Jim'll Fix It featuring JS was first aired in 1975 according to Wikipedia. If so how come JS was said to be luring a young girl to his caravan with the promise of seeing famous as seen on TV Jim'll Fix It medals as early as 1973?

    If a fully untrained keyboard warrior with a passing interest in justice can work out that particular claim may be bogus then why can the report authors?

    1. The 'report authors' were just following instructions Anon' ! They were NOT there to investigate just collate the stories. Just like the Met Police before them. If u read BOTH reports you'll see that most pages involves covering the backs of NHS management. Oh and Jim'll Fix it was the sequel to Clunk Click that was on the telly in 1973 ! Thank you for your comment. Keep 'em coming !

    2. I don't think Liz Dux, as well as S&G are true believers, they don't have the ego and imagination for it.

      But rather she has simply transfered her skills in litigating road traffic accidents for cyclists, motorists and pedestrians to this new and possibly lucrative area of historical sexual abuse.

      However competent they are in personal injury cases, they seem completely out of their depth in relating to the public hysteria and moral panic that MWT has ignited and fanned.

    3. Well let's see IF, and HOW Liz and her firm responds. She follows me on twitter now so she WILL have read this. She should admit her mistake/s, she's has a professional duty to do so. Let's see shall we ?

    4. "However competent they are in personal injury cases"

      Personal injury cases are often an open goal. The insurance company for the organization being sued frequently just wants to settle regardless of the rights and wrongs because it's cheaper than going to court. The organization might want to settle anyway because the bad publicity isn't worth the money even if they might win.
      I'd also suggest that S&G aren't going to take on the really tough cases because they could be very out of pocket if they lost.

  3. The problem with all this is that "verifiable facts" concerning things alleged to have happened so long ago will be few and far between, if any exist at all. And it's notoriously difficult to prove a negative without them. So what remains? Historical abuse cases hinge on one person's word against another - which results in people either toeing the line or getting accused of that greatest of 21st century heresies - victim-blaming. Short of having something undeniable thrust before the public eye that PROVES that the "witness statements" are lies, it seems little will shake the confidence of the Great British Public that JS was The Most Evil Man Who Ever Lived, short of a story so utterly bizarre and implausible that it gets people wondering. But really, what wouldn't people believe him to have been capable of now...?

    1. Ergath' you say that as though everyone believes. They do not, and, all we 'good men' can do is something as opposed to NOTHING !

    2. Believe me, I've met several people as cynical as I am about "what we all know now"... but short of an "Exposure" of our own reaching as big an audience as MWT did, providing indisputable proof that the allegations are fabricated, how will the majority be swayed? David Rose's articles on the subject seem to have dried up, and I understand that a super-injunction has been taken out to ensure that any claims against the Savile estate that are found to be fraudulent will be kept from public knowledge. Mind you, it's heartening to see the other side of the story being told by Sylvia and Janet as per your previous post - more than whispers in a hurricane, we can only hope.

    3. @ergathones
      "Susan" and her Duncroft story would do just that, which is why both police and media are ensuring nobody apart from "us nutters" will ever get to hear about it. There's always a Method and not just Madness.

    4. If the first claim was a lie, then everyone saying "me too" is lying. It also casts serious doubt on those that pop up about other rich celebs and say "me too". Which would raise the question of how the evidence was obtained, especially for those convicted. There seem to be a few strange coincidences, e.g.:
      "he was all over me like an octopus"
      "known as 'octopus because his hands went everywhere'"
      "branded 'the octopus'"
      "was like an octopus"

    5. Hello again - I'm the first anon (not the one above).

      There are is no verifiable evidence in any case against Savile (alive or dead) which proves any abuse took place.

      However, there are many facts which cast serious doubt OR absolute doubt that the alleged abuse could not have happened at the time or place reported.

      Unless Clunk Click featured Jim'll Fix It badges then there's no way on earth the allegation he used them to lure a victim up to 2 years prior to the latter show existing could be true. An easily verifiable fact completely missed by the report authors who stated that Jim'll Fix It was a TV show at the time - It wasn't in either 1973 or 1974.

      Even in the face of inconvenient proof to the contrary those complaints are still reported time and again in the media.

      When other cases have reached court some evidential facts have popped up.

      e.g. Car seats didn't recline (R-v-Clifford), a witness filmed most of the event whilst yet another watched the defendant like a hawk (R-v-Griffin) - The procedure seems to be 'let's forget about those somewhat dodgy claims but do look at all these others that we lined up and think might stick'.

      On another note - as a father I would not settle for reporting any sort of alleged child abuse to a nurse/sister and accept having it 'dealt with' locally.

      No matter who the alleged offender was I would have either (a) been arrested for battering the alleged offender senseless with my bare hands or (b) marched into the local nick and insisted they go and arrest him to prevent me from carrying out plan (a).

      It does not ring true that a person would sit back and say 'That's OK sister, we don't want a big fuss because my child is poorly'.

      I'm in danger of going well OT so will stop now but there's a ton of stuff that just doesn't wash - it really isn't credible yet it IS being presented as fact in these reports.

      Oops - sorry - couldn't help myself - One thing I cannot fathom yet is - Has the media been distracted by other events (ISIS) or has it finally dawned on them that all is not what it seems with these allegations? I don't read the papers but the online stuff seems to be a bit muted on the subject.

    6. If the media is just going along with the Savile allegations, no questions asked, one has to wonder whether it is capable of responsibly reporting other events and avoiding manipulation by much darker forces.

  4. @Ergath - super-injunction ? Can you tell me more about this ? Send me an email if you like Thank you

    1. Will do, if I can remember where it came up! Been perusing Moor and Anna's assorted writings and there's mention of the blanket confidentiality clause - maybe that's what I was thinking about... Any word on The Niece's Tale? She was being investigated last I heard but now it's all gone quiet...

    2. The Neice's tale LOL fit for Chaucer's little pilgrimage eh ? Seriously though, what is happening on this ?

  5. If its not Octopuses (or should that be Octopi?) its Rolls Royces. Blue for JS, Gold for William Roache. Yellow for Max Clifford.

    1. Hello Steve ! Thanks for stopping by x