Pages

Thursday, 9 April 2015

From the horse's mouths Part 1

Why wasn't Karin Ward in Exposure ? She was Meirion Jones' 'main witness' R1. The 'script's' were built around her stories about Jimmy's visits in 1974. Jones' second 'witness' R2 Fiona was in Exposure, as was Rochelle R3, but no Karin. 
However, I can now confirm that Karin WAS interviewed by MWT and was, according to her, horrified when her piece was NOT included in Exposure and was 'on the news instead'.
http://www.itv.com/news/2012-10-03/gary-glitter-accused-in-new-jimmy-savile-allegations/
She'd been 'hounded for two years by reporters' ? 'Several other girls had already spoken out' BEFORE Jones contacted her ! 
The person she is giving this information to is none other than R2, Fiona who is attempting to pass herself off as someone who attended Duncroft in 1974. The date is June 2013 and she has only recently been contacted by email by Fiona.
Karin goes on to name several women she remembers being at Duncroft at the SAME time as her. These include Kathy (Webb), Toni, Fran (Francis Jennings) and Susan, the woman who introduced Savile to Duncroft,BUT, she does NOT remember her, Fiona that is !
 Of course, Karin has seen Fiona on exposure presented as a 'victim' so she's more than willing to accept that she is who she says she is and that she was there in 1974. The problem is, no one else remembers her being there at that time either !
BUT, let's go back to Karin's non inclusion on Exposure when it was broadcast on October 3rd 2012. As we know, she was on the ITV news that day talking about Gary Glitter. Problem was, she made claims about Freddie Starr too. 
 I'll come back to the Freddie Starr angle later. For now I want to cover some basics about WHO set the Savile story away in the first place, because it clearly involved SEVERAL pairs of hands !
Karin admits that she needed and received help from Fran who was at Duncroft at the same time as her 
Ward makes this astonishing claim in the same email 
Back to Pollard for some cross referencing about the ITV news. Because the shit was hitting the BBC management big time with this little revelation !
Karin's 'new' allegations were not 'new' to either Liz or Meirion. But it does look as though Rippon was NOT told about these !
Jones says (P241 App12)
This doesn't ring true to me, unless, Jones really just did not believe what Karin (and her friend/s) were telling him. He was happy to believe the tales about the dead man but not the one still alive with a CLEAN rap sheet ! 
And then Liz M drops this bombshell on her managers
So there you have it ! Karin makes claims about Gary Glitter and Freddie Starr to the Newsnight team and they don't bother to tell their editor or include this in their 'scripts' despite the FACT that Karin is their number ONE 'victim'. Jones clung desperately to the fact that she had never been approached by the Police in 2007/09 as a sort of validation for pressing ahead with his project. He had SOME 'witnesses' from that investigation, now known as Operation Ornament. But Karin was NOT one of them for the simple reason that SHE was NOT on their radar. She had made no complaints to the Police, and those that did, referenced incidents relating to a time when Karin had long left Duncroft. Fiona's time ... ! 

To be continued ! In the meantime get these two gems 

Fiona was born in March 1960

Rochelle Shepherd R3 attended Duncroft as Rochelle Conway in 1975
Be sure, your sins WILL find you out !! 

 

 

10 comments:

  1. Recovered memory and fixated TV Producers who wanna be investigative journalists make a terrible mess don't they.

    There is no excuse for the police and the CPS however.

    I hear The Sun is today displaying Savile Family photographs and asking, "Does rape run in families". Goebbels would be proud of the UK press. I would cheerfully burn Fleet Street down and sow the ground with salt.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I vaguely recall seeing outtakes of MWT and Karin now you mention it. They featured on a news-show after the big "exposure". Personally I think ITV would have demanded she not appear because unlike Gary, who had no reputation to lose, Freddie could still sue. The Daily Mirror seem to have been less well-advised but probably paid better.

    ReplyDelete
  3. In the first video in that ITV link, Karin Ward says that Jimmy Savile would lavish people with presents and *then* take them out in his car (and she goes on to describe what she says happened to her in the car). If the alleged sex was supposed to be "payment" for presents, wouldn't he have expected that first, and if they had already received their presents, why would they have bothered to pay?

    ReplyDelete
  4. There was bad blood between Karin and the Fiona crowd, no doubt about that.

    I got to know Fran on line. She had moved on to a new life, and then got hoovered back into this muck.

    There were quite a few girls at Duncroft who might be described as "easily led" or "easily influenced." Which was what got them in trouble in the first place, usually.

    And then there were the leaders, with their own agenda, which didn't seem to include anyone but themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh, lordy, it seems I've not been playing with a full deck.

    This is great stuff, Rabbit.

    Moor, re: police and CPS - do you not think that the original investigation was actually pretty sensible? Followed the appropriate guidelines, searched relevant files, contacted potential witnesses - all whilst appropriately confining themselves to the time period in question - I'd missed the fact that they wrote only to 1977-79 residents, though other witnesses were introduced/named by the early complainants. The first year plus of the police operation, and even the involvement of the CPS, all seems pretty reasonable. Decision - No Further Action.

    I grant you the recorded interview under caution stinks, and Ms Levitt's 'insights'...do you think she'd like a job at Rolling Stone magazine?

    Looks to me as though the rank and file did pretty much exactly as they were supposed to, CPS too. Or am I being too charitable?

    Anyway, keep at it guys!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Legals embarked on a media campaign to get the fish a-jumping.

      If the fish were jumping because of the story of 1974, then the Legals should have clarified that the only "evidence" applied to post-1977, so the media stories were junk. Gary Glitter and Freddie Starr have both seen their lives decapitated on the premise of the 1974 stories, not to mention many others in the trail of destruction..... they first came for the dead guy.... in 1974..........

      The rank & file did/are doing their duty in the same manner as the guys in charge of the Zyklon B did their duty. They are are all part of the Big Lie and let's not forget a highly-trained policeman is at the root of Exposure. Ethics drummed into them? I don't think so. Chancers and careerists.

      Delete
    2. I'll take it that I was being a little too charitable then ;)

      And it does seem that Liz and Mei's MO was to get the fish a-jumping too. I wonder where they learnt that.

      btw whilst I'm in an uncharitable mood, I see that the tragic story of Karin's childhood is an exact match for Shy Keenan's.

      It would appear that Tolstoy was wrong: All happy families are alike; each unhappy Karen is unhappy in the same way too.

      Delete
    3. Not an exact match. Shy's story appears to have been vaguely true.

      Delete
  6. Fiona states that she left Duncroft for the hostel in October 1976. Generally, girls stayed at Duncroft for about 16 months, not much longer, as they needed the space for new admissions. Therefore, given that reality, Fiona more than likely showed up in May 1975. She just added a year, thinking no-one would spot it. Wrong. I found Holt School for you, btw. In Wokingham. Founded 1931, still going. http://www.holtschool.co.uk/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Sally, another piece of the jigsaw !

      Delete