Pages

Saturday, 4 April 2015

IN credible witnesses

One of the myths perpetrated by Jones post shit hitting fan, was that his 'investigation' had unearthed information unknown to the Police in 2007/09. 
 There appears to have been a misunderstanding or a breakdown in communication between Jones and his editor in terms of who had spoken to the Police and who had not. Certainly Karin had not ! So who had ? Lets look at the diagram again
No sign of Karin there but why is 3 there ? This can only be R3 Rochelle. Could she have been someone who spoke to the cops in 2007/09 and, if so, why ?
Then there's the question as to how the Police investigation originated in the first place. NOT from someone at Duncroft but allegedly from a SISTER of someone from Duncroft. Small world isn't it ?
Liz Mackean goes on 
That's not the way DSupt Jon Savell describes events in his Operation Ornament report
It was the Police who tracked Ms Stoke Mandeville down 
Back to Pollard and his questioning of Liz MacKean about who contacted who
 'But not' that would be Karin R1
Someone contacted the Police, singular. The Police then sought out others who might be able to assist them with their enquiries. But the boys were not going to just accept any old codswallop in 2007, they wanted their complainants to provide proof, corroboration BEFORE they would take further action. In short, they did the right thing !
Over to Ms Levitt's report 
The complainant didn't like the sound of that and was off but not before she contacted her contact at the SUN ! 

 Just 14 women were spoken to by the Police. Out of these four would not support a formal investigation, the remaining ten 
https://www.surrey.police.uk/Portals/0/pdf/news/operation_ornament_report_11.01.2013.pdf
Liz Macken knew some of her claimants were dodgy. Jones must have know the same. After all she knew the letter was phony. They BOTH knew that a NUMBER of the women said that they had SEEN this letter. Pollard is spot on here with his observations is he not ?

 Collected false memory indeed Mr Pollard. A collection that was to expand post Newsnight when someone leaked the story to the press. Enter Sue Thompson 

Nice one Liz, nice one Jones ! Put some stories 'out there' get a hundred more. Sickening isn't it ? 
You might want to read the 'transcript of a conversation with R2' sent by Hannah to Jones early on. Fiona certainly knows how to tell 'em doesn't she ? 

The Mirror ? Would that be the 1994 story by any chance ? Not to be outdone by R6 and her alleged contact in the press

But, none of these women were collaborating were they Liz ? Were they Ms Levitt ? Were they ?
Strangely enough, R6 appears to have NO LINKS with Duncroft according to Jones' diagram that is. I leave you to ponder that one !
 

11 comments:

  1. Is that Meirion's mind-map?
    Scary place.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It maybe that Merion's mind is a scary place, but it seems he does (did) have a reputation as a decent investigative journalist.

      If this map shows us how (he believes) R1's story is corroborated, then what exactly do the lines and connections mean?

      What troubles me here is that Meirion believes he is corroborating SAVILE, DUNCROFT, CAR TRIPS and BBC TRIPS. Is that just the existence of those four things, or is he corroborating R1's account of being involved with all of them?

      I think Merion has confirmed that he did indeed visit Duncroft at the same time as Savile, and he's talked about Savile's car being at Duncroft. Does he claim to have actually seen girls going for car trips, or to have been for car trips himself? And how could he 'corroborate' the BBC trips - did he go along too? Or perhaps see the minibus setting off and ask where they were going? Or perhaps someone told him about the trips at the time?

      Did he see R1 in any of these situations himself?

      Corroboration suddenly looks like a complicated business. We could really do with the advice of an expert in such matters...a criminologist, perhaps?

      Delete
    2. Not convinced he ever was "an investigative journalist". That's how he's described but the truth seems to be that his position as a Newsnight Producer was what gave him clout. He is linked very closely to Greg Palast, but he is spoken of as a Producer and he seems to have ridden a wave with Greg Palast. Jones had beemn with the BBC since 1995 but it is only with palast that he seems to have become "a journalist" as opposed to a Producer.

      "Since 2000, Greg Palast has made more than a dozen films for the BBC programme Newsnight with the Investigations Producer Meirion Jones, which have been broadcast in the UK and worldwide. In addition to the films on US elections they have investigated oil companies, the Iraq War, the coup against Hugo Chávez, and the vulture funds which target the poorest countries."
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Palast

      Delete
    3. Yeah, I saw he'd done quite a lot with Greg Palast. I've not seen Palast's stuff for a while, but it always used to seem to be a big deal for him to say that he'd done stuff for the BBC - he made a big point of stressing it in some of his films - presumably adding some kind of kudos for a US audience.

      But I'm interested by Meirion's 'logic'. I think one of you suggested that for a while, at least, you'd assumed he'd kept his distance from things because of his personal involvement, but then decided that didn't quite fit. Maybe he wouldn't be calling people and doing face to face interviews, because he's a just a producer and there's a proper journalist on the team. But then he does end up doing one of the interviews himself, right?

      He's also played the 'dog with a bone' invesgator angle - nagging suspicion, couldn't let it go, etc. I just wonder whether he was actually closer to the story than he's admitted.

      Delete
    4. Indeed Misaa..... I foresee a panorama.... "What did Meitrion know?"... ;-D

      Delete
  2. So, if I'm reading this correctly:
    1) Liz MacKean believed that this all started with the non-Duncroft allegation, i.e. the local girl's choir performing at SMH.
    2) That girl was the sister of a Duncroft girl.
    3) The Operation Ornament report states that it all began with a report to Dorset Police by a former Duncroft resident who had witnessed a fellow resident assaulted.
    Also:
    4) There's confusion amongst the women as to whether it's Surrey or Sussex Police they have all received or seen a letter from.
    Furthermore (according to Ornament):
    5) Jim's name goes on the police computer as a suspect in Dec 2007.
    6) SUSSEX Police check police computer in April 2008, and contact Surrey Police, after receiving an allegation that Jim assaulted an adult woman in a Worthing caravan park during the 1970s.
    7) Again, it appears that the Sussex allegation probably does not come from the 'victim' herself and she does not wish to pursue prosecution.
    8) Op Ornament failed to mention that Surrey Police had been called by a journalist in 2003 (in the middle of the celebrated Operation Arundel) to inform them that they knew someone who said that when they were a child Savile had abused them.

    As far as I can see:
    a) First contact with the police seems to come from third parties - witnesses, journalists, "friends".
    b) Could it be that the women speaking to the Newsnight team were confused over Surrey and Sussex because one or some of them had been in contact with both?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The Sun" was directly linked to the Sussex woman in 2007.
      "The Mirror" was directly linked to the Duncroft Two (maybe three) in 1994.
      Jamie Pyatt (Sun prinipal boy) was known to be "obsessed" with Broadmoor.

      Rabbit highligted some very strange Police behaviour between 2007 and 2009 over the Savile Allegations at that time. There are several Posts revolving round this one, which seem to explain why that investigation dragged on over two whole years before Jimmy was interviewed.

      "An Inspector called on Jimmy's behalf in June 2009 - No Detective Inspector bothered to interview him in October 2009. Surely, such an important task should not have been left to a DC(1) and a DS (6) especially as the former had mixed up the testimonies of the possibly only, two witnesses months before ! There seems to be a lot of information missing from that period between August 08 and June 3rd 09. DC 1 appears to have been left to get on with the investigation on her own. I wonder why DI 3 did not attend ? The Senior Officers took a back seat after August 2008 - They are all over it now !
      http://rabbitaway.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/an-inspector-calls.html

      Given that we know that police and media were locked in an embrace in these very years, an embrace that exploded after Hackgate emerged, it seems very likely to me that the news media knew all about Duncrodt back in 2007/2008.

      Delete
    2. Exactly ! They also knew that their stories would NOT stand up to the close scrutiny of a libel court let alone criminal proceedings. All we need now is someone to break cover and tell the TRUTH !

      Delete
  3. Just to be clear, whose words are these?
    "[R6] spoke to Jamie Pyatt and I have been mentioned or written about somewhere in relation to [R6] and [R1]"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just to be clear, whose words are these?
      "[R6] spoke to Jamie Pyatt and I have been mentioned or written about somewhere in relation to [R6] and [R1]" Misa5 April 2015 at 20:40 Question
      Just seen this question. 12/022(23) The person is Fiona R2 Ms G who is corresponding with Helen Livingston and she is now passing on her R2 information to Liz MacKean and Meirion Jones

      Delete
    2. Thanks John ! Can't think why I didn't respond to that question ! Happy Xmas x

      Delete