Tuesday, 19 May 2015

The Defectives Part 2

Det Constable Rod gets his suit on in this episode which is called 'The Interrogation' but before we see any of the interviews, he sets the scene
'The first I'd heard of RT was when it became clear that an invesigation was taking place. This was the one that the media had nick-named, "Savile's chaffeur .. I did a bit of research .. he was almost like a MINI-SAVILE. One of the victims said that if Savile changed his hair one week, then Teret would have the same'
Is this the 'victim' who implicated Savile ? She's clearly referencing Jimmy's early days in Manchester. 
Teret has been relaesed on bail after his first interview. This is when the wall is discovered and the names that had 'lay hidden for more than 40 years' 
Teret answers bail and the interrogation begins. We know Rod means business because he's got his suit on. Teret's solicitor appears to take NO part in the interviews. In fact, one gets the distinct impression that he does not want to be there at all. His face is blurred out every time we see him unlike Teret's who has a film crew following around for the duration of his 'interrogation's !
A list of charges is read out including this one
'Attempted rape and conspiracy to rape 1964'
Would this be the Savile claim ? The narrator confirms that by this time there are 'now 16 women claiming that RT sexually abused them'
Four of whom, the jury did not believe or maybe they didn't get as far as the trial
Carol is clearly in charge of these interrogations. Her mind is made up 'He's going to have to give details of this person and JUSTIFY why he's in the company of an under 16 year old' 
The final phase of the process is the challenge phase. The Police reveal the evidence they have acquired during the operation, 'real evidence' found by them ! 
And other evidence has come to light after a search of his home. 19 dvd files are found on his computer which are said to include one 40 second clip of a child being abused by an adult. That's the last we hear of this, no reference is made to this in the rest of the film despite the expert who examined the files saying he will be asking RT where he got this from.
Carol is described as a 'specially trained interviewer known as a tier 5' Rod is still in training, he must be because she has to tell him how to conduct behave in this final day. 'Look at him and count to ten in your head' after each question and at the end reveal that we've got 'individual evidence that he's having sex with young children'
Evidence such as the fact that Cathy can describe the inside of his flat and the wall with 40 names on !
The CPS give the team the go ahead and RT has 32 charges against him and a 'full team turnout' is in order for the big moment.
Tonight it's the trial but last night GMP gave us the opportunity to tweet them using the hashtag #askgmp. We got an hour to ask questions about the program so far. Amidst all the congratulatory comments were mine and a few others. To be fair, I did not expect them to answer me but they did. Their response to my first question was quite astonishing and did not go unnoticed by others.

 I asked who composed that response 

Det Sup Chadwick featured in the film. He's Carol and Rod's boss and these are his words
Whatever our opinion of the Teret case, we should all be very concerned when Police officer's decide a person's guilt merely on the say so of another. And it's not just me who's concerned guys and gals !

 Does look a bit like ... Moor


  1. It's also a matter of record that sometime in the late Nineties, Mr. Teret was convicted of what in the USA would be termed "Statutory Rape". having engaged in un-forced sex with a girl under the Age of Consent (she was 15 apparently) Mr. Teret was sentenced to six months imprisonment.

    This sentence was applied in 1999 - the same year the spoofed Have I Got News For You dialogue about Jimmy Savile and Sarah Cornley was launched onto the internet. Mr. Teret's misdemeanours made no major news-waves back in 1999, but the BBC insiders who created that Have I Got News For You spoof would undoubtedly have been 'in the loop' about Jimmy Savile's old pal. The irony that over a decade later Jimmy Savile's police/media notoriety reflected on Ray Teret and that in both cases the reflection was a mirage might even seem amusing in a different reality.

    What is not ironic, but rather deeply unfair, is that things that never happened have been used to destroy the life of Jimmy Savile, his old friend and mentor, and deeply affect Mr Teret's life in 2013.

    1. Can't find ANYTHING about the 1999 case but didn't Operation Ore start about that time ? Ray got six months back then it would be interesting to find out moor about this. As for Jimmy, they never answered any of my Q's about him.

    2. It was all expunged from his wiki-page prior to his trial, but was all on there for years up till then. I assume it was removed to maintain the fiction of "no prior knowledge" about his previous convictions, but in today's information-rich world that's just nonsensical. I have no idea if it was ever even mentioned in the court case; I don't recall any of the media mentioning it. There is a brief reference to it again on his wikipage now, but none of the detail.

    3. You can see all the Wiki edits by going to the View History tab. Each edit is listed and you can view the page as it was by clicking on the date. It's quite a job going through them all, and I've not found any more details on the 1999 case.
      Of some interest are the edits by a user named Ugliwiki - several of his pages contain a lot of personal biographical information, like this one:

  2. Been reading reviews of this series. 'Sickening' is the word that stuck in my mind.

    Slightly confused to see that a Scarborough sexual abuse charity is to close, since the Jimmy Savile Charitable Trust failed to respond to their application for funds:

    1. If there's as much demand on their services as they say there is, they should apply for more funding. I don't see why the Savile estate should bankroll a charity for victims of sexual abuse, just because they ask for them to. I think it's sickening that they asked for money in the first place.

    2. Fake charities. Most of these groups are just ways of a few organiser getting grants and paying themselves a salary. NAPAC is the grand-daddy of them and the model seems to be that these parasites do absolutely nothing. I think they are useful only to the compo-legal industry. NAPAC revealed what a bunch of shysters they are when they binned a genuine CSA victim/survivor (Shy Keenan) in favour of the celebrity-glamour of Rantzen.

    3. They say they only need £10K a yr to keep going. IF Liz Dux' crew donated just TWO of their fees, that would keep 'em going for three years

    4. I'm sure the corporates do their bit

      Irwin Mitchell is one of the UK’s largest and most respected law firms and we’re passionate about providing our clients with the best legal advice, guidance and support. As a full-service law firm, we have experts in everything from personal injury claims and family law to real estate and corporate law. Whatever you need us to help you with, you can be sure that we will work in partnership with you to reach a positive outcome.

      Cogent Elliott was one of the earliest advertising agencies in the UK and in recent years designed promotional materials for NAPAC including the Jimmy Saville revelations, with the slogan “Silence fixed it for Jimmy”.

      Lawyers and advertising. Says it all really.

  3. If you put your finger up at someone you can expect to get nowt.

    1. I'd expect to get two fingers back Damian ;-)