Monday, 18 May 2015

The Defectives Pt 1

I had to watch the program on BBC 2 'The Detectives' in order to comment on it. You may wish to do the same
Here we have the SSOU the first 'dedicated rape unit' in the Greater Manchester Police Force (GMP)
Apparently the amount of compalints they've had has 'doubled' in the last two years and we all know why this is don't we ?
We're told that Rod and Carol are two of GMP's 'most experienced detectives'. A little later we find that Rod a Det Constable and this is 'new territory' for him as he's spent 20 years in 'gang crime'.
OK, so part one starts with a current investigation of the alleged rape of a 13 year old girl then moved quickly on to the case of Ray Teret and allegations made against him by two women initially as a direct result of Yewtree. 
We hear part of Teret's first Police interview where he is informed of Cathy's  claim that he had sex with her ten times when she was 'about 13'
Now, I am only interested in Teret's case insofar as it involves Jimmy Savile. Det Carol tells us that this investigation came about because 'two ladies made contact with that investigation (yewtree) to say that they had been abused by RT but that Savile was involved in some capacity'
We're not told what this 'capacity' was except that Cathy mentions that whenever she sees Savile on the telly, his 'mannerisms' remind her of Teret ! 
Rod and Carol's boss has already told us that the normal procedure for investigating any crime ( the a,b and c as he calls it) is useless here
A assume nothing
B Believe no one
C check everything
Because, 'if you treat a rape victim like that you've already gone horribly wrong'
After the two ladies are interviewed, Carol describes her next step as being 'looking for corroboration' in the form of more allegations that is. This resulted in three more ladies coming forward and to Teret's arrest on 8th November 2012.
Meanwhile Rod sets off in his car because these historic cases have no 'crime scene' even the buildings might be gone, so he has to get 'out on the ground and do'. Which in this case involves driving to Worthing in Sussex to meet a 'witness' whse dad was a Police officer in the 70's and 80's and heard stories about Savile and Teret. To set the mood, there's a recording of Teret's radio show playing in his car which includes a reference to Savile on his website.
Rod 'So what did he hear' (his dad that is)
Witness 'Pete' 'He knew Savile had been investigated once or twice' 
Rod 'Did you ever witness anything'
Pete 'Not personally no, he was a bit sly' and developed a 'cunning plan' to start a disco for teenage girls
Now, this guy says he worked for Teret as a DJ/roadie himself and one time Savile was there and he heard him say 'Who's that' 'Get rid of him'
He then describes the wall of the flat in great detail .
I'm sure Rod could have gotten all this information on the phone.
He did manage to get inside Teret's former flat but this is near the end of the film.
Before that we are treated to Cathy and her friends emotional performances during their Police interviews. Det Carol mentions 'one word against the other' and the need for corroboration. Cathy has provided names and these, says Carole, 'will absolutely corroborate what Cathy is saying and, if we find these ... we may find other victims'
It's clear that Carol believes Cathy and her friend with whom she has not spoken to for 40 years. Her training has taught her how traumatic relating these stories is for complainants. Nothing wrong with that, as long as long as she remains objective, and from what I can see, she does NOT !
Jimmy Savile is brought into the story as much as possible. We're told that these images were found on Teret's computer 

Both images are included and just happen to appear in the Daily Mail the day of his 'first interview'
Now, scroll down that article and you will see that the Police at that time were not linking Savile to the case. This strikes me as strange given what was said last night.
But not strange at all when we consider the findings of the criminal trial 
Now, let's get back to that wall shall we ? We are treated to Police film of the unveiling of this wall, as the one, maybe two coverings of wallpaper are steamed off. Bear in mind, this is 40 years after the fact ! 
Before venturing inside the property, Rod watches school girls walk past on their way to, well, er school. The school that is just around the corner just as it was in Ray's time. Rod could at least have bothered to shave that morning !

Anyway, here's what they found after peeling back that roll or two of wallpaper. The plods could hardly contain their excitement when they found messages such as 'if you need me call me, all my love Denise' Then there's this
 And this ? 

Excuse me for noticing, but isn't that writing a little too clear for something said to have been done 40 years ago ? 

Next week will focus on Teret's arrest. So far it all seems a tad one-sided. I'm wondering if Carol and Rod will check Cathy's handwriting to see if it matches up with the above. They won't of course, but it's just one of the things I'd be doing if I was investigating a serious crime. I'm also wondering how our two plods will explain away those ladies story's involving Savile and if their boss will confirm the juries findings and what they mean in terms of the credibility of their ladies ! Next time guys and gals !

Part two is tonight not next week !  
Here's a photo of shop as it was in the 70's as depected by GMP


  1. How bizarre is it that the Mirror pixellated out the name Diane?
    I suppose they are just being a bit more careful about what they publish, after their huge stories about Gary Glitter and Freddie Starr.... and Jimmy Savile.

    1. Indeed, the GMP have done this too with the surrounding images. More arrests I wonder ?

    2. The Mail showed it though...

      I'm a bit puzzled... I thought this immortal wall was supposed to be above a record shop? That looks like a bog standard sort of suburban house.

    3. It's been converted into two flats !

    4. But it doesn't have to look of an old shop. Has anyone checked the Land Reigstry?... ;-)

      I noted from the Mail that the police themselves "uncovered the wall" following what the witnesses told them, but I could have sworn that when originally reported this was all a complete coincidence.

      "Stunned officers chipped away plaster at a ­record shop wall and unveiled a hidden list of names thought to belong to young victims of Jimmy Savile.

      The vile register, which contained the names, ages and a disgusting ratings system seemingly used to mark their sexual performance, was scrawled on a secret wall buried behind layers of wallpaper and plaster.

      A source revealed: “The wall looked like something straight out of a horror movie. There were lists and lists of names of the victims – it’s a shocking discovery.”

      It doesn't quite come across that way so far.... :-D
      Police believe the major breakthrough could lead to further arrests – including other well-known celebrities.

      The wall also appeared to contain the names of girls the sick group hoped to target in the future.

      Officers who raided the shop in ­Greater Manchester after a tip-off will now try to trace the alleged victims.

      A source said the raid had provided the clearest evidence yet to show Savile was part of a larger group of monsters.

      The source said: “Savile appeared to be using the room above the record store as some kind of secret HQ to plan his vile acts.

  2. As you say with regards to the 40 year old hand writing. It is possible to tranfers messages via "over-head projector" and copy over the image. It would then be very fresh, uncontaminated by paste.

    1. Why would you do that ? Please explain exactly what you mean. Thank you

    2. @Anonymous
      You can actually see the writing emerging as the wall-paper is removed so they were there.

      Interesting that there was only one layer of paper though; they must have been seen much more recently than 1975. The other thing that was odd was that geezer from Worthing quoting about lists and star rankings, but there was nothing like that on the walls. So how on earth did the guy from Worthing know about something that was there and yet was so very different from the way he described it?

      I'd be interested to know how recently that flat had been decorated before the cops got their tip-offs and who was living there then etc..

  3. Ain't No Mountain High Enough, eh?

    Ain't No Stitch-Up Low Enough.

    1. Having watched the two parts so far, I'm intrigued that there has been no mention that Teret had a previous conviction for under-age sex going right back to 1999. It was on his wikipedia page long ago and no secret. That must have coloured his whole reaction surely? Denial of even knowing these females etc... which looks foolish in hindsight but you can imagine his Brief just telling him to keep saying "No Comment".

      Thing that baffles me is that he was a local lad; Cathy at least must have known about his prison sentence 15 years before, when she would have been in her mid-thirties. Why would she not have come forward back then?

      Given that these sorts of cases rely on relentless corroboration by volume, of the most serious charges - actual rape - he was found not guilty of 60% of those.

      "He denied 18 rapes, two other serious sexual assaults, one attempted rape, 12 indecent assaults and one count of indecency with a child. The former DJ from Altrincham was convicted of seven rapes and 11 indecent assaults. He was cleared of the other charges today after the jury deliberated for 10 days."

      It does make me wonder what the jury might have done had he entered court charged with fewer crimes and what sort of quality were these charges that 60% were found to be unbelieveable, even by a jury being given fairly strong instruction by the judge abour "believing the victim".

    2. Exactly what I was thinking Moor. Why didn't she speak up during his previous trial. I don't believe her or her mate !

    3. I was very dubious about the way "Savile" was used in the programme, especially since, as you point out, the original arrest saw the GMP going to great lengths to say the arrest was "not connected to Savile".

      For instance that bit where Teret says "Show 17 was all about Jimmy Savile"... It's like... what? A show about Savile? Colour me a paedo. Given that Savile was plainly inot guilty, it shows the level of propaganda.

      So far as the women at the root of that case (the building blocks dd that copper call them?) a story that does make sense is that they were friends of Teret, worked in his shop, and that at some point began to engage in mutually consensual sexual activity. Was that when they were 12? Or three years later when they were 15?

      In regards to "believing"; I think one can square the circle as it were. The whole case becomes less "criminal" if you have Teret having sex with them when they were old enough or nearly so, to consent - still a crime but one can imagine that Teret would never admit to raping them because he knows it was not rape in his conscience. As with much of what goes on under the cloak of sex crime just now, nobody dares to tell the truth because there is no gradation of guilt - no consent... 15 years and 364 days: Rape. The next morning: Perfectly normal behaviour.

      I'm still slightly shocked by that glib copper saying, "Murder is easy... Anyone can do murder investigations..." Sex is truly worse than death for the British just now it seems. A society at war with itself, with no fear of death - only of illicit shagging.

  4. I'm prepared to accept the graffiti as genuine, but it's striking how what we could see didn't look at all like what the male witness had claimed. No initials of schools, no indication of when their parents would be out, no star ratings, just names & sometimes phone numbers and some friendly sounding messages, such as 'Ray is canny' (an all-purpose northern term of commendation, I believe). Also I dimly remember from press coverage that the inscriptions were supposed to be in his bedroom, whereas they appeared to be in a hallway. An interesting example of how memory and rumour can transform the suggestive into the damning.

    1. For what it's worth, writing on a hallway wall might now seem more odd than it would have been at the time.
      I don't know if it was the case here, but in the 1960s and 70s telephones were often in the hallway and, frequently in flats, wall-mounted. Leaving a pen or pencil nearby for jotting down numbers and messages was common and in the absence of a piece of paper they were often scrawled on the wall, along with idle doodles.

      I agree that the writing triumphantly found seem to add nothing as sinister as was suggested.

    2. Good point John about phones and call boxes being in hallways. But the writing appeared to go above the door level. How the hell did anyone reach ?

    3. At the risk of flogging what may be an irrelevant dead horse in this case: if there was a phone in the hallway then it was very common to have a nearby hall chair to sit on during long conversations. (Or to stand on to write cheeky graffiti above a normal eye-line apparently).

      For younger readers;
      phones in hallways were common during the British Telecom monopoly days because master phone sockets are usually placed as near to the entrance of the property as possible - usually the entrance hall. Extensions and even long phone cables were expensive and not common in those days.
      American films where people moved around their large living rooms while talking into the phone and trailing what seemed like a mile-long lead seemed impossibly exotic prior to around the 1980s.

      It's potentially yet another small example of how anyone not old enough to be aware of what life was like in the 1970s (or the rest of us being forgetful) can easily get things wrong by not being aware of what was, and wasn't, normal.

    4. Thanks again John, your comments are always relevant and entertaining :-)

    5. Does anyone knows who and when the wallpaper was placed over the graffiti? The inference is that RT was trying to literally trying to cover up his past.

    6. No, what information they chose to feed us is strictly on a need to know basis. Stop asking awkward questions !! ;-)

  5. I'm glad it's not just me that found the quality of the Police investigation as it appeared in the programmes to be debatable in the extreme. I could write a very long list of the points that troubled me but instead I've put in a complaint to the police to see what they have to say about the programmes. The Worthing interview was hearsay; the wall did indeed exist but didn't (as it was shown in the footage) appear sinister. These girls hung about in a record shop; big deal, I did too as I'm in their age range. The doodlings on the wall were not sexualised, they were examples of crushes of the kind that we all doodled on our school exercise books. There were no references to sex or sexual boastings and if those numbers were phone numbers, I can't honestly see parents taking calls from an adult male they've never met asking to speak to their daughters without some form of questioning. The phone then was something the parents mostly controlled. That was was just young girl daydreaming IMO; they all thought he was cool as he had a record shop and was a DJ. The blonde schoolfriend didn't, as I understood it, say she'd been raped or groomed; the woman police officer spoke for her. Cathy Hymas I read up on and her testimony conflicts with itself. She was abused by her father, or so she says. Quote: Cathy spent so much time at the shop and in Teret’s flat that she “practically lived here”, she says." Quote: “I got to go on Piccadilly Radio, me and my friend – we did our top 10,” recalls Cathy. “But we didn’t go to any of his discos because we were too young. I had to be in at night.”. Doesn't seem likely to me that she was 'practically living there' if her parents expected her home. Her story doesn't make sense and the existence of the graffiti wall wasn't conclusive at all as it was not sexualised. No writing on that wall said what a great shag Teret was and had that actually been scribbled on the wall, the other girls would have become nervous and stayed away. Teret was obviously a celebrity crush and the police drummed that up into perversion. There'd have to me a LOT more incontrovertible proof than the police provided on TV before I would accept that there was any sexual activity. Cathy Hymas crying over what she didn't bother to report years ago doesn't make her credible as a witness.

  6. Furthermore, if Teret was a predator then so was Cathy Hymas as she admitted to procuring girls - so why haven't GMP arrested her?

    1. Same reason the Met never arrested Karin Ward's mother I expect. Nobody ever made a formal complaint to them. If they started arresting all the people identifiable in the Child Abuse books on the shelves of British bookshops, then we might get some truth about these stories, but it would be very messy and hellishly expensive and ultimately they'd all be claiming compo for false arrest I expect.

  7. There's an article online today complaining about there being no bobbies on the beat. There never will be as what police we have are targeted to address 'crimes' decades old that can never be more than allegation as no DNA's available or forever on overtime in Portugal but managing to avoid questioning the parents. It's a joke that's not even remotely funny.

  8. I'm going to quote: Cathy spent so much time at the shop and in Teret’s flat that she “practically lived here”, she says.It wasn’t long before the abuse began. It started with inappropriate touching and progressed to full sex: rape. Sometimes she told him no, but he just laughed. Teret knew she was only 12 or 13. “I was flat-chested – I was a kid. I was a bit of a tomboy, a bit of a scruff,” she says. “I’d never even kissed a boy.” She didn’t tell anyone. “Part of me knew it was wrong. Part of me knew I would be in a hell of a lot of trouble if anybody ever found out that I was there. My dad would have killed me.” Cathy’s late father also sexually abused her when she was 14. She told Teret, whose response was that it sounded “kinky”, deterring her from reporting the abuse at the time.


    Sentencing him today, Mr Justice Baker said: 'It is clear that you exploited your celebrity status to sexually abuse young girls when they were between 13 and 15 years of age.

    So, a judge says Teret was a rapist of 13-15 year-olds; Cathy Hymas claims Teret first raped her when she was 12 in 1972, with the abuse continuing for a number of years. The judge stated 'others were impressed with the accoutrements of your relative wealth and fashion, as a beguiling contrast to the strictness and austerity of their own homes'.Teret was found guilty of 7 rapes and 11 indecent assaults, including 1 rape and 2 sexual assaults of Hymas. Teret somehow stopped raping her and her father started to rape her.

    My queries are: 1, the flat was not impressive - it was a place where kids drew on the walls which I doubt they were allowed to do at home so the judge's comment is absurd. 2, that if Teret repeatedly raped Hymas and she said it hurt, WHY did she return again and again for years? 3, Hymas states'My dad would have killed me.” Cathy’s late father also sexually abused her when she was 14.' so she was raped by Teret before her own father started the abuse. Somehow her own father didn't notice that she wasn't a virgin or just didn't care yet she claims 'I would be in a hell of a lot of trouble if anybody ever found out that I was there. My dad would have killed me'. She describes her own father as 2 completely contradictory people - a sexual predator yet somehow fussy about her being out late at discos or a record shop. Nothing she says adds up.

    1. Was her father ever prosecuted? Or is this just another story. It seems almost de rigeur these days for women of a certain age to start claiming their dead parents were abusers. Many of them seem to have been entranced by the unusual cases such as that of Shy Keenan, whose step-father's sordid animalism achieved national publicity.

      "As I joined all these dots it suddenly occurred to me that this was quite a cluster. The police chief, with all the paraphernalia of the State behind him is on phone-call relations with an established survivor of child abuse. She in turn has known Esther Rantzen since 1994 and as a client, she worked closely with publicist Max Clifford, and then worked intimately with the BBC’s flagship news programme, Newsnight. It’s a small world, in the Media Bubble."

  9. As to 'Ray Teret’s abuse has affected everything about my life, says victim' that's nothing better than am dram; I can't see how Ray Teret's alleged predations can compare with knowing that your own dad would do that to you. Your dad's supposed to be the one who protects you against creeps so why isn't she focusing on that? Whatever truly went on, she's either not telling the full story or playing victim to see if the lovely Liz Dux will take her on a no win no fee basis for compensation.

    1. The same would apply to the original story-teller who captured the hearts of the nation. Karin Ward's book is copious with the abuse of her by her mother who she says is still alive, and numerous step-fathers, who might be likewise.

      Her chapter with Jimmy savile is actually an oasis of fun and nice times by comparison with most of the rest of the misery memoir, and there seems no great suggestion in her writing that even if there was sexual activity it bothered her at all, since she'd received much worse when she was a child.

      Incidentally, her book also has her being abused some years beforehand on a holiday to Haut dfe la Garenne, at which time she claims she first met Jimmy, but he never touched her, but instead she had a fortnight of being passed around the island.

      So many coincidences.

  10. I suppose the real and only question is: do the police have instruction to believe without challenge any and every claim made by the alleged victims in these decades' old cases? The police reaction in the programme was to do just that and not consider that everyone can lie, not just the accused. Their attitude seemed solely focused on proving guilt rather than establishing facts before involving CPS. They probably get a bonus if they meet quotas, in this new age of popularity policing. I was reminded of Nasir Afzal OBE DFC VC etc etc doing everything but tapdance on the steps after the Stuart Hall verdict - which made his career, incidentally. I'm glad he's been booted now.

    1. Yeah Naz was there for Teret's 'judgement day' loathsome creature !

  11. Did I hear correctly that Ray Teret said the rooms above the shop were a warehouse?
    If that was the case and they were a storeroom. Maybe he did dry some clothes and crash there a couple of times???
    Then it would explain his apparent lack of interest and knowledge of the rooms as he would been in his shop and perhaps staying with his dad.
    Then that would leave the idea of a side door where youngsters got in and doodled on the wall. (As we are not given his character in that is he a person who would live in a flat with a room all doodled over)Cathy and friend are in the "fantasists class" of characters thus both maybe had a crush on Ray Teret. Their fantansy became fact in their own minds. Also, spin stories thus the wall and subsequent rumours based on teenage everyday doodles. Also, would explain why he did not know them. And entering the floor above the shop could of happened anytime like after Ray Teret had moved on. All these questions never put or answered.
    I may of missed some information but the documentary seemed in many places to not mention vital information. Like in documentary No. 3 the guy jumping over something for a quickie with a girl who said she could not remember. And I ask myself about alcohol level and ability to consent. Then later I think they manage to miss that point because they know that the test showed a level where she had more marbles at the time than she claimed and the time element was so short that a quickie and pee did not add up.
    So what initially appeared "straight up" quite good police work, and I still think so in much of the straight forward current stuff where it is reasonably obvious and they do not need "detective work", so to speak. They seem quite good.
    But the wall doodles and as someone else noted the period of going to the shop in spite of sexual abuse do not add up. I think Cathy and her friend are story spinners. If not story spinners, then it is a pity the police did not establish real genuine corroborate evidence. Also, it appears defence barristers and lawyers are not interested in defending. That may be unfair but it is how it appears and I will certainly be glad to be corrected.
    Final note my Amazon Kindle book "Jimmy Savile Why I Believe He Is Innocent" by John Marsh is about two weeks from completing.

    1. No idea about the warehouse John and I'm not watching it again !!! As for barrister's, I don't think anyone likes a lost cause. Teret was guilty B4 he entered the dock. He had no chance, he's not a rich man and even if he was, he was a stand in for Jimmy, a 'mini-Savile' as one of them said !