Monday, 14 September 2015

An Inspector called Ornament Revisited Pt 2

Goodness Gracious, this latest Savile report is interesting. Not just because it exonerates a fine former Police Inspector, but because we finally get to hear a few more voices !
 Now, stay with me as I compare, contrast, and sort of pull the various threads together from Op Ornament (the investigation 2007/9), the Savile interview transcripts and any other report that came to mind whilst burrowing !
The report into Ornament referenced the phone call made by Insp 5 in Leeds to Insp 2 in Surrey in June 2009. BUT, it did NOT go into the finer details of WHY 5 made that call.
 But, here where it gets mucky, because the next paragraph indicates that he's aware of other 'complaints', 'many' of them in fact !
 'These complaints' ? Did Insp5 say this ? It implies that he KNEW the nature of the allegation. Worse still, it set alarm bells ringing in Surrey, were there MORE, had WYP investigated any ? Had Jimmy's friend just dropped his mate in a bigger pile of crap than he was already potentially in ?
NOW, guys and gals this is of the UTMOST importance because it demonstrates just how SERIOUSLY took the investigation, because, not only did they start thinking along the lines of  case-building, they also considered sinister motives on the part of Insp5.
Now, bear in mind that Insp5's BOSSES at WYP have been aware of the Surrey investigation since April 2008 when the information is related via their professional standards Department' !
The officer who took Insp5's call, emailed DI 3 who passed it along his chain of command. A Senior officer in 5's department was also advised and that's just about all the public are told, about this angle of the case in January 2013 when the Ornament report is published. The same day THREE major Savile reports were published, and the msm were handed a new storyline.  Jimmy had 'fixed' his 'interrogation' !

The 2013 report covered sinister sounding 'letters' and Police 'contacts' and other bits of incriminating evidence from the 2009 interview. BUT, it doesn't tell the truth, the whole truth .. does it ? 
 The transcripts of Jimmy's interview with Police was published in October 2013. The contents clearly demonstrate flaws and/or deliberate, misrepresentations in the earlier reports. But no-one except me seems to notice, or care

Here's a link to the FULL transcripts Part 1 and 2

How wonderful is it that we now have access to the details of these events, from the mouths of all the major protagonists including Sir Jimmy himself. But let's start with Insp12 shall we (InspB in latest IPCC report) Insp5 is now Mr A 
Here's the email she sent DI 3

 Insp5 has a very different recall of what he said that day 
His intention was merely to pass on Savile's contact information because Jimmy had mislaid the letter.

Jimmy hadn't told him, this makes sense given his personal code of not dropping anyone else in the mud. He does not give the interviewing officers any names
Some might see this behaviour as evasive. In a court of law a jury would be asked to consider the bigger picture, including the man's character and sense of loyalty. Because, you see, some of these guys were still serving officers, they may have been on duty !
As for the phone call ? The IPCC established that a misunderstanding had taken place and that neither officer was at fault
No-one in West Yorkshire Police force, with the exception of the most senior officers, had any knowledge of the investigation. And, as per the findings of Operation Newgreen, no 'allegations' or 'complaints' had been received by them involving Savile EVER ! With the exception of this one 

Our boys and gals in blue, Jimmy and his other friends have so much more to say. But I need a break so, keep 'em peeled guys and gals. 




1 comment:

  1. Was it IPCC or HMIC who actually did turn up one of Jimmy's weirdo letters?
    The one with the immortal line: "I've been for a run. Now for some bum"
    Facts tend to support Jimmy's side of the story.