Pages

Sunday, 17 January 2016

Making a murdering, monster, pervert. paedophilic, child abuser

Lots of folk are talking about a film called 'Making a murderer'. I'm less than half way through the series and I'm disturbed. Just as I was disturbed when I watched 'exposure', the so-called 'other side of Jimmy Savile'. What is true and what is not can never be altered. People can be manipulated though can't they ? Ordinary people like you and me that is. One bunch of folk who should never be corrupted in this way are law enforcement agencies. After all, who or what, will protect us all as citizens, if those people fail us ? 

As if by magic, after switching my telly off last night/this morning, up flashed this on my twitter feed.

Goodness Gracious Steve Rodhouse, that is Deputy assistant commissioner Rodhouse 'in charge' of Operation Ornament ? Let's see if we can ID him in Detective Superintendent Jon Savel's report dated 13th January 2013. We know, he was a Divisional Commander in Surrey in June 2009, no thanks to Savell that is
http://mycouncil.surreycc.gov.uk/Data/Runnymede%20Local%20Committee/20090626/Agenda/Item%2011%20Community%20Safety%20rpt.pdf

But, in August 2008 he was a mere Chief Superintendent, caught speeding as it happens !
 



Just about the time senior officers in the Savile investigation began to take a back seat as evidenced by what Savell's report describes thus
I've been there and done that with this report guys and gals. But, every 'new' piece of information someone bothers to throw our way, has to be analysed. Up until now, fast ladder climbing Rodhouse has been 'protected' if that's the right word, by the powers that be. I guess the Lord B fiasco was a Lord too far when it came to claims of VIP 'abuse'. 

The 'failure to catch Jimmy Savile' and that would be Assistant whatever rank he is today, Rodhouse's fault ?
The hypocrisy of those highlighted words almost beggars belief. Do these so-called journalists even read what they write ? Where was the outrage when Savile was accused of being a murderer despite the fact there was absolutely NO evidence at all. A FACT corroborated by no less than scientists and DNA.

I have no clue which one of the many chiefs involved in Operation Ornament, was Rodhouse. But I think it's safe to say that he is the one who's been thrown to the lions so to speak. Maybe you can work it out !


http://rabbitaway.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/an-inspector-calls.html

Where are all the others involved in the 2007 - 2009 investigation ? Why are their names not being splashed across the MSM ? The 'witchhunt' may be over for some of the living, but who will speak for the dead ? That would be you and me baby, cos it sure as hell ain't the media, so called film makers and the cops. 

Behind every miscarriage of justice, there are families and friends who grieve on both sides. You cannot make a criminal, he/she is either guilty or not. You can however, make gullible people believe someone is guilty or innocent. IF you have the POWER that is !
 

4 comments:

  1. One can only assume Rodhouse had been on a re-training course. He's on twitter... ;-)
    https://twitter.com/DACRodhouseMPS

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He's got two twitter accounts Moor !

      Delete
  2. Just seen this from Boris Johnson in the Telegraph:

    "An old war hero’s name has been senselessly dragged through the mud..."

    "Not a shred of evidence was ever produced to support these claims..."

    “It is not so very long ago that Sir Jimmy Savile was thought to be a national treasure, a fund-raiser of genius, whose sheer love of humanity expressed itself in his curious willingness to work all night alone in the morgue.”

    "The police have a duty to follow the evidence – wherever it takes them."

    "The police have a duty to act without fear or favour."

    Even an old duffer like BJ would surely sense the logical chasm between "...senselessly…not a shred of evidence…” and “follow the evidence…without fear or favour” were it not inhabited that great bogey man, Sir Jimmy Savile.

    Surrey have taken a lot of flack for acting, by and large, quite appropriately. But for the Met, Johnson will defend the indefensible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point Misa ! Surrey did a better job than the Met. At least they investigated the claims. Moreover, they didn't leak information to the press. How great was that ?

      Delete