Wednesday, 12 July 2017

Jersey faked

Photos can be faked, people who aren't in a chair can be photo-shopped into that chair. We know this - we can see it. But for most of us, we aren't really aware that the image is false until someone proves it. Here's an easy one 

Sorry guys and gals but I'm headed back to Jersey again. Haut de la Garenne to be specific and I'm looking at that photo said to be of Jimmy Savile in the grounds of the home in 1976 or thereabouts ! 

You see, one of the claims made by a hack in October 2012 was that, Sir Jimmy rescinded his denial of ever having visited the home. 

The source of this alleged admission ?

Now, folks what's really annoying about the above is that, for the life of me, I cannot find any trace of the source of this admission. I did manage to unearth a few clues such as this published by The Lawyer in March 2008 

But, where is this series of articles ? Naturally, they would have been removed from re-publication once JS threatened to sue. But, where are they now ? Why haven't the press re-released these articles ? Maybe they have and someone will be kind enough to post a link.

In the meantime, here's what Jimmy told the Police himself in 2009. Curiously, Jimmy seems to be unaware of that image of him allegedly on the grounds of the home. The photo he's thinking about involves him and a bunch of local councilors !

I know we've been here many times, but let's take a look at that much publicised photo again. Do you think it's real ? I don't but I can't prove it because I don't have access to the original image. Even the Putin/Trump de-buggers had an original press photo to work. I don't, and neither does the sun, by the looks of it ?

For a start, look how big that kid is on the far right 

Big when you compare him to the older boy/teenager, on Savile's left. And, is that a microphone around Jimmy's neck ? Never noticed that until I enlarged the image. Was he recording a TV program ?

A lot of  alleged victims did a hell of a lot of talking to the Police in 2008 when the Jersey investigation got underway. But, none of them, not ONE of them appear to have implicated Jimmy. How likely is it that these rags would not squeeze one tiny claim out of someone, especially when you KNOW, as we do now, that the same chaps who willingly gave him £200,000 were encouraging Ms A to go Sussex Police with her Savile yarn. 

No mention of  Savile here 

Pamela had apparently been blowing the Jersey whistle since 1974. Yet, still no mention of Jimmy or any other celebrity/vip abuser

 No, it was just the male staff who were implicated. Even when the lawyers were involved, still, not a trace of Savile 

 Many of the more sinister claims - involving buried hman remains etc were de-bunked fairly quickly. Strangely enough, David Rose was right in the thick of it at the time ! 

So, I guess Mr Rose would know if any credible claims had been made about Savile at the time ! My money's on NO ! 

Back to fake photos - always a good idea to look at some examples of those that are NOT fake. One can get mightily sick of dishonesty in print or out of someone's mouth. You can see the difference can't you ? 

People look so much more natural. Their bodies don't appear out of whack 

Another LIE exposed ... well, almost Jim 



  1. Aaarghh, not the bloody photo again!!!
    Actually this post has thrown up a couple of points of interest to me that I´ll get back to when I have time. Until then I´ll just mention that the 'proof' of Savile visiting is not only the pic but the certificates received by the inmates who supposedly joined him on a sponsored walk:

    No time to do hyperlinks at minute, but there is one of the certificates on page 243 (of 250) here:

    And there is another, different one here on page 188 (of 446):

    So what? Well, apart from the fact that receiving a certificate for taking part in an event does not really prove that the Big Star personally delivered it to your home - they could have been handed out at the end of the trek to one and all, for example - the thing that catches my eye is Savile's 'signature' which is clearly identical on both. In other words, they do not bear his signature. However, according to the BBC:

    "The note, dated 19 April 1976 and signed by Savile, describes him doing a fun run with a teenage girl from Haut de la Garenne and the money raised."

    And from page 8 (of 446) in above link:

    "It was the older, more trustworthy children who got to go along for the walk, but Jimmy Savile would say hello to the children at the home either before or after the walk. I have certificates signed by him, which I shared with the police. I do not know if anything untoward went on when Jimmy Savile was at the home."

    I can forgive the person THINKING they had a signed certificate, but the BBC/media are showing themselves to be as useless as ever, and it really did NOT decscribe "him doing a fun run with a teenage girl".

    When I have time I'll be looking into the dates of The Sun trying to cook up something (3rd March 2008, meeting a possible complainant, a couple of days after putting their foot in it smearing Savile & setting in motion legal-action)... it might tie-in with what I've been wittering about on Moor's blog.

    1. Bandini ("burnt and buried whilst fresh and fleshed")12 July 2017 at 13:12

      A slightly different take on the 3rd March thing:

      "She contacted a national newspaper on 3 March 2008. A
      journalist encouraged Mrs A to contact police, which she did that same day.
      Officer A and Officer B from Worthing CID attended her home on 3 March 2008."

      Blimey, that was a busy day! Call The Sun, who tell you to contact police, who then come and visit the same day... wonder if they put the sirens on?

      Page 12 (of 39) here:

    2. Bandini ("burnt and buried whilst fresh and fleshed")12 July 2017 at 13:18

      Er, just realised that the two versions are one and the same, and therefore the complainant's day was even more hectic:

      - contacted & was visited by journalist who encouraged her to contact & complain to police.
      - contacted police.
      - police whizz into action and drop by to receive the complaint.
      - complainant contacts journalist again.

      All on 3rd March 2008. She'd have needed a few days off after this!

    3. Bandini - Mrs A told Levitt that she actually contacted the sun by letter in 2007 I knew I'd seen this referred to somewhere today .. but then I remembered all them blogs I've done re the alphabet women LOL

      Here's one

    4. Bandini ("burnt and buried whilst fresh and fleshed")12 July 2017 at 17:52

      Rabbitaway, this is before my time so forgive the ignorance, but in your linked-article the following appears:

      "On 3rd March 2008 the reporter reappeared at Ms A´s door and asked her again whether she had considered reporting it. The journalist went on to tell her that she could keep her name out of the story, and that she had some information that Jimmy Savile may have been connected to the infamous care home in Jersey..."

      Is this from Pollard? (I've downloaded the searchable version Misa provides a link to in the comments, but can't find this passage).

    5. Bandini ("burnt and buried whilst fresh and fleshed")12 July 2017 at 18:00

      Must learn to read... it's from Levitt as stated!

    6. Bandini ("burnt and buried whilst fresh and fleshed")12 July 2017 at 18:22

      God give me strength:

      "On 3rd March 2008 the reporter reappeared at Ms A's door and asked her again whether she had considered reporting it. The journalist went on to tell her that she had some information that Jimmy Savile may have been connected to the infamous care home in Jersey...

      ...It would appear that Ms A had no connection with the Duncroft Children's Home, nor with any of the other victims in this case. It seems to have been a COINCIDENCE that she made her allegation at about the same time (possibly prompted by the fact that Jimmy Savile seems frequently to have been on the television at around this time)."

      "Possiblty prompted"?!? She was clearly 'prompted' by a reporter from The Sun who persuaded her to make a complaint to the police only a couple of days after The Sun's HDLG-piece (1st March 2008) linking Savile to the place appeared. That complaint was then swiftly withdrawn...

      I'm guessing there was something other than 'coincidence' in play here, but I'm off to bed now - probably to have nightmares about Levitt's 'blithe spirit'. God help us all!

  2. JFK assassination conspiracy theorists have long attempted to argue that this photo of Lee Harvey Oswald holding a rifle was faked, as part of an attempt to frame him:

    Actually, according to specialists who researched it, the photo is genuine.

    Rabbit, I've always thought the Savile at HDLG photo was strange. That said, as the above example shows, just because a particular photo 'looks odd' doesn't necessarily mean there is fakery afoot.

    1. At the bottom of Bandini's BBC article, there's a link to an article about photo manipulation which happens to mention the Oswald pictures.

    2. There was another version of the HdlG image in use, with a giant 2Jim'll Fix It" badge. That is the version Dan Davies believed in.

      Jimmy's testimony refers to The Sun having an image of him and running it under a headline, so presumably anyone with access to the archives of The Sun could run it down and confirm whether it's this one, or a different picture altogether - with 6 Councillors in it.

    3. If this photo is genuine, then why don't we know - and, more importantly, why doesn't the sun produce it, in the context of how it - allegedly came into their possession ? That's the press for you, they will run with any little piece of anything for a story. Jimmy's defence & his 'policy' of dealing with such things makes a lot more sense when you see examples of what the shit-stirring shysters will do !

    4. Bandini ("burnt and buried whilst fresh and fleshed")13 July 2017 at 07:55

      I'd never noticed the 'about six Jersey councillors' photograph before... wonder if this is Savile making a mistake?

      Regarding the article/photograph, there seem to be 2 possible timelines:

      1) as per The Lawyer piece above re Fox Hayes, the photo was INCLUDED in the 1st March 2008 article, or

      2) the photograph was LATER shown to Savile who then had to 'admit' to having been there. I must admit this version is the one I've paid more attention to, wrongly perhaps:

      "Members of the Panel, just to give you some context about the allegations against Savile, in March 2008 Jimmy Savile was linked by the Sun newspaper to the ongoing investigation at Haut de la Garenne. Savile initially denied any links to the home and threatened to sue. However, a photograph was LATER published showing him at Haut de la Garenne and I believe you have seen that photograph."

      Page 19 (of 111) here.

      It's astonishing that we haven't seen the original/subsequent articles. (I was hoping they'd be included in the Jersey Inquiry's massive bundle of papers, but if they have been I haven't found them yet.)

      I've been working on the idea that The Sun may have given the Jersey HDLG complainants a 'helping hand' as (a) they were facing legal action from an angry Savile, and (b) no complaint against Savile was made until AFTER The Sun had named him.
      The coincidence in the timing of the sudden journalistic interest in Ms A (see above) might support my mad theory; it also might mean that the 1st March 2008 Sun piece linking Savile to HDLG was part of a larger 'plot' to finger him.

      I'm sticking with my mad idea for the time being, but it would be perhaps obvious what The Sun were up to if only we could see the bloody article(s)! I've had a scout around and it seems that given its 'novel approach' to journalism it hasn't been included in newspaper archives... the only option I can see is to purchase a copy (about £40!).

      (I'll include a link to an article on Moor's site, for my use more than anything as I'm getting a bit snowed under! Some of the comments relate to Witness 125, who complained about Savile after the Sun had already done so, after prompting from an unnamed individual who 'helped' with the two police interviews.)

  3. For what it's worth I don't think that the object around JS's neck is a microphone. If it was, I would expect to see a cable running from the base.
    Before anyone suggests it, wireless mics of the period didn't look like that either.
    Small concealable wireless mics but with a wire running to a transmitter pack would be in occasional use for drama in that period but they were inferior to wired mics, more expensive, prone to radio interference and generally a pain, so avoided if at all possible.
    In the sort of shows JS did there was no reason to hide a mic so on the rare occasion a wireless mic was used it would tend to look like a full sized standard hand mic but with an obvious antenna.

    1. Cheers John I wasn't convinced that it was a mic - still, worth a reference ! The thing that grabs me more and moor is the quality of the photo itself. It's bloody crap isn't it ? It cannot be a press photo but what is it and WHY aren't we being told ?

  4. Replies
    1. OK, as comments now seem to be working will try posting again. Will omit links just in case it disrupts the system.

      There's a Daily Mail article with this photo in it and a "Jim fixed it for us" sign that looks pasted in. The children's sizes don't look odd to me. The child on the right seems to be standing next to older children who seem to be kneeling.

      That looks to me like a whistle around the man's neck.

      It looks to me from the children's clothing and hair as if this was taken in the mid to late 70s. Yet the man's hair looks brown and Jimmy Savile's hair in the Clunk Click photo, which looks to me earlier from the clothing (early 70s?), is bleached. Are there any photos of him with short brown hair around the time frame for this photo and/or dressed in the same clothing and/or with those distinctive specs?

      At first glance and without the "Jim fixed it for me" sign, I wouldn't have recognised that man as Jimmy Savile. But comparing the wavey brushed down hair and the mouth/jawline with photos of Jimmy Savile it does look like him.

      I wondered if that was even Haut de la Garenne but there is an aerial photo of the building complex on Google with a newer building and/or extension behind the main building which has some kind of porch arrangement as in the photo.

      Perhaps it really was him but he committed the same crime as Rolf Harris of forgetting he had been there, adamantly stating he had never been there then realising he had been there, admitting it and his earlier denial being interpreted as a desire to conceal some dastardly behaviour while there.

    2. Doing a Google image search for "Jimmy Savile" Jersey produces this photo amongst other things:
      From this page:

      If that really is Haut de la Garenne perhaps the original photo appeared in a Jersey newspaper.

    3. Savile's hair certainly looks similar in the 1967 pic, Jo.
      There are some photos here I'd quite like to have a look at:

      'Album of colour photographs featuring a visit by Sir Jimmy Saville to Aquila Youth Club-presumed to have been taken during the 1970s]'


      'Copy photograph of a group of children with Jimmy Saville

      Reference: L/A/10/G2/13
      Date: 1970 - 1980'

    4. I've stumbled on the same archive from a completely different angle, Bandini. It would be interesting to have a look.

      The Jersey Evening Post offers these pics, including one at Aquila Church (Chapel). The youth club seems to have been round the corner from the Aquila Road Chapel, on Great Union Road. Jim’s participation in the Easter walk in 1977 is featured - the auction of his personal effects included an award from Aquila Youth Centre for his participation in the walk at Easter 1976.

      I now see that the indefatigable Cassandra has covered all of this and more.

    5. It's curious that if he was bleaching his hair in - from those photos - 1972 and 1977, why he'd have dark hair in 1976. But I suppose it's not impossible.

  5. Bandini ("burnt and buried whilst fresh and fleshed")13 July 2017 at 09:15

    Just out of interest, do we know what the £200,000 Savile was said to have received from The Sun was for?
    And I hadn't realised that The Sun's Jamie Pyatt had played such an active role:

    "Mr Pyatt explained he had followed up the Savile story by contacting former Duncroft pupils on the Friends Reunited website. In an attempt to "expose" Savile while he was still alive, Mr Pyatt said he persuaded "four or five" ex-pupils to go on record saying that Savile had molested them.

    But, he added, a Sun executive, whom he believed was Victoria Newton, had decided the Sun would only run the story if Surrey Police confirmed it, because Savile was "very litigious" who had previously been awarded £200,000 damages against the paper."


    1. The Pyatt article link seems to have got tangled, Bandini. This should work, I hope:

      Jamie Pyatt: I could have exposed Jimmy Savile

    2. That would be from 1989 when they said Jimmy was letting the loonies out of Broadmoor.

    3. Bandini ("burnt and buried whilst fresh and fleshed")14 July 2017 at 04:50

      Thanks, Misa! (I should have guessed that both Moor & Rabbitaway have written about this previously.)

      Moor, we have this:

      "In 1992, my father, George Carman QC, had been retained by Savile's lawyers over a different matter, which never reached court. By 1994, the name Carman, and what he could do in cross-examination, put such fear into the minds of litigants, lawyers and editors that libel cases were settled and, in some circumstances, perhaps stories were not published. Savile may have been one of those."

      And from Savile's police interview:

      "Headline: "Sir Jimmy in the house of hell", you see so that could be argued in court as malicious, right. They had a sudden rash of conscious did the Sun and they sent a reporter round with a £400 box of cigars, 'sorry about that Jim'. So sometimes, the time before I've had them and it cost them like £200,000 because they were out of order..."

      I was wondering (though doubt we'll ever know for certain) if the figure of 200,000 is even accurate, and, if so, to which story it relates. In the police interview from 2009 Savile mentions having sued (or possibly just 'threatened to sue') the press five times, and he was saying this two decades after the Broadmoor saga so I'm guessing he might have had a run in with The Sun/others between those two dates.

      Who knows?!? There is some interesting stuff in Dan Davies' book about the matter - Dan managed to be in the room as Savile spoke to his lawyers about suing over the HDLG-story! - but I think I'll take Davies' bullshit with a massive amount of salt.

      (Re-reading it just now & this bit made me laugh out loud:

      "The photograph, which featured a Jim’ll Fix It badge, could not have been taken before 1975. It appears that Jimmy Savile, who was a regular visitor to Jersey, was calling on the children of Haut de la Garenne for five years at least."

      Cracking investigative journalism from the award-winning Davies and his 'Book of the Year' that was lauded by the press across the board!)

  6. Bandini ("burnt and buried whilst fresh and fleshed")14 July 2017 at 05:40

    TDF, are you around?!?

    It would seem that the Irish have a superior newspaper archive to the English. I'm not sure how much variance there is between versions, but it sounds as though the National Library will have both hard / microfiched-copies of the (Irish) Sun, 1st March 2008 and later:

    'Bang Bang Rebekah'

    If you're feeling curious...

    1. Bandini ("burnt and buried whilst fresh and fleshed")14 July 2017 at 05:54

      (And the National Library of Wales also appear to have a collection, helpfully bundled 1st to 10th March 2008:
      Barcode 1358689.

      C'mon, don't make me spend £40 I don't have buying a copy!)

    2. Ok. I've ordered the edition of the 1 Mar 2008 so fingers crossed.

    3. Although really we need everything from the 1st to the 14th March 2008. (14th March 2008 Savile was when Savile instructs Fox Hayes)

      The Sun didn't publish on Sundays back then but the NOTW did. Really I think the Sun & NOTW should be considered synonymous.

      The Irish editions of UK newspapers are would contain a lot of the content from the main UK edition, but sometimes UK stories or columnists can get bumped for local interest stories or columnists. I'd be surprised if a story about Savile got bumped, but who knows. Will see what I can do on Monday.

    4. Bandini ("burnt and buried whilst fresh and fleshed")14 July 2017 at 13:59

      Thanks, TDF! Good luck.

  7. tdf, I think the Irish Mail, for example, is very different from the British one, and so is the MOS. The Irish one had John Waters and it is only when I went to England five years ago that I first came across Peter Hitchens, who writes the equivalent column from what I can see. I didn't know you could get copies from the Nat. Library.

  8. Bandini ("burnt and buried whilst fresh and fleshed")15 July 2017 at 13:22

    I'm a wee bit embarrassed to be doing this to be honest, but here goes...

    After spending way too much time observing the damned photograph, I've noticed something that does indeed look a little iffy. But then again, stare at a brickwall & you'll soon see people's faces appear, so...

    Anyway, it's Savile's HAIR. There's a pic of him here letting his roots show in 1976 and another of him wearing what look to be the same glasses, but otherwise hardly recognisable AS Savile.

    But in the HDLG snap there just seems to be hair where there shouldn't be. (I'd assumed that the white stuff at his right-ear was the elbow of the lad behind him, though it could be the last of his blond mullet, I suppose.)

    If you cover up the other half of the pic it's easier to notice, I think, and it 's noticable on the original snap but I've cropped his 'hairline fracture' here and then highlighted it in blue here. It looks like half a wig has been dropped on the right-side of his head or summat.

    I now need a long lie down!

    1. Sean,

      Yes I'm aware that the content of the Irish Daily Mail is significantly different to the UK one. Actually when Paul Dacre was in front of the Leveson inquiry, he tried to downplay claims that he is a control freak/tyrant by stating (probably truthfully) that he had seen opinion pieces in the Irish version that made his hair stand on end.

      I thought John Waters' book about U2 was quite good, don't know if you've read it?

      Bandini, before your lie down, if you fancy a giggle, amuse yourself with Stuart Syvret's latest Don Quixote-esque 'tilting at windmills' post:

    2. Bandini ("monstrously foul and fatal")15 July 2017 at 14:59

      Ho ho ho! Sounds like on-street parking would be a bad idea for some tonight!

  9. Having stared at the pic for even longer I now have a FANTASTIC NEW THEORY!!! It's a bit like one of those 'Magic Eye' images in that it's almost impossible to spot but, once spotted, impossible not to see.
    (It's also probably bullshit but I'm blaming both TDF & Rabbitaway for broaching the subject in the first place and sending me doolally.)

    I'll try and knock up a pic highlighting it but basically I'm positing that (from the viewers perspective) the top right part of Savile's head is actually the head of a child over which the image of Savile has been pasted.

    Right-o, here we go: the result of I'm-not-gonna-tell-you-many-minutes of inexpert use of Gimp.
    (To upload this to Tinypic I had to input the security phrase 'red-handed'... must be a sign!)

    1. Doh, I forgot to mention that the hairline of the 'child' seems to continue to our left, peeping out from what looks to be a handful of barber's shop floor sweepings stuck on top (Savile's mad hair).

  10. Another shout out to TDF! Two questions you probably know the answer to:

    1) the pic is said to be "with Savile by the swimming pool". This is going to sound stupid but was the location definitively identified as BEING HDLG? I can't find any other image that bears any resemblance to the building shown. It MUST be, but where exactly?

    2) bearing in mind the recent piece on Moor's blog re the person who believed he was in the photo after being told he was by the coppers only to later realise that he WASN'T, has anyone ELSE been identified/identified themselves from the snap?
    It would be quite strange if this weren't the case.

    (Sorry to keep bothering you with this but your interest in Jersey might mean you know the answers off the top of your head & save me scratching mine.)

  11. Bandini, I don't know the answers off the top of my head I'm afraid, but 4.72 of the inquiry report refers to a swimming pool and a paddling pool being built @ HDLG in 1968.

    1. ^ and actually, to be honest, and no offense to you Bandini, but it's really the 'mainstream media' who should be doing this research, and not a bunch of unpaid bloggers and their commenters.

      Where is (for example) David Rose when you want him? I am not particularly a fan of his, but I would acknowledge that he is more than capable of investigative research-based journalism, unlike many of his peers.

    2. " That's a relief, TDF - was thinking you'd been kneecapped by News International!
      Hopefully you'll return with riches. "

      Bandini, in my country jokes about kneecapping are not all that funny!

      Speaking of Murdoch, the editor of the Irish edition of the Sunday Times is one Frank Fitzgibbon, an experienced Irish meeja guy.

      He was one of the four founders of the Sunday Business Post, but left shortly before they sold the paper. I must admit, I chuckled with wry amusement. Frank is still working. The other three are probably sunning themselves in Barbados or summat.

      Would acknowledge that the ST was a great paper in the days of Andrew Neil's editorship, though my personal politics in recent years are well to the left of it.

  12. Cheers, TDF.
    I've been burrowing in Jersey archives and the like & am yet to come across anything even similar, which surprises me a bit.

    As an amused lurker I recall the number of leaves on the trees being counted to prove the season or summat... with such diligence being shown I've always just assumed it HAD been identified (though I wasn't really that interested in this part of the saga anyway).

    When not described as being beside the (invisible) swimming-pool it is said to be 'at the school'; HDLG wasn't a school by this point, right? That's rhetorical - I'll have another gander.

    1. Scrap that (I think). Must've been looking too hard... assume it's the corner of the wing with what looks to be a turquoise dinghy in front of it here.

    2. Ok. There should be a proper map in the Inquiry's documents somewhere, though I'm having difficulty in locating it.

    3. Bandini, I think you're right. That section of the building fits pretty well with the photo of Jim and the kids - the windows, the awning, two storeys etc. A look toward the background shows hedge, farmland and building in the distance. The building is not visible on the aerial pic you uploaded but, scooting around on google maps, the building there today looks utterly plausible as the one in the photo. I see no obvious challenge to the claim that it is HDLG.

      Near the bottom of this page, there is a version of the photo with inserts - apparently some of the Ickies trying to identify kids/staff from elsewhere. I struggle with all the bickering amongst the loonies spread over literally thousands of pages, but it appears they’re convinced it dates from spring/summer 1976, which would fit with the Easter walk and the plaque from Aquila.

      As I was scrolling through more of this rubbish, I came across the same sunglasses, and a second pair in which someone’s trying to read the newspaper from the reflection in the glasses…there but for the grace of God…

    4. Misa, I was trying to avoid that place - hence the picking of TDF's brains! The lunatics' attempts at identifying people are hilarious but I kind of understand how one ends up on that road to madness... I may yet join them!

      Anyway, I've managed to 90% convince myself that the photo is, at the very least, a manipulated image in some way; we saw with, for example, the snaps of Claire/Samantha that the editing can be crude and yet still slip past the picture-editor several decades later (the body with The Omen-type 'X' through it!). Something's not right with it, even if it was just a clumsy lab-technician picking it up and accidentally 'smearing' Savile's illogical hair.

      I imagine Savile WAS there or thereabouts - it'd be hard to do so many sponsored walks & runs on such a tiny island without passing through - but the idea I'm playing with is that the image may have been cobbled together to fend him off. Perhaps they knew he HAD been there but had no proof, so...

      I'm therefore going for the second of the two options mentioned way, way above: that despite claims to the contrary - including from Savile's own lawyers - the image was presented to him sometime AFTER the articles began. And I'm wondering if it was ever published at all until after his death (again, there are conflicting stories regarding this). Points in Mad Theory's favour:

      1) the image WAS manipulated by someone to add the badge, and that the inserted badge was convinving enough for Dan Davies to use it to date the pic ('Jim'll Fix It' didn't start until 1975 therefore it couldn't have been taken before, claimed the fool).

      2) the weird absence of re-published Sun articles as mentioned by Rabbitaway. I can't imagine any threat of being sued had they repeated the claims would hold them back post-2012!

      3) the confused non-participant in the pic as noted by Moor and

      4) the lack of identified persons in same.

      One thing worth noting is that despite practically a decade of 'survivor' action, and despite at least five years of PUBLIC rabble-rousing from Alan Collins, Syvret, Harper, and the media in general we still only seem to have the same few claims of 'abuse at the hands of Savile' as when we started. And those claims are laughable anyway. Didn't he spend every waking moment abusing? And there he was in the 'paedo's sweetshop' of HDLG...

      I'm wondering if a snap - low quality - was faxed through to Savile's lawyers and they aquiesced, Savile as confused as the poor bastard above who had his memory messed around with, shrugging his shoulders & accepting it was of himself at HDLG more than thirty years previously... just thinking aloud.

      We shall see. Hopefully TDF will have something for us from the (Irish) Sun, and I'll just mention that after posting the links to Irish and Welsh libraries I had a look at Scotland (I think they might have Scottish Sun archive) and also the British Library again - I may have been hasty in discounting them earlier but their archive is more difficult to search. In short, the series of articles are out there...

    5. [And what comes close to being a tribute to Savile from the son of one of the organizers of the annual trip to Blackpool:
      “You should see him with disabled kids. You should see the pleasure he brings them.”]

    6. Bandini, I don't share your enthusiasm for the picture. I really can't see anything much. I did recall that the Ickies had identified the T-shirt and have just waded back in there to find out what it was.

      It was a Superspike T-shirt, Superspike being a song recorded by John Clease and Bill Oddie to raise money for the British Olympic team, as far as I can tell. The single was released in February 1976 and was supported by a film shown on April 6 of that year.

      This would seem to tie in with the Love is an Uphill Thing tracksuit - the book being released also in 1976, I believe. Though I think Moor has looked into the book and its versions.

      Oh, in the Manchester Taxi picture…is that blond hair growing out? Look below his left ear - a tuft - and behind, down to the collar.

    7. Misa, you knocked my confidence down to 80% so I enlisted the unbiased eye of my girlfriend (who doesn't even know who Jimmy Savile was)... despite much zooming, cropping - and even a bit of exasperated prodding! - she had no idea what I was on about!

      Hmmm, I may have to revise my figure further downward! Aaargh, but I can't unsee it now... I can only suggest drawing the outline of his hair and see what happens - or save your sanity!

      Anyway, here he is about 5-weeks after the unsigned, photocopied certificates were handed out.

    8. I don't know, Bandini. I've stared a little more, and either it's starting to look a little odd, or I'm starting to feel a little odd. btw in your TOTP picture, is the yellow digital watch the same one he's wearing in the HDLG pic?

      I think it would be much more useful to learn about the background: did Jim deny ever being there? Did the newspaper use this picture to prove him wrong? Did he successfully sue? When did the picture emerge? How did it come to have the Jim'll Fix It badge superimposed?

      tdf's archive request might be much more valuable than us all gawping at a slightly odd photo.

    9. * Did he ..... sue *

      No, The Sun sent him a £400 boz of cigars and hired him a pink Rolls Royce and a photo-opportunity to two of their sexy birds.

    10. Moor, the pink Rolls-Royce was in "October 2007, to co-incide with the broadcast of Jim'll Fixit Strikes Again"...

      Misa, it may just be down to a damaged copy of an odd photo as there is a bean-shaped blob stuck to the side of the head of the fella just behind Savile for example - perhaps it fell off and landed on Savile?!?

      As Rabbitaway mentioned it doesn't really look to be newspaper-quality (have you ever seen such a mostly-miserable looking bunch showing such lack of interest in Savile?) but the odd posing may have been down to necessity given the large number of youngsters present & the wide variation in their ages.

      (And what a nightmare it would have been handling such a group for the staff - some of the kids with 'problems' - even if the under-resourced place had had the most dedicated workers, babies & almost-adults all cooped up together...)

      Other than the lack of smiles on the faces of most there are people hidden behind others and maybe the group of naughty looking rascals presumably stood on some sort of plinth was an effort to bring some order to the shot, though this in itself looks odd given the contorted bodies (and even what looks like a missing foot, hidden inside a loon pant perhaps).

      All of the above may have come together to create a weird image, who knows? There is also what looks to be discolouration on these high-flying chaps, similar to what we saw with the pic of Claire/Samantha and Savile, a pic which we know was manipulated.

      Anyway, I'll leave you with those glasses again.

    11. Just a quick update. I haven't managed to make it down to the National Library yet, and probably won't be able to til Thursday or Friday.

    12. That's a relief, TDF - was thinking you'd been kneecapped by News International!
      Hopefully you'll return with riches.

    13. Bandini, the bean beside the left ear of the lad behind JS I took to be a table tennis bat. I had wondered whether the group at the front - JS + 3 to his left and six to his right - could have been separate, i.e. one added to tother. But the shadows are pretty convincing. And the group at the front are as distracted as the rest. Some of those looking seem to be looking in slightly different directions too, though that may be explained by the being more than one camera/photographer present, I suppose.

      The 4 standing and 3 sitting on the plinth (or whatever) are obviously pretty striking, but I can’t quite say what’s wrong with it.

      Again, the age-range is pretty striking. I count one babe in arms, and two obvious toddlers (offspring of residents?) and lads of perhaps 15 or older, with everything in between. I can’t image how on earth one could manage/raise a group like that. But I know nothing about such homes.

      There’s an odd foot behind the round-faced (Dee?!) little girl sitting front right. The foot might belong to the boy/woman holding the toddler, but it looks odd. And the distracted couple front left are playing with a scottie, or similar, dog?

      The whole thing is a weird hodge-podge, but I can offer no meaningful evidence that it’s been ‘shopped’. Jim looks too big, but he’s in the midst of a bunch of kids.

      I hope that reassures you that you’re not the only one going cross-eyed.

    14. Just to add, the fashions appear consistent - the boys shirt collars, the width of the trouser legs - with mid-seventies.

      The really striking thing, I think, is the fact that Jim seems to be looking the wrong way. He was a pro, right? I mean, he knows where the camera is, always...doesn't he? Unless there really was more than one photographer.

    15. "Again, the age-range is pretty striking. I count one babe in arms, and two obvious toddlers (offspring of residents?) and lads of perhaps 15 or older, with everything in between. I can’t image how on earth one could manage/raise a group like that. But I know nothing about such homes."

      Read the inquiry report, Misa. As Bandini correctly states above, staff were placed under undue pressures (not to excuse any of them that abused kids, of course) . The home housed kids of all ages from babies to teens up to (from memory) 14/15 or so, possibly even older. There were separate wards for kids of different ages, but I assume that if a celeb such as Savile was visiting (assuming it was really him) then they would all come together for a group photo.

    16. Btw, in a moment of weakness and/or curiousity, I paid for Harvey Proctor's book (online version, €12 or so). There are 25 references to Savile in the book.

    17. Thanks, tdf. I've been trying to avoid reading the report, or get too bogged down with any of this stuff...that damned elusive Bandini suckers me every time. If staff were looking after kids across such an age range, it must have been seriously hard work, at least. Good for you, buying HP's book. Will be very interested to hear what you make of it, and tempted to pick it up myself.

    18. Most of them seem to be due to Proctor being falsely accused in a network that included Savile, but this one is possibly worth putting up:

    19. TDF, Proctor´s wrong about the ice-cream - it was shit in a cone. I love the detail though: "I liked spring the most, with the large skipping event taking place..." Ho ho ho! Off you skip, Harvey!

      Misa: Dee! You're not wrong, but best not start me off on THAT again - one mad thread at a time, please! But the phantom foot poking out can easily be explained away: we just have to attach it to the growth of knee on t'other side of her.
      (This in turn must be attached to the 'girl with the baby' - who always reminds me of my mum! - who had she not been kneeling could have taken her place at the back without needing to mount a plinth to be seen as she must be about 8 feet tall.)

      I'm embarrassed to admit that I hadn't even noted the dog before... crikey, so much for my forensic skills! Doubly surprising as I've always thought those two make such a striking image that my eye is always drawn to 'em.

      One last thing, the chunky little fella stood by the side of my mum has no shoes/feet either... probably due to over-sized hand-me-down clothing, I suppose, the same maybe true for the little rascal mentioned previously.

    20. " TDF, Proctor´s wrong about the ice-cream - it was shit in a cone. I love the detail though: "I liked spring the most, with the large skipping event taking place..." Ho ho ho! Off you skip, Harvey! "

      Harvey's memoir is full of that kind of stuff, I'm afraid. Also, a lot of cakes. (His dad was a baker, who left the family home one morning and was never seen again.)

    21. "Will be very interested to hear what you make of it, and tempted to pick it up myself."

      What did I think of it? Meh, it's ok.
      Some of the stuff is a bit "methinks he doth protest too much" .

      To emphasize, I don't believe for a second that HP was a child murderer, nor even (in the technical sense) a paedo, as alleged by 'Nick', but this kind of stuff makes me go 'Harvey, what episode of Are Uou Being Served do you think you're auditioning for, precisely', such as in the following ludicrous and farcical anecdote:

    22. Finally for now, possibly the oddest extract from HP's book.

      He recalls rumours that Peter Hayman had been seen in the Craven Club on Craven Street near Charing Cross station with young boys on his knee:

    23. Good grief, tdf. You’ve saved me a few quid there.

      I think I may have gone the full Bandini.

      Here is a numbered version of the picture. I’ve put the numbers on the bodies as far as possible.

      I’m working from these two versions of the pic available online:
      1 Fix It badge (lighter)
      2 No Fix It badge (darker)


      I count 36 humanoid figures at least partially visible in the picture…and one dog! Numbers 4, 20 & 30 are babes in arms.

      There are at least six people ‘hiding’ in the picture: 14, 21, 24, 25, 27, 29 and arguably 12. That seems an awful lot of camera shy kids…more likely they’ve been pasted over?!

      There is a light patch beneath JS, and another between 10 and 14. For it to be light there you ought to be able walk into the space between 10 and 14, tiptoe between JS and 13, then comfortably exit between 6 and 11.

      Kneeling boy (9) ought to be a long way in front of 17 but, if he’s kneeling, his lower legs/feet *might* show between 5 & 10 if the picture were lightened. The Jim’ll Fix It badge covered this and 10’s feet. Are 10’s flairs wide enough to hide his feet?

      Presumably, 23, 32 & 26 are all sitting on whatever the 33, 34, 35, 36 are standing on. 21, 25, 27 may be sitting/leaning on the same structure.

      24 is odd - the father getting close to mother, 22, holding baby 20? If 22, rather than 21, is holding the little one! This whole gaggle seems a little strange, as does 13 who seems remarkable composed/assured for someone four feet tall, and the boundary between her left shoulder and 24’s trousers also seems odd.

      If it’s not a one-take original photo, it would probably have to be a composite of several - i.e. if you say the front group 1-10 is separate from the rest at the back - so two photos stitched together - maybe neither group is internally consistent…we would probably have to look at it as a collage. But…

    24. The shadows seem to be pretty consistent. In this picture, I’ve taken the version with the Fix It badge, as it’s slightly wider, and shows a little more of the shadows. I’ve extended the lines up to the top left of the picture to make it easier to see whether they are parallel.

      A - Boy (2) knee to ground.
      B - Boy (6) head to Jim’s arm
      C - Jim thigh to (8) hand
      D - Girl (3) head to ground
      E - Boy (9) head to ground
      F - Boy (10) head to ground
      G - Boy (34) head to ground
      H - Boy (36) head to ground
      I - Woman (31) head to outside picture

      I would say that the lines appear to be parallel (at least within my margin of error in placing them). Other than the fact that I’m struggling a little to match the shadows for the boys up at the back (G&H not entirely convincing), I would suspect that the shadows are pretty authentic.

      Now where did I leave my medication?

    25. Misa: "the full Bandini", my name now a byword for lunacy - it was only ever a matter of time! But lest we forget we've both been 'groomed' by Rabbitaway & TDF - vile abusers, stirrung up a hornets' nest then abandoning us to our fates... Then There Were 2.

      Anyway, I'll have a better look at this later but I almost asked you to look at the shadows yesterday (as your spot on the infamous 'Dee in Jersey' snaps was fantastic) but then came to my senses a bit.

      I'd been trying to line them up myself and was struggling, mainly due to eye strain & mental fatigue.
      It looks to be a bright, sunny day (though Savile hasn't peeled off his shirt as he was wont to do, and there are many be-jumpered kids) and a fair amount of squinting from the participants as though the sun is shining directly upon them.

      The shadows that caught my eye were that of 11 and 17 - perhaps as they are more noticable falling on their dark-coloured clothing - and their ANGLE compared to that of those cast by matron, etc.

      I couldn't quite work out where the sun would have to be to generate all of these... but I'd been thinking along the lines of the collage idea anyway so could have been staring too intently.

      That's all for now. Oh, except to stake a claim for Humanoid #37 - the little 'un almost entirely erased by Savile being pasted on top of him/her... perhaps!

      I think the photographer that day may have been Terry Gilliam!

    26. [Bah! Forgot to mention that WN 125's fuzzy memory seems to unfog when it comes to the YEAR of the photo and is incredibly lucid (compared to the rest of his testimony) on the matter: 1976.

      After a bit of help from the unnamed police interview prodder - see below - he 'remembers' the event too: Liberation Walk. The (unsigned) 'Five Valley Jaunt' certificates relate to 19th April; Liberation Day is 9th May. Not impossible that Savile took part in both, I suppose, but just thought I'd highlight it.]

    27. Bandini, have you noticed how Rabbit just serves this stuff up, and then leaves us to make fools of ourselves, whilst she just burrows onward?

      The sun seems to be SSW or thereabouts, so no obvious problem there. April/May in Jersey might not have been that warm, but it does appear pretty bright. I suppose one may question why the pic was taken at this angle, rather than with them looking more directly toward the sun.

      One thing that struck with the other pictures of JS wearing these glasses is that they don't seem to be very dark, yet in this picture they appear dark. Given that the sun is almost side on to them, I wondered why Jim's right eye, in particular, wouldn't have been more clearly visible through the lens.

      I see no obvious problem with the shadows on/from 11 & 17. The strangest thing for me, at the moment, is the hidden figures 14, 25, 27 and possibly 29 - number 14 in particular looks like she's just been pasted over.

      I guess the shadows from the boys at the back are worth a look too.

    28. The comments beneath the Mail article Savile pictured at the Jersey House of Horrors include the following:

      Ian, Paignton, United Kingdom, 4 years ago
      The "Jim fixed it for us" badge is photoshopped. The show did not begin until 1975, and the photo is believed to date from the late 1960s or early 1970s, when Savile was a regular visitor to Jersey.

      Stephen, Lancs, 4 years ago
      The photograph certainly wasn't taken in the 1960s, and was definitely taken in the 1970s. Firstly Jim'll Fix It didn't start until well into the 1970s. As I was a kid during this time I was well aware of the fashions of the time. I'd say probably about 73-75 from the fashion and hair.

      Sean, Lurgan, 4 years ago
      Has emerged? Its been known for years what Saville was up to online and this photo was widely available. The real question is WHY was it never highlighted until now?

      bazzah, Birmingham, United Kingdom, 4 years ago
      Funny how the picture of him in front of Haut de la Garenne was photoshopped by a guy from a car forum as a 'joke'

      Resnam, Sandbanks, 4 years ago
      David Icke has had this picture on his web site for years.

      jj, Cardiff, 4 years ago
      I was showing this photograph family and friends over 3 years ago, so to say "it's emerged" is complete fabrication. This photograph has been all over the internet for at least, the last 6 months.

      This Youtube videoA tribute to Haut De La Garenne Survivors, uploaded October 2008, includes the same picture at 1 min 56 secs.

      It maybe worth noting that this version of the picture appears to predate both of the versions I’ve linked to in previous comments, as it is fractionally bigger - i.e. the others have been trimmed down a fraction - see the blades of grass in front of boy 2’s shoe, the extra space to the left of the house in the background, and the slightly bigger slice of door visible on the right. It can be viewed as a jpg on this site, which is kind of interesting in its own right, not least because it was apparently published on 29 October 2011…i.e. the day he died.

    29. I just can't resist nibbling away at this.

      "...photoshopped by a guy from a car forum..."

      The Mitsubishi Lancer Register Forum it would seem. He refers to the thread on which (says he) he originally posted, but it's locked now. I've tried registering, but still no access.

      Would be interesting to know when he did it but, otherwise, fair play to the lad. He's listed sites which have reproduced it. Must have been quite a chuckle as it was doing the rounds...perhaps a guilty one, but nonetheless...

    30. Misa, you're hooked!

      That's some great digging there - the inclusion of the photo in the video means it's been kicking around since before Savile's death (but we still can't be sure it was published in the press) & the 'shopped image's journey from car-owners' forum to mainstream press is hilarious (and revealing!).

      One thing of interest perhaps is the copyright of the image ; when published in The Sun they stick a 'News Group Newspapers' caption on it (though without claiming copyright) and in the Mail, etc., no claim to ownership is made nor credit is given (something that almost always occurs, no matter where they've nicked it from).

      Let us know if you turn up anything re the original forum posting, won't you?

      Back to the shadows... I still find them a bit odd as mentioned before but can't really explain why. I spent a while searching for similar images to see if a clue would leap out at me but grew tired of Hank Marvin portaits popping up so gave up. Ah, that unshaded area below Savile is, as you mentioned, striking.

    31. Re the 2008 YouTube video, the bloke responsible (says he was in HDLG 1970-1976) has a website & is on Twitter.

      I thought about leaving a comment asking about the provenance of the photo but the site hasn't been updated in a while and, having had a brief flick through, he hasn't had the easiest of lives and I couldn't bring myself to do it.

    32. Hooked indeed, Bandini.

      The inclusion in the video means it's been kicking around since 2008 when the Sun tried to implicate JS. Judging by this version of the picture used in 2012 (and presumably changed after they became aware of their mistake), some stuff does go up without a copyright claim…more honest than one or two other papers I understand!

      Possible that the youtube user had access to the original images, but equally plausible that he found some/all online, I would say. Might be worth looking around for other stuff of his, I guess, but I’ve no desire to pester him either. His website goes back to 2007 and maybe well worth a read for anyone interested in in HDLG specifically.

      For the Mitsubishi site, I’ve started digging around on the Wayback Machine, which has a lot of stuff, but doesn’t seem to lead directly to what I was looking for. I might have another go over the weekend, if I can stomach it.

      The shadows are interesting - the group belonging to the boys standing up on the plinth don’t seem to match, but I’m no expert. I’m more convinced than ever that there would have to have been a walkable passage behind the front ten - the light under the arm of Man 8 (on Jim’s left) adds further support and is, perhaps, clearer in the versions of the pic I’ve found latterly. Then there’s the whole hodge-podge, which is fascinating in itself. But to turn it around for a moment, what would it take to make such a convincing ‘collage’? As a non-specialist, I would say a hell of a lot of work. If some expert in these matters could point out something ‘obvious’, well I’d be interested, but realistically I still think we must be looking at a ‘genuine’ photo.

    33. Misa - guilty as charged. I do tend to serve this up and burrow onwards. You see I know you guys will help me out and, my word - you've all surpassed yourselves.
      Anyways, here's a truncated response for now. The youtube video is a great find. It would appear that this is indeed the image that the scum used, unless someone mashed this up as a response to the articles published in 2008. I have done some burrowing into the uploader who's on twitter and was when the story of the house of horrors began. No mention of Jimmy even when he tweeted the news of compo in March 2008 ( I think I'm not on my pc, I copied his tweets late last night so going from memory here - naughty but I think I'm right). Not one mention of Savile until the big push in October 2012 !

    34. No luck with the car forum, I'm afraid. I did find that there had been some discussion at Digital Spy, where a commenter ’Sigurd’ provides a link to the website of the car forum man where the Jim picture can be seen, and asks what sort of person keeps a website like that. I see that the sitehas been registered since 2006 , so that doesn’t help narrow things down.

      I think either you or Moor had mentioned Digital Spy as a place where there was a lot of discussion about JS. The thread above was initially about the photo of JS introducing the Ripper to Our Frank. I don’t know how popular DS is/was, but it may well have been a good source of rumour and speculation.

      It might be worth noting that the car forum man doesn’t specifically state that the version of the picture without the Fix It badge is legit, he says, “Thing is....the picture isn't real…” but he does upload the badge-free version with the file name ‘jimorig.jpg’.

      If he were happen on our little discussion here, after he’d finished laughing, it would be nice if he could confirm when he published the photoshopped version, and show us where the original came from.

    35. Misa, I note that at least one poster at DS had their doubts:

      "Is that photo the only proof he was [there]? The reason I ask is because something doesn't look quite right about it (apart from the oddly modern looking 'photoshopped' caption). Are there any other photos of that visit? Nice clear, close-up ones of JS?"

      I keep seeing more things that don't look 'quite right' - the incredible pins (or 'pin') of the girl you numbered 28, for example. No doubt snapped up by a modelling agency!

    36. Yes. Reassuring that we weren't the first people to, erm, doubt. And it's a good point about other pictures. JEP ought to be the place...

      Anyway, 28's legs, or leg, at least...I was looking at the angle, wondering whether she was standing cross legged and/or leaning on the plinth (or whatever), but now you point it out...she's got legs up to 'ere!

    37. "On 30 June 2015 the Jersey Evening Post celebrated its 125th birthday. In January that year it donated its photographic archive of 1.5 million images to the Island. The archive – a collection of glass plates, negatives and prints which record the richness and variety of Island life since the paper was founded in 1890 – will be conserved and digitised by Jersey Heritage so that they can be accessed and enjoyed by Islanders for ever."

      (Subscriptions are available though it's free to browse in person.)

    38. According to this page TOTP on 1st July 1976, presented by Jimmy Savile, featured Bill Oddie & the Superspike Squad with John Cleese (video)

  13. Great finds of JS with those glasses. In the 1975 photo his hair is darker too. It surely must be him in the HDLG photo. Proof positive that he was up to no good in Jersey - not.

  14. Just for reference, the mentions of the blasted photograph from Wn 125's interview statements; firstly, 5th August 2008:

    "...we had our photograph taken by the Evening Post. I think I was sitting next to him, I think."

    Secondly, 8th April 2009:

    Wn 125 is promted to mention Savile (and given name of the walk) by XXX, an unidentified person: "Him from the TV."

    [On subject of XXX I must have missed this before, but it seems likely that an interviewer is referring to this individual when comforting an upset Wn 125:

    "You've know you've known XXX a long time."]

    And here's Savile in Scotland in '76, wearing his favourite shades.

  15. "A study of more than 700 people found four in ten couldn't tell a fake picture from a real one... ...This simple test will reveal if you are any better at spotting a fake picture than the average person... ...The study underlines the threat to democracy posed by the spread of made up propaganda..."

    Given the source - The Daily Mail! - it's actually quite interesting.

  16. Good luck with your expedition tdf ! Nice one x

  17. Claims of a photoshopped-image doing the rounds from the mighty Skibbereen Eagle:

    "This badly photoshopped fake photo is doing the rounds on Facebook. These are the fields around Chequers about two miles from where I live. Savile was never Tony Blair’s guest at Chequers [untrue, although the photo is said to be from 1998, a year before a star-studded dinner there] but DID spend 11 New Year’s Eves there as Margaret Thatcher’s house guest [really?] and he was a major Tory supporter and donor [oh dear]."

    1. (Er, those dates according to the Daily Mail: "Jimmy Saville with then Prime Minister Tony Blair in 1998. The event at Chequers took place a year later..."

      Whereas the Independent disagrees:

      "towards the end of 1997... ... were invited for dinner at Chequers..."

      Think I'll knock this one on the head!)

    2. That's a splendid article Bandini! I see in the comments that the author began to change his view of JS as more came out, yet his original piece was really pretty sound. A reminder that we should trust our own judgement and, at least be cautious about new 'facts' suddenly emerging.

  18. "But were he and Blair truly friends? He seems to have been invited to dinner only once by Tony Blair, on October 23, 1999.
    When official lists of those entertained to dinner [at Chequers] were released under the Freedom of Information Act, it emerged that Savile had dinner with Dame Judi Dench and..."

    The Mail stands its ground against The Independent! Now that really IS enough of that.

  19. From 'Yahoo! Answers' 10th March 2008

    "The photo was printed last week in the papers, I can't find a link either which is odd. My paper is soggy now so I can't even scan it. If anyone can find the photo or provide a link it'd be great. Thanks"

    Shame it never dried out...
    (Now we'll have to wait for TDF to dry out - boom boom!)

    And I'm just leaving this here as a marker in case the name pops up again, but prepare to descend into internet-madness: a photojournalist by the name of Mike Gunnill seems to be largely freelance now but his bio includes "The Sun newspaper for 16 years in the studio and around the world".

    If you google his name you'll find he's ruffled a few feathers in the 'M.McCann community' (for reasons I can't be bothered looking into) where it is claimed he uses varias aliases in formums and the like. What caught my eye was this:

    "It is also of note that Gunnill appears to have a strange fascination with children's home Haut de la Garenne in Jersey, where serious child abuse and possibly also child murders occurred over three decades. He proved his deep interest in this subject by reproducing literally scores of photos from this notorious institution on his website."

    I suppose I ought to include a link but I'd really rather not - they're all insane! But...

    Elswehere it is said these photographs suddenly disappeared when attention was drawn to their presence on the 'net by a fellow nutter. No idea if any of this is true.

    Anyway, one thing that IS true is that Gunnill was the photographer for the pics of Eileen Fairweather's swivel-eyed article in the Mail, 'I have known about Jersey paedophiles for 15 years,' says award-winning journalist.

    That article was 'last uppated 02 March 2008' but on Gunnill's Flikr-account he gives the date as 29th February 2008 (i.e. before The Sun published its first Savile-smearing piece).

    So, a photojournalist with a long connection to The Sun, a strong interest in HDLG and a cracking collection of vanishing HDLG-pics (if any of what the crazies say is true, of course!).

    'Tis probably nothing.

  20. Oh, go on then: the image of Eileen Fairweather that appeared in The Mail is slightly different to that on Gunnill's site. The eagle-eyed will notice the buttons on her jacket leap from one side to the other.

    Perhaps she has two near-identical jackets; then again, the more rational explanation would be that at least ONE of the images is false... though my money would be on both of them being 'shopped.

    Buttons to the left of me...
    Buttons to the right...
    Here I am stuck in the middle!

    1. Ha. Good work, as ever, Bandini. I don't know how you do it. I'm not sure I want to know. I've just spent far too long trying to make sense of the Maddie nutters' squabbles. Thanks. Again. I even found the footprints of A Raccoon.

      I see that Mr Gunnill and our Aidy the car man both come from the Garden of England.

      Some discussion of the Sun/NOTW article here, and mention of the photo being on Flickr here, though the Flickr page seems just to be another Maddie enthusiast.

      Oh, and a little gem (new to me) uploaded to Youtube in 2006!

      Not a lot to show for myself, I'm afraid.

    2. Er, that video is new to me too! Can't help quoting Basil Fawlty: "Everything's bottoms, isn't it?"

  21. "Anyway, one thing that IS true is that Gunnill was the photographer for the pics of Eileen Fairweather's swivel-eyed article in the Mail, 'I have known about Jersey paedophiles for 15 years,' says award-winning journalist."

    What, in your view, is 'swivel-eyed' about that article, Bandini?

    1. For starters, TDF:

      "Last weekend, a child's remains were found at a former children's home on Jersey amid claims of a paedophile ring."

      Remember what Nick Davies had to say about this?

      "Some of these were from the Channel Islands or regularly took Islington children there on unofficial visits. In light of the grisly discoveries at Haut de la Garenne, the link now seems significant..."

      Listened to a bit of this in the background yesterday, Stuart Syvret also succumbing to occular rotation particularly around the 15-minute mark (contagious?): he absolutely could NOT discount Savile having fiddled about with corpses!!!

      Anyway, did you like the 'clouds of doom' added to Fairweather's bad weather collage of Hell House? If yoo were to zoom in you'd probably find a raven or two, perhaps a hideous hellhound lifting its leg in the background...

    2. Yes, I remember what Nick Davies had to say to the Leveson Inquiry, you found a link to his testimony, but why would Nick Davies have any especial authority on the matter?

      In relation to the 'clouds of doom', the suggestion you are making is the photo has been photo-shopped or otherwise tampered with, can you prove that this is the case?

    3. "Listened to a bit of this in the background yesterday, Stuart Syvret also succumbing to occular rotation particularly around the 15-minute mark (contagious?): he absolutely could NOT discount Savile having fiddled about with corpses!!!"

      Don't have time to listen to it now, but given the recording date of that interview, it strikes me that Jul/Aug 2014 was an odd time - it seems, with the benefit of hindsight, that a lot of false or highly exaggerated stories regarding claims of 'VIP' CSA networks were being circulated in the media.

      IIRC, it was Paul Gambaccini who first publicly ventilated the rumour about Savile interfering with corpses.

    4. TDF, re the 'clouds of doom' & proof, I've already provided proof above - unless you favour the 'two almost-identical jackets' theory - that at least one of the two pictures is a montage.

      If this has any importance or not is debatable, though at the risk of repeating myself the 'Fairweather Fake' was produced at almost the same time as we are told the HDLG snap of Savile first appeared - though we are yet to see proof of this as EVERY copy of Britain's favourite newspaper (circulation approx. 3 million) seems to have fallen in to the bath, had a cup of tea spilled over it or else been snaffled by the family dog as the paperboy shoved it through the letterbox.

      That the man responsible for the Fairweather pics is also... oh sod it! What I said above!

      Why would Nick Davies have authority on the matter, you ask? Jesus wept, TDF! In case you haven't noticed there were NO dead children buried at HDLG! For God's sake, really I'm not in the mood for this! Maybe he just made a lucky guess but he was correct anyway so, really, what's the point in flogging this dead horse?

      All may be clearer when the series of 'incredible vanishing articles' are brought into the public domain.

    5. (I can't beieve I'm wasting my time with this, but I'm reminded of an interesting anecdote once heard on the radio regarding the difference between the buttons on a man's/woman's shirt or blouse: the opposite sides are so that one can undress the other when face to face!

      No idea if this is the real reason, but I like it and am clinging to it... I like such little details...

      Anyway, TDF, you might want to compare the button arrangement in the 'Fairweather Fake' - complete with those clouds of doom! - with other women's jackets. You did ask for 'proof'...)


    7. Oh lord! Please study that pic TDF and see if you can work out why you've just proven what I mentioned above!
      (Hint: pay attention to the BUTTON-HOLES and not the never-to-be-used decorative buttons on what is, without doubt, a truly hideous jacket.)

    8. Can't resist: comment number 100 simply has to deal with the vexed issue of 'the button differential.

    9. Bandini, please try and make sense.

      What you are suggesting is that someone photo-shopped a jacket onto (presumably) a genuine photo of Eileen Fairweather. Why would they bother?

    10. If you are correct, then why, in your view, would someone do that?

    11. Why would someone do that, TDF? Er, why do the Cap'n' Birdseyes of the world tell us they have massive cods when we know they only have tiny tiddlers in their nets? It's a better story...

      Why would they bother? For mundane reasons probably; did the Mail really feel like shelling out to send a photographer all the way to Jersey, accompanying Fairweather on her trip? Did she even visit on this occasion? Compare the following:

      ""The smears on me are water off a duck's back," this brave man told me yesterday in a St Helier cafe. But his hands shook."


      "As we sat taking coffee in a hotel bar in Altrincham, Julie, a widow in her 60s, pointed at the old and fading photographs in an album."

      Ah, my old pal Julie, owner of Ringo (may he R.I.P.); she never spoke to the writer, she never met the writer, and she certainly didn't 'take' coffee with the bastard. But that's not what the 'paper says...

      From a journalistic point of view if hardly makes much difference - what did Fairweather gain anyway by flying to Jersey (assuming she did) that she couldn't have obtained over the 'phone? A busy woman like that could hardly have spent days stood in front of Hell House waiting for the clouds of doom to arrive - so 'shop 'em!

    12. tdf, if you download the pictures and zoom in on the better quality one, (Buttons to the left of me), you'll see the button holes, and lack of buttons, on the right side of the jacket.

      Of course, it may well have been the pictures staff at the paper, rather than the freelance snapper, who shopped it.

      Why? Composition.

    13. I should make it clear - it's the whole of her that's been flipped over, not just the jacket! So, in the picture in the paper, it's her evil twin.

      My money is on both Eileen and photographer having gone there, and the pic on MG's Flickr page being 'genuine'; the version in the paper modified both for her orientation and the clouds. But once you realise that a picture is just as much a matter of composition - something put together - a creative work, as a piece of writing, you realise that it doesn't really matter whether she was there or not, whether the people she spoke to really told her the things she wrote down. All we have to go on is the integrity of the journalist, the photographer and the newspaper. And, I'm afraid, that's not much.

    14. Here's a Getty Images snap used by the BBC and taken on same day; the photographer was Alain Jocard and another pic from the same series accompanies an article in The Telegraph.

      The article is from October 2012 and the writer is... Eileen Fairweather. They should've called the Mail (or Gunnill)!

      (Interesting side note: the pics of HDLG from a few days prior to those ones above have a very visible 'YHA' sign on one of the pillars; presumably the Youth Association decided it wasn't the best publicity having their name associated with torture chambers & youths' bones...)

    15. Ms Fairweather seems to have made quite a career out of child abuse stories, and has written for the Guardian, Telegraph, Times, Mail, Independent, writing about Islington, North Wales and Jersey. She’s been at it for over 20 years.

      One article of hers in the Telegraph shows Jim in those glasses. Quite an interesting reflection on JS in light of what she ‘now knows’.

      Another of hers for the Telegraph shows just how important skies above children’s homes are. Not suggesting she would have any say in the choice of photo, of course. But the article does contain the lovely line:

      “She thanked me for helping make the unbelievable believable.”

  22. One other item from my weekend of madness…

    I wonder whether this article from the NOTW 'Kids loaned out for rape cruises' fulfils either Bandini or tdf’s definition of ‘swivel-eyed’?

    You’ll note that the archived version of the article dates from 19 March 2008, just after JS got his lawyers on the case. Presumably, the article could only have appeared on one of the preceding three Sundays: 1st, 8th, or 15th March 2008.

    I draw your attention to this not only for the joy of reading such uninhibited prose, but also because the article appeared, apparently in full, on a number of other sites, the earliest of which appears to be this one, which Google dates to 16th March 2008.

    1. You’ll note that there’s an additional paragraph at the bottom of the article. It looks a little odd, as it begins with the capitalised words, “IT IS ALLEGED”, but other copies of the same article, suggest that there may have been photographs of Jimmy Savile and Ted Heath and a sub-heading or description, “Edward Heath(former PM of the UK) and sir Jimmy Saville.”

      ‘IT IS ALLEGED – He is very well known for his perverted abuse of young boys. A source spoke to one of his victims and he said about others who were present, and more important, who was supplying the children to him. The person bringing children for him to abuse is Sir Jimmy Saville. He was seen by the witness, victim, taking young boys onboard Heaths yacht the morning cloud when they were at party conference. Saville is known for supplying a number of high profile MP’s with children for them to sexually abuse.”’

      If that’s any indication of how the News of the World were bandying Jim’s name about in association with HDLG, I’m not surprised he jumped on them. But, I’m afraid, it was always out there for those with an interest (or belief) in such things to see.

    2. Misa, that extra paragraph has obviously been added to the original article by a nutter, and then copied & pasted by a whole army of 'em...

      I had a search previously for NOTW-stuff, but without success. Following your example however we have a genuine mention of Jimmy Savile in relation to HDLG from our tabloid chums, 2nd March 2008!

      "Yesterday police continued to dig for bodies in and around the home and sift through debris extracted from a cellar.

      It was also reported that TV and radio star Sir Jimmy Savile, 81, visited the home to open fetes during the early 1970s—but had no knowledge of the horrors taking place."

      Yay! Will have a further dig when time permits but we may have to settle for this 'til TDF finishes watching his box-set of Danny Dyer documentaries ('Britain's Baddest Bastards', etc.)!

    3. The whole thing's so nutty, it's sometimes difficult to tell. But point taken. And it surely couldn't have passed a copy editor in that state. I was gob-smacked reading the original article as it stood.

      Cheeky mention from 2 March nonetheless.

      Oh, and I've been gawping at the photo again. Does Boy 6 have a bit of a halo (visible against Boy 11)? And what's going on with Mrs 31's hemline?

    4. Misa, I'm giving my eyes a rest today! Must... resist.....

      This may be of minor interest: the Daily Mail mentioned Saville [sic] in relation to HDLG on the 4th March 2008 and the article has not been removed.

      "Police also revealed that former children's television host Jimmy Saville had visited the home on several occasions during the Seventies but is not part of their inquiry."

      (Courtesy of this compendium, now only available in a cached version, of media reporting at the time.)

    5. Misa, with eyes refreshed I see what you mean re the Ready Brek Millibean Kid, though it could just be a result of a poor quality image being amplified - algorithms or summat...

      Others look similarly odd when scaled up, numbers 1 & 16 for example; the reflection of the sun may have had a role to play? Not sure what you are referring to with 31's hemline... Savile's left elbow seems to have an outline where it shouldn't have, perhaps a shadow being cast? Anyway...

      Where's O'Wally?

    6. I looked at Savile's arm, but concluded that there are stripes which *could* explain the apparent brightness.

      If you zoom in on 31's hemline a little, you get three horizontal lines which looked a little strange to me.

      I'm not sure what we gain by this. Unless someone who really understands this stuff can verify the picture, we don't have much to go on.

    7. Misa, it may be down to whatever program we are using to zoom in as I still can't see the horizontal lines.
      (I'm using Gimp and scale-up the image rather than zooming as this seems to produce better results though no doubt introduces certain distortions of its own.)

      Re Savile's tracksuit, I was thinking it only had two stripes, but who knows?
      I don't think we'll ever see this picture verified as I doubt a negative will ever be found! It's a freakish abomination so far as I'm concerned: odd feet, knees & unnaturally long legs, Savile with a half-wig on & in general just a big bowl of wrong.

      One idea I had which might have explained some of the strangeness was that a pinhole camera could have been used! If you look at early group portraits they often have a different look to 'real' camera pics due to everything being more or less in focus (I don't have the technical vocabulary to describe this phenomenon) which at times creates a sort of collage effect...

      I was really grasping at straws! Anyway, surely we'll soon have some more material to work with?!?

    8. The tracksuit I took to have two dark stripes set against a white background, whilst the overall colour of the tracksuit is probably light blue, or something...have we seen a colour picture of it somewhere?

      Anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing the real thing. Did someone say I could cough up 40 quid for a copy?

    9. Trouble is, Misa, we can't be sure that the pic appears in the edition stated (1st March 2008); somehow I doubt it.
      To be honest I'm starting to wonder if it being published isn't some sort of urban myth! Why do we never see the accompanying caption? Odd...

      I had a search before & thought I'd found a slightly cheaper place than the 'historical newspaper' site that all links seem to eventually lead to, but they didn't have The Sun in the end, so...

      It'd be bad enough shelling out £40 for The Sun even IF it was the one wanted, but if it wasn't? Aaarrghh!

      (I checked the flight prices to Dublin in a mad moment - not as cheap as I thought though it'd be cheaper than two-weeks' worth of a crappy tabloid! It's either there, Aberystwyth, Edinburgh or, perhaps, London. Wish I was closer as it'd be fun having a poke around in a library archive.

      Someone'll have to scale the library walls... maybe they have already but still haven't found what they were looking for?)

    10. Fair point about the caption. Maybe it never was printed. It seems clear that the photo has been in circulation since 2008, but it also seems that people have been playing silly buggers with rumours about Heath and Savile since around then. It certainly seems that at least one Sun website article was removed.

      It might be worth noting that it would have been NOTW on 1st March 2008, rather than the Sun, which is not to say it couldn't have appeared in the Sun on another day.

      If nothing turns up soon, I may have to make my way to London town.

    11. Misa, I think you must have chanced upon the same confusing 'week begins on Sunday' calendar as I! It was a leap year so Saturday 1st March would be The Sun & Sunday 2nd the NOTW.

      [And "It was also reported that TV and radio star Sir Jimmy Savile..." preumably referred to the 'report' in their sister paper the day before.]

    12. Crikey, Bandini! My bad. I reckon Google's date-limited search must be off. Thanks for putting me straight.

    13. Ha. Now I check, I see their week begins on a Sunday...didn't our weeks begin on Sundays, not too long ago?

  23. Er, in a bit of a conundrum here as not keen on identifying people too much (and not sure if it would even be legal) but I spent quite a while a few days ago trying to track down the testimony of the uploader of Misa's 2008 video which includes the photograph of Savile at HDLG (perhaps!)...

    I had no luck at the time but I have, quite by accident, just stumbled upon it. Basically the uploader claims to have been too shy & withdrawn to appear in the 'photo by the swimming pool' but remembers it taking place although wasn't able to remember his own approximate age at the time (which is a bit odd as it would have taken place not long before his time at HDLG came to an end).

    He makes no claim of abuse at the hands of Savile & really doesn't recall much about the event, though says that the children didn't talk about the visit after it had ended - again, a bit odd.

    I quite like this bloke to be honest, and don't want to be responsible for causing him any distress.
    (I'll send Rabbitaway a link to the testimony he provided in case I missed something.)

  24. Great stuff, Bandini!

    I’m afraid this is going to be another multi-part post due to multiple links.

    I've not quite found anything in the same league as Bandini's offering, but I've been trawling through Digital Spy. I think this is territory familiar at least to Moor and possibly Rabbit too, so I’m a little concerned I may be going over old territory but, as well as being indignant (understatement) about how JS has been trashed, I’m also fascinated by how it could have happened.

    1. The Digital Spy page linked to above contains a comment about T Stokes, who seems to be strongly connected with the website which I linked to above because of it’s apparent reproduction of a NOTW article, albeit with a little bit added. The comment on Digital Spy suggests:

      “David Ike has highjacked the articule and he earns millions telling people that we are secretly run by reptilian shapeshifters...he claims to have evidence for that too. Personally I think it exonarates Jimmy Savile, unless you are also the type of person that agrees with T Stokes and believe he is a truth teller….”

    2. Now, it’s clear that David Icke wrote nothing about JS whilst he was alive, even though he’s dined out on claims he tried to tell people all about him. I’ve yet to trawl the T Stokes archives - he may have been quite a character - but he did publish this article a couple of days after Jim’s death, in which he displays the obviously photoshopped version of our photograph.

      The slightly curious thing about this is that he gives as the source for his extensive claims, a rather brief article by the one and only Milo Yionnopoulos.

      Milo was pretty quick out of the blocks!

    3. That's interesting, Misa!
      I'd seen the Stokes/Truthseeker [sic] stuff before but never noticed the link to Milo... so that's how you launch a career as whatever the hell it is he professes to do.

      "In fact, Savile had close links to managers at the home. A journalist who reported on the case told me there are gruesome revelations waiting to surface that no newspaper felt able to publish at the time, given UK libel law."

      'Close links' and 'gruesome revelations', eh? What a load of rubbish!

    4. A google search of the name "Anthony Thomas Trevor-Stokes" produces not a lot of interest except for the usual conspiraloon websites. Did this bloke even exist?

      PS: haven't made it in to the National Library yet, apologies.

    5. The fact that links to a blog post from Yiannopolis ( whose career as an 'Alt Right' media celebrity in the US floundered when someone 'discovered' that he had implied in an interview a few years back that adults having sex with kids is ok ) adds another level of bizarreness to the whole tangled tale.

      Btw, as far as I can gather, T Stokes was an originator of the Cliff Richards rumours also.

    6. Stokes - the "ex-intelligence operative and analyst" -
      managed to finger Savile a little earlier too (6th September 2011, if we are to trust the websites that publish this drivel) when 'Jimmy Saville' joined a group of "all Jewish pop mogul homosexuals" who "would party and ply drugs and alcohol to young boys".

      Riveting stuff! Funnily enough it's an 'article' about... er, well I'm not too sure though it does seem to focus on Jews & homosexuals; anyway, Ted Heath is in Stokes' sights as he "was known to visit the Jersey care home the Haute Garrene [sic] among others to take young boys on boating weekends on his yacht called ‘Morning Cloud’, or as bodyguards referred to it, ‘Morning Sickness’."

      But no 'Saville' supplying his disposable crew this time...

      It's all a load of rubbish, isn't it? Or is it?!?
      TDF, here's some home footage of a boy being found washed up on the shore... in Jersey... in 1976!

      Blimey. Now then, howsabout returning the favour with some scans?!?

    7. Speaking of Heath, did you see that Mike Veale's Wiltshire Constab have been policing Twitter in search of hate crimes (to much amusement).

    8. This Stokes character apparently liked to be known as "britians psychic agony uncle".

      tdf, yes. Wilts Police obviously like to entertain.

    9. His "work has been featured in" a mindblowing & incredibily long list of publications: 'Hindu Gazette Exorcists Directory', 'Mystic-Jitterbuzz', etc.
      No mainstream media sell-out was Stokesy!

    10. My researches have gone down certain and admittedly somewhat off-topic rabbitholes. The Rialto Report is a website which documents the early adult movies' industry in the US, with a particular focus on the 1970s. Probably NSFW, but a fascinating piece of social history.

      In any case, one particular post of theirs documents the career of a actor who used the screen name 'Wade Nichols' for his adult industry career. He eventually became semi-famous when he hooked up with the French music producer who discovered/invented 'The Village People', one of the most popular disco bands of the 1970s.

      To bring it somewhat back on topic, I thought this was fascinating:

      "When Dennis was on promotional duties, Jacques would travel with him, but they would concoct elaborate stories for the media to build Dennis’ image as a heterosexual, playboy lady-killer, complete with accompanying pictures showing him embracing a selection of beauties."

      Sounds as though faked or tampered-with photos are nothing new, and pre-dated the internet era of photoshopping and the like!

    11. Fwiw, the reason I came across that website (no pun intended) was that I was trying to research if there was any crossover between adult movies and illegal CP in the early days.

      I emailed them last year to ask if they knew of any similar website with a focus on documenting the European 'scene' of that era, they politely replied back to say that unfortunately they had not, but apparently they had received many similar requests.

      The US adult movie scene seems to have been quite 'clean', in the sense of not tolerating under-age stuff, one notable exception was Traci Lords, whose early movies were done when she was under age. (She later sang joint lead vocals on the Manic Street Preachers' song 'Little Baby Nothing', it is on their first album).

    12. Another interesting website is that of , which is here:

      He recollects, as a teenage punk rock fan in the 1970s, being regularly propositioned by older males on numerous occasions, and even (much older) females on a few occasions in London at that time.

      Most seriously, he alleges that boys were offered serious money to be buggered on film - he alleges that while he and most of his friends turned down the offers flat, he was aware of some who accepted them.

      At least one of his commenters backs up his story with similar recollections.

    13. Serious money, TDF? I calculate that he was offered the equivalent of £500 for "being bum-fucked on camera". Hardly a fortune...

      He also seems stubbornly confused by what constitutes paedophilia as those being 'propositioned' as they left punk concerts were, rather obviously, 'young people' and not 'children'.

      It's ironic in a way as I'm fairly certain that those same 'young people' so enthralled with punk were pretty keen on demanding their right to do whatever they wanted to do (and not be treated like children).

      "There were plenty of blues (amphetamine tablets) around at punk gigs too…", he says. And I imagine there was a bit of booze too!

      Anyway, thanks for that lovely image of you blowing your moldy beans across the laptop screen as you, ahem, 'research' child pornography... I really wouldn't recommend doing this!

      The answer is obvious anyway - yes!!! Just as there is a link between, say, dealing weed & dealing hard drugs, or companies facilitating tax avoidance & tax evasion, or any other field where the legal ringfence is being tested or skirted around by cowboys, some of whom will inevitably make the leap over to t'other side.

      No, you'd be on far safer & more fertile ground getting yourself down to the bloody reading room.

    14. Bandini, I too was filled with anticipation when I saw tdf had been doing some research, so I understand your disappointment, but you may be being a little unfair. I thought some of the comments at one of the links - such as this one - were quite interesting.

    15. "And Jimmy Savile was coming all over the place too."

      Thanks for this Misa!

    16. "Serious money, TDF? I calculate that he was offered the equivalent of £500 for "being bum-fucked on camera". Hardly a fortune..."

      Must admit, I didn't bother getting my inflation checker out and thought it would come to more than that. Bear in mind however that the 1970s were a very depressed economic decade, mass unemployment, few opportunities for young people, etc.

      "It's ironic in a way as I'm fairly certain that those same 'young people' so enthralled with punk were pretty keen on demanding their right to do whatever they wanted to do (and not be treated like children). "

      Ok, yes, that was probably the case with the punk generation. But it still doesn't excuse the dirty old men (and apparently, in at least one case, if his account is to be believed, dirty old women) even if no coercion was involved.

      These days hardly a week goes by without seeing a teacher brought in front of the courts (including, increasingly it seems, female teachers) to face accusations of having illicit relations with their students. I have yet to see a case of an acquittal on the basis of a teacher simply pleading 'well, your honour, I thought it was ok because he/she said he/she wanted to be treated as an adult'.

      Plus, the blogger claims that he looked younger than his age and from the photo of him as an adult on his site, I can believe it.

      But, yeah, leaving aside Savile entirely, that link Misa put up to the comment on that blog is interesting. McLaren certainly promoted the band Bow Wow Wow, which notoriously featured the then under-age Anabella Lwin.

    17. Talk of McLaren causes me to ponder if he would have been brought into the Operation Yewtree investigations in the event that he was still alive in 2012.

      You will recall that Bill Wyman was reported as having presented himself to his local police station around the time the Savile accusations were first gaining currency in the media, but seemingly was told that he had nothing to worry about.

      Wyman, by virtue of being an ex-Rolling Stone, would be considered 'cool', along with the likes of Jimmy Page and David Bowie - both of whom had underage groupies.

      By contrast, Savile (posthumously), DLT, Rolf Harris, Freddy Starr and Cliff Richards were the subject of accusations - and were always considered a bit, well, naff and uncool (with the possible exception of Cliff in his very early days with the Shadows).

      The flaw in my theory would be that Roy Harper - a musos' musician, never globally famous, but always approved of by the cognescenti - would be considered 'cool', yet nevertheless he got dragged into it, though was acquitted.

    18. TDF, if you look at the 'notorious' photo of Bow Wow Wow what is it that you see? Does she even look 'under-age'? McLaren was a spiv, a wind-up merchant... the fact that you can freely look at the image might tell you something.

      "Samantha Fox, Maria Whittaker, Debee Ashby, and others began their topless modelling careers in The Sun when they were 16..."

      Hmmm, so the 'dirty old men' (or 'pervs' as Stuart Home - the brains behind the Necrocard which 'donates' one's body to post-death sex with a necrophiliac - calls 'em) really didn't need arch chancer McLaren after all as Rupert Murdoch would soon bumble along to sate their desires:

      "She started her topless modeling career at age 16 in a dual pictorial in 'The Sun' daily newspaper with her mother Anne Ashby. Her topless appearances led to her expulsion from King Henry VIII School, Coventry before she completed her "O" levels. Her statistics at this time were quoted as 34DD-22-34 and she is a blonde."

      Ho ho ho! With her mum, before her 'O' Levels!! What McLaren would have given for Murdoch's imagination!!!

      Do you REALLY think the blogger would have looked like a child? Did children routinely pile out of concerts & bars with super-glued hair? The only illegality being spoken about there is solely down to the difference in age of consent between hetro- and homosexuals, and the ridiculous tale he spins that the underage (<21) films he claims to have been offered 'serious money' to perform in would have focused solely on his bottom, avoiding filming the face and hereby stopping the 'pervs' getting into trouble for producing underage porn is just laughable.

      Think about it: assuming that bottoms are not easily age-identifiable I'm having a hard time seeing a massive market for illicit films of 'could be anyone's bottom' among paedophiles except, perhaps, the most gullible.

      "...we were even told that our faces wouldn’t be on the films, only our backsides. We concluded that rather than being for our benefit this was to protect the pornographers making the movies – if we couldn’t be identified then no one would be able to prove that we were beneath the age of consent for gay sex in the UK at that time..."

      Seriously... Still, not as daft as the suggestion that Jimmy Savile was popping into McLaren's shop (to buy golden safety-pins for his trackies, or just to "[come] all over the place"?).

      Maybe you could track down a snap of the 16-year-old Debee's double-D assets when you finally make it to the vaults of The Sun's wonderous output?

    19. " Maybe you could track down a snap of the 16-year-old Debee's double-D assets when you finally make it to the vaults of The Sun's wonderous output? "

      Wouldn't be any point - seen 'em before, or if not Debee's, then certainly Samantha Fox's "assets".

      From memory, and in a particularly bizarre example of Irish governmental hypocrisy or incompetence, the Sun easily available for sale in Ireland of the 1980 (if not displayed openly in newsagents, then certainly 'under-the-counter' in most of 'em) complete with page 3 girls displaying their 'assets' - at a time when the likes of Playboy were banned, as for that matter was contraception of most forms (except for those officially approved of by the Holy Roman Catholic Empire, of course).

    20. " Do you REALLY think the blogger would have looked like a child? Did children routinely pile out of concerts & bars with super-glued hair? "

      It depends on how 'children' is defined. I take children as applying to anyone under the age of consent.

      " The only illegality being spoken about there is solely down to the difference in age of consent between hetro- and homosexuals, "

      No, you are misquoting him there. He states that PART of why he and his friends might have been predated upon is due to the difference in the AOC laws back then.

      He seems to be a bit of, well, frankly a post-modernist messer (nothing wrong with that in itself. )

      His mother, he claims, was a former hostess in certain London night-clubs way back in the early 1960s, and died young, possibly of heroin abuse. That might be significant, if it is true.

    21. "I take children as applying to anyone under the age of consent. "

      Jesus wept! By your fuzzy logic someone making a day trip across the invisible Irish/Northern Irish border could find themselves flitting between childhood & adulthood (and back again) at the whim of the government(s); perhaps they'd be accompanied by either a 'law-abiding citizen' or 'dirty stinking evil paedo' on their journey...

      What rot. Similarly, a driver crossing the English/Scottish border could pass from 'law abiding citizen' to 'dirty stinking evil drunk driver' - again, on the say-so of those whiter-than-white politicians whose job it is to tell us what we can and cannot do. And it was they who said that until the year 1875 the age of consent - and by your definition, the age at which a child stopped being a child - was 12.

      And no, I wasn't misquoting Home. Pervs, dirty old men, predators... the language is telling.

      Now, I hate to push you, but when might our patience be repaid with some scans of the Murdoch press' stitch-up of Jimmy Savile? It is, really, why we're here.

      (Although if your research on child pornography turns up any bottoms-only paedo filth I would, I admit, be interested to hear. Can't imagine it'd be a series with very many volumes in it...)

    22. "Now, I hate to push you, but when might our patience be repaid with some scans of the Murdoch press' stitch-up of Jimmy Savile? It is, really, why we're here."

      Sorry for delay, I hope to have something tomorrow.

    23. Go on, TDF, make me feel guilty for being a cynical bastard - please!!!

    24. "What rot. Similarly, a driver crossing the English/Scottish border could pass from 'law abiding citizen' to 'dirty stinking evil drunk driver' - again, on the say-so of those whiter-than-white politicians whose job it is to tell us what we can and cannot do. "

      A somewhat timely point, as I have just read that apparently not only can the UK government share details between English and Scottish policing authorities but I see now that the Eire authorities can now share details with the UK (& vice-versa) in relation to motorists who have served driving bans.

      To be honest, there are good reasons why the Scots are fairly strict about things like speed limits and drunk driving - they have single track roads there.

      I must admit that, during my trip to Scotland, while I scrupulously obeyed the speed limits while driving through villages and the countryside, I treated the motorway speed limits with, frankly, contempt.

      "And it was they who said that until the year 1875 the age of consent - and by your definition, the age at which a child stopped being a child - was 12."

      But that was during an era when children were still sent down the mines, no? I don't think most people would want to return to that.

    25. "Michael Jackson...if you're out there...I don't believe you're bad..guilty before you'd been given a chance"
      Would he still say that I wonder?

    26. [Watch out, folks!

      Despite being asked repeatedly to declare his dodgy links TDF has once again tried to smuggle The Singing Brickie over the border.

      Worse, you may be fooled by the title into thinking that U2 are really going to attempt a megamix of Michael Jackson's 'Bad' & Elton John's wretched 'Candle In The Wind' - it is not so! Seven minutes of my life gone...

      No, no moonwalking from Bono but just a mix of U2's own songs (presumably), most of which sound identical to each other anyway so it's hard to know where one turns into another.

      It's no great surprise to report that The Edge has once again opted to use the exact same setting on his blasted delay pedal, with the exact same tone on his guitar, playing the exact same riff he's been getting away with since the 1970s - it may as well have been called 'I Still Haven't Found The Street With No Name'.

      Bono runs through his moves - wails, bellows, on odd interlude where he yelps like a wilted hothouse flower, and then the money-shot: screaming pointlessly as though the fully-laden hod he by rights ought to be carrying for a living has fallen on his foot.

      It quietens down a bit then - as there is only audio, no video, we'll have to use our imaginations to picture Bono overwrought with emotion, down on his knees whispering, oblivious to the hundred thousand people in the audience, at the precise spot marked by an 'X' of gaffer's tape on the floor so as his 100% genuine emoting can be displayed on the mega-screens by the cameras...

      I'm wondering if further study of the HDLG photo might show a breeding ground for crap bands, a plot to dissolve the brains of the impressionable as part of some evil plan, somehow involving the Millibean cyborgs?

      U2, Coldplay, that fucking Sheeran leprechaun...

    27. Hahaha!

      Well, actually, I guess you had nodded off before the end, but he does sing a snippet of Elton John's "Candle in the Wind". Now you will recall that Candle in the Wind was originally written as a song about Marilyn Monroe, then Elton changed it to make it a song about the People's Princess (TM).

      But, love or loathe the song, it wasn't about Elton personally. The builder changes the
      "You had the grace to hold yourself
      While those around you crawled
      They crawled out of the woodwork
      And they whispered into your brain"
      "as they fall out of the pages of cheap Dublin magazines/
      you have the grace to hold yourself while those around you fall"

      In other words the builder is such an egomaniac that he makes the song about his own personal travails of being (mildly) criticised in the Irish meeja ( I think there had been some negative commentary about the builder getting too big for his hod-carrier's boots around that time ).

      As for the Edge, well, Billy Bailey had him bang-to-rights with the 'catastrophic technical breakdown at a U2 gig' sketch.

      I still reckon this is the best ever U2 spoof, though (incidentally, it features a young Arthur Mathews, later co-creator of 'Father Ted'):

      I just think it's kind of funny that Bono as of 1993 felt comfortable throwing a shout out to Michael Jackson (who was at that time facing his first round of peado allegations in the media).

      You'd have to admit that it's hard to imagine the Bono (or Elton John, or Mick Jagger for that matter) of 2017 introducing a song with "Jimmy Savile, if you're out there, I don't believe you're a bad 'un, guilty before you'd been given a chance.."

      Oh and finally, Sheeran isn't Irish! I'm not taking the (collective) blame for him on behalf of Paddy nation.


  25. Fwiw, in the course of a trip through the Scottish highlands, I stayed just outside Fort William (not in the hotel apparently frequented by Savile, which is pretty much in the centre of the town and is still trading - in fact I recall passing it, though I didn't at the time realise it was frequented by JS).

    Savile's old cottage is clearly visible on the main road from Glasgow to Inverness, via Fort William & Glencoe (the A82). At the time I was there (November 2014), it was boarded up.

    Lovely part of the world, which I recommend.

    This was the place I stayed in, which I also am happy to recommend:

  26. ^Well, there's the article. Photo quality ain't the mae west.

    1. Thanks for this, TDF (despite the bloody dreadful quality!).

      I'm too busy at moment to spend more time on this right now, but first impressions:

      - the photo WAS published 1st March as stated by Savile's lawyers and not later as claimed elsewhere (and therefore blowing my idea that it may have been cobbled together to fend off Savile's legal action clean out of the water).

      - the photo we saw in Misa's October 2008 video obviously came from a different source to this article as it has none of the captions, etc.

      - I'm not surprised Savile called his lawyers! Despite going out of their way to make it clear that he wasn't accused of anything I think any 'celebrity' would have done the same.

      - I take any quotations with a massive pinch of salt, but if true about the woman holding the baby being an employee & also being lovely the lunatics who've been claiming that it was the manager of a health-spa for the last several years (a spa which was some kind of VIPaedo... oh, I can't even be bothered!) have been - ahem! - 'mistaken'. Oh dear!

      - Surprised not to see it in a more prominent position within the rag.

      (Would like to know what's in the two pics to the left but due to 'mimeograph quality' 'tis a bit difficult.)

    2. Been having trouble posting.

      Well done, tdf! I was all packed and ready to go to the British Library. I guess I can just enjoy some sightseeing now

      The quality ain’t great, but it seems clear enough that it’s the same photo. The following parts from the text seem to be pertinent.

      “World exclusive photo”

      One of the girls in this picture…she said, “That day you would have thought it was one of the nicest places for a child to be….”

      Jimmy, now 81, said yesterday that he could not remember visiting the home.

      He insisted: “I ain’t never been there. Over the years I’ve done about 30 sponsored walks in Jersey and been photographed with lots of people.

      I have asked my friends in Jersey if I have ever been there and they said, ‘Nope you’ve never been there’, they said it was not on the itinerary.”

      When told of the photograph of him, the star added: “I can say it’s 100 per cent not. You say what you like, I’ll say what I like.”

      Earlier Mr Jordan [former house parent] recalled Jimmy’s visits saying, “He opened a couple of fetes at the home but that would have been it.”

      I see the article was written by Antonella Lazzeri - paedo-satan specialist and Maddie hunter.

      Bandini, there's no reason the photo in the 2008 video couldn't have come from the now-deleted website version of this article. Quite possible it would have appeared there without the overlays, I think.

      'I ain't never...' made me wonder whether Jim said this. It sounds like something a rough-around-the-edges northerner would say, but it somehow doesn't sound like JS...can anyone point to his use of double negatives?

    3. Misa, good point re the photo possibly appearing uncropped/captioned on the website... no idea what The Sun website looked like at the time.

      The article is still listed on Lazzeri's 'Journalisted' profile and also her follow-up: 'More bones dug up at kids home tomb The Sun, Tue 4 March 2008'.

      (I had a quick search for Gunnill/Lazzeri just on the off-chance... just the usual MacMadness.)

    4. Bandini, same Journalisted page, the article below the one you mention is dated 1st March and is there given the title "Smiles for Jim hid Jersey pain". Here we have:

      Jimmy at hell home

      Presumably these are one and the same, and the one you noted, a follow up.

    5. Blimey, TDF's image is of such low quality that I didn't even notice the circle they'd put around Savile, tacitly admitting that Sun readers are generally so thick they'd have a hard time spotting him amongst a group of kids!

      (I only noticed the circle as I was trying to work out what had happened to what Misa thought might have been a table-tennis bat and I thought showed damage to the pic.)

      And I'll just point out that the claim that it was a female worker who took the snap contrasts with Witness 125's 'memory' of The Jersey Evening Post coming to take it.

    6. This article from the Daily Telegraph in Oct 2012 quotes several lines from the Sun article, but also adds

      ‘After later conceding that he had visited the home, he said: "It makes life very unpleasant for someone like me.

      "For anybody who opens a garden fete 38 years ago for half an hour and ends up with people nudging each other in restaurants and saying, 'That man's associated with those murdered children,' it's a nasty thing. What's happening over there is horrific.”’

      This suggests that Jim did (later) accept the ‘proof’. But I cannot find the second article online either.

      So, our man at the Telegraph appears to have been pretty diligent. He’s quoting from at least one, and likely two, Sun articles which have been withdrawn. Either he’s been through the microfilm at the library (like a proper journalist) or perhaps Lexis could have retrieved something like this. Though he doesn’t seem keen to attribute his quote to the Sun. (I can’t find these quotes anywhere prior to the Telegraph article.)

      The same article features ‘another girl’ - Dee Coles.


      The point about the taker of the photo might be significant. It’s also worth noting that the girl in the photo, who is making claims (though apparently not about JS), is female, i.e. not the person who produced the video. And, no, I didn’t notice he circle either.

    7. Misa, trouble in using this stuff is we're kind of obliged to deal with it as if the words being reported by the journo were genuinely uttered by the person supposedly recounting them... the interview with the victim may be a complete figment of Lazzeri's imagination.

      If that witness was genuinely a girl appearing in the photo you'd have thought she'd have been able to fix the date a little more accurately (i.e. NOT the early 70s).

      Witness 125 was remarkably lucid regarding the year (1976) and event (which turned out not to be the event that 'tied' Savile to HDLG through the certificates, signed or otherwise), if not much else... though he of course had the mysterious assistant helping him with his memories.

      So two clear recollections of the photo taker: the press & a female carehome worker. It looks more like the latter to me (leaving aside for one moment the question of whether it's even real or not); if this WERE the case then 125's assisted-memory would have yet more explaining to do.

      Further observations: Savile as quoted hadn't seen the photo at the time of the article; way up yonder somewhere Moor pointed out that in his police interview he refers to a completely different picture showing him with adults... a mistake, perhaps.

    8. Apologies about the image quality but it was the best I could get even fiddling around with the brightness and contrast adjustments on the machine. I will have another look for the rest of the Mar 2008 articles but it will probably be next week. I bought a €2 printer card when I was down there so might as well use it.

    9. I'll tell you where my thinking is at at the moment, gang.

      (1) On the balance of probability, I suspect that it is JS in the photo, and that it is a genuine photo taken in or around HDLG.

      (2) I surmise that The Sun were tipped off about the 2007 (Duncroft) allegation and resulting police investigation. ( )

      (3) Given that rumours/suppositions about JS were in the 'ether' among sections of the media/entertainment world since the year dot, once the HDLG stuff started being reported in the Jersey and UK media, they ran the article - daring him to sue (as of course he did)

      The follow-up article(s) might shed more light on it, once I get them.

    10. And fwiw, here is one of my Glencoe photos:

    11. @Bandini -

      "- Surprised not to see it in a more prominent position within the rag."

      Tbh, my fear was that it might have gotten bumped entirely from the Irish edition of the rag. It is possible that it was shunted to the back pages in the Irish edition and was more prominent in the 'mainland' edition.

    12. No worries about the image quality, TDF. You can give yourself a pat on the back for digging up something the nutters couldn't be bothered doing despite banging on about it on an almost daily basis for 5-years or so.

      (Not really relevant but I'd be interested to hear about what the archive actually consists of - the mysterious 'machine' et al. I have fond memories of microfiches at the local library...)

      The point about placment of article in Irish edition is a good one - quite possible.

      I'm still not convinced by the photo itself - too many elongated limbs, spare body parts and the like, and, of course, Savile's mad hair (which I'm still waiting for someone else to notice!) but who knows?

      The timing and reason for the inclusion of Savile in the article is curious as he'd never been accused by anyone at this point of abuse at HDLG and yet as seen way, waaayy up above, The Sun were contacting a non-HDLG complainant a couple of days later, persuading her to complain and making sure the police complaint WAS made.
      (For all intents and purposes they held her hand and facilitated the make-it-then-withdraw-it claim.)
      It seems likely there is a connection here, but coincidences do happen I suppose.

      The woman in the article says:

      "Sometimes I look at the photo and wonder what became of the children in it..."

      As mentioned above I don't automatically believe that the words reported were really spoken just 'cause they are placed between speech-marks, but if this WAS the case it'd be a bit odd in itself as she would seem to have enjoyed the visit & makes no claim of sexual abuse and even highlights two workers who were 'lovely'... was she the source of 'the photo she sometimes looked at', and if so what would lead to its appearance in The Sun anyway? One would have thought that she'd pop up in the Inquiry somewhere... snowed under with real life at moment so no time to look.

      Given the known Sun shit-stirring of only a couple of days later it might be that they were already trying to shake the tree by associating him in the minds of the public with some real nastiness, in the certain knowledge that a loon or two would suddenly 'remember' something after pubication and thereby helping them build a case.

      Real life calls... Thanks again for the article.



    15. A bit of context would be useful, TDF, a desciption at least...

      But Wilfred 'Dirty Old Man' Brambell died more than three decades ago. It's quite astonishing that he limited himself to paedoing only whilst visiting Skull Island, at a theatre no less, but thank God that his poor victims finally found their champion in Stuart 'Deranged Old Man' Syvret...

      The comments are delusional rubbish, the journos feasting on it despicable frauds. It's no surprise to see 'whistleblower' Fairweather (her of the 'shopped HDLG photo) involved in this 'brave expose' of a corpse... no doubt Brambell once followed Hercules through the streets of Islington, possibly popping into Elm Guest House when he could contain his sick desires no more...

      'Any old iron'/'Any old shite' - they'll print anything.

    16. Mah message really

    17. love is blindness (deh deh deh den deh)

  27. Bloody hell guys - I'll do a follow up to this asap pulling out some of the comments & links. I'm in awe at you all. A very big THANK-YOU x

  28. As a "former punk rocker " fan I've never read so much rubbish about the era. It came and went in a minute and was of little consequence bar Malcolm McLaren brilliantly using the media for sensation.
    As for claims 'pedos' were rife- what the fuck is that all about? There were no kids attending concerts because they were always in small licensed clubs and bars where you had to be of legal age to get in (and they were the days they began checking your ID because undercover cops were always cruising the places looking fro drug dealers.
    People are rewriting history 7 confusing it with the advent of 'teenybopper" music and the rise of stars like Britney Spears, the first to get audiences that were aged 10/11/ 12/ 13 etc.
    One of the greatest liars of the era has to be the ghastly Johnny Rotten (who I had the pleasure of once punching in the face and a few years later drenching him in beer), an odious creep who has milked his limited talent recently by making ridiculous claims about Savile but alas, Rotten seems to forget that one of the most popular singers in one of the much loved punk bands WAS and IS a pedophile who did time in one of those awful kid's homes were he was abused (and in turn abused other kids), was jailed for 18 months for abusing a 12 year old boy and had a notorious reputation for trying to pick up 16/17 year old boys at concerts. Rotten is still a great pal of his.
    Beware those making outlandish claims about an era in music that really was a flash in the pan. They most likely went to a few concerts and it was the most exciting thing that's ever happened in their dreary life so they look fondly back on a era that was, by 1960s Rock'n'Roll standards, almost puritan.

    1. I remember stopping off for a paper on the way back from holiday in Ireland in August 1976. Probably the Evening Standard but it could have been the Evening News. There was an article in it about a fashionable group based at a Kings Road clothes shop who were going to launch a new fashion and music thing called Punk. I regretted wasting my money on the paper.

      So I was cynical from the start and I hated Punk although there were a few catchy songs from the subsequent 'New Wave' like Echo Beach. A school friend dragged me up to the Roundhouse one evening to watch foul-mouthed spotty teenage groups (or 'bands' as they were starting to be called) from places like Guildford swear at the crowd, who in turn swore back, 'pogoed' and spat. I should have brought an umbrella. My friend thought that it was the most exciting thing he had ever seen. People bought jeans with holes already in them. It was just the latest cultural low point.

      There was one of those groups that people still look back on with respect. Can't remember the name but I think they had 'Joe Strummer'. I'd rather hear dogs bark. I bet Jimmy Savile couldn't stand it either.

      By the way, if anyone can summarize for me in a couple of sentences the significance of the photo TDF found in the Irish Sun I'd be grateful.

    2. Sean,

      The photo is interesting because it forms a link between two ‘horror stories - JS & HDLG - and so the two stories become mutually reinforcing. That is to say, “Well, even if that didn’t turn out to be a child’s skull, we know Jimmy Savile was involved….Poor kids!” and, “Even if some of the people who claimed Savile abused them were lying, we know he was involved with that children’s home where they found the child’s skull. Simply awful!”

      That’s yer two sentences, more or less. How would things look if the photo itself turned out to be a fake?

    3. Purely in terms of JS, though, it seems there was an almighty tangle of rumour, innuendo and half-remembered ‘signs’ of what(ever) we ‘now know’, out there before he died - sufficient for many people to believe that ‘they’d always known’ - however, when it comes down to it, there really weren’t that many public/published suggestions that he was anything but a wholesome, albeit slightly odd, family entertainer. Many of those suggestions were half-hearted comic swipes at an ageing public figure. Beyond this, we have the Surrey Police investigation (which cleared him) and the HDLG business.

      A Sun reporter had been aware of the 2007 Surrey Police investigation (into visits to Duncroft, 1977-79) and had tried to get one alleged victim to report things to the police. It would be 2009 before the investigation was wound up.

      In Feb 2008 the HDLG story had gone big with claims that there may be bodies buried.
      The Sun approached JS about his visits to the home and he denied having ever been there.
      They told him they’d got a picture of him there. And he still denied it.
      They published the article about the ‘house of horrors’ with the photo and JS’s denial.
      It appears they continued to link him with this horror story.
      At some point he may have accepted that he had indeed visited.
      A couple of weeks after the first story, he threatened to sue.
      The Sun backed down and sent someone round with a box of cigars to placate him.
      October 2009, JS, interviewed by Surrey Police, describes the Sun having a picture of him with six councillors on the steps at HDLG.

      ‘Savile was so powerful, and so feared, that even when the mighty Sun had photographic evidence linking him to the scene of hideous crimes, he was able to bully them into silence. JS muzzled the press!’

      Not that shocking, of course, because a photograph of a visit is hardly sufficient to suggest he’d been dismembering children (or whatever) and even if he really had been there, he would have had pretty good grounds to sue anyway. Clearly the Sun had no evidence linking him to any offences. They had to back down. But the fact that they even tried to connect him to the story is interesting. My guess (as to why they might have tried this) would be that hacks (or possibly someone higher up the food chain) had long thought him odd, had heard rumours, probably thought he was ripe for taking down (or held a grudge) and decided to have a go - shake the tree and to see what would fall out. It appears that a couple of weeks later they simply backed down, removed the offending articles, and - perhaps this was what they’d banked on - got away with an apology and a gift (rather than an expensive libel case). Of course, this all happened within the protracted period in which Surrey were ‘continuing’ their investigation. Could it be that Surrey were waiting to see what fell out of HDLG?

    4. However, this got the idea (that JS was more than just a bit odd) out there. A national newspaper had reported it. The seed had been planted. For all the rumour and gossip, never mind Louis Theroux and Lynn Barber, my guess is that this whole thing would not have got off the ground had a million Sun readers not read all about it five or six years earlier.

      Then, why was it that, in 2012, it took the Daily Telegraph to dredge this up? When the Sun ran the picture, at the time of the Exposure programme, they even used an obviously photoshopped version downloaded from the internet!

      Whatever happened from 2012 on, my feeling is that Rabbit and Bandini are right - it seems likely that the photo published in the paper in 2008 was faked. When you examine it closely, there are countless suspect elements. However I don’t think we yet have anything sufficiently strong in its own right to say that it is certainly faked. For now it is just ‘suspect’.

      This is basically the only serious public claim that JS was associated with anything untoward. It was obviously not that serious as it was withdrawn as soon as it was challenged, but if it was built on a fake photo that shows us that 1) there really was nothing against him, and 2) someone was trying to set him up.

    5. Thanks very much for the clarification, Misa. I had a general idea this was the case but your post makes it clear and unambiguous. I want to get the various stages of the Savile story mapped out in my mind, as it were. I have saved this to my favourites for future reference and in case anyone else has a similar query in the future.

      I am probably overdoing it by trying to do the same thing with a range of other, unrelated stories. At the moment, for example, I am working my way through Booker and North's Scared To Death about various food and other scares in recent years, including AGW.

      Just one final question please. What photo is in tdf's link? I think it is imgur or something, a picture-sharing organization. Don't ask me how, but using his link I managed to sign up to an online development community (I don't even know what that means) and it has just taken me ten minutes to leave it.

      Is tdf's photo, a fuzzy one from the Irish Sun from 2008 by all accounts, the same one reproduced here by Rabbitaway (and which appears definitely dodgy to me)?

    6. Sean, the fuzzy photo on tdf's Irish Sun page looks to be the same photo - I've found nothing to indiacte otherwise. Don't they look the same to you?

  29. Oh yes, and there were no girls at the Roundhouse.

  30. Misa, I can't say because I can't open the link!

  31. I’ve just had the chance to discuss the picture in some detail with a graphic artist and designer. He agrees that the picture looks odd and that there are a number of features which seem suspect, but he also feels that none of these features is beyond other explanation. It could be a forgery, but it *could* be legit.

    He noted that Jim looks a little cut out on his left-hand side and that the fella at the back (No 19) is certainly a big lad, which may indicate a scaling error, and added the following:

    "Well, if it is a composite (and the more I look at it the more I see anomalies) then whomever made it is pretty good. Furthermore it would have been composited at a large scale and then had the resolution dropped and scuffing added. Standard practice for forgeries.”

    When I asked about the time and effort involved he said, “I know a photo retoucher who works in the modelling industry. He would be able to put that together in about an hour.”

    He also noted that the metadata had been stripped from the photo - this would be data in the image file which might identify where, when and by whom the picture was taken. This is not necessarily mysterious - Facebook and other sites do it automatically - however this has some ‘added’ metadata - a description:


    Again, there’s nothing particularly helpful here. The date and details appear consistent with what we already know. Presumably this would have been added by the Sun photographer. A ‘collect picture’ is a picture that has been collected, rather than taken by the photographer - e.g. reporting on a death, the paper may obtain an existing picture from the family, to be photographed or scanned for use in the paper. This would be a collect picture.

    The only sensible way we could be certain it’s faked is if we found one or more of the people photographed elsewhere - i.e. the same figure in the same pose in a different photograph.

    1. There’s a groovy site which allows you to view the metadata and has a number of other tools which someone like Bandini might just enjoy playing with.

  32. tdf, if you do have chance to go again, I'm not sure how long it takes to work through these things, but there ought to be a good chance of at least two more articles in the following fortnight.

    More bones dug up at kids home tomb by Antonella Lazzeri, dated Tues 4th March 2008, may well be one, but there could be others either in the Sun or the NOTW.

    I suppose at some point there may also be some kind of apology, though it's likely to be tucked away...around the time of the Lawyer report - 17 March - but quite how long these things take, I've no idea.

    Good luck!