The Sun : Part 2 : The Public Interest

 On the 15th October 2015 'Two Sun Journalists' were found 'not guilty in what ITV News labelled : the "final 'cash for stories' trial'.

The two men along with hundreds of their peers were delighted with the verdict in the two men's retrial. The first Jury failed to reach a decision after nine days of deliberation, making their delight all the more poignant. And with joy came anger - anger that they'd been made to go through this in the first place. After all, as Pyatt said in his defence : the stories he purchased were 'trivial' and publication of the same was 'in the public's interest' (my words paraphrasing) etc etc etc.

Try as I might, I have so far, not been able to find any reference to Jimmy Savile during the first trial. I've scrolled through Twitter for any mention in the rough time frame he was on the stand. If it's there, I'll happily stand corrected. But, if it isn't, I for one, want to know why ? 

He'd claimed to have been ready and willing to have exposed Jimmy Savile whilst he was still alive. He had, he claimed - four women ready to go on record to say JS had abused them, but he didn't because, and I paraphrase again Surrey Police, 'blocked him'. In other words ; Surrey Police would NOT confirm that JS was being investigated, when Pyatt says he asked in 2008 or thereabouts. So the story didn't make the presses and the Police were left to do their job without some journalist naming their 'suspect' and potentially ruining their investigation.

Let me remind you of the reportage of Pyatt's testimony on 2nd October 2015. 

Did this revelation assist Pyatt's case ? His barrister must have thought so, he certainly pushed it going so far as this exchange.

'If a source had stood that up ...' ?

What hypothetical 'source' is Kovalevsky Q,C on about here - that old catch-all : a police source' which, by the way, would appear to be anyone from the chief constable at Scotland Yard down to the woman who cleaned the Bow Street bogs ! Pyatt and his mates had a police source who could indeed 'stand that up', as much as his criteria for publishing generally replied : the public had a right to know etc etc.

You see folks, not only did Pyatt have officer 2004 a (at that time a serving) Surrey Police officer, that Police officer Simon Quinn, was feeding information to the hacks directly from the police national computer : HOLMES. Old hands of this blog, and my rants over the last ten years, might recall me mentioning HOLMES a few times, because in 2008 when Pyatt's police source was digging up all sorts of dirt on other famous people, Sir Jimmy Savile was being - and I recall the words quite clearly from the various official reports that I've poured over 'created as a suspect on HOLMES',

It gets better - or worse if your name happens to be Simon Quinn, because - not only was Quinn convicted for his part in this 'cash for stories' case, he was in the same year convicted of something else. This :

The Jury in Pyatt's retrial were not told about Quinn's convictions - either of them.

I guess the information was deemed not relevant to the case. Or maybe the CPS along with everyone else involved, wanted the Sun Men to get as fair a retrial as possible. The Police did not name Pyatt when he was arrested in November 2011 by the way. 

His nightmare ended in October 2015. He was lucky wasn't he ?

By the way, I checked - double and treble checked to make sure that the ex Police officer convicted in both these cases, were one and the same Simon Quinn. Until I found the article above. I made sure it 'stood up'.

Meanwhile : 

Onwards !

https://rabbitaway.blogspot.com/2015/10/over-exposure-to-sun.html

The Sun : 'Corruption 'On A Grand Scale'.

 Currently a BBC Television presenter is on trial. He hasn't been arrested. He hasn't been charged by the police and he isn't as yet, (as I'm typing) suspected of any specific crime. Why would he be no one has filed a police report. But, on trial he has been - all week. He hasn't been named by the press, or the BBC, so naturally, no one can know who he (who was on telly last night but isn't on tonight), is. No one who hasn't been on Twitter for the past week that is. So whether the claims - first published in the sun 'newspaper', be true or not, his life will never be the same again and I for one am angry. 

Because it's not the first time these rats have decided to ruin a man's life is it, and for what ? What possible motive could the sun have for attacking someone employed by the BBC ? What ?

This article is really worth a read folks. The prosecution covered their bases with aplomb ! Peter Wright Q.C was having none of their : but it was in the public interest bullshit. No, this was about one thing and one thing only : greed !

And there they were those six 'journalists', in the dock where they belonged because this wasn't something that went on for a few months or even a few years. They were at it for at least TEN YEARS, and they only stopped in 2011 ! 

Shocking isn't it ? No wonder their victims including Prince Harry (well done Sir !) still hate them. 

https://pressgazette.co.uk/publishers/nationals/six-sun-journalists-trial-corrupted-public-officials-grand-scale-court-hears/

And what happened ? The Jury couldn't agree in January 2015 so a retrial was heard later that year, for four of them, including Jamie Pyatt.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/22/four-sun-journalists-accused-corrupt-payments-retrial

And so they were. And at least one journalist was live tweeting the trial, so here's where my trip down sun-seeking memory lane began again. Because during that retrial Jamie Pyatt came out with some very interesting claims. Claims that, as far as I'm concerned don't stand up to much scrutiny. I said so at the time but next to nobody seemed to care about inconsistencies back then. Even when those inconsistencies were being coming from someone speaking on oath, in a court of law. 

In what was clearly an effort to portray himself in the best light possible - remember the last Jury weren't convinced either way in January, Pyatt came out with the astonishing claim that, had it not been for Surrey Police, he could and WOULD have exposed Sir Jimmy Savile. He had his witnesses, the story was all but writ, but the Police would NOT confirm the existence of a Police Investigation of the same. 

Martin Hickman was live tweeted from court :

Now read what he says during cross examination on the 6th.

Spot the anomaly anyone ? 

He was access to a serving Police officer or officers in 2004 or 2012 but he couldn't get information about Jimmy Savile in 2008/9 whatever ? Yes, I checked up when this Imiela horror was on trial !

And, to top it off there's press reporting of Pyatt's October 2nd 2015 revelation.

And, here's the best bit ! Surrey Police he says, interviewed Jimmy Savile in 2007 and 2009. They did not !

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/oct/02/sun-jimmy-savile-surrey-police

He's full of it, isn't he ? 

And he's not alone. 

Right, I need a cup of tea. I have more to tell so do keep 'em peeled folks !