Pages

Wednesday 13 May 2020

NOT defending Jimmy Savile - Prosecuting Beech





Some years back - I wrote a number of posts called -  Case for the Defence. It was my way of telling anyone who wanted to listen that what had happened to Savile was unfair. I know that sounds like a very small word to describe what took place back in October 3rd 2012, but it's a small word with a HUGE meaning, for ALL of us. One does need not a law degree to instinctively know when something unfair is happening. One just KNOWS !
  I wasn't the first to know or begin to know that something nasty was happening. My first post of the series provides content from two bloggers who were - almost immediately, onto it. Without them, there probably wouldn't have been yours truly. I'd have probably never bothered to do anything with that gut feeling, I had, listening to Fiona. Something wasn't right. This wasn't fair !

http://rabbitaway.blogspot.com/2014/09/case-for-defense-day-1.html 

Had Sir Jimmy had the opportunity to enter a courtroom back in 2009, he would be leaving that room probably without even giving evidence. The case (that wouldn't have got there in the first place) would be thrown out by a competent, sensible Judge.


 Jimmy Savile has *appeared* in absentia in a few high profile court cases. And in each case bar none, no Juror has been persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt or whatever the phrase is now, that any claims directly involving him are true !

NOT ONE of these criminal cases has seen the accuser himself in the dock until Carl Beech was charged, basically, of LYING, of making up stories about 'very important people', not just dead, or nearly dead celebrities, but important people like MP's, ex-Prime Minister's - that sort of thing ! Fortunately, for my current purpose, Carl also known as Nick, placed Jimmy Savile in one of his fairy tales. 

Beech's trial had to include reference to his Savile claims. Not because anyone at the CPS, had any interest in wittingly proving - beyond a reasonable doubt, that Savile DID NOT abuse or molest someone, but because the prosecution had to convince us that Beech was 100% lying about others he'd accused ! Everything he claimed had happened to him, had not. And if that resulted in some of us thinking we could at last rejoice about something, well - that collateral damage would be have to be tolerated, but NOT made anything of. Not by the press, the media or the CPS. Savile was still a serial abuser, end of. His name was not even mentioned in the - guilty as charged sheet ! The first four being



But, don't feel too crestfallen folks. The prosecuting barrister did well and truly sock it to Beech, during his cross-examination. It is really the closest we've got to an official defence of Sir Jimmy Savile yet ! 




It's Tuesday July 9th at 3.30 and Tony B QC continues his cross examination of Carl Beech. He describes this portion of the prosecution case as MEDIA APPEARANCES. 

Crimes that shook Britain was first shown on 17.08.2014 two months BEFORE you spoke to the Met Police !


  You told Wiltshire Police about this in 2012. You'd made a claim for compensation. You were writing a book. "Did you tell WP all there was to know about about Jimmy Savile" ?

"Let's watch it"

The video is then played in court. 

 So that you understand exactly what I'm doing here - the Barrister's questions and/or remarks are in italics. Where these are verbatim direct quotes I have placed speech marks around them. I include live tweets submitted by members of the press - and others, to show how the press reported this questioning.

So here's the video - the bit where 'Stephen' begins his tale starts with the ominous piano music at about 30.52 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0ZhEsSf008 


 From the press -


Beech admitted withholding some information about his allegations at an initial interview with Wiltshire police in 2012, in which he claimed his stepfather had abused him.
Asked why he told detectives that he did not know the names of many of his alleged abusers, Beech replied: “It was information that I did not feel I could share at that time given my own mind.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jul/09/vip-abuse-accuser-carl-beech-claims-flown-paris-child 

Tony Bradenoch QC to Beech :"You told them you'd never seen his face" ?

" Do you maintain the position that you never saw his face" ?
Beech - "Again, I don't recall"

"Over how many years did Jimmy Savile abuse you" ?

Beech - " A couple"
"Where ?" 

Beech "Bicester"

"Did you tell DS Townley about this broadcast ?" 

Beech - "No"


 


Beech's local press provided several articles about that day's proceedings. Yes, some members of the press, did give - some attention to the Savile questioning.




https://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/17758631.vip-paedophile-ring-accuser-admits-withheld-details-swindon-police-2012/

The Prosecution in the Beech case, achieved something me and a few others have been trying to do for SJS since October 2012. He demonstrated that the allegations one of his accusers made, was - demonstrably untrue 



The Judge in his closing submissions, directed the Jury to make commonsense conclusions. They must reach reach their decisions in a fair, calm and analytical way ... you must not speculate ....... Pay heed to your own view of the evidence .... it's your decisions that are crucial' 
Juries are required to make an assessment of the person (who's alleging the abuse)


See what happens when an accused person is given a chance to defend themselves ? Ordinary people like you and I are advised by wise men how to make fair decisions. The world's media are in attendance but they cannot influence the individual juror, well - that's the idea anyway. 

Next time - 'Wor Simon' 

A blog post honoring the late Simon Warr's contribution to journalism during the closing stages of the Beech Trial. Up shortly !























5 comments:

  1. As horrific as Beech is, it allowed a fresh and strong resurgence to take on The Met. Still ongoing but fairly positive. Thanks for this Blog Rabbit, fab as always.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If only people had listened to BH and PM et al about Beech, and others instead of being drawn in by all the internet cranks!

    So glad you are going to do a blog in memory of Simon Warr. What that man went through right up until his death is appalling, and so sad. May he rest in peace now. Poor man.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If this quote is what the Prosecutor was saying in court:
    "Crimes that shook Britain was first shown on 17.08.2014 two months BEFORE you spoke to the Met Police !"

    it really does not match up with the facts, as described by the local newspaper cutting:
    "Jurors heard Beech also told Det Con Lewis that he was raped by the TV Presenter Savile...… when asked why.... he said . Because I had already mentioned that to the NSPCC and Operation Yewtree"

    Since Operation Yewtree was a Met Police operation, the Prosecutor seems to be making somewhat misleading statements.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you are misunderstanding what the Prosecution is saying here. Perhaps I should have explained it better myself, but let's look at the wording of the press article again. For clarity this is the whole sentence from the newspaper cutting.

      Jurors heard how Beech also told Det Con Lewis that he was raped by TV presenter Savile, but had not seen the celebrity's face during the abuse.

      When asked why he felt comfortable giving Savile's name during the interview but not those of other alleged abusers, he said: "Because I had already mentioned that to the NSPCC and Operation Yewtree."

      The Prosecutor is showing the Jury that Beech only named Savile when he initially spoke to whoever he spoke to at Operation Yewtree - be it the helpline, manned by the NSPCC or Police officers themselves. The MET at this stage was NOT interested in 'Nick' or whatever he called himself. Probably tallied another notch on their GVAV stats and signposted him to Wiltshire Polce and DC Lewis.
      The point Bradenoch is making is that Beech did NOT name all his alleged abuser's in his initial contact with Yewtree. And when he was interviewed by Operation Midland officers, he did NOT tell them about his appearance in the documentary on TV, just two months before !
      I hope that helps !

      Delete
  4. I find it very frustrating that even though the Beech affair has shown up how lies can be used for personal gain, there is still most of the population willing to go along with the accusations about Jimmy without question. How can they, under English law, pronounce that he is guilty, without the honest evidence to prove that.
    Well done rabbit and Moor. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete