Pages

Friday 11 February 2022

Operation Ornament Revisited Again.


January 2013 was the month of the Savile Reports. We had Giving Victims A Voice wherein the Met Police and NSPCC decided that Jimmy Savile had committed 214 crimes. We had Det Supt Jon Savell's Report Into Operation Ornament and we had Alison Levitt Q.C's In The Matter  Of  The Late Jimmy Savile. 
All three were published on the same day : 11th January 2013. Alongside these the CPS released this statement.








https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20130703160030/http:/www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/dpp_statement_about_savile_cases/

In October 2012 Keir Starmer made a number of announcements per his office's handling of Operation Ornament, a two year Police investigation of claims made against Sir Jimmy Savile (2007-2009). One being that he'd already had the Chief Prosecutor for the South-East (his 'Chief  Legal Advisor'), reviewing the CPS decision making, and concluding that it was correct,, but he was going to ask his 'Principal Legal Advisor' Alison Levitt also look at the case, just in case he'd missed something or 'out of an abundance of caution' as he described it.










Anyone knowing nothing about how criminal prosecutions happen might forgiven for thinking that the fact there'd been an almost three-year investigation of the most famous man in the country, had come as a shock, to the Director of Public Prosecutions in 2012, that this had been a revelation to him and the Chief Prosecutor. 

Of course they knew. They may not have had any direct involvement - none that anyone will ever find an evidence of, that is. But they would have been aware of the case. 

But never mind who knew what. What I'd like to know is exactly WHAT was it that Salazar and Levitt had go on in 2012 ? The Files they reviewed apparently didn't exist. Yes really ! Levitt actually had the front to include this startling admission in her report.









Read that last sentence again. She hadn't seen what the reviewing officer had seen, and he couldn't remember what he'd seen, yet she had seen 'more' than he had. 



Yes Alison. Anything you say Alison.

To be continued !

PART TWO 

13th February 2022. 

" A Prosecution Might Have been Possible".

I decided to update this post rather than starting another, because I wanted all the evidence to be in one place and easily accessible. 

In January 2013 Keir Starmer said that he agreed with Alison Levitt whose extraordinary findings included the following.


In short : the police in 2007-9 had not the benefit of her 2012 'objectivity'. There was -  according to her , nothing to suggest (to the investigating officers) that the complainants had colluded in their accounts, nor that they were in any way, inherently less reliable than complainants in other cases. 

Notice their crafty use of words ? They're both careful not to explicitly accuse the officers of 'consciously' misleading the women. 


 

2022 me : 

A work in progress - To be continued


Two serving police officers were referred to the IPCC as a result of the above findings. Guardian 7th November 2013.


 






Their supervisors suffered a similar fate. 


The IPCC published its findings in May 2015. 









In short, the complainant should have been encouraged to pursue her complaint. 


Thankfully, all four got to keep their jobs. 


Time to read Miss A's story yet again. This woman claims that Savile had assaulted her, she had emigrated soon after and on returning to England in 2007 decided to write to the sun about it. In November a reporter showed up and tried to get her to file a police report. She initially refused, but succumbed on the next visit in March 2008 and phoned Sussex Police the same day (3rd March 2008). 



"Had he asked to see them" ? Did you ask him about that Ms Levitt ? Whatever ! Moving on.







"Any more hassle". Hassle as in the possibility that her ex-husband might not corroborate her story ? He was. after all, in the house when she went out in a chaffeur-driven car to meet Jimmy Savile, and he was there when she came back. She even told him what has happened, why wouldn't the police want to speak to him as part of their inquiries ? 







And for this, two police officers were subjected to a lengthy disciplinary process. The fact that they told a complainant what a police investigation involved. Not a prosecution, but a police investigation. The fact that they didn't tell her something they themselves weren't aware of at the time (the other 3, at least two of whom were adamant they would NOT go to court). 

No disciplinary for the Senior Prosecutor, as far as I'm aware.

To be continued !

In January 2013 Levitt and Starmer told the rest of us, that they believed that the 2007/9 Savile complainants might have proceeded with their cases, had the police taken a different approach. The : no corroboration necessary approach to criminal prosecutions. The : Don't worry, you won't be named whatever the outcome. 






'she might' !

Reader, have you ever heard anything so ridiculos as what Levitt a Q.C mind you, told Miss A during their meeting ? There were three people in that room and by far the most clued-up was Miss A. She had to know that in the real world, one had to at least offer some credible evidence in a 2007/9 courtroom. Maybe not so much now, (thanks to the Levitt's and Starmer's etc) but certainly back then. The Police officers were right. Any barrister would make 'mincemeat' of her and anyone else stupid enough to support such nonsense ! 

It's Levitt and Starmer who should face some sort of proceedings. 

NEXT : Surrey ! But in the meantime, you might want to read this. Thank you Moor. Then and now ! 


We continue because we must.