If there's one email that Mark Williams-Thomas wishes he hadn't sent, this should be it !
http://rabbitaway.blogspot.com/2015/09/everyone-knew-about-what-and-when-and.html
Given what we know now, that is
'lots of names and links to celebrities' ?
The first Arundel detective to take a statement from an alleged victim
of King was Mark Williams-Thomas, now a TV presenter. According to Judge
Taylor’s ruling, after Williams-Thomas left the force, police found ‘a
document on his computer offering for sale names and introductions to
victims of Mr King’. The judge also said that when he left,
Williams-Thomas took his police notebooks concerning King with him. The
prosecution said he should not have done this because they were force
property;
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6051299/Child-sex-abuse-case-saw-pop-mogul-Jonathan-King-handed-seven-year-jail-sentence-reopened.html
So, all this afternoon I've been burrowing back into the rich orchard that is the Pollard Report. It used to be very easy to find via the BBC site, but the old link leads nowhere. Still, where there's a will. I managed to find Meirion Jones' here, rather fittingly behind the words 'he's dead so he can't sue'.
https://tent101.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/meirion_jones_1_ocr.pdf
On the 31st October 2011 Meirion Jones has, according to Pollard, no knowledge of any Police investigation into Savile. Take note of this pals because it's important !
But within a few days - talk of a letter emerges.
Two days - Thomas is asking to be involved !
This hasn't come out of the blue has it ? It's not the first time they've been in touch. But, we know this already. They worked together in July 2011, didn't they ?
And, of course, Jones knew about Thomas's earlier claim to fame - the Jonathan King conviction !
'he might be able to help us if ... really was a police investigation' ?
Six days later ex-Surrey Police Thomas, still hasn't come up with the goods, but at least Hannah's earning her tax-payer's wages.
The Sussex complainant has emerged. I'm not getting bogged down in that aspect of the story, not right now anyway. My mission here is purely to express what I think ! could be going on between MWT and Surrey Police. Read the evidence and make your own mind up.
Who's he supposed to be talking to ? Looks like one person to me. Remember, this is Jones's account of things.
By the 16th November MWT still hasn't earned his £500
It's not clear who's doing all the 'ringing' here, still, hang on in there folks !
Jones tries to explain MWT's exact role in all this. The following starts with .. why are we talking to MWT ...
And then on the 25th
Mark gets an off the record admission
I'm wondering if this off the record thing even happened ? Remember Jones's boss wants to be sure before he gives the final all systems go. No-one, in a position of authority has confirmed anything. And, of course, the real test is : How seriously did the Police takes these claims ? Serious enough to pass to the CPS, or not ?
And then, somewhere along the line, there's a conversation between Jones and his bosses about money. Money being paid to an ex-Police officer, that is !
Strange, how I never noticed this talk about money before !
It was Meirion who mentioned levison, not me !
And then - it's back to where we sort of, started. With Mr King !
Happy Easter All
Osbourne Clark Solicitors - according to the press that is !
The Savile estate was originally valued at £4.5m. Osbourne Clark received £1.8m and I'm NOT even going to try to work out how much anyone else got. I've been trying all day, sorry but I'm brain-fagged !
Yesterday the following was published in the Sunday Times
It seems that someone's freedom of information request has been successful*
'Open cases' ? So the NHS will be paying out even more ? I'm not going there !
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nhs-pays-over-1m-for-jimmy-saviles-sex-abuse-jqjlvmg36
No indication in Gregory's report of how much the claimant's lawyer's got. I wonder if they even asked ? It might be interesting to see that FOI request, especially given the fact that they got the amount paid to Osbourne Clarke wrong !
'A large number of false claims ?'
If only someone would follow the money in the right direction now and then ! If only Sunday Times hacks read the tabloids who knew in 2016 that Osbourne Clarke actually got £1.8m out of the estate.
And, here's the thing : Only £141,000 would be left to cover other claims (not made directly to the estate via the 'scheme') including the NHS !
78 'payouts' were made for claims made directly to the estate, totaling £1m
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3705498/Lawyers-2-5million-Jimmy-Savile-s-estate-leaving-just-1million-paedophile-DJ-s-victims.html
78 claims were therefore successful by the looks of it. Two years earlier David Rose informed us that just 22 out of the 58 processed at the time, had been accepted, that is - they had passed someone's screening. Let's remind ourselves of that particular status quo back then.
Which means there must have been at least 208 claims made against the estate. Not the BBC or NHS via the vicarious liability route, just against the estate via the 'scheme' implemented by Justice Scales in the High Court.
By my reckoning, this means that 130 claims were NOT accepted, i.e they were deemed false, untrue - however you want to put it ! That's a tad shocking isn't it ? Have any of these claimants been reported for fraud ?
Now, once I got past my knee-jerk annoyance towards the Sunday Times' Andrew Gregory, I decided that what he'd written just a few days ago, was actually quite useful. Yes, he kind of got the OC fee wrong (he may have been referring soley to the NHS legal costs) but, even that is useful piece of information, when you consider how little any of us have actually been told about the Savile claims and 'payouts'.
*For example, I now know that the freedom of information request was actually made by The Sun newspaper who published this a few weeks before. Yes really !
Of course, the Sun has no idea how expensive these pithy legal encounters can be, not having ever been sued by anyone ever, but the real Oscar in - The Public Interest - category needs to go to Pete Saunders who's currently being paid a fortune to sit on the IICSA panel, 'truth project' thing. His suggestion for cutting the costs ? replace one set of expensive folk with another !
We're reminded that three of Savile's NHS 'victims' got £40,000 each, meaning that someone accepted one of the more serious offences had been committed ? Remember folks, this is OUR money, not the NHS's, not Jeremy fucking Hunt's money, it's OURS, and it's being given away ! Well, that's what I think anyway.
Much as I hate to do this - here's the link to the sun's efforts. Might be an interesting chore for someone to fish out their FOI request. Not me, I've done enough ... for now !
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8083278/patients-abused-jimmy-savile-compensation-nhs-paid/
I guess I should have worked out exactly how much the ambulance chasers were paid. I'll leave that one to you as well.
I wonder just how many of these claimants might have submitted claims to more than one of the sources available to them - the NHS, the BBC, the estate directly ? How would anyone even know ?
Happy New Year All
Here's a little something for the 52 who got on average, less than £10K of OUR money !
Update 22st January 2019
I've been asked to publish the following information sent to me by Amanda. Exactly as she worded it to me
'The NHS just paid out "nuisance claims". It was cheaper than investigating them ..... The scrutineers worked for free and proved many were lies but the NHS just paid. Was their evidence shared with the NHS ? We'll never know, nor will we ever know if they took any notice of it. The lawyers won't say who did and who didn't get paid out. Surely the NHS and the BBC should .... It's our money and they are public bodies.
Did you know that multiple claims were made ? ..... Nothing stopping any claimant getting money from the NHS his estate and the BBC i.e "assaulted in xyz hospital then at TOTP. That would make three separate claims'.
Someone should ask the NHS and the solicitors, questions based upon the above statement. Shouldn't they ?
Lord Lexden (Alistaire Cooke - writer) goes on
Not a happy bunny is he ? And all power to him for supporting the dead ex- Prime Minister Edward Heath. You can read the official report of the debate here.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2018-12-11/debates/9EDF79C8-8DC9-4CD4-A751-59A01906DB85/OperationConifer#contribution-A47D5942-BD2C-4E3C-8E77-0260E87889B1
His Lordship is rightly pissed that a dead man's good name can be destroyed. He wants justice for Ted Heath.Welcome to my world Alistair ! I've been wanting Justice for Jimmy since his good name was destroyed within minutes of his death in October 2011.
At least Ted got an investigation, the boys at Scotland Yard decided from the outset that Jimmy didn't deserve one because he was guilty as far as they were concerned. Their feeble excuse for not bothering - it was pointless, he's dead but there's got to be others out there - still alive, so we can investigate them, should warrant some future comment in influential circles. As ever, we can wait, can't we guys and gals ?
1) Jimmy Savile is guilty because of the sheer number of complaints made against him. Two years ago Baroness Butler-Sloss said this
Fast forward to the 11th December 2108
The Savile Police appended 214 crimes to Sir Jimmy Savile. How many of them were repeat offenders, how many showed up again in Conifer ? How many contradictions have I for one, found in the Savile claims, not to mention outright lies ?
Then there's the question of whether the dead should be investigated at all. Better late than never I guess
Anyway, that's all I'm saying for now on this. But, beings as it's Christmas, I thought I'd leave you something that made me smile, if not laugh out loud ! Here's one of the Lords in an earlier episode of peers calling out liars in Parliament !!! Enjoy
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/oct/21/pressandpublishing.ukcrime
Merry Christmas x
I didn't listen to all Christine B Ford's testimony before the Judiciary Committee on 27th September, if I had I'd have heard this and if I'd heard this, I'd have saved myself a lot of bother trying to work out exactly if CBF might just have named Brett Kavanaugh in her therapy sessions. She didn't !
See how Helen Mitchell comes into her own in her questions about these 'notes' I transcribed most of it staring with Ford's early contact with the Washington Post
Text to Washington Post dated 7/6 (which presumably means 6th July 201)
Have therapy records talking about it (it presumably meaning the alleged assault)
Did you already have your therapy records at that time
I had looked at them online to see existed, yes
So this was something available to you via a computer like a patient portal
Actually no, it was in the office of a provider
She'd helped me go through ...
Did you show a full or partial set of those marital therapy records to the Washington Post ?
I don't remember I remember summarising for her what they said, so I'm not quite sure if I actually gave her the record
Have you shown them to anyone else besides your counsel
Just the counsel
Would it be fair to say that Brett kavanaugh's name is not listed in those notes ?
His name is not listed in those notes
Would it also be fair that the therapist's notes that we've been talking about, say that there were four boys in the room ?
It describes the sexual assault and it says er erroneously by 4 boys, so the therapist got the content of it wrong
And you corrected that to this reporter at the Washington Post ?
Correct
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=Dx3pYvB6pR8
Now, I've been doing my own head in this last week or so trying to work out as best I can with what little I've had, what exactly was it that CBF was trying to achieve by bringing her therapist's alleged notes into her assault claims. Did she believe they would have some corroborative value to her story despite the fact she hadn't actually named Justice K as her assailant, not during her and her husband's couples therapy that is ? Let's go back to statements she made after her initial contact/s with the press and Senator Feinstein and her personal appearance before the committee.
Hats off to the Daily Mail for their efforts here - this is one of the most useful article's to date
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6219515/New-questions-leaked-Christine-Fords-explosive-accusation-Brett-Kavanaugh.html
Now read this - her motivations for coming forward and her desire to hopefully remain anonymous ?
https://www.vox.com/2018/9/16/17867706/christine-blasey-ford-brett-kavanaugh-sexual-assault-allegations
Now, here's where those questions by Mitchell come into there own, as she managed to get Ford to admit that she had researched her medical/therapy notes prior to contacting the press etc. Those notes if they exist, and we have to assume they do because her counsel must have seen them, corroborate her claims that she had therapy and her husband was there at the time maybe in 2012 or 2008 (read my last post), we can accept this on the balance of probability can't we ? What we cannot know is whether she's lying about the fact that she says she told others the identity of her attacker, even in its vaguest form - he's a judge - he might be on the Supreme Court one day etc !
Her lawyer's say she'll only release these notes in the course of an investigation and only if she's interviewed by the FBI, and we don't know why she wasn't. But, can we all agree that, really she should have turned over those notes, redacted if necessary ? Which brings me nicely into this most sensitive of questions : Is she lying or does she honestly believe that BK attacked her all those years ago ?
Of course we don't know what information the FBI had already acquired during their 'investigation' but failing to just interview her they've given her an excuse, poor as it is, not to play ball !
But hold on, isn't the whole reason she came forward in the first place one of civic duty ? Why let a pesky thing like not being interviewed AGAIN, after spending half a day doing that for the whole world to see already ? This lady's identification of a Supreme Court nominee, may well be the result of some false memory and that may in due course - partly absolve HER of any serious liability, her accomplishes should not, in my opinion be allowed to get off lightly !
I may have been a bit harsh calling Ford a liar. Common sense denotes that something traumatic must have happened to this woman at some point in her life. Just listen and watch her testimony, she clearly still has mental health problems. But I don't believe her woes have anything to do with Brett Kavanaugh.
What's more, and this part of the incident has been bugging me since I read it - why did she feel the need to add her own interpretation of her attacker's motivation, NOT TO DELIBERATELY kill her ?
This brings out my own inner psychologist (crap degree no classification). Is she making the attack seem more or less serious - I thought he meant to rape but not kill me ? I'm not sure what she's doing here, and I'm not sure her therapist's notes will aid my understanding.
But they might !
