Join Date: May 2006
I'm becoming more interested in Moor Larkins Blogs.
Moor linked to a daily Mirror Article 30th Sep 12
Taken from the article.
Victim 1: He violated me in worst way possible
It was meant to be the trip of a lifetime... to see the bright lights of London.
But it turned into a nightmare for a young woman of 20 who claims she was raped by Sir Jimmy Savile.
The Top Of The Pops star invited her and a friend to stay with him at his London council flat. But in the middle of the night, the woman, now in her 60s, claims Jimmy climbed on top of her while she slept and started having sex with her. She woke up suddenly to find him attacking her.
Traumatised by that night in 1965, she hasn’t breathed a word of it since. She is not part of the TV documentary but has bravely agreed to speak for the first time about her terrible ordeal to the*Sunday Mirror. The woman, whose *identity we are protecting, said: “Even now I can still remember Jimmy lying on top of me. He *violated me in the worst way possible and I’ll *never forget it.
“I was so shocked because the rest of the weekend he had been so friendly and fun. We had gone to the Top Of The Pops studio.
In 1965 Top of the Pops was recorded in a converted church on Dickinson Road, Rusholme Manchester.
The first edition of Top of the Pops was broadcast on New Year's Day 1964 from the studio, and Yorkshire host Jimmy Savile stated: "anything they didn't want to do in London, they slung up into this old church. And, of course, they didn't want anything to do with pop music so that was our place". But when viewing figures took off the BBC decided that the pop show had to be broadcast from London, although it remained based in Manchester for three years before moving to Lime Grove Studios in west London in 1967.
Could it be that she got the year wrong? I really can't fathom making up such a story, who could lie about something like that? for the (potential) money? ugh.
I find that blog confusing - it seems to imply that its questioning the validity of the far fetched claims
Jimmy Savile’s actions go far beyond what you can even begin to believe: until you look at the evidence.
but by the end, it seems to be confident that there was alot more going on and it makes statements like this:-
He was also called upon to aid Sarah Ferguson.
“I was helping her not get publicity rather than get it – to cool things down….”
Does Jimmy Savile seem a likely person to you to call upon to help you lower your profile? No, me neither. So you have to question the reason for his calling upon.
I can't quite figure out which side of the fence the author is on
it sounds like its casting doubt on the sensational/conspiratorial aspects and yet backing them up by the end?. Maybe im mixed up though... its murky stuff
I don't know - I'm probably more inclined to think things have been blown out of proportion, particularly the talk of satanic rituals. I guess we'll probably never know for sure(?).