If the new victims have only come forward in the last 48 hours and haven't even spoken to the police yet - then how does the Standard know the culprits are high profile?
Well, there could be a lot going on behind the scenes we don't know about. I imagine the media themselves are feverishly investigating Saville and others at the moment, not just the BBC and the police.
Do you know of another case in which child abuse victims go to the media to ensure that when they go to the police their story isn't dismissed?
I think what is happening is that the media and charities are also compiling accusations so it will be harder to bury multiple accusations against X or Y. That is a good thing. The more people know that there are 2, 3 or four alledged victims of X or Y the more likely they are to be prosecuted or sidelined or monitored.
I agree they should be compiling lists of names, but I don't think they should be releasing the kind of info they are, or they could jeopardize additional prosecutions that might have arisen if people hadn't had time to destroy evidence.
I agree this is an unusual and complex case, but they've had weeks to work out a sensible method of dealing with it and they haven't yet done so, IMO.
"He was a big part of my early life (childhood/teenage years and into my 20′s) My dad worked as a hospital porter at the LGI and therefore worked alongside Jimmy when he volunteered. Jimmy often got paid in kind for the jobs he did and he had static caravans at Primrose Valley and a site in Teignmouth in Devon. Jimmy put in place a booking system so his fellow porters could take their families to these caravans for free. He knew the porters got paid very little and for many years the trips to these caravans were my annual holidays. This started when I was 10/11 and I am now 55. I continued to go to his Devon even when my father had retired and I was in my 20′s.
I also have memories of meeting him when he was out and about on his bike and his hair would change colour due to the exhaust fumes while he was out. So he might start with very blond hair but it often changed to blue or pink!
He was never too busy or too famous to stop and talk and my childhood memories will always feature him as a large important character.
RIP"
He was paying for holidays for the LGI porters... that would have been a great way of getting them to turn a blind eye to any of his extra-curricular activities perhaps.
There's a pattern here of course : using his "charitable work" to buy him immunity.
Not to us, but to the high profile pair themselves? They must know they've been rumbled and will now be deleting images on hard drives if they exist, meaning any prosecutions will be the alleged victim's word against theirs.
Not necessarily. If we believe Max Clifford, there are hundreds of 70s stars that are worried about being named, so I imagine there's been a mass deletion of anything incriminating already. The 2 'high-profile' stars might not know they've been rumbled unless the Standard have warned them, which is highly unlikely, and probably illegal.
I agree they should be compiling lists of names, but I don't think they should be releasing the kind of info they are, or they could jeopardize additional prosecutions that might have arisen if people hadn't had time to destroy evidence.
I agree this is an unusual and complex case, but they've had weeks to work out a sensible method of dealing with it and they haven't yet done so, IMO.
Seeing as the accusations date back years though, there's no recent evidence for the suspects to destroy, nor is there anywhere they can run to, so I can see why the police don't have to rush the arrests.....the more time they have, the bigger the case they can compile against each suspect.
Not necessarily. If we believe Max Clifford, there are hundreds of 70s stars that are worried about being named, so I imagine there's been a mass deletion of anything incriminating already. The 2 'high-profile' stars might not know they've been rumbled unless the Standard have warned them, which is highly unlikely, and probably illegal.
But much of the evidence against them will be sworn testimony and there's nothing the suspects can do about this or make it 'go away'.
Seeing as the accusations date back years though, there's no recent evidence for the suspects to destroy, nor is there anywhere they can run to, so I can see why the police don't have to rush the arrests.....the more time they have, the bigger the case they can compile against each suspect.
How does anyone know there's no recent evidence to destroy?
Does nobody see that this pair, who may be entirely unconnected to JS, might now escape prosecution for other more recent offences, such as possession of images, or might destroy evidence linking them to other crimes or criminals, solely because they've worked out they're in the frame thanks to the clues given in the article?
I don't suppose deletion will be very effective as experts can retrieve stuff relatively easily. The only effective way is to physically destroy the computer, or at least the hard disc. I believe a microwave oven can be quite effective.
I don't suppose deletion will be very effective as experts can retrieve stuff relatively easily. The only effective way is to physically destroy the computer, or at least the hard disc. I believe a microwave oven can be quite effective.
Yes, well whatever method they might choose to avoid prosecution, I don't think they should have been given the opportunity.
the thing with children in need programme is in today's world its all image and jimmy would not have fitted in to the image that the bbc were trying to create. what with his vest his gold jewellery his unkept blonde hair.
This was a link in a someone post on the last thread. the bit about asking him why he had never married.
Even to the is day if someone is older people still ask them why they never were married or had kids and they think there is something strange about you if you haven't.
Just looking at the other side of the coin here. Just suppose jimmy is innocent? Back in the day it was not unusual for girls around thirteen onwards to be star struck and wanted to hang out with celbs and in mnay case have offered themselves on a plate to these guys because they are famous. what if thats the worst thing he has ever done?
As for Karin Ward. I was a bit dubious about her because when i found out she was a writter and had a new book just about to be printed i wondered if it was just a publicity thing for her book.
I can't ever in all the years I have watched jimmy savile on tele and i mean right back to when i was a wee girl and used to watch him with my late dad on a saturday afternoon wrestling in the ring on the bbc. then totp and jim'll fix it. I certainly don't ever remember reading or hearing anything untoward about him.
My fear with all this is again in todays world a lot of people are hungry for publicity and attention seeking and i only hope that genuine cases of abuse that if they find that there is no truth in all these allegations that it does not make it worse for genuine abused children to come forward.
How does anyone know there's no recent evidence to destroy?
Does nobody see that this pair, who may be entirely unconnected to JS, might now escape prosecution for other more recent offences, such as possession of images, or might destroy evidence linking them to other crimes or criminals, solely because they've worked out they're in the frame thanks to the clues given in the article?
Sorry, but I think this is madness.
As we have no ideas, as yet, what this pair might be being accused of doing in the distant past, it seems a little premature to leap to the conclusion that they are still committing these acts.
The dressing room was 'packed with lots of people' according to Karin when she witnessed Gary Glitter having sex. (1min 20sec)
She told ITV on another visit the room was crowded when she was humiliated by the third man.
Right, so there she doesn't say the lots of people were all from Duncroft, that so it could just be two girls from Duncroft as well as girls from Broadmoor and elsewhere in there. Another possibility is Savile took them on a 'tour of BBC Television Center' with the head's permission, and they all ended up in his dressing room.
Ray Teret is on twitter. I see via his twitter feed that there is a journo from the Independent on Sunday who was trying to speak to him about Savile recently.
How does anyone know there's no recent evidence to destroy?
Does nobody see that this pair, who may be entirely unconnected to JS, might now escape prosecution for other more recent offences, such as possession of images, or might destroy evidence linking them to other crimes or criminals, solely because they've worked out they're in the frame thanks to the clues given in the article?
Sorry, but I think this is madness.
From the article:
The well-known pair are among a handful of new names given to child protection expert Mark Williams-Thomas.
Among them are some who worked with the entertainer or were friends or associates of his, former detective Mr Williams-Thomas said.
He added that not all of them are accused of being offenders, but are all implicated in some way and would be “of interest” to the police.
I don't see any clues about their identity in the article. And we already knew before that some of those on the 'list' were friends or associated of JS. There's nothing I can see in the artilce that gives anything extra way, unless I've missed something!
the thing with children in need programme is in today's world its all image and jimmy would not have fitted in to the image that the bbc were trying to create. what with his vest his gold jewellery his unkept blonde hair.
This was a link in a someone post on the last thread. the bit about asking him why he had never married.
Even to the is day if someone is older people still ask them why they never were married or had kids and they think there is something strange about you if you haven't.
Just looking at the other side of the coin here. Just suppose jimmy is innocent? Back in the day it was not unusual for girls around thirteen onwards to be star struck and wanted to hang out with celbs and in mnay case have offered themselves on a plate to these guys because they are famous. what if thats the worst thing he has ever done?
As for Karin Ward. I was a bit dubious about her because when i found out she was a writter and had a new book just about to be printed i wondered if it was just a publicity thing for her book.
I can't ever in all the years I have watched jimmy savile on tele and i mean right back to when i was a wee girl and used to watch him with my late dad on a saturday afternoon wrestling in the ring on the bbc. then totp and jim'll fix it. I certainly don't ever remember reading or hearing anything untoward about him.
My fear with all this is again in todays world a lot of people are hungry for publicity and attention seeking and i only hope that genuine cases of abuse that if they find that there is no truth in all these allegations that it does not make it worse for genuine abused children to come forward.
I take it you don't read many of the articles linked to on this thread?
I don't suppose deletion will be very effective as experts can retrieve stuff relatively easily. The only effective way is to physically destroy the computer, or at least the hard disc. I believe a microwave oven can be quite effective.
I'll take your word for it since you seem so knowledgeable on the subject.
I don't see any clues about their identity in the article. And we already knew before that some of those on the 'list' were friends or associated of JS. There's nothing I can see in the artilce that gives anything extra way, unless I've missed something!
It doesn't identify them to us - but if you were part of a famous pair who'd once committed child sex offences, would you not suspect the article referred to you and destroy any evidence that exists that would link you to these or similar allegations?
It doesn't identify them to us - but if you were part of a famous pair who'd once committed illegal sex offences, would you not suspect the article referred to you and destroy any evidence that exists that would link you to these or similar allegations?
Oh, do you mean you think they're a pair as in a double act? I took it to mean a pair as in 'two separate celebrities'.
How does anyone know there's no recent evidence to destroy?
Does nobody see that this pair, who may be entirely unconnected to JS, might now escape prosecution for other more recent offences, such as possession of images, or might destroy evidence linking them to other crimes or criminals, solely because they've worked out they're in the frame thanks to the clues given in the article?
Sorry, but I think this is madness.
The article says he's been given names by people that he hasn't passed on to the police yet. A simple possibility is that's because the people concerned haven't agreed yet.
Comments
Well, there could be a lot going on behind the scenes we don't know about. I imagine the media themselves are feverishly investigating Saville and others at the moment, not just the BBC and the police.
I agree they should be compiling lists of names, but I don't think they should be releasing the kind of info they are, or they could jeopardize additional prosecutions that might have arisen if people hadn't had time to destroy evidence.
I agree this is an unusual and complex case, but they've had weeks to work out a sensible method of dealing with it and they haven't yet done so, IMO.
There's a pattern here of course : using his "charitable work" to buy him immunity.
And possibly also to the newspapers - he has to make a crust, after all.
Seeing as the accusations date back years though, there's no recent evidence for the suspects to destroy, nor is there anywhere they can run to, so I can see why the police don't have to rush the arrests.....the more time they have, the bigger the case they can compile against each suspect.
But much of the evidence against them will be sworn testimony and there's nothing the suspects can do about this or make it 'go away'.
How does anyone know there's no recent evidence to destroy?
Does nobody see that this pair, who may be entirely unconnected to JS, might now escape prosecution for other more recent offences, such as possession of images, or might destroy evidence linking them to other crimes or criminals, solely because they've worked out they're in the frame thanks to the clues given in the article?
Sorry, but I think this is madness.
Yes, well whatever method they might choose to avoid prosecution, I don't think they should have been given the opportunity.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1329332/Jimmy-Savile-Prince-Charles-saucy-French-maids.html
This was a link in a someone post on the last thread. the bit about asking him why he had never married.
Even to the is day if someone is older people still ask them why they never were married or had kids and they think there is something strange about you if you haven't.
Just looking at the other side of the coin here. Just suppose jimmy is innocent? Back in the day it was not unusual for girls around thirteen onwards to be star struck and wanted to hang out with celbs and in mnay case have offered themselves on a plate to these guys because they are famous. what if thats the worst thing he has ever done?
As for Karin Ward. I was a bit dubious about her because when i found out she was a writter and had a new book just about to be printed i wondered if it was just a publicity thing for her book.
I can't ever in all the years I have watched jimmy savile on tele and i mean right back to when i was a wee girl and used to watch him with my late dad on a saturday afternoon wrestling in the ring on the bbc. then totp and jim'll fix it. I certainly don't ever remember reading or hearing anything untoward about him.
My fear with all this is again in todays world a lot of people are hungry for publicity and attention seeking and i only hope that genuine cases of abuse that if they find that there is no truth in all these allegations that it does not make it worse for genuine abused children to come forward.
As we have no ideas, as yet, what this pair might be being accused of doing in the distant past, it seems a little premature to leap to the conclusion that they are still committing these acts.
I think he now lives in Thailand...
I don't see any clues about their identity in the article. And we already knew before that some of those on the 'list' were friends or associated of JS. There's nothing I can see in the artilce that gives anything extra way, unless I've missed something!
I take it you don't read many of the articles linked to on this thread?
There was a contact number after the Exposure doc.
No assumptions, actually, merely an observation that he makes his money, in part, by giving information to the media.
It doesn't identify them to us - but if you were part of a famous pair who'd once committed child sex offences, would you not suspect the article referred to you and destroy any evidence that exists that would link you to these or similar allegations?
From the article:
I think it's good that the victims obviously trust him enough to talk to him, despite other posters cynical views about his motives.
Ah, you see - perception. Yes, I took it to mean a famous pair (like comedians or whatever). I wonder which is accurate?
The article says he's been given names by people that he hasn't passed on to the police yet. A simple possibility is that's because the people concerned haven't agreed yet.