the reputation of the supersoaraway naked lady exploiting phone tapping police bribing rupert murdock owned sun newspaper versus jimmy savile

The Sun newspaper today carries what it claims is evidence that deceased broadcaster Jimmy Savile molested a nine year old boy in his dressing room at the BBC back in the 1970's.
The Sun claims its evidence comes directly from the supposed victim.
The Sun does not explain how this supposed victim now in his forties came to contact the Sun.
Nor does the Sun explain how it became aware of the existence of this supposed victim.
Nor does the Sun specify how much it is paying this middle aged man to make his unsubstantiated claims.
Nor does the Sun inform us as to whether or not corrupt police officers on the Sun's payroll helped the Sun get in touch with the supposed victim.
Such things are relevant because of the clear possibility that the Sun paid this supposed victim for his testimony.
There is also a significant possibility, indeed likelihood might I add, that as stated above, the Sun was put in touch with this impoverished middle aged supposed victim by a corrupt police officer or officers who had been bribed by the Sun to facilitate such contacts.
These possibilities about the circumstances in which the Sun paid a man in his forties to claim he'd been molested by Jimmy Savile while a little boy, are highly relevant because similar activities are the basis of ongoing police investigations, not into Jimmy Savile, but into the Sun newspaper itself and into its staff, its management, and its owners, as well as into other titles owned by Australian media baron Rupert Murdock and his family, to wit over allegations that the Murdocks and their company have routinely bribed and corrupted police officers in order to obtain stories and or obstruct the course of justice.
The Sun Newspaper prints its latest allegations from a forty year old man against Jimmy Savile without any corroboration and without revealing the most important piece of information as to how the Sun got in contact with this individual.
The Sun does claim that the individual got in contact with the police after the present media attacks on Jimmy Savile began.
There is no clarification as to how this contact with the police led to contact with the Sun.
At the end of today's attacks on Jimmy Savile in the Sun newspaper, a smallprint footnote states:
"The Sun has made a contribution to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, in return for this interview."
So the Sun has purchased the testimony.
The Sun has paid for the interview.
What the Sun fails to make clear is, whether or not, the Sun made any additional payments to the forty year old man who claims to have stayed silent about his supposed victimhood at the hands of Jimmy Savile through fear of the hugely wealthy hugely famous, and, while alive, eminently sueable and imprisonable, celebrity Jimmy Savile.
Well gentle readers.
You are the jury in this one.
This is trial by newspaper.
Perhaps it is only right and fitting that questions like this should be asked of the bankrupt media groups who are attempting to bump their dismal sales figures upwards by trafficking in hugely unsubstantiated guilt by inuendo accusations against dead celebrities.
What do you think?