The Sunday edition of the Daily Star carried some particularly lurid allegations against the deceased broadcaster Jimmy Savile suggesting that while living he had been in the habit of having sex with dead bodies.
Sigh.
As usual the allegations were unattributed, ie it was not possible to say who was making the claims.
It seems to me that Rupert Murdock's newspapers and his television stations (The Sun, The Times, Sky and Fox) along with porn baron Richard Desmond's Star and Daily Express are simply following their initial strategy through to the end in excluding all exculpatory material in order to malign Jimmy Savile into Hades.
They intended to destroy the reputation of Jimmy Savile in order to distract public attention from their own improprieties. (In Murdock's case the subversion of police and parliament. In Richard Desmond's case his profession as a porn baron.)
And they can't or won't go back.
I think Jimmy Savile is innocent.
My conclusion is based on my humble attempts at objectively weighing the evidence in the newspaper attacks against him (articles consisting solely so far in my view of tendentious one sided incitement to hatred trash) and on my own critical instincts and faculties when listening to the very few accusers who have allowed themselves to be filmed. (By gadfrey they are dubious.)
Yes.
I think Jimmy Savile is innocent.
And I urge you all to be careful and critical in your assessment of the media's reporting of the posthumous accusations against him.
I also urge you to be careful in your assessment of press releases from the police and the supposedly independent investigators who have looked at the matter.
Rupert Murdock's newspaper group is currently being investigated for subverting the police.
Not all coppers are good coppers.
I'm just saying is all.
Be careful.
Now get this.
I don't know for sure that Jimmy Savile is innocent.
I do know for sure that Rupert Murdock's and Richard Desmond's newspapers have amorally and immorally for base and commercial reasons of corporate strategic interest, sought to destroy Jimmy Savile's reputation without caring whether he is innocent or not.
And I do know that the bankrupt (morally and financially) media groups owned by Rupert Murdock and Richard Desmond have deliberately concealed and or excluded information from public view that provides a priori indication of Jimmy Savile's absolute innocence of several specific allegations currently being fostered against him by their newspapers using those most infamous and egregious of journalistic fictive tools, to wit "anonymous sources."
I want those of you who have been convinced by the media show trial of Jimmy Savile to briefly consider one whole article from the Daily Star's Sunday edition.
The article is by someone styled Jonathan Corke.
The article's headline implies Jimmy Savile is a murderer, and claims "DJ linked to deaths."
A secondary headline states: "Perv took instant pics of corpses in morgue."
Never mind the moral issues (and issues of sublime irony) raised by a porn baron's employee or newspaper calling anyone "perv."
Just read what Mr Corke and his employers based these headlines on.
His article is in red. My comments on each paragraph are interspersed in blue.
"Evil Jimmy Savile took hundreds of pictures on an instant print camera. The serial paedophile kept the snaps as secret trophies of his perverted crimes. He used his families EK6 to capture the images - knowing they would never be seen by developers. The claim was made by a Savile abuse victim who had links with his family circle in Leeds in the 1960's and 70's."
This is the first paragraph of Mr Corke's attack on Jimmy Savile. The source is anonymous and no evidence is offered that a real individual made these claims. Jimmy Savile is labelled a paedophile without the journalist making clear that Jimmy Savile has never faced charges for paedophile activities and has never been convicted of paedophilia. Mr Corke can only say these things because Jimmy Savile is not here to answer him. Mr Corke's and the Daily Star's is perhaps the lowest form of cowardice. The article continues.
"The victim who wished to remain anonymous, told the Daily Star Sunday: 'His favourite camera was the Kodak. He took it everywhere. Jimmy joked everyone wanted to be snapped with him - and because the camera allowed him to take the picture instantly, he was able to give the fans an immediate souvenir of their meeting. He used it at family gatherings and public appearances - but also took it to hospitals including Leeds General Infirmary. Now it all fits into place. He was obviously photographing dead bodies in the morgue with it, knowing no one but him would ever get to see them.' "
The above statement is the sum total of evidence in the Daily Star article. An anonymous (presumably paid if he really exists) source says "Obviously he was using his camera to photograph corpses." The Daily Star claims their source is a victim but again we are given no specifics. That's their standard of evidence. Gentle reader, if we accept this crudd, we become responsible for it. The article continues its quotation from this supposed source with more wild speculation about the potential uses of cameras in morgues. I gotta tell ya. This says more about the Daily Star than it does about Jimmy Savile.
" 'It just makes me feel sick thinking about it. The camera was perfect for keeping his activities secret. What I want to know is what happened to the pictures? He must have taken hundreds.' "
What happened to the pictures? The pictures an unnamed (possibly made up) Daily Star source just feels Jimmy Savile must have taken hundreds of... You see the calibre of this evidence? This is why they had to wait until Jimmy Savile was dead in order to float their crassly unsubstantiated, invidious and speculative allegations. Now the writer inserts a reference to seemingly more substantial allegations.
"National Health Service investigators uncovered more than 100 reports of abuse by the former Radio 1 DJ and Jim'll Fix It presenter at 28 NHS hospitals."
But hang on Daily Star. Are any of the "abuse" claims credible? And let's face it, you give no details of what you are calling abuse. It's important we know. Is your definition of abuse as flexible as say The Daily Mail's. Let me explain. The Daily Mail last week published a claim by an anonymous nurse that she had once heard Jimmy Savile tell a patient with spinal injuries that he would date her. This claim was trumpeted by the Daily Mail as evidence that Jimmy Savile committed sex abuse. Even if he actually said it, absent a complaint from the patient herself, we might reasonably conclude that she appreciated him cheering her up after surgery with a friendly remark. Calling this abuse is insane. Back to the Daily Star article. It mentions 100 reports of abuse. A hundred reports could be filed by one or two lying complainants. How many complainants were there? And what exactly is being called abuse here? Yet more friendly comments some nurse claims she overheard? Should we consider it credible that in an era spread out over the last fifty years when people in Britain could get rich overnight by taking court cases against celebrities, not one of these supposed victims sued Jimmy Savile? I find this incredible. He died at the age of 84 by the way. They had plenty of time. I'm suggesting they waited until he was dead because what they were saying about him is not true. The next paragraph of Mr Corke's article does attempt to give the impression of specificity with regard to the existence of abuse victims. But always none are named. Nor is there any suggestions that these claimed victims themselves complained. Why? A close reading of the text seems to show that Mr Corke is alleging that the 60 claimed victims in the NHS report were abused while dead. For the record such activity, if it actually happened, would normally be deemed necrophilia not sex abuse. Nor are there any details whatsoever of what Mr Corke and his newspaper and an unidentified NHS investigator are alleging Jimmy Savile did to them. Mr Corke baldly claims that there were 60 victims aged from five to 75. No evidence and no details are provided. We may even still be dealing with spiteful hearsay courtesy of anonymous nurses...
"One witness revealed Savile took pictures and posed with dead bodies in Leeds General Infirmary's mortuary, where he abused at least 60 victims aged from five to 75."
Not a witness. Merely somebody claiming improbably and anonymously to have been a witness. No revelation of abuse either. Merely a claim by the same anonymous person that he or she saw dead bodies being violated and for some mysterious reason said nothing about it for fifty years.
"The probe found he had told a nurse at Broadmoor in Berkshire that he sexually defiled bodies - and posed dead men and women together before taking pictures. The victim added: 'Reading what he did with the dead, I was lucky.' "
That's some probe the Daily Star is supposedly citing. "A nurse (unidentified) said an accused dead man told her he liked posing for photos with dead bodies..." And then that final reference to the Daily Star's own paid source, its own in house victim whose speculations about cameras provided Mr Corke with the foundation for this article: "I was lucky..." Yes but who are you and what do you claim happened to you? This is not courtroom standard evidence. To be honest, it's not even up to the louche, asinine and maliciously sleazoid standards we have come to expect of the Daily Star and its ilk. This to my mind looks like a frame up.
Well folks.
If for some reason, you hold me or my analysis in some regard, you must ask yourselves the following question.
Is the Daily Star capable of a frame up???
Let me close with another complete article from the same Sunday edition of the Daily Star.
This is from the very same edition that was used last weekend to posthumously assassinate the reputation of Jimmy Savile.
I reckon this one can stand alone on its merits without my usual twee interpolations.
It's all in red.
Red for guilt in attempting to ruin a human being..
Red for lies masquerading as journalism in the public interest.
Red for the loss making balance sheets at porn baron Richard Desmond's (and robber baron Rupert Murdock's) bankrupt titles.
"MUSLIM HANDS AND DOCTOR MUSHARAF HUSSEIN: AN APOLOGY
(from the Daily Star Sunday June 29th 2014)
In our article 'Say it ain't so Mo' published on May 4th 2014, we said that Doctor Musharaf Hussein was a 'jihad cleric' who urged British Muslims to wage holy war against non Muslims.
The article also gave the impression that Muslim Hands, of which Doctor Musharaf is a board member, shared these views.
We accept these allegations were untrue.
Doctor Hussein abhors violence of any form and is an active campaigner for peace.
Muslim Hands is committed to tackling the root causes of poverty and is similarly opposed to violence of any sort.
We are happy to set the record straight and apologise to Doctor Hussein and Muslim Hands."
