Wednesday, 12 July 2017

Jersey faked

Photos can be faked, people who aren't in a chair can be photo-shopped into that chair. We know this - we can see it. But for most of us, we aren't really aware that the image is false until someone proves it. Here's an easy one 

Sorry guys and gals but I'm headed back to Jersey again. Haut de la Garenne to be specific and I'm looking at that photo said to be of Jimmy Savile in the grounds of the home in 1976 or thereabouts ! 

You see, one of the claims made by a hack in October 2012 was that, Sir Jimmy rescinded his denial of ever having visited the home. 

The source of this alleged admission ?

Now, folks what's really annoying about the above is that, for the life of me, I cannot find any trace of the source of this admission. I did manage to unearth a few clues such as this published by The Lawyer in March 2008 

But, where is this series of articles ? Naturally, they would have been removed from re-publication once JS threatened to sue. But, where are they now ? Why haven't the press re-released these articles ? Maybe they have and someone will be kind enough to post a link.

In the meantime, here's what Jimmy told the Police himself in 2009. Curiously, Jimmy seems to be unaware of that image of him allegedly on the grounds of the home. The photo he's thinking about involves him and a bunch of local councilors !

I know we've been here many times, but let's take a look at that much publicised photo again. Do you think it's real ? I don't but I can't prove it because I don't have access to the original image. Even the Putin/Trump de-buggers had an original press photo to work. I don't, and neither does the sun, by the looks of it ?

For a start, look how big that kid is on the far right 

Big when you compare him to the older boy/teenager, on Savile's left. And, is that a microphone around Jimmy's neck ? Never noticed that until I enlarged the image. Was he recording a TV program ?

A lot of  alleged victims did a hell of a lot of talking to the Police in 2008 when the Jersey investigation got underway. But, none of them, not ONE of them appear to have implicated Jimmy. How likely is it that these rags would not squeeze one tiny claim out of someone, especially when you KNOW, as we do now, that the same chaps who willingly gave him £200,000 were encouraging Ms A to go Sussex Police with her Savile yarn. 

No mention of  Savile here 

Pamela had apparently been blowing the Jersey whistle since 1974. Yet, still no mention of Jimmy or any other celebrity/vip abuser

 No, it was just the male staff who were implicated. Even when the lawyers were involved, still, not a trace of Savile 

 Many of the more sinister claims - involving buried hman remains etc were de-bunked fairly quickly. Strangely enough, David Rose was right in the thick of it at the time ! 

So, I guess Mr Rose would know if any credible claims had been made about Savile at the time ! My money's on NO ! 

Back to fake photos - always a good idea to look at some examples of those that are NOT fake. One can get mightily sick of dishonesty in print or out of someone's mouth. You can see the difference can't you ? 

People look so much more natural. Their bodies don't appear out of whack 

Another LIE exposed ... well, almost Jim 



  1. Aaarghh, not the bloody photo again!!!
    Actually this post has thrown up a couple of points of interest to me that I´ll get back to when I have time. Until then I´ll just mention that the 'proof' of Savile visiting is not only the pic but the certificates received by the inmates who supposedly joined him on a sponsored walk:

    No time to do hyperlinks at minute, but there is one of the certificates on page 243 (of 250) here:

    And there is another, different one here on page 188 (of 446):

    So what? Well, apart from the fact that receiving a certificate for taking part in an event does not really prove that the Big Star personally delivered it to your home - they could have been handed out at the end of the trek to one and all, for example - the thing that catches my eye is Savile's 'signature' which is clearly identical on both. In other words, they do not bear his signature. However, according to the BBC:

    "The note, dated 19 April 1976 and signed by Savile, describes him doing a fun run with a teenage girl from Haut de la Garenne and the money raised."

    And from page 8 (of 446) in above link:

    "It was the older, more trustworthy children who got to go along for the walk, but Jimmy Savile would say hello to the children at the home either before or after the walk. I have certificates signed by him, which I shared with the police. I do not know if anything untoward went on when Jimmy Savile was at the home."

    I can forgive the person THINKING they had a signed certificate, but the BBC/media are showing themselves to be as useless as ever, and it really did NOT decscribe "him doing a fun run with a teenage girl".

    When I have time I'll be looking into the dates of The Sun trying to cook up something (3rd March 2008, meeting a possible complainant, a couple of days after putting their foot in it smearing Savile & setting in motion legal-action)... it might tie-in with what I've been wittering about on Moor's blog.

    1. Bandini ("burnt and buried whilst fresh and fleshed")12 July 2017 at 13:12

      A slightly different take on the 3rd March thing:

      "She contacted a national newspaper on 3 March 2008. A
      journalist encouraged Mrs A to contact police, which she did that same day.
      Officer A and Officer B from Worthing CID attended her home on 3 March 2008."

      Blimey, that was a busy day! Call The Sun, who tell you to contact police, who then come and visit the same day... wonder if they put the sirens on?

      Page 12 (of 39) here:

    2. Bandini ("burnt and buried whilst fresh and fleshed")12 July 2017 at 13:18

      Er, just realised that the two versions are one and the same, and therefore the complainant's day was even more hectic:

      - contacted & was visited by journalist who encouraged her to contact & complain to police.
      - contacted police.
      - police whizz into action and drop by to receive the complaint.
      - complainant contacts journalist again.

      All on 3rd March 2008. She'd have needed a few days off after this!

    3. Bandini - Mrs A told Levitt that she actually contacted the sun by letter in 2007 I knew I'd seen this referred to somewhere today .. but then I remembered all them blogs I've done re the alphabet women LOL

      Here's one

    4. Bandini ("burnt and buried whilst fresh and fleshed")12 July 2017 at 17:52

      Rabbitaway, this is before my time so forgive the ignorance, but in your linked-article the following appears:

      "On 3rd March 2008 the reporter reappeared at Ms A´s door and asked her again whether she had considered reporting it. The journalist went on to tell her that she could keep her name out of the story, and that she had some information that Jimmy Savile may have been connected to the infamous care home in Jersey..."

      Is this from Pollard? (I've downloaded the searchable version Misa provides a link to in the comments, but can't find this passage).

    5. Bandini ("burnt and buried whilst fresh and fleshed")12 July 2017 at 18:00

      Must learn to read... it's from Levitt as stated!

    6. Bandini ("burnt and buried whilst fresh and fleshed")12 July 2017 at 18:22

      God give me strength:

      "On 3rd March 2008 the reporter reappeared at Ms A's door and asked her again whether she had considered reporting it. The journalist went on to tell her that she had some information that Jimmy Savile may have been connected to the infamous care home in Jersey...

      ...It would appear that Ms A had no connection with the Duncroft Children's Home, nor with any of the other victims in this case. It seems to have been a COINCIDENCE that she made her allegation at about the same time (possibly prompted by the fact that Jimmy Savile seems frequently to have been on the television at around this time)."

      "Possiblty prompted"?!? She was clearly 'prompted' by a reporter from The Sun who persuaded her to make a complaint to the police only a couple of days after The Sun's HDLG-piece (1st March 2008) linking Savile to the place appeared. That complaint was then swiftly withdrawn...

      I'm guessing there was something other than 'coincidence' in play here, but I'm off to bed now - probably to have nightmares about Levitt's 'blithe spirit'. God help us all!

  2. JFK assassination conspiracy theorists have long attempted to argue that this photo of Lee Harvey Oswald holding a rifle was faked, as part of an attempt to frame him:

    Actually, according to specialists who researched it, the photo is genuine.

    Rabbit, I've always thought the Savile at HDLG photo was strange. That said, as the above example shows, just because a particular photo 'looks odd' doesn't necessarily mean there is fakery afoot.

    1. At the bottom of Bandini's BBC article, there's a link to an article about photo manipulation which happens to mention the Oswald pictures.

    2. There was another version of the HdlG image in use, with a giant 2Jim'll Fix It" badge. That is the version Dan Davies believed in.

      Jimmy's testimony refers to The Sun having an image of him and running it under a headline, so presumably anyone with access to the archives of The Sun could run it down and confirm whether it's this one, or a different picture altogether - with 6 Councillors in it.

    3. If this photo is genuine, then why don't we know - and, more importantly, why doesn't the sun produce it, in the context of how it - allegedly came into their possession ? That's the press for you, they will run with any little piece of anything for a story. Jimmy's defence & his 'policy' of dealing with such things makes a lot more sense when you see examples of what the shit-stirring shysters will do !

    4. Bandini ("burnt and buried whilst fresh and fleshed")13 July 2017 at 07:55

      I'd never noticed the 'about six Jersey councillors' photograph before... wonder if this is Savile making a mistake?

      Regarding the article/photograph, there seem to be 2 possible timelines:

      1) as per The Lawyer piece above re Fox Hayes, the photo was INCLUDED in the 1st March 2008 article, or

      2) the photograph was LATER shown to Savile who then had to 'admit' to having been there. I must admit this version is the one I've paid more attention to, wrongly perhaps:

      "Members of the Panel, just to give you some context about the allegations against Savile, in March 2008 Jimmy Savile was linked by the Sun newspaper to the ongoing investigation at Haut de la Garenne. Savile initially denied any links to the home and threatened to sue. However, a photograph was LATER published showing him at Haut de la Garenne and I believe you have seen that photograph."

      Page 19 (of 111) here.

      It's astonishing that we haven't seen the original/subsequent articles. (I was hoping they'd be included in the Jersey Inquiry's massive bundle of papers, but if they have been I haven't found them yet.)

      I've been working on the idea that The Sun may have given the Jersey HDLG complainants a 'helping hand' as (a) they were facing legal action from an angry Savile, and (b) no complaint against Savile was made until AFTER The Sun had named him.
      The coincidence in the timing of the sudden journalistic interest in Ms A (see above) might support my mad theory; it also might mean that the 1st March 2008 Sun piece linking Savile to HDLG was part of a larger 'plot' to finger him.

      I'm sticking with my mad idea for the time being, but it would be perhaps obvious what The Sun were up to if only we could see the bloody article(s)! I've had a scout around and it seems that given its 'novel approach' to journalism it hasn't been included in newspaper archives... the only option I can see is to purchase a copy (about £40!).

      (I'll include a link to an article on Moor's site, for my use more than anything as I'm getting a bit snowed under! Some of the comments relate to Witness 125, who complained about Savile after the Sun had already done so, after prompting from an unnamed individual who 'helped' with the two police interviews.)

  3. For what it's worth I don't think that the object around JS's neck is a microphone. If it was, I would expect to see a cable running from the base.
    Before anyone suggests it, wireless mics of the period didn't look like that either.
    Small concealable wireless mics but with a wire running to a transmitter pack would be in occasional use for drama in that period but they were inferior to wired mics, more expensive, prone to radio interference and generally a pain, so avoided if at all possible.
    In the sort of shows JS did there was no reason to hide a mic so on the rare occasion a wireless mic was used it would tend to look like a full sized standard hand mic but with an obvious antenna.

    1. Cheers John I wasn't convinced that it was a mic - still, worth a reference ! The thing that grabs me more and moor is the quality of the photo itself. It's bloody crap isn't it ? It cannot be a press photo but what is it and WHY aren't we being told ?

  4. Replies
    1. OK, as comments now seem to be working will try posting again. Will omit links just in case it disrupts the system.

      There's a Daily Mail article with this photo in it and a "Jim fixed it for us" sign that looks pasted in. The children's sizes don't look odd to me. The child on the right seems to be standing next to older children who seem to be kneeling.

      That looks to me like a whistle around the man's neck.

      It looks to me from the children's clothing and hair as if this was taken in the mid to late 70s. Yet the man's hair looks brown and Jimmy Savile's hair in the Clunk Click photo, which looks to me earlier from the clothing (early 70s?), is bleached. Are there any photos of him with short brown hair around the time frame for this photo and/or dressed in the same clothing and/or with those distinctive specs?

      At first glance and without the "Jim fixed it for me" sign, I wouldn't have recognised that man as Jimmy Savile. But comparing the wavey brushed down hair and the mouth/jawline with photos of Jimmy Savile it does look like him.

      I wondered if that was even Haut de la Garenne but there is an aerial photo of the building complex on Google with a newer building and/or extension behind the main building which has some kind of porch arrangement as in the photo.

      Perhaps it really was him but he committed the same crime as Rolf Harris of forgetting he had been there, adamantly stating he had never been there then realising he had been there, admitting it and his earlier denial being interpreted as a desire to conceal some dastardly behaviour while there.

    2. Doing a Google image search for "Jimmy Savile" Jersey produces this photo amongst other things:
      From this page:

      If that really is Haut de la Garenne perhaps the original photo appeared in a Jersey newspaper.

    3. Savile's hair certainly looks similar in the 1967 pic, Jo.
      There are some photos here I'd quite like to have a look at:

      'Album of colour photographs featuring a visit by Sir Jimmy Saville to Aquila Youth Club-presumed to have been taken during the 1970s]'


      'Copy photograph of a group of children with Jimmy Saville

      Reference: L/A/10/G2/13
      Date: 1970 - 1980'

    4. I've stumbled on the same archive from a completely different angle, Bandini. It would be interesting to have a look.

      The Jersey Evening Post offers these pics, including one at Aquila Church (Chapel). The youth club seems to have been round the corner from the Aquila Road Chapel, on Great Union Road. Jim’s participation in the Easter walk in 1977 is featured - the auction of his personal effects included an award from Aquila Youth Centre for his participation in the walk at Easter 1976.

      I now see that the indefatigable Cassandra has covered all of this and more.

    5. It's curious that if he was bleaching his hair in - from those photos - 1972 and 1977, why he'd have dark hair in 1976. But I suppose it's not impossible.

  5. Bandini ("burnt and buried whilst fresh and fleshed")13 July 2017 at 09:15

    Just out of interest, do we know what the £200,000 Savile was said to have received from The Sun was for?
    And I hadn't realised that The Sun's Jamie Pyatt had played such an active role:

    "Mr Pyatt explained he had followed up the Savile story by contacting former Duncroft pupils on the Friends Reunited website. In an attempt to "expose" Savile while he was still alive, Mr Pyatt said he persuaded "four or five" ex-pupils to go on record saying that Savile had molested them.

    But, he added, a Sun executive, whom he believed was Victoria Newton, had decided the Sun would only run the story if Surrey Police confirmed it, because Savile was "very litigious" who had previously been awarded £200,000 damages against the paper."


    1. The Pyatt article link seems to have got tangled, Bandini. This should work, I hope:

      Jamie Pyatt: I could have exposed Jimmy Savile

    2. That would be from 1989 when they said Jimmy was letting the loonies out of Broadmoor.

    3. Bandini ("burnt and buried whilst fresh and fleshed")14 July 2017 at 04:50

      Thanks, Misa! (I should have guessed that both Moor & Rabbitaway have written about this previously.)

      Moor, we have this:

      "In 1992, my father, George Carman QC, had been retained by Savile's lawyers over a different matter, which never reached court. By 1994, the name Carman, and what he could do in cross-examination, put such fear into the minds of litigants, lawyers and editors that libel cases were settled and, in some circumstances, perhaps stories were not published. Savile may have been one of those."

      And from Savile's police interview:

      "Headline: "Sir Jimmy in the house of hell", you see so that could be argued in court as malicious, right. They had a sudden rash of conscious did the Sun and they sent a reporter round with a £400 box of cigars, 'sorry about that Jim'. So sometimes, the time before I've had them and it cost them like £200,000 because they were out of order..."

      I was wondering (though doubt we'll ever know for certain) if the figure of 200,000 is even accurate, and, if so, to which story it relates. In the police interview from 2009 Savile mentions having sued (or possibly just 'threatened to sue') the press five times, and he was saying this two decades after the Broadmoor saga so I'm guessing he might have had a run in with The Sun/others between those two dates.

      Who knows?!? There is some interesting stuff in Dan Davies' book about the matter - Dan managed to be in the room as Savile spoke to his lawyers about suing over the HDLG-story! - but I think I'll take Davies' bullshit with a massive amount of salt.

      (Re-reading it just now & this bit made me laugh out loud:

      "The photograph, which featured a Jim’ll Fix It badge, could not have been taken before 1975. It appears that Jimmy Savile, who was a regular visitor to Jersey, was calling on the children of Haut de la Garenne for five years at least."

      Cracking investigative journalism from the award-winning Davies and his 'Book of the Year' that was lauded by the press across the board!)

  6. Bandini ("burnt and buried whilst fresh and fleshed")14 July 2017 at 05:40

    TDF, are you around?!?

    It would seem that the Irish have a superior newspaper archive to the English. I'm not sure how much variance there is between versions, but it sounds as though the National Library will have both hard / microfiched-copies of the (Irish) Sun, 1st March 2008 and later:

    'Bang Bang Rebekah'

    If you're feeling curious...

    1. Bandini ("burnt and buried whilst fresh and fleshed")14 July 2017 at 05:54

      (And the National Library of Wales also appear to have a collection, helpfully bundled 1st to 10th March 2008:
      Barcode 1358689.

      C'mon, don't make me spend £40 I don't have buying a copy!)

    2. Ok. I've ordered the edition of the 1 Mar 2008 so fingers crossed.

    3. Although really we need everything from the 1st to the 14th March 2008. (14th March 2008 Savile was when Savile instructs Fox Hayes)

      The Sun didn't publish on Sundays back then but the NOTW did. Really I think the Sun & NOTW should be considered synonymous.

      The Irish editions of UK newspapers are would contain a lot of the content from the main UK edition, but sometimes UK stories or columnists can get bumped for local interest stories or columnists. I'd be surprised if a story about Savile got bumped, but who knows. Will see what I can do on Monday.

    4. Bandini ("burnt and buried whilst fresh and fleshed")14 July 2017 at 13:59

      Thanks, TDF! Good luck.

  7. tdf, I think the Irish Mail, for example, is very different from the British one, and so is the MOS. The Irish one had John Waters and it is only when I went to England five years ago that I first came across Peter Hitchens, who writes the equivalent column from what I can see. I didn't know you could get copies from the Nat. Library.

  8. Bandini ("burnt and buried whilst fresh and fleshed")15 July 2017 at 13:22

    I'm a wee bit embarrassed to be doing this to be honest, but here goes...

    After spending way too much time observing the damned photograph, I've noticed something that does indeed look a little iffy. But then again, stare at a brickwall & you'll soon see people's faces appear, so...

    Anyway, it's Savile's HAIR. There's a pic of him here letting his roots show in 1976 and another of him wearing what look to be the same glasses, but otherwise hardly recognisable AS Savile.

    But in the HDLG snap there just seems to be hair where there shouldn't be. (I'd assumed that the white stuff at his right-ear was the elbow of the lad behind him, though it could be the last of his blond mullet, I suppose.)

    If you cover up the other half of the pic it's easier to notice, I think, and it 's noticable on the original snap but I've cropped his 'hairline fracture' here and then highlighted it in blue here. It looks like half a wig has been dropped on the right-side of his head or summat.

    I now need a long lie down!

    1. Sean,

      Yes I'm aware that the content of the Irish Daily Mail is significantly different to the UK one. Actually when Paul Dacre was in front of the Leveson inquiry, he tried to downplay claims that he is a control freak/tyrant by stating (probably truthfully) that he had seen opinion pieces in the Irish version that made his hair stand on end.

      I thought John Waters' book about U2 was quite good, don't know if you've read it?

      Bandini, before your lie down, if you fancy a giggle, amuse yourself with Stuart Syvret's latest Don Quixote-esque 'tilting at windmills' post:

    2. Bandini ("monstrously foul and fatal")15 July 2017 at 14:59

      Ho ho ho! Sounds like on-street parking would be a bad idea for some tonight!

  9. Having stared at the pic for even longer I now have a FANTASTIC NEW THEORY!!! It's a bit like one of those 'Magic Eye' images in that it's almost impossible to spot but, once spotted, impossible not to see.
    (It's also probably bullshit but I'm blaming both TDF & Rabbitaway for broaching the subject in the first place and sending me doolally.)

    I'll try and knock up a pic highlighting it but basically I'm positing that (from the viewers perspective) the top right part of Savile's head is actually the head of a child over which the image of Savile has been pasted.

    Right-o, here we go: the result of I'm-not-gonna-tell-you-many-minutes of inexpert use of Gimp.
    (To upload this to Tinypic I had to input the security phrase 'red-handed'... must be a sign!)

    1. Doh, I forgot to mention that the hairline of the 'child' seems to continue to our left, peeping out from what looks to be a handful of barber's shop floor sweepings stuck on top (Savile's mad hair).

  10. Another shout out to TDF! Two questions you probably know the answer to:

    1) the pic is said to be "with Savile by the swimming pool". This is going to sound stupid but was the location definitively identified as BEING HDLG? I can't find any other image that bears any resemblance to the building shown. It MUST be, but where exactly?

    2) bearing in mind the recent piece on Moor's blog re the person who believed he was in the photo after being told he was by the coppers only to later realise that he WASN'T, has anyone ELSE been identified/identified themselves from the snap?
    It would be quite strange if this weren't the case.

    (Sorry to keep bothering you with this but your interest in Jersey might mean you know the answers off the top of your head & save me scratching mine.)

  11. Bandini, I don't know the answers off the top of my head I'm afraid, but 4.72 of the inquiry report refers to a swimming pool and a paddling pool being built @ HDLG in 1968.

    1. ^ and actually, to be honest, and no offense to you Bandini, but it's really the 'mainstream media' who should be doing this research, and not a bunch of unpaid bloggers and their commenters.

      Where is (for example) David Rose when you want him? I am not particularly a fan of his, but I would acknowledge that he is more than capable of investigative research-based journalism, unlike many of his peers.

    2. " That's a relief, TDF - was thinking you'd been kneecapped by News International!
      Hopefully you'll return with riches. "

      Bandini, in my country jokes about kneecapping are not all that funny!

      Speaking of Murdoch, the editor of the Irish edition of the Sunday Times is one Frank Fitzgibbon, an experienced Irish meeja guy.

      He was one of the four founders of the Sunday Business Post, but left shortly before they sold the paper. I must admit, I chuckled with wry amusement. Frank is still working. The other three are probably sunning themselves in Barbados or summat.

      Would acknowledge that the ST was a great paper in the days of Andrew Neil's editorship, though my personal politics in recent years are well to the left of it.

  12. Cheers, TDF.
    I've been burrowing in Jersey archives and the like & am yet to come across anything even similar, which surprises me a bit.

    As an amused lurker I recall the number of leaves on the trees being counted to prove the season or summat... with such diligence being shown I've always just assumed it HAD been identified (though I wasn't really that interested in this part of the saga anyway).

    When not described as being beside the (invisible) swimming-pool it is said to be 'at the school'; HDLG wasn't a school by this point, right? That's rhetorical - I'll have another gander.

    1. Scrap that (I think). Must've been looking too hard... assume it's the corner of the wing with what looks to be a turquoise dinghy in front of it here.

    2. Ok. There should be a proper map in the Inquiry's documents somewhere, though I'm having difficulty in locating it.

    3. Bandini, I think you're right. That section of the building fits pretty well with the photo of Jim and the kids - the windows, the awning, two storeys etc. A look toward the background shows hedge, farmland and building in the distance. The building is not visible on the aerial pic you uploaded but, scooting around on google maps, the building there today looks utterly plausible as the one in the photo. I see no obvious challenge to the claim that it is HDLG.

      Near the bottom of this page, there is a version of the photo with inserts - apparently some of the Ickies trying to identify kids/staff from elsewhere. I struggle with all the bickering amongst the loonies spread over literally thousands of pages, but it appears they’re convinced it dates from spring/summer 1976, which would fit with the Easter walk and the plaque from Aquila.

      As I was scrolling through more of this rubbish, I came across the same sunglasses, and a second pair in which someone’s trying to read the newspaper from the reflection in the glasses…there but for the grace of God…

    4. Misa, I was trying to avoid that place - hence the picking of TDF's brains! The lunatics' attempts at identifying people are hilarious but I kind of understand how one ends up on that road to madness... I may yet join them!

      Anyway, I've managed to 90% convince myself that the photo is, at the very least, a manipulated image in some way; we saw with, for example, the snaps of Claire/Samantha that the editing can be crude and yet still slip past the picture-editor several decades later (the body with The Omen-type 'X' through it!). Something's not right with it, even if it was just a clumsy lab-technician picking it up and accidentally 'smearing' Savile's illogical hair.

      I imagine Savile WAS there or thereabouts - it'd be hard to do so many sponsored walks & runs on such a tiny island without passing through - but the idea I'm playing with is that the image may have been cobbled together to fend him off. Perhaps they knew he HAD been there but had no proof, so...

      I'm therefore going for the second of the two options mentioned way, way above: that despite claims to the contrary - including from Savile's own lawyers - the image was presented to him sometime AFTER the articles began. And I'm wondering if it was ever published at all until after his death (again, there are conflicting stories regarding this). Points in Mad Theory's favour:

      1) the image WAS manipulated by someone to add the badge, and that the inserted badge was convinving enough for Dan Davies to use it to date the pic ('Jim'll Fix It' didn't start until 1975 therefore it couldn't have been taken before, claimed the fool).

      2) the weird absence of re-published Sun articles as mentioned by Rabbitaway. I can't imagine any threat of being sued had they repeated the claims would hold them back post-2012!

      3) the confused non-participant in the pic as noted by Moor and

      4) the lack of identified persons in same.

      One thing worth noting is that despite practically a decade of 'survivor' action, and despite at least five years of PUBLIC rabble-rousing from Alan Collins, Syvret, Harper, and the media in general we still only seem to have the same few claims of 'abuse at the hands of Savile' as when we started. And those claims are laughable anyway. Didn't he spend every waking moment abusing? And there he was in the 'paedo's sweetshop' of HDLG...

      I'm wondering if a snap - low quality - was faxed through to Savile's lawyers and they aquiesced, Savile as confused as the poor bastard above who had his memory messed around with, shrugging his shoulders & accepting it was of himself at HDLG more than thirty years previously... just thinking aloud.

      We shall see. Hopefully TDF will have something for us from the (Irish) Sun, and I'll just mention that after posting the links to Irish and Welsh libraries I had a look at Scotland (I think they might have Scottish Sun archive) and also the British Library again - I may have been hasty in discounting them earlier but their archive is more difficult to search. In short, the series of articles are out there...

    5. [And what comes close to being a tribute to Savile from the son of one of the organizers of the annual trip to Blackpool:
      “You should see him with disabled kids. You should see the pleasure he brings them.”]

    6. Bandini, I don't share your enthusiasm for the picture. I really can't see anything much. I did recall that the Ickies had identified the T-shirt and have just waded back in there to find out what it was.

      It was a Superspike T-shirt, Superspike being a song recorded by John Clease and Bill Oddie to raise money for the British Olympic team, as far as I can tell. The single was released in February 1976 and was supported by a film shown on April 6 of that year.

      This would seem to tie in with the Love is an Uphill Thing tracksuit - the book being released also in 1976, I believe. Though I think Moor has looked into the book and its versions.

      Oh, in the Manchester Taxi picture…is that blond hair growing out? Look below his left ear - a tuft - and behind, down to the collar.

    7. Misa, you knocked my confidence down to 80% so I enlisted the unbiased eye of my girlfriend (who doesn't even know who Jimmy Savile was)... despite much zooming, cropping - and even a bit of exasperated prodding! - she had no idea what I was on about!

      Hmmm, I may have to revise my figure further downward! Aaargh, but I can't unsee it now... I can only suggest drawing the outline of his hair and see what happens - or save your sanity!

      Anyway, here he is about 5-weeks after the unsigned, photocopied certificates were handed out.

    8. I don't know, Bandini. I've stared a little more, and either it's starting to look a little odd, or I'm starting to feel a little odd. btw in your TOTP picture, is the yellow digital watch the same one he's wearing in the HDLG pic?

      I think it would be much more useful to learn about the background: did Jim deny ever being there? Did the newspaper use this picture to prove him wrong? Did he successfully sue? When did the picture emerge? How did it come to have the Jim'll Fix It badge superimposed?

      tdf's archive request might be much more valuable than us all gawping at a slightly odd photo.

    9. * Did he ..... sue *

      No, The Sun sent him a £400 boz of cigars and hired him a pink Rolls Royce and a photo-opportunity to two of their sexy birds.

    10. Moor, the pink Rolls-Royce was in "October 2007, to co-incide with the broadcast of Jim'll Fixit Strikes Again"...

      Misa, it may just be down to a damaged copy of an odd photo as there is a bean-shaped blob stuck to the side of the head of the fella just behind Savile for example - perhaps it fell off and landed on Savile?!?

      As Rabbitaway mentioned it doesn't really look to be newspaper-quality (have you ever seen such a mostly-miserable looking bunch showing such lack of interest in Savile?) but the odd posing may have been down to necessity given the large number of youngsters present & the wide variation in their ages.

      (And what a nightmare it would have been handling such a group for the staff - some of the kids with 'problems' - even if the under-resourced place had had the most dedicated workers, babies & almost-adults all cooped up together...)

      Other than the lack of smiles on the faces of most there are people hidden behind others and maybe the group of naughty looking rascals presumably stood on some sort of plinth was an effort to bring some order to the shot, though this in itself looks odd given the contorted bodies (and even what looks like a missing foot, hidden inside a loon pant perhaps).

      All of the above may have come together to create a weird image, who knows? There is also what looks to be discolouration on these high-flying chaps, similar to what we saw with the pic of Claire/Samantha and Savile, a pic which we know was manipulated.

      Anyway, I'll leave you with those glasses again.

    11. Just a quick update. I haven't managed to make it down to the National Library yet, and probably won't be able to til Thursday or Friday.

    12. That's a relief, TDF - was thinking you'd been kneecapped by News International!
      Hopefully you'll return with riches.

    13. Bandini, the bean beside the left ear of the lad behind JS I took to be a table tennis bat. I had wondered whether the group at the front - JS + 3 to his left and six to his right - could have been separate, i.e. one added to tother. But the shadows are pretty convincing. And the group at the front are as distracted as the rest. Some of those looking seem to be looking in slightly different directions too, though that may be explained by the being more than one camera/photographer present, I suppose.

      The 4 standing and 3 sitting on the plinth (or whatever) are obviously pretty striking, but I can’t quite say what’s wrong with it.

      Again, the age-range is pretty striking. I count one babe in arms, and two obvious toddlers (offspring of residents?) and lads of perhaps 15 or older, with everything in between. I can’t image how on earth one could manage/raise a group like that. But I know nothing about such homes.

      There’s an odd foot behind the round-faced (Dee?!) little girl sitting front right. The foot might belong to the boy/woman holding the toddler, but it looks odd. And the distracted couple front left are playing with a scottie, or similar, dog?

      The whole thing is a weird hodge-podge, but I can offer no meaningful evidence that it’s been ‘shopped’. Jim looks too big, but he’s in the midst of a bunch of kids.

      I hope that reassures you that you’re not the only one going cross-eyed.

    14. Just to add, the fashions appear consistent - the boys shirt collars, the width of the trouser legs - with mid-seventies.

      The really striking thing, I think, is the fact that Jim seems to be looking the wrong way. He was a pro, right? I mean, he knows where the camera is, always...doesn't he? Unless there really was more than one photographer.

    15. "Again, the age-range is pretty striking. I count one babe in arms, and two obvious toddlers (offspring of residents?) and lads of perhaps 15 or older, with everything in between. I can’t image how on earth one could manage/raise a group like that. But I know nothing about such homes."

      Read the inquiry report, Misa. As Bandini correctly states above, staff were placed under undue pressures (not to excuse any of them that abused kids, of course) . The home housed kids of all ages from babies to teens up to (from memory) 14/15 or so, possibly even older. There were separate wards for kids of different ages, but I assume that if a celeb such as Savile was visiting (assuming it was really him) then they would all come together for a group photo.

    16. Btw, in a moment of weakness and/or curiousity, I paid for Harvey Proctor's book (online version, €12 or so). There are 25 references to Savile in the book.

    17. Thanks, tdf. I've been trying to avoid reading the report, or get too bogged down with any of this stuff...that damned elusive Bandini suckers me every time. If staff were looking after kids across such an age range, it must have been seriously hard work, at least. Good for you, buying HP's book. Will be very interested to hear what you make of it, and tempted to pick it up myself.

    18. Most of them seem to be due to Proctor being falsely accused in a network that included Savile, but this one is possibly worth putting up:

    19. TDF, Proctor´s wrong about the ice-cream - it was shit in a cone. I love the detail though: "I liked spring the most, with the large skipping event taking place..." Ho ho ho! Off you skip, Harvey!

      Misa: Dee! You're not wrong, but best not start me off on THAT again - one mad thread at a time, please! But the phantom foot poking out can easily be explained away: we just have to attach it to the growth of knee on t'other side of her.
      (This in turn must be attached to the 'girl with the baby' - who always reminds me of my mum! - who had she not been kneeling could have taken her place at the back without needing to mount a plinth to be seen as she must be about 8 feet tall.)

      I'm embarrassed to admit that I hadn't even noted the dog before... crikey, so much for my forensic skills! Doubly surprising as I've always thought those two make such a striking image that my eye is always drawn to 'em.

      One last thing, the chunky little fella stood by the side of my mum has no shoes/feet either... probably due to over-sized hand-me-down clothing, I suppose, the same maybe true for the little rascal mentioned previously.

    20. " TDF, Proctor´s wrong about the ice-cream - it was shit in a cone. I love the detail though: "I liked spring the most, with the large skipping event taking place..." Ho ho ho! Off you skip, Harvey! "

      Harvey's memoir is full of that kind of stuff, I'm afraid. Also, a lot of cakes. (His dad was a baker, who left the family home one morning and was never seen again.)

    21. "Will be very interested to hear what you make of it, and tempted to pick it up myself."

      What did I think of it? Meh, it's ok.
      Some of the stuff is a bit "methinks he doth protest too much" .

      To emphasize, I don't believe for a second that HP was a child murderer, nor even (in the technical sense) a paedo, as alleged by 'Nick', but this kind of stuff makes me go 'Harvey, what episode of Are Uou Being Served do you think you're auditioning for, precisely', such as in the following ludicrous and farcical anecdote:

    22. Finally for now, possibly the oddest extract from HP's book.

      He recalls rumours that Peter Hayman had been seen in the Craven Club on Craven Street near Charing Cross station with young boys on his knee:

    23. Good grief, tdf. You’ve saved me a few quid there.

      I think I may have gone the full Bandini.

      Here is a numbered version of the picture. I’ve put the numbers on the bodies as far as possible.

      I’m working from these two versions of the pic available online:
      1 Fix It badge (lighter)
      2 No Fix It badge (darker)


      I count 36 humanoid figures at least partially visible in the picture…and one dog! Numbers 4, 20 & 30 are babes in arms.

      There are at least six people ‘hiding’ in the picture: 14, 21, 24, 25, 27, 29 and arguably 12. That seems an awful lot of camera shy kids…more likely they’ve been pasted over?!

      There is a light patch beneath JS, and another between 10 and 14. For it to be light there you ought to be able walk into the space between 10 and 14, tiptoe between JS and 13, then comfortably exit between 6 and 11.

      Kneeling boy (9) ought to be a long way in front of 17 but, if he’s kneeling, his lower legs/feet *might* show between 5 & 10 if the picture were lightened. The Jim’ll Fix It badge covered this and 10’s feet. Are 10’s flairs wide enough to hide his feet?

      Presumably, 23, 32 & 26 are all sitting on whatever the 33, 34, 35, 36 are standing on. 21, 25, 27 may be sitting/leaning on the same structure.

      24 is odd - the father getting close to mother, 22, holding baby 20? If 22, rather than 21, is holding the little one! This whole gaggle seems a little strange, as does 13 who seems remarkable composed/assured for someone four feet tall, and the boundary between her left shoulder and 24’s trousers also seems odd.

      If it’s not a one-take original photo, it would probably have to be a composite of several - i.e. if you say the front group 1-10 is separate from the rest at the back - so two photos stitched together - maybe neither group is internally consistent…we would probably have to look at it as a collage. But…

    24. The shadows seem to be pretty consistent. In this picture, I’ve taken the version with the Fix It badge, as it’s slightly wider, and shows a little more of the shadows. I’ve extended the lines up to the top left of the picture to make it easier to see whether they are parallel.

      A - Boy (2) knee to ground.
      B - Boy (6) head to Jim’s arm
      C - Jim thigh to (8) hand
      D - Girl (3) head to ground
      E - Boy (9) head to ground
      F - Boy (10) head to ground
      G - Boy (34) head to ground
      H - Boy (36) head to ground
      I - Woman (31) head to outside picture

      I would say that the lines appear to be parallel (at least within my margin of error in placing them). Other than the fact that I’m struggling a little to match the shadows for the boys up at the back (G&H not entirely convincing), I would suspect that the shadows are pretty authentic.

      Now where did I leave my medication?

    25. Misa: "the full Bandini", my name now a byword for lunacy - it was only ever a matter of time! But lest we forget we've both been 'groomed' by Rabbitaway & TDF - vile abusers, stirrung up a hornets' nest then abandoning us to our fates... Then There Were 2.

      Anyway, I'll have a better look at this later but I almost asked you to look at the shadows yesterday (as your spot on the infamous 'Dee in Jersey' snaps was fantastic) but then came to my senses a bit.

      I'd been trying to line them up myself and was struggling, mainly due to eye strain & mental fatigue.
      It looks to be a bright, sunny day (though Savile hasn't peeled off his shirt as he was wont to do, and there are many be-jumpered kids) and a fair amount of squinting from the participants as though the sun is shining directly upon them.

      The shadows that caught my eye were that of 11 and 17 - perhaps as they are more noticable falling on their dark-coloured clothing - and their ANGLE compared to that of those cast by matron, etc.

      I couldn't quite work out where the sun would have to be to generate all of these... but I'd been thinking along the lines of the collage idea anyway so could have been staring too intently.

      That's all for now. Oh, except to stake a claim for Humanoid #37 - the little 'un almost entirely erased by Savile being pasted on top of him/her... perhaps!

      I think the photographer that day may have been Terry Gilliam!

    26. [Bah! Forgot to mention that WN 125's fuzzy memory seems to unfog when it comes to the YEAR of the photo and is incredibly lucid (compared to the rest of his testimony) on the matter: 1976.

      After a bit of help from the unnamed police interview prodder - see below - he 'remembers' the event too: Liberation Walk. The (unsigned) 'Five Valley Jaunt' certificates relate to 19th April; Liberation Day is 9th May. Not impossible that Savile took part in both, I suppose, but just thought I'd highlight it.]

    27. Bandini, have you noticed how Rabbit just serves this stuff up, and then leaves us to make fools of ourselves, whilst she just burrows onward?

      The sun seems to be SSW or thereabouts, so no obvious problem there. April/May in Jersey might not have been that warm, but it does appear pretty bright. I suppose one may question why the pic was taken at this angle, rather than with them looking more directly toward the sun.

      One thing that struck with the other pictures of JS wearing these glasses is that they don't seem to be very dark, yet in this picture they appear dark. Given that the sun is almost side on to them, I wondered why Jim's right eye, in particular, wouldn't have been more clearly visible through the lens.

      I see no obvious problem with the shadows on/from 11 & 17. The strangest thing for me, at the moment, is the hidden figures 14, 25, 27 and possibly 29 - number 14 in particular looks like she's just been pasted over.

      I guess the shadows from the boys at the back are worth a look too.

    28. The comments beneath the Mail article Savile pictured at the Jersey House of Horrors include the following:

      Ian, Paignton, United Kingdom, 4 years ago
      The "Jim fixed it for us" badge is photoshopped. The show did not begin until 1975, and the photo is believed to date from the late 1960s or early 1970s, when Savile was a regular visitor to Jersey.

      Stephen, Lancs, 4 years ago
      The photograph certainly wasn't taken in the 1960s, and was definitely taken in the 1970s. Firstly Jim'll Fix It didn't start until well into the 1970s. As I was a kid during this time I was well aware of the fashions of the time. I'd say probably about 73-75 from the fashion and hair.

      Sean, Lurgan, 4 years ago
      Has emerged? Its been known for years what Saville was up to online and this photo was widely available. The real question is WHY was it never highlighted until now?

      bazzah, Birmingham, United Kingdom, 4 years ago
      Funny how the picture of him in front of Haut de la Garenne was photoshopped by a guy from a car forum as a 'joke'

      Resnam, Sandbanks, 4 years ago
      David Icke has had this picture on his web site for years.

      jj, Cardiff, 4 years ago
      I was showing this photograph family and friends over 3 years ago, so to say "it's emerged" is complete fabrication. This photograph has been all over the internet for at least, the last 6 months.

      This Youtube videoA tribute to Haut De La Garenne Survivors, uploaded October 2008, includes the same picture at 1 min 56 secs.

      It maybe worth noting that this version of the picture appears to predate both of the versions I’ve linked to in previous comments, as it is fractionally bigger - i.e. the others have been trimmed down a fraction - see the blades of grass in front of boy 2’s shoe, the extra space to the left of the house in the background, and the slightly bigger slice of door visible on the right. It can be viewed as a jpg on this site, which is kind of interesting in its own right, not least because it was apparently published on 29 October 2011…i.e. the day he died.

    29. I just can't resist nibbling away at this.

      "...photoshopped by a guy from a car forum..."

      The Mitsubishi Lancer Register Forum it would seem. He refers to the thread on which (says he) he originally posted, but it's locked now. I've tried registering, but still no access.

      Would be interesting to know when he did it but, otherwise, fair play to the lad. He's listed sites which have reproduced it. Must have been quite a chuckle as it was doing the rounds...perhaps a guilty one, but nonetheless...

    30. Misa, you're hooked!

      That's some great digging there - the inclusion of the photo in the video means it's been kicking around since before Savile's death (but we still can't be sure it was published in the press) & the 'shopped image's journey from car-owners' forum to mainstream press is hilarious (and revealing!).

      One thing of interest perhaps is the copyright of the image ; when published in The Sun they stick a 'News Group Newspapers' caption on it (though without claiming copyright) and in the Mail, etc., no claim to ownership is made nor credit is given (something that almost always occurs, no matter where they've nicked it from).

      Let us know if you turn up anything re the original forum posting, won't you?

      Back to the shadows... I still find them a bit odd as mentioned before but can't really explain why. I spent a while searching for similar images to see if a clue would leap out at me but grew tired of Hank Marvin portaits popping up so gave up. Ah, that unshaded area below Savile is, as you mentioned, striking.

    31. Re the 2008 YouTube video, the bloke responsible (says he was in HDLG 1970-1976) has a website & is on Twitter.

      I thought about leaving a comment asking about the provenance of the photo but the site hasn't been updated in a while and, having had a brief flick through, he hasn't had the easiest of lives and I couldn't bring myself to do it.

    32. Hooked indeed, Bandini.

      The inclusion in the video means it's been kicking around since 2008 when the Sun tried to implicate JS. Judging by this version of the picture used in 2012 (and presumably changed after they became aware of their mistake), some stuff does go up without a copyright claim…more honest than one or two other papers I understand!

      Possible that the youtube user had access to the original images, but equally plausible that he found some/all online, I would say. Might be worth looking around for other stuff of his, I guess, but I’ve no desire to pester him either. His website goes back to 2007 and maybe well worth a read for anyone interested in in HDLG specifically.

      For the Mitsubishi site, I’ve started digging around on the Wayback Machine, which has a lot of stuff, but doesn’t seem to lead directly to what I was looking for. I might have another go over the weekend, if I can stomach it.

      The shadows are interesting - the group belonging to the boys standing up on the plinth don’t seem to match, but I’m no expert. I’m more convinced than ever that there would have to have been a walkable passage behind the front ten - the light under the arm of Man 8 (on Jim’s left) adds further support and is, perhaps, clearer in the versions of the pic I’ve found latterly. Then there’s the whole hodge-podge, which is fascinating in itself. But to turn it around for a moment, what would it take to make such a convincing ‘collage’? As a non-specialist, I would say a hell of a lot of work. If some expert in these matters could point out something ‘obvious’, well I’d be interested, but realistically I still think we must be looking at a ‘genuine’ photo.

  13. Great finds of JS with those glasses. In the 1975 photo his hair is darker too. It surely must be him in the HDLG photo. Proof positive that he was up to no good in Jersey - not.

  14. Just for reference, the mentions of the blasted photograph from Wn 125's interview statements; firstly, 5th August 2008:

    "...we had our photograph taken by the Evening Post. I think I was sitting next to him, I think."

    Secondly, 8th April 2009:

    Wn 125 is promted to mention Savile (and given name of the walk) by XXX, an unidentified person: "Him from the TV."

    [On subject of XXX I must have missed this before, but it seems likely that an interviewer is referring to this individual when comforting an upset Wn 125:

    "You've know you've known XXX a long time."]

    And here's Savile in Scotland in '76, wearing his favourite shades.

  15. "A study of more than 700 people found four in ten couldn't tell a fake picture from a real one... ...This simple test will reveal if you are any better at spotting a fake picture than the average person... ...The study underlines the threat to democracy posed by the spread of made up propaganda..."

    Given the source - The Daily Mail! - it's actually quite interesting.

  16. Good luck with your expedition tdf ! Nice one x