Jimmy Savile Ravished The Dead: The 1990 Interview With The BBC’s Yorkshire Ripper
IN 1990, Sir Jimmy Savile talked to Q Magazine of his sexual interst in fresh corpses.
To the HuffPost this is:
Jimmy Savile Interview From 1990 Reveals Disgraced Star’s Apparent Fetish For The Dead
Fetish?
Bizarrely, he also said, without any prompting from the interviewer, that he was not a necrophiliac – a person with a sexual attraction to corpses.
But it’s not bizarre. It’s only intersting because since his death Savile’s been accsued of all manner of stuff, not least of all being the Yorkshire Ripper.
In 2012, the Mail was listening to the radio:
Savile sex scandal hits horrific new low as former colleague Paul Gambaccini claims on Radio Five Live that DJ was a ‘necrophiliac’
Now an NHS Report says he might have been:
A former nurse at Broadmoor said Savile told her about his appalling activities at the Yorkshire hospital, where he was a charity fundraiser and volunteer porter. He said he would “muck about” posing with dead bodies of men and women together before taking photographs.
The nurse added: “I was a little bit upset because I had no concept, in those days, of… while I’d heard of necrophilia… but I didn’t understand what it meant.” It is claimed former Top of the Pops frontman Savile told her he sexually assaulted the bodies as well, something he sickeningly dubbed “garamoosh”.
A former patient at Barnet General Hospital in North London said nurses told her in 1983 that Savile “liked to have sex with dead bodies”. The Jim’ll Fix It host also boasted about making jewellery from glass eyes that he removed from their bodies.
Can we check the claims? Any proof?
Dr Sue Proctor, lead investigator at Leeds General Infirmary, says that security at the mortuary where ex-BBC DJ Jimmy Savile worked as a voluntary porter was “lax”. “Allegations about his behaviour in the mortuary are incredibly harrowing,” says Dr Proctor, detailing claims of alleged sex acts performed on dead bodies… Dr Proctor says that investigators have no way of verifying the claims about Savile’s actions in the mortuary but that controls on access were “not robust”.
And that’s it. It might be that we are more obessessed with the rotting Savile than he was with the dead.
You don’t need proof with Savile. You just need a rumour. The Mail shows how this works as it attempts to create the world’s most complete Savile headline:
The necklace was sold at auction for £75:
Savile was a revolting, deparaved man who hid in plain view. He was legitimised by the NHS, the BBC and Catholic Church, which made him a Papal knight, and the elite which dubbed him a secular knight of the realm. He knew things about Princess Diana, or so he alluded.
But that was then. Now in the rush to damn the dead man and bury his past, the narrative gets murkier and murkier. No longer simple an old pervert, he is a demonic nut who plucked out the eyeballs of the dead, did unspeakable things with the sockets and then wore the removed organs as trophies. Yet some how, we all – and the narrative is all – were duped by the gibbering old wreck.
Broadcaster Esther Rantzen, founder of ChildLine, implicated the entire natioanl in Savile’s alleged crimes by telling the Daily Mail that “in some way we colluded with him as a child abuser”.
But we weren’t duped. They were. The people that employed him and gave him keys. So. rather than digging up the dead man and beating him with sticks, who not find out who knew what and investigate what is going on now? Because that’s hard. Because trials are costly. Because it tough to get Savile’s powerful friends – and we include Prince Charles – on oath in the wtiness box. And it’s really very hard because you need evidence and to build a case.
In this high-tech age, no DNA from Savile has been found at any crimescene.
As for the reporting, well you cannot defame the dead. They don’t sue. The Daily Express can write “Jimmy Savile was part of Satanic ring: Savile beat and raped a 12-year-old girl during a secret Satanic ritual in a hospital” without fear of redress.
The trend in reporting on Savile is to foment scandal. It should aim to state the facts clearly. That way the public can better understand. Other than facts, what else is there?
Posted: 29th, June 2014 | In: Celebrities, Reviews Comment | TrackBack | Permalink
