In Plain Sight: The Life and Lies of Jimmy Savile

by Dan Davies

  Initially, only those former Duncroft girls identified from the list by the witness and victim of the alleged assault would be contacted, and even then they would be provided with limited information so there could be no claim they had been prompted. This decision was soon overturned when it became apparent that more former Duncroft residents should be sought out to ensure no witnesses were missed.

  It was also resolved that a meeting should be held with a lawyer from the Crown Prosecution Service in light of the fact the first victim did not want to make an allegation. The deputy senior investigating officer then decided that at this stage statements should not be taken from anyone other than the two victims: the girl from the television room at Duncroft and the girl assaulted at Stoke Mandeville. Crucially, neither was to be told that other victims had come forward.

  Eight days later, the senior officer in the North Surrey Child Protection team based at Walton police station and the detective chief inspector met with senior staff at Surrey Children’s Services to ‘agree a plan on safeguarding and information security’.15

  Nearly seven months on from her first conversation with the police, the woman who was assaulted in the television room at Duncroft was still refusing to give a tape-recorded account of what had happened. She did, however, consent to the female DC taking notes. The jottings included such phrases as ‘Everyone was all over him. Girls got excited. Staff thought he was God. Not supervised’ and ‘Teenage girls. Thought funny. Seen on TV “dirty old pervert”.’16 The women reiterated that she wanted nothing more to do with the investigation as her family was going through a difficult period.

  A few days later, on 9 June, Surrey Police put the file onto the computerised police system for dealing with major crimes.

  Fourteen of the twenty-three women identified by Surrey Police as being at Duncroft at the time the incident took place were spoken to, plus the Stoke Mandeville victim. The same DC conducted a two-hour recorded conversation with the witness who first reported the assault at Duncroft, explaining that hers was the only complaint. In fact, she was fully aware of two further incidents by this stage.17

  In a meeting on 15 July between the senior investigating officer, his deputy and the reviewing lawyer from the Crown Prosecution Service, the lawyer’s advice was recorded as follows: ‘There was no case to proceed as the incidents were relatively minor and they were so long ago there would be grounds for an abuse of process argument.’18

  But within 24 hours, the scope of the investigation widened still further when another former Duncroft girl, one who had left in September 1977, made contact with Surrey Police. She would go on to give a recorded account in which she recalled how Jimmy Savile would visit the school and ask the girls to comb his hair and massage his neck. On one occasion Margaret Jones, Duncroft’s principal, instructed her to take Savile to Norman Lodge, the prerelease hostel on the grounds that housed a small number of girls aged between 16 and 18. She was told to make him tea.

  According to the woman, Jimmy Savile knew that she wanted to become a nurse when she left Duncroft. ‘He then shocked me by suggesting that if I performed a certain act on him he could guarantee a job when I qualified at Stoke Mandeville.’19 He assured her that a blowjob wouldn’t be a problem as he could simply slip down his tracksuit bottoms.

  Her response, she said, was to make an excuse and hide in the lavatories until he had gone. It landed her in trouble. While her claim did not technically constitute an offence, as she was over 16 at the time and no contact was initiated, she was adamant that the interviewing officer did not ask whether she was prepared to give evidence if Jimmy Savile was prosecuted, although the police officer’s recollection is different.20

  By mid August, a meeting of senior Surrey officers had settled on an eight-point rationale for why Jimmy Savile should be interviewed, whatever the final outcome from the CPS. Shortly afterwards, the Detective Constable was instructed to prepare a report for the Crown Prosecution Service. The file, on which its advice would be given, was to be delivered personally to the reviewing lawyer.

  It marked the end of the most intensive period of the investigation, although the 15 months it had taken to get to this point certainly seem to have contributed to the crucial discrepancies that appeared in the file that was handed to the lawyer on 22 January 2009. At that meeting, the CPS lawyer advised the female police officer to read copies of Jimmy Savile’s books to see if any mention was made of charities or children’s homes. She did, but clearly failed to notice the reference on page 150 of As It Happens to Princess Alexandra and her patronage of a ‘hostel for girls in care’. It was an establishment in which Jimmy Savile described himself as a ‘cross between a term-time boyfriend and a fixer of special trips out’.

  61. THE POLICY

  In late March 2009, the same Surrey Detective Constable met with the senior crown prosecutor and was advised that no further action should be taken. The lawyer then recommended that a senior officer should meet with Jimmy Savile to apprise him of the details of the allegations and the subsequent investigations.

  A little over two months passed before the senior officer in the North Surrey Child Protection team sent a letter to Savile via recorded delivery. It was a request for him to make contact.

  Savile telephoned the very next day whereupon he was informed of the allegations that had been made against him. His response was not one of shock or horror. Instead, he coolly explained that he had a ‘West Yorkshire Inspector who usually deals with this sort of thing’.1 A loose arrangement was made for a meeting with Surrey Police officers the next time he visited either Stoke Mandeville or Broadmoor.

  Five days passed, and then a call came through to the Surrey Police control room. It was from a West Yorkshire Police Inspector, who stated he was the Force Incident Manager based in the control room at a police station in Leeds. He explained that Jimmy Savile was a personal friend and that he had lost the letter from the senior officer at Walton police station.

  Not only did the Inspector pass on his friend’s phone number, he also offered up a key detail to the officer in the Surrey Police control room, namely that Jimmy Savile got ‘so many of these types of complaints’.2

  The call was unusual to say the least: a senior officer from one force helping to arrange a meeting with detectives from another on behalf of a friend who was to be questioned over serious allegations of indecent assault. After taking the call, the officer in the Surrey control room contacted the senior investigating officer on the case to relay what the West Yorkshire Police Inspector had said.

  Two days later, that senior investigating officer sent an email to the head of Child Protection at West Yorkshire Police. In addition to intelligence reports on the progress of the investigation that had been promised in an earlier communication, reference was made to the unusual call from the WYP Inspector. Clearly, the officer’s mention of his friend being regularly subjected to such serious allegations had registered with those in Surrey. ‘There may be nothing in this,’ wrote the Surrey Police detective in the email to the Detective Chief Inspector at West Yorkshire, ‘but if there have been other allegations against [Savile] then they should really be recorded to build up an intelligence picture.’3

  The reply from West Yorkshire stated that the Detective Chief Inspector had brought the matter to the attention of the Inspector’s head of department. West Yorkshire Police later claimed the Inspector was ‘given words of advice regarding his contact with Surrey in line with existing force policy’.4 WYP also relayed to Surrey that its Head of Crime had been notified of the investigation into Jimmy Savile so that the command team could be briefed.

  The intelligence report detailing the Surrey Police investigation was sent and duly uploaded by West Yorkshire Police to its computerised intelligence system. It was recorded in such a way that access was restricted, meaning that it was not shared across departments. According to the West Yorkshire Police, the decision was made by a supervisor within the Force Intelligence Unit ‘in line
with correct procedures to ensure the Surrey investigation was not compromised’.5

  It was almost a year late. The Surrey Police Senior Investigating Officer had first spoken to the acting head of the Child Protection Unit at West Yorkshire Police in July 2008 when it had been agreed the intelligence report containing the allegations against Savile would be sent to the WYP. Yet according to the WYP, there was no trace of the information on its files. The trainee detective chief inspector who was acting head of the Child Protection Unit at the time, recalled the telephone conversation but ‘could not recollect the information being sent by Surrey Police’. This is odd given it concerned one of the best known men in Leeds.6 Stranger still, West Yorkshire Police have found no reason to question why no attempt was made to chase it up.

  When a further telephone conversation between Surrey Police and Jimmy Savile failed to fix a time and a place for the interview, and nothing more was heard from him for nearly three months, the Detective Constable from Surrey eventually decided to follow up with a second letter. It was sent on 24 September, and telephone arrangements were finally made for Jimmy Savile to be interviewed under caution at Stoke Mandeville Hospital.

  Savile’s delaying tactics and use of an intermediary from his home police force had worked because the interview would take place on ‘home turf’: his private office at a facility he had built amid huge public fanfare, rather than an interview room in a police station. Savile had set the parameters for the interview before it had even begun. Or as the March 2013 report by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary put it, ‘The way in which the interview was arranged was Savile-led, rather than police led.’7 The interview took place on 1 October 2009 and lasted for precisely 56 minutes. Joining Savile in his private office were the two female officers from Surrey police who had worked on the case as well as an unnamed trustee of the Jimmy Savile Stoke Mandeville Charitable Trust who he had asked to attend. As Surrey Police have reported, ‘It is not clear in what capacity this male was present as there is no indication that Savile required an appropriate adult and he was not acting as a legal representative.’8

  It has subsequently been established that other trustees knew about the interview but the hospital authorities were not informed.9

  From the outset, Savile, who identified himself as James Wilson Savile (missing out Vincent, one of the middle names that appears on his birth certificate) was in belligerent mood, very possibly encouraged by the deferential approach adopted by the police officers who first asked whether it was OK for them to call him ‘Jimmy’, and then thanked him for his kindness in seeing them.

  Savile confirmed his date of birth and began his denials before a proper question had been asked: ‘That makes me 83,’ he stated, ‘and proud that in 83 years I’ve never, ever done anything wrong … That doesn’t mean to say that in my business you don’t get accused of just about everything because people are looking for a bit of blackmail or the papers are looking for a story … but if you gotta clear conscience, which I have, everything’s okay.’10

  The response? ‘Lovely, thank you.’ The tone was set.

  When the police officers explained to the unnamed man that the purpose of him being there was to advise Savile, to observe whether or not the interview was being conducted fairly and to facilitate communication, he replied: ‘I understand and if Jim wanted my opinion I would say not to answer any questions without first speaking to a solicitor, but that’s entirely up to him of course.’ It was the only thing he did say.

  ‘I’m quite happy to answer questions, because if you’ve done nothing wrong then you’re ok,’ Savile added. ‘If somebody alleges you’ve done something … I’ve had so much of it in 50 years, it started in the 1950s and it’s always either someone looking for a few quid, or a story for the paper.’

  It was explained to him that this was an out of custody interview and the mandatory caution was read out to remind him he did not have to say anything but it may harm his defence if he did not mention when questioned something which he later relied on in court. The same officer then proceeded to recount the three main allegations, two made by women who were residents at Duncroft School in the late 1970s and one from Stoke Mandeville. As she did so, Savile repeatedly barked, ‘Out of the question’.

  When the policewoman had finished, Savile offered his own recollections of Duncroft, which he described as a ‘posh borstal’. The passage pertaining to how he came to be at the school in the first place has been redacted by Surrey Police, although it now seems clear, through an information officer’s inadvertent admission, that the interview transcript was sent to Buckingham Palace for approval, and that the blacked out passage in question makes reference to Princess Alexandra, the Queen’s cousin and a visitor to Duncroft.10

  Savile was asked about his charity work, which he described as being done at some personal cost: ‘You can see the friendly way that I am,’ he said, ‘and all of a sudden somebody turns round and bites your leg, and it’s the same at Leeds Infirmary, it’s the same here [Stoke Mandeville].’

  Suddenly, and without prompting, he changed tack. ‘When you’re doing Top of the Pops and Radio One, what you don’t do, is assault women,’ he said. ‘They assault you, that’s for sure, and you don’t have to because you’ve got plenty of girls about.’

  Jimmy Savile had taken charge of proceedings, regaling his interrogators with tales of his charity and television work; rolling out the same old stories in exactly the words he’d used in countless newspaper and television interviews over the decades. ‘I take this sort of thing very, very seriously,’ he warned them at one point, and referenced ‘his policy’. It was something he promised to come back to later.

  Thirty-plus years on, his recall of Duncroft was impressive, although he denied ever being in a common room with a television in it, going as far as to say that he never even saw a television at the school. He also denied ever having a ‘one to one’ with either a girl or member of staff. ‘No, never,’ he said. ‘You never do that in lock-ups … for fifty years I’ve had a set of keys at Broadmoor, but I never forget the rules, never forget the rules. You can if you want but you finish up dead.’

  When the Surrey Police officers moved on to the first allegation – the report that in the TV room at Duncroft he had taken a girl’s hand and placed it on his crotch – Savile replied: ‘I can specifically say that that’s not my nature and it never happened and it is a fabrication. Why on earth anybody would want a fabrication I don’t know, probably cos it’s coming up for Christmas and they’re looking for a few quid off a newspaper.’

  When he was then told what the woman had said, Savile scoffed: ‘It’s starting to sound like the Mad Hatter’s tea party, this.’

  The blunt denials continued on through the perfunctory questioning over the second allegation of his offending at Duncroft: ‘Out of the question,’ he snapped. ‘No, not at all.’ ‘Never, never, never.’

  One of his more revealing answers came from a question he was asked about how old he remembered the girls being at Duncroft. He answered with a question: ‘How old is a girl when she gets nicked, and finished up in court, and finished up with a custodial sentence? It would be sixteen, nineteen … so you didn’t really bother whether they were sixteen, what the hell they were, because they all seemed like adults, and they all acted liked adults.’

  ‘So did you ever ask any girl at Duncroft to perform a sexual act?’ asked the police officer.

  ‘Never.’

  ‘Did you specifically go to Duncroft knowing it was an all girls place to receive sexual gratification?’

  ‘No, out of the question. That is a complete flight of fancy, and fantasy … ’

  ‘Did you ever use your TV or radio status to request this?’

  ‘No, not at all, never. Never done that in my life.’

  After again denying all three allegations investigated by Surrey Police, Savile decided it was time to have his say: ‘We showbiz people get accused of just about everything. One o
f the reasons is people are looking for money, and they will try blackmail, and they will write letters saying that if you don’t send us money I will say you have done this and you have done that … there is a group of people who just like causing trouble, because we get plenty of that anyway … that’s why I have up in Yorkshire, where I live in Leeds, a collection of senior police persons, who come to see me socially, but I give them all my weirdo letters, and they take them back to the station.’

  Without pausing for breath or even considering the wisdom of going into more detail with two investigating police officers, he described one such letter from a girl in Devon. He said he gave it to the ‘girls’, meaning the staff at the hospital. Then he confessed to receiving another letter from a consultant doctor about a patient, presumably at a hospital where he had been accused of carrying out an assault. Savile said he handed that letter to the staff, too. ‘My girls here were furious,’ he claimed.

  It seems unfathomable now that two police officers, who had listened to a number of women recount how Jimmy Savile behaved at Duncroft School, didn’t press him on what allegations these letters contained.

  ‘Wearing my Broadmoor hat, I don’t find it amazing at all,’ he continued unchallenged, ‘because people do strange things … even doctors don’t know why they do it … you’ve got to be prepared that they will do it, and ever since being on TV and radio and stuff like that, there’s always been people who think that you’re an easy touch for a few quid.’

  The police officers wanted Savile to return to the ‘policy’ he had mentioned earlier in the interview, but first they asked about his relationships with police officers in Yorkshire, and the fact he passed such letters on to them.

  ‘One of the reasons I do that is things happen to people like me that don’t happen to normal people,’ he explained. ‘And just in case anything happened to somebody like me then the lads would be able to sift through all this weirdo stuff and maybe find somebody that they … ’