Exclusive – The Origins of Savilisation – Part Three.
Another afternoon, and the boredom of Duncroft was relieved by a coach turning up (Wot! Still no Rolls Royce? You’ll never get the media to publish this!) – a rather special coach with tables between pairs of facing seats. Susan was getting annoyed with Jimmy Savile – she was taking all the jealous remarks and schtick from the other girls for her ‘special place’ in his heart – but he showed no signs of taking any interest in her over and above a proper one as the daughter of his friend. The coach took them all, and some staff, to the BBC centre for tea in the canteen and a chance to meet some of the celebrities. Susan managed to sulk all the way through a meeting with Una Stubbs. Teenage angst.
But then came an afternoon when Savile called in to see her – or rather to watch the TV in the common room! It was the first showing of the reality programme featuring a Reading family and he was especially keen to see this pioneering programme. He was excited and as the chairs were lined up in the common room to allow everyone to watch this programme, staff included, Susan managed to sit next to her ‘special friend’. No ‘sofas’, no ‘blankets’, just ordinary open sided chairs, and she did sit next to him. As the programme started he grabbed her hand – ‘he was so excited’. At last! We have Savile in the TV lounge, sitting next to a girl, and sorry, he didn’t abuse her in any way…
Savile called on another occasion, this time accompanied by a younger man who had introduced TOTP a few times. The other girls were far more interested in this younger man (name withheld) with his spiky multi-coloured hair and exotic clothing, and Susan was able to sit chatting to Savile unnoticed by the other girls. Funny, no one has ever mentioned him before.
I can quite understand that by this time the build up of resentment of the preferential treatment Susan appeared to be getting from the staff on account of her celebrity visitor was getting on everyone’s nerves. Some of the older girls had been there for a long time, and nothing exciting ever happened to them. Here was this little slip of a girl who seemed to be living a charmed life, and it wasn’t fair.
Ms Jones decreed that in future she was only to be allowed to meet Savile in Ms Jones office, away from prying eyes, but under Ms Jones gimlet eye. It didn’t help; it was still ‘special treatment’.
Susan would tell you that she was badly bullied following these visits, that photographs and other Savile memorabilia were stolen, that she was told to ‘stay away from Savile’ – other older girls had decided that they were more entitled to his attention – indeed had made up their mind that they would have it – or at least ‘him’.
There were some worrying incidents – at a swimming class her head was held under water repeatedly by one of the girls, when she believed the staff were not observing – they were, and Susan was rescued. One of the other girls was subjected to an unprovoked attack over an unrelated matter that had ended with her having her head seriously and repeatedly bashed against a chest of drawers – later that night, the perpetrator was moved to what used to be called the London Country Mental Hospital – later St. Bernards in Southall.
Susan had good reason to be frightened of some of the older girls, they didn’t just suffer from ’emotional or behavioural’ difficulties, some had far more profound mental health troubles. Eventually, the staff moved her into the ‘isolation flat’ for her own protection. She was to stay there for several weeks until some of the older girls (who have figured in media reports, but shall remain nameless here) had moved on to Norman Lodge, the hostel for working girls. She only left the flat for daily lessons, but was still separated from the other girls.
The isolation wing consisted of a lounge, kitchen, and bathroom; it was housed in the new block that had been built onto the old Duncroft Manor to house girls who a decade before would have been in a secure mental hospital, but the law had changed, and now 16 was the school leaving age. There were but two identical rooms with a window, bed, magazines and a bell call. Next door was what has been termed the ‘padded cell’ – a room without any sharp objects, just soft furnishings, for the use of girls who were starting to return from home leave suffering from the effects of drugs such as LSD – very fashionable at the time, but a difficult time for the Duncroft staff.
Susan didn’t enjoy her time in isolation, even though it was for her own protection rather than punishment; and she wrote to Savile telling him of her unhappiness. He called to see her.
He had already said ‘Hello’ to the other girls as he passed them in the upper corridor when he appeared at the door of the isolation wing with, she thinks it was Anne O’Niall, a senior member of staff, at around 9.30pm. The girls were all sent to bed ‘en masse’ at 9.30pm, Ms Keenan or Mrs Kellagher would switch off the TV in the common room and announce ‘everybody upstairs’; they slept in dormitories of either four or six, so no one was alone in a dormitory.
Savile was holding a set of keys with which to let himself out of the isolation wing. Susan told him he shouldn’t have the keys, he explained that he had been told to lock himself in. He gave her a hug and they sat on the sofa watching television. He shared his cigar with her, and explained why he couldn’t give her cigarettes directly – he always gave them to Ms Jones to ensure equal distribution amongst the girls to avoid conflict. He was particularly concerned about (name withheld) who had become, in his words, very ‘clingy’ and demanding of attention.
Susan told him that she had been told by other girls that this particular girl ‘had fallen in love with him’ and that was part of the reason for the bullying she had been subjected to. Savile concluded that this was no more than a ‘teenage crush’, but that it might be wiser if he didn’t visit her at Duncroft any longer. He would still be a friend though.
After three quarters of an hour, Ms O’Niall tapped on the communicating door and Savile let himself out and left with Ms O’Niall.
Shortly after this, Susan was called in for interview by Janet Theobald, the most junior member of staff. Miss Theobald referred to unspecified allegations made by girls against Savile. Susan was not told what the allegations were, who they were made by – nor, more importantly, who they were in respect of. Had somebody alleged that Savile had touched Susan inappropriately? Or was it that she was suspected of receiving more than her fair share of the cigarettes? She simply doesn’t know. To this day she doesn’t know.
Later, Ms O’ Niall told her that (name withheld) had called out to him as they passed that dormitory and asked him to ‘tuck her in’ – she said the girl was acting strangely and she thought that this was where the allegation may have originated from. This was one of the girls who had demanded that Susan ‘stay away’ from Savile, for she was determined to ‘have him’.
Susan would tell you that Savile had never touched her inappropriately from the moment he discovered that she was just 15. He had been a good friend to her – although he had had more than ample opportunity to abuse her, if abusing 15 year old girls was his desire. She was also interviewed by Dr Mason, one of the two school psychiatrists. Again she reiterated that nothing untoward had ever taken place. She was repeatedly pressed on the matter, something that upset her greatly, and left her feeling she hadn’t been believed – but Ms Theobold took other girls to meet Savile in London, so she felt that any concern was directed towards her position with him, and that, she felt sure, was entirely circumspect.
No other member of staff ever made reference to this matter, and after six weeks or so, the older girls who had been so unkind to her left and moved onto Norman Lodge, and Susan was able to leave the isolation wing and return to the main building and resume her education.
To be continued…..
- Fat Steve
May 1, 2014 at 8:04 am -
Gripping Stuff Anna –one might hope there will be evidence to corroborate Susan’s testimony
- Wendi
May 1, 2014 at 8:09 am -
Well, well, well. It all makes a total sense and “fits” with the true origins of the resulting mayhem. How sad that jealousy and resentment could be carried over for so many decades and cause so much destruction. And how sad that Meirion Jones never discussed the originally proposed programme with his aunt. Had he done so, this whole saga may never have happened. However, it appears that, again, family jealousies and resentments came into play in his case as well… What a decidedly unfortunate mix with unforgivable results!
- Jonathan
May 1, 2014 at 8:22 am -
What I find extraordinary is the forensic detail, backed up by hard evidence from such things as files and documents and letters from other witnesses, yet here in a balanced, measured tone. Our world these days, so superficial that only simplistic slogans and inflated language have power, seems reported by media, police, CPS and lawyers in over coloured tabloid headline words. More detailed descriptions are ignored. Nobody appears to have the time or interest anymore. Give us a victim. Give us a perpetrator. And then turn up the colour control and contrast so it’s easy to understand. Thank heavens someone is prepared to research for days and then write with tiny, specific description. This is the real world. Only when we examine the minute elements does the truth emerge and the real crimes get seen. And the real criminals get exposed.
- Fat Steve
May 1, 2014 at 8:40 am -
@Jonathan That’s the craft of lawyering —-and of the Historian. Its the greatest ego trip going when one is young but after a while the time spent dispelling untruth just wears one down perhaps because people prefer a glossy subjective untruth than dry objective reality—people who want the truth out in this sort of situation spoil the fun —the thrill felt of vicariously coming into contact through the media with a witch —-few column inches or air time for people who live their lives with a modicum of responsibility
- Jonathan Mason
May 1, 2014 at 12:35 pm -
Yes, this account of life at Duncroft is compelling in a way that the Keri/Karen narrative is not, and comes complete with motives and a more adult and nuanced perspective on the character of Savile.
If I were a juror, this witness account would probably take me beyond reasonable doubt of its veracity. If I was ever to be convinced that Savile was a paedophile, it would be an account like this (but with different content, of course) that would win me over.
- Ian B
May 1, 2014 at 6:48 pm -
I think the basic thing, and I remember saying this here before, is that humans don’t do “truth” very well. Our primary epistemology (way of knowing) is storytelling. This probably had an evolutionary benefit, as it’s a rapid way of getting a point across, and a more scientific approach, being tepid compared to a lurid story, doesn’t get a point across half as well around the campfire. That’s why we have had to develop epistemologies that are rigorous and often counter intuitive, such as the scientific method and the precepts of our legal system, in particular rejecting unsupported testimony.
I would guess we’ve all been in that situation where somebody is telling a fabulous anecdote, and you know deep down it’s not really true, but who cares, it’s a great story!
Newspapers talk about truth, but don’t do truth. The basis of journalism is storytelling. That is why they talk about “it’s a good story”. In general, in journalism, “fact checking” consists of finding facts that support the story, not a rigorous test of its veracity. So the media is full of lurid campfire tales, not “truth”.
What is problematic is that in the 20th century there has been a falling away from Enlightenment methodologies, with the media, activists and academia all competing to create the most lurid stories to support their goals- or “narratives” as they call them these days; and “framing” them, meaning telling the story in such a way as to present a particular angle. Who can forget the “slaves” in Brixton last year, and what has happened to them once the “story” fell apart?
Savile was a great story. Nobody cared if it was true.
- sally stevens
May 1, 2014 at 7:28 pm -
Ian, when I was a working press agent, I worked with Rolling Stone on many ‘stories’ about the musicians I worked with. Their fact-checking was rigid, and was not in place to support the story, it was there to get the truth. It also protected the paper from any defamation lawsuits if they did due diligence before running with anything. If the fact-checkers found errors then the editors would call the subject’s representative and tell them they were going to pull the story because they had found they were not getting the truth. In fact, (har) you can actually see that at work in the movie Almost Famous. Watergate was a good story, but without rigorous fact-checking and strict attention to the truth, it would not have been the stupendous coup it was.
The real Savile story is what we’re looking at now, which is Shakespearean in its scope. A whole country and it’s legal system thrown into chaos by a couple of bitter old women and two unscrupulous media thugs. Unbelievable.
- Ho Hum
May 1, 2014 at 8:30 pm -
Have a look at the online version of ‘USA TODAY’ – the App can be downloaded free, I think – and compare the way their journalists present concise, fact full, ‘stories’ with the UK storytelling newspaper boys’ and gals’ fact-lite’ versions
Not everyone has descended to the level of the campfire
- Ho Hum
May 1, 2014 at 8:42 pm -
Or should I have said that some have thankfully risen above it? I guess it depends on whether it’s chicken or egg that’s in the pan
- sally stevens
May 1, 2014 at 10:34 pm -
USA Today is considered to be a tabloid here. Glad you are happy with their reportage! I don’t read it and I don’t watch Fox News either.
- Jonathan Mason
May 1, 2014 at 11:00 pm -
I don’t read it either, but in the US a degree in journalism is necessary to work as a reporter and the curriculum is quite standardized when it comes to legal and ethical issues. One of the reasons why papers are often reluctant to employ freelance writers is that they don’t have the formal training in journalism ethics, like, for example, not inventing quotes, verifying facts, keeping a record of sources, and so on.
- Ho Hum
May 1, 2014 at 11:17 pm -
Ah yes, ethics. You should read LJ Eady’s judgement in the relevant case to see how he described the behaviour of the reporters etc who were involved in the ‘sting’ they pulled on Max Mosely
I think it was one of the Heresiarch’s blogs which expanded further on that, and if really correct, it’s truly frightful
And when it came up at Leveson, surprise surprise, it was a surprise again.
Ethics? Pah! The only ethic some of our lot seem to understand is that at the end of the month, someone is supposed to give them money.
- Ho Hum
May 1, 2014 at 11:19 pm -
Sorry.
This is drifting away from the main topic. Got carried away a bit
- Ho Hum
- Ho Hum
- Ho Hum
May 1, 2014 at 11:02 pm -
Yeah, I know that, but as an exercise in informative writing, it leaves our sometimes illiterate, ill informed, ill disciplined and often almost completely unintelligible tabloids looking like something produced by minimum wage school leavers who have pinned their faith in Google Translate
- Jonathan Mason
- Ho Hum
- Fat Steve
May 2, 2014 at 6:49 am -
@Ian B humans don’t do “truth” very well. I think you make a hugely important point in your post not just the short extract I have cut and pasted at the start of this post. I see you as referring to the power and importance of myth in human knowledge . Its a hugely interesting topic and just because a myth is factually inaccurate does not mean it does not hide within a literary device (a story) a great and important truth —-a metaphysical truth but not ‘physical’ truth based on ‘physical’ fact. Myth and Fact, if one likes, are both ways of imparting knowledge. The trouble comes when Myth is taken as literal fact—they are different sorts of truths—-there is I think within the Savile story the confabulation between the importance of imparting knowledge that not all men are virtuos and the consequences thereof (the metaphysical truth) and the facts of the Savile case (the physical truth)—-they may it appears be two completely different things and to confabulate them really is not being able to distinguish apples from oranges —or perhaps its been more a matter wanting them to be the same fruit. I frankly worry when people take Myth literally—could be elements in any scripture (Christian or otherwise) or Iraq having weapons of mass destruction (which was untrue factually but contained a truth that Saddam Hussein was a pretty dangerous evil bastard).
- sally stevens
- Fat Steve
- Moor Larkin
May 1, 2014 at 8:41 am -
“Susan would tell you that Savile had never touched her inappropriately from the moment he discovered that she was just 15”
In this Part 3 some time-frame seems to have passed. How old is she at the point where she returns from the Isolation Ward, and how long has actually elapsed since that very first meeting and visit to Broadmoor Cottages? In your comments to commentators you mentioned at one point that that very first encounter occurred in 1973 I think. The Clunk-Click recordings were ending in April 1974 if I recall the dates correctly. If it’s not pre-empting too much of future episodes, how much into being 15 was Susan at that first meeting? And how old is she at the point where this episode ends?
Whatever thoughts folks may have about age differences, the law is and always has been since Victorian times, that once a girl is 16 sexual intercourse with consent is perfectly legal, although I forget now as to whether marriage still required the permission of the father until the woman attained the age of 21. This latter was why Gretna Green became so celebrated, because couples could get married there without the parental permission – a bit like Reno in Nevada today maybe. I guess some might claim Scotland was the home od paedo-enablers, but I wouldn’t be one of them, not with a sensitive vote on the future of the UK coming up anyhow….
- Jonathan Mason
May 1, 2014 at 11:24 pm -
Susan took advantage of a brief lull in the conversation to say ‘There’s something I need to tell you’ – and she did. She told him that she was actually only 15, was currently resident in Duncroft School, and that she had had some involvement with drugs.
‘Only 15’, a ‘vulnerable young woman’ ‘under the influence of drugs’ – if Savile was the monster he has been portrayed as, this was the moment you would expect to hear that he leapt on her with gay abandon; she was alone, defenceless, and fitted exactly the profile of his alleged ‘victims’.
I’m sorry to disappoint you – he didn’t. In fact he was appalled, and behaved exactly as you would expect a responsible adult to behave in this situation. He sat bolt upright, zipping up his trousers.
This is a bit disturbing, because although the story is presented from the point of view of the young women being worried that Savile would discover she is only 15, as if it was her responsibility to inform him, but it is not clear why he would have thought she was 18. Yes, she was serving drinks at a function, but back in those days that would certainly not have been proof of majority.
It does not appear that he made any attempt to discover her true age prior to unzipping his pants, which would have been HIS responsibility had there been any kind of doubt about her age. Remember he was late 30s and not under the influence of alcohol or drugs and had manipulated the situation so that he was alone in a bedroom with the young woman. (Nor is there any discussion of the issue of contraception. In those days inhibitions probably would have still made the topic difficult, though in a couple of hours lying on a bed together chatting, the subject of the relatively recent availability of birth control pills might have come up if either party had chosen to steer the conversation in that direction.)
Possibly he feared that she might be under age, but decided to forge ahead anyway so that he would have “plausible deniability” in the event that she turned out to be too young. I am not sure if not knowing the woman’s age would be a valid legal defence under the UK law of the time, but it would presumably have been a mitigating factor.
His subsequent excellent behaviour towards her at Duncroft might have been a bit guilt-driven and a means of making amends.
Anyway the anecdote still supports the idea that Savile, even if subject to temptation of the flesh, was well aware that getting caught with an underage girl could be a disaster, even if she looked older, and it would not have been something he would openly flaunt, as some contemporaries seem to have suggested.
- Ho Hum
May 2, 2014 at 12:03 am -
Given his ‘home brewed moral philosophy’, insofar as it has been alluded to on these pages previously, apparently expounded in his autobiography etc, isn’t the less colourful and ever so boringly prosaic alternative just that he maybe really believed in
No liquor, no LSD, no Lolita
Non?
- Jonathan Mason
May 2, 2014 at 12:56 am -
Well, yeah, but he was happy to unzip his pants with her. 1973? He would have been about 46, and she could hardly have been more than 20 with the best will in the world, and it was a first “date”. So let’s not get carried away with his righteousness. What we do know is that once she announced she was 15 it was all off, so this strongly contradicts the widely held idea that he was a paedophile who deliberately sought out underage or sexually immature females or illegal relationships.
He actually reminds me more of the many middle aged men we see in the Dominican Republic eating, drinking, shopping, and promenading with their much younger girlfriends. To UK visitors this is often rather shocking in itself, but in the local community a man of 50 having a girlfriend of 18 or 19 is perfectly acceptable and normal, but if she is 17 or not in possession of an adult cedula or ID card, then that is illegal, shocking and not accepted at all. So there are rules within rules, even if not immediately apparent to outsiders.
We can contrast this to, for example, Esther Rantzen, a young rising star at the BBC at the time marrying Desmond Wilcox, an older married man and her boss, which was considered shocking at the time. I think she was 37 and he 46, though they had been having an affair for 8 years (29 and 38) and he had three children by his wife. This was considered pretty shocking behaviour at the time (at least by the general public), but would have been relatively respectable compared to Savile, aged 46 3/4 unzipping himself with a girl who turned out to be 15 on a first date.
The Wilcoxes were, I am sure, welcome as a couple at BBC dinner parties, Savile and Susan or a lass a little bit older would surely not have been.
- Jonathan Mason
- Ho Hum
- Jonathan Mason
- rabbitaway
May 1, 2014 at 1:31 pm -
Someone is reporting the Savile Press Release !
- rabbitaway
May 1, 2014 at 1:39 pm -
Oh, and here’s more about WHO will naturally end up paying for all this ! Yep, you guessed right !
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/jimmy-savile-victim-cash-may-come-from-taxpayers-1-3395307
- Ellen Coulson
May 1, 2014 at 4:33 pm -
Well shall we all have a guess as to who embellished the truth for them. My money is on Karin who has stolen other girls’ stories for use in her books!
- sally stevens
May 1, 2014 at 5:13 pm -
What I find a little confusing is why Miss Jones continued to allow Jimmy to visit the school when all this teenage lust was rearing its ugly head, or why Ann O’Neill gave them 45 minutes alone together in an isolation area – did Susan take all her meals up there as well? I can see where that would cause a lot of trouble with girls that might’ve fancied him. The staff were pretty observant, so must have noticed some nastiness going on. Of course, I can make a good guess at who the girl was who had ‘fallen in love’ with Savile, and know of one complainant who still had a photograph of herself with him in her house during the press frenzy after Exposure. Be all this as it may, it certainly has much more of the ring of truth for me, which the accounts of the complainants did not, solely based on what I personally know about the way Duncroft was run. Sitting on straight-back chairs and watching the telly in a large group with staff in attendance, for example, pretty much the same scenario as in the 60s. In the Junior Common Room we were never allowed to close the door, and we were right across from the staff sitting room – though I believe that room was converted into some sort of library by the time Jimmy was visiting. And nasty stuff like bashing heads into pieces of furniture and attempted drowning – unfortunately, I had a similar experience with a girl there, and she was also carted off to another much less pleasant institution. And, as noted before, these harpies continue their vile and vicious attacks against anyone who doesn’t toe the line with their version, but simply in cyberspace.
Miss Jones did not tolerate violence under any circumstances. Bridie Keenan was equipped with a black belt in judo, and was pretty good at getting things under control as well. And yes, remarkable that not a one of these complainants have ever mentioned that Jimmy brought along a friend from the rock music world, with rainbow colored hair, etc.
- Ian B
May 1, 2014 at 6:08 pm -
This is fascinating, but at the risk of drinking the Devil’s Advocaat again, I think people would ask why, if Susan is “Ground Zero” of the Savile claims, this has never come out before, why Miss Jones did not mention all this, and so on.
- sally stevens
May 1, 2014 at 6:51 pm -
Miss Jones has kept silent for many months, and I presume this will continue. She was given very little opportunity to reference things like Rolls Royces etc., at least in the two interviews she gave to the Daily Mail. She has, of course, spoken several times with investigators, and she may have mentioned that, but we’ll never know. None of the other staff members were ever interviewed at any time, and the only other one who was door-stepped was Janet Theobald by the Sun. Most of the staff are now dead. Only Miss Jones, Janet Theobald and Ruth Cole remain alive to my knowledge. Ruth Cole was the deputy head. Deaf as a post these days apparently. Her brother is a former Detective for the Met, btw.
- Ho Hum
May 1, 2014 at 8:38 pm -
I’ve had a glass of that, and all I can say is that it makes your apparent innocence, as to how the press behave, the way they treat people, how they show concern about reporting actual facts in true context, much less how they correct misrepresentations that they might have given, quite touching
And I only had the one glass
- sally stevens
- carol42
May 1, 2014 at 6:15 pm -
Fascinating, it puts everything into perspective, thanks.
- sally stevens
May 1, 2014 at 6:53 pm -
I shouldn’t forget to mention Ms. Draycott (“Drilly”) who ran Norman Lodge at the time. She is still very much alive. She has stated unequivocally that Jimmy never came to Norman Lodge, despite fabrications by claimants.
- Ellen Coulson
May 2, 2014 at 12:14 pm -
Miss Draycott did not run Norman Lodge, Sally. Miss Harris ran Norman Lodge.
Drilly told the police when they interviewed her that she could not assist them as Savile was never at Norman Lodge.
- Ellen Coulson
- Tedioustantrums
May 1, 2014 at 6:58 pm -
I always thought that JS was a bit odd but then again aren’t we all? He was a bit embarrassing. He was good at making money though. Maybe that made him more of target? Now we have the bankers lining up to get their hands on his cash.
It’s all a bit odd.
Whatever. He’s dead and he can’t put his side to things.
I hope the truth will out. Long odds I know.
- johnS
May 2, 2014 at 12:39 am -
Tedioustantrums: “He was good at making money though.”
But not for himself. If you look at Moor’s blog you can see that Savile rarely had a raise from the BBC and struggled even to get modest expenses reimbursed. Even so he doesn’t seem to have been particularly concerned about that. Most artists of his stature at the time would have had a bulldog agent screwing every penny possible from the BBC and anyone else he worked for.
As far as I can see Savile didn’t try to maximize income, indeed spending a great deal more time charity fundraising, hospital portering etc than would have been necessary for any cynical publicity purposes (*).
For someone who was at the top of the pop and TV tree for so long he didn’t die with a vast fortune. This is especially true as, aside from the publicity-useful Rolls Royce, his lifestyle seemed pretty abstemious and he probably spent no more per month than the average suburban bank-manager.
Whatever interested Savile it certainly wasn’t personal wealth-creation.* As I’ve said before, I also don’t think for a second that it was for access to under-aged girls either.
He was a POP DJ ON TV for ****’s sake! For him to take so much time off to do charity work in order to have MORE access to young girls would be like the owner of a boiled sweet factory going to work in a cafe in order to get more access to sugar. Yet this is what some people think happened!
{ 36 comments… read them below or add one }