Published on October 1st, 2012 | by admin


Exclusive: Jimmy Savile was spared to prosecute Jonathan King

…says ‘Devil’s Advokat’ Giovanni Di Stefano

by Tiina Paivarinta

A new TV documentary to be broadcast on Wednesday on ITV at 11pm appears to show the late TV star Sir Jimmy Savile defending Gary Glitter during an interview, insisting that the disgraced pop star had ‘done nothing wrong’.

Women have recently gone public with accusations that Savile, who died last year aged 84, groomed girls as young as 12 by offering them sweets, cigarettes and tickets to be in the audience of his shows.

Now, in the documentary Exposure: “The Other Side of Jimmy Savile” the presenter appears to come to Glitter’s defence, insisting the sexual predator had only watched ‘dodgy’ films – referring to the child pornography that was discovered on the singer’s computer.

Glitter was sentenced to four months’ imprisonment after being convicted of downloading over 4,000 pornographic images of children, some as young as two and three, in 1999.

In March 2006 Glitter was jailed for three years for molesting two girls, aged 11 and 12, in the Vietnamese resort town of Vung Tau and made to sign the sex offenders’ register.

Savile allegedly says in a recorded interview that Glitter – whose real name is Paul Gadd – had only used the films for his own ‘gratification’ and had not tried to profit from them by selling them.

The ‘Jim’ll Fix It’ presenter is shown in an interview with a journalist in 2009, suggesting that Gadd was more victim than predator.

Jonathan King the genius pop impresario was convicted in 2001 of one charge of buggery, one of attempted buggery and four indecent assaults, committed against five boys, each aged 14 to 16. He denied the offences from day one.

His case, somewhat confusingly, was split into three trials: the convictions relate only to the first. King was acquitted at the second, following which the CPS abandoned the third. He was released on parole in March 2005, despite having declined to participate in programmes aimed at behavioural correction, because he considers himself innocent.

The interesting factor was that Savile was also involved in Operation Ore the police investigation that netted a number of sexual ‘deviants.’

It has to be said the most famous convicted as a result of Operation Ore was of course the man who had been destined to lead British Pop Music to the forefront of British business:- Jonathan King.

King launched an appeal after his conviction and engaged the ‘Devils Advokat’ Giovanni Di Stefano who quickly retraced the steps and events which proved without a doubt that at least one of the allegations King could not have committed as he was in New York on the date the offence was allegedly committed.

“I saw papers in the undisclosed material with the name ‘Savile’ and a list of other names. I knew then that the rumours about Savile and other celebrities involved had some substance. It was made clear to me by the Guildford Police not to even think of raising the name Savile at the time or there would be consequences. A CPS officer Mr. S also told me the same,” said Di Stefano.

“In an act that I can now only describe as shameful to myself and for the first time in my life I failed to raise the issue that Savile had been spared and that instead it was an attack on King at all costs. The CPS had to get a conviction and King was their man,” said Di Stefano.

King upon his conviction declared: “I want to scream my innocence from the rooftops.”

In a letter to a daily tabloid at the time, written from prison, King said: “I maintain my innocence of all the charges and I would point out that the general legal situation that has brought these cases to trial is patently unfair.”

King said his areas of concern were: the lack of a statute of limitations for sex offences, the absence of any requirement for corroboration of sex allegations and the anonymity of complainants.

Di Stefano stated that King “certainly had a fair gripe. After all a second trial collapsed when a witness admitted that he had consented to sexual contact with King and had been older when the incidents happened than he had claimed in his statement to police.”

“Also in the frame was Lonnie Donegan but it was clear from the clear threat that I received of ‘consequences’ the man the police tried to protect for whatever reason was Jimmy Savile,” stated Di Stefano.

“In October of last year when I heard Savile had died I telephoned a friend of mine now a deputy editor of a major news group asking if I should publish a story on Savile. He said he would call me back. When he did he said it was best to keep to the advice I had received way back,” confirmed Di Stefano.

In November 2001 Surrey Police Det Insp Brian Marjoram said his team would not shy away from difficult cases and he believed historic abuse allegations could be investigated and prosecuted properly.

He went on to say “Surrey detectives are continuing investigations into a number of men who are alleged to have been associated with King in the early 1970s and to have engaged in sexual abuse.”

Jimmy Savile was obviously not one of them as he was protected from prosecution and the conviction of King became fundamental to Jimmy Savile ‘fixing’ his own case.

Tags: , , ,

About the Author


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to Top ↑