UK Police kept secret records of Jimmy Savile’s child abuse since the 1960s

According to AP, the UK police had records of entertainer Jimmy Savile’s sexual abuse dating back to the 1960s, and in doing so, prevented the public from learning about his sickening actions. After the sexual scandal exploded, Savile was linked to British royalty figures such as Prince Charles.

AP | MARCH 12, 2013

An independent report into how British police handled allegations against disgraced late BBC entertainer Jimmy Savile said Tuesday that police held records that connected him to sexual abuse as early as 1964, but failed to carry out an investigation.

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, an independent police oversight group, found that police recorded five allegations and two pieces of intelligence against Savile during his lifetime.

Once one of Britain’s most popular entertainers, Savile’s reputation took a dive after his death in 2011 at age 84, when hundreds of witnesses and victims came forward accusing him of sexual abuse. Police have since described the television and radio presenter as a serial sexual predator who used his fame to target young victims across Britain.

Tuesday’s report suggested that Savile could have been stopped decades ago.

The earliest found intelligence record held by the pedophile unit at Scotland Yard dates from about 1964, but was only uncovered last year, the report said. The record, which just contained brief notes, referred to Savile as a “well known disc jockey” and to sexual abuse involving students at a children’s home. No investigation was carried out as a result of that intelligence, the report said.

“Its existence suggests that, by 1964, Savile was known to (police) officers investigating sexual offences against children,” the report said. “On the basis of what we know now, there appears to have been, at the very least, an opportunity to investigate his behavior then.”

The second intelligence record was an anonymous letter sent to police in 1998. It urged Scotland Yard to stop Savile’s activities, but police marked it as “sensitive” because of his celebrity status. It was never investigated and not shared with other police forces.

The Constabulary report also said that five victims filed to various police forces complaints alleging that Savile had indecently assaulted them from 2003 to 2008, but that authorities’ failure to “join the dots” meant a chance to prosecute was missed.

Tuesday’s report came after a police investigation concluded in January that the presenter’s abuse history spanned half a century, from 1955 to 2009, including 214 offenses mostly against victims under 18.

Police persecute parents who protect their children from Vaccines

Indoctrinated cops believe parents are abusing their children when they reject vaccinations.

By CHRISTINA ENGLAND | VACTRUTH | NOVEMBER 9, 2012

I have been very honored to work with retired Sergeant Christopher Savage of the Queensland Police Service during the past few months. Mr. Savage contacted me after watching the short film I recently published on VacTruth highlighting cases of false accusations of child abuse after vaccine injuries. [1] The evidence of sheer corruption he revealed sent shivers down my spine.

His papers confirm that the police are writing off cases of possible vaccine injury as Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. They also highlight the fact that due to biased and inadequate training, the police are falsely accusing parents of manslaughter and Shaken Baby Syndrome and parents killing their own children because they have been brainwashed to search for signs of abuse, assault and foul play whenever a child dies.

GAINING A NEW PERSPECTIVE

Christopher William Savage joined the Queensland Police Service in 1989 at the age of 27. His training took place at the Oxley Police Academy and was completed six months later.

He had no particular views on vaccines before joining the police force and said that he cannot recall any real discussions on the topic of vaccinations while growing up. This perspective changed, however, when he received his Hepatitis B vaccine in October 1989 with his colleagues.

Sergeant Savage explained that after receiving the Hep B vaccine as part of the squad, he became totally exhausted. He spent the next two weeks in bed hardly able to stand up. When he asked a mainstream medical practitioner if the vaccine could have caused his symptoms, he was given a categorical no, and told that this suspicion would be impossible. Despite being reassured by the medical practitioner, Savage remains convinced to this day that the vaccine was responsible for his becoming so ill. His experience opened his eyes to a deeper evil still occurring, which I believe will rock the beliefs of many parents.

A BOLD REVELATION

Sergeant Savage has given me a copy of a signed statement, which has been countersigned by JP N. Newbury (Qualified Number 10175) of the Gympie Magistrates Court office, stating his belief that vaccines are the cause of many cases of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). He believes innocent parents are also being blamed and are being falsely charged with manslaughter when babies die.

The statement identifies clearly and succinctly a variety of cases in which babies appear fit and healthy on the day of their vaccination but deteriorate after they received the vaccine. He has revealed a clear catalog of cover-ups used by the police force and the medical professionals. He has exposed the fact that every case is treated as if it were a case of manslaughter and newly bereaved parents and parents of critically ill children are being interrogated as prime suspects and potential child abusers. Their homes are being ransacked for clues and precious possessions such as sheets, mattresses and medications are being bagged up as forensic evidence. Their homes are being treated as possible crime scenes.

Sergeant Savage’s statement closes with these words:

“I understand that a person who intentionally makes a false statement in a statutory declaration is guilty of an offense under section 11 of the Statutory Declarations Act of 1959, and I believe that the statements in this declaration are true in every particular.”

The police are supposed to be unbiased and nonjudgmental, examining all the evidence, no matter how small, in order to determine why an individual has died. However, it appears that whenever vaccination is suggested as a possible cause of death, the police are choosing to ignore this evidence in favor of SIDS, child abuse and manslaughter.

Intrigued by the document, I asked Mr. Savage if he would provide me with an interview for VacTruth, which he agreed to do.

FOLLOWING IMPROPER PROCEDURE

To clarify the normal series of events that occurs in cases of SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome), I asked Sergeant Savage what happens when a baby dies an unexpected death.

Sgt. Savage: When a baby dies suddenly from so-called SIDS, the parents become subjects of an investigation by medical staff and First Response police. If either of those find anything suspicious then detectives become involved. If both parents have a similar version that is credible they will most likely not face any prosecution. However, if there are inconsistencies in their stories, then the police look further into the matter.

Sole parents and de facto parents are the most likely to face prosecution because they don’t have the same stability and some even suspect the other parent of having done something wrong, especially when the police start asking questions about their partner.

Christina England: Do you believe that the police, along with the medical profession, are blaming parents as a cover for vaccine damage?

Sgt. Savage:  I believe the police are not realizing what has happened and don’t even look at the evidence pointing towards vaccines causing [infant death] , as their minds are stuck in the SIDS scam diagnosis that is prevailing in everyone’s mind due to annual RED NOSE day nonsense.

Christina England:  Could you outline exactly what you believe?

What he answered will shock many parents across the world.

Sgt. Savage:  The police officer is a member of the pro-vaccine brainwashed society and joins the Police Service where the SIDS mindset is already held. When he or she is tasked to attend a baby death, not only does the officer believe SIDS is real but they are also trained to look for signs of abuse and assault and manslaughter. So there is brainwashing on SIDS pushing the officer away from looking at vaccines and their training is to find evidence of foul play, which includes side effects of vaccines. The parents are too traumatized to think rationally and when the police start asking them questions about the other parent they become frightened, paranoid and defensive. The body is taken to a doctor for an autopsy to find out why the baby died. So there is another problem.

Doctors receive more pro-vaccine training than the public and so they won’t think of the vaccines as being the cause. The police also don’t want to rock the boat. They want to finalize the file. So in the absence of corroborating forensic evidence the police and doctors will most likely describe the case as SIDS.

BLAMING PARENTS INSTEAD OF VACCINES

Christina England: In your view at what point in the proceedings are parents being falsely accused of manslaughter or Shaken Baby Syndrome?

Sgt. Savage: Parents become subjects of the investigation regardless … in other words, police are looking for evidence of wrongdoing by anyone living in the house where a person dies, and of course, this includes babies. In the case of babies, police are told to seize clothing, medication and bedding for forensic analysis.

The shaken baby accusation may come if a parent recalls to police that they picked up [the dead baby] and shook the baby … or the autopsy finds physical signs such as bruising, broken ribs and the swollen or inflamed cerebral cortex.

The problem I have with the above scenario is that, in my experience, many parents who find their baby unresponsive, limp and lifeless, pick the infant up and give them a gentle shake to try to revive them. Parents may also be wrongly accused of shaking their baby to death if they inadvertently use the word ‘shake’ when they actually mean to say ‘bounce’ or ‘pat.’ [3]

Christina England:  Are you telling me that in the majority of cases when parents admit that they have picked up their unresponsive child and given them a gentle shake in order to revive them, at the time of questioning, this will automatically be logged as abuse?

Sgt. Savage: Exactly right, Christina. The way you described the gentle shaking is exactly what I meant, but the police are pre-programmed to identify Shaken Baby Syndrome, so as soon as they hear one of the parents say these words, the investigating officers misconstrue and begin questioning along the lines of Shaken Baby Syndrome and ask, “How much did you shake the baby?” and “Have you previously shaken the baby?” and “What happened after shaking?” They then ask, “Has your partner ever lost control and smacked the baby?” and “Has he ever shaken the baby in a rage?” The parent goes from primary witness to suspect for a serious crime and [parents] sense this and panic and police may interpret this as guilt. The police then write this on the report to the coroner and to the doctor doing the autopsy.

Often in de facto relationships, the other party may be abusive towards the baby and the mother. In these cases, police go after the father with vengeance because they honestly believe the father has done something to cause the death or injury, which the vaccines caused.

ABUSING THE EVIDENCE

Sergeant Savage explained that there are several signs that can be misinterpreted as evidence against the parents. These are:

• Bruising

• Inconsistent versions of events from parents

• Bruising and broken ribs

• Swollen cerebral cortex

He explained that, in most cases dealt with by the police, the baby will have some bruising. However, when a baby dies, bruising is then considered to be evidence of the parent being abusive.

He added that this interpretation of the evidence could be incorrect, as ambulance staff sometimes gives CPR, which can cause bruising and broken ribs, which he says is then blamed on the parents. Inconsistent versions of events from parents, who are understandably upset at this very difficult time, can also lead to police attacking their credibility. Savage stated that the most common outcome is to take the option of writing the file in conjunction with medical opinion as SIDS without prosecution.

Christina England: Do you feel that too many cases where vaccines could be the cause of death are being written off as either SIDS or abuse, instead of being fully investigated?

Sgt. Savage: Yes. Vaccine damage is rarely ever looked at … pointing the finger of blame at parents is frequently done and the most common action is to simply write off as SIDS. The investigators could and should ask parents about their baby’s health prior to vaccines. It would eventually expose the vaccines for being the root cause of injury and death that it is.

Sergeant Savage also believes with certainty that any evidence of vaccines being a possible cause of sudden infant death is likely to be buried.

Sgt. Savage: The parents rarely make the connection with vaccines because they are so tired due to the impact of vaccines on their baby’s sleep, hence theirs. If they raise concern, the police should put it in the report, but the doctor who does the autopsy will see that and most likely dismiss it. There is pressure on the police not to rock the boat, too. That sort of information may save a parent from prosecution at least. [emphasis added]

CONCLUSION

Are the police simply unaware that vaccinations can cause injury and death? Or, are they very aware and this is why they will do all they can to cover up this fact? After all, the evidence has been there for years. (See “For Further Research” at the end of this article.)

It seems to me extremely odd that the very paper Sergeant Savage said his colleague had planted into the possession of a prisoner charged with Shaken Baby Syndrome was Shaken Baby Syndrome – The Vaccination Link by Dr. Viera Scheibner [4] especially when you consider that this prisoner believed that his child had died after he received his vaccinations.

Sergeant Savage gives a very damning account of what really is going on behind the scenes. It is shocking how cases of possible vaccine injury are being covered up, written off as SIDS and blamed on innocent parents in what appears to be a worldwide cover-up to protect the vaccine industry at any cost.

Sergeant Savage makes abundantly clear through his statement and interview that in many of the cases he has been involved in and knows of, the children only became ill after vaccination. As the police are brainwashed to believe that all vaccines are safe, it has become an appalling policy for all parents to be viewed as potential perpetrators of manslaughter.

Sadly, any child can suffer a severe reaction after a vaccination. In some cases, children do die after receiving vaccines. Is it fair for that grieving parent to then be interrogated by the police as a murder suspect?

Imagine how you would feel if this tragedy happened to your baby. As a grieving parent, would you want to be questioned by the police as a matter of routine? Could you imagine how painful the death of a child is and how easy it would be, as a distraught parent, to say the wrong thing? After all, you would be in shock, very scared and deeply saddened.

In reality, many parents have endured the nightmare of being falsely accused of their child’s death. Some of them are behind bars today after being falsely accused and convicted of manslaughter after their child suffered fatal vaccine injuries. To help save parents from additional agony, when they are already facing the most heartbreaking loss imaginable, people like Sergeant Christopher Savage have to decided to speak out and risk everything to break the silence.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Sergeant Christopher Savage who has provided all the information contained in this article. I believe his bravery will help many families faced with false accusations of child abuse and manslaughter after vaccine injuries.

~ In loving memory of Amanda Sadowsky and Cameron Bruce ~

REFERENCES

1. England, Christina. False Accusations of Child Abuse After Vaccine Induced Injuries Destroys Families.http://vactruth.com/2012/08/20/vaccine-injuries-destroys-families/

2. Sergeant Christopher William Savage: Commonwealth of Australia – STATUTORY DECLARATION – Statutory Declarations Act of 1959.

3.  As Fox News 4 – Did Innocent Father Plead Guilty to Baby’s Death? http://fox4kc.com/2012/11/05/did-innocent-father-plead-guilty-to-babys-death/

4. Shaken Baby Syndrome: The Vaccination Link. http://www.whale.to/vaccines/sbs.html

FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ON VACCINATION AND SIDS

Scheibner, Dr. Viera. Cot Watch Studies.http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID=19990705002005

Baraff, L.J. et al. Possible Temporal Association Between Diphtheria-Tetanus Toxoid-Pertussis Vaccination and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Pediatric Infectious Disease. 1983 Jan-Feb; 2(1):7-11. PMID: 6835859. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6835859

Coulter, Harris L. SIDS and Seizures. http://www.whale.to/v/coulter1.html

Stewart, Gordon T. The Whooping Cough Vaccination.  Here’s Health. March 1980. http://www.whale.to/vaccines/stewart.html

U.S. Administration Supports Indecent Vatican’s Paedophilia Immunity

AFP

The Obama administration in a brief to the Supreme Court has backed theVatican’s claim of immunity from lawsuits arising from cases of sexual abuse by priests in the United States.

The Supreme Court is considering an appeal by the Vatican of an appellate court ruling that lifted its immunity in the case of an alleged pedophile priest from Oregon.

In a filing on Friday, the solicitor general’s office argued that the Ninth Circuit court of appeals erred in allowing the lawsuit brought by a man who claims he was sexually abused in the 1960s by the Oregon priest.

The unnamed plaintiff, who cited the Holy See and several other parties as defendants, argued the Vatican should be held responsible for transferring the priest to Oregon and letting him serve there despite previous accusations he had abused children in Chicago and in Ireland.

The solicitor general’s office, which defends the position of President Barack Obama’s administration before the Supreme Court, said the Ninth Circuit improperly found the case to be an exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, a 1976 federal law that sets limits on when other countries can face lawsuits in US courts.

“Although the decision does not conflict with any decision of another court of appeals, the Court may wish to grant the petition, vacate the judgement of the court of appeals and remand to that court for further consideration”.

The case, which was filed in 2002, does not directly address questions raised in a separate lawsuit in Kentucky alleging that US bishops are employees of the Holy See.

But the Vatican plans to argue that Catholic dioceses are run as separate entities from the Holy See, and that the only authority that the pontiff has over bishops around the world is a religious one, according to Jeffrey Lena, theVatican’s US attorney.

In recent months, large-scale pedophilia scandals have rocked the Roman Catholic Church in a number of countries, including Austria, Ireland, Pope Benedict XVI’s native Germany and the United States.

Senior clerics have been accused of protecting the priests involved by moving them to other parishes — where they sometimes offended again — instead of handing them over to civil authorities for prosecution.

The pope, who has himself faced allegations implicating him in the scandal, has repeatedly said priests and religious workers guilty of child abuse should answer for their crimes in courts of law.

Advocate Robert Green re-arrested by Scottish police in connection with the Hollie Greig case

By Mark Goode

Robert Green acts as an advocate for justice in connection with a shameful case of paedophile abuse that has been actively covered hollie creigup by the government of Scotland and leading members of its legal establishment. Mr Green was re-arrested last week whilst visiting a local police station in Warrington, Cheshire in order to satisfy his previous bail conditions which stipulated that he must sign in with the local authorities several times a week. He was handed over to representatives of Grampian Police by the Cheshire Constabulary on the premise that he had breached his original conditions of bail by speaking about the case, and was returned to the court in Stonehaven, Scotland where he was originally charged and incarcerated.

Upon entering the police station in Warrington, Mr Green was not wearing his reading glasses as he expected to simply sign the register and then depart to go about his business for the day. Upon his arrest, he asked if he could retrieve his glasses from his vehicle, but was not permitted to do so. He then asked the representatives of Grampian Police if one of the officers present might do so for him, but again his request was refused. This act obviously placed Mr Green at a disadvantage if he was asked to read or confirm any manner of written materials, and may have constituted a breach of his rights.

The new bail conditions imposed upon Mr Green were quite draconian, and stipulated that he cannot discuss any element of the Hollie Greig case publically, even in England, or enter any information into the public domain that could be resourced by the public or officials in Scotland by any means, be it via the news media, internet, or discussing the case openly with others. This poses the obvious question as to why an individual who is actively seeking justice on behalf of a highly vulnerable person such as Hollie Greig would be subjected to such levels of harassment by the Scottish state.

Irregularities are now beginning to emerge with regard to the circumstances surrounding Mr Green’s initial arrest in Aberdeen on February 12th 2010. The original Scottish interdict was allegedly pushed through Mr Green’s door at his home in Warrington, Cheshire by persons unknown. Robert had already departed for Aberdeen in order to distribute information relating to the Hollie Greig case to the public, and therefore possessed no knowledge that he would be potentially violating the said interdict by travelling there. This presented a problem for Grampian Police, as he was duly arrested in Aberdeen, just off of Union Street, at 10 am on the morning of February 12th, 2010 by two plain clothes CID officers.

In response, a second interdict was rapidly cobbled together by the Scottish Crown Office in Edinburgh and “served” to Robert whilst he was being held in custody in Stonehaven. He refused to take delivery of the second interdict, upon which he was touched with the papers by an official who then declared it “served”. Given the fact that Mr Green had refused to take possession of the papers, the act of touching him without his consent may have constituted a manner of assault upon his person. Furthermore, a copy of the original interdict is not held by Cheshire Police and no copy has ever been produced for examination by Mr.Green or anyone else, if it had ever actually existed.

After his arrest, Robert’s home was subsequently searched by Grampian Police.

In an e-mail to a UK Member of Parliament, Cheshire Police stated that the warrant had been organised by a PC Greades of the Grampian force. Upon further enquiry, it was established that no such individual is currently in service with Grampian Police under that name. However, a similarly named PC Vreades of Tillydrone Station was contacted, and confirmed that although he had currently served as a police constable for 4 years, he had no knowledge of or part to play in arranging a warrant in connection with the search of Robert’s home, and would not have had the individual authority to do so regardless. Any such warrant must also be signed by a sheriff in order to legally validate it.

Furthermore, the said warrant, allegedly dated February 13th, 2010 is not on record with the Cheshire Constabulary or local Magistrates. As of April 21st, 2010, Mr Green is still not in receipt of the said document as was promised ten days previously.

During the search of his premises, Mr Green’s computer and personal files were removed, with some of the latter being privileged in nature, as they pertained to other clients. To date, none of the items removed have been returned. Allegedly, the elusive “interdict” was retrieved during the search of his home, but it has never been produced for examination. The said interdict was also backdated to June 9th, 2009, constituting a most colourful approach to law enforcement, given the fact that it was purportedly “served” several months later in February of 2010. In shades of the film Minority Report, what remains are alleged retroactive terms stated within the said interdict, and Mr Green being subsequently arrested in February 2010 for a crime that he was totally unaware that he was could potentially commit.

It’s becoming increasingly obvious that the authorities in Scotland are becoming incrementally unhinged as time passes with respect to the ramifications of the case surrounding the paedophile abuse of Hollie Greig. All members of the Scottish parliament are aware of this case, and none, including First Minister Salmond have lifted a finger to provide any support or assistance. Another area of enquiry which needs to be pursued includes the questioning of potential suspects in connection with the murder of Hollie’s uncle Roy.

If Scotland is to live up to the level of statehood and international reputation espoused by the likes of Mr Salmond, then surely the act of its own government in taking responsibility for the horrendous miscarriage of justice evident in the case of Hollie Greig would aid in it gaining a proper level of moral imperative.

Given the immense current global interest in this case, as has indeed been witnessed by the thousands of individuals who contacted Warrington and Grampian Police subsequent to Robert Green’s second arrest in order to enquire as to his safety and well-being, it must be patently obvious by now to the Scottish Crown office, and its Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini, that this case is here to stay until it is effectively resolved under the due process of law. If they have nothing to hide, then why are they all acting with such fear?