Louis Theroux claims that the infamous documentary with Jimmy Savile is from years prior to Jimmy Savile’s expose as a child abuser. It is a far cry from “soft journalism”.
Three months spent by Savile as a documentary maker for the BAFTA award-winning film ‘When Louis met Jimmy …’, 2000. He stayed in good standing with Savile thereafter.
Savile was killed in 2011. It became clear that Theroux had been sexually abusing hundreds of children. [Savile]People would be more likely to believe that he was a spy’.
The documentary maker, 51, told The Sunday Times Magazine that he was ‘struck’ by the content of his documentary after watching it back with the knowledge of the paedophile’s crimes.
Louis Theroux, who shared his notorious documentary with Jimmy Savile many years before the comedian was revealed as a child abuser serially, has now admitted that it was not soft journalism.
Referencing an expert in his book in which he says that ‘depending on your point of view, I either made a revealing programme about or failed to make a revealing programme’ about Savile.
“It is neither one nor the other,” he said.He said so to the publication. There’s plenty ammo that can be used in any direction. Since the revelations, I’ve been looking at it and am amazed by how many are available.
It’s far from soft journalism. He was performing an act, which we all suspected. He was more than willing to let people believe that he held secrets.
In just 10 weeks, 450 victims filed complaints against Savile to the Met Police after his death in 2011.
Inquiries revealed that his horrible abuse began in 1959 with the rape of a thirteen-year-old girl. Then, he continued to rape girls ‘in all of the dressing rooms, corridors, canteens, stairs and staircases of every BBC property’.
Another vile crime exposed was the rape and beating of a teenage virgin in a hotel as well as a work experience girl of 15 years he met at the BBC Canteen while drinking tea.
Three months spent by the documentary filmmaker with Savile to complete BAFTA-winning film ‘When Louis met Jimmy …’, 2000. He remained in good standing with Savile thereafter
Savile had more than 20 female victims, all under 15 years old, with the youngest at eighteen. Young boys, including one eighteen-year-old, were also targeted by the evil monster.
Theroux wrote a second piece on Savile. He spoke with several victims about the experience and said that it helped him to understand why he missed so much.
Theroux asks Savile about rumors that he had a sexual interest in children.
In a chilling exchange, Savile said: “We live in an extremely funny world.” As a single man it is easier to tell you ‘I don’t like children’, since that would put a lot more tabloid men off the hunt.
Theroux asked: Is it really so that tabloids don’t pursue this entire is he or aren’t they a paedophile?
Theroux asks Savile about rumours that Savile was interested in child sexuality.
Savile replies: ‘Oh, aye.
How do they determine if you are? What is the secret to my identity? No one knows if I’m there or not. I know I’m not… That’s my policy and it’s worked a dream.’
After making the film it became clear that Theroux had attempted to file a report on sexual abuse by Savile, but this was never followed up.
After a woman told him that she had been one his girls when she was 15 years old, the filmmaker claimed he called police to report the presenter.
Since then, the filmmaker admitted to his guilt at not having done more to expose Savile.
A shocking article on BBC websites reveals that he claimed, just like Savile’s victims suggested, that he had been “hoodwinked” by the paedophile.
He said: “At that time…” [of the 2000 documentary]He was a tough guy and I tried my hardest to make him feel comfortable. He was a weird man, and his mannerisms were quite irritating. I didn’t want to write a soft piece on Jimmy, the Charity Fundraiser.
“The dark rumours, which included sexual deviance, being unemotional and having a morbid fascination in corpses, were the main reason I took him on as a subject.
I wanted the goods to Savile. The problem was that I didn’t know what the goods were.