Today’s report into Jimmy Savile’s activities at Stoke Mandeville Hospital lists a sickening catalogue of abuse, largely from personal accounts of victims - ranging from inappropriate touching to rape.

Investigators said that, while Savile is widely referred to as a paedophile, this is a “simplistic” view of his level of abuse, which stretched from children through to adults.

The report said: “Savile did not appear to specifically select child victims for rape; it appears on the contrary that each particular circumstance dictated the level of sexual abuse he thought he could get away with undetected.”

The report also refers to unverified speculation that Savile engaged in sexual activity with dead bodies in the hospital mortuary.

A total of 43 per cent of his victims were adults, mostly in their 20s and 30s, with his oldest victim being 40.

The youngest was aged just 8, with 10 victims aged under 12, and 17 between 12 and 15 at the time of the abuse. Five of his victims were male, all aged 16 or younger.

The investigation notes that the exact ages of victims were hard to verify, as many found the precise date of the abuse difficult to remember.

Numerous victims recall him sitting them on his lap, where he would proceed to grope them and touch them inappropriately.

One account came from a 12-year-old female patient (Victim 20), who did not realise who Savile was at the time and thought him to simply be a porter.

The report said she sat on a chair and he asked her if she had a boyfriend. He then knelt down in front of her, pulled his trousers down and raped her.

Another victim told the inquiry how Savile systematically abused her when she was aged between 11 and 16 in the hospital chapel presbytery during services. She would attend the chapel every Sunday with her family, passing round the collection plate.

The report said: “He (Savile) would stand in the presbytery and watch the service from behind a curtain and this is where the abuse took place. He systematically abused Victim 24 for a period of five years.”

It adds that he was often accompanied by another man, described as wearing a suit, who watched.

The investigation describes a patient in her early 20s that Savile invited back to his room in the accommodation block where he stayed, known as Victim 41.

The report said: “They ended up in Savile’s room sitting on his bed. Without any warning he lunged at her and put his tongue in her mouth.

“He smelt strongly of cigars. He pushed her onto the bed and she could not get away because of the weight of his body upon her. She did not consent to the assault. Savile then went on to rape her.”

Another account details a victim aged between 11 and 12 who visited Stoke Mandeville to sing with her choir. The report said: “She was ushered into a room by her teacher (now dead) to meet Savile. The teacher remained in the room whilst Savile sexually assaulted her and orally and vaginally raped her.”

The investigation also mentions rumours that Savile had engaged in necrophiliac activity in the hospital mortuary, but no witnesses could directly confirm this.

The information came from second-hand witnesses, although Savile reportedly spent periods of time alone in the mortuary.

The investigation refers to one witness, a porter, who worked at the hospital between 1974 and 1978, who stated: “It was common knowledge that Savile was a necrophiliac and that this was why he was ‘despised’ by the other portering staff.”

But the report added: “No witness when interviewed by the investigation could recount any direct experience of Savile acting inappropriately with dead bodies in a sexual manner.

“However there was significant evidence to suggest that Savile probably could, and did, access the mortuary on his own out of hours.”

The investigation said it came to the view that: “Savile ‘groomed’ staff, patients and visitors at Stoke Mandeville Hospital by means of his well-known television celebrity persona.

“The man seen walking around Stoke Mandeville Hospital was indistinguishable from the person people felt they already knew from his media image.

“He was loud, tactile and irreverent. This lowered the guard of the people around him, leading them to accept levels of behaviour from him that they would not have condoned from any other person working at the Hospital in either a voluntary or a directly employed capacity.”