A review into a police force's contacts with Jimmy Savile has concluded that there is no evidence its officers protected him from arrest or prosecution.
The West Yorkshire Police (WYP) report examined the history of Savile's relationship with the force, including reports that officers attended his well-known Friday Morning Club at his Leeds flat.
The report concluded: "There is no evidence that he was protected from arrest or prosecution for any offences as a result of his relationship with WYP, or individual friendships with officers."
The report said 68 of Savile's victims have now come forward in the force area.
The report also said: "No evidence has been found to conclude that there was any impropriety or misconduct in relation to the Friday Morning Club.
"All of those people spoken to who had knowledge of the Friday Morning Club described it as a 'coffee morning'.
"Non-police attendees commented on how professionally the police officers who had attended Savile's home conducted themselves.
"Savile had friends who were police officers, but he also had friends that were solicitors, doctors and many other professions.
"All inquiries have shown that Savile was able to hide his offending from those he came into contact with and who probably thought that they knew him well."
The report also examined the way in which WYP used Savile's celebrity status to front a range of campaigns and appeals.
It stressed that at the time he was "seen by most of the public as a man who did good work".
But it concluded: "The review team have concerns regarding the absence of a process to secure Savile's services for some of these events and also the over reliance on personal friendships that developed between Savile and some officers over a number of years to secure that support."
The report said it was "of greater concern" that the force continued to used Savile as part of crime prevention campaigns even after it received a request from Surrey Police in 2007 to check what records were held on the broadcaster as part of its investigation into Duncroft School.
It said: "The reason for this was that the information was notshared across departments, there was no recognition of the impact of this information and no checks were made on intelligence systems in securing Savile's services."
It said the initial contact from Surrey Police was made through WYP's anti-corruption unit but this was only to maintain confidentiality and there was no suggestion of corrupt relationships within WYP.
In June 2009 Surrey Police wrote to Savile asking that he make contact and it is documented that WYP offered officer support if that interview was to be in West Yorkshire.
The report said an inspector from WYP - Insp A - contacted Surrey Police control on behalf of Savile because the DJ had lost the investigating officer's contact details.
During that conversation Insp A said he was a personal friend of Savile and also that "Jimmy gets so many of these type of complaints".
Insp A provided a contact number to Surrey Police for Savile. The report said: "This was done by Insp A on WYP recorded communications systems but due to the passage of time therecording has now been destroyed in line with force policy at that time."
The report said that Surrey officers said "that on initial contact, Savile had told them there was a West Yorkshire Inspector who normally deals with this sort of thing"