You’ll like this - not a lot - but you’ll like it.
Question. How does a piece of child’s skull containing 1.6 per cent collagen (which is only found in mammals) turn into a piece of coconut?
Answer. Put a picture of a coconut lampshade on all States Members seats and hey presto! A coconut a la Ian Le Marquand.
This is the sort of nonsense that States Members, and the general public, are fed by the Home Affairs Minister and expected to believe. This is the same Minister that tried to tell us that 65 children’s teeth fell through a gap in the floorboards at Haut de la Garenne, in the exact same place. So let’s just think about how that must work. A child is walking towards this gap in the floorboards and somebody shouts “don’t get too close to that gap in the floorboard, one or more of your teeth will fall out with root still attached and land on top of all the other one’s down there”. Or the other “explanation” we’ve been given they were left there by the bl--dy tooth fairy!
It is high time that the Home Affairs Minister comes to the realisation that the general public are not convinced by tooth fairy stories and pictures of coconuts. We want facts, evidence and scientific data. Lenny Harper has given us these in abundance, Graham Power has given us these in abundance, the Association of Chief Police Officers have given us these in abundance. What have we had in return? A fairy Tale and a photograph! Why didn’t Ian Le Marquand put a photograph of the Child’s Skull or coconut, showing it’s weight, size shape, colour and texture before it left Jersey, and then another photograph of it’s appearance when it ended up at Kew Gardens?
Below is an interview with Deputy Bob “The Guvn’r” Hill who is none the wiser for asking questions of the Home Affairs Minister.
Submitted by VFC.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
Is Bob trying to tell us that the States of Corruption are being a bit "shy" with their "coconut" evidence?
ReplyDeleteWell done Neil, very pro
ReplyDeleteVFC,
ReplyDeleteThe Lady to speak too, thats if she has not already been gagged, is Julie Roberts, the LGC anthropologist.
She found the "skull" fragment on February 23rd 2008 and labeled the item JAR/6. She described it as "degraded fragment of bone thought to be human skull, probably from a child".
When she re-examined on April 8 to 9th 2008, she noted that it had changed texture, weight and colour since she saw it last....
Lenny Harper might know.
Who was in posession of it between Feb 23 to April 8 ?
To the previous commenter.
ReplyDeleteIt would be a start to find out who had custody of JAR/6 between those dates. I would like to move on to seeing the scientific data (if it exists) from Kew Gardens that "identified" it as coconut.
It would be nice to know what the two "experts" who "indetified" it as coconut are "experts" in and what is actually meant by "identified". I'm sure I recall Lenny Harper saying that one "expert" who identified it as coconut was not an Anthrapologist.
I have to say, that is exactly what Deputy Hill was trying to find out but Ian Le Marquand wouldn't tell him!!
ReplyDeleteWasn't it a lab assistant who originally made a comment that it looked like a bit of coconut, not that it was a bit of coconut.
ReplyDeleteThe part I can't get my head around is a anthropologist identified it as a piece of skull, it was sent for test and was again confirmed as a piece of skull and that it contained collagen, so how did it turn out to be coconut?
Bless Bob for his tenacity. SO good to see at least one States' member with the decancy to keep fighting. Maybe when Syvret is back where he belongs the two of them can work together..
ReplyDeleteIf you look up the chemical composition of a coconut and compare it with that of human bone, human bone does contain collagen and
ReplyDeleteof course coconut does not!
So, who has disputed the first analysis, that of an experienced anthropologist?
Surely but surely Mr Le Marquand should be digging deep into these matters, because what he has been told and believes seem to be as much of a fairy tale as the 'tooth fairy' teeth story.
I too observed the usual gang on the Senators benches tut-tutting the questions of Bob Hill and saying rather loudly 'for Christ's sake it was a coconut'.
No harm in making doubly sure then?
There should be no problem whatsoever with accounting for the movements and whereabouts of this fragment, JAR/6, at any time. Each time it moves from or to the police store it should be carefully logged. We found the item on 23rd February. It remained with us, until from memory, the 6th March when it was taken to the Carbon Dating Lab in Oxford. We logged it out. We logged it back in again on 8th April when our Anthropologist again examined it and noticed that its appearance had changed considerably, and she was now not so sure of her verdict, although she could not reach a definite conclusion. The item should have been in the presence of the Oxford lab throughout the time it was there but it seems, that in breach of the rules of evidence they 'passed it around.' They seem to have got themselves into a real tangle, first of all stating it was too old for finding collagen, then finding it, then saying it was too degraded to date. Somewhere in all of this, a lab technician made the throwaway comment that it looked like a piece of coconut. (Funny how it was an unqualified technician and none of the experts who had examined it closely) This is the origin of the "ILM coconut" theory and of course encouraged by Warcup and Gradwell, along with their other public declarations such as the cellars not being cellars but only three feet voids. The item JAR/6 came back to us without a log of its movements from Oxford. As soon as it returned then we commenced again logging its movements and it should be no problem whatsoever to account for it from there on. Lenny Harper
ReplyDeleteLenny Harper,
ReplyDeleteWere photos or measurements taken, or drawings or diagrams made of the original skull fragment, when found in Feb 2008?
And if yes, who is in possesion of this valuable evidence?
So, States members are annoyed by Deputy Hill's questions?
ReplyDeleteThe irony is rich!
anyone who saw ilm in action in the magistrates court knows the contempt he holds for the public
ReplyDeletenow his words and actions are in the public arena
his true colours are becoming evident to all
I have always suspected ourchaps in UK swapped it.
ReplyDeleteOn a different note VFC, I would be interested in your opinion on the JDA's latest move if you wish to give it. Personally I am so upset by firstly Geoff standing against Stuart and now this Viper whose popped out of the basket.
In answer to the last commenters question. I feel it is always unfotunate when progressives are against progressives as the only winner can be the establishment.
ReplyDeleteFor anybody who hasn't seen Stuart Syvret's answer to Jimmy Perchard's question from last night's St Martin hustings you can see it here
ReplyDeleteYou read it here first, an e-mail from Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur to all States Members and others.
ReplyDeleteOnce again Citizens Media bringing you breaking news.
From: Terry Le Sueur
Sent: 30 May 2010 10:33
To: All States Members (including ex officio members)
Cc: Ian Gallichan; Bill Ogley
Subject: Housing
Dear Colleagues, I am sure that you will all be as disturbed as I was to read in the local press about the comments which have reportedly been made in a recent Royal Court case, comments which reflect badly on the current Housing Minister. I need to ascertain the full facts of this matter, and pending this I have spoken to Senator Le Main. He has agreed to stand aside as Housing Minister, delegating his daily responsibilities to his Assistant Minister whilst an enquiry takes place. I am making arrangenents for this to be done as soon as possible, and will keep Members informed of any major developments. In the meantime any matters relating to Housing should be addressed to the Assistant Housing Minister, Deputy Sean Power, or myself. Yours sincerely, Terry Le Sueur
Chief Minister
Does this mean brown envolopes to Sean Power now,if he was not getting his share already.
ReplyDeleteha ha ha,
ReplyDeletewhat goes around comes around.
I wonder if it is Stuart Syvret and citizens media that have forced the C.M to act?
ReplyDeleteI am sure that this would have been covered up aswell if it was not for the current climate of outrage with the island's Government.
Either way, it is a step in the right direction. Let us hope that Le Maine will receive the justice he deserves, unlike Stuart.
There is a director on the board of LGC who has lend a helping hand in quite a number of cover-ups. As long as those forensic institutes are not strictly independent but are funded partly by the HO there is no telling on how forensics are being manipulated. It is the one factor in a crime that the public and/or media can not dispute and it is being widely used under that premise.
ReplyDeleteDr Julie Roberts, the anthropologist who found a piece of child's skull at Haut de la Garenne, is trusted by the CPS to give evidence in the April Jones abduction trial
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/DarrenLittleSky/status/336769764775063552
"Question. How does a piece of child’s skull containing 1.6 per cent collagen (which is only found in mammals) turn into a piece of coconut?"
ReplyDeleteWhy do you never provide any link to any official report confirming it contained collagen in the first place?
Hope this is of HELP Could you send me a link to where there is some scientific data which proves it is coconut?
DeleteHope THIS from the Senior Investigating Officer will also help shed some light for you.
DeleteYou might also find THIS informative.
DeleteWhen former politician Daniel Wimberley attempted to discover the audit trail of JAR/6 (child's skull).
Delete"Deputy Daniel Wimberley: (d) provide a full and proper audit trail of the emails concerning the finds JAR/6 and SLJ/1?
Senator Ian Le Marquand: (d) I do not understand what is meant by "audit trails of e-mails".
From HERE
It is also to remember that the child's skull was not the only juvenile remains unearthed at Haut de la Garenne.
DeleteSome documented evidence.
JAR/30: 3-4; 1940s to 1980s. Two fragments of burnt bone one is fragment of longbone? Tibia. Submitted to University of Sheffield with KSH/158. Origin confirmed as human. Submitted for dating awaiting results.
JAR/33: 3-4; 1940s to 1980’s.
Calcined fragment of bone. ?human.
JAR/53: 183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
5 fragments of calcined long bone ?human.
JAR/54: 183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
4 fragments of calcined bone ?human.
JAR/55: 183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
1 fragment of calcined bone ?human.
JAR/57:183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
2 fragments of bone of unknown origin.
JAR/56: 183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
1 fragment of bone ?human.
JAR/67: 183. Zone 3 East Cellar 3.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Human Tooth: deciduous left maxillary first molar, age 9 yrs ± 3 yrs. Could have been shed naturally (Anthro exam).
Submitted to odontologist, see report.
JAR/69: 183. Zone 3 East Cellar 3.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragments x 3 of possible human cortical bone.
JAR/61: 183 Zone 4 East Cellar 3.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
23 Fragments of bone:
1 Burnt fragment which closely resembles a human juvenile mastoid process.
2. Burnt fragment of ?human mandible.
3. Fragments of burnt long bone x 3 measuring between 11.3 and 16.3 mm.
4. Fragments of unidentified burnt cortical and trabecular bone x 7.
5. Fragment of slightly burnt long bone measuring 33 mm. The cortex of the
bone resembles human but it is quite thick and the trabeculae can not be seen because it requires cleaning. It appears to have been cut at one end.
6. Fragments of unburnt unidentified long bone. x 3 The appearance and texture of the cortex of the fragments appears more animal than human but it is advised that further examination should be undertaken in order to confirm this.
7. Fragments of unidentified long bone x 7. 5 have been burnt and 2 haven’t. Species
uncertain although two of the burnt fragments could possibly be human
JAR/90: 183 Cellar 3 Zone 3 East.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragments of unidentified bone of unknown species. One which is calcined is possibly human bone.
Cellar 4 Context 169 (redeposited char material from fire elsewhere. Unsealed)
JAR/36: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragment of bone ?human.
JAR/37: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragment of burnt bone. ?human mastoid process
JAR/39: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragment of burnt bone ?human.
JAR/40: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragment of bone ?human.
GMK/18: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Human tooth. Anthro exam – deciduous left maxillary lateral incisor. Age range 6 yrs ± 2yrs
From HERE
http://www.lgcgroup.com/about-us/our-people/lord-stevens-non-executive-director/
ReplyDeletehttp://themaddiecasefiles.com/post207175.html?hilit=Lord%20Stevens:%20Maddie%27s%20parents%20are%20innocent%20#p207175
LGC with Lord Stevens situated in Abingdon, Oxon
BSCMR with Dr. Gerry McCann situated in Abingdon, Oxon
No you show us an official report which says this fragment contained 1.6 per cent collagen because I cannot find one and the archived police press releases say there was no collagen or if there were it was so badly decomposed it was no longer present.
ReplyDeleteThis is a big issue because you are making a statement here and then having a dig at the Home Affairs Minister.
Tell you what YOU show me ANY official report on the archived police press releases where it states there was NO collagen. What do you mean by “having a dig at the Home Affairs Minister?
Delete