I would like to share with my readers some communication I had (am having?) with Home affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand in my quest to get to the truth, in my quest of getting questions answered, which as Deputy Trevor Pitman, Deputy Bob Hill, Deputy Daniel Wimberley, Constable Simon Crowcroft and others, I’m sure, would testify is not an easy task, an impossible task would probably be more apt.
Readers will see that some two weeks later I am still waiting for answers from the Minister.... that’s just to these questions!
From voiceforchildren
To Ian Le Marquand
Date Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 12:43 PM
Subject Experts.
Senator.
In relation to questions, but in the absence of any real answers, to and from yourself in the States I am still at quite a loss as to who the two "experts" are that "identified" the fragment of child's skull as Coconut.
As far as I am aware the person who identified this fragment as skull is an Anthropologist and subjected the skull to some pretty rigorous scientific examination before she concluded it was skull.
What I, and many others, would like to know and hope you will help is this.
1.) Although you would like to keep from identifying the two experts at Kew Garden who "identified" the skull as Coconut, could you be more specific as to what you mean by "identified"? That is, was the fragment scientifically analysed by these two "experts". I'm sure you would agree that "identified" could mean they looked at it and said "that looks like Coconut" .
2.) Considering the name of the Anthropologist is in the public domain, why can't the names of the two "experts" at Kew Garden be in the public domain?
3.) If you will not identify the two "experts" could you, at the very least, let us know their qualifications? What are they experts in?
Kind Regards.
VFC.
From Ian Le Marquand
To Voiceforchildren
Date Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 9:44 AM
Subject RE: Experts
Dear voice for children, it is my intention to release substantial parts of the disciplinary reports and of the accountant's report in relation to Haven 1 (Haut de la Garenne) and substantial parts of the disciplinary report in relation to Haven 2 (Operation Blast) at some time next month. When you see the reports in relation to Haut de la Garenne you will see that the fact that the item which was wrongly identified as a "skull fragment" was known to be not a skull fragment quite early in 2008. You seem to want to explore the idea that it was a real skull fragment but this is totally against the weight of expert evidence. The subsequent report to which you refer merely confirmed precisely what the item was, namely what we would call coconut shell. I shall speak to the Police about this last report when I next see them and will come back to you with more detail. Ian Le M.
From Voiceforchildren
To Ian Le Marquand
Date Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 4:30 PM
Subject Re: Experts.
Senator.
Thank you for your reply, but I can't help thinking you've replied to a different e-mail. I never mentioned anything about HaveN 1, Haven 2, disciplinary, or accounts. You have not answered a single question that I have asked.
Could I please ask you to read the e-mail again and address (hopefully answer) the "crucial" questions I have asked?
Kind Regards.
VFC.
From voiceforchildren
To Ian Le Marquand
Date Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 7:40 PM
Subject Right of reply.
Senator.
While I am awaiting your answers on the experts etc. I was hoping you might be able to answer a couple more questions in the meantime.
In your previous e-mail you told me you would be bringing "parts" of Haven 1 and 2 to the States, I hesitate to use the phrase "cherry picked" so "parts" will suffice.
On that note, could you let me know if, alongside the "parts" of Haven 1 and 2 you will also be bringing (if you have them/it) Chief Police Officer Graham Power's response to them?
Surely it would be totally un-just only to tell one side of the story, and that Graham Power should be afforded the opportunity of a right of reply? Otherwise the States and the public are only getting one side of the story and the Chief Officer is effectively gagged.
Kind Regards.
VFC.
I've still not had a reply.
Why aren't the "accredited" media asking "ANY" questions? Well I believe I already know the answer to that question and will keep it for the Blog I intend publishing some time soon on "accredited" journalist" (if he is one) Chris Rayner.
Submitted by VFC.
5 hours ago
Good questions, VFC. Although outside Jersey this saga reads like a true crime thriller, your island is obviously still not used to such rigorous media examination of the official truthiness.
ReplyDeleteGiven that by far the most key "expert" quoted by ILM - i.e. the mysterious "Met Report"- was just a lowly PR spokesperson who may have simply written an email as a small, presumably unofficial favor for Warcup, isn't it possible that any coconut expert ILM is relying on is, say, a bartender with expertise on the subject of Pina Coladas?
One thing that shows up time and again with ILM is his willingness to cast aside all other evidence and all other experts in favor of the judiciously cherry picked. Any such consistent disregard or deliberate concealment of the most compelling hard evidence is ethically the same thing as lying.
Perhaps he is unclear about his ethical obligation to Jersey. Like it or not, in many cases it is proper for a legal advocate to represent only the more favorable side of the available evidence on behalf of a client, even when the advocate is aware of additional, less favorable or conflicting evidence. Within certain careful guidelines, that can still be
considered normal legal represenation.
What is not legally acceptable is for a judge or an elected senator like ILM to deliberately represent only the side which carefully leads the citizens away from such a vitally important and larger truth. As within any democracy the only client ILM can ethically serve and advocate for is the general public itself, and the electorate presumably voted for him with some expectation of representational integrity.
I'm sure he and many others in power think it is very nice that he is even willing to respond to your questions, but obviously he is not willing to answer them in a way which would reveal most of the critical facts about the historic abuse investigation and continuing cover up.
Granted, he undoubtedly feels he is just protecting Jersey in some essential way, perhaps because he is afraid the truth would be too destructive for Jersey to handle. That is apparent enough from his condescendingly vague answers to your very specific questions, which is the way officials in banana republics frequently justify to themselves all such wrongdoing in high office. It is also the most common yet insidous way officials betray the very concept of democracy. It is as if he was saying that horrendous child abuse took place but must be elaborately covered up for the sake of the public's own ignorant well being.
That is why what ILM is doing now and it can only be called corruption. That much is clear enough from his disregard of your right to simply verify the so-called evidence he is so intent on permanently hiding, or to compell him explain the harder evidence he is trying to hide from. He and others in office look to be working too hard to not be burying something of terrible importance in Jersey.
For transparency to take hold in Jersey, lying and corruption must be called by their true names and not sugar coated. Those who use their elected office to betray their voters and every democratic remit should be called traitors.
I am sad to say that I think your culture may be either too polite or overly fearful to confront this betrayal and call it what any outsider can clearly see it as being. It should be more humiliting to be lied to than frightening to humiliate the liar.
Outsider
Heres a name!
ReplyDeleteVital evidence: Dr Tom Higham found that the fragment was not bone but a piece of wood or coconut shell.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-567013/Human-bone-centre-Jersey-childrens-home-inquiry-actually-piece-wood-coconut-shell.html#ixzz0szDH4IhN
Listened to Deputy Higgins Proposition debate on Civil Servants earning over £60,000 to be named and what they do justified.
ReplyDeleteHiggins, Wimberley, Tadiar, Hill etc had no chance.
The debate went on a good two hours and Higgins was making good progress.
Then a vote was taken just before 5pm and lost.
This is because Comical Terry told them (his lost sheep) to reject it.
Jerseys present democrocy stinks!
ILM needs to be asked if the experts who identified collagen in the sample were mistaken or making it up and if they have subsequently been conclusively proved wrong.
ReplyDeleteIf the sample genuinely contained collagen but the unidentified Kew "experts" identified the fragment as coconut, this is smoking gun evidence that whoever assessed the "weight of evidence" as favouring the verdict that the sample was plant material probably had an agenda - or at least an inability to properly judge reality.
Every day, courts convict the innocent and acquit the guilty and it is the height of arrogance for the legal profession to be as self confident as they are of their ability to get to the truth.
Perhaps most significantly in the corruption of rational thought that is rife throughout the legal (and ex-legal) profession, is this concept that the "weight of evidence" somehow always defines reality. This view seems to hold that if a decision has been made using the "weight of evidence", the resulting adjudication of the perceived truth, like measurement in quantum physics, crystallises the answer.
They seem oblivious of the stone cold fact that merely relying on that part of the evidence that is presented to them, as opposed to the totality of evidence that may be found if fully researched, is no way to perfectly ascertain reality.