Friday, 3 September 2010

"Bewilderment?"



After weeks of not having a reply to my e-mails from Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand, I was told yesterday, by his Assistant Minister Deputy Jackie Hilton that he has chosen to ignore them!, the good old Jersey "Democratic" way.


However, to cut a long story short, I would like to share with readers the "encounter" I had with Senator Le Marquand this morning, before going into his Scrutiny meeting. He told me that he will reply to, and answer, the questions in my e-mail(s) that I have been asking for months to no avail. If/when that happens all will be published on here.

I have entitled this post "bewilderment" because, although it doesn't describe the feeling I experienced today, I truly can't think of a word that does.

While talking with Senator Le Marquand I was trying to explain the complete "nonsense" that the general public are expected to swallow concerning the Haute de la Garenne Child Abuse enquiry and I put a couple of examples to him. One being the fragment of child’s skull/Coconut, (which is the subject of the e-mails he has not been replying to) as in, 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? Where is the scientific data? An audit trail? But more about that in an up-coming post. What I asked him today was, why was this skull/Coconut sent for more analyses in the first place? Not only that, but why was it sent, approximately a year after it was discounted as evidence? It had no evidential significance in the Haute de la Garenne investigation (Operation Rectangle).

Then we have the SIXTY FIVE CHILDREN’S TEETH which were not discounted as evidence and indeed Mick Gradwell and David Warcup are quoted as saying “It is possible for more tests to be done on the teeth to clarify age and other factors.” So why have we heard no more about the teeth which did/do have evidential significance, and we are told the skull is a Coconut which has no evidential significance? Un-surprisingly the good Senator was not able to answer this, and I'm not sure he grasped how nonsensical it is.

Now we come to the “bewilderment” bit. I explained to Senator Le Marquand that there is, in my opinion, fact based scientific evidence and analyses that says some of these teeth, that were found at Haute de la Garenne “could not have been shed naturally” or words to that affect. Implying that the teeth could only have come from the mouths of dead children due to, possibly among other factors, the amount of root that was still attached to the teeth. I explained to the Senator that the only other scenario’s the public have been given are that the teeth were left out for the tooth fairy, or the Senator’s very own “Talk-back” special where he told people around the world, live on radio, that the teeth must have dropped out of children’s mouth’s and fallen through a gap in the floor-board all in the exact same place.

I asked Senator Le Marquand to bear with me while I demonstrated how I believe this must have worked. I walked up the corridor and said “careful of that gap in the floor, one of your teeth might fall out (with root still attached, although I didn’t say that bit) and land on top of the SIXTY FOUR OTHER TEETH that are down there.” I asked “is that what you really believe happened, despite there being strong scientific evidence to the contrary?” To which he replied, along the lines of “yes that is exactly what I believe” .

Well, you really had to be there to experience the feeling. Is “bewilderment” the right word? I don’t know. But running through my mind was, how the hell can you argue against that kind of mentality? Somebody who believes there is a chance that up to sixty five different children walked past this gap in the floorboard and every one of them had a tooth fall out (some with root attached) in the exact same place!!. I mean the odds of that happening have got to be in the billions - one. Yet here we have a Home Affairs Minister, who has had a thirty year career in the Law and Court system who apparently believes this is even remotely plausible. Possibly even more frighteningly he thinks the general public could believe it!

You just couldn’t make this stuff up.

Submitted by VFC.

57 comments:

  1. I'll tell you what ILM and his psycho bosses believe,
    they believe in plausible denialability.

    only these jokers are prepared to stretch plausibiity to Narnia and back.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Perhaps you could run a competition, open to all States Members and the public they serve, asking them to guess the odds of sixty five childrens teeth falling down the same small gap in a floorboard to land in the same place.

    How many square metres of exposed floorboard was there?, how many gaps?, how many reports from children loosing a whole tooth with root attached are in the records?

    I have often thought ILM came across as either an idiot or a stupid, now I know its both.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Again and again we say 'you couldn't make it up', and time and again it proves so very true.

    Not only is this man downright arrogant, inasmuch as he just does not bother to respond to e-mails, but not even acknowledge them, but then treats us all as fools with answers like the one he gave to you.

    And to think this man sat in judgement in a Court of Law. It really does make you wonder how many flawed judgements he made during that career?

    With buffoons like him and our Chief Minister in control, heaven help us all. The truth of the matter is he really has not got any plausible answer to your question, so has to continue to make a complete idiot of himself in the absence of an explanation.

    Personally, I think the teeth came from a very rare hybrid of a coconut and a human, exclusive to the area known as Haut de la Garenne, and is of such rarity it has been retained at Kew Gardens until the reason for its many teeth falling out with roots attached has been investigated. Of course this is all being kept as hush-hush as possible as it could once again thrust Jersey into the spotlight and we don't want that do we?! The botanical name for this species is Coconutus dens 65 bullpoo.

    Exactly who DO you think you are kidding Mr Le Marquand?

    ReplyDelete
  4. The teeth could have been found in one of the CELLARS that didn't exist.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh yes VFC, I had forgotten about those 'non-existant' cellars.

    Rather like the large granite bath which has been dismantled and disappeared into the ether!!

    Not only very bewildering, but surreal as well.

    ReplyDelete
  6. now let us just suppose that it was a piece of coconut,what was it doing in the victorian layer of the foundations of HDLG,when were coconuts first imported to Jersey ?and why would there only be one piece of shell?,

    ReplyDelete
  7. This is something very curious.

    Here is some “redacted” parts of an e-mail correspondence I had with Deputy Kevin Lewis, some time ago.

    “the comments below is information I have received from former residents from 1935 onwards”


    “originally the Bath area was accessed by an external door (existing) to enable buckets of hot water to be brought in I believe the bathroom then was uncovered, at that time it was a boys only school, all the boys had to line up and were sent in ten at a time having to scrub the back of the person in front then out and the next ten in.”


    But in the Gradwell/Warcup Press Release they say this

    “This bath in the under floor voids has no water supply and has not been used as a bath since the 1920’s”

    Like I said this is very curious. Deputy Lewis, it would appear, has witness testimony from residents of Haute de la Garenne who used the bath which is from 1935 onwards. But Gradwell and Warcup have another story.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Yet here we have a Home Affairs Minister, who has had a thirty year career in the Law and Court system who apparently believes this is even remotely plausible."

    Le Marqaund is part of the good old Jersey blinkered society
    Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.
    As long as you go to church every week repent the sins of the previous week, sorted
    How do you think decades of child abuse has been allowed to go unchecked in the Island.

    Judiciary , police ,social workers, etc have all Been part of the cover up. Apart from a few brave souls that spoke out and were vilified for it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. ILM never sat in a court of law nor do any of the 'magistrates'.

    if the magistrates court (where games are played) is a court of law
    where do the jury sit?

    the magistrates is a 'court' of business.

    there is an ocean of difference (pun intended)

    it is how they get away with acting unlawfully

    ReplyDelete
  10. What is it that Le Marquand is hiding? an ex judge he is a disgrace, does he have a personal reason for his behaviour in allowing the cover up to continue

    ReplyDelete
  11. To be fair to them, the leprechauns never did say that they actually existed.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous said "the odds of sixty five childrens teeth falling down the same small gap in a floorboard to land in the same place."

    The experts said that these teeth came from about 5 or 6 children so what are the odds for 10 or more teeth falling out of the mouths of those 5 or 6 children and dropping through the floor boards? Especially with bits of jaw-bone attached! What hideous poppycock. Those teeth came from dead children which ever way you look at it. We don't know when or how they died but no matter how they spin it I truly believe that there were bodies of children that were concealed in that God-forsaked place.

    Lorna

    ReplyDelete
  13. you clip doesn't work. no sound.

    ReplyDelete
  14. There is no audio. It is actually a photograph from some video I had taken and it saves in mpeg rather than jpeg.

    On another note, as a result of this latest Blog posting I have been contacted by people who are able, and to some degree, have supplied me with more information concerning Mick Gradwell's knowledge of the bath and related issues.

    This information will be published as its own Blog entry soon.

    ReplyDelete
  15. This will keep on going until the likes of ILM and gang realise the game is up.

    We at the Voice will not stop asking the questions.

    There is more on the way and i hope ILM had a good rest this recess.

    Wiltshire is back on the menu

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Its hard to make out if ILM is being arrogant or naive, (can the both go together?) to think that the new term of the States will be a new start for him and that his Wiltshire Report's findings are justified and everyone is happy with them?
    Also does he really believe that by delaying the Napier report, it will just go away?
    Arrogant, naive, or just plain stupid!?

    ReplyDelete
  18. After reading this paragraph on Stuart Syvret's latest Blog posting I had to re-produce it here and ask the question SO WHAT DID HAPPEN TO THE CHILDREN? Gradwell and Warcup have spent more money on this investigation than Harper and Power, where are the results of this money?

    6.1 Since the last visit, the sifting at the scene has unearthed some 30 fragments of bone and seven teeth. A definitive forensic analysis of all the samples is incomplete. It appears however, that one bone is a piece of a female child’s tibia. Additionally, some of the bones have been cut and some of the milk teeth have long roots, suggesting that they did not naturally fall out. The initial views from expert examinations are that these bones and teeth originate from two children. These facts indicate an unexplained death or deaths and it is appropriate that the investigation continues to pursue what happened to the children."

    WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CHILDREN? Please don't tell us they fell through a gap in the floor boards!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  19. If it was destroying evidence and blaitently lying, that Civil Servant Ogley needed to do to keep his job and rubbishing/destroying vital, painstaking evidance from HDLG, Civil Servant Warcup needed to do to keep his job....

    It will soon become apparent that they have gone the completely wrong way about it.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Re: 65 teeth collecting in one place, some with roots attached: perhaps one could imagine a visiting dentist extracting teeth from children and them ending up in a jar which ended up in the basement. ILM's explanation is obviously rubbish but an alternative explanation is not sinister either.

    Teeth are not always extracted because they are decayed - sometimes they are extracted to make room for the rest to grow in properly (my parents were advised by a dentist round about 1962 that I should have a couple out for this reason). If milk teeth are extracted for this reason, I am pretty sure they still have the roots attached.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Damocles. I can see where you are coming from with your "less sinister" explanation of the teeth. I do not think this explains the fact that some of the teeth were still in part of the jaw-bone! Also would they collect pieces of a child's tibia and ulna in a jar? I think not!!!

    Lorna

    ReplyDelete
  22. Damocles: The expert said they could not have been extracted whilst the child was still alive because of the amount of root on the tooth. End of story.

    ReplyDelete
  23. yes it would be possible for a visiting dentist to keep all the teeth extracted in a jar
    however
    there would be some decayed teeth ,
    teeth of different ages
    and a range of different types of teeth,incisors,canines,molars etc,
    teeth from many children.
    If the teeth came from only a few children that would be suspicious
    ACPO three says that the bones found came from at least two children butit is not clear whether they include the teeth in this statement.
    There is a need for further information regarding the teeth,
    Teeth falling through floorboards is clearly rediculous

    ReplyDelete
  24. "WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CHILDREN? Please don't tell us they fell through a gap in the floor boards!!!!"

    When will you get it into your heads that until a named missing person is being looked for from this period then these finds mean nothing. Its getting stupid the way a few of you are dwelling on this all the time. Can't you see it?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Human bones that were fresh and fleshed when burnt, human bones that appear to have been cut, SIXTY FIVE children's teeth that could not have been shed naturally, a young female Tibia and plenty more found up at Haute de la Garenne and then we get a comment like this.

    "When will you get it into your heads that until a named missing person is being looked for from this period then these finds mean nothing."

    Priceless just priceless!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anonymous wrote: "When will you get it into your heads that until a named missing person is being looked for from this period then these finds mean nothing."

    When will you get it in your head anonymous that these children will probably never be named. Many children were placed in care without any relatives knowing where they were or even of their existence. Records may have been kept at the time but many have since been lost or destroyed. It wasn't until the news broke in February 2008 that any of my family or friends knew I had been in care in HDLG. I blotted out those two years completely until then. I suspect a good few children went off the radar and they may have been the ones who "disappeared".

    Lorna

    ReplyDelete
  27. What a load of rubbish. You reckon there were children never identified now to justify coconut and milk teeth? Can you not see how desperate this all sounds now?

    Its pathetic it really is and no wonder people are laughing at it all now.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I let the last comment through to demonstrate how these people operate. The commenter completely ignores, the teeth were unlikely to have been shed naturally. Completely ignores the “odds” of the 65 teeth all falling through the same gap in the floorboards (some with root still attached). Completely ignores that the “Coconut” contained 1.6 per cent collagen (only found in Mammals) Completely ignores the Tibia, the charred “fresh and fleshed” human bones. The human bones that appeared to have been cut. So when the commenter and “everybody” stops laughing at it all, he/she might want to explain all these to us? And I promise not to laugh.

    ReplyDelete
  29. There is no missing person. The police reported there was no collagen found in this fragment, Kew Gardens says its coconut. Everybody else apart from a handful of you are wondering what your trying to get out of this now becuase its not getting anywhere is it? The Police will not waste anymore time on this and you know it because they have nobody to look for.

    ReplyDelete
  30. So only in order to prove my last comment beyond any doubt I’ve let one more through but back to zero tolerance with the troll’s. You can’t say I didn’t give you a chance. But thank you for proving my point. What’s the “odds” of that happening?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Far from people "laughing" at it all I believe that some people are bricking it and that is what all this desperate trolling is about. Those of us who lived in HDLG know what we are talking about unlike you Mr or Ms Troll-di-roll.

    If you hurt children or you are covering up for those who did,you need to be very afraid because the cover-up is finally crumbling and the truth will be revealed. Be patient and Voice, Stuart and all the others who support us will be vindicated.

    Lorna

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anonymous said:

    the expert said they could not have been extracted whilst the child was still alive because of the amount of root on the tooth. End of story.

    Not end of story. Keep it real please. The expert did not say this. Check back on Stuart's blog where Lenny Harper posts on this. The expert said that some (a few) of the teeth could not have been shed naturally because they had root attached. That implies that most of the teeth did not have root attached, therefore were almost certainly shed naturally. If the few with root remaining were removed by the visiting dentist that counts as not being "naturally" shed.

    The narrative you seem to be putting forward is that multiple children were killed and burned and all that was left is their teeth. The expert anon mentioned did not say that the majority of teeth were unnaturally shed, nor did they say that the teeth all showed signs of incineration as they would have done if entire bodies were burned. It's of no help if you "think" like a 9/11 truther or a grassy knoll Kennedy conspiracy theorist.

    Don't make up fanciful stuff to support your ideas, anon, it only gives ammunition to the cover up merchants.

    Lorna, I have no recollection of the teeth being described as having jawbone attached (and I have pretty good recollection, plus I can use a search engine). If you classify milk tooth root as jawbone then be aware that, when extracted by a dentist, milk teeth will have root/"jawbone" attached.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I definitely read about or heard someone mention on air about jawbone being attached to some teeth but I can't recall where or when. I don't make things up Damocles although I know that all I read is not accurate!

    Don't forget that these teeth and bone fragments were reported to have been burned and moved. If this is true then your jar of shed and extracted teeth theory falls down a bit.

    Lorna

    ReplyDelete
  34. I am sure there are plenty of "plausible" explanations as to how those teeth got there. But Senator Ian Le Marquand's explanation of them falling out of childrens mouths and dropping through the very same gap in a floor-board is not one of them.

    ReplyDelete
  35. VFC - I think that everyone must agree that ILM's comment about floorboard cracks was ill advised.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Raised awareness of child abuse issues in Portugal
    Sep 06, 2010 09:55 AM
    A mammoth child sex abuse trial in Portugal, ongoing for more than five years, is about to come to an end when judges shortly announce their verdict. Seven defendants face over 800 charges linked the running of a paedophile ring in a state-run children’s home in Lisbon.

    A mammoth child sex abuse trial in Portugal, ongoing for more than five years, is about to come to an end when judges shortly announce their verdict. Seven defendants face over 800 charges linked to the running of a paedophile ring in a state-run children’s home in Lisbon.

    The case has been high profile from the start, with a former TV presenter and a former ambassador among the 7 people accused of abusing boys in state care. Social workers and psychologists estimate that more than 100 children were sexually abused in the Casa Pia, a state-run network of children’s homes founded in 1870. The homes are responsible for looking after more than 4,000 orphans and special needs children, including the deaf and blind, as well as children whose families are unable to care for them.

    Incidents of abuse were reported to officials as far back as two decades ago, but nothing was done by the authorities. It took a journalist’s article in the ‘Expresso’ newspaper in 2002 for police to start serious investigations.

    During the trial, 32 alleged victims ranging in age between 16 and 22 have given chilling accounts of being raped by adults in dark cellars, cars and secluded houses. Almost all of the young victims identified their abusers by pointing to the men across the courtroom. One of the accused is a former driver at Casa Pia, who claims he was also abused when he lived at the home as a child. The driver has admitted to more than 600 crimes and incriminated the other defendants. If convicted, they could be jailed for up to 25 years.

    Insular and traditional as a country, the uncovering of such large-scale abuse shocked Portugal when the story first broke in 2002. Since then the trial has gripped the nation, with much coverage from the media. Such a spotlight is believed to have changed attitudes. There is now much more pressure on authorities to investigate and respond to abuse allegations.

    The president of an association set up by psychologists to help prevent child abuse believes that little by little, there is “greater openness form the public, schools and parents” about the issues involved. And victim support organisations receive more calls for help from abused children and adults.

    Some doubt whether the sentences passed by the judges will be adequate to do justice to the heinous crimes committed. But whatever the verdicts in this particular trial, the media circus around the case has already done immeasurable good, if it has helped change attitudes in society and encouraged people to come forward who might otherwise have remained silent.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Sorry to disagree Damocles, but if you look at what Lenny Harper and the expert said it was "some of the teeth could not have been shed naturally whilst the child was alive." Furthermore it was established that no teeth were ever removed by extraction by dentist at the home. The children were taken elsewhere. The Archaeologist also said quite clearly the teeth were moved from the other wing and "a deliberate attempt made to hide them by covering them up." That needs no embellishing.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Anonymous said on 6 September 2010 22:08

    "Sorry to disagree Damocles, but if you look at what Lenny Harper and the expert said it was "some of the teeth could not have been shed naturally whilst the child was alive." Furthermore it was established that no teeth were ever removed by extraction by dentist at the home. The children were taken elsewhere. The Archaeologist also said quite clearly the teeth were moved from the other wing and "a deliberate attempt made to hide them by covering them up." That needs no embellishing."

    You are putting two and two together and making 22.

    "some of the teeth could not have been shed naturally whilst the child was alive."

    Please think. Forcible extraction is not being shed naturally. While a child is alive, naturally shed teeth will not have root attached - forcibly extracted teeth might. This statement also rubs in that - some of the teeth - HAD been shed naturally, which must beg the question as to why the putative murderer/disposer of the bodies would have collected naturally shed milk teeth - which naturally would have been shed over many months/years from the probable two individuals - and put them together with the bodies for disposal. It simply does not make sense.

    "no teeth were ever removed by extraction by dentist at the home."

    Err - so what? If there was a "tooth collector" at HDLG then any extracted teeth may have been requested to have been returned. People do collect children's teeth you know. I know of one prominent person who has collected all the teeth his children have shed.

    "That needs no embellishing" No, but it does need any cherrypicking of the quote and context analysed. What you say the archaeologist said is prone to misinterpretation - have you got a link to the original quote?

    As far as I recall, the "archaeologist" stated that the MATERIAL in which the teeth were found - the soil and debris of which there was a lot to be sifted through - had been moved at some point. The closely associated location of the teeth and the bones may just have been an unconnected coincidence.

    As far as I can recollect, the partial "female child's femur" was never definitively established as that, nor was the age of the bones established either. It is known that the whole excavation at HDLG unearthed large quantities of animal bones. If one finds a bone that looks like a small human bone at a potential murder scene, then one has to remember that animal bones are very similar to human. Perhaps, in view of the press reporting, forensic analysis should have been done on these bones to establish 1)species and then, if human, 2)how long they had been buried.

    My final feeling about the bones/teeth is that the evidence we have seen shows that corpse dogs etc, forensic archaeologists, and the comments that they make, are not initially rigorous and they are prone to "2+2=22". Perhaps the investigating team and the various amateur detectives had too much faith in initial remarks.

    The problem is that I think that the "working hypotheses" that the various experts had (whilst excavations were under way) were "Chinese whispered" into reality by a media hungry for sensation.

    When doing work like this, experts have to hold all possibilities and explanations of the facts in their minds without ruling anything out until the facts (all the facts)can shine a light on what really happened. The plain truth is that in "cold case" investigations like this, often there is insufficient reliable information ever unearthed to definitively establish what really happened. One can suspect that some scenario happened but it can often never be proved unfortunately.

    ReplyDelete
  39. "People do collect children's teeth you know. I know of one prominent person who has collected all the teeth his children have shed."

    Yes Damocles. Loving parents collect children's teeth and I have even heard of people making necklaces out of them. My children are all in their 30's and I still have some of their milk teeth that were left out for the tooth fairy. In the 60's when children were taken to the dentist from HDLG they would be taken into town by a random member of staff either on the bus or by car. I don't think anyone cared enough to ask for the teeth and I don't ever remember the tooth fairy visiting the home -sorry Mr Warcup.

    I can't think of any reason why teeth would be collected or by whom. Perhaps we all need to be patient wait until we finally get some proper forensic conclusions.

    Lorna

    ReplyDelete
  40. Damocles.

    What is your explaination for the removal of the the concrete bath and the deperate denial of the cellars ever being cellars?

    ReplyDelete
  41. The bath and the cellars are part of the narrative about sustained abuse at HDLG. I believe that happened so I don't have to "explain" anything about this. Any abuse in the bath/cellars in no way backs up multiple murder/manslaughter/incineration.

    Unfortunately those in power, embarrassed by what was revealed, chose to attempt to defuse virtually everything as some sort of ghastly "spin" exercise to minimise what they saw as the potential damage to Jersey (a.k.a. those individuals in charge at the time and later on).

    I am almost certain that there must have been a lot of abuse there - why wouldn't there have been any? There was plenty at other children's homes in that era - maybe even all of them - so it is almost necessary to prove that there was no abuse there to completely clear the name of HDLG... but the Jersey Courts have already convicted a few, so something happened there for sure.

    It is the narrative of recent murder/incineration of numbers of victims that REALLY doesn't have enough hard evidence to be sustained and I am just pointing out a few of the many logical holes in this semi-paranoid storyline.

    What obviously happened at HDLG was bad enough - blowing up the story using conspiracy theory thinking into some demonic Hollywood Saw 8 movie is only playing into the hands of those who would like to believe that there was nothing at all that happened.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I agree Damocles that the "murder" theory was allowed to deflect from the very real abuse that went on in HDLG. I have never thought that children were murdered in there and neither did Lenny Harper say so. I do however believe that deaths of children may have been concealed in there and that is something altogether different. It may be that children died accidentally as a result of abuse or by suicide on the premises or in the grounds. These deaths had to be concealed from the authorities.


    It may be that these children died of natural causes many decades ago but of one thing I am sure - children did die in there.

    Lorna

    ReplyDelete
  43. Yes Lorna, I do believe that there is a possibility that a few children died there accidentally and their deaths were concealed - but that is only a working hypothesis. If true, they may have died of sickness or whatever in the 18th century.

    As Stuart said previously, radioactive analysis of the teeth/bones could have given a rough date range after which they could not have been buried depending on whether "unnatural" radio-isotopes were present or not from the 50's nuclear weapons tests.

    That is what is maddening about the evidence that we know about - it is just too inconclusive to prove anything. The forensic science/corpse finding dogs etc that have been applied so far seem nowhere near as useful as they appear in the popular imagination.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Here is a comment left by former SIO Lenny Harper from an earlier posting which is just as relevant to this one.

    "Let me make it clear for all. There was a bath down there, and we had allegations concerning it, including rape and forced abortion. The dogs reacted in the area of the bath and inside it. Bedfordshire Police forensic experts tested it for blood and the tests were positive, yet Warcup and Gradwell said it was not blood. The victims did NOT make it up. Out of the several hundred who came forward we felt that 3 or 4 were perhaps not telling the truth. they were easy to spot. The furnace was in the other wing and the archaeologists were of the view that the teeth and bones were there until they had to be moved as a new heating system was being installed. They were then moved to the cellar area and deliberately buried. This was the view of the forensic archaeologist, not mine. His evidence is hard to argue with and no one has ever come up with an alternative. Let me say once again. The victims were telling the truth. My colleagues and I had many years experience in sorting truth from lies. It was not the victims who were lying. What Gradwell and Warcup (despite his later plea of non involvement in the row between Gradwell and myself) were saying, without any doubt, is that the victims were telling lies and that we were taken in. This is rubbish. There were terrible crimes committed down there, at the very least, indecent assaults and rapes. We will perhaps never know if there was worse. What we do know is that there were the remains of children there, no adults, just children, and that these remains had been burnt and deliberately concealed. Why? Why also would certain Jersey politicians and law officers try and deny that in the desperate and dishonest manner we have seen? Why did Frank Walker, Andrew Lewis, and Diane Simon remain silent when they knew that Warcup and Gradwell were at best mistaken when they said that it was not possible for an adult to stand up in the cellars? Why did they tell the Met that we searched HDLG on the word of a few unreliable disturbed people with criminal records. The public in Jersey now have to make their mind up. I hope Stuart Syvret and Bob Hill (when he does stand again) are returned with huge majorities. Lenny Harper"

    ReplyDelete
  45. So surely the blaitent disposing of the bath and the blaitent denial of the cellars by Warcup & Co, is evident enough.

    That blaitent lying was and is evident?!

    ReplyDelete
  46. I dont know if it is only me but I get the distinct impression that sexual abuse in Jersey is considered to occur only amongst those on council estates unemployed smokers etc yet the most reported cases I read about in the post is quite different being people in position of authority yet those are the ones where there is never enough evidence to proceed? I wonder is there any data to compare?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Yes very Curious. A Senior Civil Servant at the Education Department is a suspect in a Child Abuse Investigation, doesn't get suspended and doesn't get prosecuted. On the other hand our most Senior Police Officer has a couple of "disputed" allegations of poor management written by a man who stands to gain from writing them and the Chief Police Officer is suspended, with little or no regard to due process. And a Home Affairs Minister that believes in tooth fairys.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Damocles:
    You are of course correct in saying that the children may have died of illness in the 18th century, just as Lorna is correct in saying that the remains of the children were buried there and the forensic archaeologist's expert view was that someone deliberately tried to bury and conceal them in the late 1960's early 70's. The 18th century theory does not really explain why that might be the case. In truth we don't know, and Lorna is correct, as many open media sources will confirm, that I (contrary to the untrue assertion by Gradwell and the sensitive Mr Warcup)never at any time said children had been murdered at the home. Just one other thing, to say that the cadaver dogs were not as useful as imagined is to misunderstand their role. They were never there to give us any answers, but merely to indicate if there was anything that needed investigation, in other words, to ask questions but not give answers. In that respect they were brilliant. It was not their fault we were unable to come up with those answers. Lenny Harper

    ReplyDelete
  49. Lenny.

    My point was solely to emphasise that forensic science etc., as they are in reality are nowhere near as definitive at coming up with answers as they are perceived to be in Midsomer Murders, Bergerac or CSI.

    Based upon what we know - even just that reported in the local media - any empirical analyst at the time should have considered the possibility that the hard evidence did not rule out homicide/concealed accident/manslaughter and so these possibilities HAD to be excluded.

    The braying Jersey idiots, many of whom are articulate - even educated - somehow "knew" all along that these scenarios were impossible, because, they believe, things like that don't happen here. Obviously, as they now claim to have said all along, it was a complete waste of time and our money to investigate whether these lurid "fantasies" had any substance.

    Unfortunately there is a vocal, and apparently quite large, section of Jersey that indulges in over-confident hindsight. No doubt they rewrite the memories in their heads that originally said they had doubts.

    ReplyDelete
  50. @Damocles , 7 September 2010 19:57

    Totally agree with you.

    Also, I don't think Lenny and his team were responsible for the ghoulish hysteria.

    If the investigation had been allowed to reach a natural conclusion, these questions may have been answered - maybe not.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Lenny, I have a couple of questions which I hope you can answer.

    1. About half a dozen people have currently been charged in relation to the HdlG investigation. Given the state of the evidence that your team had gathered up until the time you left, how many accused do you think there was sufficient evidence to at least charge and bring to court? Leaving aside the AG's office for the moment and basing it on your experience with the CPS in the UK. I mean, strong evidence from multiple accusers where you thought there was a good chance of conviction under normal circumstances. (Without breaching confidence or implicating anyone). Would it have been another 10, 20, 30?

    2. Assuming you had not retired and Graham Power had not been suspended, how would the investigation have developed? Would it have have extended outwards to look beyond the wardens and 'inner circle' who have currently been charged? I mean, would you have investigated the reports we have all heard of a possible paedophile ring (or rings) involving the Sea Cadets, HdlG, and visitors to the home? Would you have also investigated whether people were culpable for not uncovering the abuse earlier, such as administrators, police, politicians etc? Was this bigger circle already in your sights, with enough evidence to further investigate or was it deemed unlikely that anything like that could have ever been proven anyway?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Rob. I was interested in the questions you put to Lenny Harper about his part of the investigation.

    As you probably know, the investigation is very far from over!

    Lorna

    ReplyDelete
  53. Rob. I was interested in the questions you put to Lenny Harper about his part of the investigation.

    As you probably know, the investigation is very far from over!

    Lorna

    ReplyDelete
  54. VFC,

    Very well planned by TLS.

    To be releasing The Napier Report, just intime for the first States Sitting.

    More important things on the agenda, therefore Napier can be pushed aside.

    Lets hope Deputy Bob Hill and
    others put a stop to his plan.

    Do you agree?

    ReplyDelete
  55. @Lorna, "As you probably know, the investigation is very far from over!"

    No, I didn't know that but I am glad to hear it. The police will have to do a lot of work to restore the reputation that was damaged by Warcup and Gradwell.

    ReplyDelete
  56. "The furnace was in the other wing and the archaeologists were of the view that the teeth and bones were there until they had to be moved as a new heating system was being installed. They were then moved to the cellar area and deliberately buried."

    Do we know what year the new heating system was installed?

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.