Tuesday, 26 April 2011

Lenny Harper Interview Part 1 (of ?).


Former Jersey Deputy Police Chief Officer Lenny Harper has given VFC a comprehensive, in-depth and exclusive interview covering many subjects involving his time in Jersey. The subjects cover such things as his alleged “lavish” lifestyle at the taxpayers expense, the local media, his alleged £1m book deal, his alleged “vendetta” against the Jersey establishment, the “scandal” (according to Ian Le Marquand) involving an Officer of ACPO to name but a few.

In this, part 1, interview we learn a little of Mr. Harper’s long and distinguished (until he started investigating Child Abuse in Jersey) career as a Police Officer. We also discuss the part of a child’s skull that was un-earthed during the excavation of Haute de la Garenne.

Regular viewers/readers of VFC will be aware that we have been attempting to discover how a piece of child’s skull containing 1.6% collagen (only found in Mammals) can magically turn into a piece of Coconut but to no avail. Deputy Daniel Wimberley has asked the Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand in the States, for an audit trail of the item known as JAR/6  but to no avail. Deputy Bob Hill has also asked the Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand about this but to no avail

The local Mainstream Media seem to be falling over themselves to mention, as often as they can, the “Coconut” every time they mention Lenny Harper - so just what “evidence” are they working on when they say it is Coconut? Well it appears there “evidence” is based on “a throw away comment.” All the scientific data, or “evidence”, suggests that it is a piece of child’s skull, but a “throw away comment”, in the world of our mainstream media overrides scientific evidence.

Mr. Harper, in this interview, also reveals that there could be up to four “Priority" Suspects employed by our States that are in positions of power/authority, will the up-coming Committee of Enquiry expose these people and have them brought to justice?

76 comments:

  1. He said they had found 'what appears to be the partial remains of a child'. Thats what is recorded. From his interview its as if he is playing that down now. Inconclusive? Not according to Kew Gardens. I think people have already made their own minds up on this and so have the Police.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Do you know one of the most intriguing things about the first comment? I published the Blog at 8.20am; the video interview is 10 minutes and 59 seconds long. I received the comment at 8.27am. So in 7 minutes the commenter has read the text, watched an 11-minute video and typed the comment, that takes some doing.

    Could I ask the commenter for the “conclusive” evidence of Kew Gardens?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Come on VFC. These people do not want or need evidence. Evidence is an inconvenience to them. Instead, they have an agenda which requires them to ignore the evidence. I notice you have no answer to your question, nor has the requested audit trail ever been forthcoming. My memory recalls that Lenny Harper said it was not for him to say what the item was. The expert anthropologist was saying it was a piece of a child's skull, just as the different anthropologist said that the human juvenile bones he received were "fleshed and fresh" when burnt and buried. Again, inconvenient for those who seek to play down the abuse and what happened in respect of those childrens' bones however they died. I also recall Lenny Harper saying that we would likely never know, as the evidence was inconclusive. Wiltshire had several officers trawling through LH's media interviews trying to find him saying something different, but according to Mr Power, the statements found him to be consistent throughout. Funny how this evidence is ignored too.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Taking this interview alongside the earlier interview with Graham Power, it appears that there can only really be two options -
    1. Messrs Harper and Power are lying about everything; or
    2. They are telling the truth.
    There will be one school of thought to support the lying theory - probably based on an assumption that Harper and Power have a bad case of sour grapes and are simply attempting revenge.
    The other theory tends to be supported by evidence - i.e. that they are substantively telling the truth as they see it. The most basic evidence to support this theory is that they have both sworn affidavits under oath. This means that they are prepared to be cross examined under oath in a court of law on penalty of perjury if they are in fact lying.
    Unless I have missed it, those who are saying that Harper and Power are, in effect, lying have adduced no evidence to support their assertion. They have merely issued contradictory statements, none of which has been subject to proper examination by the media or anyone in authority. Indeed, the media seem to have made a concerted effort to support the "official" view and have given virtually no coverage to the sworn statements of Harper and Power.

    I should make it clear at this point that I have no personal stake in this issue. I am not a political animal, nor do I support or oppose any individuals involved on a personal basis. I am simply someone who is very concerned about the lack of transparency shown by our elected members - particularly the Council of Ministers - and I consider myself sufficiently capable of evaluating proper evidence in order to draw my own conclusions.
    Mr Harper's concluding remarks in this part of the interview are especially worrying - namely that he believes that there are still about four people currently in positions of significant influence who were "priority suspects" at one time and who, in his opinion, would have been charged if this had happened in the UK. This statement is clearly either true or false. Which is it and what evidence is there to support any answer to this question?

    ReplyDelete
  5. At least FOUR high priority suspects still employed in senior positions by the states of Jersey. Why have they not been suspended? Why is the new Chief of Police more concerned about changing the Police image by issuing new shirts than protecting the public and especially children?

    Thanks for doing this interview Lenny

    ReplyDelete
  6. One piece of evidence to support Lenny Harper's comments about suspects still in positions of influence is the fact that before he left (and this has been publicly aired) he disclosed evidence relating to a senior education official which contained numerous statements from victims of this man's brutality. Nothing was done about it. (Even though the government regard suspension as "a nuetral act", viz a viz Mr Power, they decided not to act to protect vulnerable children.) Also, was there not some discussion about a former police officer turned social worker who there was substantial evidence against which would have been admissable in the UK but not Jersey? There are also numerous other examples which all tend to support Harper and Power.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This is like the other thread. The Police have closed their files so what good is this going to do?

    If its just designed to encourage everybody to have a really good moan then its worked but what good will come out of this for abuse victims in the long run is an empty one.

    ReplyDelete
  8. What good will come out of this - to answer a question above - is the exposure of the Culture of Concealment, delivering some justice for the survivors - and fixing a broken system so that these concealments don't happen again.

    Only a moron or an apologist for child abuse could oppose these investigations.

    There is so much more to be done - and far from the issues being addressed as the years role on - the necessity for grass-roots exposes just grows.

    For example - it is now very clear - and very well-evidenced - that Jersey's traditional, mainstream media is an active component in the concealment of child abuse; a state of affairs that is not only a function of weak and inadequate journalism - but also has its roots in bribery - and the fact that so many local journalists are involved in the lovey amateur-dramatics scene - a networking environment of almost Masonic power.

    Jersey must learn the lessons of its child abuse disaster.

    One of those lessons - is just how and why it was covered-up for all those years and decades?

    Stuart

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous said "The Police have closed their files so what good is this going to do?"

    Files that have been closed can always been re-opened as has happened in a number of cases when there is evidence that needs to be re-examined.

    Bring it on!

    Lorna (Proud Survivor)

    ReplyDelete
  10. This video interview is shocking and damning and those in Jersey media should be punished, along with the abusers and those who covered this up.

    This C.O.I should be from the floor to the ceiling, with everything in between scrutinized. As for the four individuals remaining in office, this is truly abhorent. Jersey is a disgusting place.

    ReplyDelete
  11. A good honest interview yet again VFC and Lenny.

    Skull or coconut, there is no disputing the fact that abuse, and abuse of the most vile kind happened at Haut de la Garenne and other care homes administered by the States of Jersey. Ultimately this is what it is all about, and what the victims, both those who have seen justice and the larger percentage who have not, want finally and once for all - to please, please afford them the TRUTH from start to finish, an explanation as to why the 'Famous Four' have escaped justice so far (and most of us know who they are) and the respect which they deserve.

    Never underestimate the resolve and determination of some of them.

    As Stuart so rightly says the good that should come out of all this at the end of the sorry saga is that the same mistakes will never, ever be allowed to be repeated. On present and past form I have doubts.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Stuart Syvret

    Graham Power

    Rico Sorda

    Lenny Harper

    VFC, Thank you for the hard work. These Interviews are brilliant.

    x

    ReplyDelete
  13. This is very good post from Tony's musings and covers Deputy Wimberly asking the Home Affairs Minister ILM about the audit trail on Jar/6 for some reason ILM isn't so keen on this.

    TONYS MUSINGS

    Why haven't they nailed Lenny Harper with the hard evidence concerning Jar/6 ?

    I give you ILM:

    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". However, this appears to also be referring to statements or other evidence.


    What a priceless answer; "this appears to also be referring to statements or other evidence."

    They cant even show Jar/6 being a coconut. This would have been there trump card but yet nothing.

    Then we have Kew gardens lol this was a year after it had been discounted from the investigation.

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  14. This is the problem, although Ian Le Marquand has been repeatedly asked for some - ANY -kind of evidence as to how a piece of child's skull containing 1.6% collagen can turn into Coconut he still has provided NONE.

    Curiously the local discredited media have churned out the Coconut sketch time and time again and they have provided no evidence either. Have they (the discredited media) ever asked ILM for the evidence?

    ReplyDelete
  15. And like I said in my interview they just don't like these reports

    ACPO - No thanks

    HMIC - No thanks

    Brian Napier - Switch the TOR - then no thanks

    Sworn Affidavits - No Thanks

    Yet they managed to fall out with the Met Police because they used a review to suspend a Chief of Police. This was a big no, no. Didn't stop David Warcup who should have known better.

    Then they drop all allegations against Graham Power and nail him with about two pages of said disciplinary report with the full backing of the MSM

    This is Jersey. Wake up people of Jersey.

    What of our Government?

    Four priority suspects. Not a chance they were going anywhere near a court. Remember what BO said in the GP Affidavit?????

    How do you explain people moving through a certain department without the consequences a name that kept coming up in court recently

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  16. This is what Graham Power QPM swore in his Affidavit that you mentioned Rico.

    19. The third example I have chosen relates to a Strategic Planning Workshop held at the St Pauls Centre on Friday 24th October 2008. The Workshop was attended by a number of senior public servants including myself and the Chief Executive. At the commencement of the workshop the Chief Executive asked for silence and said that he had an announcement to make. He named a senior civil servant who was present. The person named is a suspect in the abuse investigation but has not been suspended. The Chief Executive said that the suspect had his total support and that “if anyone wants to get…….(the suspect)…….they would have to get me first”. This announcement was applauded by some but not all of the persons present. I took it as a further indication of the “in crowd” closing ranks against the “threat” of the abuse enquiry. The Chief Executive later played a significant role in my suspension.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Do you know another thing that makes me sick to my stomach? After listening to Lenny Harper's career and credentials, all be it briefly, at the beginning of this interview, this bloke is a well seasoned, highly experienced and qualified cop. But you get the likes of Ian Le Marquand who has just conducted what I can only describe as a "Kangaroo hearing" in publishing a prosecution case without publishing ANY of the defence case on a "failed" disciplinary review and Le Marquand has the nerve to call somebody else "an incompetent maverick?......bl--dy priceless, he's not fit (in my opinion) to clean the boots of Lenny Harper or Graham Power.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "But you get the likes of Ian Le Marquand who has just conducted what I can only describe as a "Kangaroo hearing" in publishing a prosecution case without publishing ANY of the defence case on a "failed" disciplinary review and Le Marquand has the nerve to call somebody else "an incompetent maverick?......bl--dy priceless, he's not fit (in my opinion) to clean the boots of Lenny Harper or Graham Power."

    Quite true VFC.

    I find this answer even more scary. Senator Ian Le Marquand: (d) I do not understand what is meant by "audit trails of e-mails".

    Then what is he doing in Government. This man should know better than that.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "Then what is he doing in Government"?

    Everything he can to discredit the Child Abuse investigation/investigators and dragging Jersey's name further in the mud, that's my guess.

    ReplyDelete
  20. This is what Lenny Harper said about Jar/6 in March 2010. It makes perfect sense why wont they release the evidence that says its coconut


    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

    27 May 2010 10:05

    ReplyDelete
  21. And what do we get from our esteemed Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand?

    "I do not understand what is meant by "audit trails of e-mails".

    You just couldn't make this stuff up!

    ReplyDelete
  22. ANDREW LEWIS AND JAR/6

    Also Perchard & Power debating it in the States

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  23. Real investigative journalism from Jersey. Can't wait for part two. thank you VFC and My Harper.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Rico.

    Thanks for that link it makes for fascinating reading.

    Here's part of a comment I left on the 3rd of August 2010. "As for JAR/6 I have repeatedly asked ILM how it turned into coconut after being a child's skull and he repeatedly hasn't told me. The last thing he told me is that all will be revealed in the Wiltshire Report, and guess what.............? It wasn't!"

    It's a reminder of the dung being fed by Ian Le Marquand at that time. "all will be revealed in the Wiltshire Report."

    ReplyDelete
  25. Jaques.

    Thanks. I'm sure part 2 will not disappoint, or part 3 and 4!

    ReplyDelete
  26. A Piece of Child’s Skull

    An anthropologist made an initial identification as this item being a piece of child’s skull.

    At 10:45 am the SIO made a decision to release information to the press about the find.

    At 2pm the same day a press conference disclosed this item as the finding of the potential remains of a child.

    This item was lying within earth that is now identified as being Victorian era.

    On the 31st March 2008 Dr Higham from the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit stated he believed the item was not bone.

    The original anthropologist reviewed her initial identification and on 14th April 2008 had stated she no longer identified it as part of a skull.

    Dr Higham and Dr Jacobi (of the British Museum faunal specialist) concluded that the sample was not in fact bone, but was almost certainly wood.

    They went further stating it was more like a part of a seed casing like a small piece of coconut.

    The conclusions are therefore that the sample is a) Not bone and b) Not human.

    The States of Jersey Police satisfied that having liaised with the anthropologist and Dr Higham and other experts, that this item is not human and was found in a Victorian context.

    This can be found here;

    SOJP

    David Warcup 12th November 2008

    ReplyDelete
  27. “23 February 2008
    09.10 hrs
    Examined JAR/6. Recovered from Context 011

    Trench 3. Degraded fragment of bone thought to be human skull, probably from a child (see full inventory for details). Associated with mixed debris including animal bone, buttons and a leather “thong”. Discussed findings with SIO Lenny HARPER and Forensic Manager Vicky COUPLAND. It was decided that the bone should be sent for C14 dating*.”

    Diane Simon, Mick Gradwell, and David Warcup have all said that I was told the next day that the context of the area I found pre-dated the enquiry. This is simply not true. The fragment was found under the stairs in Trench 3. Anyone who thinks that the inch by inch, painstaking, search conducted on their knees by the Archaeologists and Anthropologists took only one day knows nothing about this sort of work. Page 2 of the Anthropologists worksheet shows that they were still working on Trench 3 on 6th March and were still working under the stairs on 20th March. It was sometime around then that the work on this context was completed and we were told that the context meant the fragment was probably too old to be important to the enquiry. We then immediately ruled it out of our enquiry. Further confirmation of this is given on Page 16 of the Worksheet when the Anthropologist Julie Roberts made the entry reproduced below. This entry was made on 9th April and refers to the 8th April. Note what she says in the entry because it totally contradicts what Gradwell, Warcup, and Simon say. For instance, where she says “now that the phasing of the area under the stairs has been completed,”. This would certainly seem to contradict the information given to the media by Gradwell and Warcup that it had been completed as early as the 24 February.

    ReplyDelete
  28. “9 April 2008

    On 8 April 2008 I read the C14 dating results relating to JAR/6. The report stated that the fragment was too degraded to obtain a date. The fragment can however be dated by archaeological context now that the phasing of the area under the stairs has been completed. JAR/6 was found in Context 003, Trench 3. This Context is thought to belong to the earliest phase of the building, phase 1, which has been dated to the Victorian period. It certainly predates the 1940’s aggregate 008.

    On 8 and 9 April 2008 I re-examined JAR/6. Since I initially examined the fragment it had dried out considerably and changed in colour, texture and weight. These changes caused me to reconsider my initial observation that the fragment was human bone, although I cannot reach a definite conclusion without conducting further chemical analysis. I reported my findings to Forensic Manager Vicky COUPLAND and SIO Lenny HARPER and we discussed a number of options regarding how to proceed with the fragment. Our conclusion was that as the fragment had been found in the pre 1940’s phase of the building, no further work would be conducted on it.”

    ReplyDelete
  29. So on the 9th of April 2008 Anthropologist Julie Roberts made the above entry.

    Right, now David Rose in his article reproduced by Rooney says

    On February 24, a day after Mr Harper made Haut de la Garenne an international byword for infamy by announcing his team had found the 'partial remains of a child' who might have been murdered, forensic scientists warned him that the so-called remains - allegedly a fragment of a child's skull - were so old as to be 'beyond the parameters of the investigation'


    So we have email evidence to counter the above

    Now there is this email exchange that could answer the question

    On 28th March we received an e-mail from a Ms Brock at the Laboratory in relation to the fragment. Here are some excerpts from the e-mail.

    “Hi Vicky. Here are the details of the Jersey skull as discussed on the phone earlier. As I said, the chemistry of this bone is extremely unusual – nothing I am familiar with.”

    “During the first acid washes we often get a lot of fizzing as the mineral dissolves. The Jersey skull didn’t fizz at all, which suggested that preservation was poor, and which led me to test the nitrogen content of the bone.”

    “The Jersey skull had 0.60 nitrogen, which suggested that it contained virtually no collagen. Once we had this result, Tom phoned you and told you it would be unlikely that we could date the sample, but that we would continue with the pre-treatment just in case.”

    “Very surprisingly, the sample yielded 1.6% collagen (our cut off for dating is 1%).”

    “As there is no nitrogen it cannot contain collagen unless it is highly degraded. The chances are it is highly contaminated and any date we get for it might not be accurate. I have e-mailed the director and asked if we should proceed with a date.”

    ReplyDelete
  30. SO NOW FOR THE COCNUT

    Now, if you look at that e-mail, it makes clear a number of things. Firstly, they, the experts on dating, are not sure they can date it. Secondly, they make it clear they have found more than enough collagen (only found in mammals) to date the fragment, but then change their mind again and say it is too badly degraded. Also, note the use of the terms ‘skull’ and ‘bone.’ If the experts cannot be sure on 28th March, how can anyone say that I knew on 24th February? On 31st March, Ms Brock e-mailed again. In this e-mail, headed, “Re: Jersey Skull for C14 Dating,” she said that ‘the Director had now expressed concern about what the fragment was. The Technician (who is not an Anthropologist) who was carrying out the process commented that it ‘looked like a coconut husk.’ She went on to say “If it isn’t bone I am really sorry,” but then finishes with “although it could well have been poorly preserved bone as I described it.”

    So has a Whole historic Child Abuse investigation been trashed because "The Technician said it looked liked a COCONUT HUSK" just crazy

    That is the story of Jar/6

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  31. Well done LH and VFC, keep up the good work.

    I do however have to disagree with Lenny about "in his opinion, the 'four' would have been charged if this had happened in the UK"

    I don't think they would have been because in other child abuse scandals in parts of the UK ie North Wales, Islington, etc this never ocurred. In Islington, not one single abuser or their supporters and obstructers where prosecuted.

    As is well known some of the peadophile activity in Jersey has links to UK local government, who are as bad in covering up these henious crimes as the Jersey establishment is.

    In regards to the skull, I believe it was switched, but the evidence is gone forever now so we will probably never know. As for the teeth, well that was the 'tooth fairy' wasn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Rico.

    "So has a Whole historic Child Abuse investigation been trashed because "The Technician said it looked liked a COCONUT HUSK"

    In a word "yes." What a tragedy it is that none of our local "journalists" have ever put together, or researched, what you have just posted. All the "evidence" suggests it was skull, somebody says it looks like Coconut and that becomes the "conclusive" evidence the first commenter was probably eluding to.

    I wonder if somebody told the first commenter that a lump of turd was a cigar if they would pick it up, put it in their mouth, and attempt to light it?

    ReplyDelete
  33. I wish there had been more emphasis on the fact that the "coconut" was just ONE OF MANY items recovered from the site, and it's just a diversion compared to all the other bones and teeth found.

    It does need pointing out, otherwise people only see as far as the skull-fragment/coconut controversy and no further than that.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Indeed there were many other remains un-earthed at Haute de la Garenne that never get mentioned. Ironically the skull fragment was ruled out of the inquiry very early on as it pre-dated the timescale that was being investigated. Which begs the question, why was it sent for further testing? Why weren’t the teeth sent for further testing? The bones that were “fresh and fleshed when burnt?” For more remains that were discovered one need look little further than this <A HREF="http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2011/02/no-body-remains.html”>POSTING</A>

    ReplyDelete
  35. The Technician (who is not an Anthropologist) who was carrying out the process commented that it ‘looked like a coconut husk.

    Is this why the home affairs minister didn't release the information to the deputy of st mary. How come rico can put up all that info up yet nothing in the jep ctv or anywhere else. What did it say in the wiltshire report concerning jar6

    ReplyDelete
  36. "How come rico can put up all that info up yet nothing in the jep ctv or anywhere else."

    Three minutes into THIS INTERVIEW with former Police Chief Graham Power QPM he gives us his opinion on the local Jersey media.

    Lenny Harper also discusses the local mainstream media in an up-coming interview.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Dr Higham and Dr Jacobi (of the British Museum faunal specialist) concluded that the sample was not in fact bone, but was almost certainly wood.

    They went further stating it was more like a part of a seed casing like a small piece of coconut


    The above are taken from the rico comment. I have just gone over the Warcup release and noticed the words (almost) & (more like) they are not saying it's coconut. Now can someone please put some evidence on here where it says that the piece of whatever is coconut. Where is the evidence from Kew Garden can ypu put it up here.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Taking this interview alongside the earlier interview with Graham Power, it appears that there can only really be two options -

    1. Messrs Harper and Power are lying about everything; or
    2. They are telling the truth

    The blogs, harper, power, syvret they are the ones putting up what have the others offered. This is stupid the island is stupid. Why has this been allowed to happen and no one does anything. Everywhere you turn on this you stand in dog poo have the over side offered anything that you voice guys have said yeah that stacks up.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Well not sure if it stacks up but we've been told that the 65 children's teeth found in a cellar that doesn't EXIST were left there by the tooth fairy. We were also told by the Home Affairs Minister that they all fell out of children's mouths and fell through the exact same gap in a floorboard into the cellar that doesn't exist.

    The same Senator Le Marquand put a photo of a Coconut lampshade on all States Members seats, which Deputy Bob Hill thought to be in BAD TASTE.

    Other than that I can't think of any other "evidence" that has been able to counter the scientific and documented evidence that we have published.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I should have mentioned that all our mainstream media have ever done is broadcast or printed that complete lot of cods-wallop un-challenged.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Hi Anonymous

    As for Jar/6 I just put it all together. The Jersey Media have not touched anything that resembles evidence. As these Interviews progress you will be shocked at what comes out if you weren't already before.

    The Jersey Media must come under the Committee of Enquiry. It must stand shoulder to shoulder with the complete failure of the SOJP for failing to act on decades long Abuse. Some ex politicians still think those days were the best.

    Here are some links to the evidence produced by the Jersey Bloggers; What you must do is compare it with what has been produced by the local media


    Q&A WITH GARHAM POWER

    MINISTER OUT OF CONTROL

    SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF LENNY HARPER

    SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF GRAHAM POWER

    SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF STUART SYVRET

    NAPIER REPORT

    GRAHAM POWER A SKELETON ARGUMENT

    ACPO 1

    ACPO 2

    GRAHAM POWERS JUDICIAL REVIEW

    GRAHAM POWERS LETTER TO PPC

    SUSPENSION REVIEW 1

    SUSPENSION REVIEW 2

    SUSPENSION REVIEW 3

    ACPO 3 & 4

    And lets not forget

    NAPIER DEBACLE

    Speaks for itself

    Show no Fear

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  42. Hi VFC, One thing that's been bugging me is How and Why the stone bath was removed from the cellars/voids?
    I can see no logical reason as to why it had to be removed, they didn't need to remove it when previous building work was carried out.
    People keep going on about the skull fragment/coconut and taken in context with the investigation it's not important and only used as an excuse to try and discredit it.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Mac.

    If memory serves correct the bath had bloodstains on it. Therefore one would believe it was an item of evidence so was probably taken away by the bath fairy.

    I've no idea why it was removed but if I was to ask then would probably be told some incredible fairy tale like the one above.

    None of the "official" version of events make any sense perhaps it's a question the mainstream media would ask?....................who am I kidding.

    Rico.

    Great bit of work with the links, although that is just a fraction of what us Bloggers have published, it still exposes the total waste of time that our mainstream media are.

    ReplyDelete
  44. The Bath just vanished. No one knows what happened to it. Im sure Lenny said it was there when the building was handed back. Maybe it's at Kew Gardens and knowing our lot will come back as a Water Melon

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  45. VFC,

    The 4 (at least), dangerous, still States employees.

    (Initials only) are: ML, AB, DW,BO.

    Right or wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  46. I don’t know who the “priority” suspects are. I have my suspicions and they’re not that dissimilar to yours.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Mac. I believe the bath had to be got rid of because it was a crucial source of evidence. I suspect it was broken up - possibly before it was removed and disposed of so it could never be properly examined for traces of blood and DNA that would doubtless have been present on closer examination.

    This bath was the site of so many children and young people's abuse over the years that it was much more dangerous to the abuse deniers than 65 children's teeth. The secrets that bath was hiding could not be explained away even by the most imaginative liar. It had to go.

    Lorna

    ReplyDelete
  48. When will we be having part 2

    ReplyDelete
  49. Rico.

    I thought I would just give this one a little longer while we're waiting for the commenter to come back with the "conclusive" evidence from Kew gardens..............

    ReplyDelete
  50. Who was legally responsible when these decades of abuse where going on why haven't the people running these homes faced any charges. No one has accepted any blame for allowing this to happen in the first place how can lessons be learnt when you don't have the answers none of this makes any sense to a normal minded person

    ReplyDelete
  51. Rico. You ask why nobody running these homes has been charged and how this abuse can have been allowed to carry on. You ask why nobody has taken responsibility for this. It is worse than that. The "authorities" in Jersey have gone to great lengths to deny it ever happened and have protected paedophiles and other abusers to cover their own backs. Look what happened with the Maguires. That was a total travesty. Many of the worst offenders have died before they could come to trial. As we know some of the worst offenders are still in post - even in charge of the welfare of our most vulnerable children!

    You couldn't make it up.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Somebody has already mentioned the whole enquiry is closed so moaning about it 24/7 is hardly going to change anything.

    I dount a single contributor to this thread is a genuine 'survivor' anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Pure class.

    Not a single shred of evidence to dis-prove JAR/6 is human skull. Not a worry in the world that up to four “priority” suspects could still be in a position of power/authority. And to top it off a dig at any Abuse Survivor that might have contributed to the thread.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Hi Neil

    I hope you and your family are well and had a good Easter.

    I have just come back from Spain and am in the process of catching up with all the blogs. Your latest blog posting is brilliant and I look forward to the next installments. I thought you might like to see the below stream of e-mails. I did send another chaser to Kew Gardens a few weeks later and needless to say, I have never received a reply!!!

    Take care

    Carrie

    From: Carrie
    Sent: 23 July 2010 15:10
    To: 'info@kew.org'
    Subject: Coconut - Jersey historic abuse enquiry



    Dear Sirs



    I would be grateful if you could please respond to my e-mail addressed to you of 24th June 2010 reproduced below.



    Yours Sincerely



    Carrie Modral

    Chair Jersey Care Leavers Association





    Dear Sirs



    Please see below an e-mail exchange between voiceforchildren blog and the Jersey Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand. As a survivor of Jersey’s historic abuse enquiry and the Chair of the Jersey Care Leavers Association, both myself and other survivors are finding all these unanswered questions both very distressing and very bewildering. Could you please clarify if in fact the object found in the grounds of Haute De La Garanne was indeed identified by an “expert” at Kew Gardens to be coconut and if so when and by whom?



    When the fragment was first unearthed, it was positively identified by an Anthropologist to be a small fragment of a childs skull and in particular that it contained traces of collagen which can only be found in bone. When the fragment was re-examined some time later, it was reported that the fragment had changed in shape, size and colour! If the fragment was identified as coconut at Kew Gardens, can you further clarify that the object identified was the original fragment found in the grounds of Haute De La Garenne and confirm how you came to be in possession of the fragment and who approached you to identify said fragment?



    I sincerely hope that you can clarify the above points and I look forward to hearing from you.



    Yours Sincerely



    Carrie Modral

    Chair Jersey Care Leavers Association





    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.

    Cont

    ReplyDelete
  55. Cont:
    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.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Carrie.

    Thank you for the reminder of the "answers" I got from the Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand. You see? in his world, although he never answered a single question he thinks that he has!

    So Kew Gardens didn't even reply to your e-mails? And unless I missed it there was no evidence to prove the child's skull was Coconut in the Wiltshire Reports as Ian Le Marquand suggested there would be.

    So far all the "evidence" shows is that the item is child's skull. For those who believe it is Coconut ask yourself, besides the local media saying it's Coconut, what "evidence" have you seen? Moreover please submit that "evidence" here?

    ReplyDelete
  57. Kew Gardens is in the UK, so it should be possible to submit a formal Freedom of Information request to get those answers.

    ReplyDelete
  58. St-Ouennais.

    There lays the problem. As Lenny Harper said in the interview the item (skull fragment) was meticulously audited while it was in his, or the SOJP’s possession. When it went to Oxford it was not, by the time it got to Kew Gardens it is very likely it could have been a completely different item. Certainly by the time it got back to Jersey it had changed in size, weight, texture etc.

    One would have thought that the powers that be would be at great pains to show some kind of “evidence” to prove their theory and there should be no need for FOI requests. But in good old Ian Le Marquand style, the questions have been dodged and as Carrie has demonstrated, Kew Gardens don’t even acknowledge e-mails.

    ReplyDelete
  59. It stands to reason that the part of a child's skull dug up at HDLG and identified as a part of a child's skull by Antropologist Julie Roberts, could have spoiled the whole cover up and denial which was about to begin on Power and Harper watch.

    Therefore a good way and place to start this inevitable Committee of Inquiry into Jersey Child Abuse, would be to interview all of The Professional people employed for that dig and ask them if that dig (and painstaking sift), was a complete waste of time and effort?

    And are these Professionals happy to have their names and careers trashed along with Power and Harper?

    ReplyDelete
  60. There's another one of those strange anomalies where the "official line" just doesn't stack up.

    Although Lenny Harper's media strategy was endorsed by no less an authority than the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) Our powers that be slammed him for it. But hang on a minute didn't he have a Press Officer? Indeed he did.

    So if Lenny Harper's media strategy was that bad then surely his Press Officer would be fired.......right?.........WRONG.

    Indeed the very same Press Officer was seconded from Home Affairs, to Health to deal with the damming Verita report.

    But if the Haute de la Garenne media strategy was such a mess, then why did they use the same person to deal with the highly controversial Verita Report?

    Just another one of those un-answered questions to add to the enormous list of others.

    ReplyDelete
  61. And the Anthropologist should have been sacked shouldn't she? She couldn't tell the difference between a piece of Coconut and a piece of child's skull?..........nope not sacked and still there, although one would imagine the Coconut sketch peddled by our local media wouldn't have done her reputation any good.

    ReplyDelete
  62. VFC,

    Do you think this COI happen before the election?

    Or is it purposely going to be dragged out till after the election?

    ReplyDelete
  63. Good question. At a guess I would say it is going to be dragged out. We must remember that it was a backbench proposition that got the go ahead for a COI in the first place. The Council of Ministers broke their promise and attempted to “bury” it.

    As Senator Le Gresley brought the proposition, I must say I’m a little saddened to see that he’s not lodged any questions, written or oral, to ask the Chief Minister what the hell is going on?

    ReplyDelete
  64. VFC,
    yes the audit trail is broken at Oxford, but the questions for Kew should still be asked.

    It is a bit like doing a jig saw puzzle where you don't have the box lid, you know some bits are missing and you are convinced someone has dropped in a few pieces from some altogether different puzzle. The more of the actual verified correct pieces you can find and link together the clearer the overall picture is and the more obvious it becomes which pieces don't belong.

    Get as many independently verified facts as possible. Even the smallest detail can assist in sorting the true picture from the wishful thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  65. As Deputy Bob Hill has told us. We are not getting the TRUTH

    ReplyDelete
  66. 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". However, this appears to also be referring to statements or other evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Time to go private detective VFC!

    It is actually quite easy and the only way to get any answers that you really want. Our halfwits are so transparent it's laughable.

    ReplyDelete
  68. This has got to go down in the annuls of history as one of Ian Le Marquand's classics.

    "I do not understand what is meant by "audit trails of e-mails".

    An absolute classic!

    ReplyDelete
  69. Another MSM oversight.
    Marr

    ReplyDelete
  70. that sneaky little lawyer is at it again eh!

    find out what the legal meaning of the word 'understand' is

    ReplyDelete
  71. Lenny Harper's "opinion" is based on facts and evidence. Who tells us there is NO scientific evidence to show it is coconut.

    Have a listen to THIS

    ReplyDelete