Tuesday, 5 July 2011

Lenny Harper Scrutiny Evidence 1

Yesterday, Monday 4th July 2011, Former Senior Investigating Officer of "Operation Rectangle" (Jersey's Child Abuse Investigation) Lenny Harper, for the very first time, gave evidence, concerning his expenditure,  to a Scrutiny Sub Panel Chaired by St Helier Deputy Trevor Pitman.

The hearing, which lasted a little over an hour and a half, was extremely informative, and in parts, very revealing. There was standing room only and probably the highest attendance ever at a Scrutiny Panel Hearing............. bar none.

Our State Controlled Media have been offering their version of yesterday's Hearing with their trademark soundbites in the hope that the general public will buy into the snippets they have been fed.

In typical fashion Mr. Harper had no objection to ANYBODY filming his testimony, so that's exactly what we did, and offer our viewers, not our version of events, but Mr. Harpers very own words which he gave under oath.

We must point out that there are counter arguments to Mr. Harper's testimony and this is an on-going Review. Team Voice have requested to film all the Hearings so if everybody giving evidence are as "open" as Mr. Harper, and allow us to film, then we shall bring you the counter arguments also.

Mr. Harper in his own words. (part 1 of approx. 3 or 4)

79 comments:

  1. For some time now I have been watchng this story unfold and whilst I've been amazed at the tenacity of you Jersey bloggers it has been rather slow progress. But now it looks very much to me as if things are gathering apace and that the truth is very quickly starting to emerge. Well done Team Voice. You are an inspiration to a great many people.

    ReplyDelete
  2. We are all amazed as well, at the arrogance of the paedophiles and gangsters who think they can get away with this.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well done to the Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel for having a policy of openness and transparency, insofar as they let Citizens Media come and film. Nothing to hide nothing to fear. Let's hope the other witnesses are also equally transparent

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you Team Voice.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well done!
    I, just like many many others over the years, have usually relied on the media (especially the JEP) to report accurately what is going on in our Island. However, I have become increasingly sceptical about this over the last year or two.
    I have now had the benefit of hearing and seeing the first part of exactly what happened at the scrutiny meeting yesterday and, subsequently, read Ben Queree's piece in the full online version of the JEP today.
    It's not that the JEP report is inaccurate as such. I don't think it actually misreports what happened. But it is simply not accurate in that it is very selective. For example, it covers Mr Harper's views on why he was not contacted by BDO but says absolutely nothing about the real concern. Deputy Pitman, right at the start, says that he and the Scrutiny Officer had a recent meeting with BDO who infomed them that they had intended to speak to Mr Harper but that they were forbidden from doing so by the then Acting Chief Police Officer, Mr Warcup.
    This alone is a staggeringly important piece of news which the JEP has completely overlooked.
    All journalism must of necessity be selective in coverage but this, of course, can lead to bias on the part of the reporter (or, more likely) the paper or broadcaster that he or she works for.
    So, this coverage which you are providing is a real break-through which allows ordinary members of the public to see what actually happened and to make up our own minds about the issue.
    Well done again to you and to Deputy Pitman and the others for allowing the recording and filming!!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Excellent.

    Specific thanks to Rico Sorda for his investigation in bringing the BDO Alto report to the attention of the public through blogging.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Trevor Pitman was absolutely brilliant yesterday. The fact that Ben Quree makes no mention of the key points drawn out by the Deputy says it all.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Deputy Pitman is a democrat. If only we had a few more instead of the likes of Shenton, Ferguson and Senator Ian Bean.

    ReplyDelete
  9. [BDO who infomed them that they had intended to speak to Mr Harper but that they were forbidden from doing so by the then Acting Chief Police Officer, Mr Warcup.]

    This should have been big bold front page news, somehow one cannot help thinking if the shoe had been on the other foot, it would have been!!

    Warcup had no right to interfere, and BDO have, by making such a statement, proved it was not an independent report, whether it was the truth or not BDO should have ignored Warcup, they didn't, what a disgraceful shower!

    Who else do they listen to when producing independant reports?

    ReplyDelete
  10. This review will be shut down mark my words.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yes the "accredited" (discredited) media are living up to expectation.

    We've got Le Marquand telling us "it wasn't me guv" it was Gradwell that leaked Lenny Harper's Wiltshire Statement.

    We've got "it wasn't me guv" from BDO telling us that Warcup told them not to interview Lenny Harper.

    We've got Daniel Wimberley exposing our Chief Minister as a liar in the States today having been forced into admitting that Graham Power's letter to Jon Richardson was full of caveats and proviso's as to whether he could/would participate in the Napier Review. When the Chief Minister had previously said that Mr. Power had given his "categoric assurance" that he would/could participate in the Napier Review and kept the caveats quiet.

    The whole deck of cards is crashing around them and our media think we should be worried about an ape not getting a leg-over!

    ReplyDelete
  12. The whole deck of cards is crashing around them and our media think we should be worried about an ape not getting a leg-over

    LOL

    and lol some more

    ReplyDelete
  13. I thought I would leave it until today to see what the Rag had to say after CTV and BBC's very poor and lacking reports last night.

    Even Stuart gave the media the benefit of the doubt and thought perhaps the JEP would for once give the public what they need - the full facts, and the real reasons behind this very important scrutiny meeting.

    Having been there myself I have to say that the panel were excellent and asked questions without fear or favour. Much gratitude must go to Trevor Pitman for allowing this (public) meeting to be filmed by Citizens Media. Nothing can be falsified, twisted or distorted. It is all there in its fullest form for all to see.

    Mr Harper answered all questions in a long session without hesitation. I am sure no-one doubted the 100% honesty of his answers.

    So now, why are the 'accredited' media shying away from the crux of this matter? That is, why was Mr Harper excluded from giving his interpretation for a report which was ABOUT him and his team. Who authorised this. Who leaked part of a confidential report to the authors of BDO Alto, and again with whose authority.

    Quite clearly the cover-up theory on the whole Haut de la Garenne affair becomes more and credible in light of all this, which should concern each and every one of us.

    Attend the next instalment of this unfolding saga at the next Scrutiny meeting, and remember it is Team Voice who have investigated and unfolded this story, and also thanks to Deputy Pitman and his Scrutiny Panel we may get some truthful answers for a change.

    Finally, there are still a lot of people who still do not read blogs and are blissfully unaware of what is going on around them and if they carry on relying on the local accredited media they will remain in ignorance. Anyone who cares about what has happened and still is should get the message out there that there are very good local blog sites that will certainly open their eyes.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I have heard part one, may I hear the rest please? where can I find the rest of Lenny's interview, I was an abused child in Jersey and I am not living in Jersey anymore. thank you

    ReplyDelete
  15. I hope to have part two up at the weekend.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Nice one VFC

    It's good that people can see and hear exactly what is going on. Like I have said the local MSM have made their bed, they will never change.

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  17. E-mail to BBC Jersey.


    from voiceforchildren voiceforchildren voiceforchildren@googlemail.com
    to bbc radio jersey
    date Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 5:38 PM
    subject State Controlled Media.
    mailed-by googlemail.com
    5:38 PM (25 minutes ago)

    Chris.

    Just in case Christie didn't hear it, or has forgotten, the Chief Minister was exposed as a liar today by Daniel Wimberley and you, or she, might want to give it a mention on her "round up" of the states today. The departure of supt Gravett was also very uncomfortable questioning for the HA Minister by Deputy Trevor Pitman.

    God forbid you might think any of this newsworthy but a mention on the "round up?"

    VFC.

    --
    http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/

    http://voiceforjersey.blogspot.com/

    http://voiceforprotest.blogspot.com/

    Twitter https://twitter.com/#!/TheVoiceJersey

    Yep you guessed it, not a word of it mentioned!

    I then sent a one liner e-mail asking how long the BBC could get away with covering this stuff up?

    Is it any wonder the Blogs are thriving???????

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hi VFC.

    Just put up Question's 7,14 & 17 from today.

    You & your reader's can listen HERE

    ReplyDelete
  19. I am in no way defending the JEP but will (for now) hold off on critising them about not mentioning why BDO did not interview LH until after BDO is interviewed by the Panel. If you read the JEP (JEP Scrutiny Panel Hearing) they do say BDO is going to be interviewed at a later date so are waiting to hear direct from the horse's mouth. We know that the Panel will be asking that question as it is the main crux of the hearing so I believe the JEP are allowing BDO to either hang themselves or have right of reply.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I tried to leave an on line comment last night on This is Jersey on the Harper article. But on both JEP articles that featured Lenny Harper, the facility was not given, although I noticed that the facility was given for all the other news articles in the list. Does this mean that the JEP do not want on line comments on this matter? Or is it an anomaly?
    Congratulations on pitting this interview together on line- it is full and open-I hope the truth will out.

    ReplyDelete
  21. " Does this mean that the JEP do not want on line comments on this matter? Or is it an anomaly?"

    They don't want online comments (IMO)

    Bloggers should be thankful for the reluctance of our mainstream media to give the general public a voice. Bloggers should also be thankful that our mainstream media cover up for our government and Law Offices (same thing). If the media were doing a proper job then there would be less need for these Blogs.

    But as it is our readership is growing at a phenomenal rate, not sure if the mainstream media could say the same? Blogs are becoming the mainstream!

    ReplyDelete
  22. There seems to be a lot of more excitement about this interview on the blogs than anywhere else, so what is your vestige interest in it all? Trevor Pitman in interview yesterday said this was not an exoneration exercise but just a look at the other side of the story so whats all the hype about? If Lenny Harper says an audit of his spending is to cover up child abuse do you really believe him? Please explain why this interview means so much compared to the view points of so many other professional people?

    ReplyDelete
  23. To the chap who recently posted a comment asking why all the interest in this interview, I would offer a simple explanation of my personal view. I should add that I am not a establishment-knocker or a knocker of any sort - just someone who is interested in the facts.
    The Lenny Harper interview is important to me because it allows me to listen to evidence (which is backed up by sworn affidavits) and to judge for myself where I think the truth lies.
    I would be equally happy to hear a similar interview with the Home Affairs Minister and the others involved - particularly if their statements were backed up by sworn affidavits.
    This would enable me to form a balanced view.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Sworn affidavits are immaterial when trying to justify spending and they are equally immaterial if the person does not swear them in a Court of law during a proper trial in which they can be cross examined. Trevor Pitman said this is not an exoneration exercise but from views on here I'd say you are taking it as so. I would therefore add that if Ian Le Marquand was put in the reverse role had been confronted with all the findings of over spends you'd be rubbing his nose in it.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I'd also like to respond to the question about why there is so much interest in this.

    #1. The facts now in evidence versus the "official explanations" by "professionals" are lining up dramatically on the side of facts. The reason so many people have come to believe Lenny Harper is that facts in evidence, including forensic evidence, documents, email, and official data back him up. It really is that simple. Only those who know the individual personally should accept anyone's word in this at face value. The Jersey blogs rarely do present opinion as fact although their readers might, because the blogs often have the forms of evidence most reasonable people would define as proof.

    #2. Only Stuart's blog posts the number of readers, well over 420,000, but if the Voice blogs, including Rico's and those which link to them, are seeing tremendous increases in local and wordwide readership, the level of interest shouldn't be in doubt. The interest of the local accredited media and the officials they speak for should not be in doubt either. Just because the media is not covering this very thoroughly does not mean they are not all frantic about the implications of their increasingly exposed cover-up. Countless hours and (yet untold) millions have been spent to prevent full transparency within the power structure of Jersey.

    #3. Only within the Island of Jersey could police, unelected officials, politicians, civil servants, and the mainstream media keep this from being a huge story of corruption behind a wavering facade of democracy. It would be an explosive MSM story anywhere else in the English speaking diaspora.

    #4. Finally, with the availability of internet access, there is only one way this story can play out. So much of the true evidence has already been made permanently documented online, including the history of contradictory statements by those so called "professionals" who still cling to feudalistic power in a world which will no longer accept that.

    Mark my words: The spin can no longer keep up with the available factual evidence and even if that leads to increasingly desperate measures by the so-called professionals, their attempts to shut down further transparency will still be
    exposed online.

    K

    ReplyDelete
  26. Keep in mind that the discredited accredited local media is more difficult to access outside the island. The BBC does not keep all of their radio coverage online for long, the CTV blocks access video overseas, and the JEP does not publish all their stories online.

    The blogs are a few seconds away from anyone in the world, so the States Media attempts to ignore or spin this is not relevant to coverage seen in the rest the world. The only thing about the local BBC, CTV and JEP of interest to outsiders is their complicity. Plain and simple, that is their only claim to importance.

    ReplyDelete
  27. It could be considered exciting whenever controversial scrutiny questions are allowed because transparency is just not The Jersey Way. Most of the time, people are kept in the dark by those arrogantly self important "professionals" who's political and financial interests are in direct competition with the well being of the Regular Islander. We might not learn all the complete answers just from this one Panel but it is a really exciting change to see they have not yet put a halt to the panel's right to ask these questions. That is a real surprise, even if the answers from some key officials are suspiciously vague and factually contradictory.

    ReplyDelete
  28. The Marquis of the Carrabas6 July 2011 at 22:16

    I would therefore add that if Ian Le Marquand was put in the reverse role had been confronted with all the findings of over spends you'd be rubbing his nose in it.

    This is total nonsense. A fiction created in order to try and confuse the issue. Ignore it.

    The facts are that ILM has been deeply conflicted, harshly biased, wildly evasive, disengenous and to his eternal embarrasment has been found out time and time again. His term in office has been a disaster. I think he deserves Planning for a summer boot camp.

    ReplyDelete
  29. How can you claim "findings of overspend," whatever that entails, when you have only a terribly expensive and ethically compromised investigation into decisions made by a target who was NEVER EVEN ASKED? Sheesh.

    Why was Lenny Harper only able to get his statement out through his affidavit? BDO ALTO was forbidden to speak with him! FORBIDDEN by an officer within a police administration which ILM is now blaming for a serious data protection type media leak to an internationally discredited and disgraced professional abuse denier.

    Why did the police dictate that BDO could not hear from the person they were paid so much to audit?
    Is that not an interesting question for a place which describes itself as a democracy?

    How much did the combined Wiltshire/BDO/ and related efforts to find some alleged overspend by Lenny Harper cost in additional hotels, flights, entertainment and meals ALONE? And, despite BDO finding nothing to discipline Harper for, they did not even find anything worth QUESTIONING him about?

    So how many hotel nights at a 4star hotel does it actually take to find any older hotel charges by Harper's team worth asking Harper to explain? We will never know. Remember, nothing spent by Harper's team was unapproved by those in the government position to OK the expenditures. No expense account violations By Harper were ever actually demonstrated or documented in evidence. What you take as "findings of overspend" are only some false rumours, deliberately and illegally leaked to discredit Lenny Harper, the man who knew too much about Jersey's child abuse.

    If the anonymous commenter who believes sworn affidavits don't matter isn't joking, he or she has some catching up to do on the rest of the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  30. central database6 July 2011 at 23:10

    Watch Mark Wyne-Thomas' report on Newsnight tonite with the I-player.

    Britain is falling down the world rankings in terms of child protection and peadohillia convictions.

    And great post K. Like your style.

    ReplyDelete
  31. 420,000 hits in 3 years is nothing unusual and if you compare that to the tens of thousand of viewers of say Channel TV across the C.I. every night its actually very tiny. To me, its only one man's version of events against many and opinions of what he did are only being agreed with by bloggers.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "and opinions of what he did are only being agreed with by bloggers."

    Just priceless stuff. Here we have somebody who can speak for the millions upon millions of people who don't Blog. 10 out of 10 for entertainment value thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "Tens of thousands" of viewers in Jersey? Perhaps, but the blogs have a far wider international exposure. The msm in Jersey is mostly reduced to talking to itself by repeating the same discredited falsehoods. The accredited media you proudly tout is limited to telling the same viewers only what they expect to be limited to hearing. Reassuring spin beats facts only if you are an ostrich with your head in the sand.

    ReplyDelete
  34. '420,000 hits in 3 years is nothing unusual and if you compare that to the tens of thousand of viewers of say Channel TV across the C.I. every night its actually very tiny.'

    I'm afraid that you don't understand - that's not hits but individual ip users. In other words, up to 420,000 unique visitors will have accessed the site (although some will have more than one ip address) - which is about 15 times the amount of people who read the JEP (in other words the JEP has about 30,000 readers, but they are the same readers each night).

    ReplyDelete
  35. GOEBBELS' PRINCIPLES OF PROPAGANDA - Or is it the JEP & COM's ?


    1. Propagandist must have access to intelligence concerning events and public opinion.

    2. Propaganda must be planned and executed by only one authority.

    a. It must issue all the propaganda directives.

    b. It must explain propaganda directives to important officials and maintain their morale.

    c. It must oversee other agencies' activities which have propaganda consequences

    3. The propaganda consequences of an action must be considered in planning that action.

    4. Propaganda must affect the enemy's policy and action.

    a. By suppressing propagandistically desirable material which can provide the enemy with useful intelligence

    b. By openly disseminating propaganda whose content or tone causes the enemy to draw the desired conclusions

    c. By goading the enemy into revealing vital information about himself

    d. By making no reference to a desired enemy activity when any reference would discredit that activity

    5. Declassified, operational information must be available to implement a propaganda campaign

    6. To be perceived, propaganda must evoke the interest of an audience and must be transmitted through an attention-getting communications medium.

    7. Credibility alone must determine whether propaganda output should be true or false.

    8. The purpose, content and effectiveness of enemy propaganda; the strength and effects of an expose; and the nature of current propaganda campaigns determine whether enemy propaganda should be ignored or refuted.

    9. Credibility, intelligence, and the possible effects of communicating determine whether propaganda materials should be censored.

    10. Material from enemy propaganda may be utilized in operations when it helps diminish that enemy's prestige or lends support to the propagandist's own objective.

    11. Black rather than white propaganda may be employed when the latter is less credible or produces undesirable effects.

    12. Propaganda may be facilitated by leaders with prestige.

    13. Propaganda must be carefully timed.

    a. The communication must reach the audience ahead of competing propaganda.

    b. A propaganda campaign must begin at the optimum moment

    c. A propaganda theme must be repeated, but not beyond some point of diminishing effectiveness

    14. Propaganda must label events and people with distinctive phrases or slogans.

    a. They must evoke desired responses which the audience previously possesses

    b. They must be capable of being easily learned

    c. They must be utilized again and again, but only in appropriate situations

    d. They must be boomerang-proof

    15. Propaganda to the home front must prevent the raising of false hopes which can be blasted by future events.

    16. Propaganda to the home front must create an optimum anxiety level.

    a. Propaganda must reinforce anxiety concerning the consequences of defeat

    b. Propaganda must diminish anxiety (other than concerning the consequences of defeat) which is too high and which cannot be reduced by people themselves

    17. Propaganda to the home front must diminish the impact of frustration.

    a. Inevitable frustrations must be anticipated

    b. Inevitable frustrations must be placed in perspective

    18. Propaganda must facilitate the displacement of aggression by specifying the targets for hatred.

    19. Propaganda cannot immediately affect strong counter-tendencies; instead it must offer some form of action or diversion, or both.

    ReplyDelete
  36. That's the BBC's constitution isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Can you do me a big favour and tell me where you can get that graphic of the spinning globe at the beginning of your piece from please? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  38. 420,000 hits in 3 years is nothing unusual and if you compare that to the tens of thousand of viewers of say Channel TV across the C.I. every night its actually very tiny. To me, its only one man's version of events against many and opinions of what he did are only being agreed with by bloggers.

    Who gives a sh*t about hits when Babylon is burning

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  39. "Who gives a sh*t about hits when Babylon is burning

    rs"

    Rico, with all that is being exposed by the good bloggers of Jersey at the moment, half the time I never know weather to laugh or cry but reading that comment, I absolutely PMSL!!!

    C

    ReplyDelete
  40. "How many hotel nights at a 4star hotel does it actually take..."

    Sounds like a lead in to a light bulb joke. But seriously, how many nights in a 4 start hotel does it take auditors to find one night Lenny Harper should not have been allowed by whomever authorized it? BDO and Wiltshire = ridiculous joke. Jersey's own form of tragically true stand up comedy.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Wasn't Shenton and Le Main eembarrassing in the States today? Shenton's insults are a joke. If he was a progessive he would be pulled up every day. Time PPC stopped his wages if he can't even be bothered to stay in the States while we pay him.

    ReplyDelete
  42. "But seriously, how many nights in a 4 start hotel does it take auditors to find one night Lenny Harper should not have been allowed by whomever authorized it?"

    Answer: So far there is no legitimate evidence Lenny Harper spent more than was correctly authorized. So the answer is how ever much tax payer money was billed to investigate his expenditures, - it was a waste and a sham.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Credit where it is due Trevor Pitman takes up the issues 99% of the others wouldn't go near for fear. Reckon we have the wrong baldy on the senatorial benches.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Couldn't agree more. Trevor Pitman has shown himself to be principled, determined and honest. He Shows no fear and if there's anybody in the job for the money, then it's certainly not him.

    By tackling the issues that he does makes him a lot of enemies with the powers that be and their media. If all he was after was the money then he would be taking a leaf out of Ann Dupre's book by keeping his head down, not bringing any propositions or amendments, not asking any questions in the States and voting with the Establishment.

    He does what he does for the right reasons (IMO) and can always hold his head high and sleep at night with a sound conscience.......how many more of our politicians could say the same?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Professor Tony has a new posting up concerning the new public "accessibility" to Jersey's old case archives. It seems a few previously available cases have actually become more restricted to the public, under this guise of greater transparency.

    Tony has found that to be true of access to archives related to Jervis-Dykes, which now have become more restricted under this new transparency scheme.

    This comment by Tom Gruchy on Tony's post best sums it up this way, "Yes - the usual one step forward and two steps back.
    Somebody should ask who is actually editing this stuff and by what authority?
    Presumably the Judicial Greffier's hand is guided here by some authority or other but there should be scope to ask questions in the States.
    In case none of the 53 come forward - is anybody else volunteering to research this further?"

    Could the relentless investigative efforts of local bloggers be the real reason certain historic abuse related cases are now harder to access? Is someone afraid of judicial case scrutiny, now that bloggers have brought real journalism to Jersey?

    ReplyDelete
  46. CLUELESS JERSEY

    hahaha word v "noncycm" !!!

    How fitting

    ReplyDelete
  47. It look like the JEP are cold calling people to see if they buy the JEP and if not why,

    ReplyDelete
  48. Hi VFC.

    Put Some Audio up from last weeks Debate on getting back the 4 lost Senator's. A must listen.

    You can Listen HERE

    ReplyDelete
  49. Excuses excuses excuses. It will never wash, face it Lenny Harper dined out with News of the World Reporters at the expense of the tax payer and with further inquires put into motion over the past 72 hours what else will they be pulling up? You have put far too much faith into this man.

    ReplyDelete
  50. You're not a JEP reader by any chance are you? If you are could you show us any "evidence" to back up their Coconut claim and tell us where the 1.6% collagen (only found in mammals) got to?

    Thanks in advance.

    ReplyDelete
  51. You are doing excellent work here, but you may want to check into the background of a site you link to, Biased BBC, because it is probably not what you think it is. The purpose of that site is more in line with Rupert Murdoch's media empire, an ultra-right wing monopoly which has been subjected to BBC journalistic scrutiny. If BBC in Jersey is an embarrassment to the word journalist, the Biased BBC site is an opponent of real investigative journalism into the political activities and financial dealings of mega-sized News Corp.

    ReplyDelete
  52. How sad that you think the pathetic coconut find is still human.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Yeah, silly me remind me what evidence any of the media have come up with to support their CONSPIRACY THEORY?

    ReplyDelete
  54. States of Jersey Press Release of 24th May 2008 quotes the following:

    "it could not be collagen "unless it is extremely degraded."

    If this is where the bloggers are on this one, trying to make bodies out of old coconut shells then why should you be taken seriously?

    ReplyDelete
  55. http://www.jersey.police.uk/news/Pages/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsItemId=232

    This is your link of 25th May 2008SO maybe you can explain in your blog readers why this press release that was actually authorised by Lenny Harper is now a load of rubbish then?

    ReplyDelete
  56. "maybe you can explain in your blog readers why this press release that was actually authorised by Lenny Harper is now a load of rubbish then?"

    No I couldn't to be honest, so hope that you can? Here are a couple of snippets from your link, and again I must ask where did the 1.6% collagen (only found in mammals) go?


    On 20th March the lab contacted the SOJP again. They said they had made an error and that the collagen level was actually better than originally thought. There was enough to date it - in fact there was 1.6% and only 1% was needed. Remember, this substance is found in mammals including human but not in wood etc.

    Mr Harper has never, in spite of Mr Malone’s claims, “admitted” that he knew the fragment was a coconut shell. This is clearly because there is absolutely no scientific evidence to say that. Furthermore, the DCO never said he had made a mistake. He acknowledged that “some people think I got the decision wrong – it is something I can’t reverse now. Would my answer have been different? The honest answer is I really don’t know.”

    Mr Harper has NEVER said “We don’t now think it is bone or skull.” He did not say it to Mr Malone or anyone else. As stated above, the transcript of exactly what Mr Harper said in this interview is available for anyone who would like to see it.

    ReplyDelete
  57. It reads as if Lenny Harper will never admit either way about this find depspite this SOJP press release during his time. But if this fragment was 'so decayed that its been said that it could not be collagen unless it is extremely degraded' then eventually you will have to accept this SOJP press release of May 24th 2008 because that is from the Police themselves (under Harper) and not the News of the World or anybody else.

    ReplyDelete
  58. The truth is, as Lenny Harper himself has explained many times, there is no definitive conclusion as to what it is. All the “evidence” points to a piece of bone belonging to mammal. The State controlled media seem to ignore this “evidence” and focus on a “throw away comment” made by a “technician.”

    The difference with our state controlled media and a number of Bloggers is that the Bloggers go with the “facts” and “evidence”. The State controlled media go with (tooth)fairy tales and teeth falling through gaps in floorboards.

    ReplyDelete
  59. You are expressing Lenny Harper's personal opinion which doesn't amount to that much as he isn't an Oxford scientist. Keep on digging.

    ReplyDelete
  60. "The SOJ Police have never confirmed until now that shackles were found. We do now, and also for the first time, confirm that a second pair of what appear to be “home made” restraints were also discovered."

    These are the bed springs. But whats the difference between the description of 'home made restraints and shackles' then?

    ReplyDelete
  61. You’re a JEP reader aren’t you? Isn’t the bedspring sketch the “opinion” of the now, disgraced Mick Gradwell?

    Taken from a posting by Rico Sorda.

    “ Lets finish this Blog Posting on the issues this Blog has been fighting for a very long time "The Jersey Child Abuse Cover Up"

    First up we have Mick Gradwell showing evidence on TV while the Child Abuse Investigation is still live. The other thing I noticed in this Clip is the Bed Spring. Now, was there only one Bed Spring? The one taped up in the box looks nothing like the one presented at the November 12th shafting of Graham Power. Look for yourselfs. Do you notice the difference. Just listen to what Mick Gradwell says. He starts sounding like some dude from Antique Road Show. Also, if there are witness statements that corroborate the use of 'Shackles' why is he showing them on TV? What happens if someone walked in 3 days later and says I was Abused in those restraints?”

    The posting can be read HERE

    ReplyDelete
  62. Are you serious in saying that his opinion is part of a cover-up? Mick Gradwell comes from Northern England so whats his personal connection to Jersey?

    ReplyDelete
  63. I think you bloggers are stuck in the middle of the news of 2008 and are pretending everything is still in that time. If anyone is trying to cover things up its yourselves over the way the abuse case was handled. Ben Shenton is 100% correct in raising these important questions about how such ridiculous stories appeared in the Press during the time because you believe them obviously.

    ReplyDelete
  64. What I’m saying is Mick Gradwell exhibited evidence to the media during a live investigation. This could have, and more than likely did, prevent prosecutions going ahead. Why would he do that?

    Ben Shenton’s time would be better spent asking how our children could be abused for decades in State run "care" homes, rather than trying to discredit those who exposed it.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Mick Gradwell exhibited evidence to the media because he wanted to show everybody what rubbish had been collected up HDLG during the dig. What was it, guttering from the 1950's? His experience in homicide was much more technical than anything Lenny Harper had done so Mick Gradwell's opinion held more weight as far as the Police were concerned. This case is closed and you would need somebody of a similar calibre to Mick Gradwell's if you ever wanted it open again which as time goes on is highly unlikely of ever happening. I find it strange that a number of blogs keep on patting themselves on the back for raising issues they think are relevant but in reality have no bearing on the decisions already made. And this cover-up argument has no basis because the people who closed the case don't even have connections with Jersey. If you still believe this fragment of coconut or whatever is bone, thats your opinion but that SOJP press release befroe Gradwell arrived clearly states it cannot be concluded as such. Thanks for getting involved in this exchange anyhow it proves blogs will engage with critics once in a while.

    ReplyDelete
  66. I am pleased you are no longer convinced that the bone fragment is Coconut. Your opinions are always welcome as long as they are not personal insults. But we still can’t get away from the fact that Mick Gradwell, more likely than not, prevented prosecutions from taking place by showing, to the media, evidence in a live investigation. But as you say that’s the “caliber” of Mick Gradwell.

    ReplyDelete
  67. There will be differences of opinion but the opinion on here is miles away from what’s happened, what’s likely to happen, being nothing and what’s already been said, concluded and archived.

    I don't know what that find is, nor do they, but to conclude its a dead child has been ruled out by the powers who have handled this case, they say the collagen if it ever was collagen is not there anymore and may never have been there in the first place.

    It’s presence ever being suggested is a red herring. Explanations for other things is another wide ranging subject/debate again but if we cannot trust what outside Police Officers think when re-viewing all this material then we will forever be stuck in a quandary where conspiracy theory takes precedent over reality.

    Much argument is that the attacks on the handling of this case were to cover up child abuse, I don't think they should ever been mangled together in the first place.

    But I do not buy the cover-up deflect theory and never will. I would say that’s more of a political explanation for some peoples' behaviour whilst this was going on and simply that. To conclude cover-up takes you back to square one.

    It’s just an opinion and holds no weight anywhere else because you need hard evidence to prove such a thing if any court is even prepared to entertain it.

    Besides if this was one massive cover-up then why haven't more people in authority come forward to back up such claims, where are they, what's stopping them?

    Ciao

    ReplyDelete
  68. You could have saved yourself a lot of typing and just used this sentence on its own.

    "But I do not buy the cover-up deflect theory and never will."

    It's the "never will" that lets you down.

    As for this sentence.

    "Besides if this was one massive cover-up then why haven't more people in authority come forward to back up such claims, where are they, what's stopping them?"

    I would say............."watch this space"

    ReplyDelete
  69. I would say............."watch this space"

    Will do.

    ReplyDelete
  70. "Besides if this was one massive cover-up then why haven't more people in authority come forward to back up such claims, where are they, what's stopping them?"

    I would say............."watch this space"

    Now that really is a tantalising prospect. Do you have a timescale to put on when that might be?

    ReplyDelete
  71. Neil

    Whatever happened to this new ZERO POLICY on TROLLS???

    When is it going to start???

    ReplyDelete
  72. Why so many cases not prosecuted?

    I believe Mr. Shenton should be questioned as to his early involvement in 2008 with regards leaks.

    ReplyDelete
  73. I also frown on publishing troll comments but the commenter who asks questions and does not simply insult you could be a JEP reader who relies on them for evidence, and desperately hopes the JEP is right.

    For example, "If we cannot trust what outside Police Officers think when re-viewing all this material then we will forever be stuck in a quandary where conspiracy theory takes precedent over reality."

    The original Police Administration, Team Power and Harper, were also outside officers. They were trashed without any properly transparent investigation into what you call reality. An honest investigation could have resulted in charges in court and or right of reply had there been any real basis for the later allegations and smears.

    These same police authorities hired from outside have submitted Sworn Affidavits which, so far, no one in authority has been willing to factually challenge or disprove. I would expect some nervous hedging soon by those in authority if questioned about whether they can find impeachable statements in those Affidavits. So far, no one has been able to disprove their words. If no one in authority will present factual documentation at variance with those statements, that alone becomes something profoundly important to consider.

    The next hired set of outside officers, especially Gradwell, whom you seem to admire, will likely be questioned over false information and Gradwell is now being accused by ILM of illegally leaking a confidential statement. Is that his "calibre?"

    As for coconut, all we know is that no actual scientific evidence found it to be coconut, and Lenny Harper had already dismissed any bone from the location that fragment was unearthed because it was believed to be a Victorian era find, not at all the "calibre" of evidence his team unearthed later, including childrens' bones which were fleshed and fresh at the time they were burned and then reburied. The milk teeth with long roots attached were observed by a number of people. Many teeth "did not appear to have come out naturally," and these teeth have never been subjected to the most definitive date testing, for "financial reasons" despite such tests being reasonably affordable.

    Financially speaking, the cost of the testing surely would not exceed the cost of sham investigative reports (including expensive lunches and accommodations for BDO, Wiltshire and others) into a few lunches, all of which have been well explained and justified in the same Sworn Affidavits mentioned above.

    You already have stated honestly that you will not change your mind about this, and I assume that means spinning facts within said mind if newly emerging evidence becomes too uncomfortable to believe.

    You may want to grab a stiff drink and hang on to your seat.

    Elle

    ReplyDelete