Saturday, 17 July 2010
Below is an e-mail sent by Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM in response to an e-mail he had received from, shall we say “an interested party”. The recipient of the e-mail has requested that I do not include their e-mail in this Blog……..so I’ve REDACTED IT!! The e-mail has also been viewed by a number of politicians with an interest, which incidentally is growing.
For those of us who read the Blog Tony's Musings we are aware of the research, objectivity, impartiality, humour, satire and most importantly, in my opinion, his search for facts. He is meticulous with his research and does his utmost to inform his readers of “balanced facts”. Tony recently published a Blog about the 70% “redaction” of the Wiltshire Report.
Well the 70%, as Tony now knows might be a little “economical” and there is a strong chance that the true figure could be more than NINETY PER CENT REDACTED!
If this is correct, then the tax payer has paid well over a million quid and Ian Le Marquand is trying to convince anybody that will listen that he is being “fair” to Chief Officer Graham Power with less than TEN PER CENT of a report, after denying him a fair trial.
I was ready to show some humility to the Wiltshire Constabulary, believing that ILM and his cohorts had approved all the redacting, but after re-reading the Chief Officer’s e-mail, it reads to me as though Wiltshire have joined in with the redaction game.
Naturally, this is all truly alarming, if true, and just exposes, even further, what a sham this all is and what an utter Kangaroo Court ILM is conducting and expecting us all to swallow!
Probably the most frightening aspect of all is, if this is what can be done to the most Senior Police Officer -what have they - and what can they - do to us, the plebs?
We also must remember that the 4 ACPO Reports and the HMIC Reports scrutinizing Lenny Harper and Graham Power can be viewed in their entirety, thanks to Citizens Media (ACPO Reports) why are we only allowed to see less than TEN PER CENT of Wiltshire?
I might be thinking a little optimistic, (which is a very rare treat for me) and reading something that isn’t there (Graham Power’s e-mail below) but I could be forgiven for believing that Graham Power intends on publishing his defence somewhere along the line. It is reported to be in the region of SIXTY TWO THOUSAND words and up to a hundred pages long.
One thing is for sure - every single word of it will appear on this Blog given half the chance.
As I have explained, this document/e-mail has been redacted and slightly edited and does not make for comfortable reading.
The e-mail from CPO Power QPM in response to questions he had received from an interested party.
The problem here is that he is dealing with the redaction of a redaction.
The "Wiltshire Report" that I have fills three and a half crates. The "report" part is the investigating officers selective summary of the evidence extracted from a huge quantity of statements and documents. The defence case would have been that he has been unfairly selective in focusing on the negative elements of the evidence. So before the second "redaction" there has been a first "redaction" which in the view of the defence ignores witness evidence and documents friendly to my case.
Balance can only be achieved if the Wilts summary is read alongside my own statement. There is no other way. And my own statement should certainly be part of any archive.
Let me bore you with an example. The Wilts summary of the evidence criticises media lines taken by Lenny. But when I search through the piles of paperwork I discover that a PC (name redacted) was tasked with researching Lenny’s broadcasts and producing a summary. In that exercise he failed to find any record of claims of buried bodies and the like. On the contrary he extracts quotes such as "there is no evidence that anyone was murdered or died at HDLG in these rooms but there is evidence of abuse there." (covered in my statement para 302)........................ consequence??..............this evidence is completely ignored by Wilts in their "report" because it does not fit their agenda.......................Again.............the selectively include negative evidence offered by a media consultant named (name redacted)..............but when I dig out his report from the files I find that he also quotes Lenny as saying "We have no allegations that anyone died or was murdered there."..................(my stat para 301.) result??...............again.....totally ignored in the Wilts report...............which is selective and biased enough before being further redacted by the Minister to make it look even worse. Only the more general availability of my statement can redress this balance.
Some States Members have attempted to work out how much of the "evidence" has been redacted..............they may not be aware that a massive redaction has already taken place before the second redaction.
At a very rough assessment the evidence made available to States Members is probably less than 10% of the total.
I hope that this note is helpful..
Submitted by VFC.