As
published in the previous BLOG POSTING US investigative journalist and author
Leah McGrath Goodman has been back to the Island of Jersey continuing her research into the
Haut de la Garenne atrocities after being BANNED from the UK and Jersey for two
years, later reduced to a year after the intervention of UK MP John Hemming and
an ONLINE PETITION set up by Jersey politician Deputy Trevor Pitman. Miss
Goodman was banned after it became apparent that she was investigating the
decades of paedophilia and Child Abuse that has occurred in State run "care" homes and elsewhere on the Island.
In the (exclusive) interview below Leah McGrath Goodman explains how she has received information that the Jersey authorities are still treating the abuse victims/survivors the very same way as they were treated while they were being abused. The victims/survivors are, according to Miss Goodman, still being portrayed as liars and criminals by the governments lawyers involved in the redress scheme. We hear of "lodgers" staying at Haut de la Garenne while it was still being run as a children's home, and as mentioned in Ted Jeory's article Bergerac being filmed while children were still resident.
Miss Goodman also tells us "we WILL be naming them" in regards to the abusers who have not yet faced "justice." She recounts what she was told by a victim/survivor who said "if I could just wake up and know that they were sorry I could live again." We are also told how Jersey's reputation, on the world stage, is being damaged by those attempting to cover up the truth.
.jpg)
Sorry Leah, but we don't have courts of justice Lady, only courts of "Law"!
ReplyDeleteThanks to voice for children getting this interview and moving the victims voices out into the open. Keep up the excellent work. Ms Goodman thank you for caring enough to keep this going at an international level.
ReplyDeleteSplendid! Justice longs to see the concerns of Jersey's abuse survivors finally validated by this journalist.
ReplyDeletenice to see a brave young lady who cares
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like Witch Hunt Number 2.
ReplyDeleteIf there is not enough evidence to charge people then they can't be charged and if people are named without Trial that's libel.
Ah the old libel threat again. Jimmy Savile threatened the Sun newspaper with libel action over a photograph they published of him at Haut de la Garenne and, as we now know, Savile is probably the most prolific paedophile Britain has ever seen. It has since been reported that there WAS enough evidence to charge Savile but due to alleged political and judicial corruption/incompetence he never was charged. Shall the same “mistakes” be repeated? Isn’t it time, in light of the Savile atrocities, to question the “official line” in order to protect children/victims?
DeleteIt makes no difference, if they cannot charge somebody then to call them a paedophile without trial is libel.
DeleteIt is not a threat, it's the law.
Then it would be up to the alleged paedophile to take the person to an OPEN court under a libel action and not to a secret court on a Data Protection charge. Furthermore if the alleged paedophile has already been named in open court then (unless reporting restrictions have been put in place) they can be publically named.
DeleteWhat's the Data Protection Law got to do with naming paedophiles without sentence?
DeleteIt's not libel if it's true.
DeleteFull marks for an excellent and professional interview. It is good to see she has a handle on what is going on and it would be very useful if she, and others, could keep up pressure on the enquiry. It might then turn into something much more useful than those who set it up anticipated.
ReplyDeleteThe background she reveals, the Government's approach to the victims, does not bode well, though, and gives some support to Stuart's attitude to the enquiry.
Combined pressure on the enquiry on the Island itself and the knowledge that Stuart is on his way to Europe via London, might just stiffen the odd backbone - enough to turn the enquiry into something useful in the longer run.
Once again, congratulations on a fabulous interview, well conducted and edited. The MSM could learn a ton from you in this area.
Jimmy Savile is also dead.
ReplyDeleteHardly in a position to defend himself is he?
His victims and the victims of the Jersey Child Abuse atrocities never had a position to defend themselves either. It is no wonder that Jersey's reputation is suffering so badly when we STILL have those attempting to support paedophiles and show no compassion/support to victims.
DeleteYou seem to think that people can be labelled without not only a fair trial but any trial at all.
DeleteI am glad you are not running the justice system otherwise we would be back to kangaroo courts and hanging in the Royal Square in no time.
By the way I do not support any abuser of children, nobody does.
Kangaroo Courts are best left to IAN LE MARQUAND
DeleteJersey "justice" system when it comes to bringing paedophiles to court?
"There were 151 suspects, of which 30 are no longer living, so that leaves 121 suspects. Out of those 121 suspects 8 of them were charged, having met “the evidential test” and it being in “the public interest” to charge them. So that means 113 suspects didn’t face prosecution,"
Take a LOOK
Yes but historic abuse cases are notoriously difficult to bring to trial.
DeleteNo DNA, little or no evidence, no witnesses, 20 year + ago, you cannot just slam people into Court on the sayso of others. This is not the 16th Century and by naming people without trial you are going against their Human Rights and jeopardising any trial they may have in the future.
I am just going to wait until the proper inquiry is held as the way Leah McGrath Goodman and you are talking any pre-judging before the inquiry could be a disaster.
And there’s also the chance of political/judicial corruption that ensures certain paedophiles/abusers don’t reach a court.
DeleteWho says this?
DeleteThere is either enough evidence or there isn't.
Playing a blame game and making out there is political and judicial corruption without a scrap of proof is not proof.
You must read the comments carefully before rabidly protecting paedophiles. My comment starts; "There is always the CHANCE of political/judicial corruption." Not proof.
Delete"I do not support any abuser of children, nobody does." Yes they do. Jersey is full of feet stomping politicians who did and who do support child abusers.
ReplyDeleteThat is correct. Those claiming there is no proof of support for abusers are simply being wishful, or they are being paid to cast dispersion on victims. Any list of evidence that island authorities have continually - for more than a generation - supported certain abusers and/or refused to prosecute or even investigate most care home abuse, would easily fill books, and it will...
DeleteElle
I am horrified, they really tried to have these victims made out to be mad or bad?! That is so awful. People who have been abused as children often grow up with problems, and if they attempt to bring the abusers to justice, the abusers sometimes try to use the problems against them. But the States actually writing to psychiatrists like that is unbelievable! Why doesn't someone inform Her Majesty, the Queen, of this matter?
ReplyDeleteThis is why a number of victims/survivors are seeing any apology as hollow. They are STILL being treated the way they were decades ago that enabled the abuse to carry on. It appears no lessons have been learnt and the UK, who has responsibility for good governance, and the rule of law in Crown Dependencies turn a blind eye to JERSEY
DeleteI note this interview was carried out in Jersey's Champagne Lounge at the Grand Hotel. How ironic - wasn't MS Goodman attacked because apparently Jersey didn't have any such establishments? But a good choice as it happened because whether you are aware or not the Champagne Lounge was long the Establishment 'elite' watering hole of choice; certainly throughout the last Assembly. Senators Ozouf, Cohen, MacLean and well known local spin doctor Mr Rankine to name but a few. Indeed, when once I happeed to chance upon them deciding Jersey's future on my way to checking out the gym there they felt compelled - somewhat sheepishly I thought, to offer to buy me a drink! But don't worry - I didn't 'join the club'. Did join a gym though.
ReplyDeleteTrevor, maybe that muppet from twitter @RuckingGray will view Leah's calm rational interview and wind his little rugger bugger neck in a bit? Last time he couldn't slate her enough. I wonder why? Maybe you should tweet him a link?
DeleteVoice - ROFL at the choice of the Champagne Bar. In the face of serious issues, your wit and courage are brilliant.
Nice to see measured journalism instead of the vile bile conjured up by bullies like the wrecker troll. May justice in all its forms win out over these hateful figures. You also have ask is it simply thr0ugh fear that they attack citizens media bloggers like yourself and this professional and gutsy US journalist? Perhaps such people have secrets they are worried about being unccovered so scream libel to try and frighten people away/
ReplyDeleteRough Justice?
ReplyDeleteWhen is Leah Goodman publishing all these claims and names?
Due to the growing national and international interest in this story LMG won’t be the only journalist publishing these “claims and names.” When that will be is not clear as yet. But no doubt some of those who have escaped “justice” thus far will be keeping a close eye.
DeleteThis is still not the way to do things.
DeleteHow would you like to be accused like this without any trial by what appears to be a lynch mob?
If I were unjustly accused of any terrible crime, I would hope to have a chance to clear my name somewhere far from Jersey. The reason defending one's self might not work very well in Jersey is because the whole world already believes that guilty abusers in Jersey get away with their crimes. That's is the only logical conclusion an outside could draw. So, if Jersey want to protect the innocent from unfair allegations, Jersey needs to justly prosecute the guilty. As of now, Jersey is only demonizing the innocent victims. Honestly, at this point, the lynch mob could not be less trustworthy than a government which so notoriously protects abusers and even supports drunken trolls who threaten whistleblowers.
DeleteElle
Anonymous above keeps banging on that if there was not enough evidence to charge some accused then that is final ignores the possibility that the people who have the power to assess whether there is "enough evidence" truly have integrity and were not influenced in their judgement by other considerations such as protecting significant figures in Jersey's apparatus from prosecution, probably because the opened can of worms would get larger and larger and the mud would stick to far more people.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I am aware the only adults 'lodging' in HdlG building at the time of Bergerac filming were live-in staff. Not outsiders.
ReplyDeleteI have met with the Deputy Bailiff to ask outright why certain individuals hadn't been taken to trial, bottom line is, while there was evidence against them there was also much evidence speaking FOR them. Unbelievable but true.
It has been made clear from the beginning that the inquiry will be just that, an inquiry, not a trial and I was told that a lot of new evidence would have to come to light before any further prosecutions would be considered.
Why are so many top notch lawyers going to be involved in this inquiry? Because you cannot publicly name anyone who hasn't been proven guilty, that's why. They simply won't allow it! I have to say I agree that you cannot simply stand up in public and openly name and accuse people, much as many would like this to happen it wouldn't be right.
The cases heard so far in court may appear to be 'showcase' trials, to a certain extent they were but please don't think that the likes of the Jordans were just there as scapegoats. These people were, without doubt, child abusers, unfortunately the sentences received were nowhere near what they deserved. The sentences these abusers imposed on their victims are lifelong.
I'm afraid I have lost faith in this inquiry and expect it to be a farce and a cover up. I hope I'm proven wrong.
@Anonymous "If there is not enough evidence to charge people then they can't be charged and if people are named without Trial that's libel."
ReplyDeleteSince the Jimmy Savile affair came to light, numerous people have been charged and as with Stuart Hall today, are being convicted. Much depends on the attitude of the prosecuting authorities.
When the prosecuting authorities have an appetite to prosecute these kind of offences, you miraculously find that the evidence was there all the time. In Jersey, the authorities were averse to investigating and prosecuting these offences until Lenny Harper came along, and then the powers above him tried to shut down his investigation.
Stuart Hall claimed, like you do, that all of this was a calumnious fiction but it turned out not to be. I would put money on the fact that if the people that Stuart Syvret has named on his blog (and Lenny Harper as much as confirmed were prime suspects) were investigated properly by a criminal prosecution service that had an appetite to prosecute, that they would be in court already.
If the journalists are now confident enough to name them, it is only being done in an attempt to shame the Jersey authorities into taking the action they should have done years before. But this is no different to the Jimmy Savile affair - the police already knew about him but failed to prosecute.
In fact, it is the Jimmy Savile affair. He visited HdlG and, according to one ex-resident, even parked his caravan there. Given that he is now known to have been a criminal paedophile who committed 1,300 offences (known ones), what do you think he was doing at HdlG? Shouldn't the Jersey police currently be investigating that? Every other police force in the land is.
@Anonymous "If there is not enough evidence to charge people then they can't be charged and if people are named without Trial that's libel."
ReplyDeleteSo I would assume anyone who believes there is not enough evidence against them, and then finds their name printed in a National Newspaper/s, will claim they have been wrongly accused, and will immediately move forward with a libel case, and no doubt the National Paper/s will then provide the evidence to the courts. I guess the newspaper/s will obtain QC advice beforehand and so I doubt they would get it wrong.
"I have met with the Deputy Bailiff to ask outright why certain individuals hadn't been taken to trial, bottom line is, while there was evidence against them there was also much evidence speaking FOR them. Unbelievable but true."
ReplyDeleteUnbelievable, yes!
Stuart Hall received justice today - not enough but still some justice. I remember him abusing me - and I remember him in Jersey too. I feel some peace and vindication that this has happened - finally some small justice. My last post here truly this time. A, North West
ReplyDelete"It sounds like Witch Hunt Number 2."
ReplyDeleteI do not know what interview you listened too, but it certainly cannot have been Leah's, shes doing research, National Newspapers are/will print there stories, COI will go ahead and Leah hopes it will be a good one, and a documentary will be produced by another team.
No witch hunt, but it sounds like some nasty stuff going on from the States legal team!!!
Evidence offered in the support of a pedo's so called "good character" etc.. and a reason why it should be judged with as much scrutiny as possible, is noted today on the Stuart Hall story:-
ReplyDelete"A worker from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) - who gave Hall a good character reference during the trial - has since stepped down."
VFC,
ReplyDeleteI believe there is an increasing effort on behalf of Jersey's government to defend itself via social media. As predicted, instead of just the usual drunken repetitious rants by Jon, we now see consistent use of the expected official "talking points" in these opposing blog comments. They're the very taking points we could expect to be formulated and repeated by PR professionals and those who are detached from all logic in the chain of evidence. Perhaps they are hard at work in some distant mainland office every day. But because their talking points are written by those seemingly unaware of the extensively researched back story on the abuse and the associated cover-up, you should be able to continue taking them apart with evidence. This isn't inarticulate trolling, it is polished spin, and it is far too late for it to convince those exposed to the facts, here.
Elle
Hi VFC,
ReplyDeleteA really good interview with LMG.
I agree with the PR Spin comments. I have also received them. Im storing them for a rainy day. As we have seen from the shambolic Dean saga nothing has been learnt in Jersey regarding the vulnerable.
No stopping.
rs
Sunday express article
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think some readers' 'Witch Hunt' concerns are worth addressing. There is a long and sad history the world over of people in power (including journalists) remaining silent, even as systemic crimes go too far -- then overdoing it when it comes to finally addressing them. This is how we end up seeing people wrongly charged as guilty and the so-called "show trials." In Jersey, there are certain cases where there is enough evidence to prosecute, but Jersey's authorities have refused to do so based on their damning secondary qualification: "not in the best interests of the island." The major question Jersey authorities must answer: If there is enough evidence to prosecute a person, what makes it in the best interests of the island NOT to do so? How is this supposed to be defined -- and how, then, to protect innocent islanders? Those who have worked with Jersey's AG have said the application of this standard has always been arbitrary and based on who is favored and who is not. It is a most unusual standard and is not audited by a higher power. My question: what could be reason enough to allow a criminal to be free to strike again?
ReplyDeleteLeah, I agree with most of what you write, but you leave yourself open to trolls with incorrect language that I put down to you being American and accustomed to US law. In English and Jersey law, the prosecution will proceed if it is "in the public interest" not "in the best interests of the island". The public interest test is well established in English and Jersey Law. The problem in Jersey is that, as you indicate, a higher proportion of cases miraculously seem to fail the test in Jersey.
DeleteThe code for crown prosecutors in Jersey is almost identical to the English one http://www.gov.je/Government/NonexecLegal/LawOfficers/Pages/DecisionProsecute.aspx
The English code on the decision to prosecute. The public interest means the same in both jurisdictions.
Deletehttp://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown_prosecutors/codetest.html
Leah, when I first heard of this, which was from your reporting, I knew the Jersey authorities were trying to protect the reputation of the Island. Rather than addressing it straight on and trying their best to make right what they can they have circled the wagons. In the end, the damage will be worse, because good reporters don't let go. The full truth will come out, whether in court or in books. It takes courage and guts to penetrate something this horrific and the victims of Haut de la Garenne can be thankful you have buckets of both.
ReplyDeleteEd Silliere
I wish people would stop using the phrase "witch hunt", don't you remember who got the phrase into the public domain last October after the Saville documentary?
ReplyDeleteAnon 18 June @20:40,
ReplyDeleteI suspect you will be hearing that worn phrase "witch hunt" until you want to cover your ears. That sounds just like what any paid PR machine would generate for their daily spin efforts. They've always enjoyed trotting that one out in any community when paedophiles of prestige are involved. Standard business plan, I'm pretty sure.
Elle
This is how China deals with officials who rape chi;dren:-
ReplyDeleteChina executes official for child rapes after online uproar
19 Jun 2013 - 09:21
BEIJING, June 19 (Reuters) - Authorities in central China executed a former Communist Party official for raping 11 underage girls, state media said on Wednesday, following an online uproar about the latest case of abuse of power. Li Xingong, who was the party's deputy head in Yongcheng city in Henan province, was found guilty of assaulting the girls during police interrogations starting from the second half of 2011, the official Xinhua news agency reported. Li appealed against the guilty verdict, but was rejected by the Supreme Court, Xinhua said.
http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-committee-of-enquiry.html
ReplyDeleteRS
RE jane 17 June 2013 13:52
ReplyDeleteInteresting comment "I have met with the Deputy Bailiff to ask outright why certain individuals hadn't been taken to trial, bottom line is, while there was evidence against them there was also much evidence speaking FOR them"
You are aware that last minute evidence that has apparently prevented individuals being charged in the past has been nothing more than a good character reference !
Yes unbelievable !
Is Jersey the only place where evidence that someone is a serial child abuser can be balanced by a character reference !
The Monopoly Island, complete with get-out-of-jail-free cards
unbelievable !
LEAH AT 2:07 "THEY (the victims of child abuse)WERE CALLED LIARS FOR DECADES"
ReplyDeleteABSOLUTLY! To call us Pindown victims liars, isn't that libel?
I have been fighting to clear my name from being called a liar for 4 decades now, I am sick to the back teeth of the nasty lies that have been whispered about me, "liar", "mentally ill attention seeker", "she's been raped more times than I have had hot dinners", "fantasist", "paranoid", "troublemaker" ect ect ect.
I HAVE BEEN TELLING THE TRUTH ALL ALONG!
"Is Jersey the only place where evidence that someone is a serial child abuser can be balanced by a character reference !"
ReplyDeleteIf so perhaps some should be looking for a new job!
"A worker from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) - who gave Hall a good character reference during the trial - has since stepped down."
"Is Jersey the only place where evidence that someone is a serial child abuser can be balanced by a character reference !"
ReplyDeleteIt also helps if you are a golf playing partner and pal of somebody who was making the decision whether to prosecute this SCA or not!
Only in Jersey of course.
URGENT MESSAGE. IF YOU ARE OR IF YOU KNOW A VICTIM SURVIVOR OF DW OR IF YOU WITNESSED THIS PERSON ABUSING CHILDREN AT HDLG OR ELSEWHERE, PLEASE CONTACT ANY BLOGGER YOU TRUST, ALL INFO AND NAMES WILL BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL. HIS VICTIMS ARE BEING TREATED LIKE CRIMINALS AND THIS HAS GOT TO STOP BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE. PLEASE HELP US TO BUILD UP A STRONGER CASE AGAINST THIS PERSON AND AGAINST THE PEOPLE WHO ARE PROTECTING HIM
ReplyDeleteThere's been a comment submitted containing former Chief Minister, Frank Walkers, contact details. Due to the very strange, and inconsistent, Data Protection Office activities it's probably "safer" if I don't publish the comment.
ReplyDeleteThe commenter suggests that Mr. Walker would have some answers, but as we know, Mr. Walker doesn't do ANSWERS
Does Walker show any interest at all in Jersey matters these days or has he just walked away?
ReplyDeleteI am curious when I think back to his "shafting Jersey" accusation directed at Stuart on Newsnight way back.
Mr. Walker is not as visible as he once was but one suspects that doesn't mean he's not as active behind the scenes.
DeleteOn the board of the Digital Jersey quango
Deletehttp://www.digital.je/digital-jersey/tag-chairs/frank-walker/
Why hasn't her blog been updated this year?
ReplyDelete