Lenny Harper. Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry Witness. Part 2 (of 2)

Former SIO Lenny Harper.

Further to our PREVIOUS POSTING and in-depth interview with former Deputy Chief Officer, and Senior Investigating Officer (Operation Rectangle) Lenny Harper. We bring viewers/readers the concluding part of the interview.

Mr. Harper discusses, among much more, The supposed "terminal illness" of Child Abuser Alan Maguire and how it WAS(n't) a factor considered in the refusal to prosecute him for the heinous abuse he inflicted on children at the Blanche Pierre Children's Home. How a document supplied to the ongoing Child Abuse Inquiry apparently supported the view that Mr. maguire's "terminal illness" wasn't a contributing factor in the decision not to prosecute, and how that document actually appeared to prove the opposite.

The debacle that was the questioning of former Deputy Trevor Pitman at the Inquiry (as reported HERE) is also discussed. How, what has been described as, "the most defining report of its era" submitted as evidence to the Inquiry, by the former Deputy, was NOT even mentioned. This Scrutiny Report put pay to a lot of myths spread by the State Media (of the time)/The Establishment, and exposed disgraced former cop Mick Gradwell for leaking confidential police information to an equally disgraced "journalist" with a history of trashing Abuse Victims/Survivors, trashing Child Abuse Investigations and supporting convicted paedophiles. Mr. Gradwell leaked this information while Operation Rectangle was still live. Without the Scrutiny Report we might never have learned about Mr. Gradwell's potential crime.

Former Deputy Trevor Pitman.

The Report has been buried, and recommendations not acted upon, by the Jersey Government. It's been buried by the State Media, and now it looks like it is being buried by the Child Abuse Inquiry. Readers should take the time to read the report which was posted HERE. You will NOT be able to read it as part of the evidence submitted by Trevor Pitman to the Child Abuse Inquiry because that is another scandal involving this Inquiry. Mr. Pitman's evidence has once more disappeared from the Inquiry's website and STILL no explanation given as to why this keeps happening.

One of the most alarming of Mr. Harper's concerns regarding the conduct of this Inquiry is the protection given to suspected paedophiles which is not afforded to him, and more importantly, the Victims and Survivors.

This is something we have reported on previously where apparent upstanding pillars of society can give public evidence under their own name and not answer ANY questions of the multiple allegations made about them concerning their alleged abuse of minors. This "upstanding pillar of society" can insult victims and the Operation Rectangle Team and nobody knows (s)he/they were a priority suspect in the Child Abuse police Investigation.

The very same person can come into the Inquiry the very next day, under a pseudonym, and basically agree with everything that was said the day before regarding the Victims/Survivors/Rectangle Team and the public is unaware it is the same person.

It is a disgraceful state of affairs and readers are encouraged to read THIS BLOG POSTING which explains in a little more detail of the protection offered to suspected paedophiles, and not offered to Victims/Survivors by this Inquiry.

Mr. Harper, who was the ONLY witness to be officially cross-examined while giving evidence, probably kept the best and most poignant points to last.

After paying "a heartfelt tribute" to the Victims and Survivors saying he was "grateful, and moved, by the trust that they placed in him and his team when you consider the way they have been treated by authority figures in the past"

He reminds us, in the interview, that "the focus (of the Inquiry) should be on the Victims who have suffered so much." He told us "it's been my pleasure to do the little that I can do, in this Inquiry, for the Victims and Survivors."

Part 1 of this interview can be viewed HERE.

Lenny Harper. Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry Witness.

Former SIO Lenny Harper.

On the 12th &13th of January 2016 former Senior Investigating Officer (SIO) of Jersey Child Abuse investigation (Operation Rectangle)  Lenny Harper gave his long anticipated evidence to the on-going public Inquiry Chaired by Francis Oldham QC.

Mr. Harper was (rightly) put through the mill and subjected to the toughest line of questioning, in this phase of the Inquiry, than any other witness to appear thus far. Indeed as Mr. Harper explains, in the video interview below, he is the ONLY witness to be officially cross-examined by Counsel to the Inquiry. This is despite claims by the Inquiry that witnesses will NOT be cross-examined. It must be said that Mr. Harper, almost looked as if he enjoyed the cross examination, and certainly came out on top at the end of it receiving his second spontaneous round of applause from a packed Public Gallery during his two day testimony.

As viewers/readers would expect Mr. Harper's testimony was not without controversy. Contrary to inaccurate reporting from parts of the local State Media that DID NOT include a totally corrupt Jersey Police Force (SOJP). Mr. Harper, in our video interview, explains how he told the Child Abuse Inquiry that the SOJP should be proud of itself by being able to root out a "tiny minority" of corrupt officers. They did this WITHOUT involving an outside police force. This was not highlighted by parts of the local State Media which we have now clarified.

In part 1 (of 2) of our interview (below) the former SIO discusses what looks to be a very alarming revelation in that, according to Mr. Harper, not only is there the possibility that the Jersey Law Office' have falsified documents given to the Child Abuse Inquiry as evidence, but the Inquiry itself is using these documents in the knowledge that there is suspicion over their authenticity.

Former Chief Police Officer

Graham Power QPM.

Regular readers  will know that it is not beyond the capability of the Jersey Administration to allegedly falsify dates on documents as we learned through the former Police Chief Graham Power's letter of complaint to the Privileges and Procedures Committee concerning the notes drafted (by person's unknown)of his (possibly illegal) suspension as posted HERE.

A couple of quotes from that letter (above link) to PPC from Mr. Power:

"Following almost a year of requests and applications, information has now been disclosed in relation to the times and dates when documents relevant to the suspension were created. It is self-evident that the facts now disclosed are incompatible with the “Official Version” of events.

Letter from the Minister for Home Affairs notifying me that the disciplinary process had been commenced
It is now disclosed that this was created at 0844hrs on Saturday 8 November 2008. This is three days before the receipt of the information which is claimed to have led to the decision to commence the disciplinary process, and three days before the creation of the letter from the Minister instructing the Chief Executive to take action under the Code. Former Deputy Andrew Lewis in his statement to the Wiltshire Police investigation claims that he instructed that the letter be drawn up on Wednesday 12 November 2008 and he is supported in this claim by Mr Ogley. (Document bundle pages 32 and 31.) The disclosure reveals that these statements are untrue."

So we, and the Child Abuse Inquiry, know that dates on documents look to have been falsified by Jersey authorities in the past. 

Mr. Harper drew the Inquiry's attention to a possibly falsified document back in October 27th 2015 and asked for a forensic fingerprint of the document. This request was NOT carried out. So the Inquiry was knowingly relying on a piece of evidence which it knows to have questions over its authenticity. 

As if this wasn't alarming enough the Law Offices' Department produced another document, for the first time, the day Mr. Harper was giving evidence. This document was to "allay Mr. Harper's fears" concerning the original suspicious document. Firstly readers must be mindful that Mr. Harper asked for a digital fingerprint of the original document some 2-3 months before he gave evidence. The day he is giving evidence, to the Inquiry, a document is produced which looks even more suspicious than the original one! Why was the digital fingerprint of the original document never investigated and why did the Law Offices' wait to produce this second document until the day Mr. Harper was giving evidence? Further why has the Inquiry not launched an investigation into both documents rather than rely on them as evidence with such suspicion hanging over their authenticity?

This is an alarming turn of events and unfortunately doesn't bode well for the credibility of the Public Inquiry and until these documents are authenticated (or otherwise) how can any document submitted by the Jersey Authorities/Law Offices' Department be relied  upon?

There could be a plausible explanation concerning these documents (and why they haven't been investigated) but unfortunately  it is not forthcoming and until it is they must be viewed with suspicion.

Part 2 of the interview with Mr. Harper will be published soon.

Jersey Lieutenant Governor and "Crown Interest(s)"

Current Lieutenant Governor.

(Credit JEP photo)

What does the term “Crown Interests” mean exactly and who is responsible for them in Jersey? Who are Crown appointees and who appoints them?

We know that the Bailiff, Deputy Bailiff, Attorney General, Solicitor General, and the lieutenant Governor are Crown Appointees but as far as my limited knowledge on the subject (of Crown Appointees and Crown Interests) goes I believe it is the Lieutenant Governor who represents the interest(s) of the Crown in Jersey.

The Jersey Government House WEBSITE has a short “job description” of the LG but it is a little sparse on any real detail, including any accountability, who is he accountable to if he becomes part of the Jersey rot and corruption?

What does his job entail exactly? I see it that he has (Crown) responsibility for the rule of law and good governance on this Crown Dependency of Jersey. Is he adequately preforming this role? Who is watching over him? How is he appointed? Who appoints him?

According to Government House website (above link) “The Lieutenant-Governor is appointed by Her Majesty The Queen for a period of 5 years to be her personal representative and impartial adviser.”

But according to WIKIPEDIA: “In 2010 it was announced that the next Lieutenant Governor would be recommended to the Crown by a Jersey panel, thus replacing the previous system of the appointment being made by the Crown on the recommendation of UK ministers.”

So the people he is supposed to be watching over recommend him to the Crown? Who exactly is on this “Jersey Panel” that recommends him for appointment? According to the BBC “A selection panel made up ofthe Bailiff, a senior Jurat and a member of the appointments commission wouldthen make the decision.” 

How can it be that the very people he should be grassing up for any wrongdoing effectively get to appoint him? Why is there no mention of this change in the appointment process on Government House’ website?

William Bailhache.

The Chief of Police is not a “Crown appointee.”  He is appointed by the States but thereafter becomes (according to a legal opinion by William Bailhache) an "Officer of the Crown."

This is explained in paragraph 458 of former Chief Police Officer, Graham Power’s statement to the ongoing Child Abuse Inquiry:

“458. During my time in office there were many examples of ways in which there were subtle attempts by Ministers to control the SOJP. At one point, there was a draft employment law being debated where Ministers would be responsible for disciplining police officers and it was also suggested that they should be “employees” of the States. I asked the Attorney General (William Bailhache) for support and he gave a helpful opinion that police officers were not “employees” but “officers of the crown.” I cannot avoid observing that being an “officer of the crown” did not do me much good when I was removed from office at the stroke of a pen by a single politician. I do not remember the representative of the Crown, HM Lieutenant Governor for Jersey, having much visible influence in the matter.”(END)

Surely it must have been of interest to the Crown when (officer of the crown) Graham Power QPM, was (possibly illegally) suspended by the then Home Affairs Minister ANDREW LEWIS?  But apparently NOT.

Regular readers will recall that the former Chief of Police (after being possibly illegally suspended) wrote a letter to the Privileges and Procedures Committee (PPC), which was NOT shared with the Committee by its Chairman Constable Juliette Gallichan.

VFC published this letter HERE and strongly recommend that readers take a close look at it. It’s difficult to single out the most damming paragraph but offer this one as an example of the letter’s content and alleged criminality and of “a government within a government.”

“It may be that I have provided sufficient information to enable the Committee to consider a way forward on this issue. However, in the hope that it may be helpful, I will offer some personal thoughts and additional information which may assist.

On a straight reading of the available evidence it may occur to many people that the most likely probability is that the former Minister for Home Affairs knowingly provided an account which is distant from the truth. That may be the case, but there are other possibilities. One is that he was not the main author of the process. The known facts allow for an alternative explanation. That is, that the decision to suspend was in fact taken by others for motives of their own, and that the then Minister was brought in at the final stages to provide his signature, and thereby appear to legitimise a process which was conceived by others. Such an interpretation would of course raise the possibility of a “Government within a Government” in which unidentified and unaccountable individuals exercise power outside the parameters of the law. If that was the case then the constitutional implications would be significant. This would be particularly true in the context of a potential impact on the independence of a part of the Criminal Justice System.” (END)

We know by the statement submitted, by the former Police Chief, to the ongoing Child Abuse Inquiry that the Lieutenant Governor (Crown Appointee with responsibility for the rule of law and good governance in the island) received a copy of Mr. Power’s letter to the PPC.

So this begs the question whether the LG considered what it revealed to be "good governance?" If he did then one has to wonder what he thought bad governance would look like? If it was not good governance then what exactly did he do about it and where can we read about the outcome?

Letter of acknowledgment from LG.

The relevant paragraph of Mr. Power’s statement to the Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry, which reveals the LG received the letter to PPC, is paragraph 571 but it needs to be read in the context of paragraph 569-571 reproduced below.

“569. I believed then and I believe now that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that Bill Ogley and Andrew Lewis conspired to commit perjury in respect of the circumstances leading to my suspension. I drew my overall concerns to the attention of the Jersey Authorities by way of my letter to the Privileges and Procedures Committee dated 30 October 2009, attached as my Exhibit GP71

570. On 13 November I had a reply from the chair of the committee, Juliette Gallichan, saying that they would not deal with my complaints. The response is attached as my Exhibit GP72. I subsequently learned that the matter was not in fact put before the committee and members learned of it indirectly at a later date. Given that I had provided detailed evidence indicating that a number of senior government figures had apparently conspired to commit serious falsehoods, the response I received was disappointing but not surprising.

571. The letter was shared among a number of friends and supporters who were assisting me at the time. It appears that someone within that group sent a copy of my letter to the Lieutenant Governor for Jersey. I know this because I received an acknowledgement dated 4 November 2009, at Exhibit GP73, which appears to assume that I sent the letter which was not the case. The responsibilities of the Lieutenant Governor include the “good governance” of the Island. It is not known what action if any was taken in response to receiving a copy of my letter.”(END)

Constable Juliette Gallichan.

Juliette Gallichan's response to Graham Power was published HERE. Note the Committee (PPC) Was not made aware either of Mr. Power's letter to PPC or of the Chairman's (Juliette Gallichan's)reply. 

Did the Crown “OK” the (possibly illegal) suspension of the former police chief? Did the LG mention (to the crown) the alleged illegality contained in the letter sent to the Privileges and Procedures Committee and received by the LG himself if not why not?

As far as I understand it, the LG exists in order to represent British Crown interests in the Island and part of his remit is to observe and come to a view on whether the Island has "Good Governance" and can therefore be left to its own affairs or whether there are any grounds for UK intervention?

The letter, from Graham Power to PPC, draws to the attention of the reader a sequence of events which cast serious doubts upon the integrity of the Island's government at the highest level. It falls plainly within the remit of any interest in "Good Governance" and yet we know nothing about what (if anything) the LG did. It might be that things were done behind the scenes. If they were their effects were/are not visible. 

The existence of the Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry now raises an interesting question. The Inquiry has repeatedly and publically asked for anyone with relevant evidence to make contact with them. It could be argued that for anyone in public office to be in possession of evidence and not to declare that evidence to the Inquiry is a breach of duty. Particularly as the Inquiry is being repeatedly drawn into the question of whether the Islands institutions are capable of providing a level of protection of the vulnerable which meets UK standards. 

So has the Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry asked the LG, to give evidence if not, why not?  Will he be offering evidence from the files on the whole episode, which will undoubtedly exist in Government House? Does Government House have a view to offer? If not, then exactly what use are they when evidence of corruption and malpractice lands on their desk? Does this make the LG (the crown) complicit in the Jersey cover-up?

The Lieutenant Governor MUST be called as a witness to the Child Abuse Inquiry, as Must Juliette Gallichan.

VFC All Time Top Ten.

Further to the Top Ten most hit Blog Postings of 2015. Below are the top ten most hit VFC Blog Postings of All Time.

Mario Lundy

In Tenth Place. Mario Lundy, and Stuart Syvret, at Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry. 

Child Abuse Inquiry.

In Ninth Place. Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry Carries on "The Jersey Way."

Ted Heath.

In Eighth Place. Ted Heath Might Be "The Headline" But He Is NOT The Story. 

Ian Le Marquand.

In Seventh Place. No-Body-Remains.

William Bailhache.

In Sixth Place. Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry and William Bailhache.

Philip Bailhache.

In Fifth Place. Senator Philip Bailhache Letter to ArchBishop of Canterbury.

Lenny Harper.

In Fourth Place. Open letter To Home Affairs Minister.

Child Abuse Inquiry.

In Third Place. Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry Adopts "The Jersey Way."

Andrew Lewis.

In Second Place. Complaint To PPC (2)

Stuart Syvret.

In First Place. Stuart Syvret, The Rule of Law, and The BBC.

Thank you again for supporting this Blog and Happy New Year to all our readers.

VFC Top Ten 2015.

Below are the top ten most hit VFC Blog Postings of 2015.

ITV/CTV.

In tenth place ITV/CTV To be Banned from Reporting at Child Abuse Inquiry?

Trevor Pitman

In ninth place  Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry Witness. (Trevor Pitman)

Shona Pitman.

In eighth place Former Jersey Opposition Politician and "The Jersey Way."

Mario Lundy.

In seventh place Mario Lundy Named by Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry.

Child Abuse Inquiry.

In sixth place Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry Carries On “The Jersey Way.”

Stuart Syvret.

In fifth place. Mario Lundy, and Stuart Syvret, at Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry.

 

Ted Heath.

In fourth place Ted Heath Might Be "The Headline" But He Is NOT The Story.

William Bailhache.

In third place. Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry and William Bailhache.

Child Abuse Inquiry.

In second place. Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry Adopts "The Jersey Way."

Andrew Lewis

In first place. Complaint To PPC (2)

VFC readership continues to grow with in excess of 45,000 more hits this year than the last. Last year's hits were up by 30,000 to the previous year.

Thank you to all those who support the Blog and Merry Christmas.

RIP. Danny Jarman.

Team Voice.

Top Ten 2014 can be viewed HERE.

Top Ten 2013 can be viewed HERE.

Deputy Mike Higgins. Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry Witness.

Deputy MIKE HIGGINS was due to give evidence as a witness at today's public hearing for the Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry.

Unfortunately this didn't happen due to a submission by the Jersey Law Office Department (this morning) on behalf of the States Greffe. Deputy Higgins had intended on using a LEAKED TRANSCRIPT  of a States debate where it appears that disgraced former Home Affairs Minister ANDREW LEWIS  gave a different account of events that he gave to the Wiltshire Constabulary and the Napier Review concerning his sight (or not) of the Metropolitan Police Interim Report.

For a more in-depth look at the anomalies told by Deputy Andrew Lewis, in this regard, readers are encouraged to read HERE. 

The Law Office successfully argued that the States voted for this transcript to remain a secret and the only way to change that is for a proposition to be brought to the States to ask them to reverse that decision. So now Deputy Higgins has to lodge a proposition to that effect and indeed hope he wins it for it to be able to be used as evidence in the Child Abuse Inquiry.

This does seem a little strange as the States are in effect under investigation by this Inquiry, they are, for want of a better word, the "suspect." So the way that I see it is that the "suspect" is going to be asked (Mike Higgins' proposition) to hand over evidence that could potentially be incriminating. Will the States, or the "suspect" vote to hand over this evidence? We will of course be Blogging about this closer the time.

So Deputy Higgins' evidence will have to wait until late January 2016 after the outcome of the debate.

But here's a question that needs asking. The Child abuse Inquiry were made aware of the leaked, and original, Hansard some 17 months ago as it formed part of former Deputy Trevor Pitman's EVIDENCE. The Inquiry was further made aware of it some 14 months, or so, ago as it formed part of Rico Sorda's evidence. So why then did the Inquiry only get round to asking the States Greffe for the original copy nine days ago? It's known of this document, and its controversy for well over a year, why was it not asked for sooner?

Short post but worth a mention in a Blog of its own.

Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry Witness. (Trevor Pitman)

Trevor Pitman.

On Wednesday 18 November (day 109 of Inquiry) anti Child Abuse campaigner, and former Jersey politician, Trevor Pitman, gave his, much anticipated, evidence as a public witness to the on-going CHILD ABUSE INQUIRY.

Mr. Pitman's substantial statement, with some 20 plus supporting documents, was believed to be a damming, and scathing, indictment on Jersey authorities, not only in Child Protection failures, but in the corrupt and politicised "justice" system which, it is believed, is at the heart of the Child Abuse cover-ups.

In the video interview below Mr. Pitman talks of his shock after being asked by lawyers to the Inquiry to familiarise himself with a number of documents because he was to be asked questions on them. Only to discover that NO questions were asked on the documents he was provided. Why would the Inquiry Team apparently mislead, or waste a witness' time like this?

Francis Oldham QC.

The fact is that Mr. Pitman was questioned on very little else other than his time working as a professional Youth Worker. This is a little concerning when one considers that Mr. Pitman was giving evidence to the Inquiry as part of phase two which according to the Chair Francis Oldham QC:

“In October the Inquiry will begin hearings in relation to Phase 2. At that stage we will look at the decisions taken in relation to the timing of the police investigation and subsequent decisions to prosecute alleged abusers. Did those responsible for deciding which cases to prosecute take a professional approach? Was that process free from political or other interference at any level?"

It is difficult to reconcile how experiences of being a Youth Worker meets the criteria for phase two of the Inquiry. It's further concerning (as discussed in interview below) to discover that, according to Mr. Pitman, the Inquiry Team does not have possession of a number of crucial documents needed to understand "The Jersey Way" and the culture that allows Child Abuse(rs) to continue on the Island despite the Establishment cry "Lessons Have Been Learnt."

Graham Power QPM.

These documents include the six appendices to The Sharp Report, The Hansard of the In-Camera debate where former Home Affairs Minister Deputy Andrew Lewis revealed that he had (possibly illegally) suspended the then Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM where Mr. Lewis has some significant questions to answer. The third set of documents are a number of boxes of documents, where there is a paper trail, seem to have gone missing. It is unclear as to whether the Inquiry Team has made any attempt to obtain any of these sets of documents but it was made aware of their existence some 17 months ago.

Mr. Pitman's live evidence lasted approximately two hours which, as mentioned above, largely consisted of questions relating to his time as a Youth Worker. When Counsel to the Inquiry announced she had no further questions for Mr. Pitman there were audible gasps from a packed public gallery who were left wondering is the Inquiry just going through the motions by calling Anti Child Abuse Campaigners as witnesses? Why was Mr. Pitman not questioned according to the criteria of phase two? Is the Inquiry burying crucial evidence that could expose "The Jersey Way?"

As we have mentioned previously the Inquiry looks to have done some GOOD WORK in some areas and some NOT SO GOOD work in other areas. This latest episode unfortunately falls into the latter category.

Former SIO Mick Gradwell Re-Post.

In May 2014 we published the below post concerning disgraced former Senior Investigating Officer (Operation Rectangle) Mick Gradwell.

Today he gives evidence to the ongoing Child Abuse Committee Of Inquiry where it is hoped (although not anticipated) that he will be adequately questioned regarding his actions/inactions during his time, in Jersey, as Senior Investigating Officer.

Mr. Gradwell has opted NOT to return to Jersey to give his evidence and will be appearing via video link from the UK.

This, one could speculate, might be because he fears arrest for his alleged leaking of confidential information to an equally disgraced "journalist" David Rose as mentioned in the post below. Former Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand has conceded that Gradwell would likely have faced disciplinary charges for his alleged leak(s)

It might be, in order to show face, that the Jersey Establishment, is willing to hang him out to dry and arrest him if he came to Jersey so he is playing it safe and staying put in mainland UK.

Begin Re-Post.

Mick Gradwell.

Now that the Committee of Inquiry into the decades of child abuse in Jersey is well underway and taking evidence from witnesses. Team Voice thought it would be a poignant time to reflect on the actions/behaviour of former Senior Investigating Officer Mick Gradwell.

Regular readers will be aware that Mr. Gradwell took command of the Child Abuse Investigation (Operation Rectangle) after the retirement of former Deputy Chief Officer, and Senior Investigating Officer, Lenny Harper. Mr. Gradwell, in an unprecedented move, went on to trash the original Investigation with the help of the local State Media and achieved little else other than to replace the mistrust of the police that Mr. Harper and his team had gained from Abuse Victims/Survivors.

It was Mr Gradwell who told us that the 65 children's teeth found up at Haut de la Garenne were left there for the tooth fairy despite some of the teeth NOT being shed naturally. It was also Mr. Gradwell who told us, in a PRESS RELEASE, that the cellars up at Haut de la Garenne were not cellars but along with former Deputy Bob Hill B.E.M Team Voice showed him to be less than genuine in a Blog Posting HERE.

It also became apparent that (during the LIVE Child Abuse Investigation which he was heading up) Mr. Gradwell was leaking confidential information to a "journalist" David Rose, who has a history of supporting convicted paedophiles, and had already written articles trashing the Child Abuse Investigation before Mr. Gradwell was in position as SIO.

The revelation of Mr Gradwell's unprofessional, and possibly illegal, leaking of information came about as a result of a Scrutiny Review held by former Deputy Trevor Pitman, former Deputy Daniel Wimberley and Deputy Roy Le Herissier. The resultant report to that review has been hailed as possibly the most defining report of its era. It can be read in its entirety HERE. The Report also exposed the local State Media for its disgraceful "JOURNALISM."

Extracts from the report and its transcripts are a damming indictment on the disgraced former SIO, Mr. Gradwell, to include;

From outside consultant Mike Kellett (25 year friend of Mick gradwell) giving evidence to Scrutiny Review.

"Some days after the article had appeared, I received a telephone call from Mr Gradwell in which he admitted that he had been responsible for the leak." (to sunday Mail "journalist" David Rose)

"I received two further telephone calls from Mr Gradwell on 26th June 2011 and 1st July 2011, concerning the establishment of this Sub Panel and he again acknowledged that he had been responsible." Lots more can be read HERE.

David Warcup.

From the same review evidence given by Acting Chief Police Officer David Warcup;

 
"Leaking of information to the media is something which can, as I say, seriously undermine criminal inquiries and the consequences could be quite serious. That is not serious to you or I or others, it is to the victims of crime who will not get justice through the courts."

Ian Le Marquand.

From the Minister for Home Affairs Senator Ian Le Marquand.

"The first I was aware of an issue in relation to D/Supt Mick Gradwell was when he went public just before he left the Island and that was the first time. I viewed this as merely a continuation of that, he had already gone public with his views to the local press, radio. It is my understanding from David Warcup that Mick Gradwell, although he was asked very strongly not to do anything before he went, and not just by David Warcup, but I understand even by the Attorney General of the day, again this is hearsay, this is obviously what I have been told, that he had already pre-recorded interviews before he had left. So that is the first that I was aware of an issue, and then of course my staff picked up the Mail article and they did some excellent detective work, emailing, and then sent to me the consequences of that, which clearly pointed to Mick Gradwell. I have to say, when the issue came up again, I had completely forgotten about this, I had just totally forgotten about it. I had to look back and find the emails and then say: “Oh yes, now I do recall it”, because it was not that significant to me once I knew it was Mick Gradwell."

It wasn't significant to Ian Le Marquand (Home Affairs Minister) that a Senior Investigating Officer could be leaking confidential information to a "journalist" during a LIVE police Investigation?

Mr. Gradwell, who told us he would take part in any Inquiry looking into Operation Rectangle DIDN'T take part in the Scrutiny Review and offered NO evidence/testimony to it. Not surprising when one considers there looks to be more than enough evidence contained in the Report to have him questioned as part of Operation Elveden.

Now one wonders if Mr. Gradwell will offer evidence to this latest  COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY chaired by Francis Oldham QC or will he be subpoenaed? How credible can his evidence be if he does turn up? Will he be arrested by Operation Elveden and unable to turn up?

Lenny Harper.

Former Senior Investigating Officer, Lenny Harper, who DID give evidence to the Scrutiny Review has also given evidence to the ongoing Committee of Inquiry and it is believed he WILL be called to give evidence in the public hearings when they begin.

Mr. Harper, and former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM, have always made themselves available to any Inquiry, and indeed to the local State Media and Citizens Media to answer all and any questions put to them - the same cannot be said for Mr. Gradwell.

Mr. Gradwell has serious questions to answer and, in the opinion of Team Voice, should be compelled/subpoenaed to appear before this Committee of Inquiry and answer these questions in public.

As regular readers would expect Team Voice will be submitting a substantial amount of evidence to the COI and will keep readers updated.............. End Re-Post.

The original Posting of this article can be viewed HERE.