Sunday, October 2, 2011

JAR/6- And the "FOI"



Mick Gradwell



David Warcup




Here we go again


The first of a couple of posts on JAR/6



JAR/6


Just what is going on with this piece of evidence?


More questions than answers


In february 2008 JAR/6 came out of the ground & the rest they say is History


Was it a part of a child's skull?did it contain collagen?was it part of a coconut?


I hate Jar/6.

The reason I hate Jar/6 so much is that this piece of whatever has been used by so many people including politicians & the media to trash the Child Abuse Investigation.  How much Child Abuse can you hide behind this small piece of evidence?


 From David Rose through to Wiltshire we have had coconut  


But guess what Something is not right 


Like I said before here we go again




I must thank Senatorial Candidate Dr Mark Forskitt  for obtaining the information published below. It has been obtained under the UK's Freedom of Information  "FOI" and has raised so many issues not least the 1 million pounds Wiltshire investigation that came to nothing as they missed all their deadlines and the Home Affairs Minister didn't know what planet he was on.


So lets start

In february 2009 Kew gardens received something reporting to be Jar/6 from West Yorkshire Police - WHY? 

Lenny Harper had left the force in August 2008 & Graham Power was suspended in November 2008

Everyone was saying it was coconut,-the evidence spoke for itself- even Wiltshire were saying that in 2008 Lenny Harper new it was coconut. So why and who sent something to West Yorkshire Police and what connection does West Yorkshire police have in this. We, at the voice, have published loads of information on Jar/6 with no one being able to confirm what it was.

Why weren't the other bones and teeth tested in February 2009?


Something is quite not right here



 Here are some of Wiltshire's conclusions;




Conclusion 18a 
2.142  CO POWER neglected his duty to provide strategic oversight of States of Jersey Police media policy following receipt of confirmation that Exhibit JAR/6 was not human bone, as previously portrayed by the States of Jersey Police within its media releases. 


Conclusion 18b 
2.143.  CO POWER neglected his duty to correct the content of misleading press releases made by States  of Jersey Police following receipt of forensic 
opinion about the nature of Exhibit JAR/6. 


Conclusion 18c 
2.144  CO POWER neglected his duty to supervise DCO HARPER in relation to his media releases following receipt of forensic opinion about the nature of 
Exhibit JAR/6. 


2.145  A letter from Dr X at the  Oxford laboratory was sent on 
1 May 2008 addressed  to DCO HARPER confirming the work carried out on 
Exhibit JAR/6 and the conclusion that it was not bone but almost certainly wood. 



2.146  On 5 May 2008, Senator James PERCHARD raised with CO POWER the matter of there being a rumour in existence that stated the skull was not human and that maybe, when the time is right, it would be advisable to put the record straight ‘publicly’ on this. The response from CO POWER was ‘I think that it will be 
possible to do this as part of a general release relating to the scientific results of 
more recent finds when these are available’. Whilst this approach sounds 
reasonable, this Inquiry can find no evidence that the States of Jersey Police ever 
did make such a ‘general   release’ prior   to the press conference on 12 November 2008. 


2.147 DCO HARPER would have it  that he did  not  receive  Dr X   letter of 
1 May 2008, but this Inquiry has   established   that 
   Dr     e-mailed  DCO HARPER a copy of the letter on 17 May 2008. If there had been any room for doubt beforehand, there could now be no doubt that from  that time DCO HARPER knew Exhibit JAR/6 was not bone. 


2.148  Even so, on 18 May 2008, DCO HARPER  formulated a press release  for circulation which summarised the findings of the examination of Exhibit JAR/6 by he laboratory. He is equivocal in his reference to Exhibit JAR/6 implying that the 
laboratory had not definitively stated it was not bone and instead focussed on their 
comment that if there was a need to show definitively what it was it would require 
further examination. 

2.149 DCO HARPER recounts in the same press release, details of recent finds – 20 pieces of bone and six children’s teeth – which were all found in what he was calling the ‘cellar’ area. He spoke of expecting the results of forensic tests to date them in the next week stating ‘at that stage we will know more about the possibility that there might have been unexplained deaths of children within Haut de la Garenne’. In this way, he had effectively glossed over the issue of Exhibit JAR/6 and encouraged the very worst impressions in the minds of the public and 
particularly the media

2.150  Nevertheless, Senator James PERCHARD persisted in his attempts to have the status of Exhibit JAR/6 made subject of a public statement in the Senate. 
CO POWER merely advised the Home Affairs Minister Wendy KINNARD  to 
comment that many items had been sent for examination, but by the time she 
came back to him and pointed out that  she would be asked exactly when 
DCO HARPER knew it was not bone, he had left Jersey for a conference on the 
Isle of Man which may account for the lack of a response from him. 

2.151  On 20 May 2008, whilst at this conference, CO POWER says that someone told him that the first ‘find’ was a piece of coconut and that this came as a total ‘bolt from the blue’. In light of the sequence of events outlined above, this Inquiry is sceptical that CO POWER had no inkling of this, especially bearing in mind the existence of daily meetings between himself and DCO HARPER.  Nevertheless, it appears that by 20 May 2008 – at the latest – CO POWER accepts that he was now fully aware doubts existed about the nature of Exhibit JAR/6. 

  

2.152  CO POWER explains that he had discussions with DCO HARPER and Senator Wendy KINNARD where he sought more information and advised on ‘holding lines’ to take with the media. He states that he asked DCO HARPER directly about the doubts over the first ‘find’ and was told that there had been confusing messages coming from the Laboratory, but that DCO HARPER would ‘take full responsibility’. 

2.153  If CO POWER’s recollection is correct, he had grounds to suspect that Exhibit JAR/6 was not human, yet permitted or failed to correct DCO HARPER’s 
continuing misleading statements about the scientific evidence being ‘inconclusive’ 
rather than present the true situation to the public. 

2.154  CO POWER’s method of dealing with this  was to call for a report from 
DCO HARPER on the matter whilst advising Chief Executive Bill OGLEY and 
Home Affairs Minister Wendy KINNARD to seek to close down further discussion 
on the matter and not make further comment on the basis she was waiting for a 
report on the matter. 

2.155  This Inquiry concludes  this attempt to ‘close down further discussions’  was unhealthy procrastination. An open and transparent approach would have been to report what was known at that time. CO POWER failed to do so. 

2.156  Even as late as 8 June 2008, CO POWER was enquiring of DCO HARPER as to the current position in relation to the fragment and asking ‘are we accepting that it is not human or do we see the results as inconclusive?  DCO HARPER replied ‘we see the results now as inconclusive’. This inaccurate view was not challenged by CO POWER, who we have good reason to believe, knew this was not a fair or wholly truthful stance to maintain and who continued in his failure to effectively supervise DCO HARPER on the issue. If CO POWER was in any doubt, should have sought an independent  review. He did not do so and the  police and politicians were being misled. 





This is the Information obtained under the "FOI"



In the next part  about this object






mark forskitt
1 May 2011
Dear Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew,
Please list, with date of examination, each person who made an
identification of the fragment excavated at Haut de la Garene,
Jersey during the police investigation there into historic abuse
(operation rectangle), and tagged by the police as JAR/6. Please
also identify the findings of each person who examined this item of
evidence, and where the item is now located.
Yours faithfully,
Mark Forskitt

David Ivell
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
6 May 2011
Dear Mr Forskitt,
I acknowledge receipt of your request and we shall revert in due course.
Best regards
David J Ivell
Chief Information Officer
Royal Botanic Gardens Kew

mark forskitt
1 June 2011
Dear David Ivell,
I am surprised still to have no reply to my request re Haut de la
Garenne, Jersey, police investigation, as acknowledged by you 6th
May Normally my request should have been answered by 31st May.
Please confirm a reply will be made imminently.
Yours sincerely,
Mark Forskitt







The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
Kew
Richmond
Surrey TW9 3AB
Mr Mark Forskitt
Sent by email to:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
2 June 2011


Dear Mr Forskitt,

I am writing on behalf of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew ("RBG Kew") in response to your Freedom of Information request dated 1 May 2011.  

You asked for the following information:

Please list, with date of examination, each person who made an identification of the fragment excavated at Haut de la Garene, Jersey during the police investigation there into historic abuse (operation rectangle), and tagged by the police as JAR/6. Please also identify the findings of each person who examined this item of evidence, and where the item is now located.

Professor Monique Simmonds, Deputy Keeper and Head of Sustainable Uses of Plants Group at the Jodrell Laboratory, RBG Kew co-ordinated the analysis of sample JAR 6 received from a representative of the West Yorkshire Police.
Professor Simmonds received the sample from the West Yorkshire Police on 11th February 2009.  Her initial view, on seeing the sample, was that it might be the outer shell of a coconut.  Shortly thereafter, Professor Simmonds arranged for an expert on this group of plants, Dr William Baker, a taxonomist and Head of Palm Research in the Herbarium at RBG Kew, to exam the sample to confirm her initial assessment.  
Dr Baker confirmed that the material was from the coconut palm (Cocus nucifera) a member of the Palm family Arecaceae.  He identified the sample as a fragment from a coconut endocarp, the layer which surrounds the seed.
Sample JAR 6 was returned to a representative of the West Yorkshire Police on the 31 March 2009.

I hope that you are satisfied with the way in which we have dealt with your request.

However, should you not be satisfied, you are encouraged to contact the person within RBG Kew who is responsible for assessing RBG Kew’s responses to information requests. This person is our Director, Business and Corporate Services, and currently the Acting Director is Monique Simmonds. You can write to her at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 3AB.

If you remain dissatisfied with the way in which RBG Kew has dealt with your request, you are entitled to ask the Information Commissioner to review our decision. You can contact the Office of the Information Commissioner at the address below.





28 comments:

Anonymous said...

You need to find the name of the person who found it, the very first person who found it.

Anonymous said...

Rico, good to see you back and doing what you do best and that is showing what a mess the Jersey authorities have made of this cover up. It is clear that the child's skull was of no relevance to the investigation back in 2008 so why send it all over England a year later and none of the other juvenile bones and teeth? You have proved previously that there is no audit trail of Jar/6 once it had left Jersey it changed in weight, texture and colour when it arrived back in Jersey so clearly wasn't the same piece of evidence that left. Keep up the good work!

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Bob Hill has said "THE WHOLE THING IS A NONSENSE"

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Check this out.

"Dr Baker confirmed that the material was from the coconut palm (Cocus nucifera) a member of the Palm family Arecaceae. He identified the sample as a fragment from a coconut endocarp, the layer which surrounds the seed."

So Doctor Baker "confirmed", he "identified", what does that mean? What happened to the 1.6% collagen (only found in mammals)? Where is the scientific "evidence?" "Confirmed" and "identified" tells us nothing!

What the bl--dy hell were the West Yorkshire Police doing with it in the first place? Didn't it go to Oxford from Jersey and for no apparent reason as JAR/6 was of no evidential value back in 2008, being found in earth that pre-dated the enquiry!

Why send a piece of child's skull to somebody who is a "taxonomist?" Did Warcup and Gradwell send the juvenile bones that were "fleshed and fresh" when burnt and buried, and the children's teeth that "could not have been shed naturally" to an Astrologer?

Well we know they didn't because, unlike the child's skull, the teeth and bones were of evidential value and we've heard no more about them.

Anonymous said...

Seeing as though the Wiltshire stuff is the prosecution case against Graham Power and is therefore nowt more than unproven allegations isn't it time we saw Graham Power's defence case Stuart reckons he's got it so let's see it.

Anonymous said...

The powers that be want people talking about coconuts so the fundamental issue of child abuse in Jersey's "care" homes gets forgotten. IT HAPPENED

Anonymous said...

After a month - and a chasing up email - the FOI gang finally give an answer that doesn't give an answer. What is the point of FOI?

rico sorda said...

2.147 DCO HARPER would have it that he did not receive Dr X letter of 1 May 2008, but this Inquiry has established that Dr X e-mailed DCO HARPER a copy of the letter on 17 May 2008. If there had been any room for doubt beforehand, there could now be no doubt that from that time DCO HARPER knew Exhibit JAR/6 was not bone.

2.148 Even so, on 18 May 2008, DCO HARPER formulated a press release for circulation which summarised the findings of the examination of Exhibit JAR/6 by he laboratory. He is equivocal in his reference to Exhibit JAR/6 implying that the laboratory had not definitively stated it was not bone and instead focussed on their
comment that if there was a need to show definitively what it was it would require further examination.

.148 Even so, on 18 May 2008, DCO HARPER formulated a press release for circulation which summarised the findings of the examination of Exhibit JAR/6 by the laboratory. He is equivocal in his reference to Exhibit JAR/6 implying that the laboratory had not definitively stated it was not bone and instead focussed on their comment that if there was a need to show definitively what it was it would require further examination.

Just look at the wording used above in the Wiltshire Conclusion. This is something I have noticed since looking at all this stuff.

Did the letter of the 1st of May 2008 say that Jar/6 was difinitively not bone because Wiltshire say this

" He is equivocal in his reference to Exhibit JAR/6 implying that the laboratory had not definitively stated it was not bone and instead focussed on their comment that if there was a need to show definitively what it was it would require further examination. "

Now looking at that I would guess that the laboratory was saying that they would need further tests to definitively say what it was

So, what of Wiltshire's conclusion?

Tony the Prof what do you think?

rs

Anonymous said...

The same as the Napier report where he claimed to have seen no evidence of a conspiracy to oust Graham Power although his own report was full of that evidence. He would have seen more if John Richardson hadn't put part D of the Terms Of Reference in Bill Ogley's shredder.

Anonymous said...

Would be intrigued on hearing Tony the prof's opinions on this.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

I think Wiltshire - and one or two other UK police forces - are in deep do-do.

I don't think they - and their various Freemason senior officers - ever thought for one moment that this scandal would not be buried.

They failed to take into account the blogosphere - and the determination of independent journalists and anti-corruption campaigners in Jersey to never let these issues go.

What is unfolding here is historic. This episode will - eventually - make British history.

Good, straight cops - working with citizens' media - have unmasked a cover-up, of the type that would normally have been buried - via a few funny handshakes, the occasional MI5 stooge and some bent journalists.

Suddenly - that whole old, corrupt, apparatus has failed.

The question is - at what point do the powers-that-be in London, face facts and cut their losses?

Stuart

Anonymous said...

Good to see at least one other person standing for senator who has taken an interest and done something about getting to the truth.

Anonymous said...

Why was so much emphasis placed on this one item after its relevance had already been dismissed? Since it was discovered in an evidence layer Lenny Harper later ruled out as being from the Victorian era, why was it then submitted to Kew Gardens?

The numerous milk teeth were from the time frame most relevant to the investigation, so why were they not subjected to further testing instead of Jar6?

So, in addition to this one controversial find being from an era predating the official abuse investigation parameters, there were those noted changes in the appearance of the original Jar 6 substance examined elsewhere, and there seems to have been obvious reluctance of all involved in the Kew Gardens analysis to release a detailed accounting of their evidence processing and forensic testing. Questions and more questions.

Once again, Rico, excellent reporting.

Elle

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

The good old Mail "news"paper. You remember the one? Yeah, sure you do, the one that published an article by David Rose rubbishing the Child Abuse Enquiry under the leadership of Lenny Harper?

Here's what they wrote about the Amanda Knox appeal You could MAKE IT UP

Anonymous said...

Oh Glenn you silly silly voice

Ian Evans said...

LIES, LIES, AN MORE LIES!!!

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Look at what Wiltshire, and others, have been up to, courtesy of a guest posting from LENNY HARPER

rico sorda said...

This is from Lenny Harper

There is a problem posting comments at the moment so I have posted it.

For some strange reason, and one day we will find out why, Wiltshire Police seem to have totally ignored the e mails from the Oxford Lab in respect of what they found when the examined JAR/6. It is worth remembering that these people are only qualified to date material, NOT to give an expert view on what it is. Only an anthropologist can do that and the only anthropologists who examined JAR/6 said it was a piece of child’s skull.
On 28th March we received an e-mail from Ms Brock at the Laboratory in relation to the fragment. 
“Hi Vicky. Here are the details of the Jersey skull as discussed on the phone earlier. As I said, the chemistry of this bone is extremely unusual – nothing I am familiar with.” 
“During the first acid washes we often get a lot of fizzing as the mineral dissolves. The Jersey skull didn’t fizz at all, which suggested that preservation was poor, and which led me to test the nitrogen content of the bone.”
“The Jersey skull had 0.60 nitrogen, which suggested that it contained virtually no collagen. Once we had this result, Tom phoned you and told you it would be unlikely that we could date the sample, but that we would continue with the pre-treatment just in case.”
“Very surprisingly, the sample yielded 1.6% collagen (our cut off for dating is 1%).”
“As there is no nitrogen it cannot contain collagen unless it is highly degraded. The chances are it is highly contaminated and any date we get for it might not be accurate. I have e-mailed the director and asked if we should proceed with a date.”
Now, if you look at that e-mail, it makes clear a number of things. Firstly, they, the experts on dating, are not sure they can date it. Secondly, they make it clear they have found more than enough collagen (only found in mammals) to date the fragment. However, they then change their mind again and say the fragment is too badly degraded. Also, note the use of the terms ‘skull’ and ‘bone.’ If the experts cannot be sure on 28th March, how can anyone say that I knew on 24th February?
On 31st March, Ms Brock e-mailed again. In this e-mail, headed, “Re: Jersey Skull for C14 Dating,” she said that ‘the Director had now expressed concern about what the fragment was. The Technician (who is not an Anthropologist) who was carrying out the process commented that it ‘looked like a coconut husk.’ She went on to say “If it isn’t bone I am really sorry,” but then finishes with “although it could well have been poorly preserved bone as I described it.”
Now, how Wiltshire, in the light of Brock’s final comment, can say that anyone knew what JAR/6 was can only be answered by Wiltshire themselves. As they have ignored these e mails perhaps that gives a clue. Furthermore, it should also be pointed out, that the letter which this lab e mailed me three weeks after they allegedly sent it, was no more conclusive and ended up by advising me that if I wanted to know what JAR/6 was, I should have it re-examined by an Anthropologist in a Laboratory. By then of course, we knew it was irrelevant and would be a waste of money to do so. Why then, did Gradwell et al send something labelled as JAR/6 off to Kew Gardens when they not only knew it to be irrelevant, but would also have known that the careless way they and the Oxford Lab had handled the item, meant that no court in the land would have accepted that it was beyond doubt the same item that we had originally labelled JAR/6? Seems a waste of money, but as Gradwell refused to give evidence to the Scrutiny Panel about financial matters we may never know!!! Lenny Harper


rico sorda said...

TESTING

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

TERRY AND SHONA

Ian Evans said...

MORE TAXPAYERS MONEY GIVEN AWAY

rico sorda said...

I have changed my comment section to pop up so leaving comments should be ok now

rs

Ian Evans said...

TESTING!!!

FOR A CHANGE - A BIT OF SYVRET'S TREATMENT

Ian Evans said...

"LEARNING THE RULES SO YOU KNOW HOW TO BREAK THEM PROPERLY"

Zoompad said...

Just seeing if the comments box works

Ian Evans said...

PARKING TICKETS & EGG ON FACES

Anonymous said...

Is the scutineering completed?
Are we now awaiting their report?

Anonymous said...

Started listening to the audio on the JerseyWay sorry I could not get past PPC wanting to avoid any ''conflict of interest''