Friday, January 13, 2012

MATT TAPP FILES - 3

The Matt Tapp Files



"ABUSE OF PROCESS"




The pre-trial of Donelly - Wateridge and Aubin




The reason for looking at the pre-trial of the above accused and I should add convicted Abusers is the whole issue of "ABUSE OF PROCESS"




The defence council of the above said that their clients couldn't receive a fair trial in Jersey because of all of the miss-information peddled in the National Media. Judge Pritchers says that all that was put right on the 12th November 2008



This goes to the very heart of the suspension of Graham Power QPM & the Abuse Cover-up



But was it a red herring?



These posts will be long. The reason is that there is a lot of information to put out. We start in September 2008 and go right through to the conviction of Donelly, Wateridge and Aubin



This is where outside media consultant Matt Tapp comes in.



Matt Tapp was called in by David Warcup during September 2008. The reason I beleive Matt Tapp got the call was that he had previously undertaken work for Northumbria Police as shown in this UK freedom of information request.




The Deputy Chief Constable of Nortumbria Police at this time was David Warcup




14 CORPORATE COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY

The Deputy Chief Constable presented a previously circulated report, which sought approval for the proposed Corporate Communications Strategy for Northumbria Police.

He informed members that following an independent review into the level of service provision offered by Media Services, external consultant Matt Tapp recommended that a Force Corporate Communications Strategy should be developed.

He added that in November 2006, the Protective Services Review Board agreed an action to design, develop and implement a Corporate Communications Strategy for Northumbria Police.

Following a brief discussion, members NOTED the contents of the report, and AGREED:

To the adoption of the proposed Corporate Communications Strategy, subject to feedback from the Senior Leaders Business Meeting.

ACTION: DEPUTY CHIEF CONSTABLE

DISCHARGED



Media Consultants - 354/10

Dated: 07 Jun 2011


Date of request: 24/06/2010

Date of response: 20/07/2010

Provision of information held by Northumbria Police made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the 'Act')(FOIA)

Thank you for your email dated 24 June 2010 in which you made a request for access to certain information which may be held by Northumbria Police.

As you may be aware the purpose of the Act is to allow a general right of access to information held by a Public Authority (including the Police), subject to certain limitations and exemptions.

You asked:

  1. Please could you state the number of occasions - if any - since 1 January 2008, when your force has employed any "external" media consultants - ie, personnel in addition to those employed by your force in your own media department.
  2. Please give details for each occasion, stating why the outside consultants were employed (eg, for assistance with a major investigation, for staff training etc etc).
  3. Please also:-
    a) name the consultants or companies involved, and
    b) supply the costs of hiring them in each instance.

In response:

We have now had the opportunity to fully consider your request and I provide a response for your attention.

  1. 1.
  2. Review of a Review of the implementation of the Corporate Communications Review and the production of a written report.
  3. a) Matt Tapp Associates.
    b) Total costs £1,930.00.

The information we have supplied to you is likely to contain intellectual property rights of Northumbria Police. Your use of the information must be strictly in accordance with the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended) or such other applicable legislation. In particular, you must not re-use this information for any commercial purpose.




There was a lot going on in September 2008. Lenny Harper had retired at the end of July 2008 - Warcup replaced him in August 2008 - Mick Gradwell was seconded in September 2008. David Warcup was left in charge of the Jersey Child Abuse Investigation with De/Supt Mick Gradwell as his number two. It's important that we look at what was going on and who was saying what back then. There is a bigger picture . Matt Tapp has an important role in this. It must be viewed along side the other issues. Remember what David Warcup said in his Statement on leaving Jersey.



"Mr Warcup said that even before he took up his post he realised, through reports and comments in the media, that there were concerns about the historical child abuse inquiry. Within a few weeks of arriving in the island he became aware, by speaking to people inside and outside the force, of public concern about the way in which the inquiry was being run.

One of the major problems in intervening was that any criticism of the supervision of the inquiry including the handling of the media by former deputy police chief Lenny Harper, was implied criticism of Mr Power, who was his boss."

"Mr Warcup believed that some lurid reports in the national media of possible child murders at Haut de La Garenne could seriously jeopardise the prosecutions for child abuse going to trial A review of the evidence available from the inquiry including items uncovered during the excavation at the former children’s home, led him and the new senior investigating officer, Det Supt Mick Gradwell, to believe that no such crimes had taken place

‘The more information I gathered and examined, the more I realised that there were issues which needed addressing,’ he said. At that time, some States Members and others were also calling into question the handling of the inquiry"




As you can see from the above statement from David Warcup had already formed an opinion before arriving in Jersey. He also goes on to mention the Abuse of Process. This is in relation to lurid reporting in national papers. This is the catalyst for everything that leads up to Graham Powers suspension on November 12th 2008. Let us not forget what Brian Napier said in his report concerning what was going on behind Graham Powers back in September 2008. This can be read here http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2010/10/napier-initial-observations-from-graham.html



What do we know of Matt Tapp?



I have been intrigued by this mans work for a very long time. Having looked at the work of outside police consultant Mike Kellett during the BDO Alto Review I thought we must look at Tapp's



The reason we are following the trail of Tapp and his work is that he was heavily quoted by Commissioner Pritchers in the pre-trial of Wateridge, Donelly and Aubin.



His work has become some form of Holy Grail.



Yet what do we know of Tapp?



I will leave you with some of Commissioner Pitchers Judgement from the pre-trial



Look at how Pritchers is quoting the outside Media Consultant and his work. Also note how the Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand then uses it for his backing of David Warcup.


They are referring to Matt Tapps work.



Take a close look at what Tapp is saying. I



Any questions you have then please feel free



But what about the Primary Source?



Remember BDO ALTO



Rico Sorda



Team Voice





1.17 THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARTIN OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING THE METROPOLITAN POLICE REPORT:

Question

(1) Is the Minister satisfied that a Metropolitan Police Interim Report existed on 10th November 2008 and, if so, why?

(2) Why was a Metropolitan Police Interim Report requested?

(3) Who asked the States of Jersey Police to request it and who was it made to?

(4) When was that request made?

(5) Who requested the Metropolitan Police to provide an Interim Report?

(6) Who at the Metropolitan Police was asked?

(7) Will the Minister provide Members with a copy of the written request?

(8) When was a copy of the Interim Report received?

(9) Although neither the former nor current Home Affairs Ministers have seen the Interim Report, is the Minister aware of anyone apart from the Acting Chief Officer of Police seeing the Interim Report?

(10) Was the Interim Report withdrawn and, if so, why and when?

(11) Who requested it to be withdrawn and to whom was the request made?

(12) When was the Interim Report returned?

Answer

Before I answer the detailed question, I want to give some general background to the production of the Interim Report by the Metropolitan Police.

The ACPO Homicide Working Party recommended that a full review be conducted by an outside police force of the Historical Abuse Enquiry. Accordingly, on 6th August 2008, the now Acting Chief Officer of Police wrote to the Metropolitan Police Force requesting the production of such a report. Subsequently, detailed terms of reference were agreed for the production of the report and work commenced. The main purposes of the report were to advise on the management of the Historical Abuse Enquiry and to provide advice and guidance in relation to the conduct of individual investigations. It soon became apparent that serious issues were arising as to the previous management of the Historical Abuse Enquiry. Details of these concerns were passed on to the now Acting Chief Officer of Police who began to raise these with the Chief Officer of Police from September 2008 onwards. The now Acting Chief Officer of Police also began to share these concerns with other senior officials and with Deputy Andrew Lewis who became the Minister for Home Affairs. By early November 2008 the report was nearly completed except for the interviewing of the former Deputy Chief Officer of Police. By that stage it had become apparent that some of the issues were so serious that they could prejudice the fair trial of certain individuals. The concern was that serious cases might be stopped by the Royal Court because of the previous actions of the former Deputy Chief Officer of Police. For that reason the now Acting Chief Officer of Police asked the Metropolitan Police Force to produce a report on what they had found up to that point so that a press conference could be held correcting issues relating to information which had previously been given to the press. The Metropolitan Police then produced the Interim Report which they sent initially on 10th November 2008, to the now Acting Chief Officer of Police as an attachment to an email.

The concerns of the now Acting Chief Officer of Police were fully vindicated by the judgment of the Royal Court in the matter of The Attorney General v. Aubin and others [2009] J.R.C. 035A.

I am now going to quote from section 14 to 19 of that judgment:-

“14. We need to be clear what it is that is complained of. The investigation into allegations of historic child sex abuse in Haut de la Garenne was an important story in Jersey and one in which the press have an absolutely proper and legitimate interest. Equally it is perfectly normal for the Police to keep the press informed of the progress of important inquiries. Sometimes that may be in the form of on the record press conferences, broadcast or published as the case may be, sometimes it may involve off the record briefings the content of which cannot be used until after any trial. From time to time the Police may make use of press publicity for operational reasons, for example in a case like this, to appeal for witnesses and to reassure those potential witnesses that they will be treated sympathetically and in confidence should they come forward. All that is completely usual.


15. What is extraordinary in this case is the way in which the senior investigating officer, Mr Harper, by constant and dramatic press conferences and informal briefings, whipped up a frenzied interest in the inquiry, not in respect of the solid police work that was being done to investigate the serious allegations of child sex abuse, but in respect of what had turned out to be completely unfounded suggestions of multiple murder and torture in secret cellars under the building. It is not any part of my task to decide whether the huge excavation that took place under Haut de la Garenne was justified or not, I am only concerned with the publicity that followed it. Not surprisingly the press ran with the story with enthusiasm. I have five volumes of press cuttings full of lurid headlines. I pick one completely at random from among dozens of a similar kind “Shackles are found in torture dungeon”. They were not shackles, it was not a dungeon and there is not evidence of torture there. Unsurprisingly of particular interest to the press was exhibit JAR6. This was a small object found in a place under the building which probably pre-dated the investigation. At first sight the anthropologist who was present thought this might well be part of a child’s skull. Having received that information, it was right for the Police to investigate further to see whether it was indeed a child’s skull or part of it. What was not right was for Mr Harper immediately to call a press conference to announce that the remains of a child had been discovered. In fact JAR6 proved, on careful scientific examination, not to be part of a skull at all, but by then the idea that children had been tortured and murdered in the cellars was firmly lodged in the public consciousness.

16. It is very important to be clear why Mr Harper’s conduct has been criticised in Court and elsewhere. He is to be commended and not criticised for taking the allegations of child sex abuse seriously, for investigating them vigorously, and for making clear that anybody coming forward to give evidence would be treated sympathetically and professionally. No proper criticism of him could be advanced for any of that. The legitimate criticisms of him and the potential damage that he did to any inquiry or Court proceedings are best expressed not by me setting out my opinion but by the professional judgment of an outside expert who reviewed this aspect of the case in November 2008. That report has been disclosed to the defence in the course of these proceedings and I quote from its conclusion:-

“From the outset statements released to the media suggested with the language of certainty that crimes had been committed and that there were many victims. For legal reasons, and in order to manage media coverage and public expectation, more temperate and non-judgmental language would have been more appropriate. Statements made in relation to the item recovered on February 23rd [JAR6] were not accurate and incited an enormous media coverage which at times was hysterical and sensational and was in turn equally inaccurate and misleading. The description of cellars, the voids under the flooring, was inaccurate and allowed the media to create a false impression in the public mindset. The description of an item recovered from Haut de la Garenne as “shackles” was not accurate. The language used to describe the bath could have been more accurate. The decision to display to the media a tooth recovered from Haut de la Garenne was highly unusual. The approach taken by the States of Jersey Police to releasing information about the teeth found was unusual, not consistent with normal working practice in the UK and encouraged further media reporting and speculation. Given the lack of evidence collated to prove that a child’s remains had been found at Haut de la Garenne, the statements made by States of Jersey Police could have been more accurately phrased and could have generated more measured and less prominent media coverage. The statement made by the States of Jersey Police regarding the two pits excavated at Haut de la Garenne was inappropriate. The nature and quantity of much of the media coverage was generated and sustained by the Police’s deliberate decision to provide a regular diet of information to the media. Some, but by no means all, the inaccurate media coverage published was challenged by the Force on a number of occasions the Deputy Chief Officer placed information and allegations into the public domain or responded to issues and allegations in the media which distracted attention from the child abuse investigation and this may have tarnished the reputation of the Force and weakened public confidence in the investigation and its professionalism.”

17. The potential damage to the Court process is illustrated by the fact that it has provided material for the powerfully advanced argument of Advocate Preston that the idea of long term, widespread torture and murder is so entrenched in the consciousness of potential jurors that it cannot be eradicated by any direction from the trial judge. He argues that jurors will either be convinced already that anyone charged must be guilty or they will feel that after this long and expensive inquiry “someone must pay”. This problem is heightened, he argues, because of the size of this jurisdiction. Before setting out my reasons for ultimately not finding his argument persuasive, I should make a preliminary comment. This is not a public inquiry into the conduct of the Police in general or Mr Harper in particular, I comment on his and their conduct only to the extent that it is relevant to the legal issues I have to determine.

18. I now turn to the factors that lead me to reject this part of the application.

(i) First in November 2008 the new senior investigation officer held a press conference in which he put the record straight about the findings under the building. That press conference received wide publicity and the tone of press reporting has changed, indeed the prosecution might now argue that they risk encountering jurors who believe that the Police have said that everything that had gone before was wrong. In my judgment this press conference went a long way to repair the damage that had been done by earlier press publicity.

(ii) Second there was a clear divide between the reporting of the torture dungeon and the general part of the inquiry which was into historic child sex abuse. That part of the inquiry did not receive the same lurid treatment. It will be immediately apparent to any juror hearing this case opened that there is no allegation against any of these men of anything which might be linked to the supposed torture dungeon.

(iii) Thirdly none of the lurid stories connected any named individuals to what was being described, indeed Mr Donnelly and Mr Aubin do not even fall into the category of staff at the home who were, in general terms, being accused of criminal offences. Mr Donnelly is indeed nothing to do with the inquiry into the home at all.

(iv) I approach this case in the same way as the Court of Appeal did in the case of Abu Hamza [2006] EWCA Crim 2918, than whom no-one could have had worse personal publicity. It is said that everyone in Jersey will have read of this inquiry and no doubt that is true. Everybody in the United Kingdom would have come across the adverse publicity for Abu Hamza before he faced his trial. When the question of pre-trial publicity was considered by the Court of Appeal Criminal Division in that case the Lord Chief Justice giving the judgment of the Court said this:-

“93. Prejudicial publicity renders more difficult the task of the Court, that is of the judge and jury together, in trying the case fairly. Our laws of contempt of Court are designed to prevent the media from interfering with the due process of justice by making it more difficult to conduct a fair trial. The fact however that adverse publicity may have risked prejudicing a fair trial is no reason for not proceeding with the trial if the judge concludes that with his assistance it would be possible to have a fair trial. In considering this question it is right for the judge to have regard to his own experience and that of his fellow judges as to the manner in which juries normally perform their duties.”

And then the Lord Chief Justice quoted with approval the words of the trial judge, Mr Justice Hughes, as he then was:-

“97. After considering at length the relevant authorities, to most of which we have already referred, the judge comments on his own considerable experience of jury trial:-

“For what it is worth, this judge’s experience leads him to endorse the conclusion that lawyers are occasionally unwisely dismissive of juries. Almost universally, they approach their task and their oath with conspicuous conscientiousness. They are often unavoidably faced with inadmissible evidence which they must discount, especially in the case of several defendants, and experience strongly suggests that, whilst desirable, it is not necessary for them to be kept wholly ignorant of such evidence in order to be able to reach a careful decision which takes no account of it. Extensive publicity and campaigns against potential defendants are by no means unknown in cases of notoriety. Whilst the law of contempt operates to minimise it, it is not always avoidable, especially where intense public concern arises about a particular crime and a particular defendant before any charge is brought. Jurors are in such cases capable of understanding that comment in the media might or might not be justified and that it is to find out whether it is that is one of their tasks. They are capable of understanding that allegations which have been made may be true or may not be and that they, the jury, are to have the opportunity and responsibility of hearing all the evidence which commentators in the media have not and of deciding whether in fact the allegations are true or not. They are not surprised to be warned not to take at face value what appears in the media, nor are they these days so deferential to politicians as to be incapable of understanding that they should make no assumptions about whether any statements made by such people are justified or not. They are also capable of understanding and habitually apply the direction that they are given about the standard of proof.””

(v) And finally this: we should trust the jury. The principle that they will have to apply here is that general allegations involving other people do not form part of the evidence against a specific defendant, and he is only to be convicted if the evidence that is relevant to him convinces them of his guilt. It is not an abstruse legal concept, nor does its application require any kind of mental gymnastics. It is a simple principle of fairness, readily explained and easily understood and applied by the ordinary juror.

19. For all those reasons I do not find that the publicity in this case was such as to prevent any of these defendants receiving a fair trial.”


It can be seen from that quotation that not only are the actions of the former Deputy Chief Officer of Police heavily criticised but that the actions of the now Acting Chief Officer of Police are vindicated in paragraph 18(i) of the judgment.

The quotation above which is attributed to an outside expert is a quotation from the report of an independent media expert who was called in to advise the States of Jersey Police on media related matters.

The now Acting Chief Officer of Police was aware of the relevant issues and had started to prepare a draft press release in late October 2008. A copy of an early draft of this was seen and commented on by the Chief Officer of Police. The Version which was given to the press was the 11th version of the Press Release. The Chief Officer of Police was asked by the now Acting Chief Officer of Police as to whether he wished to have any involvement in the press conference and declined so to do.

The effect of the Interim Report was to confirm the concern of the now Acting Chief Officer of Police prior to the making of the Press Release.

I now turn to the detailed questions.

  1. Yes, I have been assured that that is so by the Acting Chief Officer of Police and the Acting Deputy Chief Officer of Police. Furthermore, some months ago and recently I saw the covering email to which it was attached.
  2. That is explained above.
  3. That is explained above. The Acting Chief Officer of Police was not asked to do what he did by anyone. The answer to the second question is a Detective Superintendent, the name of whom has been supplied to the questioner.
  4. In late October or early November 2008, for the reasons set out above.
  5. That is explained above.
  6. The same answer as the second part of Question (3).
  7. There was not a written request for an Interim Report. The matter was dealt with as stated above, on an informal basis
  8. 10th November 2008, in electronic form, as an attachment to an email.
  9. The report was produced for purposes which are described above and not for disciplinary purposes. Accordingly, it was seen by a number of police officers who were then involved in various investigations and by a number of lawyers who were advising in relation to investigations. It has also been seen by the Acting Deputy Chief Officer of Police.
  10. The Interim Report was not withdrawn. It was followed by a full report the Metropolitan Police produced the report for the reasons set out above and it was used for those purposes. It was not drafted for the purposes of a formal disciplinary hearing and therefore it was not appropriate that it should be used in that way.
  11. It was not withdrawn, as stated above.
  12. It was not returned. It was used for the



43 comments:

Anonymous said...

''speaking to people inside and outside the force, of public concern about the way in which the inquiry was being run.''

Public concern about the way in which the inquiry was being run? Say it often enough and people will believe it.

Oligarchys were the ones concerned with how the inquiry was being run.

As a member of the public my concern was for victims of child abuse. Mr Harper made it clear this was a child abuse investigation.

On reading the tabloid press I always went back to Mr. Harpers statements.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

There is some text missing from number 12 of ILM's answers at the bottom of the page. It is baffling trying to count how much misinformation is contained in the "official" line. We have ripped the official line apart that many times it looks like it has gone through Bill Ogley's shredder!

They're still trying to wheel out, as well as all sorts of other Tooth Fairy Tales, that Lenny Harper said there were shackles, when the truth is he refused to confirm they were shackles and it was Diane Simon of the discredited and disgraced Jersey Evening Post that called them shackles.

Good work Rico, shame you have to do it though, but without an independent media on this island there is little choice.

Any idea why the BBC won't publish the defence statement of Graham Power QPM?

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

" The description of cellars, the voids under the flooring, was inaccurate "........WAS IT?

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

"A review of the evidence available from the inquiry including items uncovered during the excavation at the former children’s home, led him and the new senior investigating officer, Det Supt Mick Gradwell, to believe that no such crimes had taken place"

Really???????

JAR/30: 3-4; 1940s to 1980s. Two fragments of burnt bone one is fragment of longbone? Tibia. Submitted to University of Sheffield with KSH/158. Origin confirmed as human. Submitted for dating awaiting results.

JAR/33: 3-4; 1940s to 1980’s.
Calcined fragment of bone. ?human.

JAR/53: 183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
5 fragments of calcined long bone ?human.

JAR/54: 183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
4 fragments of calcined bone ?human.

JAR/55: 183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
1 fragment of calcined bone ?human.

JAR/57:183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
2 fragments of bone of unknown origin.

JAR/56: 183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
1 fragment of bone ?human.

JAR/67: 183. Zone 3 East Cellar 3.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Human Tooth: deciduous left maxillary first molar, age 9 yrs ± 3 yrs. Could have been shed naturally (Anthro exam).
Submitted to odontologist, see report.

JAR/69: 183. Zone 3 East Cellar 3.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragments x 3 of possible human cortical bone.

JAR/61: 183 Zone 4 East Cellar 3.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
23 Fragments of bone:
1 Burnt fragment which closely resembles a human juvenile mastoid process.
2. Burnt fragment of ?human mandible.
3. Fragments of burnt long bone x 3 measuring between 11.3 and 16.3 mm.
4. Fragments of unidentified burnt cortical and trabecular bone x 7.
5. Fragment of slightly burnt long bone measuring 33 mm. The cortex of the
bone resembles human but it is quite thick and the trabeculae can not be seen because it requires cleaning. It appears to have been cut at one end.
6. Fragments of unburnt unidentified long bone. x 3 The appearance and texture of the cortex of the fragments appears more animal than human but it is advised that further examination should be undertaken in order to confirm this.
7. Fragments of unidentified long bone x 7. 5 have been burnt and 2 haven’t. Species
uncertain although two of the burnt fragments could possibly be human

JAR/90: 183 Cellar 3 Zone 3 East.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragments of unidentified bone of unknown species. One which is calcined is possibly human bone.

Cellar 4 Context 169 (redeposited char material from fire elsewhere. Unsealed)

JAR/36: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragment of bone ?human.

JAR/37: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragment of burnt bone. ?human mastoid process

JAR/39: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragment of burnt bone ?human.

JAR/40: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragment of bone ?human.

GMK/18: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Human tooth. Anthro exam – deciduous left maxillary lateral incisor. Age range 6 yrs ± 2yrs

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Was commissioner pitchers and Matt Tapp trying to claim that the lurid headlines weren't evidence based?

Karl Harrison’s archaeological theory of the burnt debris including human bone fragments and teeth being deposited in the east wing cellars from the west wing is contained within this report. This theory is suggestive that the solid fuel furnace in operation in the west wing around the time of 1960 – 1970 may have been used to dispose of human remains.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

Well, we are all just concerned, decent citizens - profoundly worried about the obvious, clear and evidenced breakdown in the rule of law in our community.

I'm sure four or five years ago, none of us imagined that it would fall to us, to shoulder the burden of real journalism; we were not the oppressed of Egypt - instead we had the BBC.

That institution must now only have a few days to redeem itself?We have to fight for the rule of law - if the BBC won't.

Stuart

rico sorda said...

This is Ian le Marquand talking about the Met Interim Report. The person the Met hadn't interviewed before the 12th November was in fact Lenny Harper. Where have we seen that before? No one could get a fair trial? Say's who?

How do you know if it's not tested?


What were these "so serious issues?"



"By early November 2008 the report was nearly completed except for the interviewing of the former Deputy Chief Officer of Police. By that stage it had become apparent that some of the issues were so serious that they could prejudice the fair trial of certain individuals"

rico sorda said...

"For that reason the now Acting Chief Officer of Police asked the Metropolitan Police Force to produce a report on what they had found up to that point so that a press conference could be held correcting issues relating to information which had previously been given to the press. The Metropolitan Police then produced the Interim Report which they sent initially on 10th November 2008, to the now Acting Chief Officer of Police as an attachment to an email."

They didn't even release the Met Report so how do we know it even contained concerns?

We know Matt Tapp handed over a report . I wonder when that was?

Before the 12th November 2008?

rs

r

rico sorda said...

You see, sometimes I remember things that were said.

I remember what Lenny Harper said along time ago about the Metropolitan Interim Report. I reproduce it here.

"Ref my post a few minutes ago. My finger ran ahead of my brain. The point I was making was that neither myself, as senior investigating officer, or the Head of the ACPO Homicide Team who were reviewing my investigation had been yet interviewed by the Met when Gradwell and Warcup started quoting from the alleged report which was the basis for suspending Graham Power. A week after the suspension when they did get around to interviewing us they denied any such interim report existed to both of us. Of course, the Met team could have been lying but that does pose some questions about the credibility of a report which has been compiled without the views of the SIO and the head of the team quality controlling his investigation. If the Met are telling the truth then the whole reason for Graham Power's suspension was a massive lie.""
Lenny Harper"

11 November 2009 15:08

""
The Met team responsible for thiss report interviewed me on the 17th November 2008, I challenged them about this so called interim report and they denied it existed. Gradwell and Warcup were not quoting from any report of theirs they said. The former head of the Met Homicide Team who was in the ACPO Review group also challenged them and received the same answer. I emailed them two days later and demanded that before they did complete any report they interview witnesses who would contradict the alleged events described by Warcup and Gradwell. They repied saying they would be in touch. I still have that e mail. I never heard from them but I know the report was delivered in December 2008. The nonsense of an interim report is complete fabrication."'
Lenny Harper


I think they might have used Matt Tapps report and dropped a little porkie by saying it was from the Met. When the Met heard what they had done the poo poo hit the fan.

I might be wrong

But I got a feeling

rs

rico sorda said...

You see, sometimes I remember things that were said.

I remember what Lenny Harper said along time ago about the Metropolitan Interim Report. I reproduce it here.

"Ref my post a few minutes ago. My finger ran ahead of my brain. The point I was making was that neither myself, as senior investigating officer, or the Head of the ACPO Homicide Team who were reviewing my investigation had been yet interviewed by the Met when Gradwell and Warcup started quoting from the alleged report which was the basis for suspending Graham Power. A week after the suspension when they did get around to interviewing us they denied any such interim report existed to both of us. Of course, the Met team could have been lying but that does pose some questions about the credibility of a report which has been compiled without the views of the SIO and the head of the team quality controlling his investigation. If the Met are telling the truth then the whole reason for Graham Power's suspension was a massive lie.""
Lenny Harper"

11 November 2009 15:08

""
The Met team responsible for thiss report interviewed me on the 17th November 2008, I challenged them about this so called interim report and they denied it existed. Gradwell and Warcup were not quoting from any report of theirs they said. The former head of the Met Homicide Team who was in the ACPO Review group also challenged them and received the same answer. I emailed them two days later and demanded that before they did complete any report they interview witnesses who would contradict the alleged events described by Warcup and Gradwell. They repied saying they would be in touch. I still have that e mail. I never heard from them but I know the report was delivered in December 2008. The nonsense of an interim report is complete fabrication."'
Lenny Harper


I think they might have used Matt Tapps report and dropped a little porkie by saying it was from the Met. When the Met heard what they had done the poo poo hit the fan.

I might be wrong

But I got a feeling

rs

rico sorda said...

It is also important to note that Donelly didn't have any connection to the Jersey Care Homes. The Abuse of Process could only relate to Aubin and Wateridge.

Did their charge sheet match anything close to the lurid headlines?

rs

Anonymous said...

I wonder which of those terrible unjustified criticisms of Gradwell made him so frustrated? Was it that he got it wrong about the cellars? Bob Hill is the latest to show him wrong on that. Was it that he was shown to be wrong about the bones and his "forgetting the 'Chamberlain' report? Or perhaps it was the criticism for calling the victims unreliable. Or even his comment that Lenny Harper should have ignored all the information, bones, teeth, and other evidence and just guessed that there was nothing there and walked away from HDLG? Of course, it could have been the suggestion that the victims were less than pleased with the way he treated them. It could also have been criticism of the way he mistakenly accused Lenny Harper of introducing the terms 'shackles' and the fact that he ignored the builders role in that saga. Or was it that he 'forgot' the ACPO reports? Such a sensitive soul.

Zoompad said...

Well, I have just sent some emails, hope they get to the McCanns. They need to know what Matt Tapp has done.

rico sorda said...

Hi Zoompad,

I must stress at the moment that I'm not sure what Matt Tapp has done wrong. I have a good idea as to what has gone on but without his report its hard to get right into it.

His only involvement with the Mcanns as far as I know was the Dispatches programme.

I have a strong suspicion that Matt Tapp gave a statement to Wiltshire. This will be explained in my next posting.

rs

Zoompad said...

Hi Rico,

You have a better brain for attention to detail than me, I get a bit muddled up sometimes. But I think the McCanns need to be made aware of the stuff anyway, as they are asking for even tiny scraps of information to help them find out where their daughter is, so all I have said really is that the Haut de la Garenne police investigation has been trashed and that they ought to have a look at your blog at what you have uncovered. I hope thats ok.

rico sorda said...

Zoompad

This is just my opinion. I believe the only people who know what happened to their daughter is the Mcanns themselves.

This is based on reading the police transcripts of all the evidence.

rs

Anonymous said...

http://www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk/

Anonymous said...

Mr. Le Marquand has some explaining to do.

His latest circuit of media spin amounts to the same thing he has pushed on the public.

He stands behind Mr. Gradwell

Anonymous said...

we have reached Matt Tapp three and i am still none the wiser as to what matt tapp has or hasnt done.Have i missed something,which I suppose is possible considering the complexity of the Matt Tapp posts,or is the importantpertinent detail to come?

rico sorda said...

This some of the attitude that ia alive and kicking in Jersey.

This is a Tweet I received

genuinejersey Percy Le Maistre
@
@RicoSorda Dear Sorda, I've been around too long to be taken in by doom merchants like you. Is it tax payers money you're after by chance?

This person - I don't think it's his real name - Obviously thinks I'm an Abuse Survivor - I'm not,

Im lucky as I was brought in a loving family environment where I was taught right and wrong.

I do what I do because I care about the people who were not as fortunate as I was.

That Tweet made me very angry. WHAT A SAD INDIVIDUAL.

rs

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

His name "genuine Jersey" is right. It's important that the wider world get to see how the so called "genuine Jersey" people view victims of child abuse and the continued abuse poured on them by people like genuine "Percy." Let's hope that if/when his true identity is revealed he will be so proud of his tweets etc..........

Anonymous said...

as a jerseyman I would like to say that
'genuinejersey' is a sick piece of garbage

cyril vibert

Anonymous said...

GenuineJersey seems the type to claim if you dont like it, theres a boat in the morning.

Ignore him Rico your blog speaks louder than the title that person tweets under.

Ian Evans said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ian Evans said...

This LINK works a little better.

Anonymous said...

GenuineJersey is real. You write so much factually inaccurate and miss leading nonsense on this blog it is no surprise the only people who take you seriously are your 'friends'. If you have anything worthwhile the proper media would have been knocking on your door with cheque book in hand by now.

rico sorda said...

"we have reached Matt Tapp three and i am still none the wiser as to what matt tapp has or hasnt done.Have i missed something,which I suppose is possible considering the complexity of the Matt Tapp posts,or is the importantpertinent detail to come?"

There is a lot more to come. What I will be doing very shortly is explaining exactly what I'm saying in an interview. I find this easier. Matt Tapp was an outside consultant woking under Warcup and Gradwell as with the BDO I have seen how these consultants can be manipulated. Matt Tapp wrote a report that was quoted in a court of law - this report was also used by the Media in Jersey to lambast the Abuse Investigation & Harper

rs

rico sorda said...

"GenuineJersey is real. You write so much factually inaccurate and miss leading nonsense on this blog it is no surprise the only people who take you seriously are your 'friends'. If you have anything worthwhile the proper media would have been knocking on your door with cheque book in hand by now."

Then challenge me.

Put right what I have got wrong

The only reason you could think that this blog is nonsense is because you have read it. The reason you would have read it is because you have an interest. The reason you have an interest is what exactly?

If you want a comment publishing then hit me with some decent researched stuff putting me right and we will take from there.

rs

rico sorda said...

This is my latest reply to Senator Bailhache regarding the Committee of Enquiry


From: rico sorda

Subject: RE: Committee of Enquiry

To: "Sir Philip Bailhache (Senator)"
Cc: "Ian Gorst" , "Alan Breckon" , "Ian Le Marquand" , "ben queree" , "Deidre Mezbourian" , "dsimon@jerseyeveningpost.com" , "JEP Editorial" , "Francis Le Gresley" , "Geoffrey Southern" , "Roy Le Herissier" , "Kevin Lewis" , "Len Norman" , "Montfort Tadier" , "Mike R. Higgins" , "news@channeltv.co.uk" , "Philip Ozouf" , "Philip Rondel" , "Paul Routier" , "Sean Power" , "Robert Duhamel" , "Sarah Ferguson" , "Simon Crowcroft" , "Shona Pitman" , "Trevor Pitman" , "Tracey Vallois"
Date: Sunday, 15 January, 2012, 11:13

Dear Senator Bailhache

I am sorry but that answer is just not good enough.

If the Committee of Enquiry ("COE") is to have any credibility and integrity, the process must start at the very beginning. I believe it is inconceivable that you should be involved in any discussion determining the form of the COE.

I do not consider "careful consideration" as an answer. The reason for my growing concerns regarding the integrity of the COE is the obvious hijacking of the Independent Electoral Commission (the "Commission"). Although the Commission itself is not a major concern of mine at this present time, it is the manner in which you have permitted to stamp all over it that concerns me.

I believe that we all should be open, transparent and completely honest and truthful when emailing or communicating with our elected representatives. Senator Bailhache, you represent every Islander; not just the ones who voted for you, but more importantly the ones who did not.

I repeat, I believe you are heavily conflicted in anything connected to the COE into decades long child abuse in the Jersey Care System. I have laid out my reasons for this in an earlier email. If you cannot categorically assure me that you will have no input in any way into the COE, then I must fully trust the absolute integrity of your fellow States members to point these issues out.

I have spent three long years investigating the issues concerning the child abuse in Jersey and I shall continue to fight for the complete integrity of a COE in order that everyone, no matter their view on the subject or involvement, can come and give evidence and seek closure. It is time this matter was put to bed, but not dismissed in the classic Jersey way. This affects not just the children abused in the past, but the children who will pass through the Jersey care system in the future. When I am an old man, the last thing I want to hear is about a child abuse scandal breaking in Jersey.

Kind regards

Rico Sorda

Anonymous said...

Good call with the email to senator Bailhache Rico he has a duty to the public to explain himself if he is to gain any trust or confidence from them. For what it's worth he's wholly conflicted in both the abuse inquiry and the electoral commission and should never have got into the parliament his rein is coming to an end and not a moment too soon.

Zoompad said...

I think I will also write to Philip Bailhache. I haven't written to him before because I live in the UK but I think it is appropriate that I do write to him because Jersey was recieving children in care from my area so there but for the mercy of God I could have become one of the victims.

GeeGee said...

Excellent post again Rico and the e-mail to Bailhache is superb.

I think there are a lot of people out there that would agree with every word you have put in that mail, and maybe a few more of us should be asking him the same questions.

Excellent new post from Trevor Pitman by the way.

Anonymous said...

As far as Senator Bailhache is concerned and with his blinkered vision.

Any States Member who is not a Minister,any States Member who is not a Constable and any States Member who is not on a scrutiny panel....

Is a "Mischief Maker"!??

rico sorda said...

"If you want a comment publishing then hit me with some decent researched stuff putting me right and we will take from there"

Sorry J, I'm not publishing anymore of your comments.

I have laid out my challenge it is now up to you.

rs

rico sorda said...

This is from Matt Tapps Report that was used by Pritchers in his pre-trial judgement

"The language used to describe the bath could have been more accurate"

What? large bath, small bath, disappearing blood stained bath, nice bath, concrete bath.

I kid you not this is ridiculous

As was the suspension of Graham Power

rs

Anonymous said...

Why was it so important for that blood stained bath to disappear?

Anonymous said...

''What is extraordinary in this case is the way in which the senior investigating officer, Mr Harper, by constant and dramatic press conferences and informal briefings, whipped up a frenzied interest in the inquiry, not in respect of the solid police work that was being done to investigate the serious allegations of child sex abuse, but in respect of what had turned out to be completely unfounded suggestions of multiple murder and torture in secret cellars under the building.''

Is the man a mind reader? How can he, claim that it was Mr. Harpers press briefings, and not tabloid editors and their demand for stories and sales that whipped up interest, especially in light of what we now know from Leveson inquiry.

Mr. Harper never at any time claimed HDLG was a murder investigation.

Has Mr. Tapp produce any evidence to support his, suggestion to support his claim?

Anonymous said...

the bath built in the floor voids?

must of been for the tooth fairy!!!

Anonymous said...

What ever happened to those fresh, fleshed, sawn and charred juvenile bones?

They surely can't have dissapeared?

Anonymous said...

"Mr Warcup said that even before he took up his post he realised, through reports and comments in the media, that there were concerns about the historical child abuse inquiry. Within a few weeks of arriving in the island he became aware, by speaking to people inside and outside the force, of public concern about the way in which the inquiry was being run.

Not sure what date the above information comes from?



http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/ScrutinyReviewSubmissions/Submission%20-%20Issues%20surrounding%20the%20Review%20of%20Financial%20Management%20of%20Operation%20Rectangle%20-%20D.Warcup%20-%2012%20July%202011.pdf

2nd para no mention of being concerned before he took job.

In the weeks following my appointment I became concerned regarding a range of matters
concerning the conduct of the enquiry?

Which is correct he was aware of concerns or he wasn't?

Anonymous said...

No cellars only Voids. Strange that they put a bath in a Void. You need to get hold of some old plans of the place. This is very interesting. That judge pitchers seemed to take a consultants work at face value. I find the number 30 quite alarming.


5.10 The Deputy of St. Martin of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the height of the deepest void/cellar at Haut de la Garenne:

At the police press conference on 12th November 2008 it was stated that under Haut de la Garenne there were no cellars but there were floor voids in which a grown-up person could not stand up straight, will the Minister inform Members of the height of the deepest void/cellar investigated at the premises and state how many allegations were received of abuse in the areas under the floorboards?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs):

I have a figure of 1.4 metres for the first answer which I calculated to be just over 4 feet 7 inches, that is the greatest height. I am assuming, although I am not sure of this, that that will have been the height at the time when digging started and it is quite possible that heights may have changed as a result of material having been removed. In relation to the number of allegations, I do not know when these were made, whether before or after press matters in February and March 2008, is approximately 30.

5.10.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:

I am interested about the heights of 1.4 metres, could I just ask the Minister has he been there himself to measure those or whether these were given to him?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

These were given to me, of course.

5.10.2 The Deputy of St. Martin:

There was a reason for it. As some Members know I did invite some to come with me last week to measure the depth of it, would the Minister accept that it is possible that the depths of some of those cellars were much deeper, in fact that the one that I measured was as deep as 7 feet; would the Minister say that it is possible?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

What I do not know is what the change is height levels has been as a result of materials being removed. I have assumed that the figure I have been given was the figure before materials were removed. I simply do not know down to what depth things were dug out. That is highly relevant because there would be a difference between the height when work started and the height now.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

HISTORIC

Anonymous said...

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

"What I do not know is what the change is height levels has been as a result of materials being removed. I have assumed that the figure I have been given was the figure before materials were removed. I simply do not know down to what depth things were dug out. That is highly relevant because there would be a difference between the height when work started and the height now."

No sh*t sherlock! Give this man another glass of milk and a chocolate cookie.