Bill Ogley former Chief Executive
Matt Tapp - 8
NOW WE SEE THE ROLE OF MEDIA CONSULTANT MATT TAPP
THEY ARE GUNS FOR HIRE
YOU PAY - THEY DELIVER
EVEN AS FAR AS THE ROYAL COURT
OCTOBER 8TH 2008 -
A date when The Jersey Establishment lost complete control of their actions.
For years the victims of horrific abuse in the care of the States of Jersey complained about the authorities not listening to their pleas for help. Some went to the media, some went to the police, some tried anyone who would listen. Nothing was done. For whatever reason, no one did a thing. When Operation Rectangle went public in late 2007 it should have been the beginning for a new era in child protection. The spotlight had was on. They had already removed then Health Minister Stuart Syvret in a last desperate attempt at concealing the truth - the cat was out the bag- they must now get it right and help every person who suffered so terribly in the care of the States of Jersey.
THEY COULDN'T EVEN DO THAT
In the middle of one of the biggest investigations this Island has ever seen some very high placed individuals decided to carry on with the very actions that led to decades of Abuse. The last two postings have been the most difficult I have ever done. Between September 2008 and November 12th 2008 the actions of some of the Islands most senior figures where up to things that I don't even know are legal.
They have shown us exactly how Jersey has operated for decades - they chose to do it in the middle of Operation Rectangle - their actions have totally vindicated the Abuse Survivors who said they couldn't trust the Jersey Authorities, how right they were.
Let us Begin;
The role of outside Media Consultant Matt Tapp is pivotal to what happened to Graham Power and his Suspension on the 12th November 2008
The role of outside media Consultant is pivotal to the legality of the suspension of Graham Power
The role of outside Media Consultant Matt Tapp must be explained, in full, to the States of Jersey on tuesday morning by Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand . There must be a full explanation. This will be very uncomfortable for the Minister. What he will tell members will shock the states to its core.
In the middle of Operation Rectangle did the Chief Executive of the States of Jersey (Bill Ogley) and then Former Chief Minister (Frank Walker) commission a report that was used in the Police Press Conference on the 12th November 2008 that rubbished nearly all of the work under Graham Power, Lenny Harper and his hard working team. This was only possible if Graham Power was removed from office that morning.
This is such a shocking turn of events that im struggling myself in getting to grips with the magnitude of what i've uncovered.
I checked this evidence on 'SKYPE' I need to see it for myself.
This is what Matt Tapp said happened when he got that first call;
1. In August 2008 Tapp is contacted by DCO Warcup
2. Was contracted in September 2008
3. Came to Jersey on August 5th 2008
4. He has a set of TOR's, it was agreed that Tapp would conduct his report in two parts:
. Four days in situ in jersey, with access provided to all media coverage generated to date , all external communications strategies produced in relation to the investigation, and a detailed briefing of the investigation to date, including the substance of key witness statements
. The production, from his office in Cambridge , of a written report in line with the Terms of reference
6. On Sunday the 5th October Tapp flies to Jersey and commenced the review on Monday 6th October, based at the SOJP Headquarters in Rouge Bouillion
7. Tapp reached conclusions about the most appropriate way the SOJP should close this aspect of the investigation publicly , and how to proceed in terms of the external communications around the on-going child abuse investigation
8. Tapp says he shared his results and recommendations with Warcup & Gradwell
9. Tapp was made aware on Tuesday October the 7th by Warcup and Gradwell that Graham Power , had a very strong view about what the force should say to the media about conclusion of excavations at Haut De La Garenne, and this view differed significantly from my own.
10. Tapp made an appointment to see Graham Power on the Wednesday October 8th. That morning Tapp shared his conclusions and recommendations with Graham Power. The meeting lasted 45 minutes and as a result of the discussion Tapps position as consultant advisor to David Warcup was no longer tenable. He informs David Warcup and Mick Gradwell and makes arrangements to rearrange his flights back to England
11. Later that day, at the request of the Chief Executive of the States of Jersey, Bill Ogley, he attended a meeting with Mr Ogley during when they were joined by the Chief Minister. As a result of that meeting , the subsequent correspondence via email, he agreed to produce a report for the States of Jersey with the following , term of reference.
The report that came from that meeting with Bill Ogley & Frank Walker was the;
I have had it confirmed that it is identical to the one on voiceforprotest. They just condensed it a bit for the media release
The States of Jersey produced a report that was used for the press conference on the 12th November 2008 that had Graham Power suspended
The States of Jersey produced a report that helped shut down certain parts of Operation Rectangle - an investigation that was looking into decades of Abuse in States of Jersey Care Homes
Now, do you see why Graham Power had to be suspended on the morning of the 12th. He had no idea what was going on. He had been out of the Island on family business. They couldn't use the Tapp Report if Graham Power was still in office as he thought Tapp was back in the UK after resigning his position on the 8th October.
This is why the Chief Executive destroyed the suspension notes.
No matter how you look at this there are some very serious questions to asked of the then Chief Executive, Chief Minister, David Warcup & Mick Gradwell.
On the 8th October David Warcup is going behind his bosses back. Graham Power has no idea that Tapp is still working, but this time its for the States of Jersey. Why was Warcup doing this? He arrives in August and is behaving like that in October. Who had his ear again?
He then sends a letter /email attachment to the Chief Executive on the 10th November 2008 with the Met 'Interim' Report saying he has some serious concerns..
The use of the Met 'interim Report is a red herring
They needed to mention the word Metropolitan to give the suspension substance
Everything Andrew Lewis and the Ministers were shown at the meeting on the 11th November 2008 -the night before Graham Power was suspended -was the Tapp Report.
Commissioned by the former Chief Executive and the Former Chief Minister under the banner of the States of Jersey
The Abuse Victims were Right - Oh how they were right.
This is the Former Chief of Police Graham Powers reply:
I have been asked to comment on the reported findings of an investigation into complaints made by Mr Lenny Harper concerning the manner in which a Review by the Metropolitan Police into the Historic Abuse Enquiry was conducted. I have not been following the matter closely but I understand that the crux of Mr Harpers complaint is that the Review was critical of him in a way which was unfair and which did not provide him with sufficient opportunity to make representations. I have read that the investigation into Mr Harpers complaint has reported that the Review of the Historic Abuse Enquiry by the Metropolitan Police made no criticism of the conduct or performance of Mr Harper or of any other individual including myself (although I have made not complaint relating to the Review.) I understand that Mr Harper is considering the outcome of his complaint and may take the matter further. That is of course a matter for him.
My own position in relation to the Review of "Operation Rectangle" by the Metropolitan Police has been set out in my affidavit and other documents relating to the Judicial Review of my suspension from duty, and elsewhere in the many reports and statements relating to the case. My views have not changed since that time. In brief they are as follows. The practice of a Review of a major crime enquiry by an independent police force is well established good practice in the service. The reviewing force is invited to act as a "Critical Friend." This involves, among other things, using the benefit of hindsight to identify things which could be done better and to make candid recommendations intended to improve the investigation and move matters forward. Although often challenging such reviews are intended to be supportive and positive in their intentions. Senior Officers commission such reviews safe in the knowledge that senior professional colleagues will, in a supportive way, offer challenge and opportunities for improvement. A Review which is bland, uncritical and offers no suggestions for change, would be seen as of limited value.
I have previously stated that the Metropolitan Police Review of the Historic Abuse Enquiry needs to be seen in this context. In completing their Review the Met ware given unrestricted access to all areas of the Abuse Enquiry and officers of all ranks, including myself, shared their views, regrets and reservations with the Review team in a candid and transparent manner. The Review, in its completed form was in parts supportive but also made some recommendations for improvement. It contained no significant recommendation which had not already been acted upon prior to my suspension in November 2008. The use of the Review for Disciplinary Purposes by the then Minister for Home Affaifrs would have been a gross breach of the understandings on which such reviews are undertaken. However, we know from the review and report by Brian Napier QC and other documents that the Minister never saw a Review report from the Metropolitan Police (although I understand that some States Members at the time believe that he may have indicated otherwise.) What the Minister saw was a letter from the then Deputy Chief Officer, David Warcup, which purported to summarise what the Met had to say. This exchange is well described in the Napier report and interested parties should read it in full. In brief Napier found that Mr Warcup's letter did not accurately reflect the content of the Review by the Met and in particular he did not convey to the Minister the caveats and reservations in the report which, according to the advice of the Solicitor General, would have rendered it unusable for suspension purposes. It is now clear from the Napier report and from other revelations that, contrary to whatever impression the former Minister may have given at the time, the only relevant document which he appeared to have seen when he implemented my suspension was the letter from Mr Warcup and the incomplete and selective summary of the Met Review which it contained. The day after Mr Warcup sumitted his letter to the Minister he was promoted to Acting Chief Officer with a significant increase in salary and pension. A few days befor the publication of the Napier report he resigned.
We know from the transcripts of my suspension review meeting with the now Minister for Home Affairs that the use of the Review for Disciplinary Purposes caused a major rift between Jersey and the Metropolitan Police. It also set a dangerous precedent, which, if allowed to stand, would undermine future reviews and present a threat to the effective investigation of major crime. I understand from a number of informal sources that in the aftermath of the events of 2008 much work has been done to repair the damage caused by the actions of the then Minister and that, should the need arise again, it might be possible for the Review process to be used once again in Jersey.
If that is true then I see it as a positive outcome. Nevertheless, the breach of the understandings associated with the Review process which occurred in November 2008 was a significant event and I am not surprised that it is now becoming the focus of interest. If asked, I will continue to assist interested parties in their understanding of these events.
I have also been asked if I can case any further light on a document which has been described as an "interim report" from the Metropolitan Police, which is the document which David Warcup claimed was the basis of his letter to the Minister. During the course of their disciplinary investigation Wiltshire Police disclosed to me a significant number of documents reletive to their enquiries. Among these was an "Officers Report" in the form of a memorandum. It was in the name of a civilian employee of the Metropolitan Police who had been assisting with the Review. It contained some of the words which have since been quoted as being from the alleged "interim report." I have since spoken to people who were later given a copy of what appears to be the same document, in that it contains the same words. However, others who were shown the document describe it as more official-looking with a printed cover which indicates that it is an official report from the "Metropolitan Police." The document which was disclosed to me by Wiltshire Police is a report by one person. It does not have a crest or cover and makes no claim to be an official "Metropolitan Police" report. I can offer no more information in relation to this matter and have decided not to speculate as to when the apperance of the document was apparently changed and for what motive.
Finally, there is one additional point which may be of value to those interested in the case. The Chief Officer of the Islands Police is not an employee of the States. He is in the words of the Islands Attorney General an "Officer of the Crown" who is sworn by the Royal Court to "Serve the Queen." The means by which the postholder can be suspended or removed are prescribed by law. It is not an employment process but a legal process which is subject to review by the Courts. The legal and constitutional implications of such an act are significant. If such a process was implemented or supported on the basis of evidence which was fabricated, amended, mis-represented or falsified in any way, or if any relevant evidence was wilfully destroyed, that would be a grave matter and ought to have signficant implications for those involved.
THIS IS A VERY CONDENSED MATT TAPP REPORT
COMMISSIONED BY THE FORMER CHIEF EXECUTIVE & FORMER CHIEF MINISTER
NOW THIS IS A SCANDAL SENATOR LE MARQUAND
Press Release Operation Rectangle
Wednesday 12 November 2008
The States of Jersey Police have today issued the following press statement in order to clarify matters relating to Haut de la Garenne and to provide an update in relation to the wider child abuse enquiry.
In February this year, the States of Jersey Police commenced a search at Haut de la Garenne. This search resulted in the recovery of a considerable number of forensic finds.
In the weeks that followed, the enquiry was the centre of considerable media coverage and became a matter of serious public concern. Statements which were issued by the States of Jersey Police suggested that serious criminal offences had been perpetrated against children and also that there was a possibility that children may have been murdered, bodies had been disposed of and buried within the home.
The States of Jersey Police are now making a clear distinction between the forensic finds at Haut de La Garenne and the investigation into offences of Historic Child Abuse. It is emphasised however that the States of Jersey Police continue to investigate offences of abuse against children which occurred within the child care system in Jersey over several decades.
The States of Jersey Police wish to make it absolutely clear that central to the investigation, are the complainants and witnesses who have come forward and provide statements to the Enquiry Team. We are clear in our absolute commitment to the full and thorough investigation of the complaints which have been made with the aim of uncovering the truth and bringing anyone responsible for offending to justice.
It is also essential, however, to ensure that the facts are reported properly.
An assessment of the evidence available has revealed that the forensic recoveries do not indicate that there have been murders of children or other people at Haut de la Garenne. Nor is it believed that the evidence indicates that bodies have been destroyed, buried or hidden at Haut de la Garenne.
- Should any further evidence come to light, this will be assessed, and whatever action is necessary will be taken.
The Deputy Chief Officer, David Warcup, stated;
“It is unfortunate that we now believe that the information which was put into the public domain by the States of Jersey Police about certain ‘finds’ at Haut de la Garenne was inaccurate, and we regret this”.
With regard to the particular evidence which has been highlighted in the media, the States of Jersey Police are clear that these do not support suggestions that there have been murders at Haut de la Garenne. In particular;
A Piece of Child’s Skull
- An anthropologist made an initial identification as this item being a piece of child’s skull.
- At 10:45 am the SIO made a decision to release information to the press about the find.
- At 2pm the same day a press conference disclosed this item as the finding of the potential remains of a child.
- This item was lying within earth that is now identified as being Victorian era.
- On the 31st March 2008 Dr Higham from the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit stated he believed the item was not bone.
- The original anthropologist reviewed her initial identification and on 14th April 2008 had stated she no longer identified it as part of a skull.
- Dr Higham and Dr Jacobi (of the British Museum faunal specialist) concluded that the sample was not in fact bone, but was almost certainly wood. They went further stating it was more like a part of a seed casing like a small piece of coconut.
- The conclusions are therefore that the sample is a) Not bone and b) Not human.
- The States of Jersey Police satisfied that having liaised with the anthropologist and Dr Higham and other experts, that this item is not human and was found in a Victorian context.
Shackles’ and ‘Restraints’:
The item referred to as ‘Shackles’ was found in rubble on the ground floor of HDLG on 28th February. These are in fact rusty pieces of metal. There is no witness evidence or intelligence which indicates these should be described as shackles or that shackles resembling this description have been used during the commission of any offences.
The item called a ‘restraint’ was found amongst general debris in an under floor area. However, there is no evidence or intelligence indicating this is anything suspicious.
The Bath and blood stains:
This bath in the under floor voids has no water supply and has not been used as a bath since the 1920’s when a brick pillar was constructed within it. During the search a specialist search dog reacted to the bath and a presumptive test indicated positive for blood in a minute area of the bath. Following detailed forensic microscopic examination no blood has been found. There is nothing suspicious about the bath and no indication this bath has been used in the commission of any offences.
These are floor voids. They are not cellars, and it is impossible for a grown person to stand up straight in the floor voids under Haut de la Garenne.
There are 65 teeth found in the floor voids and 1 elsewhere. They are milk teeth coming from at least 10 people - up to a maximum of 65 people. Around 45 of the teeth originate from children aged 9 to 12 yrs and 20 from the range 6 to 8 years.
There is wear on some of the teeth; these teeth generally have the appearance of being shed naturally.
It is possible for more tests to be done on the teeth to clarify age and other factors.
170 pieces of bone which are mainly animal were found in the area of HDLG which was searched. Many more pieces of bone were found in the area of the grounds, all of which are animal.
- Of all that material, there are 3 fragments which are ‘possibly’ human; the biggest piece is 25 mm long.
- 2 fragments date 1470 to 1650 and the other 1650 to 1950
- These have not definitely been identified as human bone. Taking in all this information, this is an unexplained find if it is human, but not necessarily suspicious.
These were dug in the late 1970s and are unexplained, but nothing suspicious has been found in either of them.
- No people are reported missing
- There are no allegations of murder
- There are no suspects for murder
- There is no specific time period for murder.
- We are satisfied that there is no indication or evidence that there have been murders at HDLG.
The Deputy Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, David Warcup stated, “I continue to have every confidence in the detectives and investigators who are currently working on the historical abuse enquiry. The have worked extremely hard in their search for the truth and to bring offenders to justice.”
“This investigation has clearly had an impact on the very committed men and women who work for the States of Jersey Police and I am grateful to them for their hard work, dedication and commitment during recent months in helping to ensure that the people of Jersey receive a good service from their local force.”
“I also wish to make comment concerning the relationship between Crown Officers working with the enquiry and the States of Jersey Police. Much has been reported which suggested that lawyers do not work directly with investigating officers.
The fact is that lawyers do work with investigators on serious and complex enquiries, I can absolutely reassure the public that the relationship between the police and lawyers is a positive one and I have seen absolutely no evidence whatsoever which would support any assertion that they should not have been directly involved in the enquiry. Indeed I would suggest that excluding lawyers has resulted in delays to the investigative process.”
The Historic Abuse enquiry will continue to be led by Detective Superintendent Mick Gradwell. Who stated.
“I would wish to emphasise that we are not questioning the fact that historically serious offences have been committed against children. There will however not be the number of court cases or prosecutions which were originally reported.”
“I have every confidence in the investigation team who are committed to bringing offenders to justice.”