Thursday, January 26, 2012

MATT TAPP FILES - 8-OCTOBER 8TH -HUBRIS


Frank Walker former Chief Minister






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;




"TAPP REPORT"



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.



Rico Sorda


Team Voice





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.

The Cellars

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.

Teeth

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.

Bones

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.

The Pits

These were dug in the late 1970s and are unexplained, but nothing suspicious has been found in either of them.

In summary;

  • 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.”

91 comments:

rico sorda said...

Im not sure what more I can do. Im having a rest. No more posting until sunday at least.

It is now up to others and carry the battle into the States Chamber on Tuesday

Remember 8th October 2008

That is how they done it


rs

Anonymous said...

Incredible.

Speechless.

Ive only read it once but its the best blog posting you have ever done.

The hard work has paid off.

Keep it coming.

Ian Evans said...

REMEMBER DANIEL SCAIFE?

rico sorda said...

I forgot to add; That is why the Wiltshire Discilpinary Investigation never reached a conclusion because Graham Power would have destroyed them.

And they new it.

That is why the Solicitor General gave David Warcup Operation Blast in June 2009 so it would string it out even longer.

Quite smile really

rs

Anonymous said...

Is ILM going to man up and fess up ?

Unlikely as he is so deeply 'invested' in this.

Far more likely to pull a sickie again and leave his poor No.2 to witter "well I don't really know anything about this"

Man up Ian and take some imodium!

A lie [false whitness] is not avoided by clever forms of words if they avoid the issue or intentionally perpetuate or reinforce someone else's lies

"I was being loyal to my mates" won't wash when you meet your almighty. SHE won't give a toss who they are in the Jersey Law Society etc.

Deep frier for you! -can't be far away now.

Zoompad said...

Lenny, please can you tell us (if you know) who Peter Britton is, and who he was working for? Thanks.

Anonymous said...

My initial reaction (though i will need to read it again)is that the answer to all these months of investigation lay in the Napier report and in the head of Graham Power.A lot of work may have been avoided had he made this statement public a lot earlier. I assume that his defense document includes all this info.This is the one that both BBC and yourself have a copy of? How much more embarrassing information is in that report?

Are you telling us that you had a skype interview with Matt Tapp !

xJHB

Ian Evans said...

That was some read Rico, pure class :)

Anonymous said...

i really am losing the plot now.
Just remind of the purpose of the Met. and Wiltshire reports.

Anonymous said...

Congratulations, Rico, on your very solid investigative work. Your success should not surprise those who have kept up with your relentless efforts to uncover the evidence behind your government's abuse cover up.

If these newly reported facts do not result in a parallel scandal involving BBC's Jersey staff, we will be quite surprised. In fact, we will make every effort to contact CNN administrative staff, even in person, should the BBC executives (UK) not address this promptly. You may recall that of those media outlets we contacted, CNN was the only one willing to remove their coverage describing the alleged coconut evidence, when they could not verify the existence of any such forensic findings.

As Stuart has said, BBC's role is another very very big story in and of itself.

Kuddos and cheers!

Denver Gals

rico sorda said...

The Met reports - Implemented by Power/Warcup to review operation Rectangle - September 2008 completed late November 2008

Wiltshire - Disciplinary Investigation implemented by then H/A Minister Andrew Lewis on the 15th November 2008 - never reached a conclusion.

rs

rico sorda said...

"Are you telling us that you had a skype interview with Matt Tapp"

No, I had a Skype with the former Chief of Police because I wasn't going to publish these posts unless I new there was cast iron evidence to back it up.

The information is 100%

As given by Matt Tapp to Wiltshire under Oath

I read it over Skype

I had to

rs

Anonymous said...

WOW! You deserve a medal for service to the cause of democracy and equally as much for great investigative reporting. This is sensational stuff. You wouldn't perchance have a dragon tattoo? ;)

Anonymous said...

Can all of those involved (and I mean all, regardless of their role) in this disgusting act of criminality face criminal prosecution? Similarly, do the UK authorities have the power to arrest them without the authorisation of the States of Jersey? I ask, because we know that the SOJ won’t do a thing if it involves any admission of liability! Can we make Ogley repay the 500,000 that he was paid for services rendered to the Island? There are so many questions that need now need answer's!

Anonymous said...

Bill Ogley was right about one thing. This could bring down the government. Only this time we wont 'have to go through him first'.

What an inadequate, impotent bunch of lickspittles we have at the top of the tree. Time to chop it down is now.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

There it is laid bare in its wretched glory and there's more to come yet. The State Media's silence, yet again, is deafening taking a (very educated) guess, neither yourself, nor Mr. Power have been contacted as a result of this latest posting by ANY of them?

The Chief of Police is suspended on a Report written by a Media Consultant? Not only a Media Consultant but one employed by the very people the police were investigating, the States of Jersey?

There was no Met "Interim" Report it was a memorandum sent by a civilian member of staff?

When is London, or ANYBODY, going to step in and restore the rule of law on this island, how bad does it have to get?

Zoompad said...

"Can all of those involved (and I mean all, regardless of their role) in this disgusting act of criminality face criminal prosecution? Similarly, do the UK authorities have the power to arrest them without the authorisation of the States of Jersey?"

Yes and yes, they can, for two reasons, the first is that there were children sent from the West Midlands to Haut de la Garenne, and also there were UK police officers and agencies involved in the cover up, so the notion that this is an isolated Jersey problem is nonsense.

Zoompad said...

THE COMPLAINT I HAVE JUST SENT TO THE BBC:

YOUR COMPLAINT:



Complaint Summary: The political crisis in Jersey over HDLG cover up



Full Complaint: There is a monumental political crisis in Jersey over the Haut de la Garenne child abuse cover up, yet the BBC appear to be trying to ignore it. The BBC forces me to pay for a television licence every year, wether I watch BBC programmes or otherwise, and I think it is pretty reasonable to expect that the BBC fulfils its legal obligation to broadcast impartial, accurate, and fair and balanced reporting, something which it is failing to achieve as long as it ignores such a massive news story.

BBC COMPLAINTS FORM

Anonymous said...

Have you been contacted by any States members Senators deputies etc offering to help?

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

A reader says:

"Can all of those involved (and I mean all, regardless of their role) in this disgusting act of criminality face criminal prosecution? Similarly, do the UK authorities have the power to arrest them without the authorisation of the States of Jersey? I ask, because we know that the SOJ won’t do a thing if it involves any admission of liability! Can we make Ogley repay the 500,000 that he was paid for services rendered to the Island? There are so many questions that need now need answer's! "

Those are extremely important points.

The reader is quite right, in suggesting that 'nothing will be done' if things are left in the hands of the Jersey authorities.

But - let us assume that the current Police Chief, Mike Bowron, is a straight cop - and would therefore wish to investigate this criminal enterprise and have the villains charged and prosecuted.

How could he do that?

The Attorney General and Law Officers Department, who legally "advise" the SOJP, and who decide on prosecutions, are a key part - almost certainly THE key part - of the criminal enterprise in question.

So even assuming a willingness, and honesty, on the part of Mr. Bowron - he could not do what is necessary, under the existing Jersey authorities.

Not least because he would be risking getting exactly the same treatment as Graham Power.

That brings us to the rest of the points made by the reader.

The UK authorities not only have the power to enforce the proper rule of law in Jersey - they are actually legally and constitutionally obliged to do so.

They have no choice.

The 1973 Kilbrandon Royal Commission made it clear that the Crown - acting through Her Majesty's Government - has responsibility for good governance, the rule of law and the proper administration of justice in Jersey. And having those responsibilities, it has the concomitant powers to enforce them.

The UK authorities are also directly responsible for the four, key Crown Officer posts in Jersey - Solicitor General, Attorney General, Deputy Bailiff and Bailiff. They actually appoint those four people.

We can see that power in action, in the precedent of former Deputy Bailiff Vernon Tomes, who London sacked in 1992.

The current four incumbents must be suspended, pending the obviously necessary criminal and professional investigations.

Stuart

Anonymous said...

I know that we have already been given Matt Tapps thoughts via his report but, just being Devil's Advocate here, can we give Matt Tapp the opportunity to reply to these points raised?

Afterall, bloggers are not the MSM and wish to get the views of all parties

The Beano is not the Rag

GeeGee said...

This is mind boggling stuff, although not altogether surprising. I am wondering if the course of justice has been perverted (as per the legal definition).

These are the criteria for prosecution for that offence and as far as I can see this could apply.

'In English, Canadian or Irish, perversion of the course of justice is a criminal offence in which someone acts in a manner that in some way prevents justice being served on either themselves or on a third party. Perverting the course of justice is an offence in common law. It carries a theoretical maximum sentence of life imprisonment, although no sentence of more than 10 years has been handed down in the past one hundred years.

Perversion of the course of justice takes the form of one of three acts:
1.Fabrication or disposal of evidence.

2.Intimidating a witness or juror

3.Threatening a witness or juror

4.It is also criminal to conspire with another to pervert the course of justice and to intend to pervert the course of justice.

I am certain that (1) would apply and (4) also.

Perhaps Stuart with his excellent legal head on could advise?

Anonymous said...

Ogley's £500K can be added to the £900k Wiltshire as HDLG cover-up money

Zoompad said...

Matt Tapp is welcome to contact any of the bloggers, and put his own version of events

Anonymous said...

Rico, it would appear that another offence should appear on the already substantial list of criminal undertakings by the conspirators!

The offence is of cause forgery! The Met have always maintained that they had never undertaken an interim report let alone published one! So, if as claimed by some, including ILM that they actually saw this report then it must have been a forgery! This is dynamite; the forging of an official document with the intention to pervert the course of justice is a very, very serious offence which carries extreme penalties. Considering that the forged `Interim’ report was passed as an `official Metropolitan Police’ report, the Met do not need any official request from the SoJ to investigate! In fact, procedures to do so should already motion at this very moment. And if they’re not, then why not??

ex-pat Donkey said...

Rico,

Just after the bit where you mention a discussion on Skype, you say:-

"3. Came to Jersey on August 5th 2008."

I'm sure you mean October the 5th. A simple typo, but an important one to get corrected.

Keep up the good work.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

GeeGee

All four of the distinct offences you describe have been committed, by various people, in the context of the corrupt acts of Jersey's public authorities.

There is already more than adequate evidence available to bring charges.

Two elements need to be established to substantiate a criminal prosecution; those are the "actus reus" - the actual criminal conduct in question - and the "mens rea" - the 'guilty mind' which, in plain English, is the intention to commit the criminal act.

So, in a normal, lawful society, an honest, objective prosecutor has to:

1: Determine that criminal acts have been committed;

2: Be able to establish the actus reus and the mens rea in connection with the suspects;

3: Be reasonably confident of a chance of securing convictions;

4: Then, at trial, be able to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the accused committed the crimes.

In respect of those four tasks in front of any objective prosecutor facing the Jersey crises, I can guarantee you there are grounds for bringing a substantial number of people to trial.

Including the former - and the current - Attorney Generals - that Office, of course, being THE prosecuting authority in Jersey.

Bit of a problem, that.

Stuart

Anonymous said...

A States sitting no one should miss!

STATES OF JERSEY ORDER PAPER
Tuesday 31st January 2012

I. QUESTIONS
(a) – Written Questions

7. The Minister for Home Affairs will table an answer to a question asked by Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier regarding the payment of the BDO Alto invoice relating to the financial management of the Operation Rectangle Review

8. The Minister for Home Affairs will table an answer to a question asked by Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier regarding the total cost of external inquiries and reviews of alleged police disciplinary issues since November 2008.

(b) – Oral Questions
(120 minutes)

2. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Minister for Home Affairs –

“Is the Minister aware of the report of the Independent Police Complaints Commission into the complaint of Mr Lenny Harper and, if so, would he advise whether it states that the interim Metropolitan Police Report, that was a factor in the suspension of the former Chief Officer and allegedly criticised the former Senior Investigating Officer, contained no such criticism of these officers and, if so, would he apologise or resign?”

4. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade will ask the following question of the Minister for Home Affairs –

“Can the Minister inform members whether the report written on 8th October 2008 by an outside Media Consultant in relation to Operation Rectangle was commissioned by the former Chief Executive of the States and the former Chief Minister and not by the States of Jersey Police?”

6. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Minister for Home Affairs –

“Will the Minister publish the letter from the then Deputy Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police to the then Chief Executive of the States in November 2008, which precipitated the suspension of the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police and, if not, why not?”

14. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Chief Minister –

“Will the Chief Minister publish full details of the contract, if any, with Matt Tapp Associates and fully explain the company‟s role in the suspension of the former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police and various news releases relating to Haut de la Garenne and, if not, why not?”

15. Deputy Trevor Mark Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Minister for Economic Development –

“What level of background checks, if any, are undertaken before a candidate is proposed for appointment as a Commissioner of the Jersey Financial Services Commission?”

17. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour will ask the following question of the Minister for Health and Social Services –

“Given the multitude of reports on the subject of the Children‟s Service, what are the Minister‟s key objectives with regard to reforming the service?”

(c) – Questions to Ministers without notice (30 minutes) –

1st question period – Minister for Home Affairs

2nd question period – Chief Minister

Anonymous said...

4. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade will ask the following question of the Minister for Home Affairs –

“Can the Minister inform members whether the report written on 8th October 2008 by an outside Media Consultant in relation to Operation Rectangle was commissioned by the former Chief Executive of the States and the former Chief Minister and not by the States of Jersey Police


That is it right there. ILM and his bosses know that this is the one. How can they get round it. Tapp has admitted under oath what happened what will Le Marquand say.

The implications are huge.

Anonymous said...

35 THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REGARDING THE AUTHOR OF A REPORT ADVISING THE STATES OF JERSEY POLICE ON MEDIA-RELATED MATTERS:

Question

In his reply to a written question from the Deputy of St. Martin on 23rd March 2010, the Minister referred to the lengthy quotation which forms part of the judgement in the matter of the Attorney General v. Aubin and others [2009] J.R.C. 035A. in the following terms “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.” Would the Minister inform members who called for this report, when and why, who conducted it, how were those who undertook the review were selected and what their qualifications were? Will the Minister release the report to members as it has already been used in a public court judgement?

Answer

In September 2008 an external media consultant, experienced in working at ACPO level in the UK, was formally engaged by the then Deputy Chief of Police with the knowledge of the Chief Officer of Police to develop an appropriate external communication strategy regarding Operation Rectangle. This was primarily to ensure:

•That trials and ongoing investigations were not compromised or challenged on the grounds of an abuse of process, based on the information supplied to the media by the States of Jersey Police.

•That the public were presented with accurate facts.

The external media consultant gave advice on these matters and subsequently resigned from his role. He then produced a written report in relation to his advice. Other issues relating to the report fall both within the ambit of the enquiry being conducted by the Commissioner and the terms of the first Wiltshire Police Report and it is not appropriate for me to express an opinion thereon at this sta

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Thanks to Former Deputy Bob Hill's latest Blog POSTING we are reminded in the Napier Report that David Warcup's letter was "amended" but not, seemingly by Mr. Warcup so who is the amender or amendee?????

From the Napier Report.

93. In the light of the arrival and contents of the Interim Report, one interpretation of the facts is that an earlier draft of the Report of Mr Warcup was changed. Support for such an hypothesis can be seen in the further revision of the letters that were sent by Mr Crich at 21.15 on 11 November to the Solicitor General’s office, which are said in the email to have been “amended in the light of this evening’s conversation.” The version of the letter headed “Suspension from Duty” now states “On the 11th November 2008 I received a letter from the Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers enclosing a copy of a letter he had received from the Deputy Chief Officer of Police concerning an interim report he (the DCO) had received from the Metropolitan Police into the conduct of the historic child abuse enquiry in Jersey.” I must record, however, Mr Warcup’s assertion (which I have no reason to doubt) that his letter to Mr Ogley was not amended by him.

Anonymous said...

Anon said...."That is it right there. ILM and his bosses know that this is the one. How can they get round it. Tapp has admitted under oath what happened what will Le Marquand say."

He will invariably try and bluff and bluster his way through offering non-answers and claiming it was all before his time and because of Wiltshire's findings it's all irrelevant now anyway especially in light of the fact that GP is now retired blah blah blah.

For in truth there isn't really much else he can say. Despite the now huge weight of evidence against him he will be relying upon the old guard and vague empty vessels in the chamber to let it all blow over - that an a compliant media who will use the opportunity to quote the Minister in a way which will only deek to condemn LH & GP further.

If he comes out and says sorry, this has all been a total shambles. I was left holding a steaming pile of sh*t and I really can't be bothered to take the rap anymore for my pre-decessors actions then I'll move to Guernsey.

So would it be too much to ask our progressive's in the house to spend some time over the weekend talking about a joint approach so then when he wriggles, one of you has a killer supplementary?

You see you need him to fess up. Anything else and the media will just turn it back the other way.

Your not going to get a better crack at this. Please don't cock it up!!!!

Zoompad said...

"You see you need him to fess up. Anything else and the media will just turn it back the other way."

He's daft if he doesn't, after all, it's not as if anyone is accusing him of being a child abuser. Why would he want to be painted with the same brush?

Anonymous said...

Tuesday could be the game changer. If ILM falters then the flood gates will open. There will be a run on the Establishment. And so profound might be the outcome that we will see a lot of very senior, high profile figures being forced to run for cover. And remember there is no honour amongst criminals. So the progressives must nail ILM and put an end to 60 years of political dominance.

Prepare to be as ruthless in your quest for the truth as they will be in their pursuit of lies, spin, missinformation and total dishonesty.

So be prepared. Have all the neccessary quotes, reports, dates and a timeline of events drawn up in advance.

This is the game-changer!

thejerseyway said...

Hi Rico.

Just put up the Audio of Deputy T Pitman giving the BBC a Interview.
You can Listen to it HERE

Zoompad said...

Its a chance for the sheep and goats to seperate. No decent person would ever really want to cover up the abuse of children. It's not too late for Ian le Marquand to redeem a little of his morality, by fessing up now, or he could just carry on stubbornly desperatly trying to cover up this mess. A humble and sincere apology at this stage would not be pleasant for him, but it would be the right thing to do, and would seperate him from the rest of the goat herd. I don't think any of the abuse survivors really want to see his head speared on a pole - people just want to be allowed to heal, to be allowed to have a life, be given acces to what they need to heal, all the persecution to stop and the rapists and murderers jailed, and the whistleblowers vindicated and recompensed. That, surely, is not too much to ask?

Zoompad said...

I don't think anyone should lose sight of what ll this is about. It was never meant to be some sort of political coup. It was always about seeing people who had been abused getting treated fairly and humanely. That is why Stuart laid his life down so bravely, thats why he went to prison. Stuart has been accused of being a maverick, a sort of an outlaw, or anarchist, and he's no such thing, he is a very very kind hearted man who has a really deep sense of justice and morality. Please, don't lose sight of what we have all been fighting for, please.

Anonymous said...

Rico if you have more to come, please keep it close to your chest.

Let ILM advisors do their best they need to seriously understand it is not about digging themselves out of a hole, it is being honest.

Res Nullius said...

It shouldn't come down to Tuesday.

What they have done is criminal and they should be dealt with accordingly

Anonymous said...

This has all been an expensive endeavor for the establishment, and there is no reason to believe the law offices are not on red alert and working 'round the clock
to achieve a measure of plausible deniability. That is, after all, what they do best in Jersey. Surely they had been working already on some sort of plan to spin even this, since Rico had made clear for weeks that he was on to Matt Tapp. Expect fallout, but expect it with even more hubris and desperate high priced spin before the big collapse.

Anonymous said...

I recon that whoever is in the chair will save ILM ass with some on the cuff ruleing the jersey way.

Ian Evans said...

LETTERS TO LENNY Part 5

rico sorda said...

Rico if you have more to come, please keep it close to your chest.

Let ILM advisors do their best they need to seriously understand it is not about digging themselves out of a hole, it is being honest.



Do you have a crystal ball?

rs

Anonymous said...

A couple of comments have got me thinking about the Bailiff who will probably be in " the chair ".

He is supposed to be neutral from no party and having no political views ( while working ) I think it important to observe how he operates.

Should he stop or shorten delving deep questions he will be doing a complete disservice to islanders and true democracy, while tarnishing the reputation even further of crown officers after the appalling Advocate Steven Baker's recent actions of not reading evidence relied on as defence by the accused.

He then insisted it should be struck out. In the UK he would be up on charges.

Tuesday in the States,should be a test for whoever is in the chair, and a spotlight is shining his way.

Anonymous.

Ian Evans said...

Might be a good time to revisit Le Marquand's working DODGY PAST

rico sorda said...

Hi Res,

I agree. Im not expecting the 4th of July on tuesday. The States chamber is a very hard place to nail someone. The acoustics are rubbish, the minister will play for time and the blind feudalists will stamp their feet in blind panic.

The progressives must be straight to the point, and above all, researched.

It will be very interesting. The one I'm looking out for is the question regarding Matt Tapp. When ILM gave his answers to this last time it just skirted round the edges.We now have it from Tapp himself as to what happened. What will ILM say.


Like I have said before the implications are huge


4. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade will ask the following question of the Minister for Home Affairs –

“Can the Minister inform members whether the report written on 8th October 2008 by an outside Media Consultant in relation to Operation Rectangle was commissioned by the former Chief Executive of the States and the former Chief Minister and not by the States of Jersey Police?”

rico sorda said...

This is from Graham Powers Judicial Review.


In August 2008, Mr Warcup, with the authority of Mr Power, commissioned the Metropolitan Police to carry out a review of Operation Rectangle, which was commenced in September and from which an interim report detailing their initial findings was issued on 10th November 2008.

On the evening of 11th November 2008, Mr Warcup and Mr Gradwell gave a briefing on Operation Rectangle to Ministers in advance of a media briefing which was to be given the next day, the purpose of which was to correct facts that had been inaccurately presented and which in their view created a real risk to future trials.

They announced that the forensic recoveries did not indicate that there had been murders of children or other persons at Haut de la Garenne and nor did the police believe that the evidence indicated that bodies had been destroyed, buried or hidden at Haut de la Garenne. Specifically:-

the piece of child’s skull found was not human bone and was recovered from within a “Victorian era”;

the cellars were not cellars but voids under the floor;

the shackles and restraints have not been identified and there was no evidence of shackles or restraints being used;

many of the bones recovered are animal in origin. Of those identified as possibly human they all predate 1950;

the bloodstains in the bath had not been identified as blood;

of the teeth recovered, they were milk teeth to come from at least 10 people and possibly up to 65 and generally had the appearance of having been shed naturally;

there were no people reported missing, no allegations of murder, no suspects for a murder and no specific time period for a murder.

******** ************************************

That is the Matt Tapp Report

Its so obvious now.

Read the condensed Tapp Report on my main posting

I can't believe what they did. Andrew Lewis would have looked at that presentation and thought christ the MET
are on the Money.

Former Deputy Andrew Lewis was manipulated, foolish and not least duped along with others on the night of the 11th November 2008. He must now come out and talk about what happened that night.

Its not to late for Andrew Lewis to come out and do the right thing. The game is well and truly up concerning the illegal and politicised suspension of Graham Power

rs

Anonymous said...

Talking of bones at HDLG was there not something about a worker on site finding a lime pit?

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

A reader says:

"A couple of comments have got me thinking about the Bailiff who will probably be in " the chair ".

He is supposed to be neutral from no party and having no political views ( while working ) I think it important to observe how he operates.

Should he stop or shorten delving deep questions he will be doing a complete disservice to islanders and true democracy, while tarnishing the reputation even further of crown officers after the appalling Advocate Steven Baker's recent actions of not reading evidence relied on as defence by the accused.

He then insisted it should be struck out. In the UK he would be up on charges.

Tuesday in the States,should be a test for whoever is in the chair, and a spotlight is shining his way."

Let us be absolutely clear about this - and we can regard this as a test of the "progressive" States members - neither the Bailiff nor Deputy Bailiff should be in the chair for any of these questions - nor any debate touching upon similar matters.

Both Bailiff, Michael Birt - and Deputy Bailiff, William Bailhache - are directly conflicted in these matters.

Both men are facing the most serious of questions - issues of the utmost gravity - in relation to their actions when they were Attorneys General, in respect of their conduct towards child protection failures and child abuse cases.

Both men as individuals - and the Office of Attorney General - are entangled in the "grave matter", to borrow Graham Power's phrase.

All of the progressives should be speaking amongst themselves, and making individual and collective objections to Birt or Bailhache being in the chair when these questions arise.

If they don't get e-mailing to that effect over the weekend - then we can - sadly - conclude that they remain timorous and fearful - and wholly unprepared to confront the stagnant paternalism and deference in Jersey politics.

There can be no mistake about this:

No respectable legislature in the democratic world would permit such conflicted individuals to chair a key session - and nor would it be in the public good to let such conflicts contaminate proceedings.

The following rule, 4.27, from the Scrutiny Code, should be extrapolated and applied to any conflicted person:

"It is inappropriate for a Panel member who represents, or is a member of, a particular interest, stakeholder group or other organisation to participate in a review of a topic directly related to that group. The member may, however, give evidence to the Panel as a witness, having withdrawn from the Panel for the duration of the particular review."

The Crown Officers - Bailiff, Deputy Bailiff, Solicitor General and Attorney General - as an entity, have a particular interest and are a stakeholder group in the matters under question. None of should participate in the proceedings.

I suggest that concerned members of the public e-mail or call their progressive states members this weekend - and tell them they should be objecting to Birt or Bailhache being in the chair when these questions - or any similar matter - arises.

Stuart.

Anonymous said...

Timeline/dates needed please for
Napier
Met.
Tapp
Wiltshire

There are no other reports,are there?
And where can i read the Napier report?

exJHB

Zoompad said...

There will be records of every child that ever entered into Haut de la Garenne, and records of all the staff and every receipt of everything that was bought, down to the last half penny.

When I first attempted to get my own records, I was told that I couldn't have them, as they had been destroyed. But they magically re-appeared, albeit doctored, to try to blacken my character, to make me look as though I had been born a cunning little whore.

When I did get my records I was amazed at some of the entries, for example, a penny pinching haggling over a few shillings for a new school blouse for me.

Social Services, the police, the NHS ect, they always kept records of everything, and filed them carefully.

It's very important that the truth of the past is uncovered. Getting "The Pindown Experience" 1990 child care inquiry is helping me to put my own sad and frightening experience into perspective. It's very important for me to be allowed to realise that it was not my fault I was abused as a child, and to be able to rise above the wicked accusations that it was.

Nobody knows if anyone was murdered at HDLG, but people are very concerned that they may have been, because of the human remains found and the reports of children dissapearing. There was talk of lime pits being dug, but as the builder who made that allegation has not come forward to speak about it I have a feeling that could have been a red herring, to make the investigation look ridiculous.

The thing to do is to find those records. You Jersey people need to do that, you can find the records of finances for HDLG, and also the names of members of staff who were working at that place. You won't be given the records of the children who were there, that's a job for the police.

addresses

Zoompad said...

The Napier Report

Anonymous said...

Olease can you clarify as to whether or not there exists a report issued by the Metropoltian Police, that is called : the `interim Metropolitain police Report'?

The reason i ask, is that I am sure that the Met had made it clear, that they did not write an `Interim' report'! The only report that the Met lay claim to is `The Metropolitian Police Report'....that being the only report compiled by them.

Please can you clear this issue up for me?

Anonymous said...

Dont forget the Chapman Report.

rico sorda said...

A civilian employee of the Met who was working on the Met Review of Operation Rectangle sent David Warcup some briefing notes on the 10th November 2008.

These notes where then turned into a MET Interim report in Jersey - they were just notes- Interim Report is a name made up by the Jersey Authorities.

Re read the posting over and over and you will start to get it

rs

phil said...

ILM‘s possible response:
‘Yes, Walker and Ogley did commission Tapp to advice and to write a report for the States on the basis of the hard evidence available.
Yes naturally Tapp’s report was used in the pre-press briefing to ministers and the later press briefing because that report was written specifically for the purpose of communicating effectively with ministers and the media the reasons behind the decision to close down that part of the investigation for which there was no credible, evidence based reason to continue.
Thank-you very much for giving me the opportunity to clarify this, as it has led to much confusion and speculation amongst some parties.’

However, there are two main problems with this response:
1 On procedural grounds - which is nothing that a bit of hoop jumping won’t overcome
2 On evidence based grounds - which could be very serious for the establishment if it can be shown that
either the evidence had been ‘fabricated, amended, mis-represented or falsified in any way, or if any relevant evidence was wilfully destroyed’. If this has occurred then it would be a ‘grave matter and ought to have significant implications for those involved.’ It would in fact be a criminal act not least because the evidence used in the briefings was also used in the suspension of a Chief Officer of police.

It is also important to read what Napier said about the ‘evidence’ that was used in the suspension of Graham Power. ILM and TLS have repeatedly tried to make out that Napier’s criticisms were purely of a procedural nature and have not addressed properly the most crucial criticisms that Napier made regarding the ‘evidence’ on which that suspension was based. Also, States Members, who have been critical of the way GP was suspended, perhaps have allowed themselves to be distracted by procedural arguments and consequently they have not always been focused enough on analysing the validity of the ‘evidence’.
Invalidate enough of the evidence and what follows won’t be just jumping through hoops.

rico sorda said...

This is why the suspension letters were drafted before the 10th - they already new what they were doing - they were using the Tapp Report

Tapp probably never had a clue what it was going to lead to.

You cat very well saying where going to suspend GP because of a report we commissioned that is why the name METROPOLITAN came in - just to give the suspension some balls

rs

Anonymous said...

Thank you for clarifying the question regarding the `Met `Interim Report’! May I suggest that when you refer to it in future that you label it the `The Faked Metropolitan Police Interim Report’, just to make it crystalline to your readers that it was a faked by the SOJ, and that no such report from the Met ever existed in reality?

Web Guru said...

Wiltshire Operation Haven Redacted

Anonymous said...

have at last read the Napier report.
He concludes that there were was insufficient evidence for suspending Mr. Power.

He also states that he has seen Mr. Powers copy of the Interim Met. report and that it differs slightly from the other one that he has seen.
So at least two copies exist!!!

What is going on? Napier page 98

Anonymous said...

I would agree with your use of the term "feudalists," after re-reading your post, and propose that you dub yourselves the "pro-democracy forces." Powerful, and correct.

Elle

Web Guru said...

Call for Jersey home affairs minister to resign

Anonymous said...

Taken from Napier report

98. In this context I note that the version of the Interim Report which was in Mr
Power’s possession, and which he showed to me, was provided to him as part
of the Wiltshire Inquiry. It is the same document in content, but the title page
on his version is different. It purports to be an “Officer’s Report” from an
individual named Peter Britton, and bears the date 10/11/2008. Mr Warcup
confirmed to me that he wanted the Interim Report in advance of the
scheduled press conference on the 12 November, but was unsure of the date
when he received it. The version of the Interim Report which was shown me by Mr Warcup has a different title page, and clearly indicates it is an official
Metropolitan Police document.

99. Mr Warcup, I should add, was adamant that he wanted the Interim Report to
assist him in dealing with the issues being discussed at the press conference.
He wanted it to help him clear a way through the mistakes that had been made
by DCO Harper and which threatened to derail the criminal trials that were
about to start. He insisted that he wanted it only for that reason and none
other. He was not looking to the Interim Report as providing a reason for the
taking of disciplinary action against Mr Power. I have no reason to think that
is not an honest representation of his views at the time, although it is clear that
as it turned out the Report was used for much wider purposes by the Minister
and his advisors. In my view the prospect of the report being used for the
taking of disciplinary measures against Mr Power is something that was
probably known to Mr Warcup when he delivered his letter dated 10
November to Mr Ogley

Anonymous said...

The pictures placed on States members chairs of coconut lampshades, emails from Mr Shenton referring to Mr Harper as Lenny Henry what was all that about if not politicians denegrating Jersey

Not that I ever believed they were at the time.

Anonymous said...

Is it possible the criminal confiscation fund was used to pay Mr. Tapp.

Someone has paid for the report we need to see receipts terms of reference etc?

Who has authority on spending the criminal confiscation fund?

Anonymous said...

Knowing what you know now, have you found a connection for the altering of the terms of reference for the Napier report?

Anonymous said...

http://thejerseyway.blogspot.com/2011/07/question-time-050711.html

The second audio answers about the Napier report and changing terms of reference reference to ''reports'' talk about pulling the wool over your eyes.

rico sorda said...

‘Yes, Walker and Ogley did commission Tapp to advice and to write a report for the States on the basis of the hard evidence available.'

If ilm comes out with that then the turd will really hit the fan big time.

That is straight forward perverting the course of justice

rs

Anonymous said...

Excellent news Rico! I am told you've given somebody a reason to commence proceedings to sue you for libel this week. Now I think a few people are going to enjoy watching this one! Ciao!

rico sorda said...

Excellent news Rico! I am told you've given somebody a reason to commence proceedings to sue you for libel this week. Now I think a few people are going to enjoy watching this one! Ciao!

Whatever

rs

Anonymous said...

The interim Met.report must exist for both Napier and Power have seen it.
Mr Power had a copy and maybe still has.It was given him by Wiltshire, sometime between November 10th 2009 and the time that he was interviewed by Napier.This is confirmed by Napier on page
98. In this context I note that the version of the Interim Report which was in Mr
Power’s possession, and which he showed to me, was provided to him as part
of the Wiltshire Inquiry.

rico sorda said...

Please, no responses to the libel comment.

I will not stop doing what I do

No one has ever contacted me about what I have posted

Ciao, bella regazzi

rs

Anonymous said...

We need as many people as possible in the gallery of the States for questions on Tuesday.
Take notes , look like you are taking notes. Make it very clear every detail, nuance and reaction is being noted. Under pressure and scrutiny it is quite common for the subconscious to force facts out that the conscious mind would repress.
Mind I wouldn't be surprised if the milky bar kid has a note to be excused games that day.

Ian Evans said...

FRUITCAKE ANYONE ???

Anonymous said...

As Stuart said in his comments on his blog. Tuesdays States sitting will come to nothing....

Unless all of the conflicted could be chairmen are removed beforehand.

Anonymous said...

Two comments above (at 4:03 and 4:13) offer intriguing lines of possible connection to the overall abuse cover up. Perhaps some of your best informed readers can help research any links to FAKE MET report, and the bigger picture might emerge. This is all very compelling new information and the older pieces, like the change in TOR, are starting to fit together in better order.

My guess as an outsider is that ILM knows most or all, and is vulnerable to breaking because of his waffling, wobbling and backtracking. He is not behind all this so much as a patsy out front and center making a fool of himself. He is not as arrogant as his masters, more defensive and possibly somewhat conflicted since as a self professed Christian, he has been caught out lying
and harming the cause of justice for abused children.

Anonymous said...

Why would anyone in power in Jersey sue anyone else for libel, when millions have been spent to prevent more facts from being exposed? Think about it. Nobody is ever going to be sued for libel or defamation by the forces of the cover-up. The underbelly of power is much too sensitive and fragile, now.

Elle

Ian Evans said...

Lost Cause of the Year 2010....goes to GRAHAM POWER!!!!!!!!! YEAH!!!NICE ONE BEN :)

Anonymous said...

Only posting, as this paragraph caught my eye. Not sure of date for the link I have provided.

''This is a more difficult issue. The BDO Alto report follows the conclusions of
the earlier Metropolitan Police Report.''

http://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20StatementHomeAffairsMinisterHCAE%2020100714%20ILeM.pdf

2) WAS THE DIGGING INSIDE THE BUILDING NECESSARY?
This is a more difficult issue. The BDO Alto report follows the conclusions of
the earlier Metropolitan Police Report. However, in Section 2.58 and 2.59 of
the main report you will see that the conclusion of the Wiltshire report is that
although the initial decision to dig inside Haut de la Garenne was
questionable, they are of the opinion that it was reasonable to conduct the
search inside Haut de la Garenne. I would comment that that is particularly so
after the original mistaken opinion of the anthropologist and for disciplinary
purposes I would have followed the Wiltshire opinion although I understand
that some people will take the view of BDO Alto.

rico sorda said...

Just before I was heading out for a splendid night with friends I received one of the strangest emails yet. I emailed all politicians yesterday with an outline as to the recent turn of events. Im well aware that not all states members read blogs.

The email I received, came through on not a gov.je address but on a yahoo one.

So bizarre was this email I messaged them straight back asking them to confirm that that were in fact a politician.

If it was, then they are getting a very special blog posting of their own

rs

Anonymous said...

oh dear,

skull/coconut

if we accept the qualified anthropologist acted in good faith
and
the lab in England found 1.6% collagen in the sample
and
kews tests on their sample showed it to be coconut

all of which I believe is true

then we must conclude that the sample that kew and the lab tested were not the same sample

cyril

Anonymous said...

Any chance of seeing your email to politicians...it might be helpful to keep everyone singing from the same hymn sheet

SteelMagnolia said...

http://steelmagnolia-steelmagnolia.blogspot.com/2012/01/mccann-retired-lawyer-faces-jail.html

This is how they keep their cover-ups Rico. The gullible pay into a fund whereby it is used to silence those who do not believe. AND of course with a great deal of media help ordered by the British Goverment.

Anonymous said...

No wonder poor old ILM got lumbered with the Home Affairs ministers post again, when he clearly didn't want it!

After all, he must have had some doubts about the authenticity of what has now been proved to be a faked `Met Interim Report'.

A bogus report which was contrived with the intent to fraudulently and criminally remove an honest and respected police officer from his post and dish dirt on another.

A bogus and faked document compiled by the two leading representatives of the States of Jersey at the time......how low can people sink, how disgusting!

All of those involved in this attempt to pervert the course of justice and deceive the people of this Island, and indeed the world at large should be behind bars!

Anonymous said...

What was the e-mail, can you show us?

Anonymous said...

I really would like an explanation as to how it is that Napier clearly states that Mr. Power has a copy of the Interim Met.report.

NAPIER
98. In this context I note that the version of the Interim Report which was in Mr
Power’s possession, and which he showed to me, was provided to him as part
of the Wiltshire Inquiry. It is the same document in content, but the title page
on his version is different. It purports to be an “Officer’s Report” from an
individual named Peter Britton, and bears the date 10/11/2008.

Napier says that it is the SAME document IN CONTENT.

Same as what?

So now we know that there ARE at least two copies,but whose copy had Napier been comparing to, keeping in mind that Warcup kept his copy to himself,and our hierarchy had no copy...............or did they?

Have the Met. stated that there is no such document or have they said that they didnt send one to Mr. Warcup. Thats a big difference.

Anonymous said...

The picture I have so far, is the Met working with Mr. Power to see how, or if things could be improved in line with policy.

Alongside that I see Mr. Gradwell earwigging whats being discussed and running to the PR guy with titbits he was picking up or being fed.

These titbits snippets found there way into the Tapp report

Ended up being used as the, source for the reported fake interim Met report.

Law offficers cannot legally defend these titbits.

Am I far off?

GeeGee said...

In essence then Rico, if it was not a politician, it means that one of them made a third party privy to your e-mail in order to cause mischief.

How very, very childish and petty, or is it because some people are running scared?

Anonymous said...

rico I know you've been flat out with all this excellent work of late but it would be great if you could do a very quick posting this evening with the exchange of emails with this supposed States member.

I think we could all do with a bit of a laugh!

Anonymous said...

Former Chief of Police Graham Power:
"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.)"
....er "indicated otherwise" -sorry, does that mean ILM lied ???
Lied to protect the hubris ? - Not just a little white lie then ?

- lucky there are only 9 commandments -eh!
Kiss the devil's ass and Burn in Hell.

Sorry where are my manners? Forgive me kind master, I forgot my place for a moment sir. You are better than us -you have been a lawyer and a judge, it is YOU who is empowered to pass judgement on US.
We shall soon see the measure of the man - we must prepare ourselves for disappointment I fear.

Anonymous said...

I would like to hear Mr. Baudain justify Mr Le Sueurs actions in light of this discrepency, Mr. Le Sueurs answer given versus what Mr. Le Sueur actually knew to be true? That is not incompetence in my book its a lie.

Senator T.A. Le Sueur:
Mr. Napier had full access to the whole affidavit. He also had full access to the former Chief Officer of Police who, if he felt inclined to suggest that there were gaps in the process, would no doubt have advised Mr. Napier accordingly. Given that Mr. Napier had full access not only to the Chief Officer’s written affidavit but his personal


How blatent is the misleading answer given above, versus the true situation. below.

http://thejerseyway.blogspot.com/2011/07/question-time-050711.html

The second audio answers about the Napier report and changing terms of reference reference to ''reports'' talk about pulling the wool over your eyes.