Tuesday, October 9, 2012

DEPT/SUPT MICK GRADWELL - REVISITED


DEPT/SUPT MICK GRADWELL










Deputy/superintendent Mick Gradwell - Revisited.


A policeman referred to by the Jersey Evening Post as a 


"WHISTLEBLOWER"


Policeman who blew the whistle
Tuesday 10th January 2012, 3:00PM GMT.
HOME Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand has criticised Mick Gradwell, the detective who swept up the mess left in the wake of the historical child abuse inquiry, for leaking information to the press. Senator Le Marquand was right to do so, but it is only fair to ask why the detective felt compelled to spill the beans to the national media, notably the Daily Mail.
Mr Gradwell was brought in after the retirement of the deputy chief officer of the States police, Lenny Harper, to try to make sense of an inquiry which had dragged Jersey’s good name through the mud but had resulted in few prosecutions and no evidence whatsoever of the high-level conspiracies and cover-ups that some still continue to insist must have been at the heart of the matter. What his inquiries revealed clearly conflicted with the standards that he believed should characterise a properly conducted investigation into alleged crimes of the most serious nature.
Wrongly, he reached the conclusion that the botched business should receive the oxygen of publicity at the earliest possible moment. That he should have waited until the official report into the whole matter could be published is beyond question.
However, if Mr Gradwell’s timing was at fault as far as the dissemination of information was concerned, the findings of his inquiry remain as sound as they ever were. Criticism of his unprofessional handling of the information he gathered does not undermine the conclusions he was forced to draw from what he discovered relating to the chaotic search at Haut de la Garenne and to the resources that had been poured into the case. He quite correctly identified the frantic pursuit of forensic evidence that was never there and the profligate expenditure of public funds that ensued in that fruitless effort.
We might call Mr Gradwell a whistle-blower, though, it must be said, one who could have envisaged the legitimate means of publishing information which the public deserved to hear without resorting to whistle-blowing. If he deserves that label, it is ironic that those who are keenest to attack his approach and his findings are very eager to uphold the general principle of whistle-blowing – provided that it suits their agenda and their entrenched interpretatio



But their whistleblower failed to show when offered to blow his whistle in front of a Scrutiny Sub Panel. Dept/supt Gradwell got caught out because we decided to investigate.


Mick Gradwell and Daily Mail Journalist David Rose a very comfortable arrangement indeed.


JERSEY STATE MEDIA EXPOSED BY JERSEY BLOGGERS



HOW DID DAVID ROSE GET INVOLVED WITH THE  HISTORICAL CHILD ABUSE INVESTIGATION (HCAE)


HOW DID D/SUPERINTENDENT MICK GRADWELL SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICER OF THE JERSEY HISTORIC CHILD ABUSE INVESTIGATION BECOME INVOLVED WITH HIM?


REMEMBER THE  JERSEY STATE MEDIA DIDN'T RUN WITH THIS


THE SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICER OF JERSEY'S "HCAE" MICK GRADWELL WAS LEAKING TO  THE UK JOURNALIST WHO WAS TRASHING THE INVESTIGATION - OUR MEDIA DON'T TOUCH IT -WHY?



SIMPLE  - THEY WERE IN ON IT - THAT WILL BE THE NEXT POSTING


Then I read the transcripts from Home Affairs Minister Senator Le Marquand dated Friday 15th July 2011 that in October 2009 he was fully aware that Mick Gradwell had been leaking information - due to some excellent detective work from his staff.


WHAT DID HE DO ABOUT THAT? THE "HCAE" WAS STILL LIVE. 


HE WAS DEALING WITH THE SUSPENSION OF GRAHAM POWER THAT D/SUPT GRADWELL HAD PLAYED A PART IN.


THIS IS GOING WAY BEYOND A JOKE; More on this in a later posting.


The Minister for Home Affairs:
No.  The first I was aware of an issue in relation to D/Supt Mick Gradwell was when he went public just before he left the Island and that was the first time.  I viewed this as merely a continuation of that, he had already gone public with his views to the local press, radio.  It is my understanding from David Warcup that Mick Gradwell, although he was asked very strongly not to do anything before he went, and not just by David Warcup, but I understand even by the Attorney General of the day, again this is hearsay, this is obviously what I have been told, that he had already pre-recorded interviews before he had left.  So that is the first that I was aware of an issue, and then of course my staff picked up the Mail article and they did some excellent detective work, emailing, and then sent to me the consequences of that, which clearly pointed to Mick Gradwell.  I have to say, when the issue came up again, I had completely forgotten about this, I had just totally forgotten about it.  I had to look back and find the emails and then say: “Oh yes, now I do recall it”, because it was not that significant to me once I knew it was Mick Gradwell.



What I produce in this post  is based on evidence 


David Rose wrote 3 articles for the Daily Mail which were trashing the "HCAE"


18th May 2008





15th November 2008




4th October 2009




The introduction of David Rose was in my opinion very calculated. The Jersey Establishment needed someone to start trashing the Historic Child Abuse Investigation in the national press.


The reason for looking is very simple. There is a connection between Rose, Gradwell and The Jersey State Media. The agenda from the offset was to opinion manage peoples perception of the "HCAE".


This for me dates back to May 9th 2008 with the then Bailiff Sir Philip Bailhace's Liberation day speech. 




I talk a little about the  culture of fear that exists in Jersey. The below link and interview is well worth a watch.

http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2010/11/culture-of-fear.html


But let us look at former SIO Mick Gradwell. 


 It is this Policeman's  actions that are at the heart of everything.  Why did Mick Gradwell get involved with David Rose? David Rose had already set out his agenda in  May 2008.  This was 4 months before  Mick Gradwell had started his secondment to the SOJP.  Looking back through the archives Mick Gradwell trashes the investigation under Lenny Harper and his team at any given opportunity. He was there with Deputy Chief Officer David Warcup when they gave there infamous briefing to ministers on the day before the  suspension of the then Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM.


What I will be doing now is looking at the evidence that was supplied to the Scrutiny Sub Panel. This review is so important. It will come into play during the forthcoming 'COI'. One of the questions that needs answering is the actions of Mick Gradwell.


During my lnvestigations I came across an article written by David Rose on the 4th October 2009 in which the said journalist was quoting extracts from Police Consultant Mike Kelletts draft notes - confidential notes that had been given to a select few. The final BDO report didn't come out until May 2010.  I started asking questions and what unfolded left me shocked. The article can be read on the link above.


I ask the readers to really look at what BDO & Police Consultant Mike Kellett say about the leaking of their information. This is of the most serious nature. This information was given under oath.  BDO  even question the leaking of information to David Rose back in November 2008. They even asked what  what was done about that leak.


This is what BDO Alto said concerning the leaking by Mick Gradwell




PART C: THE “LEAK” TO A MAIL ON SUNDAY JOURNALIST 

33. The Sub Panel has raised a concern that, “[BDO’s] letter of engagement was dated 29th September 2011 [sic]; however, just a few days later an ‘interim report by financial auditors’ was leaked to the Mail on Sunday (4th October 2009). It appears that a Senior Police Officer was responsible for this leak.” 

35. We have raised our concerns with both the Panel and the Chairmen’s Committee regarding the fact that this Scrutiny Review’s terms of reference appears to be based on, or was at least heavily influenced by, the content of one particular blog site, which contains much speculation and is not in possession of full facts. 

Background to the Mail on Sunday press coverage 

41. The “leak” referred to by the Sub Panel relates to an article published in The Mail On Sunday and on the Mail Online website on 4 October 2009, authored by a journalist called Mr David Rose. The title of the article was “Bungled Jersey child abuse probe branded a ‘£20 million shambles’”19

42. The article includes reference to “a leaked report by financial auditors into the investigation”. However, far from simply being an article written about financial aspects of the investigation, the article reveals the findings of a three-month investigation carried out by The Mail on Sunday. This article quotes from Mr Mick Gradwell, the Senior Investigating Officer who replaced Mr Harper following his retirement, Acting Chief Officer David Warcup, Mr Martin Grime, the NPIA’s Chief Executive, a former Metropolitan Police Commander (through a spokeswoman) 
as well as an unnamed “Jersey government spokeswoman”20.  

43. In fact, Mr Rose had been covering the investigation for some time and his use of “leaked” documents in the 4 October 2009 article was not the first time.
  
44. An earlier article dated 15 November 2008 was titled “How police chief Lenny Harper lost the plot over the Jersey children’s home ‘murders’”21. In that article, Mr Rose notes “… The Mail on Sunday has obtained confidential documents, including a crucial email written by Mr Harper and the official log book kept by his own forensic science team. They show he repeatedly misled both the media and the island’s government, and made a series of statements that proved to be 
inaccurate.” [our emphasis]  

45. This November 2008 article also quoted from numerous individuals involved in the investigation including Mr Harper, SIO Gradwell, Mr Frank Walker, a named professor from the Sheffield University Centre for Human Identification and an LGC spokeswoman. We are not aware as to whether the “leak” of material referred to in Mr Rose’s article of November 2008 has been investigated. Even in that article details of financial expenditure were being discussed; the article refers to “… the police are also said to be concerned at the inquiry’s profligate 
expenditure – such as a decision to send two officers First Class to Australia, and 
a £100,000 bill for the use of Eddie the sniffer dog.” 

46. And in fact, as early as 24 May 2008, Mr Rose was discussing the costs of the investigation at Haut De La Garenne. In his article titled “Jersey police failed to reveal that tested ‘skull’ was coconut”22 he reported, “Last night it was revealed his [Mr Harper’s] investigation at Haut de la Garenne is set to cost £6.5 million this year – about £20,000 per day since the inquiry began on February 23.”  

47. This is important context because the terms of reference for this Scrutiny Review might otherwise imply that there was no financial or other confidential information in the public domain, whether “leaked” or released, and therefore that the article in The Mail on Sunday on 4 October 2009 came ‘out of the blue’. That is clearly not the case and much had already been reported. 

Material “leaked” to the Mail on Sunday journalist 

48. BDO and Mr Kellett discussed the David Rose article of 4 October 2009 the very next day, on Monday 5 October. Both BDO and Mr Kellett were concerned and upset that confidentiality had been compromised. 

49. The nature of the leaked material was immediately clear. It was not and could not have been an ‘interim report by financial auditors’ that had been leaked to The Mail on Sunday because no draft report was in open circulation by that date. 

50. The email trails that follow provide a full contemporaneous record of discussions and correspondence that took place on 5, 6 and 7 October 2009. 

51. The Home Affairs Department wrote to BDO as follows23

“I was concerned to read an article about the HCAE in the Mail on Sunday yesterday that stated that the newspaper has had sight of 'a leaked report by financial auditors', the report is later referred to as 'the team's interim report'. The article does not mention BDO but quotes David Warcup as telling the Mail on Sunday that 'he had appointed an independent team of auditors to examine Harper's spending.' 

If the report referred to is indeed your report I would be grateful for an explanation of how the draft was allegedly made available to the Mail on Sunday reporter when neither the Minister for Home Affairs, the Accounting Officer or myself have yet seen a copy of your draft report.” 

52. BDO responded by email on the same day, extracts from that email24

“To confirm, the draft report has not been provided to anyone by BDO Alto, and in fact no copies have been provided to any party including Home Affairs … there 
are no copies in circulation as far as we are aware. I understand that drafts of Mike Kellett's work were circulated to Mr Gradwell, amongst others including the Wiltshire team, during drafting stage - this included sections on Mr Grime, the deployment of [named officer] and meals in London. I  have not yet been able to speak to Mike today, however I know that he circulated 
copies of his work on a confidential basis and was also minded that confidentiality was to be maintained at all times, and that the Report output needed to be on a 'privileged' basis. It does seem more likely to be the case that it is initial drafts of Mike's work that have been seen by the newspaper rather than our Report - although I have no evidence of that, and nor can we speculate as to the source …  

The wording included in the newspaper appears to be taken from Mike's original drafting, as discussed above. I would again stress that the Report has not been made available to anyone by BDO, and that confidentiality is of paramount importance to us. Neither has any comment been made by us to any media, and the only discussions relating to his Report are as between ourselves, Mike Kellett and yourselves.” 

53. Mr Kellett sent an email to BDO on 6 October 2009 and a copy of that email was forwarded by BDO to Home Affairs the next day25. Extracts from that email: 

“I am shocked that drafts of sections of our report (and not the 'interim' report, as inaccurately stated in the article) have been leaked to the press and published in this fashion, which is unhelpful to say the least and does nothing to serve the public interest. I agree with you that the quotes cited in the Mail on Sunday appear to be from the very first drafts of my work, as at least one of them appeared only in initial draft and was excised from the document drafted to 
consolidate my work and that carried out by you and [BDO employee]. Given that fact, the probable source of the leak is clear to me.  

Apart from you, the initial drafts were also sent to David Warcup, to the Wiltshire team and to Mick Gradwell, for information and for feedback on accuracy of content and on style. None of these recipients received any of the updated drafts, neither those done by me to my initial work nor the consolidated drafts prepared by you … 


Let us now look at what Police Consultant Mike Kellett said:

Deputy R.G Le Hérrisier:
Okay, I wondered if we could move to possibly our final topic, the leak.  I wondered, Managing Director, as you know, your report appeared in the ... either the report or words that were remarkably similar to your report appeared in a national newspaper.  What is your explanation of this if, indeed, you do have one?

Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:
Yes, just to clarify, and it is in our written submission, the material that was leaked to the newspaper was not a BDO work product.  I cannot comment on what was leaked to the media.  As again we say in our written submission, we provide you with copies of the correspondence with Home Affairs on 5th October 2009.  This matter was clearly brought to our attention.  We were concerned that anything that was related to our review was finding its way into the national media.  As I say, it was not a BDO report.  There was not an interim report at that point in time.  What appears to have been leaked were, again, some of the early drafts of some of [Police Consultant]’s work.  He might want to say something about that.

Deputy R.G Le Hérrisier:
As a result of your subsequent inquiries and your contact with Home Affairs, did you come to a considered judgment as to how it had occurred and who had done it?

Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:
I think, when we had an opportunity to have a look at the article that had been published on the Mail on Sunday, it became clear to us what material was being quoted from.  Therefore, from our perspective, we were able to narrow down where that material had gone, but as I say it was not a BDO interim report.  It was not an interim report at all, in fact.

Deputy R.G Le Hérrisier:
But it was material that came from your office, so to speak.

Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:
No, it did not come from our office.

Deputy R.G Le Hérrisier:
You do not think so.

Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:
No.

Police Consultant:
The circumstances of the source are as set down in my written submission.  The source was [retired D/Superintendent].  He has admitted that to me in telephone conversations.  He first telephoned me about a week or so after the article appeared.  I had already worked out that it was probably him.

Deputy R.G Le Hérrisier:
Yes.

Police Consultant:
I deplore what he did.  I have told him I deplore what he did.  In terms of why he did it, you would have to ask him.  He says - so what he told me - and he has repeated that in recent telephone conversations that he has made to me arising out of the establishment of this Panel that he did not give copies of my written work, but he disclosed the contents of some of them to a reporter.  It was not BDO at all.  It is not me.  It was not Wiltshire or [then Acting Police Chief].  It was [retired D/Superintendent].

Deputy T.M. Pitman:
Out of interest, did he seek to justify what he had done to you?

Police Consultant:
He gave a reason, but I think ...

Deputy T.M. Pitman:
Well, we do hope to speak to him. We do not know whether he will.

Police Consultant:
I do not think it is appropriate for me to ...

Deputy T.M. Pitman:
Just for the record, you are saying he said he did not actually show documents to a journalist.  He verbally, because you said he had not shown.  That is what you have just said.

Police Consultant:
I cannot remember at this distance to say his exact words.  What he says is content.  Whether he handed documents or whether he had no idea, I am not sure.

The Deputy of St Mary:
If we cannot talk to [retired D/Superintendent], we will be able to fire you off a letter to ask for a bit more detail on the contents of that particular conversation.

This is from Mike Kelletts submission


PUBLICATION OF DETAILS OF THE REVIEW IN A NATIONAL NEWSPAPER

23.                The first I knew of the article published in the Mail on Sunday on 4th October 2009 was the following day, when I received a telephone call from the Managing Director of BDO Alto to inform me of the fact. During my time in Jersey and since, I have had absolutely no contact, formal or informal, with any journalist.
24.                For the reasons set out in the written submission of BDO Alto, it is clear that it was not an ‘interim report’ or the consolidated report that was leaked to the newspaper but rather content of the drafts of sections of my contribution to the report.
25.                My practice during the review was to forward the first drafts of sections of my report to the Acting Chief Officer, to Mr Gradwell, to the Wiltshire team and to BDO Alto. Only BDO Alto were sent updated drafts, as and when amendments were subsequently made to the originals.
26.                Some days after the article had appeared, I received a telephone call from Mr Gradwell in which he admitted that he had been responsible for the leak.
27.                I received two further telephone calls from Mr Gradwell on 26th June 2011 and 1st July 2011, concerning the establishment of this Sub Panel and he again acknowledged that he had been responsible.
------------------------

Here are the Sub Panels Findings on this issue


 5. To investigate how details of the review into the financial management of Operation Rectangle came to be published in a national newspaper in October 2009

Background
  • On Sunday 4th October 2009 the Mail on Sunday published an article by their reporter David Rose referring to ‘a leaked report by financial auditors’ which had been seen by the newspaper. The article then appears to quote the then Acting Chief of Police: ‘Dave Warcup told the Mail on Sunday that he had appointed an independent team of auditors to examine Harper’s spending - it includes two forensic accountants and a police expert in seizing criminals’ assets’. This statement was factually inaccurate. Later in the article the leaked material is identified as an ‘interim report’. No mention was made in the article of BDO Alto; however, it appears clear that the article is referring to their review.
  • In their submission BDO Alto give a full and contemporaneous record of discussions and correspondence between BDO Alto and Home Affairs following the publication of this article. Mr. Kellett stated in his submission:
It is clear that it was not an ‘interim report’ or the consolidated report that was leaked to the newspaper but rather content of the drafts of sections of my contribution to the report. 
  • Mr. Kellett explained that he had circulated copies of his work on a confidential basis to the Acting Chief Officer, to Mr. Gradwell, to the Wiltshire team and to BDO Alto for feedback and comments. In a telephone conversation after the article had appeared Mr. Gradwell admitted to Mr. Kellett that he had been responsible for the leak. Mr. Kellett said that he deplored this action.
  • The States of Jersey Police submission confirmed this and described the circumstances as follows:
D/Supt M Gradwell left Jersey in August 2009 and retired from the police service on 2 September 2009. Prior to leaving and unbeknown to the States of Jersey authorities, Mr. Gradwell gave a number of press briefings which were critical of the investigation led by Mr. Harper. During the course of these briefings, it is evident that Mr. Gradwell made verbal references to extracts from the BDO Alto report on financial matters. This was wholly improper and less than helpful to the ongoing enquiry. [ ] Mr. Gradwell is on public record as accepting that he quoted information from notes later incorporated in the report, but he vehemently denies ‘leaking’ a copy of the report to the media.
Details of the article
  • Some of the wording quoted in the Mail on Sunday article is very close to the phrases in the final report; in addition specific details of financial costs are disclosed. There seems to be little doubt from the number of specific details and phrases used by the newspaper that the reporter had extensive access to Mr. Kellett’s material whether or not the reporter was actually given a copy of the work.
  • The article refers three times to comments by Mr Gradwell, the retiring Senior Investigating Officer, who had described the handling of the HDLG investigation as a ‘shambles’.
  • The article refers to specific details of financial costs contained in the ‘leaked report’ including £750 per day for the first seven days’ work for the forensic dog and £650 per day for 136 days after and 49 claims on force credit cards for meals costing more than £50; more than £5,700 on Mr. Harper’s card alone.
  • The article states that, in a three month investigation the reporter had spoken to a number of individuals connected with the Operation Rectangle: including the Dog Handler, the Chief Executive and the Head of Operational support of NPIA and a former Metropolitan Police Commander.
  • The article also claims to make a number of direct quotes from the ‘leaked report’. These later appeared in the published BDO Alto report, albeit the wording in the published report had been somewhat amended in most cases, for example: 
(a)   a comment by an employee of LGC Forensics: We followed the dog. Where the dog barked was dug up.’ This says the interim report was a fundamental error’..
(b)  a comment that Mr. Harper had ‘little idea’ of how to use the HOLMES computer system. The article refers to an email where Mr. Harper asks a question about the role of an analyst.  This was not found in the published report which actually says: SOJP personnel lack depth of experience in using HOLMES - including senior personnel fulfilling key roles. 
(c) the conclusion to the auditors’ interim report regarding use of the dog: ‘It was an expensive mistake to bring in Mr. Grime. It would have been far preferable and much cheaper to have tried to obtain appropriately trained dogs and handlers from UK police forces.’ The underlined words have been amended in the published report which reads: It was an expensive decision to employ Mr. Grime and to deploy him in the ways described in this Report. It may have been wiser and cheaper to have sought to obtain appropriately trained dogs and handlers from UK police forces
(d) a comment on meal with a News of The World journalist: ‘We do not see how this occasion can possibly be regarded as a business dinner within the terms of the policy’. This sentence appears unamended in the BDO Alto report.
  • The article makes 10 further references to specific details contained in the ‘leaked report’. The article also refers to emails from Mr. Harper to his staff (Forensics Manager) obtained by the Mail on Sunday. 
  • Mr. Rose had previously written a number of other articles critical of Mr. Harper’s conduct of the investigation going back to May 2008 (18.05.08; 24.05.08, 15.11.08). In May 2008 he made a reference to the ‘leaked’ cost of the investigation (£6.5milion) but did not develop any criticism. In his article in November 2008 in which he interviewed Mr. Gradwell he stated that the police were said to be concerned at the enquiry’s profligate spending (eg decision to send two officers first class to Australia and a £100,000 bill for the use of Eddie the sniffer dog). In the course of the article he stated that he had obtained confidential documents including an email from Mr. Harper and the official log book kept by the forensic science team. 
  • Channel Television also appeared to have access to information from the review into the financial management of the HDLG enquiry.  In their two programmes in September 2009 they interviewed Mr. Gradwell on his retirement and referred to a number of specific details from the BDO Alto report such as dinners in specific London restaurants, overnight stays for one hour meetings and the failure to appoint a finance manager.

Police response to Mr. Gradwell’s action
  • Mr. Warcup stated in his submission that the disclosures made by Mr. Gradwell to the media on his departure from Jersey had not been authorised or approved by himself or any other person in the SOJ Police.
They were made without my knowledge, were inappropriate and could have jeopardised the objectivity and fairness of the Wiltshire enquiry.
  • He said that he had been concerned that a considerable amount of information and documents had been leaked to the media from an early stage in the HCAE investigation: 
Unfortunately there were many issues right through from 2008 until 2010 where we did look to try and establish how information had been released to the media.  It is a matter of some regret in many respects that it happened and I do not condone it at all….. I have to say that I think that the release of information in such circumstances is detrimental to the good conduct of the inquiry…. I think that that matter needs to be seriously considered for the future and the release of information, however well intentioned, has to be carried out under proper regulated and approved systems and not to fulfil whatever agendas people are trying to pull through.
  • The Minister told the Sub-Panel that he had discussed the matter with Mr. Warcup who had revealed to him that he (Mr. Warcup) had become aware that Mr. Gradwell intended to speak to the press on his retirement from the Police force about his views on the HCAE investigation. Mr. Warcup had sought assurances from Mr. Gradwell that he would not do anything of that nature, only to discover subsequently that Mr. Gradwell had already given his press interviews.
  • The Minister told the Sub-Panel that it was not possible to discipline Mr. Gradwell for the disclosures he had made because of the fact that he had been seconded from another Police force and had already left Jersey. This point is confirmed in the SOJ Police submission:
Having left Jersey and retired from the police service in England, it is not possible to take matters further outside of Jersey’s jurisdiction.

Sub-Panel comments
  • It is accepted that the subject of the leak to the Mail on Sunday was not an interim report prepared by BDO Alto but initial drafts which Mr. Kellett had prepared and circulated to a limited group of people within the SOJ Police (Mr. Warcup and D/Superintendent Gradwell) and to BDO Alto for information and feedback on accuracy of content and style. We also fully accept that neither BDO Alto nor Mr. Kellett were in any way responsible for this leak.
  • It is clear from the evidence we have received that Mr. Gradwell was responsible for leaking information from draft sections of the work which Mr. Kellett had prepared for the BDO Alto review. The information was published in an article in the Mail on Sunday in October 2009 but it also appears to have been made available to Channel Television for a programme in September 2009. Mr. Gradwell also gave an interview to the Jersey Evening Post in which he voiced extensive negative comments on the investigation carried out by his predecessor which he labelled ‘a poorly managed mess’.  The disclosure of information from the review of financial management was then part of a broader criticism of the investigation by Mr. Gradwell.
  • Mr. Gradwell’s views on the investigation were already well known. As Senior Investigating Officer he had been a key figure in the press conference on 12th November 2008 which had called into question the previous direction of the investigation. 
  • Our primary concern about the premature leaking of details of the review of financial management relates to issues of fairness in the way these leaks are reported in the media without an adequate opportunity for an alternative perspective to be considered. We give further consideration to this matter in the final section of our report.

Key Findings
  • The evidence we have received points to Mr. Gradwell as the person responsible for leaking information from draft sections of the work which Mr. Kellett had prepared for the BDO Alto review. 
  • Neither BDO Alto nor Mr. Kellett were responsible for the leak of information to the Mail on Sunday.
  • Mr. Gradwell’s action in releasing prematurely to the media draft sections of an uncompleted report would have been a serious disciplinary matter for the Police. However, no action could be taken against him by the SOJ Police as Mr. Gradwell had completed his secondment and left the Island. 
  • Mr. Gradwell’s reasons for taking such an unprofessional step are not clear to us as he refused to participate in the Scrutiny review. 

This is an Interview I have given VFC about my ongoing concerns regarding the "HCAE"

Show No Fear, Do not be intimidated,


Truth, Honesty & Integrity 

Rico Sorda

Team Voice

Part Time Investigative Journalist

38 comments:

rico sorda said...

With all the attention back on I thought it would be fitting to bring back Mick Gradwell. This is the policeman that the BBC used to give opinion on good policing and the like - even on Hillsborough.

This man was leaking selective material to the one Journalist who was openly trashing the Jersey Child Abuse Investigation and our one news paper the JEP called him a whistleblower.

lol

Im still waiting for the JEP to answer my challenge to a live debate - Nothing back as yet.

We need a very robust Committee of Enquiry because some serious wrong doing to Children in care has happened here in Jersey

rs

rico sorda said...

Coming soon

The Data Protection Law and Super Injunctions in Jersey

rs

rico sorda said...

Historic Abuse Redress Scheme: approval by States Assembly (P.80/2012)

The Council of Ministers have urged members to vote against this. It should be debated tomorrow in the States.

This is my stab at the ones who will vote against. This is even before a word is spoken.

REVISED

Senator Paul Francis Routier M.B.E.
Senator Ian Gorst
Senator Alan John Henry Maclean
Senator Bryan Ian Le Marquand
Senator Lyndon John Farnham
Senator Sir Philip Martin Bailhache
Connetable Len Norman
Connétable John Le Sueur Gallichan
Connétable John Martin Refault
Connétable Michael John Paddock
Connétable Stephen William Pallett
Connetable Dan Murphy
Connetable Crowcroft
Connétable Michel Philip Sydney Le Troquer
Connétable Sadie Anthea Rennard -Abstained
Connetable Mezbourian
Deputy Carolyn Fiona Labey
Deputy Anne Enid Pryke
Deputy Sean Power
Deputy Edward James Noel
Deputy Andrew Kenneth Francis Green M.B.E.
Deputy Patrick John Dennis Ryan
Deputy James Patrick Gorton baker
Deputy John Michael Le Bailly
Deputy Kevin Charles Lewis
Deputy Richard John Rondel
Deputy James Gordon Reed
Deputy Pinel
Deputy Rod Bryans.

How many do you think I will get right?

The performance of Senator Gorst today in the States was beyond belief. The man who is bringing the proposition into decades long child abuse informed deputy pitman that he hasn't bothered reading the Sharp Report. That was just the beginning of a shameful day.

Senator Le Gresely had better start working on his resignation speech as Gorst isn't going to bring anything robust to the states.

What is it about keeping Child Abuse covered -up over here?

rs

Anonymous said...

Isn't it interesting to note how the panel concluded that it was unable to take disciplinary action against Gradwell as he was no longer in the island. Surely what he did was a criminal act, in which case his having left the island is irrelevant?

We have seen quite a few police officers getting their collars felt in recent months for taking backhanders from newspapers in return for information. How is this different?

Has anybody actually made a criminal complaint against Gradwell to the Jersey police? Is there a way of finding out whether Gradwell was paid by the Daily Mail / Rose?

Anonymous said...

What is it about keeping Child Abuse covered -up over here?

I thought you were going to tell us that!!

Anonymous said...

"Senator Gorst today says he hasn't bothered reading the Sharp Report"

Is the man stupid or is he lieing?

The Sharp Report is only 5 spaced pages
It first appeared on the Syvret blog and is now available at :

http://www.no2abuse.com/index.php/news/comments/the-sharp-report-jersey-abuse-download/

Some of the concealers fingered in the Sharp Report continued to actively conceal and even perpetuated the illegal suspension of Police Chief Graham Power.

UNBELIEVABLE !
how many hours has he wasted praying and reading his bible ?

rico sorda said...

CTV ONLINE:


There's an attempt to get the States of Jersey to look again at a compensation scheme for victims of historic abuse.

Deputy Mike Higgins today raised concerns that some victims were losing out due to loopholes in the rules, which have been brought sharply into focus in the light of allegations of child abuse at the hands of the late Sir Jimmy Savile.

Today the former chief of Jersey Police Lenny Harper told The Guardian has "no reason to doubt" Savile was also involved in abuse at the former children's home Haut de la Garenne, but that there wasn't enough evidence to question him at the time.

Deputy Higgins' failed move was to get the States to review how money is paid to victims. He said, "My information is that they're trying to stop people who were being abused by visitors to the homes, either members of their own family, or friends of staff, rather than staff themselve or former members of staff." "So, if Jimmy Savile abused you, you wouldn't be able to claim compensation. That's what it looks like, so I want the States to examime the scheme and make sure it's fit for purpose."

The scheme was set up to offer victims of abuse compensation on a sliding scale, from below £10,000 for physical or sexual abuse, up to £20,000 for more serious cases, to £60,000 for the worst, prolonged abuse including rape. 128 people have put in claims so far.

The debate was adjourned at the end of the day (Tuesday) and resumes tomorrow.


"Deputy Higgins' failed move"

Have they been reading my Voting post. Lets see how I do today with the above prediction.

Look out for Deputy Pinel

The Silent Assassin

rs

Anonymous said...

"As officers revealed the staggering scale of allegations against the late TV entertainer, they made it clear that they will pursue individuals who conspired with Savile or participated in abuse."

the above from post on coverup jersey

----------------

So I assume Jersey will have open up a new investigation to find any accomplice!!

Anonymous said...

Is it possible that Philip Bailache uses his "power" or "respect" in the same manner as Stuart Syvret detailed in October 2011, here is an extract:-

To cut a long story short – rather than supporting me and the high standards of parliamentary behaviour and conduct that he claims to endorse – the then Bailiff, Philip Bailhache – attempted to criminally coerce me into withdrawing my complaints against the illegal actions of Jeune (a senior Jersey Freemason) and tried to coerce me into apologising to Jeune.

Philip Bailhache demanded a meeting with me – at which his threats were made. The conversation went like this:

PB: ‘You will have to withdraw everything you have said concerning Senator Jeune and apologise to him and the assembly.’

Me: ‘Why on Earth should I do that? Everything I said is true – and evidenced.’

PB: ‘I don’t care about that; you will have to withdraw everything and apologise.’

Me: ‘Senator Jeune’s actions are very serious and appear to be a breach of the States of Jersey law. This should be reported to the police and he should be prosecuted.’

PB: ‘That’s a hell of thing to do to a man at the end of his career.’

Me: ‘Well, that’s not my problem. Senator Jeune should have thought of that before engaging in this corruption. He’s used the States as a legislature-for-hire.’

PB: ‘Look, you are going to withdraw everything and apologise – or there will be very serious consequences for you.’

ME: ‘Upon what basis do you make that threat? My actions are correct and proper and Jeune’s are unlawful. What might those consequences be?’

PB: ‘Never mind that! Just take my word for it; there will be very serious consequences for you. And that would be such a pity as you had such a lot to offer as a States member.’

That conduct of Philip Bailhache was a straightforward criminal offence.

It is illegal to try and interfere with States members, to coerce them, and to try and prevent them from fulfilling their Oath of Office – all of which Bailhache was doing to me in an effort to protect his friend Reg Jeune from the consequences of his corrupt actions.

Philip Bailhache’s conduct also constituted a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice – and of misconduct in a public office.

Because I refused to give-in to Bailhache’s reprehensible blackmail - he carried out his threat. He tabled a proposition in his own name before the States – to have me “named” – and excluded indefinitely from the States assembly until I gave into his threats. Unless I abandoned my public duty, and resiled from the true, evidenced facts concerning Jeune – and lie to the States by saying he was “innocent” – Bailhache would have his proposition debated – and I would be thrown out.

I refused to be cowed by this criminal coercion.

------
from here http://stuartsyvret.blogspot.com/2011/10/philip-bailhache.html

Zoompad said...

I am really glad you have done this piece Rico.

"Channel Television also appeared to have access to information from the review into the financial management of the HDLG enquiry. In their two programmes in September 2009 they interviewed Mr. Gradwell on his retirement and referred to a number of specific details from the BDO Alto report such as dinners in specific London restaurants, overnight stays for one hour meetings and the failure to appoint a finance manager."

I think people should also remember what Jersey Senator Wilfred Krichefsky's (the "Fat Man")role in all of this was:

http://postmanpatel.blogspot.co.uk/2008/04/jersey-child-abuse-more-allegations.html

Look at the picture on this blog, titled "Channel TV's first managing director Senator Wilfred Krichefsky with a TV camera early 1960s

Anonymous said...

Rico,

You may not know for sure they are all reading your voting predictions on this blog, but the COM should understand that investigative journalists from the mainstream media outside Jersey will come across your factual evidence concerning the wider political corruption of the abuse investigation.

Your readers have watched for years as you have conducted the hard investigative leg work for a stunning international news story on this cover-up. Now, the National media is scrambling for any new details to add to their Jimmy Savile coverage and Haut de la Garenne is again in their spotlight.

From their coverage so far, the outside media appears to have completely disregarded those false accusations dredged up to discredit the original investigation by Lenny Harper and Graham Power. If anything, Jersey's reputation for covering up child abuse seems as intact as ever. With renewed focus on Jimmy Savile's ties to Haut de la Garenne, your detailed evidence of the abuse cover-up and state media complicity seem almost certain to be exposed.

Mick Gradwell, David Rose and David Warcup would be wise to disappear from all public view, forever. The COM in Jersey would do well to break with the too obvious stranglehold of the one you call the Jersey Don, and the BBC should dramatically reverse course and commit some real journalism and publish the Power defense. Channel TV should consider quickly creating a sensational story about how "duped" they were by the false evidence supplied to aid their "award winning" documentary. Of course, none of these things will happen.

There is, of course, no hope at all for the JEP. By the way, any update on the editorial status of Ben Queree, since he wrote his breathtakingly reasonable story?

Elle

rico sorda said...

Historic Abuse Redress Scheme: approval by States Assembly (P.80/2012)

The Council of Ministers have urged members to vote against this. It should be debated tomorrow in the States.


SO THIS IS HOW THEY VOTED

FIRST MY PREDICTION
Senator Paul Francis Routier M.B.E.
Senator Ian Gorst
Senator Alan John Henry Maclean
Senator Bryan Ian Le Marquand
Senator Lyndon John Farnham
Senator Sir Philip Martin Bailhache
Connetable Len Norman
Connétable John Le Sueur Gallichan
Connétable John Martin Refault
Connétable Michael John Paddock
Connétable Stephen William Pallett
Connetable Dan Murphy
Connetable Crowcroft
Connétable Michel Philip Sydney Le Troquer
Connétable Sadie Anthea Rennard -Abstained
Connetable Mezbourian
Deputy Carolyn Fiona Labey
Deputy Anne Enid Pryke
Deputy Sean Power
Deputy Edward James Noel
Deputy Andrew Kenneth Francis Green M.B.E.
Deputy Patrick John Dennis Ryan
Deputy James Patrick Gorton baker
Deputy John Michael Le Bailly
Deputy Kevin Charles Lewis
Deputy Richard John Rondel
Deputy James Gordon Reed
Deputy Pinel
Deputy Rod Bryans

AND THE RESULT


Senator Paul Francis Routier M.B.E.
Senator Sarah Craig Ferguson
Senator Alan John Henry Maclean
Senator Bryan Ian Le Marquand
Senator Francis du Heaume Le Gresley, M.B.E.
Senator Ian Joseph Gorst
Senator Lyndon John Farnham Senator Sir Philip Martin Bailhache


Connétable Alan Simon Crowcroft
Connétable John Le Sueur Gallichan
Connétable Daniel Joseph Murphy Connétable Leonard Norman Contre Connétable John Martin Refault Connétable Deidre Wendy Mezbourian Connétable Juliette Gallichan Contre Connétable Philip John Rondel
Connétable Michael John Paddock Connétable Stephen William Pallett Connétable Michel Philip Sydney Le Troquer
Connétable Sadie Anthea Rennard

Deputy Robert Charles Duhamel Deputy James Gordon Reed
Deputy Anne Enid Pryke
Deputy Sean Power
Deputy Edward James Noel
Deputy Tracey Anne Vallois
Deputy Andrew Kenneth Francis Green M.B.E. Contre Deputy Jeremy Martin Maçon Contre Deputy Gerard Clifford Lemmens Baudains Contre Deputy Patrick John Dennis Ryan Deputy John Hilary Young Contre Deputy Susan Jane Pinel Contre Deputy John Michael Le Bailly
Deputy Stephen George Luce
Deputy Roderick Gordon Bryans
Deputy Kristina Louise Moore Deputy Richard John Rondel

Deputy Judith Ann Martin Abstained

Deputy Kevin Charles Lewis Not present for vote Senator Philip Francis Cyril Ozouf Out of the island Deputy James Patrick Gorton Baker Out of the island

How did I get it so right? And I a genius? No i'm not. Are the conservative child abuse covering up party obvious? yes they are..

The Committee of Enquiry debate will be a real blast

rs

rico sorda said...

Think about it. How did I know before the debate had even started what the votes would look like? Yes one or two were wrong, some were not in the States but how did I get it so right.

Time for our Media to wake up on this. You can predict the vote on the most debate that the come favour. What the COM say these clowns will give. Not a damn if its about child abuse or not.

The COM will get Gorst to lodge a poor Committtee of Enquiry with poor TOR's so that they and the clowns can vote for it as it.

YOUR TACTIC HAS BEEN FOUND OUT.

NO AMENDMENTS TO THE GORST PROPOSITION.

IF HE DELIVERS A PILE OF STINKING RUBBISH THEN HAVE A DEBATE TO HAVE HIM REMOVED.

The world is now watching

rs

Anonymous said...

Heres a challenge for you.

Can you predicts the Terms of reference that will not be lodged and those that make it in the new proposition.

It is confusing when you click the link to this blog from VFC you come to a page with no comments.

Anonymous said...

Re. 3:00pm
"It is confusing when you click the link to this blog from VFC you come to a page with no comments."

Yes I found it confusing at first. It is a foible with he setup or with blogspot in general.

You will find that is you go to (or are taken to) the base www address :

http://ricosorda.blogspot.com
you get to the most recent BOLG posting(s) with no comments displayed.

You can go to the comments page by clicking on the bit at the bottom where it says "## comments:"
(line starting Posted by......."

To get the blog posting WITH the comments, you need the full posting address, e.g. for this posting :

http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2012/10/deptsupt-mick-gradwell-revisited.html

You can get there by clicking on the posting title at the top, in this case "DEPT/SUPT MICK GRADWELL - REVISITED"
-or you can go to the "Blog Archive"
(one page-down on the RHS), click on the month you want, then on the posting you want.

Previous years are also available.
Unbelievable quantity combined with quality !!!!!!

You arre a force for good. Change happens but usually only slowly unless violence is involved.Thanks Rico.
The dysfunction of law and of proper democratic representation means that there is cause for civil disobedience (or worse) on this island.
If the law does not function, it could be argued that the law does not apply/
But that is "Ian Evens territory".
Ian Evens is rapidly becoming my favorite rough diamond - probably soon to be put in the "vault" by the real criminals

P.S.
Rico, I am sorry to hear about the death of your father but I hope he died a very proud man.

All the best.

rico sorda said...

Thanks Anon,

The posting of this blog on VFP was just to highlight it as it didn't upload in the boarders.


"Heres a challenge for you.

Can you predicts the Terms of reference that will not be lodged and those that make it in the new proposition.

It is confusing when you click the link to this blog from VFC you come to a page with no comments. "


Yes I can. I will post them soon. Senator le Gresley had better start writing his resignation speech because Gorst is predictable, scared and seriously without backbone.

rs

Anonymous said...

Rico I think it would be great if you put your prediction in a seperate new posting simply as this post may be missed by people as it is difficult to find.

Your prediction of the terms of reference as a seperate posting will be seen by more people and surely will leave people outside Jersey wondering how a blogger can predict not only the way votes go but also the terms of reference around issues so serious.

It is hardly worth congratulating you on your vote prediction outcome, which to be honest was outstoundingly predictable.

rico sorda said...

I will be doing a posting on how the Plémont Vote is a forgone result for Bailhache.

I will tell you who will vote for this. How they voted last time and why they will change their minds.

The Votes for the purchase will be just under the 40 mark.

All will be explained.

I will also be doing one on the Committee of Enquiry. I will also be interviewed on this as I want to explain exactly how they will do it, who will vote for it and why.

I will be applying the 'Eddie Noel' rule in all calculations.

rs

Anonymous said...

Mike Kellett Police Consultant:

23. The first I knew of the article published in the Mail on Sunday on 4th October 2009 was the following day, when I received a telephone call from the Managing Director of BDO Alto to inform me of the fact. During my time in Jersey and since, I have had absolutely no contact, formal or informal, with any journalist.

How come Gradwell and Rose were so close? Does anybody know?

Póló said...

Rico

If you are doing that separate post on the next voting pattern, you should make it clear to outsiders that there is no political party system in the States. Otherwise they may simply put the consistency down to a party whip instead of a consistent collection of personally corrupt votes.

Keep up the good work.

Pól

thejerseyway said...

Hi Rico.

Audio of Mr Harper talking on Radio 5 with Tony Livesey last night, very interesting. Don't think this is going to go away too soon.

You & your reader's can listen HERE

TJW.

Anonymous said...

Rico have tried posting on Stuarts blog,ctv will never learn ,they are the pits.I must be a robot because even with three attempts I couldn't print the words successfully,is it me?

Anonymous said...

Crowcroft-
...gone quiet?
...jumped into the Titanic?
...someone's got dirt on him?

rico sorda said...

http://www.blogtv.com/people/voiceforchildren

Will be interviewing Deputy Higgins on Blog TV Thursday at 7pm

Anonymous said...

In light of what Lord Patten has said:
"The Jimmy Savile scandal was branded a ‘cesspit’ yesterday by the BBC’s own chairman.
Lord Patten admitted that heads could roll if corporation bosses were found to have acted improperly."

This is why Jersey needs the Verita TOR for the COI and if any employees were found to have acted improperly they should be brought to justice, at least then that may bring some abuse victims closer to closure. What has Jersey got to hide!

Lord Patten ought to investigate why the local BBC service has not acted in the public interest in the area of child abuse, such as a balanced report on Graham Power.

Zoompad said...

"How come Gradwell and Rose were so close? Does anybody know? "

1) David Rose and Bob Woffinden were both involved in the Tuesday 14th May 2002 Government inquiry into abuse in childrens homes, David Cameron was there as well:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmhaff/836/2051402.htm

http://zoompad.blogspot.com/2011/02/influence-dodgy-journalists-can-have.html

2) Mick Gradwell was involved in the Jeremy Bamber/White House Farm murder reinvestigation:

http://www.lep.co.uk/news/opinion_2_1845/which_adopted_child_shot_farmhouse_family_1_3062813

3) Bob Woffinden and Sion Jenkins wrote a book defending Jeremy Bamber:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Murder-Billie-Jo-Sion-Jenkins-Woffinden/dp/1844546292/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1349943358&sr=1-3

Then Woffinden changed his mind and wrote this:

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-1387438%2FI-wrong-Jeremy-Bamber-says-crime-writer.html&ei=2X92UN4jiJaFB6HrgJgH&usg=AFQjCNFwLBB2YC59V3jdXEhsTUclxHbIeg&sig2=VHXZmk8o-udr_E0lHwrHMQ



Zoompad said...

I find this quite disturbing. It just doesn't seem right for a police officer to be speculating like this for a newspaper, it just seems wrong.

http://www.lep.co.uk/news/opinion_2_1845/which_adopted_child_shot_farmhouse_family_1_3062813


Mick Gradwell




Published on Thursday 10 February 2011 09:36



Is Jeremy Bamber the victim of a miscarriage of justice?



Just before Christmas the Guardian newspaper asked me to review ‘new’ evidence in one of this country’s most violent and horrific murder cases. It took place at an Essex farmhouse in 1985 and involved the murder of husband and wife Neville and June Bamber, their adopted daughter Sheila Caffell and her six-year-old twin boys Daniel and Nicholas.

Police initially suspected that Sheila Caffell, who had a history of mental illness, had gone berserk with a rifle, killing her family and then herself. The scene had the appearance of a straightforward case of murder/suicide and the police carried out a very quick and shoddy investigation.

It wasn’t until relatives found a blood and paint-stained silencer in the farmhouse and when other inconsistencies arose, that a new police investigation team focused attention on Jeremy Bamber, the adopted son of June and Neville. In 1986, Bamber was convicted of the murders by a 10-2 majority verdict and was sentenced to life. He has always protested his innocence.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission is considering the ‘new’ evidence and will announce whether they are going to refer the case to the Court of Appeal in about a week’s time.

In my view, many of the points being raised by the defence are erroneous. But if the new photographic expert’s evidence is correct, it does appear the scene was re-staged during the initial investigation and crucial scratch marks above a cooker may not have been made at the time of the incident.

Even if this is the case, it does not mean that Jeremy Bamber did not commit the murders. It means the trial jury was not provided with accurate evidence, which may result in the need for a re-trial. Unfortunately, Essex police accidentally destroyed a large number of exhibits years ago, which further complicates matters.

It is clear that only Sheila Caffell or Jeremy Bamber could have committed the murders. When I look at all the evidence, Jeremy Bamber remains the most likely suspect. Having said that, it is a close call and I can see why there is an increasing clamour for Bamber to be released.

I think the case would benefit from a new forensic examination of the remaining exhibits and photographs - particularly in relation to the analysis of the patterns of blood-splattering, which could provide additional and useful evidence.

What I find most frustrating is that, had modern DNA techniques and itemised billing for telephone calls been available in 1985, many of the doubts about this troubling case would have been laid to rest a long time ago.

If you would like Mick to give a talk to your society, a presentation or an educational lecture, contact 01253 600800 for further information.

Anonymous said...

Rico, I copied these comments from Stuart's blog. This link puts a new twist on things.

Anonymous said...
"Whilst having a quick look on hansard I discovered emma martin was on the ACPO independent review group. Which I was not aware of."
Thursday, 11 October 2012 22:00:00 BST
Anonymous said...
http://www.jersey.police.uk/news/Pages/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsItemId=205

rico sorda said...

Data Protection Emma Martins Commissioner for hire advised Wiltshire during Operation Blast on Data Protection Issues.

What is her role in the secret super-injunction that no ones anything about?

rs

Anonymous said...

Newsnight thursday bbc re Saville having the "power" to intimidate potential complainers.Could be said about politicians & crown officers locally,too scared to complain because who they were

Anonymous said...

Hopefully Jersey do not score another own goal by going for a weakened COI as Ed Milliband has stated:-

"The Labour leader, Ed Miliband, said every institution that had links to him should carry out "the most far-reaching investigation of what happened, who knew what, when, about what was happening in that institution and why nothing was done about it".

Zoompad said...

"Data Protection Emma Martins Commissioner for hire advised Wiltshire during Operation Blast on Data Protection Issues.

What is her role in the secret super-injunction that no ones anything about?"

Her daddy is a member of the Water Rats. So is the Grand Master of Jersey, Michael of Kent.

The Grand Rat, Graham Cole has been atron of Childline for over 18 years, and he is President of the National Holiday Fund.

http://www.nhfcharity.co.uk/

Anonymous said...

It's time for someone like international journalist Leah McGrath Goodman to look at the various roles of Emma Martins.

Ian Evans said...

Excessive sentence by ROYAL COURT for paedophile!

Anonymous said...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/12/jimmy-savile-government-civil-claims

And Jersey still want to exclude 'visitors' to HDLG and other care homes in their settlement claims.
Disgusting.

Anonymous said...

The States of Jersey Police said claims about Savile were investigated during an inquiry into abuse at the Jersey children's home, but there was insufficient evidence to proceed.

Insufficient evidence, says William Bailhache
Or was he trying to cover up the fact that his daddy
Lee Bailhache was a frequent visitor at Haut de la Garrene

( the tall thin man)

Understand you can't post this, but perhaps Lenny Harper might be interested in this information.

The net is closing.

Ian Evans said...

Jersey courts trumping up false charges and disobeying International Human Rights Laws. Time to take a good look at our JUDICIARY

Anonymous said...

Well Gradwell would know alll about destroying and the fabrication of evidence...after all, he is jersey's very own expert!!