Friday, July 1, 2016




This is the letter Advocate  Philip Sinel sent to the JEP. They asked him to cut it down to 450 words before they would consider it for publication. He was not prepared to "water it down" so it is left to Bloggers to publish un-redacted and not watered down.

Advocate Sinel raises some very interesting questions where the JEP should look to be getting the answers to them and not asking him to water them down.

He wrote this letter after hearing/reading the final submissions to the Care Inquiry from the States of Jersey Police, the Law Officers Department and the Chief Minister's Department.

The SOJP, and more so, the Law Officers Department, took the opportunity to attack whistle blowers and those who investigated child abuse in Jersey. Advocate Sinel's letter was written BEFORE the LOD/SOJP/CMD wrote ANOTHER final submission repeating all the same attacks on those who stood up for the victims and survivors of child abuse.

Why is the mainstream media so reluctant to report on the vast amount of juvenile remains discovered at Haut de la Garenne? Why aren't they asking the same questions as Advocate Sinel rather than asking him to water down his questions and observations?

Dear Sir

Independent Care Inquiry

Recent newspaper coverage in relation to the work of the Independent Care Inquiry shows clearly that nothing positive will change in Jersey without external intervention. Indeed that coverage should give the average citizen cause for real concern in relation to the attitude of the Law Officer’s Department and the Police going forward. 

Before dealing with those topics the first article concerned a not unsurprising complaint by the Inquiry to the effect that they were being undermined by the Data Protection Commissioner, who, notwithstanding, the longevity of the Inquiry had waited until it was over before putting forward complaints on behalf of “anonymous complainants”. 

The Data Protection Commissioner is, in an ideal world, there to protect the rights of individuals.  Is that what is being done here or is the Data Protection Commissioner lending herself to the whiles of the oligarchy?

I then read that the Inquiry is being criticised for failing to call Stuart Syvret.  Does anyone actually think that we, as an Island, believe for one moment that forcing former Senator Syvret to give evidence would have been in some way beneficial to the States of Jersey Police of the Law Officer’s Department? Would he have painted them in a better light than they will come out or otherwise?

Additionally we are told that the Police regret appointing Lenny Harper.  This as part of a submission made by a representative of the Law Officer’s Department to the  Inquiry. The first point that occurred to me when I read that was who are these people who regret the appointment Mr Harper? 

We have almost no high ranking Police officers left who worked with Mr Harper.  It may not have escaped many Islanders notice that we have had a succession of high ranking Policeman who have been forced out of office or criticised for investigating the wrong crimes. Or telling it like it is. 

Your article continues to attribute the following comment to Advocate Jeremy Garrod on behalf of the Police.  One assumes, of course, that he has met some Policemen or has he?

The criticism was put as follows “Mr Harper had been ill advised to tell the media that the potential remains of a child had been found at Haut de la Garenne care home”.  Following tests it was revealed that the fragments were not human remains. 

Whilst Mr Power was still our Chief Officer the forensic report for Haut de la Garenne was publically available.  It has since been removed from the States of Jersey Police website, why? I do not know.  Perhaps the Data Protection Commissioner could find out for all of us. 

I quote from that report as follows:

“The following are the main items of interest to the investigation from these areas.
Blood in bath. Cellar 1, 50 +Human teeth cellars 3 and 4, Human bone fragments cellars 3 and 4, Blood stained cloth cellar 3”.

“Approximately 20 years ago two large holes had been dug with the use of a mechanical digger at the request of staff at HDLG. The following day the staff caused the reinstatement of the ground without any explanation or obvious reason for the ground intrusion. These holes have since been excavated by the resident forensic archaeologists who discovered at the base of the hole hardcore and lime. Lime is a well known addition to deposition to aid the reduction of decomposition scent.  Its inclusion in this scenario may be suggestive of suspicious activity although no human remains were found.”

“The number of victims and cause of death remain unknown but the prevailing circumstances would tend to be suspicious at this time.”

“A significant amount of human remains have been recovered that is suggestive of foul play in relation to the cause of death and guilty knowledge during deposition. 
65 Human deciduous teeth
Numerous human bone fragments
It would appear at this stage that the remains were deposited into the area of cellars 3,4 &5 having been removed from a secondary deposition site in the west wing. They were then distributed evenly over the ground and covered with a layer of top soil so as to conceal the deposition from all but the most meticulous scrutiny.”
I like others am afraid unable to square the contents of that report with the position publicly adopted by our new Police Force and by the Law Officer’s Department. 

Yours faithfully

Advocate Philip Sinel