Pages

Saturday 28 July 2018

Blackmailing the Police

We now know that Dan Johnson's accounts of the discussions he' d had with SYP from the 8th July 2016 cannot be relied on. And I for one was getting a tad vexed that I no one was able to ascertain exactly HOW he came by whatever information he had about Cliff. And then I happened across the following, and it was App 12 of the Pollard Report all over again - well almost


Could this Judge be any more helpful to the cause of Justice ? Only if he'd wanted the actual name of Johnson's source maybe, but I guess we can forgive him for not pushing that too much, after all, the hack was entitled to 'protect' his 'source'

https://www.simkins.com/sir-cliff-richard-obe-v-1-bbc-2-south-yorkshire-police-witness-statements/


So now we can establish the details of the Police operation such as it was, in July 2014. Not much was happening you see, there had only been ONE allegation made against Sir Cliff, via MWT sometime in 2013, to the Met Police. Supt Fenwick, helpfully explains WHY the Savile cops passed this to SYP.





Note the words who was aware of the full facts of the investigation. They're important for anyone trying to work out exactly who knew what and when ! Stay with me folks.



He knew it had been passed from Operation Yewtree to South Yorkshire Police Force. .... He asked me why SYP was investigating and not Operation Yewtree. 


Let's stop there for a moment shall we ? This ONE accuser had, appeared in 'late 2013' via MWT, whose Savile expose had aired in October 2012. Now, we don't know exactly what happened between 'late 2013' and March 2014, but we can almost certainly assume that the Police were NOT taking the accusation very seriously. 

Now, the next bit is a bit more of an eye-opener, for more than reasons than the fact that Fenwick mentions MWT


Supt Fenwick is referring to Johnson's note of that meeting. WHY is MWT's name on it ? Remember, MWT supplied this one complainant to the Police, presumably in secrecy. How come he's being discussed or not discussed, at this meeting in July 2016 ? 




Strewth guys and gals, that thought has, just this minute, come to me. Indeed, there can be only ONE of two explanations for his name being on that note. Either MWT is his original 'source' or his original 'source' knew MWT's involvement. 

I like this Supt Fenwick, he seems like a good man to me, the more I read about him. I kinda like DCI Orchard from Yewtree too, for this 

cc


Suddenly, Johnson is detaching himself from all references to Yewtree. Just one day after the Cliff raid. 

Carrie Goodwin's opening remarks in her statement are really useful too. Note that this refers to that first phone call between her and Johnson. She's clearly left with the impression that Johnson knows even more about the Cliff story than she does. She's being reeled in, wasn't she ?


 Remember, it was the FACT that the Police believed that the 'source' of his information was Yewtree, that led them to take him seriously. Either they give him what he wants, or he publishes what he knows. And they fell for it. 

All Johnson seems to have had, at this time was that this bloke had claimed to have been assaulted at some Billy Graham rally in the 80's. That appears to be all the Police had too, but that's another story for later. At this point, no specific year has been mentioned, just that it happened in the 80's and that the alleged victim was underage. 



There had only been ONE allegation, just one, and the Police were not about to go trawling for others. The fact that there had only been one at that point in July 2014 is in itself staggering, given what was being said, or hinted at online and in print for over a year at least.





https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/feb/24/mark-williams-thomas-jimmy-savile

Mark Williams Thomas continued to act as some kind of advisor to Cliff's one accuser. By May 2016 someone was getting pissed off at the length of time the investigation was taking.










Maybe the fact that a few more accuser's had managed to appear might shake them up hey !





Bastards 

Despite someone's best efforts, the claims came to nothing. Sir Cliff was NOT arrested and he chose to take action against the BBC and South Yorkshire Police for their part in his sorrows. He was especially saddened by the way the BBC had treated him, a bit like they'd treated Sir Jimmy Savile really wasn't it ? Of course, no one would have bothered with Sir Cliff, had someone not have bothered to destroy Savile. *To their credit, the BBC did hold out against Meirion Jones's efforts, until someone managed to persuade the Police via ITV that they, like Johnson knew something, they actually didn't. I think you know where I'm going with this. * I hope you do anyway. See Addendum below.

It's not all doom and gloom though folks. I did have to smile when I read this part of Cliff's Witness statement. 




Time consuming ? Tell me about it Cliff. But, if you ever need a hand, let me know. Some things are NOT about the money, are they ? The online trolls continue to troll, they really cannot help it can they, it's their nature. They just cannot get their heads around the fact that Sir Cliff took the action he did, once he was cleared, not for himself but for others who find themselves in the same position as he did, but without the means to defend themselves.






Well done Cliff. I wish you well ! 

Addendum 28/7/18 *

I need to clarify what I meant when I wrote this earlier today. When the BBC rejected Meirion Jones project, MWT took it to ITV. Neither the Police, the BBC or indeed ANY other media outlet, save an almost unknown magazine (The Oldie) showed any interest whatsoever in 'exposing Jimmy Savile' until ITV got involved. And, what exactly did ITV in October 2012 have, that the Police in 2007/9 didn't ? Well, not a lot as it happens. Here's a bit of reading which I hope will help you (and me) understand the point I am trying to make. 

http://rabbitaway.blogspot.com/2015/04/one-victim-and-rochelle.html

http://rabbitaway.blogspot.com/2016/09/he-couldnt-sue-so-what-stopped-them.html







 





 

41 comments:

  1. You seem to be on a roll, Rabbit. Delighted for Cliff. Great to see you back in action. Keep it up!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Not entirely sure about this ONE accuser line the media is taking now. Think this may be a spinning of the story by the authorities to differentiate it from the Savile case.
    https://donaldelley.wordpress.com/tag/cliff-richard-pedophilia/
    Much the same modus has occurred with the Ted Heath revisions, where "Nick" is now claimed as the only one, but there were as many as 30 accusers reported to exist at one time.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I recall finding the following - in 2014 and by which point it had already disappeared from the web - a request from 2005 for oddly detailed information about the Billy Graham event:

    'FairyNormal' on the Sheffield Forum

    Most likely nothing to do with the crazed accuser, but if nothing else it highlights once again how, er, 'useful' the internet must be for the mischievous liar in search of snippets of information that might persuade a sceptical copper or a septical MWT.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Russell Harty was there?
      Goodness Gracious
      https://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/2014/05/21/child-sex-secret-of-gay-star-harty-25-06-89/

      Delete
  4. Put yer specs on, Moor!

    "The late Russell Harty was not actually there, but he did a two-way live TV broadcast (Russell Harty in the studio, Billy Graham on the podium)..."

    (Regarding the article, while it could of course be true the source - father of a bloke recently banged up for flogging stuff like he's now accusing Harty of having stored in his son's shop - sounds a bit like tabloid 'the dead can't sue' bullshit... can't be bothered checking to see if there's anything to it or not.)

    Here's a curiosity, though:

    - the raid took place 14th August 2014.
    - the Mirror publish a piece dated '22:42, 14 AUG 2014', Sir Cliff Richard denies child abuse allegations as police spend 5 hours searching luxury UK penthouse
    - the Mirror piece includes a pretty poor quality photograph of a Cliff 'n' Billy two-page spread from the programme for the Sheffield gig
    - what is obviously a companion snap - this time of the cover - is published 'BY GOJAM | AUGUST 14, 2014 · 4:05 PM' at his shitstirring Needleblog (which had previously named Cliff Richard as a 'person of interest' based on the ludicrous Elm 'list' furnished by the criminal Chris Fay who was a Needleblog collaborator)

    A desultory image-search for both photographs throws up no earlier matches for either (i.e. it would seem that one photo from the set of two was published at Needlblog a few hours before the other one appeared in the Mirror). I know that the timing of posts is not always accurately represented by the timestamp - particularly here in Rabbitaway's burrow where they're always way off! - but just thought I'd mention it.

    Disclaimer: I'm having a drink.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Never had Harty down as a religious man. I guess my surprise blinded me to the facts. Thanks.

      As it happens, Gojam was actually a few hours ahead of an big savilisation story back in the heady days of October 2012. Remember Jimmy's Scarborough plaque being defaced? Not sure if he was necessarily in on the plan, or merely inspired the idea in others. Cause & Effect can be easily muddled.
      http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.com/2014/02/jammy.html

      Delete
    2. The perils of relying on the timestamp, Moor:

      3 October 2012 (the day before Gojam's piece) - "A memorial plaque outside Savile's former home in Scarborough has been defaced with graffiti, with the words "paedophile" and "rapist" scrawled across it."

      BBC: Sir Jimmy Savile statue removed from Scotstoun Leisure Centre

      Mind you, I still wouldn't completely rule out the bastard's involvement!

      Delete
    3. Gojam shows no indication he is reporting an event that has happened; if he was doing so he would surely have reproduced the photograph of the actual plaque. I appreciate the difficulties of trusting time-stamps. I think my own Blog runs on Afghanistan time. Time-stamps also give no clue anyway to when a Post is under creation, they only record the instant of being Published. So, formulating the Post itself will always precede the time noted on the Blog.

      For it to influence others however, the time of Posting would have to precede the events. Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that Gojam was at least privy to an idea. The other option could only be Life imitating Art at almost the exact same moment in time.

      Delete
    4. But I don't think the photo of the defaced plaque will have been available at the time of Gojam's 'article'; although the event was mentioned in the press the day before (3rd) the actual 'plaque defaced article WITH photograph' didn't appear until the 4th (the same day as Gojam's, but hours afterwards)... therefore he/the 'team' may have just knocked it up in order to have another blasted 'article' to publish after reading about it, though as I say it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if he/they HAD been 'in on it'.

      It looks like the photo the Needleblog used was this one (available since 30th September 2012): Alamy pic of plaque.

      Delete
    5. Duh, I've just realised that the plaque defacing took place (or was first reported) on the very day that MWT's 'Exposure' was broadcast.

      It would have been less of a surprise had the vandalism taken place AFTER the programme appeared, rather than several hours prior to transmission. Hmmmm, nothing like a bit of pre-broadcast publicity to ramp things up.

      Pre-broadcast article including photograph: Mirror, 6:10pm 3rd October 2012 'Sir Jimmy Savile: Memorial plaque to star defaced by vandals in wake of abuse claims'.

      Delete
    6. Yewtree's Dave Lee Travis was arrested 14th November 2012.
      Needleblog's Jon Sawyer smeared DLT three weeks earlier.

      Delete
    7. Maybe the vandals saw this BBC Look North report heralding the ITV Exposure programme, complete with interview with MWT:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaalHDhvu0U
      Or seen claims in the newspapers? Judging from the images of newspapers in the video, claims about Jimmy Savile had been published in the press before ITV's Exposure programme. Perhaps that had sparked online chatter even before the programme.

      (It's a shame that AFAIK it's no longer possible to search Google within a particular timeframe.)

      Delete
    8. Jimmy was being trashed in the press almost from the moment that last hammer fell on his Charity Auction of July 30, 2012. One might turn the discussion around and ask why the plaque was not defaced in September for instance. It seems an obvious target for a genuine victim, if such a one even existed.

      Delete
    9. Jo, I was/am overseas so missed out on all the build up of which the Look North report is a cracking example - what on earth were the BBC doing publicising the output of their rival, ITV?

      Jimmy's friend who appears at the end seems unconvinced so I had a quick search to see if he'd changed his mind (or been brow-beaten into keeping quiet) & here he is two years later suitably unimpressed with a cash-strapped claimant.

      (Regarding Google it is still possible to search within a date-range: beneath the magnifying glass symbol beneath the search bar click 'Tools' then over to the left a drop-down menu labelled 'Any time' should appear at the bottom; click that then choose 'Custom Range'. Er, it doesn't always work very well though.)

      Here is a pic of the plaque pre-installation in the hands of the man who gilded it for free.

      Moor, I was thinking the same re the vandalism, and even though the plaque was only in situ for a short period of time (thereby limiting opportunities for outraged victims to hatch their plans - even those who'd been for a spin in his pink Roller down the Scarborough Esplanade!) there were certainly plenty of other things dotted around the country that could have felt their felt-tipped wrath: "The Daily Star revealed this week how the Battle of Britain monument included a plaque thanking the sicko for his “generosity”. But it was announced yesterday that the sickening slab will be removed and replaced with the RAF roundel, which adorned Britain’s fighter planes."

      Delete
    10. Bandini, here's another Look North report from just after Exposure was broadcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UU9Z0YJ7vSo (Whoever posted it to YouTube must have got the date of 2 October wrong.) Comparing it with the pre-Exposure Look North report (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaalHDhvu0U) is like seeing a watershed moment: scepticism before, acceptance after, with even the subject of compensation being raised with Joshua Rozenberg in the post-Exposure report.

      Good to see that JS's friend stuck by him.

      Thanks for the tip about date-range searches.

      Delete
    11. Oh lordy, that sent me off down a rabbithole, Jo!
      The first 'Look North' piece you mentioned is repeated on the YouTube channel of Mark Williams Thomas, something I hadn't realised existed: MWT - His greatest hits...

      A special mention for the Esther Rantzen bit where they bait a shopping centre with a live kid & then observe through CCTV to see if anyone offers to help/tries to snatch him - a 'sketch' that could have come straight from Chris Morris! I hadn't realised that the two of them had collaborated prior to 'Exposure'.

      And this might be interesting: BBC Radio 4, Media Show 3rd October . "On the day of broadcast [of 'Exposure'] Steve talks to the criminologist & child protection expert Mark Williams-Thomas who presented the programme..."

      Around about 2'30" minute mark he lies & states that he wasn't working in the media when Savile was still around - a silly claim that his own YouTube channel shows to be nonsense - then claims to have started the Jonathan King investigation.
      Next he seeks to differentiate his upcoming masterpiece from the shelved Newsnight piece:

      "Well all I can tell you is in relation to the people in our programme is that none of the people in our programme were in the Newsnight programme. They were completely different people."

      He then repeats this claim. I can't take any more. Apologies to Rabbitaway & Moor for going over what for them will be old ground but I could only stomach MWT's wretched drench at homeopathic-strength the first time around.

      Delete
    12. Newsnight only ever had Karin Ward, and she was not involved with, and did not appear in, Exposure. She was to appear on the front page of the Mirror a day or so before however, accusing both Gary Glitter and Freddie Starr.

      Delete
    13. Point taken, Moor, and I did have a scrabble around in your archives trying to get things straight in my head before writing that... playing catch up here! But to my mind at least the questioner is enquiring about the 'totality of the investigation' that led to the programme being made, whereas MWT replies emphasising the 'telly programme' as though it just appeared out of thin air.

      "How did you come to be doing this story in the first place?"
      "Well, someone spoke to me and said to me had I ever heard any rumours with regards to Jimmy Savile... ... so I looked at it... ... and around the same time I was working with Newsnight on another programme and we ended up in discussion around Jimmy Savile..."

      I think it was disingenuous - or a copper's answer - to frame his replies this way:

      "... the people that we've spoken to are not people who appeared in the Newsnight programme."

      He'd interviewed/"spoken to" KW the day before in footage that would be used in a media blitz leading to Freddie Starr being presented with it live on a daytime TV sofa & was re-used when, in a foreshadowing of Cliff Richard's experience, Starr had his 'live arrest' broadcast on the telly.

      "One of the people who had helped to work on the ‘Newsnight’ report was a consultant
      called Mark Williams-Thomas. In the autumn of 2012 he was preparing a programme on Jimmy Savile for ITV which was to be called ‘Exposure: the Other Side of Jimmy Savile’ (‘Exposure’). The Defendant [Karin Ward] and Mr Williams-Thomas were in contact and she agreed to give him an interview which took place on 2nd October 2012."


      The interview that was not used in 'Exposure':
      MWT - "Tell me specifically the details that you gave Newsnight."
      KW - "Jimmy Savile has a girl on his lap and..."

      (I had a feeling that this interview - or part of it - was broadcast as publicity for the upcoming show... have I imagined this? Quite possibly.)

      Delete
    14. I'm not sure where this "extract from an email" comes from...

      "They filmed me back in March about 6 weeks ago and Charlotte was filmed on the Friday of the same week. Mark has sent me emails EDITED With regard who else will be there, I know that they want to film Carole Allen (Wells), Rochele Conway (Shepherd), Francis and of course Kat."

      ... but doesn't it suggest that KW was indeed involved with 'Exposure'? Getting confused here, off for a lie down!

      Justice For Jimmy Savile - Charlotte!

      Delete
    15. @ issue of MWT interviewing Karin W.

      As you correctly say, MWT did do an interview with Karin, literally the day before the Exposure Broadcast. Given that the Exposure show was passed to the BBC at the beginning of September, in accordance with media "right of reply" procedures, it only emphasises all the more that she was not involved in Exposure at all.


      The Fiona character basically "channelled" Karin's story as her own, but FGiona was not even at the school in 1974. She met Jimmy in 1979, which was the year around which the actual police investigation of Savile took place between 2007 and 2009 - Rabbitaway Blogposts passim.

      Delete
    16. I've forgotten why it even mattered, Moor, if it ever even did!

      I'd never thought about the BBC having had pre-broadcast access to 'Exposure' (presumably the script rather than the recording). One or both of you will no doubt have covered this but just in case I spotted this while searching for info: A paedophile scandal foretold:
      Sir Jimmy Savile, child sexual abuse and the BBC


      Still not 100% convinced re KW's involvement - I'm not going to lie! While the recorded interview took place only the day before transmission they "were in contact" at a time which logically must have predated the 2nd October 2012. Also, on the subject of KW being all Newsnight had, there is this (from about 3'30"):

      "Off-camera the [Newsnight] investigation had managed to speak to four more women who said that as girls they too had been sexually abused by Jimmy Savile... ... Karen's interview contained serious allegations, not just about Savile but of abuse on BBC premises by other celebrities. Again, this was backed up off-camera by others."

      Jimmy Savile - What the BBC Knew

      Later Liz McKean says about MWT: "And certainly he had seen everything we had." As MWT was supposedly brought in to evaluate the strength of these allegations it seems reasonable to assume the 'everything' would have included details of the "four more women"/"others" who had backed up Ward's tales, but whom if we are to believe MWT were completely different & unconnected to the other bunch of women he assembled for his programme.

      From the Rabbit's mouth :

      "Why wasn't Karin Ward in Exposure ? She was Meirion Jones' 'main witness' R1. The 'script's' were built around her stories about Jimmy's visits in 1974. Jones' second 'witness' R2 Fiona was in Exposure, as was Rochelle R3, but no Karin.
      However, I can now confirm that Karin WAS interviewed by MWT and was, according to her, horrified when her piece was NOT included in Exposure and was 'on the news instead'."

      Ward: "I thought I was to be part of his [MWT's] documentary!"

      MWT: "Well all I can tell you is in relation to the people in our programme is that none of the people in our programme were in the Newsnight programme. They were completely different people."

      Delete
  5. Ah, this is nice: a shaky video of the funeral cortege making its way through the town. Unfortunately the uploader seems to have later gone insane & convinced himself that he'd actually filmed paedo-lined Scarborian streets rather than respectful folk doffing caps and applauding. Confusingly this revised opinion is included in the description dated 10th November 2011 (though it was obviously amended at a later date); I hadn't realised this was possible with YouTube videos.

    And I hadn't realised that that other seaside tribute - the 'Savile's View' footpath - had had an even shorter lifespan than the plaque, only lasting about 10 days. (Confusing photographs with a disappearing lamppost... presumably there was a sign at each end of the path.) From Savile’s street renamed to Sir Jimmy Savile Scarborough footpath sign removed.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Not forgetting his gravestone that lasted less than 2 weeks. It took almost six months to design and prepare and one night to destroy. His unmarked grave is a daily trial but a stone will be erected at some point. A sad endicment of the times meant that we had to pay for protection for his grave during the night following 3 October 2012. This went on for quite a while - a credible threat from someone with a JCB who wanted to "dig him up and drop him in the sea" was dealt with by the Police. You cannot imagine the pain and fear that was endured during this period.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The relative of you and Jim who is trying to get in touch is equally in as much pain. What if she is his daughter ? She is your cousin after all and is fathered by one of your uncles.. Imagine what she is going through.

      Delete
    2. I don't have a problem supporting any relative, but you haven't answered my questions....... Who is her father and how old is she? Answer those questions please.

      Delete
  7. Yay I can leave a comment at last. Thanks for all the comments folks.
    Onwards x

    ReplyDelete
  8. A wee bit off-topic, but a Saville [sic] accuser has just been put in her place by The Big Inquiry and it may be of interest to some: Barth's Notes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The page that went missing made no mention of one of her other alleged abusers, Denis Thatcher - another potential misspelling, perhaps. Though I guess we'll never know. Nor seemingly are the public allowed to know too much about how all these false-accusers link together, even so far as being co-chairs of the same "survivor" group etc.

      Delete
    2. Unfortunately the page that went missing has now also gone missing from Barth's Notes!

      Yes, I recall the lunatic Chris Stacey of the People's Tribunal infamy - he went to Eton you know! - enquiring about the state of undress of Denis's wife at this fateful meeting/ceremony (was she perhaps naked?!?). Not an image easily erased from one's mind, the Iron Lady prancing around in the altogether... yoiks!

      Say Goodbye, Wave Hello (Again)

      Delete
    3. This is the HTML version of the file https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/6355/view/Final%20Notice%20of%20Determination%20WM-A5.pdf. Google automatically generates HTML versions of documents as we crawl the web.

      FINAL NOTICE OF DETERMINATION CORE PARTICIPANT APPLICATION

      1. This Notice contains my final determination of WM-A5’s application for core participant status in the Westminster investigation. WM-A5 made her application on 5 February 2018. On 25 April 2018, I issued a determination indicating that I was minded to refuse the application, but inviting WM-A5 to make further submissions if she wished to do so. The Inquiry did receive further submissions on behalf of WM-A5, which were dated 9 May 2018. I have considered those further submissions
      with care, and they are addressed below.
      2. Applications for core participant status are considered under Rule 5 of The Inquiry Rules 2006 which provides:
      (1) The chairman may designate a person as a core participant at any time during the course of the inquiry, provided that person consents to being so designated.
      (2) In deciding whether to designate a person as a core participant, the chairman must in particular consider whether –
      a. The person played, or may have played, a direct and significant role in relation to the matters to which the inquiry relates;
      b. The person has a significant interest in an important aspect of the matters to which the inquiry relates; or
      c. The person may be subject to explicit or significant criticism during the inquiry proceedings or in the report, or in any interim report.
      (3) A person ceases to be a core participant on –
      a. the date specified by the chairman in writing; or
      b. the end of the inquiry.

      3. In determining the application, the matters listed in Rule 5(2) must be considered, but the list is not exhaustive and other relevant matters can also be taken into account.

      4. WM-A5’s application was lodged four months after the deadline for core participant applications in this investigation. Notwithstanding the delay, I have a discretion pursuant to Rule 5(1) to designate a core participant “at any time” during the course of the Inquiry. WM-A5 stated in her application that the delay was the result of difficulties that she has been experiencing at home. In light of the fact that the investigation is still at a relatively early stage, and also as a matter of general fairness in light of the explanation that has been given, I consider that the delay should not stand in the way of my considering this application.

      5. It is apparent from the content of WM-A5’s initial application that the interest that she asserts in this investigation is that of someone who was, as a child, a victim of sexual abuse at the hands of people of prominence associated with Westminster. The relevant passage of WM-A5’s application reads as follows:

      I played a direct and significant role in relation to the matters to which the Inquiry, and this investigation in particular, relates. I have a significant interest in this aspect of the Inquiry. I was fostered in Buckinghamshire during the late 60s where at a very early age I was subjected to sexual, physical, racial and satanic abuse. It started with my foster father then proceeded with powerful people like [10 NAMES]. I also witnessed sexual abuse of other children by [3 NAMES] and others of prominent status. I was interviewed as a witness by Operation Conifer. This abuse happened at many different places, including Chequers, an American military base in Naphill in Bucks, West Wycombe caves in Bucks, also known as Hellfire Caves, adventure play area in Wales which I believe was near Newport, many different children’s homes, hotel and people’s homes around UK, Stoke Mandeville hospital Stone psychiatric hospital in Stone, Buckinghamshire, Royal Bucks hospital in Aylesbury, Orchard House children’s hospital in High Wycombe and Barn children’s home both in Aylesbury.

      Delete
    4. 6. In addition to WM-A5’s application, I have also had regard to a report that I have received from Thames Valley Police. The report, which was prepared at the request of the Inquiry, summarises complaints made by WM-A5 and investigations that have been conducted as a result. I note from the report that WM-A5 is now 48 years of age. It must follow that the incidents of child sexual abuse to which she refers took place no later than about 1988 - some 30 years ago. The report records, amongst other things, that WM-A5 first contacted the Thames Valley Police in relation to her allegations of child sexual abuse in 2015. I will return to this report below. I should emphasise that the report is the only police document that I have looked at for the purposes of determining this application. I have not had access, for example, to any wider police records or documentation.

      7. As I have already indicated, in my determination dated 25 April 2018 I reached the view that I was minded to reject WM-A5’s application for core participant status. My reasons for reaching that provisional conclusion were (a) that I was not able to place any weight on WM-A5’s claims to have been the victim of child sexual abuse at the hands of people of prominence associated with Westminster; and (b) that there was no other basis upon which it would be appropriate to grant WM-A5 core participant status.

      8. The core reasoning that underpinned my earlier provisional decision was contained in the following three paragraphs of the determination dated 25 April 2018:

      “13.The main reason why I am, at least at the moment, unable to place any weight on WM-A5’s allegations of having been sexually abused by persons of prominence associated with Westminster arises from the number and identity of her alleged abusers. Leaving aside her foster father, WM-A5 claims to have been abused by 10 individuals, and to have witnessed other children being abused by 3 further individuals. Most of the individuals are or were well known, some very well known, in the fields of politics and entertainment.
      One of the individuals whom WM-A5 names as having abused her is Jimmy Saville. One of those whom WM-A5 claims to have witnessed abusing other children is Ted Heath. None of the named individuals has any obvious or explained connection to WM-A5, and the strongest theme that links them to each other is the fact that many of them have been publicly accused in recent years of involvement in historic cases of child sex abuse. The only further detail that WM-A5 provides is a list of locations where the abuse is said to have taken place, but she gives no explanation as to how she came to be in such disparate places as Chequers, an American military base at Naphill and the Stoke Mandeville Hospital.

      14. There is a further matter, which arises from the report by Thames Valley Police to which I have already referred. The report records that WM-A5 told the police that she had included her allegations of abuse against persons of prominence in the original manuscript of a book that she wrote some years ago, but that the publisher had refused to publish the allegations for legal reasons. Investigation by the police demonstrated that this was not the case - neither the publishing company nor WM-A5’s ghostwriter had any memory of these allegations. It appears that WM-A5 deliberately sought to mislead the police in suggesting that she had made these allegations earlier than in fact she had.

      Delete
    5. 15. Taking these matters together, I do not consider that I can place any weight on WM-A5’s claims to have been sexually abused by persons of prominence. And it is these allegations that provide the basis for WM-A5’s application for core participant status in this investigation. As I have said, WM-A5’s claim to have been abused as a child by her foster father is in a quite separate category, but that allegation on its own does not bear on the Westminster investigation. Nor do I consider there to be any other grounds on which this application could or should be granted. While WM-A5 makes factual allegations of sexual abuse by persons of public prominence, she does not allege any further institutional failing relevant to the focus of this investigation.”

      9. As I have indicated, as a result of that provisional determination, further material has been submitted in support of WM-A5’s application. That material, which includes a Chronology, provides some further detail about WM-A5’s allegations of having suffered and having witnessed child sexual abuse committed by prominent individuals. The Chronology also contains a response to the suggestion that WM-A5 sought to mislead the police.

      10. The question for me is whether this new material satisfies me that, contrary to my earlier view, I can place weight on WM-A5’s allegations of having suffered and witnessed child sexual committed by prominent individuals connected with Westminster. I emphasise that my task is not to determine the truth or otherwise of these allegations. Far from it. This is an application for core participant status, and my function is to decide whether WM-A5 has a sufficient interest in this investigation to justify granting the application. The particular issue that arises is whether WM-A5’s relevant allegations are sufficiently plausible to generate an interest in the investigation.

      11. I have carefully reviewed the further material submitted on behalf of WM-A5, in particular the Chronology. There are three points that I would make about that document.

      12. First, the Chronology contains a factual account of the way in which WM-A5 drafted her book, and of her dealings with her publisher and ghostwriter and, subsequently, the police. There are factual conflicts between WM-A5’s account and the police report, which I am not in a position to resolve. I have therefore disregarded the policereport for the purposes of reconsidering my provisional decision on WM-A5’s application for core participant status.

      Delete
    6. 13. Second, there are obvious factual difficulties with the Chronology. In a document that generally provides little detailed support for a large number of extremely serious allegations, these difficulties are striking.

      a. WM-A5 says that she was abused by and/or witnessed abuse by three prominent individuals closely connected with the Conservative Party. According to details given in the Chronology, this abuse took place at Chequers in 1977/78, when WM-A5 was between the ages of 9 and 10. It is hard to see how these facts can be accurate, since the Labour Party was in power during the years in question, and it seems extremely unlikely therefore that figures connected to the Conservative Party would have had repeated access to Chequers.

      b. A similar point arises in relation to allegations that WM-A5 makes in relation to Ted Heath. The Chronology details various events that are alleged to have taken place in 1978-80, when WM-A5 was aged between 10 and 12. It is said that the events took place at Ted Heath’s house, which WM-A5 “recognised much later from media exposure”. I take it from this that WM-A5 is referring to Arundells, Mr Heath’s house in Salisbury that featured prominently in media reporting of Operation Conifer.
      However, publicly available information shows that Mr Heath did not purchase Arundells until 1985, by which time WM-A5 would have been 17.

      14. Third, and most important, the Chronology provides at best sketchy further detail in relation to a large number of extremely serious allegations. No further detail at all has been provided in respect of one of the prominent individuals connected with Westminster who is alleged to have abused WM-A5.

      15. Taking these matters together, I remain of the view that I am not able to place any weight on WM-A5’s relevant allegations of child sexual abuse. I come back to the reasoning at paragraph 13 of my earlier determination, which I adopt. Considering WM-A5’s allegations in the round, including the number of allegations, the identity of the alleged abusers, the alleged circumstances of the abuse, as well as the further factual information, with its difficulties, that she has now provided in the Chronology, I simply do not regard WM-A5’s allegations as being plausible. Even if that is putting the matter too high, and there is some degree of plausibility about these allegations, I certainly do not regard them to be sufficiently plausible to generate an interest in this investigation that would lead me, in the exercise of my discretion, to grant core participant status.

      Delete
    7. 16. In reaching this decision, I repeat two important points that I made in my earlier determination.
      a. This decision should not be read as a rejection of WM-A5’s entire account of having been the victim of child sexual abuse. Her account of being abused by her foster father is supported by other records, but is not of itself relevant to the Westminster investigation. What I am at the moment unable to place any weight upon are WM-A5’s separate allegations of having been abused by persons of prominence associated with Westminster. It is those allegations, however, which are critical to this application.

      b. My reasons for concluding that I cannot rely upon WM-A5’s allegations of having suffered child sexual abuse at the hands of persons of prominence associated with Westminster do not include the fact that she only made these allegations many years after the events were said to have taken place. It is well known that reports of sexual abuse are often only made after a delay, sometimes a considerable delay. I regard the issue of delayed reporting in this case as an entirely neutral factor.

      17. It follows from the conclusions that I have expressed above my conclusion that I am not satisfied that WM-A5 fulfills the criteria in Rule 5(2) as a person who played, or may have played, a direct and significant role in relation to the matters to which the Westminster investigation relates, or that she has a significant interest in an important aspect of such matters or may be subject to explicit or significant criticism during the inquiry proceedings or in the report, or in any interim report. There is no other basis upon which WM-A5 seeks or would be entitled to core participant status.

      18. This application is accordingly refused.

      Professor Alexis Jay OBE
      31 July 2018
      Chair, Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse

      Delete
    8. Just for reference, Private Eye picked up on this tale and SAFF helpfully made a copy: 'The Devil's In The Detail.

      Delete
  9. Cliff apparently accumulated nine accusers - four of which were sent to the CPS. One of those that supposedly didn't make the grade was an alleged attack by a roller-skating Cliff during the filming of the 'Wired for Sound' music video in Milton Keynes. This accuser is apparently registered online as a "religious minister", which might have rung a bell for some. Though I'm sure there's not just one of these fantasists - who go about accusing whoever they feel like accusing on the day - registered as some sort of "religious minister" online. Most of these frauds will be registered as a whole host of things, here and there, I imagine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Surely not AA?!?

      Delete
    2. On roller skates?! It would be funny if it wasn't so serious. Terrible that he attracted nine accusers, though. Just goes to show how "well" the publicity worked. (But thankfully not as well as in Rolf Harris's case. Cf. MWT's tweeting of RH's name with the words "Savile" and "sexual offences" months before he was arrested or charged, triggering a frenzy of several hundred retweets: https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/274181776283406337?lang=en It seems he tried something similar with Harvey Proctor: https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/611643150873034752)

      Delete
  10. I mentioned up above somewhere the pre-arrest smearing of DLT; this from today's news about the death of a Chuckle Brother caught my eye:

    "They [the Brothers] gave evidence at Dave Lee Travis's 2014 indecent assault trial - they were performing in panto with him in 1990 when the assault took place".

    Er, DLT was cleared of this - and everything else 'cept the Mrs Merton rubbish added in desperation by the CPS (and even this only by a majority verdict of 10-2 ) when the first trial failed to make a finding of guilt - which might suggest that the assault did not actually occur. If I were DLT I'd be contacting my lawyer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BBC article now amended:

      "They gave evidence at Dave Lee Travis's 2014 indecent assault trial - they were performing in panto with him in 1990 when the alleged assault took place. Travis was later cleared"

      Delete
  11. Here's an insight into MWT's methods that might interest you, Rabbit, and perhaps others. From his explorations of the Jill Dando case. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=EpJJ1mX-6Ds

    He locates an old police list of "suspects", locates one man (who speaks to MWT on TV with identity hidden), shows him a list of "suspects" and says to him "just have a flick through and see if there is any on there that you know or any that you would particularly have a concern about". Is it any surprise that the man picks someone out? (Makes one wonder if the police would use this approach and, again, wonder why MWT left the police.)

    It seems to be on the strength of this that MWT claims he knows the name of Jill Dando's "real killer".

    ReplyDelete