1st November 2024
Balance as at: 24-Nov-2022 Accrued Interest as at:
24-Nov-2022 SOLE INSTANT SAVER £15126.55
£4.97 GROSS
SOLE SELECT ACCOUNT £4315.55
On the 24th November 2022 an unauthorised cheque for £1,080.00 was written by our younger brother in his handwriting, on our fathers cheque book, that had never been used, the cheque number was 001.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_-lj3OqCiQ
This cheque was cleared the day after death 25th November 2022, so was also not legally a valid debt.
HMRC:
The solicitors and our brother then carried out larceny. I contacted the pair of them who were now considered joint enterprise by myself in January 2023 and I also alerted the Royal Courts of Justice. I wanted to keep the matter civil as he was my brother but I had no time for the solicitors so wrote a review.
Nothing was done.
The bank said that I could prosecute but again, looking at Steven Fry et al I didn't want him imprisoned.
By now Feb 24 the solictors and our brother made their first move attempting to enrich themselves by way of unauthorised represenation of the deceased, making out that the whole property was left to one brother.
The solicitors doing the conveyance, a trust was set up apparently and they did this all by a devaluation of the house, to less than a million. Then our brother cleared the house and got six people in to rent it.
The solicitors took months to come back to our older sister with answers/evidence that she had legally asked for and paid them £1,800 for, under a law where they have to, from the will they'd knocked up.
Meanwhile, my sister who was dealing with it, as I only really deal with rights based stuff, got severely ill with the stress and disbelief.
I then because she was ill went to the house, not somewhere I wished to go, before the spat was sorted, and was assaulted by one of the residents, renting the place and I didn't want to prosecute as I don't know these six men and have too much work but I found out what the brother was up to renting to six people.
He was running a HMO.
I reported him to HMRC and to Hammersmith and Fulham council, for a HMO thinking they could stop him, especially since the Mayor is big on this.
Nothing was done.
Returning in 14th July 2024 from Spain where I had been since April 2024 working on Youth Parliament World and returning every 28 days, I got a very harrassing letter from the solicitors accusing me of criminal damage to my own estate and threatening costs for having two caveats basically enriching themselves in a normal process.
A plain glass window of £20 covering the stainglass, that always fell in, got broken, so the solicitors valued this at £5k, not contemporaneosly but after the event, so this was to cause arrest and imprisonmet with no police visit to the scene at all, they didn't even have the correct street they called it Parfrey Road.
I opened the email at 3am 25th July and immediately made a 101 report against the solicitor of malicious allegation/harrassment/fraud for cashing a dead man's cheque and by 8.30am 25th July 2024 I had three flat hats detectives at my door, from Charing Cross police station and my neighbours had seen them driving into our street and parking up in a marked police vehicle, that was fast. The same force who harrassed my brother before his suspicious circumstances death, where no police body cam was seen.
I did not answer as I knew that they can call me or email or write a letter. I also knew that I was in the right and so I made a police complaint immdeiately. I also called 101 to check if they were authorised but 101 knew nothing about any report against me. I recorded the call. I wasn't sure but suspected the above people. I also contacted my local police who equally had no idea why such force had appeared at my door.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXqOZPAJIn8 101 - No Clue?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un0TxLFE7Bs Kings Cross - No Clue?
Nothing was done.
I then got a very dodgy call from an indignant person, telling me 'Oh my god you don't understand, you have to turn up to Charing Cross police station'. Charing cross seemed odd as these were the officers re my brother's investgation, as to how he ended up dead and like myself here, with no criminal record at all.
They had set him up, time and time again and arrested him from his bed, he was frightened for his life!
About two weeks later and with no civil contact made whatsoever in writing or any official channel, these undercover, armed police, with a battering ram turned up in the morning again, and said through the letter box;
'We know you are there'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENLH7x4q5yM&t=39s
They after not heeding anything I said about them reasonably believing a crime had taken place as the only reason for an actual arrest and abusing therefore their position as an arresting constable, liable if they either had no evidence or nothing in evidence (they at that point had never even investigated an alledged crime/malicious allegation or been to my parents house in this civil matter) to a fine of £14k or imprisonment, they then arrest me.
I live streamed the arrest and they asked me for my mobile, nothing to do with a window, as we left.
They also took my keys.
By the time we got to the car inside the car without any threat, they committed battery by handcuffing me, with three officers in the car but they couldn't take me to their Station suddenly as they had been told by radio that I was live streaming the event. They said, 'we are going to be famous are we, so where are you live streaming'? I said, 'youtube'. My neighbours also began to video with footage of me being handcuffed.
A neighbour asked where I being taken to and it now was Islington. So I arrived at Islington instead.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LK9ObR4agks&t=2037s
I was put into a cell and had my finger prints taken. After a no comment interview with a paralegal, I was put back into a cell for a few more hours, seven in total. A DI from Charing Cross arrived at Islington, we talked about my job back in the day up the road and got chatting with the other officers about Magum and the Bill. The officer with the battering ram got me water but without it being bottled I left that and he said his wife was in the child abuse inquiry, to which I made no further conversation about saying oh great.
It was evident to me that this treatment was OTT but I remained civil and polite as always and in fact the DI it turned out was police RAF imagine that? I asked was he from Tunbridge Wells and he said 'yes, oh I mean Kent', 'funny that is where my brother lives' I said. 'He's a estate agent, head of the masons there'.
Between the Bill, Top Gun and Magnum we got on rather well and the Islington officers were delightful.
I was put on police bail to return not to Islington but to Charing Cross police station in three months.
I knew from my brothers case that this was a dangerous position to be in as I could be set up and recalled.
So I went to Islington Magistrates and took an application out to remove police bail as they were not investigating anything after a few weeks of waiting around and my legal aid solicitors were usless in attaining any kind of update so I took the case myself to the Highbury Magistrates and literally within 30 seconds of me making the application, low and behold my appointed criminal legal aid solicitors sent me an email saying that they were delighted (strange turn of phrase considering they had no capacity for police harrassment, nor do most of them these days and I'd already written to Sir Mark Rowley at Scotland Yard) to tell me that my case was 'no further actioned'... That the police were just drawing up the paperwork. Despite chasing that paperwork for a month and emailing several officers including the interviewing DI no such paper work ever transpired but that kind of goes with this story from beginning to end doesn't it? Even the solicitors couldn't get it. "Now, Now we can't have a paper trail can we, no such fetter"..
I then immediately thought well the kid gloves are off now, with the brother, he must really be compromised to do such a thing to his own sister, and so I did a 101 to the police on him as told to at the station but only after the bail conditions were dropped and also after the Magistrates had a chance to arrest the solicitors to go to court.. again civil.. but no.. heard nothing back except a few delay emails..
(4) Details of the alleged offence(s)
CrimPR 7.3 requires that an allegation of an offence in an application for the issue of a summons or warrant must contain (a) a statement of the offence that (i) describes the offence in ordinary language, and (ii) identifies any legislation that creates it; and (b) such particulars of the conduct constituting the commission of the offence as to make clear what the prosecutor alleges against the defendant.
The firm and five proposed defendants all acted in an ‘unauthorised’ manner within the meaning of the Legal Services Act in that they all individually played a part in larceny of our family estate, when they knew or ought to have known or became aware in February 2023, when Mary Moss contacted the proposed defendants and the family alerted the SRA that the cheque was not written by the deceased nor was it cashed before his death 24/11/2022.
Ms ****** acting for the firm proceeded to defame by way of a £5k exaggerated claim, the claimant, knowing that she was not ‘authorised’ to act for the estate within the meaning of the legal services act.
CrimPR 7.2(6) requires that an application for the issue of a summons or warrant for arrest must concisely outline the grounds for asserting that the proposed defendant has committed the alleged offence or offences. Summarise your grounds for alleging that the proposed defendant has committed the offence(s) for which you want the court to issue a summons or warrant. Give an indication of the evidence on which you will rely if the court agrees to do so.
The proposed defendants are not authorised to act in any capacity for the Moss estate as they have not been renumerated to do so. The allegation of larceny, defamation and harassment justify a search and seize, warrant and the arrest of the proposed defendants, to question them, all individually.
Again waiting, I had no choice but to do the police report.
I sent an email to my brother saying that he should give it up as I would now have to go to the police.
He did not reply, he had already told the unauthorised solicitors to treat us as strangers, no reason but money but we all knew he would do something like this, however locking up your sister and knowing all she ever does is fight for children as he said apparently, and making others stress to ill, saying she could lose her home and sending a crook to another and trying to control another brothers premises cutting his key, no this is not conscionable, no matter what old family ties be it Irish or English, makes that decency.
So I wrote a 101 report online on the morning of the 9th Oct 2024 and sent it early that morning.
Within 33 minutes I got a call from a police officer saying the police were outside my door AGAIN!!
I was not in, so I said that I would present myself at the local police station, she told me 'Islington or Kentish Town' (Kentish Town being also involved in not showing the body worn of my brother dead). I said that I would bring evidence of the forged cheque and the bank statement to show funds not cleared.
I went to the staionary shop nearby Holborn police station who kindly took a copy even though they don't have a public facing desk and I also did 10 copies of everything.
Three for the Royal Courts of Justice and 6 for the police forces, nearby the solicitors and my brother, so Kent, West Kensington, Hammersmith, Islington, Kentish Town and Holborn, I spent £50 sending them by registered post and so I could prove they all had the evidence of the forged cheque, the bank statements, a birthday card as a sample of my brothers handwriting, with his distinctive amersan and a copy of the 6th Oct 2024 email from the Solicitors Regulatory Authority saying that the solicitors had just said that they had the cheque handed to them on the day our father died and that was the day the banked it.
"Thank you for your email.
Pretty much an addmission that they knew or ought to have know that funds were not on account at all at the time of my fathers life. So they couldn't be renumerated/paid in death. It's illegal by inheritance rules.
Banged to rights on 6th Oct 2024 by the SRA!! No contract, no gentleman's agreement, nothing but a knocked up will, which they stood to benifit from.
I then went to the Royal Courts of Justice as pretty much protection that day, as the police were ridiculous.
I took out a 'without notice injunction' application, which means if something to do with property is urgent, then you have the right to kneel before the King and you can see a Judge if one is available.
I waited all day and did my bit to call up the staff at listings and they were great, so I got a 4pm hearing.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/6y5EGxpXTG4
After I tentatively returned then to my home as I did not succeed in the injuction as it was 'without notice' however the judge in court 37 a fine gentleman didn't seem to think I needed to get an injunction against the solicitors without notice but should simply get a money claim as the funds weren't cleared, so no debt.
I went to the post office and sent the rest of the evidence registered to the police forces.
Islington despite being guarenteed next morning delivery, went to Greenford for two days,which showed in the Royal Mail tracking I'd paid £8.00 each for.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld-bQkUXfUs&t=2s
[The above video is me calling police 101 on the evening of the 9th Oct 2024, the crime reference was;
01/938136/24
Crime Reference Number
From 9th Oct 2024 police conversation.
I delivered evidence of screen shot from SRA.
The bank statement proving unclear cheque..
Inheritance laws.
Copy of the cheque.
Birthday card &.
1% interest.
Solicitors.
Still in limbo.. allocated officer to investigate. Email me rather than visit my house marymossboss@outlook.com
Note: Spoke to Judge Sweeting. Application for money claim.. brother cut throat. ]
Now what was in Greenford, the police RAF it turned out and then that made me google what rank is the RAF police and yes it's, once qualified, a commander and the only commander I ever came across was the commander who told the child abuse inquiry on record and video and put into a slanderous libellous document, in the IICSA report, that I had met him and I absolutely never at all.
I was just used as a hoaxed liar with the police raiding my home in 2013, a Mary Moss 'list' coined only by the press and the help of someone elses criminal record, to discredit me without ever meeting me haha.
My brothers harrassment and death I know had something to do with it and I was now getting the same.
With no official notice from Charing Cross about police bail, I had the solicitors letter that would suffice. I applied to ACRO for my finger prints to be distroyed and I finally called 'Action Fraud' a bit more serious than 101, as I had already said they just wouldn't take my 'counter allegation in the police station' of fraud.
Action police did nothing. I called them to chase up at the end of October 2024 and I later read on my account on the online portal that it was 'no further actioned' and that the officer I spoke to rephrased had my words saying 'she wasn't sure if funds had been returned?' I mean again ridiculous, I didn't say that. Luckily, I updated this to 'my father did not write the cheque and the solictiors had not returned the money and were acting unauthorised in a million pounds fraud' so since that was updated they need to review again. Maybe it was because I was insisting he wasn't jailed that we wanted the money back, as she was very understanding re family etc. She said if that doesn't work then you will have to get another crime reference but about the fact your Dad did not write the cheque himself, which the solictors were told.
That gets them both jointly.
The police when I did the 101 report had also replied that
'unfortunetly this is a civil matter please contact the citizens advice bureau!!'
and I couldn't be sure if that was really from them.
That was odd too as that's all the email said.
Particulars of Claim
✔ attached to follow
I was a London Development Officer for the National Association of Young People In Care
1987-92. Then elected Chair from 1992-94.In 2000 I independently funded the above organisation with business premises in WC1, for 14 years.
In Nov 2012 I was approached by the police for information about sexual abusers I might know of.
I had two shops an art gallery and a comtemporary multi-functional space for hire.
My house was raided by the police in Jan 2013, with a warrant for the information the police
wanted. They also took my laptop they kept for a few days and my desktop computer for 5 years.
When the inquiry reported on the above they commited defamation by suggesting that the
information was a hoax even though they took it and it was apart from a few pages court
stamped evidence used in a case when I was 10years old in 1979, at the Old Bailey.
My job title was not accurately described. A client of mine was described as a friend. An
informant to NAYPIC was described as a collegue. In 2018 all NAYPIC information was given
back to me, 28 archive boxes. Then my brother with no criminal record was harrassed to his
death. I was recently harrassed in the same way by police and have reason to also be scarred for
my life.
VALUE: To be assessed. Section 13 order required for injuction against further publication or for publication to be corrected.
POC attached;
Skeleton Argument for Moss v Home Secretary
It’s very dangerous to put a person into the public domain without their side of the story.
That is what the IICSA inquiry done to me in March 2019 and yet named me constantly.
I asked for a right of reply but was told they did not require a statement from me;
I made an official complaint contemporaneously in March 2019 and was asked to put it in a witness statement;
Witness Name: Mary Moss
Statement No.: 4
Exhibits:
Dated: 19th March 2019
THE INDEPENDENT INQUIRY INTO CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE
___________________________________________________________________________
Witness Statement of Mary Moss
___________________________________________________________________________
I, Mary Moss , will say as follows:-
1. I Mary Moss was first contacted on the 6th Nov 2012 by a Mr Jim Reed whom I had never met or heard of before, from the BBC, who wrote to me having seen my website http://www.youthparliament.org.uk/bodydata/modellocalgroup.htm that had been in place for 20 years on my NAYPIC abuse cases (and NAYPIC’s current legal situation), in particular Barnes Elm Guest House and my dealings with the owner’s children’s cases Eric and Natalie; Exhibit 1. Jim’s email to naypic@hotmail.com address
2. https://legalaidcuts.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-real-cost-of-human-rights-when.html Here is a summary made as a complaint to the European Courts around UK judicial corruption of the case for NAYPIC’s two central London premises Est by me in 2000 to 2015. I was representing myself (for 6 years), at the time of contact with Mr Jim Reed at the Court of Appeal, the Strand. The case brought me a lot of attention from inside housing, legal people, barrister’s media and liability insurers due to its floodgate nature worldwide on ‘absolute liability’ and after it was written up in over 20 legal firms and journals on the internet ‘Gavin and Anr V Community Housing Association’ (One Housing Group) and their insured. I wanted to be as helpful as possible but was busy representing myself with 4 to 5 boxes of 5 A4 ring bound folders to a box. Mr Jim Reed persuaded me to meet him for a quick coffee at the BBC Corporation House. He did this by way of guilt and a bit a deceit. He said that information on a VIP (and he was talking of Mc Alpine) paedophile and he needed to verify their identity with me. I gave him half an hour of my time in the lunch hour as I was flat out working with an appearance to be made in just under a month at court. I did it at the BBC as he wanted to come to mine but I was suspicious of anyone at that point with my court case and files etc. He named Mc Alpine and I said I had never heard of him abusing anyone and that if I was them the BBC I would be very cautious about naming people that I had never heard of as I had heard of many of them and that could lead to a lot of trouble for real cases in the future especially since Saville had just been successfully exposed. I did not know at the time when I met Jim Reed that he knew Angus Stickler and Angus had approached me in 2008 from a comment I made in a Guardian article. He said if I was Mary Moss, he said he remembered from a piece he done in the 80; s to contact him. I did and told him all about my dispute with my landlord so he was the first to know pretty much all the recent NAYPIC activities as well as know I had changed my name. Then as if the timing could be any closer to my court case, the McAlpine debacle happened. I was watching it at a friend’s house as I was feeding his cat early in the morning as he was away on holiday. I happened to be not far from the BBC and so I went there and called Jim Reed on the way. I said to him, tell Entwistle not to resign as he will make it very difficult for any of us who aren’t protected to speak out on real abusers now and that this was a disaster. He said he was being hauled into a meeting. Within the hour the Director General had resigned and I was standing outside with the world’s press. I felt like all the progress had gone backward. Also, that I had somewhat been slapped right in the middle of this one and so I thought I am never going to be able to progress with a youth parliament now or get the money together to get a law centre to take cases. Then I approached several different countries journalist, including China, Netherlands etc and spilled the beans on what I knew. I thought if they want to shut me up by some vicarious association with this case, I wasn’t going to be stopped that easily. So now the world knew what Jim knew, that I had mentioned to him. The next day my house was full with newspaper journalist and they all wanted to know what I knew.
3. I was then contacted by a second BBC journalist a Mr Alister Jackson on 28th Nov 2012. He said he had seen my www.youthparliament.co.uk website also but he was looking for a Mr Christopher Fay, so I replied, I hadn’t seen him since 1987 (which was actually 1991 but I answered quite quickly). Mr Jackson then turned up to my 04/12/12 Court Case, where I had just won permission to appeal Exhibit 2 with some pro-bono help from Jan Luba QC. Mr Jackson was with a ‘friend’ called David Pallister an ex-Guardian Journalist who I remember thinking looked a bit like Christopher Fay but he stated he was working for a new website called Exaro and mentioned his wife was also a journalist. I explained to them both that although what they were dealing with was of great importance, my court case was more important to me and I could not speak with them. I agreed to meet them the next day if they went away so that I could celebrate with my supporters in the pub next door, the bank, where they had also followed me to. I didn’t like Pallister but Alister did say if he could help at all with my court case, he would, so I took him up on his offer and had him writing asking questions to RSA insurers stating he worked for Panorama. He even came to my house for a chat. At a later point when Stingmore and Tony McSweeney were arrested he introduced me to Ed Campbell who worked for ITV and Lucy Manning as apparently Jackson’s wife worked with them and he said all four knew each other. This prompted Channel 4’s Paraic O’Brien to also do an interview as now Elm Guest House was a live inquiry so that was my main contact with him in the early days of 2012. Alister Jackson did not go away. I tried to get rid of him by mainly ignoring him. He wanted the Guest book and since I had already given photocopies to him, I retrieved it and let him borrow it. I asked him to try and get in touch with a witness to NAYPIC Andrew Ashworth. I said he had vital information on abuse and I was worried for his life years ago. I gave him his last known address in Bradford and to my surprise he found him but he wouldn’t give me his details. Later I realised that Mr Jackson was at the Ben Fellows Court Case and was talking to the only other court reporter there. I found the case strange as I had had a serious allegation on Mr Ken Clarke form the 80’s yet this was all a pantomime. I wasn’t surprised seeing Jackson as I had already become suspicious of his and flat out refused to part of his Panorama VIP programme “a platform for a crook” I called it.
4. I was contacted by MP Tom Watson on the 11/12/12 Exhibit 4. This contact was made subject to a complaint that was later thrown out and I was told to take it to a Judicial Review. I made the complaint finally at the stage when the IOPC did not have to contact the police asking them to investigate. The IOPC from 8th Jan 2018 could now investigate complaints directly and not involve the police. Either it was deliberate or at best someone just automatically used the old system but I was told that my complaint had to go to the DPS for investigation, i.e. the Home Office as the complaint involved them. THIS IS A COPY OF MY COMPLAINT Complaints Support Team 22nd Floor Empress State Building Empress Approach Lillie Road London SW6 1TR E-mail: DPSMailbox-.CST@met.police.uk Our reference: QU/00067/18 Date: 11 January 2018
Dear Ms Moss
We need some more information about your complaint
You recently contacted us via the IPCC to make a complaint against the Metropolitan Police Service.
Here is the complaint;
I worked in NAYPIC National Association of Young People In Care as their London Development Officer from 1987 to 1992. I then resigned to develop the organisation Nationally as a volunteer national and then stood for election elected at three conferences and was voted National Chair of the National Executive Committee by 1800 youth. I must have had in the region of 100 complaints on my desk at any given time, throughout my time as a London Development Officer. I had a high media profile and was able to resolve many cases as well as meet and consult with professionals at all levels including, the Health Minister and most members of the Dept of Health at the time. In 1993 the NAYPIC was raided whilst I was at a leaving care launch with the NCCVO, NSPCC and NAYPIC just near Downing Street. I witnessed a new white dustbin cart with two men in forensic white all-in-one suits take the last of the NAYPIC London and South office into their dustbin cart possession. I shouted at them to stop and the man taking the last of our case files, in black bin bags, filled just enough to be carried, ran to the van as I chased it down Stucley Street NW1, a small street in Camden where NAYPIC had a modern contemporary, two storey office, heavily protected with metal shutters that I had had installed money I fundraised from Children In Need. Upon entering the empty offices of National Association of Young People In Care I could see that they had taken £10,000 worth of computers, paid for with money I had raised from Children In Need, as well as the office desks, chairs. I salvaged the last thirty or so bin bags and took them to an office of a charity further up the road in Camden, called ‘the serious road trip’ who were feeding and entertaining the children on buses throughout war torn Europe. They kindly allowed me to have an office in return for helping them to fundraise. Many NAYPIC cases were then safe and secure but much of the more sensitive casework I had already hidden, at my home. I did that because this was evidence that would historically come into use, when children, one day, had a voice and police forces took abuse of children more seriously than they did at the time. In all our NAYPIC files we always put a notice inside of the cover of files reading ‘this evidence is protected by PACE Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984.’ NAYPIC may have been raided by the Home Office in 1993, as a series of events then took place with funding from all Government organisations withdrawn and then followed an odd and insensitive article by a social work journal with a picture of one of our young management committee, who had recently committed suicide pictured through the glasses of an adult advisor, whom we had recently sacked, stating ‘NAYPIC is Dead, Long live NAYPIC’. I was asked by my then Management Committee, to practically give up any other career steps I may have gone on to do, since I was educated and experiences in child care issues and had come 2nd out of 70 applicants in a job worth over fifty thousand, if I could carry the mantle of setting NAYPIC back up and to be remunerated and compensated for any directors loans once I had carried out the last wish and vote of NAYPIC, to have a membership of all 12 million children by parliamentary budget and that NAYPIC was to be called NNYP New NAYPIC Youth Parliament. I successfully set up two art galleries to fund NNYP in 1999 to 2013. It was not to my surprise then during 2012 (when I was representing myself against a top firm of lawyers in an important 2 million pounds precedent court case against RSA & UKU insurance company and my landlord Community Housing Association, the Chair of whom, was sister in law of the Master of the Rolls on ‘Absolute Liability’ in disrepair to both the shops following flooding into the premises from outside on the landlords premises) that I had suddenly come to the attention of some of the establishment who didn’t like me due to the absolute liability case and perhaps those too whom had stumbled on me through www.youthparliament.co.uk which had long list of historical abuses, that had been on that site since 1999 or early 2000. Now however the establishment putting two and two together, worked out I was not someone who had gone away even with a name change and NNYP had contemporary premises in central London www.scarletmaguire.com and www.spaceshift.co.uk and I was quite a dab hand at being in court on this absolute liability case, which was valuable to insurers worldwide and that I with a passion had set out to ensure that my case and essentially NNYP was not stolen again, by the powers that be, who had already trespassed both shop premises in 2008 with all the NAYPIC files in the downstairs offices. I had a blog called www.legalaidcuts.blogspot.com to hi-light the pure corruption in my case. I was again a thorn in the establishment’s side. A Mr Watson MP for labour, I believe met with the 1992 sacked former advisor of NAYPIC’s, as when he emailed me and then later called me, he used the same uncanny language of that former advisor and he sounded very sensationalist to me, bearing in mind he had recently had some success in the Leverson inquiry and was populist MP at the time, I saw him as feathering his own nest, I yawned upon taking notes of what he was saying and was then surprised when he asked me to co-operate with any police that may approach me in secret. Having a serious court case to get on with and being soon in the Court of Appeal with a top Pro-Bono QC who was endangering bringing back ‘Ryland v Fletcher’ and the law of ‘Absolute Liability this contact with Mr Watson smacked to me of the same adult advisor and his Russian counter-parts, enlisting either blatantly or chancing it a Mr Tom Watson MP. I knew something would blow re child abuse if that adult advisor had anything to do with it but then and now in 2012 I wasn’t going to be any part of it, I knew I would just let it be as my work was to raise an economy not a hell again as had been in 1993 when life as NAYPIC knew it was finished, as was children’s rights for years to come. I thanked Mr Watson for his time and said something like that I ‘could not work with police as I had been given evidence in confidence by young people, back then’. I also made sure I gave nothing away when he kept mentioning Mr Peter Righton and the Elm guest house except to say that yes it was all my casework. I was then contacted by DCI PAUL SETTLE and asked to hand over confidential info so I put it on my blog and was raided.
From:NewNAYPIC<naypic@hotmail.com>
Sent:15January201820:49
To:DPSMailbox-.CST@met.pnn.police.uk
Subject: Re: Complaint against Met
Police, our ref QU/67/18 Mary Moss
I have run out of space to finish on the application attached. So just to say I put it on the internet because I was scared for anyone on those notes as well as for my own safety. I feared that unless I made it public then secret operations could just tidy up whatever it was, they thought I still had. I knew that none of it was formulated properly and that the evidence required to convict had not yet been properly attained by NAYPIC. I knew that people could be bumped off and made to look like they done it themselves.
I tried so hard to have that conversation with the Prime Minister or
the Home Office. I was under a duty to protect that information.
When the Home Office finally told me to work with the police in a secret op
with no agenda, I saw this as theft of the organisation again just like in
1993.
Nine officers came to my house at 6am on the 9th Jan 2013. A friend answered the door as I had been at a family birthday party in South London and had stayed the night. My friend called me to tell me, "I was having my coffee and the door went. I looked through the keyhole and it was like out of a movie. They held up their badge and asked me to open the door. I had to take my shower and go to work I did not care but they are in your house Jo you have to come now.'
I phoned up Bindman's solicitors as I have successfully sued the East Sussex Police with them for assault and battery and false imprisonment in 1993. Although the legal aid cuts did not allow me any legal recourse, I was advised on a compassionate basis to quote the law regarding something or other I don't recall. I called DCI Settle and spoke to him on this law.
I arrived with my friend a senior social work consultant who was also at the party the night before. I was met in the court yard by DCI Settle and a white female officer who stated her name but I forgot. I saw two undercover officers one male with blonde hair and one black female coming out of my building with a huge black hold all and they made out they were nothing to do with anything. I however knew they had done something in my flat and sensed something nasty with filming as they were smug as if they'd set me up or something? I later spotted the blonde officer at the Empress building so I knew I hadn't been wrong with my instincts but still don't know what heavy equipment was in the large bag. I'd like to know still?
Upon entry to my flat my friend and I were friendly but silent. A gentleman was sitting in plain suit and coat on my sofa and said very little. I imagine him to be senior but he seemed nice enough. I am house proud and my flat is full of art so I said to him 'do you like my flat' he said yes. The lady officer and two other uniformed officers James Townley and I forgot his name but have it recorded somewhere stood at my kitchen bar and asked me to sigh for my £1000 desk computer which had been bagged up and then for my laptop which had all my current court case proceeding on it, that had also been bagged up. I noticed that they had found the guest signing in book with the likes of cliff Richard signed in and many others and that they had found a copy of the written allegations that a former adult advisor had written up to do with that case of the Elm Guest House. They missed a copy however that I had placed face down under the wardrobe of my white floor so that worked as I still held a copy. Someone asked me something about my court case and did I think this would help? I agreed although I wasn't sure what the hell, they were going on about. I signed and with my legs not noticeably shaking I was friendly and let them out. I felt traumatised by the whole experience and now that the rid had happened I felt victimised and scared. I phoned a friend who had the rest of NAYPIC info in his shed. He wanted me to take it so he was not raided. It had more Elm Guest House evidence in the 19 boxes. I was afraid to leave my house and I set up a pet cam. I believed that they were accessing my house. This especially when some of the stuff they had appeared back in my house or on the internet. Lots of people like Madland's whom I believed were police started having a say on twitter about me. My court case reputation was now ruined and my name Mary Moss was all over the tabloids and the internet. I spent 3 years after trying not to be associated with the adult advisor whom I had sacked for good reason, yet his name and mine as well as the good name and work of NAYPIC became deliberately entangled with his past and of some 2012 Olympic Fraud he had been involved with yet I hadn't seen him since I sacked him as an advisor in 1991. Lots of care experienced adults contacted me. Lots of nutters too and I had now neither premises nor reputation. I have barely survived all of it by just keeping my head down as I am only too well aware of the dangers of it all. The police in August 2013 started to put co-ordinates around my house since I wouldn't go out much. They also tracked my phone and blatantly followed me directly over my head as if this was a joke and they were getting a kick out of it. I still get followed. I still have trolls that I have ignored for ages now and I still make reference to NAYPIC boxes on social media. Lawyers for the child abuse inquiry I believe including Fiona Woolf and Butler Sloss have seen them as well as many police forces throughout the country. I have been told a few times who had them and for what op. Former cases of mine have been approached and harassed. Cases that aren't mine have too. There has been no co-ordination, no witness protection and an inquiry set up that none of us trust. Every whinger you can imagine has been on twitter muddying the waters and the whole episode lacks any dignity or organisation. I was never asked for a statement and was treated like an enemy of the state. Fake exhibitions, victims and criminals have made this child abuse explosion into the chaos that it now is with no legal aid for victims/survivors to put their cases. with the people I know who are involved this was a planned explosion with a state and police outcome protecting those who in many ways are robbing our country and selling us down the river and will no longer deal with the law they are becoming the law and abusing it all.
I have only complained because I thought that I could complain to the IOPC direct from the 8th Jan 2018. However, this complaint makes me now feel in further danger. I was followed as recently as 28th Dec across Russel Square Park and then into a shopping centre. I am the subject of all the recent allegations against all the celebrities on the dubbed Mary Moss list. Yet the UK ignored me for years and years as Jo Gavin who ran two art galleries and was coming to power.
Mary Moss
5. I was asked for feedback regarding how my complaint was handled on 14th February 2019 this was the day Neil Jerome signed off his witness statement. Having had my 21 boxes returned to me by Operation Winter Key on 14th Feb 2018 I asked Rebecca Hall from the original Investigation what I was in all of this. I explained that DCI Settle had been in front of the select committee and Cliff Richard had had his out of court settlements etc so ‘what was I in all this’, and she said, I was the ‘keeper of information’ that was all. I was horrified that I was firmly associated with Chris Fay and by all accounts Tom Watson had said that his sources came from information that was given to him by some journalist who got it from me and him. Chris Fay was employed by the London Borough of Greenwich when I met him and he was a labour councillor who gave me information on a serving MP at the time as well as abuse in a secure unit and a children’s home. He has never been in the employ of NAYPIC. I have never been as suggested by Commander Neil Jerome interviewed by the police. From what I can make out the statement by Jerome is a deliberate attempt to mislead the inquiry with the assistance of the shoddy investigations of the IOPC and with the assistance of Tom Watson MP and the BBC.
SECOND WITNESS STATEMENT
In response to Commander Neil Jerome’s evidence seen here on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n_412VV7Cw&feature=youtu.be
6.13.3 Commander Neil Jerome gives evidence. When asked was there any customers on a 'list' Neil says at 6.14.59 that there was no such thing as the Elm Guest House 'list' from the evidence revisited by Op Athabasca from the 1982 raid on the Guesthouse. It was not until some years later that the 'suggestion' of this 'list' comes out 6.15.10
Questioner says,
"one of the most well-known 'allegations' was there was a list" -
Comment -
How is that an allegation? Who made it? Is it criminal?
Questioner leads with the 'idea' that there was a 'list' and the evidence about 'it' 6.15.17
Already implied, fantasy, and is a leading question.
Questioner
'the idea in the main, came from two people, Chris Fay and Mary Moss'
Commander
(agrees) 'that's
Questioner
"I'm going to come in a moment, to 'evidence' each of them gave to Operation Athabasca and other operations" 6.15.32
Comment -
Mary Moss has never been interviewed by any operations Athabasca she has only been raided 09/01/13
so, to name an operation she was interviewed by and gave evidence to, is completely fake to a live broadcast public inquiry. 6.15.29
Questioner
"who those two people were and how they fitted into the story" 6.15.39
Commander
"Chris Fay was 'associated' with the National Association of Young People In Care organization" 6.15.48
Comment -
Incorrect use of associated with, as the organization constitution was that it is a campaigning, consumer organization, set up to protect the rights of young people in and ex-care and was run solely by them.
It was a membership organization run by under 25's, who were or had been in care, so it would be very clear to the commander that Chris Fay was neither of those things, he was an elected Labour Councillor for the London Borough of Greenwich and represented the Kidbrooke area where he resided. He had had trouble exposing abuse cases in care therefore so came to the consumer organization, NAYPIC.
Questioner
"and Mary Moss was a colleague of his" 6.15.53 -
Comment -
Implication 'associated' & 'colleague' neither of which are true or accurate statements, he had booked appointments with me.
Mary Moss was interviewed and appointed by NAYPIC as their London Development Officer and was a salaried member of staff along with nine others Nationally whereas Councillor Chris Fay was a visitor to the organization, in the same capacity as others, in that, he brought casework to the office with him, that Mary Moss had to take on, as a caseworker, due to the cases in question being in care at the time.
Chris Fay has had a criminal record since then according to a national newspaper reported widely in 2013, it transpires he was jailed for a year in 2011 for robbing old aged pensioners, which discredits him entirely and perhaps he could also be a super grass as he only did a year for laundering money.
Whereas Mary Moss is fully DBS'ed and is a professional still being the commercial director for NAYPIC, having set up two New NAYPIC/Youth Parliament self-funding central London art galleries for New NAYPIC/Youth Parliament 1999-2019.
Mary Moss has not seen Chris Fay since she banned him from the NAYPIC offices in 1991 on the advice of her funders. So why start with him since Carol Cazier came to me by appointment. What is the focus on this crook who played no formal part to her case who happened to be hanging about at the time and took an only personal interest, not a formal one?
Questioner
'let's look at Chris Fay first please' 6.15.57
Questioner
'let's look at your statement Mr Jerome and it's page 18 and it says Mr Fay contacted the police in "Dec 2012"'
Commander
'yes'
Questioner
'we're all now becoming familiar with that period of time' 6.16.28 -
Comment -
Well "our we" Dec 2012 is not the start date of all this, it's only when Mary Moss was dragged into it by the MP looking for info with the police and likely to have Fay as their informant?
Since the police didn't EVER say that Chris Fay was interviewed, before this inquiry said so, yet Chris Fay was accused by Mary Moss early on when Watson contacted her, to Watson MP on the phone, that he must have been speaking to Chris Fay to have raised the Elm Guest House ever again?
Watson denied this.
Police raided Mary Moss on Jan 9th, 2013 when they couldn't get protected info out of her protected by the police and criminal evidence act PACE.
Mary only put documents on her own blog 21.12.12 backward
(unflipped after taking the photos quickly for fear all would be seized and she was right)
since she was worried for the victims and herself, with the police having access to those old file’s cases, as they had repeatedly requested them. She had offered them to the Prime Minister and the Home Office but neither wanted them they only wanted her to deal with DCI Settle from the same area of where Carol Cazier was possibly murdered in 1991, so she had to be rightly worried to do this properly or not at all and would have warned of Chris Fay.
Questioner
'because of Watson's Parliamentary question'
Comment -
which was actually in the Oct 2012 as seen here and Watson contacted me on 13th Dec 2012
PMQs: Tom Watson on paedophile ring links to previous PM's aide
A Labour MP asked the prime minister about claims of a "powerful paedophile network linked to Parliament and No 10".
Tom Watson called for the Metropolitan Police to look at the evidence around a "widespread paedophile ring" and allegations about child sex images and the senior aide of a former prime minister.
David Cameron said he was not sure which previous prime minister was being referred to, but he would check Hansard "to see what the government can do to give him the assurances he seeks".
- 24 Oct 2012
As seen here above on a BBC link.
Questioner
'paragraph 92, there was much speculation in the media and online including that famous people had attended EGH' 6.16.49
Comment
Yes oddly they had seemed to have flipped the documents themselves and tried to read them which was near on impossible but David Icke lot, Discovery 77, Bill Baloney and Needle blog, Jimmy Jones Outlaw, Some bald guy, Exaro, newspapers all popping out of nowhere and Madlands (which was police) all tried to read those backward photos like a frenzy it was most odd when no one took a blind bit of notice of my private court case blog, except those who were corrupting that case, i.e. the judiciary and a few interested lawyers and housing experts on repairing obligations as it was a big case worth 2.5 million.
Questioner
'and as you say it appears that most of these 'stories' originated'
Comment -
Tom Watson stated 'VIP's' but now questioner says it's 'stories' originated on the internet?
Implying, that 'stories' were first, from the two, not from Tom Watson in Parliament on VIP's, at the heart of the establishment, allegations in Oct 2012 first, as was the correct timeline.
The questioner implies immediately that the 'stories' originated from Chris Fay and Mary Moss as if they were before Oct 2012.
Questioner
'from Chris Fay and Mary Moss' 6.16.58
Commander
'that's right and it would appear that they were the genesis' 6.17.02
Comment -
The genesis of what? Tom Watson's question in Oct 2012 or 'stories', as asked by the questioner, that appeared later as a result of the question in Parliament?
Commander
'that's right'
Comment -
to the questioner that implies Dec 2012 was the start date, but it wasn't it was Oct and Tom Watson but it does confuse everyone.
Mary Moss was never contacted by Tom Watson MP, on the subject, until after Watson MP asked the question, in the House of Commons.
However, with Chris Fay that is still left unknown and remains to this day and is almost kept 'vague' as he may have been the MP's source.
Commander Neil Jerome then slips in the central 'allegation' and says
Commander
'that list'
Comment
tying all elements up falsely, in verbal and it would seem written evidence as the questioner refers to his statement to the inquiry.
6.17.01
Questioner
'Paragraph 93 you refer to the fact Mr Fay was interviewed and what did he say 'in summary' say when interviewed'?
Commander
'yes, he said two or three days after the raid, so one can assume that would be around the 20th June 1982'
Comment
What is the commander on about as Chris Fay met Carol Cazier in 1991 at the NAYPIC office when Mary Moss had an arranged appointment with her, as one of just three appointments Mary Moss had with her over three months before her death?
The appointments were regarding her two children's case and that she and they were taking Richmond Council with `Hodge Jones and Allen to Court and Carol had wanted Mary Moss to support her children in the case, whom Mary would meet later, when the two, were over 18 (since they had been made wards of court) in three month’s time, when her younger son would be 18 as her daughter was already 21 but both had to be over 18 to take a court case against the council.
It doesn't take a genius to work out that she could not have supplied Chris Fay with journals or the guest book as they were in the possession of the police for the forthcoming crown court trial since they are stamped as that and certainly not photo's (since Carol said in 1991 she had no knowledge of events going on around her), so this is a retelling of history and placing someone there Chris Fay that wasn't and you have to wonder why the police would do that and haven't charged Fay with perverting the course of justice, they just use him, like a grass for their own ends whilst he may well be a political agent for the MP Tom Watson. So, what has he got on them? 6.17.34
Questioner
"dealing with the notes, the journals, the documents first'
Comment
Yes, dealing with the lies first?
Questioner
"did, did, did, Mr Fay provide you with all of the documents he was referring to"
Commander
"no, he did not"
Questioner
Referring to Commander Neil Jerome’s statement paragraph 95
"what about a photograph" 6.18.00
"there was one particular photograph that Mr Fay told you about"
"where he claimed"
'That in fact Mrs Cazier had shown him"
"and there's a quote that she had shown him a photograph of Leon Britain with a 12-year-old pre-pubescent boy sat on his lap wearing a French maid’s apron, frilly hat and nothing else" 6.18.21
Comment
Honestly, I don't know how the questioner can keep a straight face, yet he seems like he is really smirking regularly throughout this charade and when I went there to watch the last day of this show when I was again mentioned in summing up, I saw him doing the same thing.
Questioner
'so, an extremely damaging incendiary suggestion'
Comment
Again leading
Questioner
'did Mr Fay ever show you that photograph or come up with any evidence that such a photograph had ever existed'? 6.18.30
Commander
"no, he did not"
Questioner
"Mr Fay goes on to give a long list of people whom he claims were there and they were, Leon Brittan, Harvey Proctor, Cyril Smith, Antony Blunt, Commander Trestrail of Met Police is that right' 6.18.56
Commander
'yes'
Questioner 'and Nicolas Fairbairn'
Commander
'yes' 6.19.00
Questioner
'tell us about what 'if any' evidence, `Mr Fay ever produced to support those claims"
Commander
'So 'he' made those 'claims' 6.19.06
Comment
The commander is reiterating the question which is a suggestion. Question and implies 'he' Chris Fay being the originator, (of, somewhere he wasn't in 1982) and not that 'Carol Cazier' had made any claims at all to me in 1991 at NAYPIC, you see it gets twisted by the questioner and reiterated by the commander, ignoring everything of any importance, in the way it's asked and answered.
Commander
'without ever providing any evidence to back those 'claims' up'
Comment
But they were events misplaced in the time and implied they are Chris Fay's claims when Jerome knows full well Fay wasn't there in 1982 or he should do.
Questioner (and here's the jump😉 (Paragraph 96)
"You say that officers were unable to corroborate the existence of an Elm Guest House list" 6.19.27
Comment
What officers and what at what time? What list? What is the relevance?
Questioner
'from any independence source'
Comment
'list'
his suggestion and comes from media suggestion, one could say Fay's notes instead of as that what they were
"claims'
Fay didn't make the claims Carol Cazier did in 1991 and he took his own notes
'independent source'
Mary Moss was and is an independent source who happened to know part of the story from the horse's mouth and had some evidence that was given to her whilst she worked for NAYPIC by Mrs Cazier before her death, also Carol Caziers best friend and one journalist and another investigator and the solicitors HJA, who have not been raided or questioned and Carol's husband and children, neighbours and friends, ex-boyfriends, the runaway girl at Carol's house at the time of her death, etc are witnesses so it's pointless evidence from the commander.
Questioner
'although as you said there were allusions to such a list in some of the earlier records" 6.19.39
Comment
The commander doesn't follow the question being fed to him this time, so suppose he jumps to later assertions of what he thinks is allusions being referred to.
Commander
'Subsequently, and I don't know if you want me to deal with it now, we were able to search the address of Mary Moss" 6.19.51
Questioner
'we'll come to Mary Moss in a moment'
Commander
'certainly, with the allegation of Chris Fay, there is no corroboration to that' 6.19.57
Comment
So here we go slam dunk
Questioner (paragraph 97),
"but moreover, there are suggestions to approach anything he says with a degree of caution" 6.20.15
Commander
'Yes, there are' 6.20.17
'he's a, a conviction for dishonesty' 6.20.28
Questioner
'looking at your statement there you say Mr Fay was convicted for fraud in 2008, I think that may need correcting'
Comment
(2011 so if it was for a year, he got out in 2012 and could possibly have approached Watson MP since there was an election for political gain and for payback, who knows but he's fresh out of prison and has a particularly nasty conviction against Old Aged Pensioners) all the more reason to concentrate on him as Mary Moss is of very good character and morals and professionalism, setting up and funding two WC1 galleries voluntarily for children.
Commander 'My apologies its actually 2011'
Comment
How can he make such a mistake/ or why?
Does the Commanders statement have the correction?
Questioner
'On a money laundering offence, I think?'
"but as you say a conviction for dishonesty none the less'
Comments
The commander now really looks away...?
He doesn't want to answer and he looks annoyed as he seems to want to keep it brief.
Questioner
"and you go on to two further linked matters that you say are relevant to Mr Fay's credibility one is, a series of allegations he made which were investigated by an investigation called Operation Merita is that right?" 6.21.04
Comment
I now wonder if the Commander is not actually stating facts for defence later like, he just read the file, etc, letting the questioner state facts, then agreeing, isn't it a strategy as there are some strange links with the legal team on the inquiry doing the case and one of the solicitors Martin used to work with the Home office which could be a massive conflict of interest.
Questioner
'linked to that because that was a particular allegation made within operation merita, allegations he made relating to a young man who we siffered as WMA28" 6.21.21
Comment
That is Vincent of Grafton Close Children's home, a NAYPIC case Mary did about him being abused at the Guest House and Vincent knew Princess Diana too. He is a very good witness and works in a hostel in Victoria.
Commander
'that's right'
Questioner
"briefly deal with those points can we go to the operation merita closing report which is IPC000839, the chair and panel tab 13, page 12 of the report, the passages I'm going to take you to relate only to some of the core allegations that Mr Fay made, that were investigated related to an occasion where special branch officers approached, threatened him' 6.22.59
Questioner
'In that Mr Fay described the two incidences twice and there were serious inconsistencies in the two accounts...etc'
Commander
(para 59-61) 'Yes, three months between late 2015 and early 2016 - 6.24.00
Questioner
He goes on to say and I paraphrase...
Men with Guns, stay away from Elm Guest House, then three months later he says dark grey suits, dark guns, holsters and one removed his gun and said keep your nose out of Elm Guest House... He said they got into a Ford Capri etc
Commander
Significant inconsistencies between the two both statements are different 6.26.30
Gun, temple, etc/ or hands around the neck
Questioner
Another account by Operation Winter Key investigators
About boy WMA28 6.28.07
A former resident of Grafton care home.
Comment
(WMA28 is Mary Moss's case but I don't think he met Fay although he was in the office around the same time so he may have done. Mary met Vincent again in or around 2013 and it was an emotional reunion. She was later asked to supply NAYPIC office notes made by her on his case, to his legal team, she also spoke about him, his name was bleeped out though, on Channel 4 news seen here, soon after Mary Moss had been raided by Operation Fairbank/Fernbridge at 2.22 mins https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBcYsvXBXg8
|
|
Before this one is taken down too! Before this one is taken down too! www.youtube.com |
. Anyway, it's totally inappropriate to mention this witness in relation to Fay).
Questioner
Mr Fay made allegations about being warned off by special branch
Comment
This one cannot be true as it was 1988 and Carol approached NAYPIC in 1991. Plus, he said that Vincent had said he had been abused by Leon Britain, so now he is actually using this NAYPIC case, as Vincent made no such claim. I can tell you what he did claim but it wasn't that.
Questioner
'He says that special branch officers had attended the WMA28's home address, where he lived with his grandmother'
' according to Fay, before the boy attended NAYPIC he had gone to Richmond police station and apparently asked him to keep quiet about EGH and that he had been fobbed off at the police station' 6.28.40
Comment
He may have met Vincent at a later date as he was along with Bill Maloney and John Wedger acting as anti-child abuse campaigners associates of Chris Fay's but if not then he has simply invented this, as I don't remember him ever meeting Fay and the timeline is totally wrong
Questioner
Fay said special branch again approached the boy on the day he approached NAYPIC and again asked him to keep quiet about EGH 6.29.06
And if we look at page 9 of the report paragraph 47-51, I'm not going to read all of that but in summary, can you explain.
Commander
Yes, the boy contacted Operation Winter Key himself and he said he had never known Mr Fay or ever met him 6.30.40
Questioner
and if we look at paragraph 51 WMA28 said he had never been to Elm Guest House and he had never been abused by Leon Brittian6.31.00
Comment
okay, I don't know who the WMA28 is then? Not one of my cases then. As Vincent and his friend whom he mentioned Peter Boursin who is now dead were the cases, I dealt with as well as Carol and her children's case before she died.
Commander
The reason why we went to Operation Merita was, issues around the credibility of Mr Fay and what conclusion do Op Winter Key and what conclusions do you come to around the credibility of Mr Fay?
Before coming to those conclusions just to say to the inquiry around the sky-blue Capri we did extensive inquires around that partial reg number which I won't describe
Comment
there were some reg numbers we got a BBC journalist to check out in relation to the one outside the station at Barnes, I recall, and they were unmarked vehicles, so Fay is using real events here but anyway the commander is keen to establish a point on that
Commander
They went through all vehicles at that time and were not able to find anything that was connected to law enforcement 6.31.51
Questioner
That shows the lengths that Operation Winter key went to, to establish evidence?
Commander
That's right incredibly through
Questioner
And now tell us in a few sentences what conclusions you have come to? 6.32.01
Commander
and the conclusions are that the credibility of Chris Fay is called into question there is evidence that does not prove his claims and in fact, prove that some of the claims there is absolutely no substance to those and the overall conclusion is that there is no evidence to substantiate any of Mr Fays claims 6.32.38
Questioner
That's Chris Fay, let's move on if we may to Mary Moss the other of the two individuals whose evidence has founded this idea of an Elm Guest House list 6.32.49
if we can go back to your statement please and err its page 20 paragraph 100 Mr Jerome 6.33.00
you say that Mary Moss published online a list of Elm Guest House attendees that was in January in 2013. 6.33.11
Comment
I published what I had unflipped on my own blog for safety reasons in Dec 2012 after being approached by Op Fairbank to hand over what I had
Commander
Yes
Questioner
'and that the list included celebrities and famous people from the 1980s and I think it's right that Operation Winter Key attempted to get hold of whatever documents Mary Moss had that might substantiate her claims
Comment
I didn't make any claims
Commander
That would be crucial and important evidence 6.33.33
Questioner
Did you ask Mary Moss to have those documents?
Commander
She refused on a number of occasions
Questioner
Did she provide them
Commander
She declined
Questioner
And I think at one stage she provided her documents to the BBC or some of them?
Commander
Yes, that's right
Questioner who quickly interrupted,
'and did you then ask the BBC for them
Commander
and they also declined
Questioner
Presumably, because Mary Moss hadn't given them permission to give them to you
Commander
Yes, that's right
Questioner
And so, in the end what steps did you take or Operation winter key take? 6.34.02
Comment
it was Operation Fairbank and later changed to Fernbridge, Winter Key was towards 2016/7 and this was 2013 Jan 9th
Commander
Officers obtained a search warrant and 'effected' an entry into her address in order to 6.34.08
Comment
Effected yes because they waited for me not to be in as they probably didn't want me there.
Commander
recover any material that might be relevant
Questioner
and what was found on the property by way of documents that might be relevant to this issue
Commander
There was substantial material that the officers recovered, specifically there was a sauna appointment book, an appointments desk diary 6.34.29
Comment
I don't recall having the sauna book, or it being taken but it may have been in the other boxes of stuff 'recovered' in my friends shed 2 odd boxes and they did say that they found one other book and relevant material which wasn't returned for 5 years
Commander
There was also 40 boxes or so of various material some of which was handwritten notes, press clippings ahh and other material that was discovered in her address 6.34.46
Comment
What is other material sounds ominous?
Questioner
Was there here anything that could fairly be described as Elm Guest House list?
Commander
No, clearly there were notes and there were lists, the provenance of that material could not be ascertained at all and it was very unclear to the officers as to when those lists we created and from what source material they were generated so there is no, there is no evidence linking those to the raid and the provenance of them was dubious
Comment
Sounds a bit weird to say lists like shopping lists or something. The idea of a list came from the press, so to imply that substantial material including casework an organisation held can be called lists, or the fact that press clippings on the organisations work would make a person sound like one of those nutters that collect things, is equally as dammingly implied, giving a wrong impression, somewhat freely and without question.
Questioner
Um, can we move onto the next page of your statement and just look at paragraphs 106 and 107? 6.35.28
I just want to look at these paragraphs and then ask you um, about some of the language that's used in them, Mr Jerome, you say when the documents and I think that's the documents that's in Mary Moss's property that you just mentioned
Commander
Yes
Questioner
Were reviewed by the officers there were some suggestions that multiple people had attended Elm Guest House one time or another but often without specific dates having been provided 6.35.57
Comment
what is he on about? 'some suggestion', 'often without dates, that's inaccurate as bank receipts show dates and the diaries show entries
Questioner
And there were no specific allegations?
Commander
'that's right' 6.36.02
Questioner
And then you go on to say from the material seized from Mary Moss Operation Fairbank Officers identified the following people as partially having been connected with Elm Guest House and then there's a list, and we'll come back to the list in a minute, but in those two paragraphs a very careful and cautious language is used, you talk of suggestions that people had attended Elm Guest House and the possibility that people were connected with Elm Guest House
Commander
That's right and the reason for being careful is back to what I said previously which is that we don't know the provenance of that material um cannot be ascertained 6.36.43
Comment
they never asked me and I said to them in emails it was given to me by Carol Cazier so he is implying that I am dubious and that they just don't believe that Carol was the provenance of that material before her death
Questioner
So far from being an authoritative guest list, is it, would it be fair to describe the documents, as 'simply' documents of uncertain provenance 6.36.56
Which as you say suggest the possibility of that people may have attended Elm Guest House
Commander
That's correct of 'uncertain origin and certainly, evidentially there's no, there no sustenance to them 6.37.10
Comment
Makes no sense they are not food don't provide strength weird thing to say
Questioner
And if we do look at the list, I see it's already on the screen, the list the first name is redacted then we have Harvey Proctor, George Tremlett, Barry Haddon, Dr Peter Johnson, mumbled someone and John Stingsmore, Lionel Blair Jasper Conrad, I think we see from all of the lines of your statement that all of those individuals were approached and asked for a statement
Commander
Yeah
Questioner
And I think it's right to say that all of them denied ever having been to Elm Guest House?
Commander
That's right
Questioner
Could I ask you to move away from your statement for the moment and to go to the witness statement provided by Chief Inspector Settle, that’s back to HRP000001 and if we could look at page B first of all please paragraphs 11 and 12 --- 6.38.18
Mr Settle says this, the first time I heard Harvey Proctors name mentioned to do with the Elm Guest House was on the infamous guest list which 'proved' to be a work of fiction, created by Christopher Fay, Mary Moss and Carol Cazier, the deceased former owner of Elm Guest House, they put together a dossier purporting to be the Guest room receipt book for Elm Guest House, the Guests were allegedly so high profile that they didn't use their own names when checking in but this dossier purported to be the truth, the dossier was put online and spread on social media before the police were even made aware of existence 6.39.04
Comment
Well that's not true is it as the police were chasing me for the documents and so that is why I had to put them unflipped and illegible online on a small blog called legalaidcuts.blogspot.com regarding my current litigation lasting 6 years over New NAYPIC/ Youth Parliaments flooded commercial premises and that was after Carol was found dead I didn't want to take any chances off all being buried including witnesses and me or family members. It was spread online but that is a mystery for me as how something so illegible became so worthwhile to make headlines, it is still odd that that happened
Questioner
I had met with Chris Fay during our research into allegations into the Elm -Guest House following our meeting with MB. He was very evasive and certainly didn't mention this dossier he had created, we only found out later once Mary Moss put it on the internet 6.39.23
Comment
Does that mean they were in touch with him since they say before she, (Mary Moss) put it on the internet, so that would make the timeline 2012 November and show some working between Watson and Police and Fay certainly interviewing him before then, as the documents in my possession for 28 years were uploaded by me for safety in 21/12/12. Which would also show that they had it in for me because of my court case (Remember Exaro and Panorama visited the court during permission to appeal which was successful and maybe the New NAYPIC/Youth Parliament website casework and possibly, who knows, that the judiciary had friends i.e. Tom Watson, in high places and were a bit fed up of me winning against them and not giving up when there was a global insurance consequence at stake on 'absolute liability'. Certainly, this kind of scandal didn't help me at the Appeal in May 2013 when my name as Mary Moss became very well known, including a police raid and front-page news.
Questioner
I found that behaviour rather duplicitous. After investigating it transpired that the names on the list were nothing more than a list, the names of people who had been associated in the media or convicted of paedophilia, homosexuality or any police officer who had had anything to do with the investigation. Despite the furore over the list initially it was shown to have zero evidential value 6.39.50
Comment
The questioner is calling it a list and now even though it was a lot of notes on various people and their association, he still focuses on a 'list' going so far as to say the 'list' had no 'evidential value, which makes no sense whatsoever. Also, his use of 'nothing more'.
Questioner
And just holding that in mind, if we can look at one other reference and that's page 7, paragraph 29, the media frenzy encouraged false information to spread, such as the infamous 'handwritten' Elm Guest House list, Christopher Fay has admitted to writing that list, Christopher Fay is a former Labour Councillor 6.40.21
Comment
And he was a Labour Councillor as the questioner eventually mentions at that point in time in 1991, so saying former is misleading as it could be anytime,
Questioner
And a convicted fraudster 6.40.22
Comment
Aha again a convicted fraudster but not saying when and that it was within a short time of getting out of prison and certainly the same year 2012, if he was jailed in 2011 that he approached an MP and had met with him at no less that the Houses of Parliament and that if I hadn't of thrown him under the bus, stating that this could all have only of come for him he would have and certainly could have remained anonymous and behind the scenes. But I named him to Watson and anyone else that asked so he popped up in Feb 2013 after I was raided with his new fellow fraudsters in this political gain game and whatever else it was about because it wasn't about helping people, I can assure you.
Questioner
He is an exceptionally subversive individual and I know he has gone out of his way 6.40.26
to try and coheres suggestible people into saying certain things 6.40.30
Comment
Well why did the police who this evidence suggest interviewed him, who would have known about his conviction for fraud, unlike the rest of us, when they did a background check, have let him be around victims of sexual abuse and allow him a social media platform for so long to do that, effectively allowing people to place trust in him, knowing what he was?
Questioner
As was confirmed by the BBC Panorama programme in 2015
Again if Panorama knew what he was about why didn't they expose him long before 2015 since I met them and told them about him in 2012, when they approached me at my permission to appeal victory hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice, the Strand, (as long as they would then go away as I found their presence as well as Exaro's very disturbing during a completely separate incident the NAYPIC shops).
6.40.37
Questioner
And when I investigated Elm House, we interviewed Chris Fay a number of times and his story changed each time he told it. 6.40.50
Comment
Since Carol was my case how come they didn't ask for information from me or interview me, how come they just raided, got the evidence and I never heard from them as to that evidence they even now still hold which belongs still to me since Carol gave it to me at NAYPIC before she died. Maybe he was a super grass so that's why he only got a year, that's why Watson contacted me to work with the police as they were all in it together, nice and cosy. Yet now they are, like Panorama, who were also in on it and Exaro also in on it, turning against him and he is taking the fall for them all, because he doesn't care as he works for them. It's me that they would like to take down and the untold case, bastarised by his conviction and wilfully wrong official association confirmed by all these people, with it. Clever but no so clever, just tidy, they had they time and money to do that. Let's hope the Chair see's through it but I doubt it, since my evidence even in this inquiry isn't sought or even when I have kicked the door down, they haven't adduced it into the public domain, in a public inquiry, yet have criminally slandered and libelled me without any charges.
Questioner
I don't view him as a credible source 6.40.52
A number of points there Mr Jerome, let me put a few points to you and then could ask you if you have any response to what Mr Settle says?
First of all, the allegation that Chris Fay was not credible, I think we've covered that would you agree with that
Commander
Yes, I would and I've already said so 6.41.11
Questioner
Secondly that the 'list', the 'documents' have zero evidential value, do you agree with that? 6.41.20
Comment
Now he cleverly or clumsily includes 'the documents' which is a very sweeping statement since they have DNA evidential value, right?
Commander
I would and I've already said the same too. 6.41.25
Comment
No two people say the same thing or phrase things in the same way, but he has agreed and he's not stupid but can say, the questioner said that and not him, as he just agreed to that particular wording, now also including, the wording 'the documents, that haven't been mentioned, just a sound bite by the press, already agreed, 'the list'.
Questioner
The assertion, if list it was, is a work of fiction 6.41.31
Comment
You see so he's highly aware, as he says, 'if list it was' but then by implication is attempting to trash all the documents hmmm and he is labouring the point unnecessarily as strong evidence, of which he has not to asset against the documents and nor has he in any way explored them at the inquiry, doesn't need ramming home like this repeatedly!
Questioner
And that Chris Fay has admitted writing the 'list'
Comment
Again, falling back to that comfortable word Chris Fay wrote 'the list'
I mean in a way this gives the convicted fraudster a bit of power for conspiracy theory people who like this kind of thing. Why can't they all just tell the truth, why so much money on these lies, why has power given power to Fay, why do they hide me so much in this since 2012?
Commander
I don't think it's clear who, as to the origin, or author or authors of that 'list' are but it's certainly very clear that evidentially that 'list' has 'no value' and how it's been created is certainly 'dubious' 6.41.55
Comment
Dubious, wow... that is an assertion, origin, etc all implication and slander and criminal libel through association with Fay who they have cause to see as dubious, but not me or the documents
Questioner
Is there anything else you wish to say about those sections of Mr Settles Statement?
Comment
DCI Settle raided my house with Operation Fairbank after speaking to Tom Watson, who told the DCI I have information and documents and those documents had only at that point in Nov been seen by Panorama and Exaro after they harangued me for them at my court case. So, I agreed if they would go away, to meet them the next day.
Commander
No about those sections no
Questioner
Can we go back to your statement and page 24 of it, just concluding on the issue of this 'list' 6.42.15
Para 2-6 subsection A-D
Your conclusion has been drawn from Operation Athabasca and what you say is 'no list, has ever been identified'
Commander
That's correct 6.42.48
Comment
Makes no sense so why has he gone on about it?
Questioner
Secondly that other than WMA9 the child removed from Elm Guest House during the raid, no credible victim has ever come forward alleging a specific offence suffered whilst at Elm Guest House? 6.42.59
Comments
So, is he suggesting WMA9 Carol's son was taken into care wrongly as was Carols assertion and had said at the time of visiting me at NAYPIC in 1991 were her two children's assertions too as also seen still in WMA9's witness statement? And what about other NAYPIC cases at the Elm Guest House from the children's home Grafton Close? You just can't make it go away because of Fay's conviction which is all we heard about and the semantics of the word 'list' as opposed to 'documents' too, not just Chris Fay's notes and whatever else he seems to have found out in 1991 being in the office at the time on another case, never having met Carol in 1982 as the Commander suggests.
Commander
That's right 6.43.00
Questioner
Thirdly WMA9 now denied having been subjected to any sexual abuse
Comment
He always did so you can't say 'now' and Carol said they used her kids as a gun to keep her quiet so that is why she had to prove her innocence when they were both 18 and take a case against the local authority, which means her kids should now proceed or settle out of court with the local authority insurers unless they already have. As her youngest even was placed in the offending children’s home as far as I recall.
Questioner
And denies making a statement in the original investigation! 6.43.11
Comment
Wow even worse, it's awful for them, everything they lost, their childhood, their mother at 17 and 21 oh I feel for them more so now.
Commander
That's right
Comment
Does he not know what he is saying oh so cavalier? 6.43.13
Questioner
Of these no person of prominence has conclusively been identified as having abused a child at the Elm Guest House?
Commander
That's right
Questioner
Thank you. Let me turn to another subject and that is the criminal investigations into child sexual abuse at Grafton Close children's home, we referred to Grafton Close a minute ago in connection with Operation Merita 6.43.41
And I think you'll agree with me it's a children’s home is west London of 10 miles or so from Barnes 6.43.49
Comment
Barnes for those not in the know is where Elm Guest House is
Commander
That's right 6.43.53
Questioner
And in 2012 and following and first of all Operation Winter Key investigated allegations of sexual abuse at Grafton Close children’s home
Commander
Yes
Comment
It was Operation Fairbank then turned to Ferbridge and around 2016/8 it was Op Winter Key, bit strange they play with facts so much here and there
Commander
That's right
Questioner
And secondly and relatedly 6.44.10
allegations that boys from Grafton Close may have been taken to Elm Guest House and abused there
Commander
That's right I think the 'word' that was 'used' in the 'claim' 6.44.20
Comment
This is sounding very odd almost to pre-supposing another 'falsehood', I mean these 'claims' are from people who were in a children's home, it's off language and now one just gets that feeling, it's going to be another 'list' scenario again, let's see?
Commander
Was trafficked
Questioner
Yes...
Can we look please at your witness statement and its page 26 and you describe in this section the investigation into allegations of abuse at Grafton, 6.44.50
Close. I think it's right to say in summary that charges were brought against two men 6.45.00
Comment
And that was Vincent my NAYPIC case, John Stingmore and Father Tony Mc Sweeney. Stingmore died and Mc Sweeney got sentenced.
Questioner
A man called John Stingmore who was the Manager of the children’s home. And a second man who was called father Mc Sweeny who worked there as a care worker. 6.45.10
Comment
And straight after my raid they were arrested as a female officer told me it was thanks to my information that they had seized and it was on ITV news and Channel 4 News, the BBC and Sky interviewed but didn't report or use the interviews of me, unlike the other two.
Commander
That's right 50 individuals were identified 6.45.16
as having been identified as being at the care home and 40 of those individuals were spoken to and there were 8 individuals that came forward with allegations. 6.45.33
Questioner
And if we can look at paragraph 136, we can see that there is one man whose siffer is, WMA115 who first of all was one of those that claimed to have been abused, as a child at Grafton Close, by Mr Stingmore and Father McSweeney 6.45.55
Commander
Yes, he was one of those 8
Questioner
And he also made an allegation that he'd been taken to Elm Guest House by Mr Stingmore where he'd been sexually abused by unknown men.
Comment
So that is Vincent who came to me at NAYPIC. And they wore dog tags and army trousers and vests and filmed the session. This was on the New NAYPIC/Youth Parliament website in plain sight for the police to investigate since about 2001 since they were doing nothing about abuse for a long time. It was all there and I made sure of it so the cases could all come back to NN/YP.
Commander
He was the only individual that made that allegation 6.46.11
Comment
Yes, and I took his witness statement 26 years before about it
So just focusing for just a moment on the allegations of abuse at Grafton Close, we can see a series of charges that you brought against Mr Stingmore yes
Commander
Yes
Questioner
Page 27, don't want to go into detail of these at least at the moment and then we see the charges against Father McSweeney
Commander
That's right
Comment
But there were more people involved and associations with other figures in organised child abuse and trafficking which I bet he won't explore and more ended up dead conveniently that Stingmore, this is a whitewash I can feel it.
Questioner
And you record r Stingmore never stood trial because he died shortly before the trial was due to commence
Commander
That's right, it was the week before the trial 6.47.12
Comment
And that Neil Kier who was one of the staff was involved as I recall yet in this they make out he was the one who was on the scene at the 1982 raid and interviewed Carols son, so they re-wrote his part as well as Fay's 1982 so called involvement and also don't say he also died mysteriously at the start of all this in a crash in Scotland yet somehow this dead person acts as a witness and has a witness statement. A sure case of using the dead and sanitizing them.
Questioner
Father McSweeney was tried and he was convicted on some counts.
Comment
The same priest who married Frank Bruno and his wife, who had also some football links I recall and Frank Bruno has been seen a lot in this whole thing pictured with The Yorkshire Ripper and Saville, I don't know the association but just to put the audience in the picture more about this monk, 'the fat monk' the kids called him at the home. There is no mention then of the allegation of abuse in trips to Bexhill on Sea etc and no links made after the death of Stingsmore the Officer in Charge no less to who he was employing? Who knew who etc.?
Commander
That's right he was convicted on two counts of those counts 6.47.21
Questioner
And he was convicted on counts, which related to abusing children at Grafton Close
Commander
That's correct 6.47.30
Questioner
What about WMA115's allegation 6.47.34
Comment
Oh, I see because Mc Sweeny got to be charged for Grafton, they'll be no link... we shall see here is the point being established by the questioner
Questioner
allegation that he had been 'trafficked' as 'you' put it or as 'he' put it 6.47.39
Comment
Not nice the subject is too serious for this smirking bastard
Questioner
To Elm Guest House and abused there?
Commander
Yes 115's allegations were initially not going to be proceeded to by way of charge but following a review the CPS decided that they would then result in charge and that was part of the indictment that was put to McSweeney and one and 115's allegation were found, McSweeney was found, to be NOT GUILTY of those 6.48.12
Comment
Poor Vincent this is so bad as he is such a sensible witness and it beggar’s belief that the police didn't ask me for his statement. Mind you they are attempting to discredit me in this out of the blue with no warning and no attempt to contact so it hardly is surprising but it is tragic. Charles Napier had a connection to all this too as I recall and not what Ester Baker later came out to say as I know nothing about her case but I know he was associated with this case at the time and later he was unconnected to all of this convicted on 13 counts of paedophilia. There is something that doesn't want to be joined up here or with Napier and Fay knows it hence why he is the polices pawn. I think it’s sad for Vincent as a victim and a witness, as this is all sanitized and he must feel abused again. I know when I seen him in 2013, he had had his computer stolen and was being surveyed. I hope in 2019 we are at a point when the chair will question these lies and incomplete investigations but we'll see. Change won't happen with it.
Questioner
Right, so err that is how 'that resolved itself'
Comment
Is this guy heartless or what it’s horrible to watch how he behaves?
Questioner
And as you say, he was the 'only' person who made those allegations about Elm Guest House
Comment
Again, he smirks, he a very bias questioner, he enjoys a certain poo pooing of all of it. Isn't he meant to be independent? Does he have no respect for those involved, clearly not!
Commander
That's right 6.48.22
Questioner
He was the only one, out of the 50 people identified, 40 people spoken to, 8 that had said that they had been abused
Comment
So, 20% had been abused but you don't believe Vincent okay that’s all good and you are attempting to on top of his abuse undermine it and him, nice!
Commander
He was the only one 6.48.33
Questioner
I think you've made that clear but I think he was the only one of that 'cohort of residents' 6.48.40
Comment
The questioner is actually mad he is now smiling broadly calling the abused children a 'cohort of resident's' oh sack him now. foul man.
Questioner
At Grafton close
Commander
That's right
Questioner
And just to tie this up if we can go 6.48.48
Comment
Very unfortunate use of language there considering Vincent used to have medicals where they would tie them up with Sellotape, just imagine the trigger Vincent would have felt there. wow
Questioner
Go back please to Mr Settles statement I think for the last time this afternoon at any rate HRP000001, Pg. 4, para 13, after my investigation, I came to the firm conclusion that the allegation
Comment
With 20% of 40 having been abused perhaps there is room for error in his firm conclusion
Questioner
children
Comment
Ah see they were now called children in this albeit he's reading an unscripted witness statement from years back as his conclusive evidence
Questioner
were being 'prostituted'
Comment
Prostituted now what does that say about the character of Settle?
Questioner
out to a local children's home and taken there, I think he means to Elm Guest House, were completely false. 6.49.29
Comment
I wonder if the questioner will smile again as he only does that when he has banged to rights the children at the time as liars even when they achieved convictions and got people locked up eventually?
Questioner
I think one such allegation was presented to a jury and the jury did not convict on that allegation?
Commander
And that allegation related to 'alleged' abuse at the care home
Questioner
I thought you said that the allegation, one of the allegations against Father McSweeney related to Elm Guest House
Commander
No so, that was the allegation, so 115 that was put to the jury and found not guilty, and those allegations related to abuse that was taking place at Grafton Close. 6.50.06
Comment
So now he is undermining any abuse Vincent faced at the home too. OMG so it's total assasination because he is such a lovely guy and was friends with Princess Diana and his best friend in the home killed himself over it all, they just have to undermine him. And that is why all the others except him, got convictions, ahh so weird but now I get it.
Questioner
I see so the allegation related to EGH did not relate to Father McSweeney? 6.50.13
Commander
That's right
Questioner
In any event Mr Settle has expressed his 'view'
Comment
In any event? Oh, so he didn't get the link he looked for so he resorts to saying 'in any event, those allegations are 'false' I mean it’s not a word, unproven, unproved, not proved, but false is slander isn't it. It's one thing to have Carl Beech but this is not the same by any stretch of the imagination, and I was never contacted by Settle who raided my house on Vincent and his 26 year old allegations of abuse at Elm Guest House and Grafton Close and one is proved already, so it's been a mighty fight for this individual for the questioner to imply he isn't tell the truth and that the allegations were in his own words 'false'.
Questioner
That those allegations were completely false? 6.50.22
Comment
Oh, and here's the smile
What is the Metropolitan Polices position in relation to these allegations? 6.50.26
Commander
And so, I would say that that is entirely consistent with the evidence that I have given to this inquiry this afternoon
Comment
At least he's not stupid, can you imagine the headline, commander says 'children at the time were false accuser' however he did say, which is still slander that the questioners statement would be consistent with the evidence that he gave this afternoon and in law that is 'implied' slander and criminal libel as 115 knows who he is.
Questioner
I see, thank you very much for that Mr Jerome
One more point and then two more topics that won't take very long
Comment
Yeah one is me good to know, won't take long!
First of all, the inquiry this week has heard a fair amount about the Paedophile Information Exchange PIE I'm sure you're familiar with it 6.50.53
Commander
Yes, I am and I've heard those references during the course of my being here 6.51.00
Questioner
Is there any evidence that you're aware of between Elm Guest House and the people there and the paedophile information exchange?
Commander
I've seen nothing in the material I've read that references the Paedophile Information Exchange nor of any persons that has been linked to it, as well, as were persons, connected to the Elm Guest House 6.51.26
Comment
What does that sentence even mean?
Questioner
Thank you
Moving on a discreet topic which relates to the night of the raid or the events surrounding the raid in 1982 there was a young person there, a 17-year-old man, 6.51.51
Comment
Man, young person?
Questioner
Who was, as we'll see a masseur, at the Guest House?
He was arrested on the night of the raid and he made certain allegations about things he said that had happened to him both before the raid and after it when he was in custody, that's right isn't it?
Commander
That's right 6.52.11
Questioner
And those matters were investigated in and investigation called operation Yvonne? Another of the IOPC managed investigations, that's right?
Commander
That's right
Questioner
And we will see that the individual in question has the siffer for our purposes of WMA8 is that right?
Commander
That's correct
Questioner
So, let’s quickly go to the Yvonne closing statement Tab 16 IPC this is one of the closing statements that is still in draft and we heard from Mr Mhappfey about that earlier this week chair may we adduce this into evidence
Comment
But if it's in draft, why adduce it yet as can't use it right?
Questioner
Page 4, para 18, we see summary of the background of WMA8 and your position - 6.53.49
He was born in 65 and so he was aged 17 in 1982 at the time of the raid and the report says that it's without dispute that in 1982 WMA8 was living at Elm Guest House where he was 'casually' employed as a masseur, WMA8 agrees that he sometimes 'provided' sexual 'services' to the 'male visitors' at the property including mutual masturbation and oral sex 6.54.20
Comment
He's so cavalier, I mean it’s disgusting does anyone see this underage boy as a victim here at all or is that just okay he was 'casually employed' by whom? And he 'agrees' what's that about that he 'provided 'services', so he is having to be exploited but now we are calling it 'services' and he 'agrees'? Sounds like a vulnerable adult here. And I notice how the questioner doesn't look up or ask for another, is that right Mr Jerome? Or opinion on how that boy was being treated and is now as a witness, weird since I would have thought that it would have given an indication at the least that there was therefore underage activity/abuse going on at the EGH in that graphic detail casually given for us all to swallow? Which in turn shows an atmosphere of selling sex that was underage as pure fact now at that time? So why would Vincent not be believed since he contemporaneously complained of being abused there not years later? Another vulnerable young boy, not a man yet? How did the 'masseur' a ridiculous term, as if suggesting professionalism, come to be there, singing for his supper. Harry was a friend of Savile wasn't he, although I know nothing on any connection there, except he showed off about it. A homeless 17-year-old cannot be classed as a witness, more like a victim. How is that not stated and explored by the questioner?
Questioner
And dropping down to page 20, it is recorded that in 2012 WMA8 contacted the UK press where his allegations were first aired.
Comment
It's not true, nothing went public until after my raid 9th Jan 2013.
Questioner
And is that the context of the investigation that then followed in 2012?
6.54.42
Commander
That's right that's the beginning. 6.54.46
Comment
Why do they want all their dates wrong?
Questioner
Page 2 of the report, para 6 we see here listed the allegations that WMA8 made, first of all that two undercover police officers had sex with him 6.55.11
Comment
oh, sounding a bit more like Fay like allegations sure it wasn't after Feb 2013 when Fay had made a presence and perhaps this guy had got hold of Fay.
Questioner
at separate times at the Elm guest house before the raid?
Commander
Yes 6.55.15
Questioner
Secondly that police bugged the Elm Guest House phone for months before it was raided and had WMA8 under observation 6.55.24
Comment
What and did nothing, even though age of consent was 21 and he was a boy of 17 having sex with multiple males not of his choosing so effectively being exploited by anyone booking in because he was homeless? That is vulnerable cohesive rape!
Commander
Yes
Questioner
Thirdly prior to the Guest House being raided, the owner Carol Cazier had paid money to the Richmond Police officers for contribution s to the Richmond Police Christmas fund and finally that WMA8 was sexually abused during his time in custody after his arrest that was his arrest after the time of the raid
Commander
That is correct, right 6.55.52
Questioner
While his strip search was being conducted.
Commander
Yes
Questioner
So those are the allegations that he made at least some of those were made publicly 6.56.00
Comments
And he smiles so this must be a good bit coming up
Questioner
And those allegations were investigated
Commander
Yes, they were
Questioner
The report is lengthy and reporters investigated a 'large number' of witnesses in this investigation, did they not?
Comment
Oh, how so who were they?
Commander
Yes, they did
Questioner
It would be helpful if we could go to the officer in charge of the raid
Page 7, Para 35, we see that the witness was a man called Brian Lock, the uniformed officer in charge and report of how the raid was led up to surveillance etc
Commander
That's right
Questioner
He said he put two heterosexual officers into the house, then they were sporadically deployed over a number of weeks, 6.57.49
Then he explains the decision to conduct a raid and how it happened
Commander
Yes
Questioner
The officer remembers two females being arrested and the possible arrest of the young masseur
Commander
Yes
Questioner
He recalls the arrest of Mr and Mrs Cazier in total he recalls some 14-18 people being detained as there was nothing extraordinary about the raid, quotes, 'no VIP's' 6.58.32
Stating 'if there had been, I am certain I would have been told" 6.58.38
Commander
Yes
Questioner
Much of this is the background evidence that you explained to us at the start of your evidence this afternoon
Commander
Yes
Questioner
Lock explained that the purpose of the raid was to conduct the raid secure any prisoners and get the boy out of the house
Commander
Yes 6.58.59
Questioner
He explains that after the raid the case was handed over to Richmond CID. He says he has no knowledge of the house being covertly bugged by the police as this was then a new tactic, he explained he had run the operation himself with no outside assistance
Commander
Yes (a number of Yes's throughout that)
Questioner
That he 'may' have reported the incident to his chief superintendent
Commander
Yes 6.59.30
Comment this is a dire tribe only interrupted with Yes's from the commander, what is the question?
Questioner
We see at the end of that paragraph he says that there was no such thing as the Richmond police Christmas fund, he mentions that the raid went off prematurely because the device that one of the undercover officers had been using had been triggered 6.59.53
Comment
Earlier Lock said he didn't bug the place? But now the device went off.
I had heard about that years ago so Lock does confirm that part and of course it could also indicate, although the questioner is laughing as if it's nothing, that there was a tip off as I recall and no VIP's were then there.
Questioner
Ahead of time, in fact by Mrs Cazier.
Commander
That's right
Questioner
And finally, this at Paragraph 44, Lock envisages that no one was arrested and released before arriving at police custody 7.00.07
Comment
Well after the event that covers the tip off comment to NAYPIC by Carol, with the police having a radio concealed in his plaster cast
Yes, I totally trusted my sergeants and inspectors, he said a strip search of WMA8 was quote, 'very unlikely' to have occurred and he clarified this by stating that an inspector’s authority would have been needed for this to have taken place 7.00.26
He stated strip searches would have only been done for drugs and it wouldn't have been done without a police surgeon present and he also asserted that he believed that it was absolute rubbish to suggest that any police officer was ever intimately involved with WMA8
Commander
No, that's right
Comment
Why are we hearing the statements of only police officers settle and Lock? These are simply assertions and have no evidential value?
Questioner
There were a large number of other individuals spoken to witnesses, as mentioned one of the undercover officers had died in the intervening period but the other one was spoken to and what was his evidence?
Commander
He completely denied all of the allegations that had been made by WMA8
Questioner
Even WMA8's legal team provided evidence that was inconsistent with his claim?
Commander
That's right casting doubt on the veracity of those claims and in addition there were inconsistencies with the claim that were made as well 7.01.41
Questioner
And in conclusion what were the conclusions drawn by operation Winter Key in this investigation?
Comment
I thought it was IPC Yvonne not Winter Key?
Commander
The conclusion was there was no evidence that could substantiate the 'claims' made by WMA8. 7.01.57
Questioner
Thank you Mr Jerome and I move to the last matter this afternoon
Questioner
Links if any and the death of the boy Vishal Mehrotra, who died very much the same time as the raid or shortly before it paragraph 51 of your witness statement, page 29, para 151, you say in 1981 you say an 8 year old boy called Vishal Malhotra went missing from the Putney area of London, so not far from Barnes?
Commander
That's right he went missing on a notable date at the time which was the 29th July 1981 notable because that was a Royal wedding
Questioner
Then there was a very large search for him
Commander
Yes 7.03.27
Questioner
There are references on divers in the river, large searches
Commander
That's right
Questioner
and in fact, he wasn't found
Commander
That's right, not then,
Questioner
and in fact, it was a little less than a year later 1982, that his body was found in a shallow grave in Sussex
Commander
That's right
Questioner
And to date nobody has been charged with his murder either
Commander
UNFORTUNETLY NOT
Questioner
It's an unsolved case?
Commander
It is despite the best endeavours
Questioner
So that was all 1981,1982 around that time and did this story come back into public consciousness? Around 2012 as we've seen with other allegations around that time? 7.04.24
Comment
What does he mean 'come back' and 'allegations', the child was murdered, it's not an allegation?
Commander
It 'came back' in 2015 as a result of LBC running a story on missing children and certainly in relation to my statement it prompted two allegations that were investigated 7.04.44
Questioner
And um Vishal Mehrotra’s Father took part in some of those programmes?
Commander
Yes, he did
Questioner
And in the course of those broadcasts he made criticism of the Metropolitan Police
Commander
Yes, he did and also of Sussex Police as well 7.05.02
Questioner
And some of those e criticisms were that in the wake of the inquiry in relation to his son's disappearance, that there had been failings in that inquiry
Commander
That's right he did and that came in by a telephone call that had been made to him 7.05.25
Questioner
One of the critics was a direct link being drawn between the Elm Guest House and Mr Mehrotra's son's disappearance?
Commander
That's right there was a 'mention' that there was a link there. 7.05.47
And that is yet another allegation that had yet another IPC investigation that was Operation Aspin
Commander
That's right, again that would be serious allegations into police misconduct
Questioner
So, we put that summary up that’s IPC0008PC - 7.06.11
Tab 14 and chair can I ask you to adduce this document into evidence
Can we turn to page 33, para 13, sub para 1 do we see here a record of that particular complaint, criticism that Mr Mehrotra made in 2015 - 7.06.55?
Commander
Yes, we do
Questioner
And Mr Mehrotra recalled a young man who had called him a short period after Vishal, that's his son, 7.07.07
Comment
Really? That's his son - Really?
Questioner
Went missing in 1981
Commander
Yes
Questioner
And offered information in relation to the Elm Guest House and high-profile persons being allegedly involved in Vishal’s disappearance, Mr Mehrotra 'alleged' that he passed the recording onto the police but that they dismissed it due either to negligence or corruption to protect prominent persons
Commander
That was his 'allegation'
Comment
Can't believe the tone here and use of the word 'allegations', 'alleged’.
Questioner
The, the allegation
Commander
Yes
Questioner
Clearly a very serious allegation
Commander
Absolutely
Questioner
And one that draws together the rumour, or the stories around Elm Guest House 7.07.47
Comment
Again, use of language and saying 'serious' 'accusations' against police.
Questioner
And makes a possible link between those and the sad disappearance of Mr Mehrotra's son
Commander
Yes, it does
Questioner
And was that allege, and was that allegation investigated by the Operation Aspin Officers
Commander
Yes, it was
Questioner
And we can see in para 16 of the report but perhaps Mr Jerome you could say in your own words what the findings of the report were? 7.08.27
Commander
They found there was a recording device placed on Mr Mehrotra's phone twice, they found a transcript of one of the telephone conversations, they couldn't find the recording itself given the passage of time 7.09.02
Comment
well that seems odd as many of us have tapes from those days and it was a missing child high profile investigation and then a murder investigation, so maybe those have gone missing and they were 'satisfied' that that was the conversation being referred to by Mr Mehrotra 7.09.17
Questioner
So, satisfied that Mr Mehrotra had accurately remembered even those it was 20, 30 years later
Comment
Wasn't he a Court Judge of some kind? Why wouldn't he remember?
Questioner
A particular call that he had received
Commander
So, he had accurately remembered that fact that a call had taken place but some of what was on the transcript did not consist of what Mr Mehrotra has said
Questioner
And there was another critical thing about the details that were found about the telephone call 7.09.51
Comment
'Critical thing' 'did not consist of what he had said' there is a flannel in the language
Questioner
Wasn't there
Commander
Yes so the contents of that telephone call were recalling details which were all in the public domain (commander turns to audience) casting their minds back to the actual date when Vishal had gone missing there was a very high profile and prominent missing person investigation at that stage seemingly then triadically became a murder investigation but there are many details of Vishal’s disappearance that were in the public domain and they found that the contents of that transcription of that telephone call all the contents of that would have been in the public domain 7.10.35
Comment
Repetitive of same point 'public domain'
And if we could just look please at Para 91 as you said Mr Jerome the phone call that Mr Mehrotra recalls has been identified from the original case file and a transcript of it exists because 7.10.51
Comment
He smiling again
Questioner
It was recorded by the device which you referred to which was placed on Mr Mehrotra's phone with his knowledge
Commander
Knowledge and consent
Questioner
And that was because he's been receiving nuisance calls ransom demands
Commander
That's right 7.11.01
Questioner
The next bit of the transcript is the conversation between Mr Mehrotra and the other person. On the 4th July at 1982 in other words over a year after Vishal had disappeared
Commander
Yep (nods)
Questioner
Which wasn't what Mr Mehrotra had suggested, he suggested that it was a call received very shortly after his son had disappeared
Commander
Yes 7.11.26
Questioner
So, it was after not only Vishal had disappeared but also so after his body had been found
Commander
Yes 7.11.35
Questioner
So, after all the publicity surrounding that event 7.11.36
Comment
Smiling again
Commander
That's right
Questioner
And as you say by that stage there was a lot about the case that was in the public domain and the investigators were able to show were that what, that had been contained in the call was material that was available in the media 7.11.58
Comment
Broad smile so very inappropriate again repeating his same points over and over and over
Commander
That's right it was readily available in the public domain 7.12.01
Questioner
And was the question of what reaction had been to this call looked at as well?
Commander
That's right 7.12.10
Comment
I wouldn't have known what that question was even? It's like they rehearsed this whole thing and are labouring their own version looking at only police transcripts and DCI Settle's written evidence. I thought it was meant to be an IOPC investigation and have some scope to get outside influences too, not just sew it up and bang it home?
Commander
The Aspin investigators had found evidence that as a result of that call
the details had been found to Sussex police and had generated actions through their murder investigations to look at those claims
Comment
Generated what 'actions'? to look into those 'claims' 7.12.26
Questioner
So back in 1982 for example we see here that the police actually tracked down the person who made the call they did interview him
Commander
They did yes 7.12.35
Questioner
And then perused various lines of inquiry arising out of that
Commander
That's right and they also conducted inquiries into what the motivation of that individual may have been in terms of making that call and they found evidence that would call into question the credibility and motivation of that individual in making that call
Comment
Maybe it was Chris Fay who was apparently at the raid soon after and he has no credibility neither except he wasn't there in 1982 it was 1991 their mistake, so who is this other non-credible- person and what was their motivation? I hope Aspin can give us more detail on that?
Questioner
Just if we can look at page 98 over the page you already mentioned Mr Jerome that although they were satisfied that it was the call that Mr Mehrotra had in mind there were it was not exactly as he had remembered it? 7.13.16
Comment
Seriously smiling throughout
Questioner
And in particular we see that with regard to Mr Mehrotra's belief that the other caller had mentioned Elm Guest House, paedophile rings, politicians, judges and police officers, in fact there was no mention of judges or politicians or the Elm Guest House on the transcript.
Commander
That's right when the Aspin officers 7.13.35
Comment
Isn't Aspin IOPC not officers?
Commander
reviewed it there was no mention of those things and it was concluded that whilst Mr Mehrotra had made his allegations in good faith 7.13.44
Comment
How is making 'allegations' in 'good faith' a thing?
Commander
nothing within that transcript that um mentioned any of those things
Questioner
As you say it's important to stress that was precisely the conclusion there was nothing in that Mr Mehrotra was doing his best to try to remember what had happened but he err I think umm did say that err he'd been in contact with members of the press who had provided him with information which may have tainted 7.14.13
Comment
Note the massive inappropriate smile
Questioner
his memory
Commander
That's right the conclusion was again that it had been made in good faith by Mr Mehrotra but when you look at the time when those allegations were made in 2015 and coming back to what I've said previously 7.14.29
Comment
Where is this going?
Commander
In terms of the amount of media activity that was taking place around that time and also the fact that the fact that Mr Mehrotra had had conversations with individuals from the press the investigating officers made the 'assumption'
Comment
'Assumption' makes an ass out of you and me
Commander
that it may well be that some of that had clouded Mr Mehrotra's recollections 7.14.54
Questioner
Thee Vishal Mehrotra case is still open
Comment
Which would suggest there is a person or person's still out there?
Commander
Yes, it is
Questioner
Um so far as 'you're aware' are there any credible, evidential links between his death and Elm Guest House?
Commander
There's none at all in terms of them, those links, and as with any murder inquiry officers will be 'reviewing' that case and if there is anybody who has any information in relation to that, that will be followed through but there are no links to Elm Guest House 'that I have seen' 7.15.30
Comment
Use of words here, are 'you' aware. Links that 'I have seen'!!
Questioner
Thank you very much those are the questions I wanted to ask you, is there any other questions 7.15.40
Alexis Jay
No, we have no questions
Mr Altman
Just to add we do not condone the use of the words rent boy or prostitute but those are the references from the time
Alexis Jay Chairwoman
Thank you, Mr Altman, and that concludes evidence for today
Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.
Signed: __________________________Mary Moss_______________
Dated: ___________________19th March 2019_______________________
Witness Name:
Statement No.: 1
Exhibits:
Dated:
THE INDEPENDENT INQUIRY INTO CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE
___________________________________________________________________________
EXHIBIT [ ] / 1
___________________________________________________________________________
1. 2. 3. 4.
In April 2019, this was the reply to my statement and it meant I was hidden again;
Dear Ms Moss
Thank you for your email.
The Inquiry does not publish all witness statements on its website - only those which the Chair wishes to adduce in evidence. Although the Inquiry has not published your statement, please be assured that we have received this safely and the Chair and Panel will bear it, and all other evidence received, in mind when preparing their report on the Westminster investigation. I also note what you say in clarification about Angus Stickler.
If any questions or queries arise from your statement or if we need any further information, we will be sure to contact you.
Kind regards
Abigail Scholefield
Investigation lawyer
I also made a complaint to the IOPC;
Dear IOPC,
On 7th March 2019 Commander Neil Jerome lied to the IICSA Inquiry;
- He mislead the inquiry about the nature of the role in NAYPIC of a convicted frauster Cllr Chris Fay, stated he worked for NAYPIC and I Mary Moss was his collegue. Fay had no role in NAYPIC
- He mislead the Inquiry that the evidence seized by the police after obtaining a warrant to enter my home address in 2012 was obtained by Fay in 1982 at Carol Caziers raid, yet it was a court stamped document. He stated then that considering Mr Fay's Character the evidence that was handed to me in my office at 20 Comton Terrace, N1 in 1989 by Carol for her forthcoming court case in 3 months, was "dubious'. Yet the documents seiezed from me were court stamped official documents taken by police in 2012 from my premises and they would have DNA on them of people who signed in. Therefore they were prime evidence.
I am a professional childrens rights campaigner and have no crimminal convictions. I consider the actions of the Commander as personally slanderous and misleading on a grand scale in history.
Regards
Mary Moss
I had investigated/taken notes of 500 cases of child abuse in my job as Development Officer NAYPIC 1987/92 and one of the cases had become public knowledge due to an MP, who had not contacted me beforehand. So, when the police asked me for the information, I held I put in on my www.legalaidcuts.com blog a small window on the internet, as I feared for my life and that of those around me or involved with the cases as I had experienced fear in 1991.
https://legalaidcuts.blogspot.com/2012/12/in-line-of-our-duties-new-naypic-youth.html
I had published about 70 pages of witness evidence, now deceased, that she had handed over to me and that I had kept safe for all these years, until maybe her children sought it.
I imagined that the police knew I had that evidence but it was given to me, not them.
If there had of been a safer way to confide in them perhaps, I would have liked to work with them but I did not trust the reason’s why the case was raising its head now and didn’t feel it was to serve the thousands of cases of abuse. I felt it was for political purposes and the people involved could have no idea just how dangerous this could get but it did anyway.
It was 1991 ‘revisited’ that didn’t end for 8 years. So, this was 2013 and IICSA was 2022/3.
It was case 821904 at the Crown Court. I never shared the information with a single person.
This was because of the way Carol Cazier gave the books to me, including the signing in book the receipts, beside my office desk, in a bag. Seemingly scared making sure no one else was in the office, asking me to keep them safe. So, when she was then found dead, I couldn’t mention the documents, I just held onto them. Then when they were to be taken, I thought no, this is court stamped public knowledge from 1979. I don’t doubt their provenance.
