Dear Solicitors,
You asked me to respond to Mr Jeromes evidence.
This is my response. I have a problem with my eyes at the moment so as
you can see this has taken me a large amount of time to complete. I want
you to adduce both statements and ensure that the chair recieved both
or add one to the other either way, I have
gone to a lot of trouble to do the work to inform the inquiry.
Best Wishes
Mary Moss
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 Councilor 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
Councilor 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 supergrass 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
files 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 pedophile ring links to previous PM's aide
A Labour MP asked the prime minister about claims of a "powerful pedophile network linked to Parliament and No 10".
Tom Watson called for the
Metropolitan Police to look at the evidence around a "widespread
pedophile 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, ie 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 months 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 Jeromes 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 infact Mrs Cazier had shown him"
"and there's a quote that she had shown him a
photograph of Leon Brittain with a 12-year-old pre-pubescent boy sat on
his lap wearing a French maids 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 Brittian, 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, neighbors 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 defense 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 REDACTED of Grafton Close Children's home,
a NAYPIC case Mary did about him being abused at the Guest House and REDACTED knew Princess Diana too. He is a very good witness and works REDACTED.
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 REDACTED 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 .
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 REDACTED had said he had been abused by Leon Brittain, so
now he is actually using this NAYPIC case, as REDACTED
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 REDACTED 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 REDACTED and his
friend whom he mentioned REDACTED 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 er 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 20 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 'substaintial 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, some what
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 'sustenance'!
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 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 PACE protected documents and so
that is why I had to put them unflipped and illegible online in a rush 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 of 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 visted the court
during permission to appeal as did the Guardian (they got a good photo of me in a wig outside the RCJ) https://legalaidcuts.blogspot.com/2012/04/ 2012, which was successful and maybe the New
NAYPIC/Youth Parliament website casework https://youthparliamentcouk.blogspot.com/2019_03_05_archive.html and 'possibly', who knows, that
the 'judiciary had friends ie 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 fortunate for them 'scandal' didn't help me at the Appeal
in May 2013 when my name as Mary Moss had now become very well known, including a
police raid and front page news.
Questioner
I found that
behavior 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 furor 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 addmitted 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 from him he 'would have' and certainly 'could have' remained
anonomous and behind the scenes. But I 'named him'
to Watson and 'anyone else that asked' so he 'popped up on social media' 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 coherse 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 Panarama 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 supergrass 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 willfully 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 crimminally
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 unneccessarily 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 theary people who like this kind of thing. Why can't they all
just tell the truth, why so much oney 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 haranged 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 have been drawn from Operation Atabasca 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 becuase of Fay's conviction which
is all we heard about and the samantics of the
word 'list' as oppossed 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 childrens 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 cavilier? 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 inute ago in connection
with Operation Merita 6.43.41
And I think you'll agree with me it's a childrens 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 investgated
allegations of sexual abuse at Grafton Close childrens 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' scenerio again, let's see?
Commander
Was trafficked
Questioner
Yes...
Can
we look please at 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 REDACTED 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 childrens 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 indentified 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 REDACTED who came to me at NAYPIC. And they wore dogtags and
army trousers and vests and filmed the session (see middle of this archive page link https://youthparliamentcouk.blogspot.com/2019_03_05_archive.html ). 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 agfainst 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 conviently that Stingmore,
this is a whitewash I can feel it.
Questioner
And you record 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 estabished 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 to 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 inditment
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 REDACTED this is so bad as he is such a sensible witness and it beggers
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 its
sad for REDACTED as a victim and a witness, as this is all sanitized and
he must feel abused again. I know when I seen him in April 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 its 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 repect for
those involved, clearly not!
Commander
That's right 6.48.22
Questioner
He was the only one, out of the 50 people indentified, 40 people spoken to, 8 that had said that they had been abused
Comment
So
20% had been abused but you don't believe REDACTED okay okay thats 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 REDACTED used to have
medicals where they would tie them up with sellotape, just imagine the
trigger REDACTED 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
Prostitued 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 McSweeny 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 underming any abuse REDACTED faced at the home too. OMG so
it's total assainsination 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 its 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 REDACTED 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 alleations were completely false? 6.50.22
Comment
Oh and here's the smile
What is the Metropolitan Polices postion in relation to thise allegations? 6.50.26
Commander
And so I would say that that is entirely consistant 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 accusers' 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 know's 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
First
of all the inquiry this week has heard a fair amout 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 massuer, 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 taht right?
Commander
That's correct
Questioner
So
lets quickly go to the Yvonne closing statement Tab 16 IPC this is one
of the closing statements taht is still in draft and we heard fro 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 bakground 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
masterbation and oral sex 6.54.20
Comment
He's
so caveilier, I mean its 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 'agree's' 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 contemporaniously 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 cohersive 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 publically 6.56.00
Comments
And he smiles so this must be a good bit coming up
Questioner
And those alleagtions were investigated
Commander
Yes they were
Questioner
The report is lenghty 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
survellience etc
Commander
That's right
Questioner
He said he put two hetrosexual officers into the house, then they were spuradically deployed over a number of weeks, 6.57.49
Then he explains the decison 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 their was nothing extrodinary 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 theis 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 knowlegde of teh house being covertly bugged by the
police as this was then a new tactic, he eplained
he had run the operation himself with no outside assistence
Commander
Yes (a number of Yes's throughout that)
Questioner
That he 'may' have reported the incident to his cheif superintendent
Commander
Yes 6.59.30
Comment this is a dire tribe only interupted 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 prematurley 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, infact 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 sargents and inspectors, he said a strip search of
WMA8 was quote, 'very unlikely' to have occurred and he clarified this
by stating taht an inspectors 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 suugest 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 ahd 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 verascity of those claims and in addition
there were inconsistencies with the claima that were amde aswell 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 substaintiate 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 Mahotra, 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 noteable date at the time which was the 29th
July 1981 noteable 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 no body 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 consiousness? 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 um Vishal Mahotra's Father took part in some of those programmes?
Commander
Yes he did
Questioner
And in the course of those broadcasts he made critisims of the Metropolitan Police
Commander
Yes he did and also of Sussex Police as well 7.05.02
Questioner
And
some of thos e critisisms were that in the wake of the inquiry in
relation to his son's disappearnce, 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 critisms was a direct link being drawn between the Elm Guest House and Mr Malhotra's son's disappearance?
Commander
That's right there was a 'mention' that there was a link there. 7.05.47
And thatt 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 thats 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, critisism that Mr Malhotra made in 2015 - 7.06.55
Commander
Yes we do
Questiioner
And Mr Malhotra 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 realtion to the Elm Guest House and high profile
persons being allegedly involved in Vishals disappearance, Mr Malhotra
'alleged' that he passed the recording
onto the police but that they dismissed it due either to negligence or
corruption to protect prominient persons
Commander
That was his 'allegation'
Comment
Can't believe the tone here and use of the word 'allegations', 'alledged'..
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 Malhotra's son
Commander
Yes it does
Questioner
And was that allega, and was that allegation investigated by te 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 te findings of the report were? 7.08.27
Commander
They
found there was a recording device placed on Mr Malhotra's phone twice,
they found a transcript of one of the telephone conversation, 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' taht that was the conversation being referred to by Mr
Malhotra 7.09.17
Questioner
So satisfied that Mr Malhotra 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 recieved
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 Malhotra
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 fannel 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 prominient missing
person investigation at that stage seemingly then tradically became a
murder investigation but there are many details of Vishals 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
Repeatitive 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 Malhotra 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 Malhotra's phone with his knowledge
Commander
Knowledge and consent
Questioner
And that was because he's been recieving nusiance calls ransom demands
Commander
That's right 7.11.01
Questioner
The next bit of the transcript is the conversation between Mr Malhotra
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 Malhotra had suggested, he suggested that it was a call recieved very shortly after his son had disappeared
Commander
Yes 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 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 alot 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
rehearshed this whole thing and are labouring there own version looking
at only police transcripts and DCI Settle's written evidence. I though
it was meant to be an IOPC investigation and have
some scope to get outside influeneces 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 persued 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 uncredible person and what was their
motivation? I hope Aspin can give us more
deatil 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
Malhotra 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 Me Malhotra's belief that
the other caller had mentioned Elm Guest House, paedophile rings,
politicians, judges and police officers, infact 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 Malhotra 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 pricisely the conclusion
there was nothing in that Mr Malhotra was doing his best to try to
remember what had happened but he err I think umm did say that er 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 Malhotra 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 Malhotra 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 Malhotra's recollections 7.14.54
Questioner
Thee Vishal Malhotra 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
Second Witness Statement
Solicitors - <solicitors@iicsa.org.uk>
Mon 01/07/2019 13:03
Dear Ms Moss,
Many thanks for your email, I confirm safe receipt.
Yours Sincerely,
Nicola Margiotta
Investigation Lawyer
NN/YP Youth Parliament
Sun 30/06/2019 14:35
Dear Solicitors,
You asked me to respond to Mr Jeromes evidence.
This is my response. I have a problem with my eyes at the moment so as
you can see this has taken me a large amount of time to complete. I want
you to adduce both statements and ensure that the chair recieved both
or add one to the other either way, I have
gone to a lot of trouble to do the work to inform the inquiry.
Closing my complaint
NN/YP Youth Parliament
Mon 01/07/2019 10:55
Dear Maggie,
So why didn't anyone contact me.
I want formal contact or any contact with the police finalised now.
They have raided me, abused me, framed me, monitored me and not dealt
with my complaint at all or asked me for any help whatsoever.
So end of as you will probably know I do help people and in my soul I
will get what I need and have worked for. I'm not your badie. Leave me
alone now. I want a youth parliament economy by law and you all should
of helped me do that not wasted tax payers money
on all this.
Thank You
Mary
Maggie.S@met.police.uk
Sun 30/06/2019 15:41
Dear Ms Moss
I have also been on annual leave and return to work tomorrow – hence catching up with my emails on a Sunday.
I am still very keen to meet up with you.
I
attended the Westminster Inquiry each day and was very much part of the
preparation process with regards to the
presentation of Commander Jerome’s evidence. Operation Winterkey is
currently assisting the inquiry with the Lambeth related investigations.
Thanks
Maggie
NN/YP Youth Parliament
Sun 30/06/2019 14:43
Dear Maggie,
It's been some time since I replied to your email asking you to visit me
to give you my complaint regarding Tom Watson and the raiding of my
house for evidence protected by the PACE.
I am choosing now after 2 years and with no progress to draw a line
under the complaint and withdraw it due to a lack of faith in the police
complaints system.
For clarity on the issues raised at the inquiry by the Commander whom I
have a certain amount of respect for since he took the evidence quite
seriously and seemed to be in a postion himself, I am sending my
response to his evidence here and have given that
to the IICSA
Good luck with all you have to achieve be it good for children eventually.
Best Wishes
Mary Moss
No comments:
Post a Comment