Monday, 13 July 2015

Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry Adopts "The Jersey Way."




Suspected paedophiles and Child Abusers are being given protection by the Jersey Child Abuse INQUIRY. Protection that is NOT afforded to their Victims/Survivors.

Victim/Survivor witnesses who wish to give evidence, or a statement, to the Inquiry are given three options which are;

1) Publicly. (under their own name)

2) Privately. Where their statement, or their name, is not made public and they do not give public oral evidence to the Panel/Inquiry.

3) Anonymously. Where the Victim/Survivor is given a cipher number/alias.

So in practice the Victim/Survivor who wishes to appear at the Inquiry, and give evidence, only has two options, which are either Anonymously (Cipher Number/alias) or under their own name.

The alleged perpetrators/paedophiles/abusers also have those three options but have the ability to combine No.1 with No. 3. That is to say they are able to appear to the public to be at least 2 (possibly 3) different people as far as the proceedings of the Inquiry is concerned.

What this means in practice is that on a Monday a Child "Care" worker can come and give evidence to the Inquiry and attack the Police Child Abuse Investigation (Operation Rectangle) and/or Abuse Victims/Survivors. The Child "Care" Officer will be questioned on policy, procedure, the law of the time they were in employment and the such like. 

What the public will not be aware of (nor will the Professional "Care" Worker be questioned on) is that he/she is also a suspected paedophile/abuser who was investigated by Operation Rectangle.

So on the Tuesday, this professional "Care worker" can turn up as an alias. On Monday he was "professional Care Worker Joe Bloggs" and Tuesday he is Witness "Mr. XYZ" or "Cipher number 123"

On Monday Joe Bloggs (professional "care" worker) criticises the police investigation and/or Abuse Victims/Survivors, and nobody knows that Mr. Bloggs has, or could have, a vindictive motive for attacking the cops and Survivors. As far as the public is aware this is a professional person with no axe to grind, no abuse to cover up and no allegations against them.

But on Tuesday when he turns up as "Witness XYZ" or "cipher number 123" and IS questioned about his alleged paedophilia/abuse the public have no idea it is the same person that was giving evidence the day before. 

Witness "XYZ" goes on to agree with what was said by "Joe Bloggs" the day before when attacking the cops/Survivors. So as far as the public is concerned, a suspected paedophile and a professional  "care" worker both agree with each others  criticisms of Operation Rectangle and Survivors. What the public DOESN'T know is that the suspected paedophile and professional "care" worker are the same person. They can attack Victims, and the public DOESN'T know it is/was they who allegedly abused them. 

It is an absolute bonkers situation and one that the COI refuses to deal with and just puts its head in the sand. (The Jersey Way)

Suspected paedophiles/abusers who either worked, or still work, in the "care" industry are NOT questioned about their alleged abuse under their own name, that means the public have no idea they could STILL be working in the "care" industry........Does the public not have the right to know?


But what about the discredited, and disgraced, Chapman Report when that "nasty man" former Health Minister, and Senator, Stuart Syvret was saying horrible things about these alleged abusers/paedophiles, on his Blog, they wanted their names cleared didn't they? Indeed Chapman recommended that the States Employment Board/Council of Ministers refuted the allegations with evidence and published it on social media, to include, Mr. Syvret's Blog. But that recommendation wasn't adopted by the then Chief Minister, discredited, and disgraced, Terry Le Sueur...........Why not? Further, now that these people have the opportunity to publicly refute Mr. Syvret's allegations, they reject the offer and will only answer these allegations, and others, anonymously at the COI. what happened to wanting their names cleared?

All witnesses should (and do) have the opportunity to give their evidence anonymously but the alleged victims should not be denied equality of arms. If the alleged abusers want to give their evidence anonymously, then so be it, but they shouldn't be able to have it both ways..................The Victims/Survivors are not able to have it both ways.

The COI has got this terribly wrong and are giving protection to alleged paedophiles/abusers and are not offering the same protection to the alleged Victims/Survivors. That is how the paedophilia was able to thrive for so long on the island. This is "The Jersey Way."


Tuesday, 7 July 2015

Jersey Continues to Fail Abuse (Rape) Victims?




Below is a (redacted) complaint against two Senior Officers of the States of Jersey Police over the way they appear to have handled a recent allegation of Rape/Sexual Assault and look to have treated the victim as the perpetrator and vice versa.

This is a harrowing story, which serves to demonstrate that nothing has changed in Jersey, regarding abuse complaints, despite assurances from the Establishment to the contrary. Victims look to be STILL persecuted, disbelieved, and threatened while the alleged perpetrators are protected by the system (and friends in high places).

The alleged victim of recent rape/sexual Assault has been threatened with arrest, been portrayed as the perpetrator, and ignored by authorities, to the point where she has attempted to take her own life.

Police have downgraded this attack as a “sexual assault” and are not treating it as rape. Again this looks to be contrary to their own PR spin (photo of police van above) “SEX WITHOUT CONSENT IS RAPE.”

Extracts from complaint against police.

We encourage victims to come forward, we will help you. ( we won't help you if I have a working relationship with your attacker, in fact, I will threaten to arrest you).”

“Treatment by the police further traumatised me to the point of suicide.”

“The treatment I received from the police, i.e. Having the tables turned so that the attacker was the victim and I was the criminal”

“It leaves Society with a Police force unfit for purpose.”

Redacted Complaint Against Police.

I was sexually assaulted on the night of the (redacted). I was in a state of shock, distress and torment both physically and emotionally for the months that followed thereafter when this heinous crime was committed against me. The emotional scarring and turbulence to my life had a devastating debilitating effect and most upsetting to me that of my family's life thereafter. I could no longer communicate on a healthy balanced level as the emotional damage took it's course over the subsequent months that followed. Naive as it was (in hindsight) and reasonable to assume my thinking process had also been severely curtailed my immediate reaction was to protect my family.  I felt at the time of this crime, if I did not tell those I loved what had happened to me, I was protecting them and had tried with great difficulty to continue my life.  In my mistaken and emotionally misguided thought process this approach was unhealthy with pernicious and serious consequences for the stability and well being of my husband, children and myself as I clearly was vulnerable and not in a position to 'departmentalise' this violation to myself. I eventually found the courage to open up to my husband as to what had occurred the night of (redacted).  It was, to say the very least a very upsetting and shocking disclosure to my husband however he was very supportive and understood my reasons for my misguided interpretation of trying to protect him and the children.  It helped him to understand and empathise with the previous months behaviour on my part as I was often found crying combined with no emotional engagement.  With his love and considerate understanding he gave me the courage to now approach the Jersey Police and report this heinous crime. From the reporting of this crime,  I have had the support and guidance on this matter from highly qualified bodies of authority; CPS, Rape Crisis England to name but two and a host of other leading authorities on this matter.

In a letter I received from the law office explaining to me why the case didn't go to court, it stated that 'the police investigating were 'unclear' as to why there was a delay'.  Importantly, if the police were 'unclear' about anything,

(1). I'd like to know why they didn't simply ask me to clarify? This raises alarm bells as to the thoroughness of this investigation.

In fact I only gave one statement to the 2 uniformed police officers on the night I reported. I was extremely distressed however, I was categorically  told that I would be able to go over it again at a later date with an experienced officer, which given my extreme distress and the circumstances, this information was reassuring.  It has to date never happened.  I was informed with some coolness that I could get in touch with Victim Support.

(2). I would like to know why I was only ever interviewed once especially given that the investigating officer/s was 'unclear' on any issue that I could have instantly clarified?

Finally 3 days later on the (redacted) I received a phone call from (officer No.1). It was an abrupt call whereby he asked if I had told my GP about this?.  I had not been out of the house since speaking to the Police on (redacted).  I replied no and he ended the call as abruptly as he had started. That was my first contact and introduction as a victim of a sexual crime to the investigating officer, (Officer No1). It was completely lacking in empathy or compassion for the position that I was in. I would also like the SOJP to be aware that at no time from the first point of contact to the last, did any officer ever enquire as to my well being.

(3). Is this the standard way in which the SOJP are trained to deal with victims of sexual crime?

Within this time period, I phoned Victim Support. They informed me that they did not receive a 'referral' for me and therefore could only 'deal' with me once the police referred me. I found this very demoralising on top of the ordeal that I was already experiencing. My husband and I went to the police station as I wanted to meet (Officer No.1) in person and ask him to please 'refer' me to Victim Support. He was unavailable so a different police officer assisted us. He informed us that the Victim Support referral should have been instant from the time of reporting, as it is and I quote 'at the push of a button'.  The Officer pushed the button that same day. Two weeks after reporting, I finally received a letter from Victim Support.

(4). I would like to know what the SOJPs procedure is for referring sexual crime victims to Victim Support and what went wrong with my referral?

Unfortunately, my attacker lived 2 doors away from me making us immediate neighbours. From the day I reported, I had to endure regular sniggering & goading from him, his partner and their visitors. Obviously I made great efforts to avoid his path since the night of the attack, however living in a very small community and him being two doors away from me was not always possible.  My 73 year old mother had to fly over from (redacted) and stay with me as I could no longer cope when my husband was at work as I felt isolated, alone, vulnerable and intimidated. My mother was a witness to many of these incidents. Some of which are documented by the Jersey Police. Consequently, my husband had to take time off work eventually, as I simply could not cope for obvious reasons.

On the (recacted), (Officer No.1) came to my home to tell me that there was 'insufficient evidence' to go to court. I was distraught, to put it mildly. I vocalised to (Officer No.1) that as the attacker is a (redacted) within social services (& to my knowledge working within an environment of vulnerable females), I would be reporting the matter to the Health Care Professional Council in London (HCPC).  This is the regulatory body which oversees registrants 'fitness to practice'. I was then very curtly told not to 'harass' the attacker by doing this.  It beggared belief. I would like to take the opportunity to point out that the HCPC exists for this reason. It is an authoritative body whereby members of the public can report registered individuals regardless of whether a case went to court or not. In other words, after being denied justice in the most demeaning, abrupt and humiliating manner,  I felt it my moral duty as well as being within my rights to contact the HCPC.  given the fact I was a victim of sexual assault by someone I knew and who had access to other vulnerable people within a woking environment in the States of Jersey. 

Contrary to any police officers belief, my reporting of my experience to the HCPC is a deeply personal matter for me to decide and does NOT amount to 'harassment', as (Officer No1) insinuated and was clearly (to me) belittling my horrendous experience and quite deliberately wishing to undermine my confidence even further than it already was.  I found his comment, unhelpful, distasteful, disrespectful, aggressive, rather threatening and wholly inaccurate to say the least.  Once again, I felt completely unsupported and further violated by the States of Jersey police force and it was now being suggested in a very strong manner that I was 'harassing' my attacker.

To date, I am still in a state of anguish and am traumatised by this vile violating attack which took place.  I have been through the worst time in my life; which has had a clear and devastating effect on my husband and children, parents and siblings.  Without who's support I cannot begin to imagine what might have become of me. 

Being in a very vulnerable situation and with very little support from States of Jersey police and feeling depressed and very very let down by the attitude from the States of Jersey police, I sent the attackers partner a text message stating that although it did not go to court, he did this to me and I felt she needed to know that. Given the pressure of being neighbours whilst this investigation was going on, the goading, what my family and I were going through, I don't think any reasonably minded person would view this as a particularly heinous thing to do, certainly not by comparison. Having spoke with several Professionals such as my GP, counsellor, psychologists and even Senators have unanimously agreed that given the circumstances, this was not a big deal.  I was horrified when (Officer No.1) came to my home and read out a complaint from my attacker saying that he was being 'harassed', and now I had to sign an 'anti harassment order'. Not only am I not being properly protected by the States of Jersey police, I am now being bullied by my attacker with the States of Jersey Police force as back up and I find myself being unwittingly criminalised while my attacker is using the very system that ought to have been there from the onset to protect not only myself, but my family.

There is a particularly distressing part to this: (Officer No.1) informed me that the attacker complained that our (redacted) year old daughter was 'running around calling him a rapist'. Naturally, I broke down. Our (redacted) year old daughter attended (redacted) at the time due to having a (redacted) which meant that her (redacted). I can absolutely assure you that that word is not and never has been in her vocabulary. It would have been extremely inappropriate for her to be made aware of what had happened, hence why she never knew and still does not know what happened. She understands of course that something has made her mummy unhappy due to my depression however, our children are of the upmost importance to us and we have gone to great lengths to shield them from the horrors that actually took place, naturally, as any parent, I'd like to think would do. 

The actual assault and then the reporting of it culminated in the worst experience of my life and unfortunately I tried to take my own life. It became clear to me, my husband, my sister and my mother that at some point in my dealings with the States of Jersey Police force,  I was the 'perpetrator' and the attacker was the 'victim'. This was too devastating for me to take in. Having our (redacted) year old daughter dragged into this was horrendous. I have some very serious questions I would appreciate answers to:-

- Was it really necessary for the detective to tell me this? Was this a 'victim led investigation' or more to the point, who did the police view the victim as?

- Did the attacker also have to sign a 'anti harassment order' for the times that I felt threatened and intimidated by him and reported it? My children were also placed on a safeguarding order by the detective. (My son, because the attacker would stand outside with his arms folded staring at my son. His friends noticed this too).  Or, was that only reserved for me?

I sent an email to the health minister and a senator. This was because I was appealing to them to rehouse us. Unbeknown to me, the attacker had already been given his notice to leave. My husband and I were completely unaware of this but we did notice a police car parked outside our house when they were leaving. It may well have been a coincidence, but given my now status as a perpetrator:-

-  was this for his 'protection' against me? Once we realised that they left and this coincided with the police car stationed outside my house, it then became rather disturbing to think that could have been the case. Nevertheless, it was a huge relief that he had indeed left.

( Senior Officer No.2)

Through a medium of emails back and forth to Health Minister and the Senator, the Senator got in touch with me to arrange to meet the following week. We met and discussed the realities of how I reported a crime and then was portrayed as the perpetrator. The senator was supportive but then informed me that prior to our meeting, (s)he had spoken to (Senior Officer No.2) regarding the case. At first, (s)he told me that (Senior Officer No.2) sometimes worked alongside the attacker as he is involved with child protection, safeguarding etc., she told me that (Senior Officer No.2) 'liked' him and (s)he; the Senator, was told unequivocally by (Senior Officer No.2) that if I 'kept pushing it', (Senior Officer No.2) would have me arrested and charged with 'perverting the course of justice'. I was completely and utterly stunned by this relaying of a message from (Senior Officer No.2) to the Senator (as was the Senator) it also confirmed what I thought all along, that the investigation into my reported crime was inappropriately and unprofessionally conducted by all concerned by the States of Jersey police force and it was I, not my attacker who became a suspect being investigated for 'making a false allegation'.

There are many issues with (Senior Officer No.2) taking this stance.
(s)he works alongside my attacker. There is clearly a conflict of interest here. I also view this stance as an abuse of power. This was clearly a threat, not to mention intimidation. If I did not 'drop' the issue, (s)he would arrest me. This is an appalling abuse of authority.

 I notice that (Senior Officer No.2) speaks in favour of victims of abuse coming forward and gives the appearance of supporting this. (S)he may well do, but in my case, (s)he had a professional biased relationship with my attacker and 'liked' him, so threatened to silence a sexual crime victim with arrest. This is the wrong message to be sending out to members of the public and victims of crime. The message I take from (Senior Officer No.2)  is this:  We encourage victims to come forward, we will help you. ( we won't help you if I have a working relationship with your attacker, in fact, I will threaten to arrest you).

Is this a message that the States of Jersey Police Force are happy to put out there to other possible victims of crime?

I was also told that (Senior Officer No.2) said to the senator that I ‘had an unhappy marriage and was thus 'making it up'. I find (Senior Officer No.2)  comments absolutely disgusting, inaccurate, unprofessional, unhelpful, callous and based on thin air. I have never met (Senior Officer No.2) and would like to know how (s)he arrived at that conclusion. I am not going to justify my marriage to anyone but would like to point out to the SOJP that this is a very misinformed, dangerous myth regarding sexual offences. It is suggesting that say for example, a woman who is in an abusive marriage then goes on to be the victim of a sexual crime would immediately be treated as a liar because of her circumstances.  It suggests that women have ulterior motives for reporting sexual crimes. It suggests you are a liar until proven otherwise.  The damage that has been done to me because of this assumption will take a long time to heal, if ever.

Would you also advocate that abused children from difficult backgrounds are lying because of their circumstances? Is it appropriate for (Senior Officer No.2) to take this stance given (Senior Officer No.2)  fondness for my attacker? Was my complaint ever treated with impartiality and fairness? Or was the investigation looking for every inconsistency without clarifying it with me, in order to tip it in favour of the attacker who has working ties with the SOJP? I feel given what I know now there is absolutely no doubt in my mind it was biased from the onset.


This is the worst thing that has ever happened to me and I am still trying to pick up the pieces. All of the above mentioned treatment by the police further traumatised me to the point of suicide. I am being treated for Post traumatic stress disorder and I can assure you that I did not end up with PTSD from having a fling, regretful sex, bad marriage or any other myth preventing justice being carried out. I ended up with long term PTSD as a direct result of what the attacker did to me, which amounts to nothing short of a sexual assault. The treatment I received from the police, i.e. Having the tables turned so that the attacker was the victim and I was the criminal, has severely dented my faith and confidence in the police, specifically the States of Jersey Police and society as a whole.. I don't want this happening to anyone else. No one but absolutely no one should have to go through this alone; the vulnerability of coping with heinous crime forced upon you, the deep violation is immeasurable and coupled with a biased, unprofessional, unco-operative, threatening Police force to debilitate the victim further into despair, severely adds to the trauma already inflicted.

To reiterate, I am making a formal complaint about the quality of service (lack of) that myself and my family received from the States of Jersey police from the date of reporting and beyond. I consistently felt uncomfortable (Officer No.1) scolding attitude towards me, his lack of concern for my well being and overall lack of compassion towards a sexual crime victim.

I am making a formal complaint against (Senior Officer No.2) for his/her biased, unprofessional, judgmental, conflicted and abusive stance towards myself, the victim of a sex crime.(END)

I’m sure readers will agree that this is a harrowing account of how alleged rape/abuse victims apparently continue to suffer the prejudices of a supposed bygone era in 21st Century Jersey Police Force?

It is worth mentioning that the victim has told us that the alleged perpetrator was apparently brought in for questioning by the police and adopted the “no comment” stance. If true, would this be the action of an innocent man?

After going through all the correct channels open to the alleged victim, and having apparently been disbelieved, and threatened with prosecution herself she contacted VFC and asked if there was anything we could do to help.



Team Voice met with Chief Minister Ian Gorst and Assistant Chief Minister Paul Routier at a public drop in session at St. Paul’s Centre where we raised our, and the victim’s concerns with them.

Although they tried to convince us they took the allegations seriously, and were both proud to tell us that Senator Routier was a member of the Adult and Children Policy Group (whatever that is) the complete opposite turned out to be the case.

After having our e-mails ignored and having to embarrass them on Twitter in order to get a response, Senator Paul Routier finally responded by e-mail advising the victim to take her complaints to the very people she was complaining about. He, and the Chief Minister had, and have, no interest, as public servants, to represent her.

Why should alleged victims in this day and age (post Savile, post Operation Rectangle, post Rotherham) still be treated so appallingly by the police and authorities?


Equally disturbing is, according to the alleged victim, her attacker is STILL working within an environment of vulnerable females”

Friday, 12 June 2015

Mario Lundy, and Stuart Syvret, at Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry.



Yesterday (Thursday 11th June 2015) saw the long anticipated evidence of former Vice/Principle of Les Chenes residential School and former Education Director, Mario Lundy at the Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry. 

Mr. Lundy is the subject of around 27 allegations of physical abuse by, in the region of, a dozen different alleged victims, which he strenuously denies and yesterday was his opportunity to defend himself against those allegations.

He spent the full day giving his testimony, although some of the evidence to back up parts of his testimony no longer exists so he will have to be taken at his word. He told the Inquiry that the punishment/discipline books/logs where incidents of punishment administered at Les Chenes, to the residents, was logged in these books and would demonstrate that a minimal amount of punishment was dished out.

The problem is that these books/logs were ordered to be destroyed by one of his successors at Les Chenes in 2002 which, as The Jersey Public Records Law was in place at the time, looks to be a criminal offence yet neither a criminal investigation, nor an internal investigation has taken place in order to hold this person to account. Indeed when Mr. Lundy became aware of the destruction of these records in 2008, as Director of Education, he did not see fit to order an investigation knowing he was apparently counting on them as evidence in his, and Les Chenes, defence. It’s still a mystery as to why anybody would want them destroyed and hopefully the Child Abuse Inquiry will be able to get to the bottom of it?


Present at yesterday’s Hearing was former Senator/Health Minister and Whistle-blower, Stuart Syvret, who, in the interview below, gives us his take on what he sees as the bigger news stories to come out of yesterday which were not reported by the State Media. In some cases have been reported by the State Media but with its own particular slant/agenda attached.

Although the BBC (rightly) gets a bit of a kicking in the interview, it has to be said, that, of late, its reporting has been a huge improvement on its previous (non) reporting. The same also has to be said of the JEP but alas the discredited, and disgraced, ITV/CTV’s (non) reporting remains as appalling as it always was during the entire Jersey Child Abuse Cover-Up.


We hope readers/viewers will be better informed as to some of the facts behind the stories you are(n’t) seeing in the State Media. We also hope that the Victims and Survivors, who have been to hell and (some) back after suffering the abuse and its effects will get some kind of justice and closure as a result of this Inquiry.


Sunday, 7 June 2015

Jersey International Finance Centre. (Waterfront Protest 7 June 2015)




Further to our Previous Posting we are able to announce that today's protest was a resounding success with 2,000-3,000 people turning up to demonstrate against the start of building, and in support of democracy.

This is a significant number of protestors for Jersey and sends a clear message to those running the Island that the people are no longer content to sit at home and complain, they are taking to the streets in numbers, and demonstrating against this government's undemocratic decisions.

Below are a few shots of today's protest and an interview with the former Planning and Environment Minister (who attended the Rally) Rob Duhamel.

Congratulations to all those who were a part of organising this event and to those who turned up in support.

Friday, 5 June 2015

Jersey International Finance Centre and Democracy.




As a result of the PRESS RELEASE issued by Deputy Montfort Tadier concerning the building (or not) of Jersey's International Finance Centre at the waterfront. Team Voice has exclusively interviewed the Deputy, in depth, where he explains, from his perspective, that there is much more at stake here than a building going up (or not).

The very structure of Democracy, according to the Deputy, is under threat where it appears that the Ministers of our island are taking on the role of CEOs of quangos and representing their interests rather than the people of Jersey who elected them. Scrutiny looks to be redundant (or "an irritant") rather than a check, and balance, which adds value to the decision making process. Policy is now being described, by the current Treasury Minister, as "a mistake."

In December 2014 Scrutiny decided to look at the viability, and much more, of the International Finance Centre building and its Terms of Reference can be viewed HERE. Deputy Tadier explains the apparent shenanigans that have been played by the Treasury Minister, and others, in order to basically do away with this scrutiny function and secured a pre-let of 16,500 square feet (not the 200,000 square feet agreed in The States) of a building before the Scrutiny Report can be finalised/published and so that the building can begin.

This Sunday (7th June 2015) there is a planned public protest to be held at the waterfront (2:30pm) by those opposed to the start of building until the Scrutiny Panel has completed its Report and submitted it to The States.

But as explained earlier, and in the interview, (below) this is about much more than a building, it is about Democracy and preventing it being eroded further. You might not have a view on the building but if you cherish the little amount of Democracy we have on this island we encourage readers to support this protest and be a part of it on Sunday.

Tuesday, 19 May 2015

Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry and William Bailhache.





After a five week break the Jersey Child Abuse Committee Of Inquiry recommences its Public Hearings a week today (Tuesday 26 May 2015) where it starts phase 1(b) of its investigation.

We would like to bring readers attention to where the Inquiry left off, and in particular, the testimony given by Witness “Mr.K” who is a suspected prolific paedophile. Also we look at the former Attorney General, and now Bailiff, William Bailhache and his (the latter’s) PRESS STATEMENT.

As we have reported previously (link above) there was public out-cry and suspicion over William Bailhache’s (then Attorney General) decision to drop somewhere in the region of a dozen abuse cases and only offer the public/victims/survivors a couple of SHOW TRIALS. It became apparent that out of 121 living abuse suspects only 8 were charged (93% were never charged) and there were seven, out of the eight, convicted.

Witness “Mr. K” was one of those suspects who weren’t brought before a Jersey Court, so just like so many others escaped (what passes for) justice. But what happens when some of the reasons for not prosecuting “Mr K” are looked at and lightly questioned? Do the reasons (of William Bailhache) stand up to scrutiny? We would argue NO they don’t and the conduct of the Attorney General’s Office needs a bright light shone into it.

Unfortunately we don’t have a mainstream media on the island to shine that bright light and it is left to Bloggers to inform the public of what is taking place and being omitted by the MSM, as we have all through the Jersey Child Abuse Cover-up.

The transcripts below are taken from day 66 (April 15 2015) of the Inquiry and can be read in their entirety HERE. The local State Media was present at this Hearing, yet even after Yours Truly went into the Media Room (from which Bloggers are BANNED) and pointed out that William Bailhache looks to have been shown as a liar, or at the very least, been given false information which he published in his 2009 press release. NONE of the local State Media have reported the apparent discrepancies.

PATRICK SAAD is Counsel to the Inquiry and is questioning suspected prolific paedophile Witness "Mr. K" in the transcript below.

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT.

Patrick Saad -Thank you.  You say at paragraph 118 of your statement {WS000544/23}:

"The Attorney General commented in his open letter that so many people had been willing to come to my defence and to stand up for me to say that I am a good person."

Can we go back again please to the Attorney General's letter, {WD005402} and can we go to page 3 {WD005402/3}, and, as of course I recognise, Mr K, these are very serious allegations made against you and you are setting out why you say these allegations are wrong and in support of that you take us to a paragraph in the Attorney General's letter and you say that "people stand up for me to say that I am a good person". What the Attorney General in fact says at the bottom of page 3 is: 

"Furthermore, the police investigation shows relevant defence material including the fact that a significant number of witnesses speak well of [witness 7] (Witness “Mr.K”) describing his popularity with the children and his good qualities in dealing with the children generally." Then it goes on to say:

"He received consistently good reports from those responsible for monitoring and evaluating his performance."

I think it is right to say that as far as your time at Haut de la Garenne is concerned, there were no such reports, there were no such monitoring, is that right?

MR. K - No.

Patrick Saad - Sorry, is that answer "no, you are not right", or "no, there weren't"?

Mr. K - I believe that -- there wasn't any formal reports. However, I have to be very careful here because it is impossible to answer without disclosing certain things which I don't want to disclose.

Patrick Saad - I understand that, Mr K.  So if you can limit your answer to my question, which I'm going to ask you again: was your performance at Haut de la Garenne, in the time that you were employed there, formally evaluated and recorded?

Mr. K - No.  However, it would have been verbally.

Patrick Saad - And how do you know that?

Mr. K - I can't answer that question again because it will be revealing, but I did move on to other employment where I would have been recommended from my record at Haut de la Garenne.(END TRANSCRIPT)

So there we have the first apparent discrepancy in William Bailhache’s “reason” for not prosecuting Witness “Mr K” who, incidentally, is rumoured to be a friend of Mr. Bailhache. William Bailhache claims, "He (witness “Mr. k”) received consistently good reports from those responsible for monitoring and evaluating his performance." But when “MR. K.” is questioned about this he says the reports, and, monitoring, didn’t exist. This alone raises serious doubts over the authenticity of the information contained in William Bailhache’s Press Release and “reason” for not prosecuting “Mr. K”

Secondly we look at (or Patrick Saad does) another “reason” Mr. Bailhache refused to prosecute “Mr. K.”

From William Bailhache June 2009 statement

In another case, the complainant described sustaining 300 to 400 cigarette burn marks and a branding which required a skin graft, but there is no physical sign of any injury”

Begin Transcript.

Patrick Saad - Paragraph 106 to 108, this resident says that he was burnt or branded and sexually assaulted by you {WS000544/21}.  The documentation that the Inquiry has been taken to in the course of the evidence in previous months shows that this resident was not there at the same time as you, or strictly, on one view of the documents, maybe overlapping by three to four days and you set out the reasons why the allegations should not be believed, apart from that issue. I just want to take up with you please, if I may, something you say at paragraph 108 {WS000544/22} and this is in relation to the burns:

"[This witness] also alleged that I had (Witness Mr. K”) burnt him 20 times or more with a cigarette and branded him. This allegation was disproved as he had been examined by a doctor who had been unable to find any marks or branding on his body." I just want to explore with you the issue of it being "disproved", you use that expression again. Can we have up on screen please {WD003510}. What we're going to look at, Mr K, is a medical report dated June 2014 which was commissioned for the Redress Scheme and which this witness exhibited to their evidence and it is evidence that has been before the Inquiry, and it is a medical report prepared by a Jason Payne-James. If we could go to page 2 please {WD003510/2}.We can see the credentials there of the doctor.  If we go to page 3 please {WD003510/3} and we see that he is a registered medical practitioner, he is a specialist in forensic and legal medicine and he says this at paragraph 4:

"For More than 20 years I have assessed several hundred assailants and/or victims (adult and child) in varying cases of assault or injury each year including sexual offence examination, torture and asylum cases ..."

He goes on to say at paragraph 5 "I am editor of the Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine" and he goes on to set out the extent of his experience.

Could we go please to page 15 {WD003510/15} and a large block of black there, but paragraph 200:

"On examination of his back there were numerous pale mature scars generally less than ... in size down to about [so much] in size.  They extended across [an area of the back], they were in no fixed pattern and of no particular shape. They represent areas of skin that have sustained damage of an extent enough to result in residual scars. Causes could include cigarette burns, insect bites, chickenpox (although other lesions were not noted elsewhere) ..."

I think that's said in relation to the chickenpox: " ... and infected acne (he was not aware that he acne)."

If we go to page 23 {WD003510/23} and we look at the top there, Mr K, paragraph 258: "The small pale scars to the back are consistent with cigarette burns but there are many other possible causes (although none I could elicit from the history)." Then on the same page, 268, the expert witness is addressing questions that he was posed in his instructions in relation to this witness and he repeats those instructions at 268:

"If I am of the opinion there are any inconsistencies between what [48] (alleged victim) tells me at the interview and the
documentation provided to me, which I consider relevant, set them out ..."
He says this: "I find the marks and scars on [witness 48] at the least consistent with his account ..."

You say that the allegation of burning has been disproved, to use that phrase. In the light of this evidence, which I know until you came to the Inquiry yesterday you had not seen, do you want to comment any further?  Is it again your view that it is the role of the police to disprove or prove an allegation?

Mr. K - I'm going to comment on this.  I note the words "at least consistent", right, but I think that we should bring the Attorney General's statement please.

Patrick Saad - Yes. If you bear with me a moment, I will just get the reference for that.  It is {WD005402} please.  On to page 3 {WD005402/3}, the main paragraph there, Mr K. What is it you would like the Inquiry's attention brought to?

Mr. K - It is somewhere here.

Patrick Saad – If you need more time, please ...

Mr. K - Oh, yes, it is -- actually instead of 20 cigarette burns he says I burnt him 300 to 400 times and branded him:
"... which required a skin graft, but there is no physical sign of any injury nor do the records show that [whoever he was] was at Haut de la Garenne at the ... time."
So I wrote my statement with this knowledge from the Attorney General who had received that information from the police who I'm sure, as no expense was spared during the investigation, had an expert examine this person and reach that conclusion.
This would have been typical of any inquiry when you would have professional dispute about injuries.

Patrick Saad - My only issue with you, Mr K, in relation to this part of the evidence is again your choice of the word "disproved", but you have given your response and your account.(END TRANSCRIPT)

So we have, in former Attorney General William Bailhache’s statement, and another “reason” for not prosecuting witness “Mr. K” that “there is no physical sign of any injury.”

But from Jason Payne-James registered medical practitioner, and specialist in forensic and legal medicine’ "On examination of his back there were numerous pale mature scars generally less than ... in size down to about [so much] in size.  They extended across [an area of the back], they were in no fixed pattern and of no particular shape.  They represent areas of skin that have sustained damage of an extent enough to result in residual scars.  Causes could include cigarette burns”

Just these couple of discrepancies in William Bailhache’s decision not to prosecute witness “Mr. K” bring serious doubts over his integrity/honesty and professional capacity to hold the office he did and does. It further adds evidenced weight to the theory that it’s the paedophiles who are protected by Jersey’s “Justice” System and the Victims/Survivors (like the most of us) DO NOT enjoy the protection of law.

It also adds weight to the claim that the Child Abuse Investigation (Operation Rectangle) should be re-opened and should NEVER have been SHUT DOWN.