The Jersey children's home story .. "Former Police Chief to be Witness"

Pete Burtenshaw wrote:...You are defending someone make no mistake and at some stage in the past you have had a run in with Lenny Harper and because of this your opinions are blinkered...

Yet more erroneous assumption; Did your intellect, your knowledge and probability lead you there?

You have no knowledge of me, so your intellect must have used probability alone to form your assumptions. So how do you calculate your probabilities? How did you calculate the better than 50% probability that my views must be blinkered? because I disagree that your assumptions are not without flaws?

Seems to me that you methodology is deeply flawed and likely to end in a circular argument.

Would you call it justice if any prosecution related to this issue, or any other, was handled such baseless methodology? Would you like to be judged by somebody in this fashion?

I must admit to trying exteremly hard (and failing miserably) to understand your point of view Troy. I too am a believer in a person being innocent until proven guilty - although I defy anyone to stick to that opinion if a crime was committed against a member of their family in front of their own eyes! I digress.

"Safe assumption"? We are not talking about convicting someone on the basis of reasonable doubt here, in fact we probably aren't even considering the possibility of anyone facing murder charges anyway.

We base our assumption on the facts that the Police have elected to divulge. There has probably been more widespread media coverage of an in depth nature (and media releases given by the Police which have allowed deeper intrusion into an ongoing investigation than I have probably ever known).

Is it reasonable after all this information being released by the 'investigation team' to bury our head in the sand and assume that it is all circumstantial or can be explained away and expect people to think the same way?

I am happy to believe the reports coming from the centre and the victims of abuse who are slowly coming forward, and whilst keeping an open mind that we will probably never know the full extent of what happened there, and who the offenders really were, that regardless of the bitter pill it must be to swallow for Jersey residents and the International and Tourism damage it causes the island, there are probably enough facts in the public domain to form the opinion that crimes were committed during the reported period years ago by person(s) yet unidentified.

I apologise if you have an opposing view, but it's human nature to form opinions based on personal values, interpretation of information, judgement and free thinking.

Troy McClure wrote:I'm not assuming that no crimes took place, and have never said that; what I'm saying is that there is not sufficient evidence, in the public domain, for any safe assumption to be made either way.

But surely such irrefutable evidence being presented in the public domain so as to satisfy your requirements for a 'safe assumption' would then seriously predjudice any impending court case?

Should we then play safe and always assume that the world is a rosy place and nothing bad ever happens until such time we are presented with the details of a conviction?

I don't believe that you have ever watched the news - either local, national or international and assumed that the reports you were hearing couldn't have happened just because the evidence had not been presented sufficiently?

MarkyD wrote:I must admit to trying exteremly hard (and failing miserably) to understand your point of view Troy. I too am a believer in a person being innocent until proven guilty - although I defy anyone to stick to that opinion if a crime was committed against a member of their family in front of their own eyes!...

Seeing something with your own eyes is very different from reading vague details interpreted into sensational horror stories by journalists selling papers.

It's not a case of burying our heads, but keeping them. Lets not get carried away like a lynch mob, acting on pure assumption.

What evidence, other than the accusations of those who spent time in care, have the police released to indicate a murder? or abuse?

Troy McClure wrote:What evidence, other than the accusations of those who spent time in care, have the police released to indicate a murder? or abuse?

OK, for the sake of removing an unreliable source lets not take anything directly from the media. Lets go directly to the States of Jersey press office. http://www.jersey.police.uk/news/index.html

What physical evidence have they released? None of course as that would predjudice the ongoing enquiry. Do they mention having seized over 1000 exhibits? Do they themselves mention having gathered evidence? Read it for yourself.

Main points at media briefing


Wednesday 9 July 2008



At this morning’s Media Facility, Deputy Chief Officer Lenny Harper made the following points:

• Following intelligence and evidence gathered as part of the current historical abuse enquiry, a second site on Jersey has been identified as a potential crime scene. This is a German bunker at Victoria Tower around
  half a mile from Haut de la Garenne.
  
• In light of this intelligence andevidence, scenes of crime teams and search dogs have moved on to the site.
  
• Among this intelligence and evidence are allegations that residents at Haut de la Garenne were taken to the bunker by members of staff and abused.
  
• It is hoped that the new search will not prove to be a lengthy process. However the investigation will take as long as necessary in order to complete a detailed and professional examination.
  
• It is not anticipated that an archaeological examination will be carried out at the new site.
  
• Officers are in the process of moving out of Haut de la Garenne and handing the property back to the trustees. It is expected that the formal handover will take place on Friday.
  
• A total of 65 children’s teeth have been recovered from Haut de la Garenne, 39 of which are already being examined in the UK with the remainder being sent over in the coming days .
  
• A large number of bone fragments are also being examined.
  
• Around 150 tons of material has been recovered during the search at Haut de la Garenne which has been sieved and stored.
  
• In excess of 1100 exhibits have also been recovered.
  
• It is believed that the victims number 97.
  
• 109 people have been named as being involved in offences connected to the investigation, with 18 being identified as priority suspects.
  

Is this not sufficient to convince you?

Convince me?

It convinces me that the police have received allegations against 109 people from 97 complainants, as yet unproven.
It convinces me that 65 teeth have been found, along with bone fragments.
It suggests that other 'exhibits' have been found.

This I have never denied to be possible, likely or even factual.

What it doesn't convince me of:-
That there has been a white wash.
That this is typical of Jersey.
That the guilty have, or are to be allowed to walk free.
That the government have acted corruptly over the matter.
That the government or it's officers have threatened the investigating police officers, including death threats.
That the government are actively trying to obstruct the investigation.
That 'powerful' figures in Jersey have blood on their hands over this issue.
That I know the cause of death of the person or persons whose bones have been found.
That Frank Walker wanted it covered-up.
That the judicial system is not working to form a viable prosecution in the pursuit of legal justice.

All of those things that it does not convince me of have been accused in this thread, other than speculation and assumption how have others been convinced of these things from the facts to hand? are you convinced?

For the avoidance of doubt, I have not suggested or implied any of the accusations that you are 'not convinced of'.

I am of the opinion that if there is sufficient evidence to charge someone with an offence, then I think it reasonable to assume that an offence has taken place. Even if the person charged is later found not guilty in court, generally speaking I believe that this does not take away the fact that the offence never took place, it simply means that there was not reasonable doubt that the person charged was responsible.

I just think that the information given out by the Police is sufficient enough for me to believe that something unlawful did go on there. Nothing more, nothing less.

Pete Burtenshaw wrote:...Finally, if it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the bones found date back way before the dates given of the alleged abuse and murders and those under suspicion are not guilty then I will apologise on this forum but until then I stand by my convictions...

You say that you'll apologise if proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the innocent are innocent, but until then you're happy to spout your baseless assumptions of their guilt.

How exactly does that make you one who agrees with the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'?

And don't accuse me of slander.

Reading all of Troy's posts on this subject, I cant help but ask, WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE?

Mischas wrote:Reading all of Troy's posts on this subject, I cant help but ask, WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE?

Idiot, hot-headed, unjust, lynch mobs. And no, I've nothing to hide.

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S STATEMENT

The Attorney General said: "I realise this decision will come as a disppointment to the complainants in the case and possibly to others who have made statements to the police or are considering doing so. I am obviously aware that assertions have been made, without any basis or foundation, that justice will not be done in the child abuse investigations that are taking place. Indeed, it is for that reason that I am making this full statement as to why a decision not to prosecute has been taken in this case. The evidential test has not been passed, and it would be simply wrong to bring the prosecution. I would however like to emphasize that the evidential test is based upon an analysis of the evidence that the police have taken and which might therefore be available to a court. I urge all those who have any relevant evidence to give in the current child abuse investigation to contact the police and make statements. That is the only way the prosecution will be able to reach a fully informed decision on the evidential test in the various cases that come before us for consideration."

______________________________

NEW SIO

A senior detective from the UK has been appointed to head up Jersey's ongoing historical abuse inquiry.

Mick Gradwell is the new Senior Investigating Officer.

Mr Gradwell's a detective superintendent with Lancashire police serving on the major investigation team.

He'll take up the day to day running of the investigations into alleged child abuse in jersey's care system.

Lenny Harper retired earlier this month. David Warcup has replaced him as deputy chief officer - but the force wanted another senior officer on the case.

Mr gradwell was lead officer when 23 illegal chinese immegrants died in Morecambe Bay in 2004.

He also has experience of historical abuse and serial offenders.

He was picked from 27 applications and is due to take up his new role next month.
______________________________(from thisisjersey)

REPORT TO JERSEY’S ATTORNEY GENERAL FOLLOWING THE POLICE PUBLICLY OBJECTING TO THE OBSTRUCTION OF THE CHARGING OF SUSPECTS AGAINST WHOM SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE WAS PRESENT.

STATES OF JERSEY POLICE REPORT

Submitted by: DCO L. Harper

Submitted to: Chief Officer (For onward transmission to Attorney General.)
MIR Office Manager (For Registration and filing on HOLMES System.)

Chief Officer:

The Attorney General has requested a report into the circumstances and reasons for the issue of the Media Statement following the release from Custody of Mr and Mrs Bonner who were arrested by the Historical Abuse Team for three Grave and Criminal Assaults. The reasons for the release however, do not start with the arrest of the Bonners and are outlined in full below.

On 9th April 2008 I met with the AG in the presence of yourself. This meeting was to discuss the provision of Legal Assistance to the Historical Abuse Enquiry. The Attorney General was keen to appoint an independent lawyer to assist the enquiry “in order to prevent you from barking up the wrong tree at an early stage.” There was some discussion over his wish to have the lawyer placed within the Incident Room. I, ACPO, and others saw this as a highly unusual step, and objected to that situation.

Eventually a compromise was reached and Mr Simon Thomas was appointed and given an office in Police Headquarters. Agreement was reached with him, Cyril Whelan, and Stephen Baker that, in a departure from normal practice, we would not arrest suspects whom we hoped to charge until we had submitted a file of evidence to the lawyers and they would then guide us on what charges could be preferred. This was to prevent us from having to arrest a string of suspects and release them whilst the report was being considered. We were reassured that the turnaround in the files would be very quick in order not to delay the process of arrest and charge.

The service that we have received from the legal team has not been as we were led to believe it would be. Since his arrival in mid April we have given Mr Thomas six files. The file for the Bonner case, which was a straight-forward file containing only a small number of statements was handed to him in early June. There followed a number of meetings between himself, the Deputy SIO, the Detective Sergeant Team Leader, and the two investigators in charge of that particular enquiry. During these meetings the evidence was discussed and on Friday 20th June 2008 the Detective Sergeant and the two investigators met with Mr Thomas. It was agreed that the Bonners should be arrested and charged with three crimes of Grave and Criminal Assault. As always, it was accepted that this was subject to any significant changes in the evidence against them following interview or the arrest process. All three officers are certain of the instructions given to them by Mr Thomas and recall clearly the discussions about the difference between the different types of assault and the directions given in relation to charging.

The Bonners were arrested on Tuesday 24th June 2007. Mr Bonner was interviewed first. He denied the offences but offered nothing which changed the evidence against him or his wife. Mrs Bonner feigned illness but was declared fit by the Doctor.

At 5pm Simon Thomas declared to the investigators that he had revised his view and said he did not want the couple charged. The officers were extremely surprised and not a little frustrated. I spoke to Simon who, it transpired, was between trains and on a railway station platform somewhere in the North of England. Indeed, as we spoke the conversation was frequently interrupted by passing trains. He said he had revised his opinion because of new evidence that had emerged during the day. I asked what that evidence was and he gave me three “developments.”

1. Mrs Bonner was unwell. I explained the situation in respect of her and that the Police Doctor thought she was feigning. I explained that she was obtaining the woman’s medical notes and would further advise at 6.30pm. In the event, the Doctor declared the suspect fit for detention and interview. I questioned however, whether this could be said to be new evidence which affected the decision to charge.
2. Simon then told me that a witness called Drake had rung the Custody Officer and said we had made a mistake, and that we had the wrong people in custody. I pointed out that Drake had made a witness statement which Simon had seen and which he had taken into account when recommending which charges should be preferred. Drake had not added any new evidence to what was in his statement.

3. The Bonners' children had telephoned and said their parents were good people and that they (the children) were now flying to Jersey. I asked Simon how that was new evidence as opposed to character evidence, and he said that they might have evidence relevant to the allegations as they lived in the same house. I pointed out that he knew that previously and also that they lived in a different part of the house.

Simon then said he needed to speak to Cyril Whelan and Stephen Baker who were in Jersey. He did so and telephoned back. He said they agreed with him and wanted to see the interviews before charging. I pointed out that this made the arrangement we had pretty worthless - what was the point of us sending him the file before arrest if he still had to wait to see the interview notes? The idea was that he told us the charges before we released suspects. He then said that he could not do that as things might change during the interview. He said we arrested on suspicion and then interviewed and he decided on charges afterwards. I made the point that we had all agreed that we would not arrest until we had given him the papers and this was to allow us to be given suitable charges to prevent the process of arrest and release. He said that things could always arise during interview. I accepted that occasionally that could happen but that in the absence of anything dramatic, the agreed charges would normally still be relevant. I pointed out that he had met the officers in this case and the Deputy SIO on several occasions and that just before arrest there had been discussion on the charges and he had agreed three G&C assault charges. He said that was not correct. All four of our staff, DI Fossey, DS Smith, and the two UK detectives were frustrated at this development as their recollection was he had clearly agreed with them this course of action. I told Simon that if these two were not charged I was not having the Enquiry Team officers blamed for it. He finished by saying that operationally he could not tell me whether to charge or not.

In view of that comment, I told the officers to get the Centenier in to PHQ to charge. They did so. Danny Scaife came in, Andy Smith gave him the full facts including the discussion with the lawyer, and Danny went off to read the evidence. He did so for well over an hour and then declared that although there was enough evidence to charge, he was not going to.

At that stage I told Louise Nibbs to put the Press Release out. It avoided comment and stuck to the facts. In answer to the Attorney General’s question, the following are the reasons I put it out.

Simon Thomas commented this week that he was anxious there should be no perception that the decisions to charge or not to charge suspects were being made under improper influence of factors other than evidence. I made the point to him, and make it again, that he and others do not seem able to grasp the fact that this perception is already there among the victims. They feel that the decisions are, and have been made in the past, on many factors other than the evidence. It is the need to avoid this perception that was uppermost in my mind in releasing the factual Media statement that evening.

One of the most heartening features of this enquiry has been the trust placed in the officers by very vulnerable victims and witnesses. This is despite them being on many occasions very badly let down by a number of agencies when they have previously tried to report crimes against them. This trust has been based on a foundation of openness and transparency together with an obvious determination to get to the truth. It is in marked contrast to the total contempt that the victims hold the Attorney General and his office in. So suspicious of that office are they, that many victims remain sceptical about the possibility of ever bringing the people who abused them to justice. The need to overcome the doubts victims had about the States of Jersey Police was one of the reasons why we agreed the policy of not arresting anyone until we had submitted the file to the lawyer working with us. In this way we avoided the scenario, seen so often in the UK, of a succession of suspects being brought into custody and then released without charge.
Such a scenario in this case would have damaged the credibility of the investigation and risked us being placed in the same category as those agencies the victims do not trust. This is illustrated by a briefing I have had from the NSPCC Counsellor working alongside us. He has received a text message from a victim (which he has showed me) to say "It is a joke. Another two walk away. No wonder no one will come forward." Here is an illustration of the need for us to maintain our distance and our independence from the office of the Attorney General, and a stark reason for the release.

However, the agreement mentioned above has not worked as planned or indeed promised. Files have been submitted, some of them not very complex and indeed, no more complicated than the normal type file dealt with on a daily basis by the PPU. The time to turn them around by the legal team has been frustratingly long. There is no intention to criticise the ability of the “dedicated” lawyer here, but it is obvious that he has a number of commitments in the UK which makes it difficult for him to be here. The debacle over the Bonner case is one example. As stated above, the officers concerned are adamant that they were given the go ahead to charge; subject to the usual conditions that nothing significant occurred during the arrest process or interviews. If this had not been the case, no arrest would have been made. The actions of the UK lawyer himself hardly seem to corroborate the picture of someone giving serious consideration to an evolving investigation with prisoners in custody. Some UK and even Jersey law practitioners may find it rather bizarre that a lawyer found it acceptable to carry out such work on the platform of a busy railway station.

A further example of the poor service given to us is illustrated by the Maguire case. The importance of this case to our enquiry is obvious to all, including the media. The Deputy SIO and I have continually emphasised this to Simon Thomas.

We delivered the file to Simon on the 29th April. The investigators, the Deputy SIO, and I regularly asked him for progress reports. These were not really forthcoming even when he was in Jersey. I had to speak to a Jersey lawyer with experience of extradition to clarify one point. I then spoke to a CPS expert on Extradition to clarify something else in an attempt to speed things up. In mid June I was told by Simon that he and Cyril Whelan had almost finished the work on the charges. Then we were told that the AG had asked for full advice files on the facts and the law. We realised the need for this but were firm in seeking assurances from the lawyers that this would be done quickly. Stephen Baker, after some debate, undertook that the AG would be fully advised within seven days. That period expired last week and the investigating officers e mailed Simon Thomas in the UK and asked if it had been done. The reply from Simon Thomas was “I will answer this question next week.”

This answer to a reasonable and sensible question beggars belief, and is another example of the shoddy and unprofessional service which we are receiving. To return to the question of perception, what sort of perception would this give to the public if they knew of it? Meanwhile, the Maguires remain in France, although we are told by the lawyers that our fear of them absconding is not supported by their information. This is despite that our intelligence comes from those who found them in the first place.

In summary, I issued the Press Release to explain to the public, but mainly the victims, why these two suspects had been released. I feel, as do the investigators, that we were badly let down by the legal advice delivered from afar. The three pieces of “new evidence”, even to a police officer, were transparently no such thing. As the conversation unfurled it became obvious that even Simon Thomas did not truly believe that what he was describing to me was evidence. I could not work out, and am still unable to work out, what really did prompt the change of heart and the revision of the advice. I have refused to speculate on that but was determined that the States of Jersey Police would not be criticised for the decision. Subsequent events proved that this was a justifiable fear with the Deputy Home Affairs Minister describing to me how a number of members of the Council of Ministers were already gleefully talking about another “Police Cock Up” in bringing these suspects in and not charging them.


It is also probably pertinent to include some reference in this report to the expressed view of the Attorney General, and indeed the Minister, that the circulation list for this and other police press releases is “too wide and encourages wider comment.” These comments show a distinct lack of awareness of dealing with the media in this type of situation. The list has evolved from the early days of the enquiry because when the first media releases were made, the Press Officer was immediately deluged with media outlets demanding to know why they had not received the release and asking why we were hiding it from them. Apart from an impression of reluctance to communicate, this heavy demand led to our phone systems being blocked, (at one point the Press Officer had 128 messages waiting), and caused unnecessary stress to our staff. It was also expensive in time and cost to send out a Press Release so many times, not to mention extremely unprofessional. Several weeks ago the Press Officer contacted everyone on the list and asked if she could take them off. Only three agreed and they are now removed.

Another aspect and implication of the Attorney General’s comment which he might like to reflect on is what would happen if we did indeed cut our circulation list. When the inevitable questions arrived from the media all over the world and we told them that we had removed them from out list, they would without doubt ask why. When we gave the truthful answer that the AG thought it a good idea to curtail circulation and a wider coverage they just might, in the light of the many allegations of cover up against his office, think that they had here positive evidence of the “wilful obstruction” which he was recently accused of. No matter how unjust that might be, it would be an obvious outcome.

Submitted for onward transmission to the Attorney General.

Leonard Harper, Deputy Chief OfficerChief OfficerDocument

Reader Major Incident Room (For Registration)
29th June 2008

Oh dear, will Jersey even be able to rid itself of this matter or will it hang around forever? The boil needs to be lanced otherwise it will keep on festering.

Spirit wrote:Oh dear, will Jersey even be able to rid itself of this matter...

Well you can't remove the actual events that have happened from history, but then the public do not know what has or hasn't happened.

The handling of the media throughout the investigation has been appalling, and that started with the then DCO Harpers Sunday morning announcement of the discovery of child remains. Which however he tries to spin it was simply not true at the time and he did nothing to avoid his remarks being sensationalised.

That so little evidence has been uncovered to corroborate the statements of the complainants can be viewed equally easily to suggest that the evidence never existed or it did, but has been covered-up.

We can't accuse people of such serious crimes unless those accusations can be proven in a court of law, and DCO Harper should know that; so why does he still make public statements that imply his own views on a person's innocence despite the legal opinion that there is not enough evidence to make those claims. Harper is not trustworthy in my opinion, and that's an opinion shared by more than one of his own colleagues from conversations I've had with them prior to this investigation starting.

And yet he has the cheek to brand others unprofessional!

Jersey will be rid of this matter when the investigation has been exhausted and justice has been done through the court.... But if no evidence is found to bring convictions many people will no doubt continue to cry cover-up rather than ever except that there may simply not have been the crimes they imagine.

Mischas wrote:Reading all of Troy's posts on this subject, I cant help but ask, WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE?

It seems that way does it not Michas.........

Pete Burtenshaw wrote:

Mischas wrote:Reading all of Troy's posts on this subject, I cant help but ask, WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE?

It seems that way does it not Michas.........

I won't go down the pedantic route of pointing out another of your posts that doesn't make grammatical sense, but I will point out that I have answered Mischas questions above.

Of course that you read guilt into anything does not surprise me, having read the rambling nonsense of your previous posts.

Pete, other than your bowel movements gut feelings, have you actually provided any reasonable argument for why you think it's okay to assume guilt, in direct opposition with centuries old practice of most justice systems?

You'll have to excuse me if I prefer my justice served by gavel rather than pitch fork, but please stop insinuating that I have anything to hide, when you clearly no nothing about me; you've apologised once already for not realising what the words you were committing to the page meant, and yet you vaguely insinuate wrong doing again. Either start making sense and posting facts or thought through opinion, or shut up.

Troy McClure wrote:

Pete Burtenshaw wrote:

Mischas wrote:Reading all of Troy's posts on this subject, I cant help but ask, WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE?

It seems that way does it not Michas.........

I won't go down the pedantic route of pointing out another of your posts that doesn't make grammatical sense, but I will point out that I have answered Mischas questions above.

Of course that you read guilt into anything does not surprise me, having read the rambling nonsense of your previous posts.

Pete, other than your bowel movements gut feelings, have you actually provided any reasonable argument for why you think it's okay to assume guilt, in direct opposition with centuries old practice of most justice systems?

You'll have to excuse me if I prefer my justice served by gavel rather than pitch fork, but please stop insinuating that I have anything to hide, when you clearly no nothing about me; you've apologised once already for not realising what the words you were committing to the page meant, and yet you vaguely insinuate wrong doing again. Either start making sense and posting facts or thought through opinion, or shut up.

Pete's post made perfect sense to me. Perhaps it is YOU that should shut up Troy.

I find your remarks offensive to say the least. Over 90 people have come forward with complaints, are you saying that ALL of them made it up, that no abuse ever happened?

Surely 90 people would'nt come forward with made up stories about their time a HDLG.

To the victims that have come forward and that are no doubt feeling very betrayed at this time, my heart goes out to you. I hope that you will be able to put all this trauma behind you at some point and get on with your lives as best you can under these terrible circumstances.

Mischas wrote:...I find your remarks offensive to say the least...

Really? Which and why?

Mischas wrote:... Over 90 people have come forward with complaints, are you saying that ALL of them made it up, that no abuse ever happened?...

I very much doubt that all 90+ complainants are lying, but I'm sure not all 90 have made complaints of serious abuse and or murder, and I'm sure not all would be happy to brand 100% of today's States Members as complicit or corrupt, as has been done in this thread: Are you saying otherwise, and if not, how do you distinguish between the validity of the complaints and the action to be taken or sentences passed down against those complained against? I've already answered the second part of your question question earlier in this thread.

Mischas wrote:...Surely 90 people would'nt come forward with made up stories about their time a HDLG....

A fair statement, which I've no reason to and never have disputed, but that said I know of two former care home residents who decided to jump on the band wagon having never had a problem with the care they received until the stories of others were printed in the JEP. In part they're hoping for a financial pay-out.

Mischas wrote:...To the victims that have come forward and that are no doubt feeling very betrayed at this time, my heart goes out to you...

Again, I agree, as I'm sure the vast majority do with this sentiment. However, it's worth noting that a 'feeling' of betrayal does not actually make betrayal fact.

Troy, you make assumptions regarding my bowel movements, on what grounds do you make these assumptions??

I never expected this thread to have a toilet humour aspect!

There seems to be 2 issues here, One is child abuse which the level of people that have come forward would indicate that there is little or no doubt that it happened, but thrown into the pot are remains that seem they could be older than all the abuse claimes, also they could be hundreds of years old so are we looking at a Murder enquiry or is that really a red herring.

I feel the discovery of the bones and teeth have in fact made it harder to deal with the almost certain child abuse claims because of the more serious POSSIBLE Murder enquiry,

It would be better now that all the evidence has been collected to forget about the Murders, for now and deal with the abuses, if during the abuse investigations something relating to the muders (if in fact thats what happened) turns up, fine.

But these people who were abused need justice NOW and before the ones that did it are dead or too old to stand trial.

Whats the point in wasteing time on a crime that might have happened and not deal with the crimes that did, If murder is eventually prooved then a little more time wont matter as we dont have an identified body with grieving families waiting for answers, YET

Interesting editorial about this in the Press today

Pete Burtenshaw wrote:Troy, you make assumptions regarding my bowel movements, on what grounds do you make these assumptions??

I actually said 'gut feeling', and its not an assumption I've made, but an admission you made earlier.
Here:

Pete Burtenshaw wrote:I work on the assumption that the Jsy gov is corrupt and have blocked, corrupted, threatened, made death threats against the Police officer leading the investigation and do not want the truth to come out or the prosecution of those involved and will do all they can to ensure the investigation comes to nothing. There are some very powerful poeple in Jsy who have blood on their hands.

And based on your erroneous assumption here:

Pete Burtenshaw wrote:...You are defending someone make no mistake and at some stage in the past you have had a run in with Lenny Harper and because of this your opinions are blinkered...

Which you must have arrived at by means other than factual information.

THREE former residents of Jersey children’s homes have announced that they are suing the States in a move which could result in multi-million pound compensation pay-outs.

Anna Reaney and two others, who did not want to be named, are the first Islanders to seek redress in the courts for the alleged abuse that they suffered while in care.

They will be represented by the same Dublin-based law firm which successfully won 1.2 billion euros in compensation for 14,000 people abused by Catholic clergy in Ireland. Lawyers working for the firm Lavelle Coleman also secured public apologies from former Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahearn and the Pope.

Lavelle Coleman have agreed to work on the case for nothing and will take no share in any payouts. The announcement of the launch of a lawsuit was made on Saturday at a public meeting called by Jersey Care Leavers Association, which was formed to support former residents of children’s homes.(from thisisjersey)

(

Well put it this way, the burden of proof is lower during the hearing of a civil case than that of a criminal case, so the outcome will be very interesting to read.

I'm sorry, but I've sat across a table from Lennie Harper and listened incredulous as he categorically stated his interest was not in justice, but in 'keeping the peace'. Funny how his principles change to suit his own needs or wants. The guy's a hypocrite.