If I was indeed guilty, and there was any actual evidence of anything I have been accused of lately, of course, it is highly likely that I would be serving a lengthy prison sentence by now.

Accusations have been flying around social media and Alt Media blogs for more than a year now, none of which have any basis in fact, and any visible evidence has been noticeably absent.

For example: making a YouTube video reading carefully selected snippets from an article taken from this site, manipulated to suit the purpose of said video, is not ‘evidence’ of anything, except maybe the obvious desperation of the narrator, and an intense desire to deflect from the actual facts.

“Evidence: broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as incircumstantial evidence.” WIKIPEDIA

Gossip, Innuendo, Rumour or baseless accusations, entirely constructed around fantasy or whisper campaigns conducted by means of Direct Messages on Twitter, are not ‘Evidence’ either.

Whenever I write about the North Wales Child Abuse scandal, to use only one example, I have been screamed at by my accuser to ‘look to Waterhouse’ for the ‘Evidence’.

I have stated previously my own feelings in regard to the failings of the North Wales Child Abuse Tribunal, not only as I believe it to have been a cover-up, but also if the original allegations had been investigated and reported correctly, the £13.8M spent on the Enquiry, could have been saved.

Nonetheless, I took the advice of my accuser and spent some time over the weekend reading through the 900+ pages of the ‘Lost in Care Report,’ as there were some things that to me, have simply never added up.

For example, on Page 408, Chapter 35:18, the following details can be found:

“11 former residents of Y Gwyngyll, between 1981 and 1986 made allegations to the police that they had been abused by identified members of the staff”…… “Of these, only two alleged that they had suffered ‘SEXUAL ABUSE,’….” One was a former boy resident identified as ‘D’ in Paragraph 33:70″

From the paragraphs above, it is noted that the witness’s credibility was attacked by Counsel with particular severity on the grounds, amongst others, that they had “been part of a conspiracy…. and both had appeared on television to do so.”

So, it would appear that the witnesses had been prominent in the media, where they had no doubt reinforced their earlier allegations to the police, which had the result of their credibility being questioned, with good reason, at the North Wales Child Abuse Tribunal.

My question was, during the numerous interviews they had given to the Mainstream Media, did either of the witnesses ever deny that any ‘Sexual Abuse’ had taken place, which they had earlier reported to the police and the Tribunal?

I ask this, simply because following the article that appeared in the Daily Mirror in February 2000, Witness D, successfully sued the the editor of said newspaper, Piers Morgan for £10,000 for reporting that he was indeed, ‘Sexually Abused.’

Can you see my problem?

The credibility of many of the tribunal witnesses has been the subject of much discussion, both during and for years following Waterhouse, not only because some of their allegations were shown to have been impossible to have occurred.

Allegations were made against some people, that were not even employed at the time they were alleged to have been, actively ‘abusing’ children in their care.

Some of the allegations of course, were genuine, the convictions obtained have shown this to be the case, so are rightly, not subject to similar scrutiny.

From this website anyway.

It is my guess, that now ‘evidence’ from the enquiry has been presented here, which if you remember, was the preferred source with which to judge the honesty and credibility of Witness D, there will be a rapid about turn… I can guarantee that.


9 thoughts on “WITNESS D

  1. Hmmmmm very clever, very clever indeed ! Shroud part of the enquiry in obfustication and double talk, with the old old story of subtly discrediting ‘viable’ witnesses and showing others to be obvious liars; whereas genuine witnesses with genuine grievences were not even given a voice to be heard and were just ignored. It’s back to Lord McA’s book again. Also methinks that they are doing this all over again with Fernbridge, whilst appearing to be ‘open and honest’ with the current investigations. And it shows. It’s like the spoils of war – History being written by the winners.
    PS. The 13.8 million ‘costs’ of Waterhouse – where did that money actually go, and who actually paid it ? To the Members who sat on the Hearing’s Panel, to the Lawyers for each side in each of the named protagonists/accused/witnesses. Certainly not that much to each of those found to have been ‘wronged’.

    1. You have both a keen eye for detail and valid questions which deserve answers Sophie.

      A cover-up that cost millions with the ones that most deserved to be heard, out in the cold yet again.

      An enquiry is not the place where the truth is of the highest priority it seems.

      Liars however, will always be given a hearing.

  2. That right there my friend, is the money shot – “back of the net” – as some would say. ; )
    All there in black & white and there can be no denying it. The official story for all to see, if only they stopped believing the hype & frantic Tweeters & re-Tweeters & actually started reading the official words for themselves.

    All this info right in front of their noses, yet the panto ensued, right there in the public domain.

    Leading us to where we are today, the bit part actors shouting the odds & forcing their lies & dis-info on everyone – desperately trying to cover the facts.

    But as you say, you were told many times by he who shouted the loudest to look at Waterhouse – it’s all in there – & so you did and indeed it is. The back up being somewhere within “200 interviews” or so the shouters “own words” proclaim. Probably some of the few truest words shouted.

    What next I wonder? Guess we’ll soon see.

  3. P.S. £13.8 MILL is big money even today – imagine how much bigger it would have been back then. £10k would have been a decent whack too, especially for suing someone for saying something that had been officially documented.
    As you say, lots of people made a lot of money out of it, but not the genuine survivors of abuse – the same one’s who get to keep on paying for it, every time someone decides to dig this all up & the usual suspects employ ‘Operation Damage Limitation’, for the sake of careers, politics, secrets & lies.

    I don’t think it’ll be quite as easy this time around. The www is a wonderful resource, as long as you be careful who & what you trust.

  4. So, Witness D told the enquiry that he had sexual encounters when he was about 16 years old with a female student member of staff but then sued a newspaper for saying that he had been sexually abused. Although, if he was over 16 and it was a female he was technically ‘of age’, it would still be an abuse of her position as a staff member. So, he gives evidence to the tribunal and police, which indicates that he believes that it was sexual abuse but then sues a newspaper for saying the same? Says a lot for his credibility as a witness doesn’t it? Surely, he can not have it both ways. If his evidence to the tribunal was correct, then surely he would have to pay back the money he received from the newspaper?

    1. That is the thought of many people.

      Yet this person calls others ‘Abuse Jockeys’ who ride on the back of victims…

  5. He also was waiting in the wings to defend Gordon Anglesea in the libel trial after it was alleged by the press that GA was a paedophile, but strangely enough, last year he declared in writing that GA was involved with some ‘dodgy child molesters’ along with the North Wales Police.

    The press would have known all this, so why did they pay him off? Was it all part of the plan or is he just 1 of the biggest victim jockeys that has leeched off genuine abuse survivors for decades or both? Both I think.

  6. I see No.1 scum bag VJ is back with veiled threats. Ah well, at least the evil scum bag won’t get to ride off the backs of GENUINE survivors ever again. Do not pass go, do not collect £10k for being a lying, cheating, plank thick piece of scum.

    Poor kids, what hope do some have with such mongrels as parents?

  7. Thank you so much for this post. It confirms everything that I have discovered about the liars who falsely accused some good people in the child care industry in North Wales of being Paedophiles and child abusers. Thank You Thank You

Comments are closed.