On BBC Radio Jersey he was telling the listeners that things have changed since the promise of an inquiry was made back in 2008. He told us that back then people believed there were children’s bodies found up at Haute de la Garenne which turned out not to be true. The more astute listener would have picked up that he said there were no “bodies” - not that there were no body “parts”. With that in mind I sent the following e-mail to the Senator.
To Ian le Marquand
Date Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 9:35 AM
Subject "Part" 1
Senator.
After listening to your interview the other day on BBC Radio Jersey where you said there were no "bodies" found at HDLG which is one of the "reasons" the COM's won't be supporting a committee of inquiry I became intrigued, or curious, and hope you can help by answering a few questions for me, so there is no confusion and those dreaded conspiracy theories can be kept at bay?
1. Were you choosing your words carefully when you said there were no "bodies" and not "body parts"
2. Are you in agreement with me that there were numerous juvenile body parts recovered at HDLG?
3. Going by the "evidence" that is in the public domain would you say, on the balance of probabilities that if children weren't murdered at HDLG, child's remains were disposed of up there?
4. What "evidence" are you able to provide to "prove" how a piece of child's skull containing 1.6% collagen (only found in Mammals) can turn into a piece of Coconut?
Kind Regards.
VFC. (End)
I am not expecting a reply to that e-mail because Senator Le Marquand has proved unable or unwilling to answer any questions that involve “proof” and “evidence” especially when it comes to Jar/6 (the skull)
So let’s start with the myths and evidence surrounding the child’s skull (Jar/6) that was recovered at Haute de la Garenne or the “Coconut” as the “accredited” media like to call it.
Deputy Daniel Wimberley: (d) provide a full and proper audit trail of the emails concerning the finds JAR/6 and SLJ/1?
Senator Ian Le Marquand: (d) I do not understand what is meant by "audit trails of e-mails". However, this appears to also be referring to statements or other evidence.(End) Now that is what's classed as an "answer" in the world of Ian Le Marquand.
Why Deputy Wimberley was concerned about the audit trail of JAR/6 is explained in an extract from an e-mail from SOJP Anthroplogist Julie Roberts here "On 8 and 9 April 2008 I re-examined JAR/6. Since I initially examined the fragment it had dried out considerably and changed in colour, texture and weight." (my emphasis).
So it changed in colour, texture and weight? How could this happen? Which is a question I put the Former SIO Lenny Harper. I wanted to know if there was any chance that this piece of evidence could have been switched? And this is what he told me.
"we sent it (JAR/6) to the carbon dating lab in oxford. Not only did they cock that process up, (as per the collagen e mails) but they unlawfully and without authority sent the exhibit to at least two other people without even a proper tracking audit. This rendered the exhibit inadmissible and unusable in court as we could not prove it was the same item we found and sent to them."
Which is a clear and concice answer unlike the "answer" given to Deputy Wimberley by the Home Affairs Minister, Senator Le Marquand. Perhaps Deputy Wimberley might consider asking the question again? Because the "evidence" does point towards a "switch."
Then we have the accusation, or myth, that Mr. Harper just dug Haute de la Garenne up on a whim and that it was a waste of tax payers money etc. But alongside those accusations and myths we have this “Summary Report” which tends to blow those myths clean out of the water. Not withstanding the dig was endorsed by the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) after meeting a very stringent 5 phase criteria. We will look to publish the entire NPIA Report in the coming days.
On top of this we have a log entry that describes bone that was “fresh and fleshed” when burnt. In her log Julie Roberts documents a telephone conversation she has with Professor Chamberlain of Sheffield Uni. It speaks for itself.
1 May 2008
“I received a telephone update from Professor Chamberlain. He said that preliminary analysis had shown that the fragments KSH137 were almost certainly human juvenile bone, but he wanted to confirm his findings by comparing them to a known juvenile sample. He also stated that the bones were in a good condition and he felt that they had sufficient collagen in them for C14 dating to be successful. He also stated that the bones were slightly burnt and that in his opinion this had occurred when the remains were still fresh and fleshed as no microbial activity was evident.”
So according to Professor Camberlain "the bones were in a good condition and he felt that they had sufficient collagen in them for C14 dating? Would that be the same collagen that only exists in Mammals, the same collagen that was found in JAR/6?
The report written by Professor Chamberlain is another of those Reports that seems to have vanished into thin air, fallen through a gap in the floor boards or fallen into the notorious shredder along with the hand written notes of Graham Power's suspension meeting.
We will look to obtain and publish the entire Report soon but for now we re-produce a redacted part of it in order to place a little more "evidence" in the public domain.
The bone material shows features that are diagnostically human and most likely represent the remains of a juvenile person. The state of preservation of the remains indicates that they had been exposed to heat but this had been insufficient to cause much biomolecular damage (indeed, by sterilising the material the heating may have had the effect of reducing the opportunity for subsequent microbial damage to occur). The material is sufficiently well preserved to enable further chemical analysis including extraction of collagen for radiocarbon dating and dietary isotopic analysis, and the state of preservation of the material may render it suitable for the extraction and characterisation of biomarkers such as DNA. (End) Any idea's how that Report managed to be forotten, or vanished, in all this?
He claims that no “bodies” were recovered or un-covered so there are no questions that need answering there. Taken from the "Summary Report" there are people who will want to find out what happened to this lot?
Other burnt bone fragments were also recovered from the context within this area.
The EVRD alert indications were confirmed by intrusive archaeological excavation and sieving. A significant number of bone fragments and teeth have been recovered which have been corroborated as human.
Predominantly the human remains have been recovered from cellars 3, 4 and 5 which historically were one large classroom.
Enquiries at this time are suggestive that the human remains were deposited in this area and covered with top soil in a deliberate act of concealment. The deposition could only have taken place during a period of time when the floor had been removed. Research into the historical renovation of the property suggests that the floor above cellars 3, 4 &5 was taken up in the late 60’s early 70’s.
Karl Harrison’s archaeological theory of the burnt debris including human bone fragments and teeth being deposited in the east wing cellars from the west wing is contained within this report. This theory is suggestive that the solid fuel furnace in operation in the west wing around the time of 1960 – 1970 may have been used to dispose of human remains.
Enquiries to date are showing that the original solid fuel central heating and hot water supply furnace in the west wing was replaced in the late 60’s early 70’s with oil fired furnaces. This may have coincided with the floor in cellars 3, 4 & 5 being removed. This would explain the deposition of the bone fragments and teeth with ash deposits as being the
waste from the furnace upon decommissioning. It would also suggest some element of ‘guilty knowledge’.
The tests clearly indicated the presence of human remains decomposition scent.
Remains identified by the resident forensic anthropologist Miss Julie Roberts as human, and items of interest to the enquiry, have been submitted for forensic analysis.
Forty eight human deciduous teeth have been recovered to date. Twenty six of which are presently in the UK being examined to identify the number of individuals from whom they originate.
Numerous bone fragments are being examined at Sheffield University for histology purposes.
The meticulous search of Haut De La Garenne has now been completed and the building handed over to Property Services. Evidence has been obtained to support the abuse enquiry and suggestive evidence that the remains of at least one child were present within the structure of the building.
A significant amount of human remains have been recovered that is suggestive of foul play in relation to the cause of death and guilty knowledge during deposition.
65 Human deciduous teeth
Numerous human bone fragments
It would appear at this stage that the remains were deposited into the area of cellars 3,4 &5 having been removed from a secondary deposition site in the west wing. They were then distributed evenly over the ground and covered with a layer of top soil so as to conceal the deposition from all but the most meticulous scrutiny. (End)
This, of course, only deals with the un-answered questions of human remains. Team Voice will be asking a lot more questions that have not been answered, and we’re sure readers, and States Members, will have a few of their own.