CROSS POSTED ON BYLINE.COM
UPDATE: Since this article was published a fresh source has come forward to my colleague Mark Conrad, who also wrote about Elm Guest House, showing that Carol Kasir was born Carol Linda Jones in the West Riding of Yorkshire on 4 July 1942 and was never born in Germany. She and her family grew up in south London. Carol moved to the USA with her mother when she was a teenager, but did not like the States and soon returned.There is no direct family link to the name Weichmann – Carol’s relatives think she made up the name, or adopted it to cover her background, before she married Harry. Harry would have thought her maiden name was Weichmann as it was declared on her marriage certificate.
They revive the whole business of whether the venue for consenting gay adults was used as a haunt for paedophiles. I have written today with Keir Mudie, the Mirror’s deputy political editor, an article about it in the Sunday People and it is also on the Mirror website here.
The verdict by the Hammersmith coroner way back in 1990 was that she committed suicide – and given two suicide notes were found – so it should have been a slam dunk case.
But other people who gave evidence thought she might have been killed because she was alleged to have kept records and photographs of some of the visitors who came there – one of whom the Met police confirmed was Sir Cyril Smith, whom even the biggest naysayers about VIP paedophilia, would have difficulty today making a case that he was innocent.
What is extraordinary is that the Met Police did a recent investigation – Operation Fernbridge- into Elm Guest House and a Richmond Council children’s home Grafton Close – that led to the conviction of a Roman Catholic priest Tony McSweeney and the arrest and charging of the deputy manager of the home, John Stingmore on child sexual abuse. Yet they told an MP Tom Watson, now Labour’s deputy leader, who raised questions about the case, that all the papers relating to Kasir at the inquest had been destroyed.
That is plainly not the case as these redacted documents show. I understand that more recently the police may have checked back though there is no evidence that they are re-opening the Richmond investigation.
McSweeney was not charged with anything about Elm Guest House only in connection with the children’s home and abuse at Stingemore’s flat in Bexhill. Stingemore was charged with one count involving Elm Guest House but he died just before the case was due to come to court. So it was never tested in court.
What the documents do show illustrates how difficult it is to investigate historical child sexual abuse and the mass of contradictions -surrounding the story.
They even go down to Carole Kasir’s name in the document. The official record gives her name as Weichman and born on 4 July 1942 in Germany. Her marriage certificate I have recently learnt has Weichman as her father and her estranged husband at the time said her name was Weichman. But a close relative who should know said her maiden name was Carole Anne Jones and she was born in London.
The documents also raise questions about her suicide and here even the accounts are contradictory. Her GP, David Walker, who she had been a patient at his practice for 14 years, reveals she did have a history earlier of suicide, was diabetic and had a drink problem. But he concludes that she was NOT the type of person he expected to commit suicide.
The toxicology report from New Cross Hospital confirms she died from hypoglycemia and an overdose of insulin. But the examination did not bother to check the syringes or phials or the contents of her stomach. No alcohol was discovered.
But the most contentious and sensational evidence came from other witnesesses One insisted that he had seen a pile of photographs of prominent people and documents naming which VIPs came there at her home and another claimed she was being pursued by the security services and the police.
One piece of evidence from the inquest does chime with the Metropolitan Police’s answer to Channel 4 Dispatches is the involvement of Sir Cyril Smith. The detailed evidence to the inquest included a story that the overweight MP broke her toilet and wouldn’t pay for the repair which added a further dispute. between him and her.
The inquest also took evidence from Richmond Council where Mr Jeffries, director of social services, admitted that Stingemore was a paedophile convicted in 1983 -a year after he left Richmond Council.
But Terry Earland, the head of children’s services, suspected that boys were being taken to Elm Guest House from Grafton Close earlier under Stingemore’s care. This appeared not to be taken up by the then director of social services, Louis Minster who then suddenly resigned from the council.
Now you might say as many naysayers do, why should we be bothered. It is all in the past and we should move on. But I bet none of these people have looked into the eyes of people who have been abused and seen the havoc and destruction they have faced years after the event. They would prefer to just call them fantasists and say none of this probably happened anyway.
That is why we have an independent inquiry at the moment looking into historic child sexual abuse and certainly looking at the evidence it has already dredged out of the sexual abuse of children at Knowl View School in Rochdale by Cyril Smith there was a cover up as well as abuse.
That is why painstakingly we need to get the nearest we can to the truth and pretending document’s don’t exist is not a way to get there.
When I was a rentboy I often serviced Cyril Smith at the Strand Palace Hotel in the Charringcross Road. Cyril was unbelievably brutal and made me dress up as a Boy Scout. He used to give me thirty bob and my bus fare home.
SPH near the Liberal HQ at Exchange Court where new boys and girls employed as messengers etc were warned by the senior manager not to stay in a room with Smith alone. Why therefore did not the Libs do something about Smith? Was it because they had other skeletons in their ‘broom cupboards’?
The convenient excuse by plod and their political masters, for ignoring the excesses of certain Liberal politicians was to say that the rumours of sexual offences surrounding them, was a plot orchestrated by BOSS, the South African security service, in order to discredit the Liberal Party for their campaign against apartheid.
You poor thing, it must have been awful, how old were you when you starting being a rent boy? Did you have any other famous abusers that were either political figures or in show business?
Do you believe that many sexual abuse victims go on to become abusers themselves?
genius post well done !
LikeLiked by 1 person
Astonishing to see you return to this load of rubbish, Hencke, though interesting to see Mark Watts – your co-conspirator at Exaro – also blathering about the same subject & adopting similar tactics to your own: wilfully spinning the boring facts of the matter in the most sensational way possible. (Records were “destroyed”, for example, without mentioning that this is exactly what usually happens to them, etc.)
Let’s whiz through this for the benefit of any late-comers who may be suckered into believing this all hasn’t been dealt with previously.
1) This claim:
“Stingemore was charged with one count involving Elm Guest House but he died just before the case was due to come to court. So it was never tested in court.”
It’s a shame that you didn’t mention the following:
– while “Stingmore” as your appalling Mirror piece elects to name him – and it’s a misspelling you also slip into here – was still alive and with an upcoming court case to look forward to you/Exaro very specifically made plain that NO charge was connected to Elm.
– only once the obviously unwell Stingemore was obviously dead did you claim otherwise.
– you have been challenged to back this up repeatedly but to date have been unable to do so.
So I’ll have yet another go: please provide the full details of the “one count involving Elm Guest House”, including, specifically the way in WHICH it ‘involved’ Elm Guest House. Assuming there is/was an alleged victim let’s hear about their allegation; their age would also be helpful given your previous form of bamboozling the gullible by neglecting to mention that a ‘victim’ of ‘abuse’ at your ‘paedo brothel’ would have been a prostitute in his twenties.
“One SOURCE believes a fresh probe may expose a cover-up and reveal that Mrs Kasir, 47, who was found dead in her bed in 1990, had been murdered.”
“The house in Barnes, South West London, was SAID to have been used for child sexual abuse by VIP paedos in the 1980s.”
“But other PEOPLE who gave evidence thought she might have been killed…”
“But the most contentious and sensational evidence came from other WITNESSES.”
“ONE insisted that he had seen a pile of photographs of prominent people and documents naming which VIPs came there at her home and ANOTHER claimed she was being pursued by the security services and the police.”
Etcetera. So many sources! So many witnesses!
Why so reluctant to name them, Hencke? Let me help you!
The sources are the following:
Chris Fay: convicted criminal & compulsive liar.
Clive Godden: deranged stalker & compulsive liar.
Mad Mary Moss: certifiable basket case.
Together they flogged a completely different tale of paedo-nastiness to the ‘papers when funding was drying up. It did not involve Elm though unsurpisingly DID involve the same poor bastard they’ve been using to peddle this filth ever since. Exaro also exploited him. It went nowhere. (Brief resume: paedo videos of children being killed by motorbikes & Rolls Royce-driving toffs drugging & kidnapping “witnesses” from Mad Mary’s very own gaff, etc. What a tale!)
A short time afterwards Kasir dies, so spotting the opportunity up they pop again with a “list” and utter bullshit about “photographs in saunas”. Is there a good reason why the ruthless powers that be decided to allow Kasir to hang onto these (imaginary) pics long enough to show to the wretched Fay? Unfortunately – though unsurprisingly! – Fay didn’t manage to make copies, though how could THEY have known that? Oh, I forgot: the imaginary attempt on his life when an imaginary bullet was blasted into his very-real hovel!
You state that “[t]hat is why painstakingly we need to get the nearest we can to the truth…”
But every word you’ve written regarding your ‘paedo brothel’ fantasy has managed to do the exact opposite!
I suggest you assemble Fay, Godden & one or more of Moss’ many fluctuating identities – together with a real journalist – and set the camera rolling; five minutes is all it would take (including four minutes for adjusting sound-levels, etc.).
P.S. Your offensive offensive against the English language continues apace (“Fresh coroner’s papers”, etc.) but special mention for Kasir’s “history earlier of suicide” – what a corker! Well done!
I have put this up for my readers to see the true nature of a naysayer, Bandini from the Canary Islands normally appears on paedophile sympathising sites like those who believe Jimmy Savile is innocent and people whom claim to have been sexually abused are just liars and fantasists. he is not beyond encouraging people accused of abuse to sue anyone either.
he looks for holes in any case and because nobody is perfect ( except him) of course finds them. he spends his life in a rather nice part of the world fulminating against all and sundry rather than enjoying the sunshine. what a sad case!
here just for starters he is wrong about documents normally being destroyed. I am sitting on an independent panel examining another historical issue ( not to do with child abuse) going back to the 1990s and I can assure him the documents I am looking at are all there, especially if they relate to public proceedings. His view on this is pure rubbish.
As for the rest yes the witnesses are not perfect but he misses the whole point of the story, it is examining what the medical people thought ( of course no doubt he believes they are all liars as well) and the toxicology report which had not been released. ( he probably thinks it is a fake)
The Bandini world would be wonderful if true, no child sex abuse
exists and every person accused as innocent as driven snow.
I also note he never comments on the many other issues on the blog – presumably he thinks they are all made up as well – probably thinks the National Audit Office is a just a fantasy body made up by me.
The question i always ask the EGH deniers is simply this; if the list of attendees was an invention who made it up and why? Simply that. What was it meant to achieve? Who was it targeted at? Put another way who had it in for Pop Stars, Politicians (of all parties), the IRA, the Police Service, various civil servants. The high and mighty and the otherwise anonymous? one look at the list and it’s eclectic nature leaves me baffled. I have never received a sensible explanation.
“I have put this up for my readers to see the true nature of a naysayer, Bandini from the Canary Islands normally appears on paedophile sympathising sites like those who believe Jimmy Savile is innocent and people whom claim to have been sexually abused are just liars and fantasists. he is not beyond encouraging people accused of abuse to sue anyone either.”
The above is a complete ad hominem. In fact, it’s almost the definition of such.
You have a habit of responding with ad hominems to questions you don’t wish to answer, particularly on the EGH saga.
I thought I made it crystal clear that what interested me in the papers were the doctor’s view given she was a patient at the same practice for 14 years and the toxicology report. I was rather careful on my blog not to raise the stuff again naming a lot of VIPs with the exception of Sir Cyril Smith because it is obvious the Met who must have other information than i have, were happy to publicly say he had visited there.
Bandini whoever he is spends his entire life looking for mistakes and errors and crossed the line as far as I am concerned when he tried to get an agent of a prominent DJ to sue me because he disagreed with my interpretation of events. He is entitled to his views and am glad to say failed in his intent. I don’t respect people who have never met me put up posts on other blogs saying I am a shit and looking forward to my downfall. So I am afraid I have no sympathy for him whatsoever.
I would start from a different position, which is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
It seems to me that the claim that a vast network of powerful paedos, involving all three major political parties, knights of the realm, aristocrats, M15, etc, converged on one small guest house in south London to commit evil acts upon dozens of small boys seems to me an extraordinary claim.
Where are all the victims? David concedes that the testimony of the few alleged victims who have come forward may not necessarily be reliable enough to mount criminal prosecutions. Are we expected to believe that all the other victims are dead or so fearful that they are still afraid to come forward after 30 years? Sorry, I don’t find that plausible.
“How interesting to note that your fury is reserved not for the innocent victims of child abuse, but directed at those who investigate and threaten to expose it – and, equally, quite absurdly – for those who fail to reach your expectations in terms of literacy.”
“Interesting”? An ambiguous term, Victor. Perhaps “intriguing” might fit better. You’re spot on as far as the element of “superiority” is concerned.
tdf, I find myself rather struggling to remember your assiduousness at holding Susanne Nundy and Bandini to similar account for all their “ad hominems” over at the late Anna Raccoon blog.
“tdf, I find myself rather struggling to remember your assiduousness at holding Susanne Nundy and Bandini to similar account for all their “ad hominems” over at the late Anna Raccoon blog.”
Well, you’re wrong. I disagreed with Bandini on many occasions.
Susanne is dead, so leave it out, just for once, if you don’t mind. She was always nice to me, much as I also disagreed with her on many occasions.
Astonishing to see you crawl out of the woodwork again, Bandini, & allowed back here to spew your usual drivel. How interesting to note that your fury is reserved not for the innocent victims of child abuse, but directed at those who investigate and threaten to expose it – and, equally, quite absurdly – for those who fail to reach your expectations in terms of literacy. By the way, can’t help thinking a decent English master would have taught you not to indulge in quite so many exclamation marks!!! I must disagree with Mr Hencke on one point, however: the Canary Isles would be a nicer part of the world were it not for all the sad old soused Brits sitting in exile in the gloom of grubby ex-pat bars, wondering when it will be safe to go home. Probably never, Bandini. Cheers!!!
Yes thought Bandini should be given one airing just to illustrate the naysayer approach which ridicules every case of child sexual abuse and is supportive of anybody accused of abusing children. He did a good job in illustrating this. His further missives have not appeared though he has managed to get comments up on byline.com including a moan that he can’t get the latest ones on my site.
Do you remember challenging me to figure out your assumed identity, Bandini? I think I finally got it – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DFL0F0nKvo. Fantasy football, eh?
Wrong, Owen, completely wrong.
Bandini is in fact a pair of bikini bottoms!
Helpful hint: stop trying to guess the identities of people that post on the internets. It’s completely boring, and makes you look vaguely mad.
A cursory reading of the EGH story reveals the major initial data sources did not come from NAYPIC, rather from police surveillance operations in 1982, leading to the initial charging of Kasirs with keeping a disorderly house and living off immoral earnings. Mary Moss first engaged with Karole Kasir in 1987, when she was seeking help concerning her child in care.
The Press reports in 1982/3 state clearly that up to 30 suspects had been identified, including several VIPs. Furthermore, the hotel signing in book was obtained as evidence, rather stronger in nature than Mary Moss putting a list together.
The key questions are actually whether Rowe of MI5 or someone else in SIS/SB was actually filming in EGH, whether the surveillance operation was snapping arrival of guests and which children they interviewed as having been child prostitutes at EGH in 1982, not 1989.
Also key is knowledge of who tipped off VIP guests before the planned raid in 1982. MI5 or Special Branch is the obvious answer and names should be bandied about for perverting the course of justice….
I am sure you have suitably derogatory things to say about the police officers who briefed a bunch of journalists who were obviously unprincipled alcoholics…..
The police had contacted the Grafton Close children’s home way in advance of the raid to try to pre-arrange placements at the children’s home in case they found any children in the Elm Guest House who were victims of sexual exploitation, whether they did this wittingly or unwittingly is difficult to say but I’d be inclined based on solid evidence such as the deliberate negligence of the police regarding Jimmy Savile, Cyril Smith, Peter Hayman, the North Wales child sexual abuse scandal in the 1980s etc. There are numerous news reports all about how GCHQ Masonic Lodge, Mercurius aka The Spy Lodge was directly linked into that shit in North Wales too..
The head of Grafton Close children’s home at that time was a serial paedophile as well as other staff there and a priest who was arrested in connection with Grafton Close children’s home, and it is beyond all reasonable doubt the staff of that children’s home had notified the Elm Guest House of the raid well in advance.. so, yes, it’s sinister and the Special Branch (MI5 police intelligence) definitely gave the nod to Grafton Close staff and this is well documented too!
Pingback: “EXCLUSIVE: how newly found ‘destroyed’ papers revive the mystery of the notorious gay and paedophile Elm Guest House” | David Hencke | BOYCIE'S BLOGS: REINFORCING THE UK'S NEED FOR AN ANTI-TORY/DUP REVOLUTION
I know from experience it’s hard enough to get anything done in relatively recent cases….say from the early 1990s to the present day/ ongoing. Doug Hogg is the only MP involved in my case, as far as I know…but it is somewhat different. I’d settle in a heartbeat ‘out of court’ simply for papers so i would have some chance of building an actual life now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Was owner of a paedophile palace who kept list of secret VIP visitors murdered? Newly discovered files… | goodnessandharmony
I am not surprised that you elect to start from a different position, my position is difficult for those who seek to dismiss the EGH theories, and I still have no clear answer as to how and why the list may have been “invented”.
I do not find it “extraordinary” that EGH should become a focus of paedophile activity from a wide range of backgrounds; particularly if it were known as a location where crimes could be committed with impunity, that message would soon spread. Given the rank and position of many of the clientele there must have been quiet confidence that a raid was unlikely, and that secrecy was guaranteed. Indeed it might be argued that the luxury of immunity and concealment persists to this day.
I believe the Official Secrets Act and the threat of loss of pension if not prison inhibits a lot of people from coming forward, and having worked in a tight knit investigative group for many years I do not underestimate the bond or code of honour that can develop. As for the young boys I have no idea how many have come forward, or indeed how many are still alive. i do know that across the board there are many dozens more who claim abuse than the one or two individuals that are thrown up as examples of how ridiculous the whole thing is.
“I am not surprised that you elect to start from a different position, my position is difficult for those who seek to dismiss the EGH theories, and I still have no clear answer as to how and why the list may have been “invented”.”
To be clear, I don’t elect to start from a different position, I just go where the evidence seems to lead, and currently, from where I’m sitting, it’s much more likely to be a scam than anything else, in my view.
On the rest of your post, points taken. But the fact that one of the main propagators of the EGH VIP abuse scandal claims is a convicted fraudster is in my view indicative.
“I would start from a different position” seems pretty clear to me. We will not agree tdf because at the end of the day it comes down to the weight we each give to different issues.
What I do think is that, as the final part of Mark Conrad’s post below suggests, the answer is out there. We, of course, will have different views on why a definitive version of events seems so difficult to find.
Hi David. I just want to clear up one minor issue regarding Carol Kasir. Her birth registration appears to list her as Carol L Jones. There has long been some confusion about her surname – and indeed her place of birth – but the sources for the piece I co-authored with David Pallister (who were certainly in a position to know) were very clear about her background and the information that they provided proved to be extremely accurate and reliable when robustly tested. Of course, none of this reveals whether Carol did indeed commit suicide or not. As your joint investigation with Keir at the Mirror Group revealed, the inquest papers indicate she did have a history of attempting to overdose (albeit not using insulin). However, as you also rightly state, her GP felt that Carol was not in the frame of mind to take her own life in 1990. That said, the coroner’s official verdict was suicide by insulin overdose. Having spoken to many people who knew Carol Kasir, it is clear that her life was a hectic maelstrom of events, often veiled by a complex web of deceits and lies. Few people trusted what she said, and she let down a very many people in her life. Unpicking what we do know as fact has so far proved difficult. What is clear is that several people who are still alive can attest to what actually did, or did not, go on at EGH. These include Haroon Kasir, David Issit, the police officers who surveilled and then raided the property in 1982 and, of course, the guests. Whoever they may be.
I have changed the blog update now
@ Mark C,
Thanks for update, but the surname of the David you refer to is spelt Issett, I think? Or is the Mail article wrong? Accuracy in these matters is important, as I’m sure you realise.
Including the good PO’s who surveilled Ron Harrison late Headmaster of Wallington Boys and others at EGH but where threatened by the brass
Lets hope the photos will finally be passed to the press.
TDF – indeed, you’re spot on. It is ‘Issett’. Apologies – I typed that in a hurry.
Interestingly, the Mail caught up with Issett when he was still minded to say a few words. According to the Mail’s account of that discussion – and I have no reason to disbelieve it – Issett also said that Carol had claimed she kept photographs of some high-profile people at the guest house.
Does that make it true? No. But it is notetworthy.
The Mail article also reports that Mr Issett was questioned by their journalists in relation to a certain Patsy Puddles, who according to Chris Fay was a gangster of Irish descent. Mr Issett reportedly responded that he did indeed know Mr Puddles and that he did not believe Mr Puddles would have been involved in anything to do with child abuse.
Is there any evidence that Mr Puddles is deceased, or even that he ever existed? For what it’s worth, I’ve always thought the name was more likely a pseudonym.
A Puddle that has been muddied by well meaning people over the years.
Very appreciative of your great investigate reporting. In cases like this it’s easy for history and those involved to blur things so much as to stop people looking any further.
I have a concern in relation to the Private Eye’s comments about the Edward Heath investigation – where the police report was inconclusive although others who had also worked with the police said it provided grounds for further investigation.
In Private eye’s last magazine they ran an article called `Satanic Panic` – describing organisations and professionals that investigate, or support people, who have been damaged by ritual abuse rings, as `peddling fiction`. This suggestion of these abuse rings being imagined is not unusual, as not many people come into contact with them, and they are often well protected. The damaged victims are also often unreliable witnesses which are easy to dismiss by local police who are unfamiliar with these experiences. They were particularly very dismissive of Dr Ellie Hanson who had worked with the specialist police on this case.
Their `peddling fiction` claim was also made against several organisations that work in this area and were part of the ESTD (European Society for Trauma & Dissociation) conference earlier this year. It was for professionals who support people who are damaged by exposure to severe abusive experiences, including ritual or satanic abuse. As you might imagine this can be very hard and sometimes quite risky, work.
As a psychotherapist and director of a Therapy Centre I was at that conference and attended Ellie Hanson’s workshop that, as it happens, I thought was excellent.
Some senior practitioners are wary of battling with Private Eye on it’s own territory and giving them more oxygen to play with. However it feels very unsatisfactory that they can make these claims without any recourse. Don’t know whether this has any interest to you but I’d be grateful for any thoughts you may have.
ps in case you;re interested I will fwd the article in my next email.
Thank you very much for this contribution. Private Eye is sceptical of many of the child sex abuse investigations and is nearer to the Davis Aaronovitch school of thought – that these are merely conspiracy theories -he has after all written a book about all such theories.
Partly the Eye view is historical – I think earlier investigations by Paul Foot decided all the Leon Brittan stories were untrue and therefore had been made up – and they have stuck to this.
The Satanical Abuse scepticism comes from the Orkney cases. The problem is that like all cases of child sexual abuse – they are very difficult to prove, the survivors are often badly damaged and can easily be ridiculed by defence barristers in court for having subsequent criminal records or drink and drug problems. This doesn’t mean that their testimony about the abuse is untrue but it is difficult to stand up. This is why I try and rely on people who were not abused themselves who may have information that points to such activities when I pursue stories from people who were abused. If you want to have a chat further, please contact me via the website.
then on the other hand people like Rolf Harris get prosecuted and convicted on nothing more than hearsay, even when supposed witnesses are shown to be LYING on the stand…not that I’m a Rolf Harris fan or anything 😦 just commenting on the fucked up state of what is supposedly a legal system
David, do you know of any links between Private Eye contributors and the Moral Panic “industry”?
as terrible as all this is, I’m desperate to try and rebuild some kind of life for myself, selfish i know….anybody know if it is even possible to get ‘papers’ these days? even fake versions of my actual govt slave name might help, but it wnt help me escape them…..even possible these days?
please publish the email
Pingback: papers about mystery of chaco canyon – The Al Morris Book Shop