Tag Archive: cover up

Looks like the Scots have the balls to do the right thing.

Police in Scotland are understood to be investigating claimsJanner 1 Labour peer Lord Janner abused a boy there in the 1970s.
Det Ch Supt Lesley Boal said Police Scotland officers were investigating a historical complaint – but did not confirm a name.
Lord Janner was accused of abuse allegations during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s – but was deemed unfit to stand trial in England because of dementia.
The former MP has consistently denied all allegations against him.
BBC home affairs correspondent Tom Symonds said the allegation had first been made in 1991 by a Leicester man who told police that Greville Janner sexually abused him on a string of trips across the UK during the 1970s – including in Scotland.

Dr J Andy Ilias interviewed Linda Moulton Howe on March 14 2015 on Dr J Radio LIVE (http://www.drjradiolive.com). Hear so much from this Emmy award winning journalist and check out her website at http://www.earthfiles.com

On this new YT channel dedicated solely to interviews of Dr. J’s, hear all the interviews by Dr. J. Dr J RADIO LIVE aka ROAM radio airs Tuesday-Friday on Dark Matter accessible through http://www.drjradiolive.com.

We DO take guest requests and join the mailing list so YOU can be a part of exclusive pre-records with TOP guests or to get priority in Tuesday’s LIVE shows. Follow Dr. J on ALL social media including FB, twitter, flickr, tumblr, instagram all under accounts: @DrJradioLIVE, drjradiolive or website http://www.drjradiolive.com ; much more to come as all 200+ shows over last 3 years will be uploaded. Here is the original air date schedule: (2013-2015) and BOTH Dark Matter shows (204-2015):


A dossier on Lord Janner is among 114 files on child sex abuse that has vanished from the Home Office, it was revealed today.
The 1986 Janner file is mentioned in an investigation into an alleged government cover up but its contents remain a mystery.
The Home Office has refused to comment on the dossier, which could potentially conceal the name of a second person, it is alleged.
Last year NSPCC boss Peter Wanless led a review of Home Office files from 1979 to 1999 and concluded it would be ‘impossible’ to unearth this and the other 113 missing files.

Now there’s a surprise.


The CPS was today accused of double standards for not prosecuting Lord Janner after it emerged at least 19 men with dementia have been convicted of child sex offences since 2010, including ten in the past year.
MailOnline can reveal that some paedophiles, including several too ill to enter a plea, have still been prosecuted and in some cases jailed for the rest of their lives because of historic sex attacks.

cover up

Want to watch a damage limitation exercise? Cover up? One rule for the rich and one for the scum. Off with her head. The divine right of shagging pervert Kings is still alive and kicking.

As for Dershowitz, well, read on!

Alan Dershowitz, Harvard law professor emeritus and legal legend, has defended himself loudly and often since being accused in January of sexual misconduct with an underage female. But does he have a proof problem?

Lawyers Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell think so. They represent victims of financier Jeffrey Epstein who are suing the government under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. One of Epstein’s victims, known in court documents as “Jane Doe #3” and identified in the media as Virginia Roberts, alleges that Epstein compelled her to have sex with Dershowitz while she was still a minor. Dershowitz has since moved to intervene in the CVRA suit in order to clear his name. Edwards and Cassell also filed a defamation suit against Dershowitz because of his public criticisms of them, and Dershowitz has since counterclaimed.

Edwards and Cassell are now arguing that while Dershowitz continues to call their client a liar, he has yet to produce specific evidence to bear out his accusation . . . in either suit.

Dershowitz’s lawyers argue that Jane Doe #3 (aka Virginia Roberts) waited too long before accusing Dershowitz and attempting to join the CVRA suit. They argue that it’s unfair to him for the court to consider Virginia Roberts’s allegations against him now, since “he would have been in a far better position to secure travel and other records needed to disprove these charges” if she had not waited so long.

On March 24, Edwards and Cassell filed their latest response on behalf of their clients in the CVRA suit, continuing to oppose Dershowitz’s intervention in the suit. They call out Dershowitz on his laches argument. They point out that:

“Dershowitz has already told worldwide news media that he has already collected all of the records and can provide irrefutable, documentary proof that Jane Doe No. 3 is lying. For example, Dershowitz has told the Boston Globe that ‘he will use his travel and credit card records, which he said he has fastidiously saved, to refute the allegations against him.’”

Edwards and Cassell go on to claim that Dershowitz has also not yet complied with discovery requests in their related defamation suit against Dershowitz. In that state court suit, counsel for Edwards and Cassell filed a motion to compel production of documents on February 23. In their motion to compel production in the defamation suit, Edwards and Cassell claim that Dershowitz has so far refused to produce “any documents” to them. For his part, Dershowitz responds that “the insinuation that Prof. Dershowitz is refusing to produce documents in the state court action is not only irrelevant [in the federal CVRA action], it is false – all responsive, non-privileged documents will be produced in a timely manner, as indicated in Dershowitz’s responses.”

The motion to compel in the state case remains pending. You can read Dershowitz’s Objections and Responses to Edwards and Cassell’s Initial Requests for Production and decide for yourself whether they are sufficient.

To be fair, many people would have a hard time assembling proof of where they were and what they were doing at some particular time years ago. But Dershowitz suggested to the media that he already had the proof at hand. Moreover, he insisted that part of what made his opponents’ conduct so egregious was that they could have easily come up with that evidence themselves if only they had responsibly investigated their client’s story.

Three months ago, when the story first hit headlines, Dershowitz told CNN, “If they [Edwards and Cassell] had just done an hours’ worth of work, they would have seen she is lying through her teeth.” He told the Today Show:

“Her lawyers Paul Cassell, a former Federal judge and Brad Edwards, deliberately and willfully filed this pleading which they knew I had no opportunity to respond to in court, without doing any investigation, if they had simply investigated the manifests of the airplanes, if they had checked my travel records, if they had asked me and I could have given the names of these people who are witnesses, they would know the stories, totally, completely false.”

He told Fox Business:

“They [Edwards and Cassell] did it for crass financial and political reasons. More to the point is [what] they didn’t do… I did the investigation in a day and was able to prove through all kinds of records that I couldn’t have been in these places. The woman is a serial liar. If they had done that investigation, they would have come to the same conclusion.”

These public comments, and numerous others like them, are troublesome for Dershowitz for two reasons.

First, they give the impression that Dershowitz was prepared months ago to produce just the sort proof that he has so far refused to provide in the discovery process. If Dershowitz had documentary evidence to prove his innocence all the way back in January, why hasn’t he shared it with the court yet?

Second, Dershowitz repeatedly chastised Edwards and Cassell for not doing the easy, obvious research that they were obligated as attorneys to do. If getting hold of evidence that would disprove Virginia Roberts’s allegations was as easy as Dershowitz said, why hasn’t he produced that evidence yet? And if it is actually quite difficult and time-consuming to amass the evidence, why did Dershowitz malign his opponents for not finding it? Either Dershowitz looks bad for not producing the documents or Dershowitz looks bad for trash-talking Edwards and Cassell, which strengthens their defamation claims against him.

What’s going on? If Dershowitz has the proof he’s promised, why hasn’t he offered it up yet, either in the CVRA proceedings with Virginia Roberts or the defamation battle with Edwards and Cassell?

Perhaps there are strategic considerations at work. As noted civil-liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate recently suggested, Dershowitz might be holding back his exculpatory evidence “unless and until his accuser and her lawyers have specified, under oath, the times and places of the alleged abuse…. so that the accuser is not given the luxury of seeing the defense documents first and thus being enabled to construct detailed accusations around those documents.”

Perhaps Dershowitz hopes that the court will toss out Virginia Roberts’s joinder motion because of its own weaknesses or, less likely, simply strike the bits of Roberts’s story that mention Dershowitz. Dershowitz’s counsel has stated that:

“If the Court rejects the pending motion for joinder or the Protective Motion through which Petitioners also seek to add Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4, then the Court should strike the scurrilous allegations against Professor Dershowitz, or, alternatively, determine the possible mootness of his motion for limited intervention. Of course, if the Court strikes the allegations against him sua sponte, Professor Dershowitz will withdraw his motion for limited intervention.”

If the court rejected her claim based on laches, for example, Dershowitz would no longer need to intervene in the CVRA suit. Withdrawing would free Dershowitz from the need to produce any further evidence in that suit. Moreover, he might gain some advantage in the parallel defamation suit. Depending upon why the CVRA court rejected Roberts’s claim, Dershowitz might argue in the defamation suit that the dismissal of her claim suggests that her accusations against him were, indeed, baseless. The more baseless her accusations, the closer Dershowitz gets to using truth as a defense in the defamation suit.

Perhaps Alan Dershowitz will offer the court evidence to show that Virginia Roberts is lying about having sex with him. Perhaps Dershowitz will soon produce documents in the discovery process in the defamation suit with Edwards and Cassell. But if not soon, when?


The police watchdog is to examine claims that a paedophile sergeant ordered a juniorCyril Smith by Monire Childs officer not to tell anyone after catching Cyril Smith at a sex party with two boys.
The account of the officer, then a young beat bobby but now retired, that he was threatened with the Official Secrets Act after he found the 29-stone Liberal MP at the home of a known sex offender in 1988 was the latest piece of evidence of an Establishment cover-up of Smith’s decades of abuse.
Yesterday the Independent Police Complaints Commission ( IPCC) announced it would be overseeing the investigation into the unnamed ex-officer’s claims.

Tony Blair Not In Jail? I Literally Don’t Understand: Russell Brand The Trews (E235).
Reaction to Tony Blair’s comments on Radio 4 this week and the news that the Iraq War inquiry may not be published before the next election.

Let’s stop paying.

Horsham, UK, 2013 – Tony Rooke, in an act of civil disobedience, refused to pay the mandatory £130 TV license fee claiming it violates Section 15 of the Terrorism Act. Rooke’s accusation was aimed at the BBC who reported the collapse of WTC 7 over 20 minutes before it actually fell, and the judge accepted Rooke’s argument. While it was not a public inquiry into 9/11, the recognition of the BBC’s actions on September 11th are considered a small victory, one that was never reported in the US.


Downing Street cynically tried to prevent the release of damaging files exposing the scale of the cover-up over paedophile MP Cyril Smith.
The Cabinet Office repeatedly blocked The Mail on Sunday’s attempts to see the bombshell documents – and caved in only after being threatened with High Court action.
After the shocking year-long fight, we can reveal the content of the papers, which expose just how much the Establishment knew about the late politician’s sexual and physical abuse of young boys.

Nick Clegg and David Cameron, both Ministers in the Cabinet Office, have been accused of ‘colluding’ in the latest cover-up of evidence that could expose VIP paedophile rings.

cover up

Detectives are investigating claims that former Conservative Home Secretary William Whitelaw ordered police to drop an investigation into a VIP paedophile ring.
Whitelaw allegedly told a senior Metropolitan Police boss to quash a year-long investigation into a gang accused of abusing 40 children, the youngest of whom was six.
The alleged intervention came in 1980 after a newspaper revealed the country’s chief prosecutor was considering 350 offences against the gang, including allegations it ‘obtained young boys for politicians, prominent lawyers and film stars’.

%d bloggers like this: