The woman reported the alleged attack to police 45 years
after the event when detectives opened an investigation into an alleged
historic VIP paedophile ring
Investigation: Tom Watson
Campaigning Labour MP Tom Watson has called for Jane’s case to be
urgently investigated in a letter to Director of Public Prosecutons
Alison Saunders.
He also questions whether police are seriously pursuing the ex-minister, who has been under investigation for well over a year.
And he describes the decision not to proceed with the inquiry into Jane’s allegations as “highly irregular”.
Mr Watson said: “I have met the person making the rape allegations.
“She gave a very detailed account of a very traumatic episode.
“I
have asked the DPP urgently to review this case. From what I have
heard, she did not consent to sex with the alleged perpetrator.”
The alleged victim became so concerned about the failure of
police to act on information she gave them that she angrily confronted a
senior detective involved
Cover up: The alleged victim is worried the attacker may be being protected
The woman who accuses a budding Tory star of raping her believes he is being protected from arrest in a murky establishment cover-up.
She
became so concerned about the failure of police to act on information
she gave them that she angrily confronted a senior detective involved,
reports the Sunday People
The
alleged victim, who we are calling Jane, said in an interview with the
Sunday People and the investigative website Exaro: “Compare the handling
of this case with celebrity investigations.
"There appears to be an inconsistency.
“Celebrities
were quickly interviewed by police, and yet my allegations are similar.
I am concerned that people may be protecting this man.
“I am mindful of the fact that there have been cover-ups after cover-ups.
“I am realistic about what has gone on with regard to this person and how much has been done to cover up.
“I simply wanted to help the police, to be able to get things out in the open, which they have not been able to do.”
Her fears are shared by Labour MP Tom Watson , who made allegations of a network of sex abusers among senior politicians and dignitaries to the House of Commons in 2012.
Mr
Watson believes that by not interviewing the former MP who Jane
accuses, police failed to follow their own guidelines on rape
allegations.
At the centre of the dispute is whether or not Jane made it clear she did not consent to sex.
She says police have argued that she “voluntarily undressed” – which she disputes.
She
went to police after watching on TV the dramatic Commons exchanges
between Mr Watson and David Cameron, in which the Prime Minister was
urged to investigate historical claims of a “powerful paedophile network
linked to Parliament and No10”. Tom Watson MP leaves The Royal Courts of Justice after giving evidence to The Leveson Inquiry
Mr Watson’s extraordinary intervention followed the exposure of BBC DJ Jimmy Savile as a paedophile.
The
Metropolitan Police responded by launching Operation Fairbank, to
investigate claims, also revealed by the Sunday People, that senior
political figures sexually abused children.
Another inquiry,
Operation Fernbridge, began looking at claims from three decades ago
that senior Conservatives and other VIPs sexually abused boys at the Elm
Guest House in South West London.
Jane decided the time was right
to offer detectives her evidence that she was raped in 1967 by a man
who later became a Cabinet Minister.
She first contacted local police outside London, who interviewed her and took video testimony.
The case was then referred to the Metropolitan Police. Jane said: “They clocked it because of the name of the person.”
Scotland Yard passed the case to its paedophile unit, which was already investigating allegations that the man had sexually abused male teenagers and at one point planned to arrest him.
A female officer was assigned to liaise with Jane, who then gave a second round of detailed interviews.
Months later the liaison officer fixed an appointment with Jane and another CID officer.
Jane
said that during the meeting, at which her partner Michael was also
present, the liaison officer commented that she was already sexually
active at the time of the alleged attack and had “an illegitimate baby”.
Jane said: “It struck us as odd. What relevance did that have to what happened?
"It was very insensitive of her just to throw it at me like that.”
The detectives then told her the case would not proceed.
One
read from an email she believed was from the Crown Prosecution Service,
saying the reason was Jane had not explicitly refused to consent to
sex.
Jane recalled: “I was totally taken aback. I might not have
gone forward if I had known they felt they wouldn’t have enough to
prosecute.”
The detectives insisted the alleged attacker had
received no special treatment and had not been identified to the CPS,
ensuring objective treatment.
"Jane remembered the detectives seemed deeply disappointed by what she assumed was a CPS decision not to proceed.
She said: “I am not sure that they were surprised but I think that they were upset. Accusation: The alleged attacker went on to become a high profile MP
"They wanted to move forward but could not.”
Although
there was no DNA evidence and nothing to support Jane’s testimony about
the attack, the detectives accepted that her account of what happened on
a blind date with the man in 1967 was supported by other people,
including Jane’s former flatmate.
She said: “They said they fully appreciated what I had gone through and felt for me – but there was nothing more they could do.”
Jane asked the officers if it would help if she brought a private prosecution.
She was told: “If you want to lose your home.”
Some time later, Jane asked her liaison officer for sight of a letter from the CPS that would confirm, as had been implied to her, that its lawyers decided against proceeding.
She was astonished to be told there was no letter from the CPS, nor indeed any record they made that decision.
Jane then met a Detective Chief Inspector in charge of investigations into the former Tory minister.
Both
she and Michael recalled that the DCI told them he – NOT the CPS – took
the decision not to proceed because there was no evidence.
"He had, however, taken advice from prosecutors.
He said no one had spoken to Jane’s alleged attacker, who was neither arrested nor interviewed under caution.
The DCI said the evidence suggested Jane “voluntarily” took off her clothes – which she angrily rejected.
He then read from a summary of her alleged statements to police.
But she insisted: “It was nothing like what I told detectives. I asked him why he was doing this to me.
"He said: ‘We only have your word.’ But if they had questioned him it could’ve been tested.”
Jane said the DCI told her: “With you, it is all about who he is.”
But Jane, who says she feels “brutally misled”, added: “No. It is about what he has done.”
Scotland Yard said: “All matters under Operation Fairbank remain under review and we will not be discussing further.”
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.