J. Wilkins's dodgy 7th May statement

There's something not right about Jez Wilkins' 7 May statement.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS.htm

The hand written statement made by Jeremy Wilkins to the Wembley Police on 7 May after his return to the UK, and forwarded to Portugal by DC Rob Waddington of the Major Crimes Intelligence Unit (Leicestershire Police), appears, IMO, questionable.

The printed version to the right of the hand written statement is not an accurate copy.

I have given several witness statements in the UK and all occasions these were taken by 2 officers - one asking questions and one writing. At the end of the process, the written statement would be given to me to read for accuracy and any small alterations made and countersigned with initials.

Open the above link, magnify to 150% and scroll up and down the pages - it is clear that the writing is of varying pressure; pen thickness; word spacing; and possibly different hands. I would suggest that it looks like sections have been clipped and substituted. The pressure variations appear within single sheets and can't be accounted for by reproduction/copying. Some sections fail to flow on from previous sentences.

A few examples:

Page 1/8 - after the word 'Algarve' about half way down the handwriting changes appearance (wider spacing/thickness).

Page 3/8 - after the crossed out sentence 'as far as I know' the handwriting changes.


Page 4/8 - bottom section of the page appears to look different. Also note the crossed out section half way down. The original sentence reads:
'That night we were all using the creche facility'. This has been changed to: 'That night my family were using the creche facility'.

Page 5/8 - top and bottom half of page looks different and half way down there are obvious signs of cutting and pasting (see horizontal page line cutting through words and duplicated line).

Page 6/8 - after 'around the complex and went to the ...' the following sentence/2 sentences look different. Then it seems to revert back for a couple of sentences and then looks different again to the bottom of the page.
Also, I still contend that GM is quoted by Jez Wilkins as saying - 'He said that as he was staying two (2) weeks he may stay in one night'.

Page 7/8 - bottom third of page after 'Jerry said that he had seen me and wanted' looks different.

Page 8/8 - middle section looks different to that above and below.

Another interesting point is that throughout Wilkins' description of his encounter with GM on the the evening of 3 May on page 6/8, Wilkins doesn't mention Gerry McCann by name once. The description of this meeting starts in the middle of one of the sections which look 'different' and the first sentence relating to the meeting reads: 'I met him near some stairs and a ground floor flat.' For the rest of the described encounter apparently Wilkins never once referred to GM by name to the interviewing officer.

This is a police statement, taken potentially to be used in a court of law and yet apparently Jez Wilkins didn't mention whom he'd met. Even if he hadn't, I find it almost impossible to believe that any trained interviewing officer wouldn't have asked Wilkins to state the person's name, for the record. This omission could point to alterations having been made - possibly excluding/changing the sentence which originally contained the reference.

Has information been removed, added or changed? If so, why hasn't Wilkins come forward post the PJ Files release?

Just bumping this up today as posted quite late yesterday afternoon. Apologies if not appropriate to do this!!

The role of Jez Wilkins - whatever that role might be, even if just innocent eye-witness -  is, imo, one of the keys to unraveling the mystery.

Jez gave a number of statments to the police. They vary quite dramatically in terms of where he was on that fateful Thursday evening;  who he saw on Thursday evening, and what he was doing that evening. This in itself makes his witness testimony highly questionable.

Jez' account of how he was, allegedly, woken up by Matt Oldfield and OC resort manager at around 1.30pm in the early hours of Friday morning, I find utterly unconvincing.

As if a TV drama maker and his journalist wife would be peacefully slumbering in their beds while one of the biggest (absurd, imo) news story of the decade breaks dramatically around them. Bearing in mind that the first news report was filed at midnight on 3rd May - yet still Jez and Bridget slumber on for another hour and a half in blissful ignorance.

Nah - pull the other one, it's got bells on it...

That is an excellent find, Skyrocket - well done.

Do you know if this is supposed to have been written by Jez himself?

Twice he's spelled his (common-law) wife's name wrong -

'Bridgette' instead of 'Bridget" - he's amended and initialled it...

...seems a bit odd to me.

@missbeetle - nice to hear from you again!

Thanks for you comment.  

Yes, the miss-spelling of Bridget's name seems to make it fairly certain that a police officer wrote the statement whilst Wilkins answered questions. This is standard procedure in the UK. At the end Wilkins would have had to read the statement and correct anything/initial corrections. What happened to the statement after Wilkins had handed it back to the police is the question! Note that on the statement it shows that no recording was made of the interview.

skyrocket wrote:@missbeetle - nice to hear from you again!

Thanks for you comment.  

Yes, the miss-spelling of Bridget's name seems to make it fairly certain that a police officer wrote the statement whilst Wilkins answered questions. This is standard procedure in the UK. At the end Wilkins would have had to read the statement and correct anything/initial corrections. What happened to the statement after Wilkins had handed it back to the police is the question! Note that on the statement it shows that no recording was made of the interview.

Hi Skyrocket, due to the amount of taped recorded interviews needed to be recorded, the person(Police Officer)must determine as to which interviews that need to be recorded and the involvement that person might have in conjunction to any perpetrated criminal acts?
As in Lord Brittain's case, the Police Officer taking the interview, failed to ascertain as to whether the recording device was working correctly to the manufactures guidelines and the interview was never retaken or recorded?

@DougD - following on from your post on the Martin Brunt thread re: Jez Wilkins (as per LadyInred's request), yes, JW's 7 May statement was definitely written down by an officer at Wembley. If you note my first post on this thread I gave some examples of where I feel the statement has been doctored. 

Look at the maps - the hand drawn one labelled as JW1 shows an X marked by the steps up to 5A's patio entrance. BUT - look on the top road where it looks like the word 'road' is written. I would contend that this was originally 'Y' including the apostrophes, which has been altered to read the word road - r and d have been added, using the second apostrophe as the top of the d; the left part of the Y and the first apostrophe has been made to look like the 'o', and the right side of the Y has been changed into an odd looking 'a'. 
The second map (unlabelled) is of the Ocean Club Gardens, which is the area with the adult pool to the right of the Waterside Garden site where the tapas is. This area is circled and a large arrow points up towards the Millenium Restaurant site. If you look carefully below the scribbled over area, it looks like there there might be a smaller underwritten arrow and just to the left of this small arrow head, there looks to be a small X. It looks like something may have been written in the scribbled area. 
Now ignore the typed statement and refer to the last couple of sentences of the hand written version. The actual words make little sense when taken as a whole - it is unclear what the statement/JW means. But again, I would contend that a lot of this section has been altered. It is obvious that the final 'JW1' has been blatantly changed to read 'JW2'. The word 'marked' originally read 'made'; 'I ..........  this as JW2' looks like it has been pasted over; 'holiday brochure' originally read something else i.e. the word 'here' has been altered to read 'brochure'; 'an 'x'' actually read 'a 'y'' i.e. the 'n' has been added to make us assume the 'y' actually reads 'x'.
So did JW create a map/s? Did he mark 'X' and 'Y' and where did he actually mark them and what did they denote?
All incredible!! And, the rest of the statement is as bad. IMO, as I say, large chunks have been re-written.

@skyrocket

I've noticed how you have a penchant for bumping your own posts, this being a prime example.   In order to appease your apparent wish for a response, in this particular instance I ask you to explain what you are trying to imply.  Please don't say you are presenting facts for others to make up their own mind because you are not presenting facts, your are presenting your interpretation of any given subject.

On this particular subject, what exactly are you suggesting - that the police office/s concerned 'adjusted' Jeremy Wilkins' statement for some nefarious reason?  A witness statement is recorded by a police officer and signed by the witness, it's not written by the witness as you I think you now realize.  So, if the police force concerned have reason to adjust what the witness has said, wouldn't it be easier to produce a re-vamped typed version rather than resorting to such an elaborate forgery as you imply?

It's quite the norm for a witness statement to be recorded in typed version.

@Verdi - I'll keep this as brief as possible because obviously you labour to read long posts and/or digest them fully. If you did, you wouldn't have posted the above in such a knee jerk manner. 

Firstly, I posted on here last night because @Ladyinred requested the discussion re: Jez Wilkins being carried out on the Martin Brunt thread be transferred to a more appropriate thread, and I wanted to continue a discussion I was already involved in on there and respond to @DougD on a topic I am particularly interested in - if you had read my post above in its entirety, this point would have been clear. There was no 'bumping' of my own thread for some sort of reaction as you seem to think is my MO. I've got your MO so this type of comment doesn't surprise me.

Secondly, if you had read this thread or my post from last night or followed any of my other posts on the subject you would have been aware that I have never been under the misapprehension that JW wrote this statement down himself. And, yes I am aware that statements are typed - infact nowadays, statements are actually usually typed straight onto dedicated tablets/laptops (I have given witness statements in all 3 formats, the last only 6 weeks ago onto tablet with typed digital signature). Once taken and signed, as I understand it, the statement in itself (the pieces of paper it is written on) becomes a legal document. A typed out copy of this would not be legal, unless re-read and signed/dated. When statements are taken in typed format, as the witness speaks, they are read back and digitally signed, at that time. 

Thirdly, the facts I presented are just that - the points I made above are in black and white. I'm not suggesting anything, it is my belief that the hand written statement has been heavily doctored - if you took the time to examine it, you might be less scathing. It is beyond doubt in my mind, and there are few times I've been able to say that in this case. I was going to say that I had no idea who/where this had been done but that is incorrect - I believe that the same person who took the statement has re-writen passages, although there are some differences in the handwriting at certain points. Apart from the alterations; sections which don't make sense; spread out/cramped sentences; CLEARLY altered words; differences in pen weight, within the same sentence; the fact is that ANY changes at all (which are common in hand written statements) should be counter initialled by the witness, which has not happened here.

Fourthly, I have another member to thank for drawing my attention to the maps - apologies, because I can't remember who it was that pointed out that the second (printed map) seemed incongruous with the statement that JW had given. They were correct - the printed map does not tie in with anything JW has said in his statement. The adult pool complex is circled and the arrow points to a location on the road which runs alongside the 3 tennis courts in the Millenium Restaurant complex, 7/8 minutes walk from where he says he saw GM. It's of further interest that when the Leicester Police sent JW's statement on to the PJ, they apologised that the police over here had been unable to get the Ocean Club map (which had been emailled/faxed over to Leicester with the original request) to JW for him to look at and mark the relevant locations. Why would that be - I have no idea? 

It's clear to me what the reasoning would be behind any alterations - someone didn't like what JW had said, either directly or inadvertently. 

@Verdi - are my points/views clear enough for you now? 

Mods - just in case. I have not said anything which isn't in direct response to accusations made. If members post personal comments - robust responses should be allowed.

To me, the word ‘road’ at the top of hand drawn map looks the same as ‘road’ written next to ‘X’.
 
As regards to not being able to view the map, my thoughts are that the ‘missing bit’ is the left hand side of the OC brochure map that we can see, which has not come through on the fax and nobody spotted that more of this map was needed until they started talking to JW about it.
 
Changes and corrections to the written statement are bound to occur when reading through it at the end and the OCR program the PJ used also does funny things to the copies as evidenced in other documents as well.

However I cannot understand how they just ‘went to bed about 11.00’, when all hell should have been breaking out.
 
I have not picked up before that it is at the bottom of this fax where GA suggested that CEOP be involved.
 
Having looked at this from GA’s point of view, this was not an unreasonable request based on his thoughts at the time, as CEOP was the UK part of the Virtual Global Taskforce (VGT), a group of law enforcement agencies from around the world who operate together to stop child pornography online, set up in 2004.
 
‘2. In the spirit of Police to Police Cooperation we request the presence of a British Criminal Analyst who may be able to assist the enquiry.
Also the collaboration of the UK's "Child Exploitation Online Protection" may be useful if they wish to send one of their officers to provide assistance to the investigation,’
 
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS.htm

@DougD

I agree (sort of), the word road alongside the OC entrance does look similar (not the same), but this could have been added just for that purpose. This is why the whole thing needs expert analysis. If you look at the 'ro' in the two words thay are different. The 'o' is attached to the 'r' and the 'r' has a rounded top in the version next to the OC entrance. In the version on the top road - the 'o' is incomplete, and is not attached to the straight topped 'r'. If you look at all the writer's other 'o' letters on this map, thay are all a complete loop. If you look at the writer's normal 'a' - again the top is normally curved, but in the top word 'road' there is a distinct, straight line which is the right hand side of the letter 'Y'. Again, in the statement, the 2 letters 'Y' and 'X' have been written with different strokes first - they almost look like mirror images. If they were 2 'X' letters the long tail would be constant. 

I agree that changes are often made - but they should all be counter initialled, and I think it is significant that areas which look altered are at significant points of the statement. Some of it sounds ridiculous and in his rogatory JW sounds very articulate. 

One of the points I highlighted previously was that in the entire section where JW describes meeting Gerry McCann (which is the statements purpose), Gerry is not mentioned a single time! Would the interviewing officer not say 'Hang on a minute - who are we talking about here?'?

Page 6/8 of written statement reads:

'I left about 8.15 - 8.30pm. I was pushing the pram around the complex and went to the ....' at this point the writing changes. Remember, on the 4 May he had told the PJ he was in the Tapas Reastaurant between 8.30-9pm (is this what his 7 May statement actually said?). JW then starts describing the meeting 'I met him', who?; ground floor flat; stairs; apartment; where? Wouldn't the interviewing officer ask for clarification? 

The map JW1 shows an X next to 5A's steps - but no mention of this map when describing how he met 'him' in the statement. And, when the statement brings in the maps right at the end, it talks about X marks the spot on Thursday evening on map JW2, stated as being the hand drawn map, but the hand drawn map is shown as JW1. So either, the hand drawn map is wrong; or the statement is wrong; or someone has got very confused. The printed map (although no label on this one) is described as showing where JW met Gerry on 'Thursday' - when on Thursday; why does it indicate a location near the MIllenium Restaurant when there is no information relating to this in the statement. I contend that JW says he marked one of the maps with the letter 'Y', not both 'X', and that this is on hand drawn JW1 (note that the 1 has been overwritten with a 2 in the statement, so in effect the statement doesn't refer to map JW1 at all!).

I can't believe JW would have signed his name to the bottom of this statement in its current form. Nor can I believe that a statement taken in a missing child inquiry (on foreign soil when the statement was being sent to a foreign force) would be so bodged, unless there was clear intent to mislead and confuse.

The questions on the fax make it clear he is talking about GM and he basically answers the questions, which all mention GM, in order.
 
As for the maps, the printed one of OC was marked ‘JW/1’ on the statement, then changed to ‘2’, so again an initial mistake by the scribe, which was half corrected. I don’t see any problem there.

@DougD

All I can do is re-iterate: 

So we've got a drawn map labelled JW1 and described as JW2 in the statement. No reference to JW1 in the statement at all. And, the reference to JW1 in the statement crossed out (could be by anyone between Wembley and Leicester) and changed to JW2 without counter initials (making it not a part of the legal statement). And, that is a small part of all the irregularities in the 8 page statement. 

Re: no need to mention Gerry when describing the 3 May encounter, I disagree - the statement is a stand alone legal document, and it I would wager that it would seldom be read or presented with the list of requested questions. We know who JW is talking about but it should have been stated clearly. 

Every single 't' and 'i' has to be crossed and dotted when taking police statements. Not some of the time, every time; every page; every sentence. Nothing should be left to interpretation or confusion. 
I have respect for your comments and previous posts but we will have to disagree on the significance of the this. 

@skyrocket wrote:  I'll keep this as brief as possible because obviously you labour to read long posts and/or digest them fully. If you did, you wouldn't have posted the above in such a knee jerk manner..............

March 7th 2016:  "Just bumping this up today as posted quite late yesterday afternoon..."

May 3rd 2016:  "I know you commented on a thread I posted a couple of months ago (jez wilkins' dodgy 7 May statement). ..."

Firstly skyrocket, I make no accusations nor have I posted personal comments.  If you are referring to mention of you bumping posts, as you frequently do so I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that you were seeking a response - if it's the respondee you object to, sorry but members can't pick and choose!  Otherwise, I simply asked you to explain what you are trying to imply - nothing sinister, no hidden meaning just a straightforward question requiring a straightforward answer - this you have not provided, only a reiteration of your past comments so no, I'm none the wiser.  As I see it, you are again relying on your naked eye, throwing reason and logic to the winds by creating conspiracy theory around your interpretation of any given subject matter.  Fair enough, I've nothing more to say on the subject at this juncture.

NB:  No, I don't have a problem with long posts providing they are easy on the eye nor am I prone to knee jerk reactions - au contraire!

What is this MO that we share - a mojo?

@Verdi 

March 7 - this thread infact. Bumped as you say, stated quite openly I was doing so and reason given.

The second example is a reference not a bump - but there we go. Obviously mentioning previous posts/threads is forum tabboo - cleary I'll have to take more care in future, thanks so much for pointing it out. 

I've answered the question you asked. Just because you don't agree with my opinion/response doesn't make what you say more valid. Infact, if you haven't had the time to look at the statement carefully I suggest it might be prudent to refrain from commenting on any of the issues arising from it. I'd be genuinely happy to discuss it more with you if you actually responded with facts yourself rather than just constant criticism. Why do I get the impression that you try to close certain discussions down. Maybe me. 

And, as a point of interest for you, there is actually an entire profession based on using ones eyes to examine handwriting and semantics in documents. Infact, just last night I watched a programme on a cold case murder in the States where the new officer assigned to the case re-read all the statements and worked out who had committed the crime from the use of 2 words - can't remember the second but it was something like 'obviously' (which Hobs likes) and the first word was simply the word 'all'. Amazing isn't it. The officer used nothing more than his eyes and a bit of brain power - good job he'd been taught that, eh?  

We'll get back on topic now, thank you.

@Ladyinred-gladly, would prefer to stay on topic at all times. Thanks for your patience.

Interesting point continuing on from the cold case prog I mentioned in my previous post. Note I said that the culprit was caught on 2 words he had used in the statement he had given to the police about 10 years earlier.
One of those 2 words was 'all'. 

Here is what is written in Jez Wilkins' hand written statement, on page 4/8,  referring to when he and Bridget were dining in the tapas on Wed evening:

'After about forty five (45) minutes Jerry appeared with one of his friends. I believe this was Russell.They sat at the next table. We naturally engaged in conversation about everyday things. We spoke about childcare. That night we were all (bold 3 words crossed through and over written with my family were) using the creche facility.'


So from: 'That night we were all using the creche facility.'

To: 'That night my family were using the creche facility.'

Quite a difference and one wonders why JW stated the first version of events if it was incorrect. Note the importance of the word all. The alteration is counter initialled. 

The statement then carries on to describe how the McCann party children were being left alone in their apartments, but again it just doesn't read well (IMO).

I want to thank April28th very much for putting in a FOI request on the Wilkin's drawings/maps. April28th has received a response and I am posting it below. Although the drawings are in the public domain the request for better copies was denied. Could it be that the drawings on file with the MPS are not identical to the ones sent to the PJ?! Who knows? 

[size=16]Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2016050000536 

I write in connection with your request for information which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 13/05/2016.  I note you seek access to the following information: 

Please refer to the following webpage and search '494 to 505 Sketch provided by Jeremy Wilkins and statement in English 2007.05.07':http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS.htm As noted, these documents and sketches were faxed from the Leicestershire Police Constabulary to the Policia Judiciaria on the 7th of May 2007. 
As evidenced by their existence online, these are publicly released documents. Due to their format being fax, their quality is low. I would like to request either scans or physical copies of these documents, in particular the sketches. . 

SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION 

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted within the MPS.  The searches located information relevant to your request. 

DECISION 

Having located and considered the relevant information, I am afraid that I am not required by statute to release the information requested. This response serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).  Please see the legal annex for further information on the exemptions applied in respect of your request. 

Please see the legal annex for the sections of the Act that are referred to in this response. 

REASONS FOR DECISION 


Section 27 - International Relations 
Section 30 - Investigations 
Section 40  -  Personal Information

Under Section 27(1) of the Act, Public Authorities are able to withhold information where its release would, or would be likely to, have an adverse effect upon International Relations. 

Section 27 International Relations 

Evidence of Harm - International Relations 

It would not be in the best interests of the public to possibly disrupt relations between the United Kingdom and Portugal due to information being released in response to this request. Any disruption of relations between this country and Portugal may have an adverse effect on the ongoing investigation of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, some of which is being conducted in Portugal. 
  
Public Interest Test - International Relations 

The public interest is not what interests the public but what will be of greater good if released to the community as a whole. 
It is not in the public interest to disclose information that may compromise the MPS's relationship with international Police Services and international courts. 

International Relations Public interest considerations favouring disclosure 

There is a public interest in this high profile case and disclosure could provide the public with an insight into how international Police Services cooperate. 

International Relations Public interest considerations favouring non-disclosure 

The British Government develops and maintains a robust relationship with other nation states which can promote mutual interest in trade, defence, environmental issues, human rights and the fight against terrorism and international crime. 

There is the prospect that should the MPS release information which was detrimental to its relationship with one country, other countries or international organisations would reconsider their affinity with the UK. 

This would consequently affect the UK's international abilities relating to its overseas citizens, consular and commercial interests. 

It could also influence the sharing of information provided during the course of political and diplomatic exchanges. 

Balance Test

Release of the requested information may cause harm to the international relations between the UK and Portugal and the ongoing investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Our decision is that the public interest favours withholding this information. 

Section 30 Investigations 

Under Section 30(1)(a) of the Act, Public Authorities are able to withhold information relating to investigations where its release would or would be likely to, have an adverse effect upon other investigations or the prosecution of offenders. 

This exemption can be applied following completion of a Public Interest Test (PIT). The purpose of the PIT is to establish whether the 'Public Interest' lies in disclosing or withholding the requested information. 

Information used as part of an investigation that is disclosed before completion provides insight into the scale, nature and methodology applied to such operations. This has the effect of undermining that methodology.

Information relating to an investigation will rarely be disclosed under the Act and only where there is a strong public interest consideration favouring disclosure.   

Section 30 being a qualified exemption there is a statutory requirement to carry out a PIT when considering any disclosure and this is detailed below. 

Public Interest Test - Investigations. 

The public interest is not what interests the public but what will be of greater good if released to the community as a whole. It is not in the public interest to disclose information that may compromise the MPS's ability to complete any future criminal investigations. 

Evidence of Harm - Investigations 

In considering whether or not this information should be disclosed we have considered the potential harm that could be caused by disclosure. 

Under the Act we cannot and do not request the motives of any applicant for information. We have no doubt the vast majority of applications under the Act are legitimate and do not have any ulterior motives, however in disclosing information to one applicant we are expressing a willingness to provide it to anyone in the world.   
This means that a disclosure to a genuinely interested applicant automatically opens it up for a similar disclosure to anyone, including those who might represent a threat to individuals or any possible criminal and/or civil process. 

The MPS does not generally disclose information from investigations except through our Directorate of Media & Communication to the media. This is so potential witnesses are not discouraged to come forward and provide statements in relation to investigations. 

The manner in which investigations are conducted is usually kept in strict secrecy so that the tactics and lines of enquiry that are followed do not become public knowledge thereby rendering them useless. 

Detailing the specific information used in an investigation will give a clear insight into the nature and scope of any enquiry. Should the public be given such information suspects or potential suspects not yet arrested or interviewed could be alerted to police interest or the extent of police interest. As such while such information may seem innocuous there is the potential  for that information to frustrate the operational enquiry team by alerting suspects or giving then prior notice of police activity. 

Sect 30 Investigations Public Interest considerations favouring disclosure. 

Details relating to the investigation around the disappearance of Madeleine McCann have been periodically published by the MPS and the Home Office.
The public therefore have a genuine interest in being informed as to the nature and circumstances of this case. 

Sect 30 Investigations Public interest considerations favouring non-disclosure 

During the course of any investigation enquires are made to secure evidence. These enquires are made for the duration of the case and are based upon proven methods as well as the judgement and experience of the officer(s) in charge of the investigation. 

The MPS is reliant upon these techniques to conduct its investigations and the public release of the modus operandiemployed during the course of this enquiry could prejudice the ability of the MPS to conduct further, similar investigations. 

Balance test 

Disclosure under the Act is a disclosure to the world not just to the individual making the request. The release of the requested information will disclose specific information used in this investigation and may give criminals an insight into the nature and scope of an investigation.

The public's interest would not be served in releasing information if its release could compromise this or any future policing investigation. 


Section 40 (2) & (3) - Personal Information: Absolute Exemption/Class Based 

Under Section 40(2) and (3) of the Act, Public Authorities are able to withhold information where its release would identify any living individual and breach the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). 

I have applied this exemption in that the name/s and personal information of any individual/s identified in the requested information constitutes personal data which would, if released, be in breach of the rights provided by the DPA. 

The eight principles of the DPA govern the way in which data controllers must manage personal data. Under principle one of the DPA, personal data must be processed fairly and lawfully. I consider that the release of the name/s and personal information of individuals recorded within the requested information constitutes personal data. The release of this information would be unfair as the person/s concerned would have no reasonable expectation that the MPS would make this information publicly available. 

In reaching my decision I have in each case, given due regard to Condition one and six of Schedule 2 of the DPA. 

Condition one of the DPA requires that consideration is given to whether consent for disclosure has been given whilst Condition six requires that consideration is given to whether disclosure would constitute legitimate processing of that data. 
Having considered both conditions, I have established that no consent is present or would likely be received to release this information. I have also found that the release of this information would be unjust as no allegation has been proven against any person. 

This exemption is both absolute and class based. 

When this exemption is applied, it is accepted that harm would result from disclosure. 

There is accordingly no requirement to consider whether release of information is in the public interest or demonstrate what harm would result from disclosure. 

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please contact me via email at foi@met.pnn.police.uk , quoting the reference number above. 
Yours sincerely 


Paul O'Shea 
Information Manager

April28th
[/size]

This FOI bollox.......they can refuse what they like............
JohnyT

JohnyT wrote:This FOI bollox.......they can refuse what they like............
JohnyT

What a drag - I was hoping to find out where David Cameron buys his suits.

Still, no matter it's only tax payers money.  I imagine the case of Madeleine McCann has generated more FOI applications in it's history than any other subject matter.  I bet the government rue the day they ever gave the public the right to know.

Why did Jeremy Michael Wilkins REFUSE to be interviewed on DVD?

. Page 50 (PJ Refª X) Statement by Jeremy Michael WILKINS. He did not agree to be interviewed on DVD but agreed to make a written statement. He was interviewed on 07/04/2008 . and a statement was obtained

How very odd that you've just bumped this thread sallypelt...I grabbed this tweet from JillyCL just a few moments ago and now I've got somewhere to put it!

Get'emGonçalo wrote:


How very odd that you've just bumped this thread sallypelt...I grabbed this tweet from JillyCL just a few moments ago and now I've got somewhere to put it!

I remember Jes Wilkins saying something along those lines, way back. I have always been of the opinion that JW is the spanner in the works, and scuppered whatever was planned for that night, hence the hurried timeline on the covers of a child's sticker book.