Re: The Mark Williams-Thomas thread

[Liz Eagles]

Mark Williams-Thomas is some crime investigator if he can't even get the Madeleine case right.

He's rubbish.

And he's blocked me on twitter!

Simon Cowell likes him.

[Tony Bennett]

Mark Williams-Thomas is some crime investigator if he can't even get the Madeleine case right.

He's rubbish.

And he's blocked me on twitter!

Simon Cowell likes him.

Mark Williams-Thomas >> Simon Cowell paid bail money for >> Jonathan King >> King and Cowell hired Max Clifford >>

See the interesting connections here:  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Just sayin'

[Liz Eagles]

I've just finished watching episode 2.

Here is a tweet from MWT.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Tonight was episode 2 so you have 2 more to go 28th & 2nd Aug. A full confession & I uncover some very significant evidence [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[Tony Bennett]

Mark Williams-Thomas is some crime investigator if he can't even get the Madeleine case right.

He's rubbish.

And he's blocked me on twitter!

Simon Cowell likes him.

Mark Williams-Thomas >> Simon Cowell paid bail money for >> Jonathan King >> King and Cowell hired Max Clifford >>

See the interesting connections here:  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Just sayin'

I'm not sure if this little snippet from the paper edition of today's Daily Mail belongs here or in the Sir Philip Green thread, so I'll put it in both.

It's a two-page article about the top celebs who like to be photographed at the posh restaurant, Scotts of Mayfair.

One pic is of Sir Philip Green enjoying a meal there with Simon Cowell.

Alison Boshoff of the Mail writes:

The controversial former BHS boss Sir Philip Green and talent show terror Simon Cowell have been close for a good decade, and not long after this picture was taken in 2008, they announced plans in GQ magazine to create a business together. The venture never took off, but the two men still holiday together annually".

[Doug D]

Obviously not impressed with MWT then:
 
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2016
 
THE JUSTICE GAP
 
WE ARE A MAGAZINE ABOUT LAW AND JUSTICE. AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 
Two trials, three jailhouse snitches, a four-part documentary series – and still no evidence
 
In July and August, ITV gave the former Thames Valley Police officer, Mark Williams-Thomas, an astonishing transmission time of four hours to conduct an inquiry into the case of Russell Causley, whose wife Carole disappeared in 1985. Well, it was the summer holidays, the media’s silly season.
Causley was convicted of his wife’s murder in 1996 and again in 2004. Despite the apparent double resolution of the case, there was simply no evidence about what had actually happened. So: enter MWT, self-styled ‘Investigator’.
‘In all my years as an investigator, I’ve never had a case like this’, MWT informs viewers. ‘After thirty years, I need to find out what really did happen to Carole Packham.
‘I’m starting my investigation with an open mind.’
 
In a documentary series characterised throughout by half-truths, evasions and disingenuousness, this would turn out to be the biggest lie of all.
 
Russell Causley, an independent businessman, who frequently lived beyond his means, tried to fake his own death in 1993. Anthony Hackett-Jones, Causley’s solicitor, hired a 40-foot yacht and, together with Causley’s partner, Patricia, and another woman, sailed to St Peter Port, Guernsey. They then ostensibly set out to return late in the evening, before putting out a distress call that there was a man overboard.
 
No one was taken in for very long: on the one hand, the sea rescue services could find no sign of a body; on the other, an examination of passenger manifests revealed that someone using the surname Russell had bought a one-way ticket on a late ferry back to the mainland.
 
A life insurance claim for £800,000 was submitted within days, but the insurance investigator (one can’t help thinking of Edward G Robinson in Double Indemnity) was already on the case. The guilty parties were traced to Brighton and then put on trial. Causley was given a two-year prison term; Patricia’s sentence was suspended. As a legal professional, Hackett-Jones, who had pleaded not guilty, would have received a longer sentence in any event; he was jailed for three years. (No action was taken against the other woman.)
 
This ill-starred episode turned out to be doubly disastrous for Causley.
 
In the 1980s, as Russell Packham, he lived with his wife Carole and daughter Samantha in Bournemouth. In 1984, Patricia – or Trisha – Causley sold her flat, giving the proceeds to Russell and Carole and moved in with them, partly to help to look after Samantha.
 
She and Russell were already having an affair, and Carole was probably having extra-marital affairs as well. A guest at one of the Packhams’ dinner-parties, which could potentially end in wife-swapping, commented, ‘I wouldn’t have said Carole was an unwilling partner.’
 
She walked out, or disappeared, on 14 June 1985, leaving behind her wedding ring and a note saying simply: ‘I’ve had enough, I’m leaving, I’m not coming back.’
Two months later the family reported her as missing. Dorset police launched a brief inquiry and put out press releases. A woman then walked into a local police station, identifying herself as Carole and saying that she was safe and well. The file was closed.
 
Now, in the wake of the insurance fraud convictions, the police took a renewed interest into what had happened to Carole a decade earlier. The upshot was that Russell Causley (as he now was, having taken Trisha’s surname in 1989) was convicted of murder.
 
For any investigator going back over all this ground, there was an obvious first question: if Causley had indeed killed his wife, it would mean that his first crime had been the perfect murder; and his second had been an insurance fraud of such laughable incompetence that it could have been picked apart by schoolchildren.
 
A no point, however, did MWT consider this fundamental disconnect.
 
The next matter that MWT did not pursue was the handwriting on the note. Was it Carole’s? It is a key evidential point and yet MWT maintained complete silence about it. At the time, it seems, no one raised any concerns. As such, it is one of the many potential defence points that MWT seeks to brush under the carpet.
MWT researched what had happened to the family in the years following Carole’s disappearance. He discovered that Causley and Trisha worked in the aerospace industry in Montreal – as, indeed, Causley had previously done with Carole. So they were known in the ex-pat community there. It must been someone from that community who, after a few weeks, alerted the immigration authorities to the fact that Trisha was using Carole’s work permit. As a result, they had to leave the country and return to the UK.
 
At this juncture, MWT asks the viewers rhetorically: ‘Was he doing this to lay a paper trail of Carole still being alive?’
 
Fairly obviously, the answer to this daft question is, No. If Causley had wanted to do that, he could have found some other less dangerous way. Here, the ruse was almost bound to fail (as indeed it did) because their colleagues were fully aware that Trisha and Carole were two different people. In reality, one imagines that it was simply more convenient for Trisha to use an existing work permit rather than to go through the hassle of applying for a fresh one (and also run the risk of being refused).
 
MWT further established that Trisha had impersonated Carole on a visit to a solicitor’s office in order to get her name removed from the title deeds of the Bournemouth house. It was straightforward to unpick this deception; a handwriting expert could tell almost instantly that the signatures did not match.
 
This was a significant piece of work by MWT, but he failed to make its import clear to viewers. MWT had spoken to local officers about Carole’s disappearance. They all asserted that they’d made the usual thorough inquiries to establish her whereabouts. It was after drawing blanks at every turn that they began to conclude firstly that she was dead and secondly that Causley had murdered her.
We all know the golden rule of investigations (follow the money) and so the fact that the police inquiries into Carole’s disappearance had failed to uncover the title deeds scam merely showed how inept those inquiries must have been.
 
There are, in fact, three “disappeared wives” cases. They are all drawn from a relatively small geographical area of the south-west. This may indicate merely that the Crown Prosecution Service in these parts is more cavalier in its prosecutions. The other cases are those of John Allen, who sadly died in prison last year, not having had the chance to fulfil his last wish of establishing his innocence, and Glyn Razzell.
 
I narrated the Razzell case in some detail in The Nicholas Cases and there I make exactly the same point as applies in the Causley case: that although the police claimed to have made strenuous attempts to locate the missing person, in reality those were the most half-hearted inquiries.
 
Accordingly, the foundation of the prosecution case in each instance – that because of the exhaustive nature of the police inquires, we can say with certainty that the woman must be dead – is simply bogus.
 
This leads on to a point of huge significance – which is, of course, that when police did try to locate Carole, they succeeded: she went into a police station.
This is a highly inconvenient piece of information for MWT, so how does he deal with it?
 
‘All it took’, he tells viewers, ‘is for one person to walk into a police station and say she is Carole. No checks made and no questions asked.’
 
We have already learned both that the officer who dealt with this woman has since died and also that all the relevant files have since been destroyed.
So when MWT blithely says, No checks made and no questions asked – how can he know that? Logically, he can’t.
 
After all, the officer may indeed have asked a couple of questions to check the woman’s identity, and may also checked with the photograph on the missing person’s file.
 
Trisha, a natural redhead, did indeed go into a solicitor’s office in what she described as a cheap, blonde wig and pretend to be Carole.
 
MWT’s inference is obviously that Trisha, or someone, must have impersonated Carole on this occasion also. Yet while Trisha may have felt confident in impersonating Carole in a provincial solicitor’s office, here the circumstances were entirely different.
An impersonator walking into a police station would have had no idea of how thorough the checks were going to be. Officers might well have spent time comparing the file photograph with the actual person. The wearing of a wig may well have been quickly uncovered, and the impersonator unmasked.
 
Then the consequences could have been disastrous. The impersonator would suffer immediate detention followed by a possible prison sentence. Much more seriously, however, if this was indeed a ploy to pretend that a deceased Carole was actually still alive, then police would be driven to the conclusion that she had been murdered and an investigation would ensue. Such subterfuge could have been so seriously counter-productive that I do not believe anyone would contemplate it.
 
The key point is not whether or not checks in the police station were made; it is the foreknowledge of a potential impersonator of the likelihood that checks would be made.
 
Obviously, police witnesses at the subsequent trials would wish to downplay the significance of this evidence, highly favourable to the defence as it is. As with all evidence, it is important to examine the contemporary evidence – as it was viewed at the actual time, and not as it was reinterpreted in later years in the light of what was then thought to be known.
 
This relatively minor episode becomes more bewildering still, because MWT suddenly says, ‘I’ve established that the woman who spoke to police took a child of a similar age to Sam with her’. He repeats this assertion, saying, ‘I also know that when that person walked in there was a child with them’.
 
So where has this come from?
 
It is, at the least, journalistically dishonest. It is unprofessional to put on screen what is asserted to be key evidence while withholding its provenance from the audience. Indeed, it is because we have no idea where it comes from that many would conclude that MWT has just made it up. As before, the same background circumstances apply: the officer has died, the files have been destroyed.
 
So an analysis of this relatively small area of the case highlights MWT’s style and approach. It is actually a massively important defence point. MWT cannot undermine it so he resorts to unsourced claims (‘I’ve established…’, ‘I also know…’) hoping that viewers won’t notice such journalistic deceptions.
In terms of the case itself, the only point that matters is that that person could have Carole, and that at the time the police were satisfied, by whatever means, that it was Carole. That alone should have been sufficient to secure Causley an acquittal.
 
By this stage, viewers would surely have been wondering what on earth was the actual evidence on which Causley was convicted. Although The Investigator – A British Crime Story is a bloated and relentlessly repetitive series, MWT finds almost no time to dwell on the evidence that sent Causley to prison to life.
 
In fact, this is merely another of the elements of dishonesty that characterise the series. Had MWT fully analysed the Crown’s courtroom evidence, then viewers would have realised that the case against Causley at trial was essentially non-existent.
 
Basically, the trial evidence consisted of the evidence of Samantha, who had been turned wholly against her father by then but who, realistically, could give no evidence of murder; and the evidence of three jailhouse snitches.
 
Samantha told MWT that, after running away from home in the wake of her mother’s disappearance, she ‘made a statement against my father’. However, he then arrived and coerced her into retracting the statement and making a fresh one. As is usual, MWT provides no supporting evidence at all for this; perhaps there is none. Again, one yearns for information about the actual contemporary evidence, not the evidence as it may have been reshaped in subsequent years.
 
Jailhouse snitch testimony, when a prisoner claims that another has “confessed” to him, is certainly admissible evidence, but that does not mean that it is acceptable evidence. On the contrary, it is morally repugnant. All prisoners are vulnerable, and a number may perceive advantages and benefits from giving evidence that assists the authorities.
Nevertheless, the jailhouse snitch can help to pull the wool over the eyes of less sophisticated juries. The prosecution may use the evidence of a jailhouse snitch to try to top up a weak court case; sometimes, as in the case of Gordon Park, also described in The Nicholas Cases, there are two jailhouse snitches; to the initiated, that’s a clear sign that the case really is bogus.
 
Before Causley, I’d never heard of three being used in a case before. From this perspective alone, one can tell that this prosecution case was rotten to the core.
 
Almost inevitably, the evidence of each was at odds with that of the others (one stated that Causley had hacked his wife to death, another that he’d put her in an acid bath, and another that two others had taken away the corpse).
 
Jailhouse snitch represents a high water mark of prosecution disingenuousness. Prosecutors will know that it has in all probability been obtained by inducements of various kinds (it has never occurred to me that they actually believe it themselves), but will use it when it suits. However, should evidence of a similar nature be available for the defence, then the Crown immediately protest: he’s a convicted man, no one can believe him.
 
Causley was convicted at Winchester in 1996. His conviction was then quashed at the Court of Appeal in 2003, and a retrial was ordered. In The Nicholas Cases I argue that, in fairness, retrials should take place at the Old Bailey in London. Causley was retried at Exeter. It is 67 miles from Winchester to London and almost twice that distance to Exeter; but the authorities would have wanted an enfeebled case such as this to be heard in prosecution-friendly courts like Winchester and Exeter. Had had he been retried in London, I have no doubt that he would have been acquitted.
 
On neither occasion did he give evidence himself despite, as I understand it, wanting to. I can, however, appreciate that defence lawyers recognised that Causley, with an abrasive personality and a sharp manner, was not ideal witness-box material. Nor would they have wanted him to be cross-examined about his domestic arrangements in front of the socially conservative juries of the south-west. Again, had the retrial been held in London, I suspect he would have given evidence himself.
 
Having neglected to consider the trial evidence, MWT instead directs his attentions towards finding a body, or at least some remains. At one point, he has a remarkable conversation with another former police officer:
 
‘We looked at various places, storm drains’, says the former Dorset police officer. ‘He could have dismembered her and scattered her remains. It’s either that or he’s disposed of her by burning.’
 
‘Disposal of body by cutting her up, potentially burning the body’, adds MWT, ‘I think both of those have got to be really strong possibilities.’
 
Subsequently, MWT tells his viewers, ‘I have no doubt, absolutely no doubt, that she died here, she was murdered in this house’.
 
This is semi-hysterical nonsense for sure, but MWT presses ahead with his investigation. Having brought in equipment to determine the hot spots where burning has occurred in the past, he brings in an osteo-archaeologist and her team to dig up the garden of the Bournemouth house (I do hope that the current occupants were suitably recompensed by ITV) in the hope of finding some of Carole’s remains.
 
Naturally, this seemed an exercise in futility to vie with Peter Cook’s efforts to teach ravens to fly underwater, and the osteo-archaeologist duly confirmed that their intensive investigations of the garden soil had yielded only animal bone. No human bone at all.
 
‘This doesn’t mean he didn’t murder her,’ MWT quickly tells the viewers.
 
The criminal justice system is predicated on the assessment of evidence. That’s the warp and weft; there is nothing without evidence. Here, in effect, MWT is glibly saying that the absence of evidence is immaterial – we know he’s guilty anyway.
 
This is a second major prosecution deceit: the idea that if an area of investigation doesn’t provide evidence for the Crown, then it somehow falls into a category of non-evidence. In fact, this is all defence evidence, and it is very powerful defence evidence.
 
Disposing of a body is not easy. Clearly, Causley did not have an acid bath on site. Dismembering or burning the body are, indeed, logical possibilities – but each may well leave behind tell-tale evidence. In this case, there emphatically is none.
 
The house was not searched by forensic officers until almost a decade later, but it should be remembered that in the Lynette White murder case in Cardiff, forensics officers were able to find incriminating DNA evidence in the room where she was murdered more than a decade later.
 
Alternatively, had the body been burned, then it is certainly possible that some material would have been left behind – and yet, having conducted the most exhaustive search possible, MWT found nothing at all.
 
So he cannot glibly say that Causley might still have murdered her. The only point is that Causley’s case was always very strong, and, albeit inadvertently, MWT has actually made it stronger.
 
Another point needs to be made here. The Dorset police officer points out to MWT, ‘[Causley] had to do something with the body quickly because he still had Sam in the house’.
 
Once again, key information is being withheld from the viewers. This remark should actually have been: ‘he had to do something with the body quickly because he still had Sam and Trisha in the house’.
 
When this information is accurately given, it puts everything into a very different context. It is possible (even if highly unlikely) that Causley might have been able to conceal her mother’s remains from his teenage daughter. It is absurd to imagine that he could also conceal them from Trisha.
 
Given their mindset, MWT and the other former police officers assume that, because Trisha had colluded on the fraud, then she would also collude on the murder. Of course, this does not follow at all; they are wholly different categories of criminality. The idea that Trisha would have simply acquiesced in Carole’s murder seems ludicrous. If it had happened, then she would surely have been sickened by it and would not have stood by him (as she did) for the next 20 years.
 
The upshot of this (although it is another inescapable feature of the case that MWT ignores) is that Causley would have had scant opportunity to dispose of a body.
 
So, there is the inevitable question: what has happened to Carole Packham? Well, in the first place, it shouldn’t matter a great deal. There’s no evidence that she’s dead, and there’s an end to it.
 
The evidence of Brian and Shirley Tizzard, the next-door neighbours, is compelling. They are, after all, independent witnesses who knew her well and whom she visited the day before she disappeared.
 
‘She told me she was thinking of leaving’, commented Brian Tizzard. ‘She seemed quite calm, quite determined on the path she wanted to take, she wanted to move on with her life.
 
‘She was a very competent lady and, had she put her mind to it, she probably could have disappeared.’
 
I was intrigued by the comments of Shirley Tizzard. Asked by MWT what she thought had happened, she responded, ‘Do you want me to be honest? I still have a question-mark in my mind. Did she get away?’
 
That initial response – do you want me to be honest? – suggests a natural reluctance to challenge the official verdict, and yet she and her husband have the integrity to overcome their inhibitions and give their clear impressions. I’m sure they’re right. Meanwhile, this is more inconvenient evidence for MWT so he simply skates over it.
 
Had this documentary series been an honest one, then it would have included some general information about missing people in the UK. Approximately 250,000 people go missing each year. Many of those are never found. Creating a new identity may not be difficult. For ‘a very competent lady’, a combination of some fresh paperwork and a trip to the hairdresser’s could suffice.
 
Should the question be asked, but why hasn’t she come forward? The answer, of course, is that she has. Knowing that the police have disregarded her evidence and pursued a different course entirely might have left her feeling apprehensive about coming forward again. Now, she might fear a perverting the course of justice charge (even though I don’t see how she could be guilty of that). She might have moved abroad and be oblivious of these events; she might in the meantime have died of natural causes.
 
The point is that all of these are realistic possibilities. If someone disappears, then murder is the least likely explanation of their disappearance not, as some police officers appear to assume, the most likely.
 
MWT spent almost two parts of this series trying to establish the truth of a confession written by Causley – while concealing from the viewers the key point that Causley had disavowed the confession.
 
The confession itself did not surprise me. There are three considerations here. The first is that, after 20 years in prison, a prisoner’s mental faculties may understandably deteriorate. The second is the constant pressure they are under to confess to their ‘crime’. They suffer psychological torment, being told again and again that, if they do not confess, they will never be released. It is not surprising that some crack. The third point is that Causley’s mental equilibrium would undoubtedly have been shattered when, in August 2014, Trisha broke off her relationship with him. This finally pushed him over the edge.
 
‘I would give anything’, he wrote, ‘even now to hear Trish’s voice again, just one more time.’
 
By the end of the series, MWT has highlighted merely the opposite of what he intended to establish – not that he has the intellectual courage to concede this.
 
His year-long investigation has exposed the absence of any evidence that Causley murdered his wife and, by extension, the intrinsic weaknesses of the UK criminal justice system. Causley has now served 20 years in prison for a murder for which there is simply no bona fide evidence whatever.
 
This series could well be used by university media departments as a study in how television documentaries seek to mislead and conceal. Had it been attempted in the days when scrupulous standards still applied at ITV, it would have been deemed untransmittable and junked.
 
Bob Woffinden is a former ITV documentaries producer. The Nicholas Cases, which contains chapters on the Glyn Razzell and Gordon Park cases, is available on Amazon and from bookshops
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[Tony Bennett]

Obviously not impressed with MWT then:
 
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2016
 
THE JUSTICE GAP
 
WE ARE A MAGAZINE ABOUT LAW AND JUSTICE. AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 
Two trials, three jailhouse snitches, a four-part documentary series – and still no evidence

I don't know exactly why, but Mark Williams-Thomas is a media darling.

Why, of all the people walking this earth, was he given the job of presenting the TV programme publicly 'outing' Jimmy Savile?

Why, following that, did Williams-Thomas' Twitter feed give us one revelation after another from inside the heart of all the police child sexual abuse enquiries? He obviously had a contact at the heart of the police operations. Why? Who is giving him these opportunities?

Yet despite all this, there is the feeling of something 'not being quite right' in whatever Williams-Thomas does, says or touches. He has a achieved a big reputation over the past decade, yet is that reputation justified? I think not.   

Besides everything else, Mark Williams-Thomas still believes that Joana Cipriano may still be alive and was not murdered by her mother Leonor Cipriano and her uncle Joao Cipriano, despite overwhelming evidence that they murdered her in a most gruesome way.

He also believes that Madeleine McCann's disappearance is 'remarkably similar' to that of Joana Cipriano and that Madeleine may still be alive.  

Thanks for posting, DougD   

[Amy Dean]

His so-called investigation into the Carole Packman case was one of the most boring, waffling programmes I have ever seen!

[Roxyroo]

I just watched "The girls that were found alive" on YouTube, and there was MWT giving his opinion, but it was probably less than ten minutes in total.
The mind boggles at how much his fee would've been for his ten minute analysis...(well my mind anyway!)

[MayMuse]

His so-called investigation into the Carole Packman case was one of the most boring, waffling programmes I have ever seen!

Not a fan of MWT but I did find the CP docu fascinating, especially as to how he got all the information and was allowed to. I felt sad for her daughter and Grandson, it's obvious the "mistress" played a part and was amazed she wasn't "charged" there and then!

[MayMuse]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

MWT... Crime director & the McCanns Sept. 2007

[willowthewisp]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

MWT... Crime director & the McCanns Sept. 2007

Hi Maymuse,thanks for the MWT caginess connection and the McCann's?
Who sent MWT to Prai Da Luis to investigate Madeleine's disappearance,was it the UK Police,Leicestershire Police Force and who was paying for his services?

[MayMuse]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

MWT... Crime director & the McCanns Sept. 2007

Hi Maymuse,thanks for the MWT caginess connection and the McCann's?
Who sent MWT to Prai Da Luis to investigate Madeleine's disappearance,was it the UK Police,Leicestershire Police Force and who was paying for his services?

Hi willowthewisp,
I am not sure exactly; wiki has the following information with no mention of the Madeleine case at all? It is as if it has been omitted? 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Video here with GMTV. 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Further info here: 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[MayMuse]

Mr. Mark Williams-Thomas initially confirmed that his company had a contract to provide services to the McCann. Asked to confirm some details of that business relationship, he changed his initial answer and denied any relationship, admitting only that he has “been in contact with the press officers for the family.”


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


He has been an avid supporter of the McCanns I believe, and suggested that Madeleine was abducted after she left the apartment. He later questioned the appropriateness of the "make up photo" 

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[willowthewisp]

Hi Maymuse,
So the Mysterious connection of MWT being involved in the First Week of Madeleine's disappearance,May 2007,MWT close association,PR to Kate and Gerry McCann,Sky News Corporation,owned by one Rupert Murdoch,who reported the disappearance on their channel,Rebekah Brooks,David Cameron and Theresa May,Operation Grange,oh and Mathew Freud,Rupert's ex Son in law,whose Father was Clement Freud?
Mr Thomas was less than emollient to Mr Goncalo Amaral and the Portuguese PJ and their investigation,in fact stating that Madeleine had wandered out of the Apartment,where she was then"Abducted" as he could not find evidence of an intruder?

[MayMuse]

Hi Maymuse,
So the Mysterious connection of MWT being involved in the First Week of Madeleine's disappearance,May 2007,MWT close association,PR to Kate and Gerry McCann,Sky News Corporation,owned by one Rupert Murdoch,who reported the disappearance on their channel,Rebekah Brooks,David Cameron and Theresa May,Operation Grange,oh and Mathew Freud,Rupert's ex Son in law,whose Father was Clement Freud?
Mr Thomas was less than emollient to Mr Goncalo Amaral and the Portuguese PJ and their investigation,in fact stating that Madeleine had wandered out of the Apartment,where she was then"Abducted" as he could not find evidence of an intruder?

Yes & since he could not find evidence of an intruder, and KM stated that Madeleine would not wander off or get out of the apartment by herself? 
Stands to reason doesn't it? 
No intruder, no wandering off, no abduction. 
Bye bye Mark ?

[willowthewisp]

Hi Maymuse,
So the Mysterious connection of MWT being involved in the First Week of Madeleine's disappearance,May 2007,MWT close association,PR to Kate and Gerry McCann,Sky News Corporation,owned by one Rupert Murdoch,who reported the disappearance on their channel,Rebekah Brooks,David Cameron and Theresa May,Operation Grange,oh and Mathew Freud,Rupert's ex Son in law,whose Father was Clement Freud?
Mr Thomas was less than emollient to Mr Goncalo Amaral and the Portuguese PJ and their investigation,in fact stating that Madeleine had wandered out of the Apartment,where she was then"Abducted" as he could not find evidence of an intruder?

Yes & since he could not find evidence of an intruder, and KM stated that Madeleine would not wander off or get out of the apartment by herself? 
Stands to reason doesn't it? 
No intruder, no wandering off, no abduction. 
Bye bye Mark ?

Maymuse,you forgot to add,thanks for your assistance Mark,we'er innocent of being involved with Madeleine's disappearance?

[Phoebe]

[size=34]The documentary maker who exposed Jimmy Savile 'offered to sell names of DJ Jonathan King's child sex abuse victims' while working as a police detective on his case, judge claims[/size]

• Mark Williams-Thomas has claimed to have solved numerous high-profile cases
  
  
• Judge Deborah Taylor delivered a withering view of his work for Surrey Police
  
  
• She said a document was found offering names and introductions to victims 
  
  

By [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
PUBLISHED: 23:27, 6 August 2018 | UPDATED: 23:27, 6 August 2018

[Jill Havern]

A former police officer in the Jonathan King case who is now a TV documentary reporter offered to sell the names of the pop mogul’s victims, according to a judge.

Investigative reporter Mark Williams-Thomas, who made his name in a documentary exposing Jimmy Savile, has claimed to have solved a number of high-profile cases, including the murder of TV host Jill Dando.

But yesterday his professional reputation was called into question after Judge Deborah Taylor delivered a withering assessment of his previous work for Surrey Police on the King case. before he left the force in October 2000 Mr Williams-Thomas was the detective who interviewed the first man to accuse King of sexual assault. He was subsequently accused – and acquitted – of blackmail in an unrelated case.

Yesterday the judge said: ‘During the investigation into that offence a document was found on his computer offering for sale names and introductions to victims of Mr King.

‘There was also information that prior to Mr King’s arrest, Williams-Thomas said that he had been provided by a journalist with information about King. Williams-Thomas left taking his contemporaneous notebooks of his involvement with inquiries into Mr King with him.

‘No attempts had been made to obtain them, although it is the Crown’s position that he should not have taken them with him as they were the property of Surrey Police.’

The judge added that it had been suggested ‘there was deliberate concealment of his previous prosecution and of the documents indicating attempts to gain financial advantage from selling details of Mr King’s case’.

Yesterday Mr Williams-Thomas denied ever knowing the victims’ identities, or offering them for sale.

The ex-officer, who is working with Simon Cowell’s production company on a crime investigation series, said: ‘I have for the first time today been made aware that my name has been mentioned in a ruling by HHJ Deborah Taylor in the case against Jonathan King.

‘I am with immediate effect making contact with the CPS to seek clarification on these matters.’

Selling victims’ details would constitute an offence of misconduct in a public office. The maximum penalty is life in prison.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

-----------------
More about M W-T: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[Jill Havern]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[Jill Havern]

Sex abuse charges against DJ Jonathan King dropped in disclosure ‘debacle’

Historical sex abuse charges against the music mogul Jonathan King have been dropped. The judge called the case a debacle after a series of disclosure failings.

Yesterday Surrey police apologised to King, a former pop star and producer of bands such as Genesis, for “serious organisational failings” in its investigation. Last night King, 73, from Bayswater, west London, tweeted that the case had been “full of holes and lies”. He had denied 23 serious sexual assault charges against boys aged 14 to 16, which were said to have taken place between 1970 and 1988. Not guilty verdicts had already been entered in relation to two complainants.

The case collapsed in June as a result of “late and extensive failures in disclosure” and Judge Deborah Taylor issued a ruling highlighting “numerous, repeated and compounded failings”.


The matter can be reported after the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decided not to appeal against her ruling that the case should be stayed. It is the latest case to be dropped because of disclosure failings. Revelations last year led to a review of every rape and serious sexual assault case in England.

King appeared at Southwark crown court under his real name, Kenneth King. At the Old Bailey in 2001 he was found guilty of sex offences against boys. Judge Taylor’s ruling outlined that the “grave and serious allegations” were known about at the time of the first trial but were not pursued for more than 15 years.

She said that documents and information from 2000 were not disclosed, although they should have been. The court had been misled on numerous occasions on the “robustness of the disclosure process”, and inaccurate material was placed before her.

Surrey police is to commission an independent review of its investigation. A spokesman for the CPS said: “During the trial the police made us aware of issues with their handling of disclosure in the case. We asked the court to dismiss the jury. We appreciate today’s decision will be upsetting for the complainants and will contact them to explain our decision not to appeal.”


Birds Solicitors, which represented King, said: “It should be of great public concern that the numerous shortcomings in the disclosure process would not have been discovered but for the determination of the defence team. We have long expressed concerns about this investigation which we consider lacked sufficient objectivity.”

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[Mark Willis]

About time MWT's machinations were aired. I have always thought him a charlatan. Thanks for placing all the articles in one place.

[Jill Havern]

Snipped from a letter CMOMM sent in 2013 to Surrey Police:

ex- Surrey PC.     Mark Williams-Thomas.

Bringing the Force, and the Service, into Disrepute.

Mark Williams-Thomas’  name crops up in various places.  He bills himself as an “expert in Child abuse”, and refers back to his service in the Surrey Police, when it seems he was a DC for a short time and a Family Liaison Officer, also for a short time. [3]

It is recorded that he was prosecuted for Blackmail, one assumes by Surrey Officers, and although acquitted left the Force in 1990 under circumstances which he has never explained.  From what we can gather he completed only 11 or 12 years service.  Strangely he claims to have been re-employed by Surrey Police as a DC for one year in 2009, and also claims to have worked whilst in the police on child protection variously for 12 years, and for 20 years.  [1]  [2]  [3]  [4]  [5]

He previously claimed that he single-handedly brought the Savile case to the notice of the public. He has pontificated on several other cases and has said that he is engaged in viewing Child Pornography on the internet “for research purposes”.   He has not made it clear that he is among the persons authorised to do so.   [5]

But one of his more damaging claims is that whilst he was in Surrey Police he ‘led’ a number of murder and national paedophile investigations. [3]   [6]

Surrey, like all other forces, operates along ACPO guidelines for the investigation of serious crime, allocating even “simple”  murders to DI or DCI, overseen by Det Supt, and that a National Paedophile enquiry would be co-ordinated by the DChSupt, reporting to the ACC Crime and would be on a joint Inter-force Liaison group specially set up for the purpose.

For Mark Williams-Thomas to represent that he, as a junior DC personally ”led” such enquires must cause the general public of Surrey to doubt whether they have been given a proper professional service.  This is potentially damaging for the image of Surrey Police and of the Service as a whole.

Whilst anyone is entitled to carve out a professional life after retirement or resignation, and fantasists may not commit offences by their statements - unless thereby they obtain pecuniary advantage -  his activities seem to be beyond acceptable, and it may be that the Surrey police should be invited to consider issuing some form of explanatory statement, perhaps in the form of a Press release, to be used at the appropriate moments, in which the true facts about his service and real experience were set out.  [7]

 It cannot be in the public interest, especially in the currently extremely sensitive areas of child sexual abuse and paedophilia, for a person to make bogus claims about his expertise, based on a series of false statements about his service as a Surrey Police Officer.  




References

1 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][url=http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-savile-investigator-mark- williams-thomas-1509838#ixzz2SuTADf4z]williams-thomas-1509838#ixzz2SuTADf4z[/url]

"As a police officer I worked in the area of child protection for 20 years". 

2 [url=http://hardcastleintel.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/criminal-fraud-on-massive- scale.html][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] scale.html[/url]

Let us look at just one of those who has driven the hysteria over Sir James Savile and who claims he "exposed " the truth in his TV tabloid show "Exposure" when what he actually did was present a series of claims.
Mark Williams-Thomas is described repeatedly as a "child protection expert". Even Australia's respected ABC program 4 Corners introduced him as such.
He has no justification for making the claim and offering himself up as an expert on how to protect children.
The truth about Mark Williams-Thomas is this  he was a uniformed police officer on the beat for 9 years with the Surrey Police.
He graduated to Detective Constable - a role he held for only nine months before he left the Surrey Police under unexplained circumstances.
No detective constable in any police force around the world conducts police investigations. Rather they are part of a team with an Inspector (at the least) overseeing an inquiry. A DC could be answering phones, chasing up addresses, sitting in a car with another officer watching a suspect.
Yet the media has blithely accepted Williams-Thomas exaggerated claim that implies he was a major investigator on a number of important cases including the jailing of celebrity Jonathan King who oddly, was not the subject of any investigation until after Williams-Thomas left the force.
It would be prudent not to ask Williams-Thomas former colleagues at the Surrey Police what they think of him taking all the credit for the team's hard work.
This eight-month former DC then popped up with a company "advising' on child protection, a subject of which he had no specific knowledge of apart from his own self appointed, non-existent qualifications.
Two companies he set up were closed down.

3 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"Bringing with him his wealth of experience as hands on former Detective, Mark Williams-Thomas is able to provide a new dimension to many of the criminological problems facing today's society – for example, how the police investigate major crime and the risk management of sex offenders in the community.”   His expertise includes in particular risk management and assessment of offenders and he now owns his own Child Protection and Risk Management Consultancy - WT Associates Ltd. Prior to setting up WT Associates in 2005, Mark was a police Detective specialising in major crime. He worked on or was in charge of some of the largest paedophile and murder investigations in the country, as well as being was one of only 10 specialist Family Liaison officers during his time in the police. Mark is also completing a Masters in Criminology at the University of Central England."


4 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] jimmy-savile?CMP=twt_fd

He began his police career in Surrey in 1989, where he was a detective and family liaison officer. He launched the high-profile investigation into the singer and record and TV producer Jonathan King in 2000, leading to his conviction in 2001 for abusing boys, and led a local inquiry into paedophilia.
Williams-Thomas has described himself as a "doer" during his 11 years in the force and was once told by a superior that he was a "nightmare to manage". 

5  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] -ma-pg-dig
Child Protection Expert & Criminologist
TV Presenter/Media
September 2005 – Present (8 years)

Consultant
Child Protection Consultant
2005 – 2011 (6 years)

Detective
Surrey Police
Public Company; 1001-5000 employees; Law Enforcement industry
2009 – 2010 (1 year)

[? ? ?]

 6 [url=http://williams-thomas.co.uk/To Catch a Paedophile][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I've spent the past 18 months shadowing the officers of Scotland Yard's Paedophile Unit and, despite being a former detective with more than 12 years of experience in child protection, I've been horrified by what I've seen.
It's not just the appalling nature of the photographic images that so alarms me; it's the number of them.


 7 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Mark Williams Thomas (M.A) - TV Presenter, Criminologist & Child Protection Expert
Mark is a former police detective who has far-reaching experience of working at the centre of high profile investigations.
During Mark's police service, he specialised in child protection and major crime and he is renowned throughout the UK's police forces as well as the national media for his expertise in these areas.       

[my emphases]

[Jill Havern]

Surrey police to hold review after trial of Jonathan King collapses

Commissioner apologises for failures in case against 73-year-old charged with sex offences

An independent review will take place after “fundamental failures” led to the collapse of disgraced music industry figure Jonathan King’s trial, a police and crime commissioner has said.

Surrey police have apologised for serious failings in their investigation and an urgent independent review has been commissioned following the decision to dismiss the case due to failures in the disclosure process. There will be no further action against King and he will not be retried over alleged historical sex offences.

The 73-year-old, of Bayswater, central London, had denied 23 serious sexual assault charges against boys aged between 14 and 16 alleged to have taken place between 1970 and 1988. The trial collapsed in June and it has been confirmed that the proceedings against King will not continue.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

King, an ex-radio, TV and pop star and producer of acts including 10cc and Genesis, was released from prison in 2005 after serving half of a seven-year term for abusing underage boys between 1983 and 1989. He was previously found guilty at the Old Bailey in 2001 of sex offences against five youngsters aged 14 and 15.

In a statement after the recent proceedings were stopped, the police and crime commissioner for Surrey, David Munro, said: “I have read the judge’s decision in full and, as the police and crime commissioner for this county, I’m afraid it makes very difficult and concerning reading.

“It is clear to me there were fundamental failures in the disclosure process which have resulted in the decision to dismiss what was an important trial involving alleged victims of serious sexual offences. I am very sorry for all those involved who have been badly let down by this unacceptable and troubling situation.

“They have been denied the opportunity for a fair trial due to the undoubted shortcomings of disclosure which have been laid bare. I am extremely disappointed and have contacted the chief constable and already spoken to the deputy chief constable about this matter seeking a fuller explanation of what went wrong.”

He said they all agreed that an independent review should be commissioned to scrutinise the case “and the wider disclosure process within Surrey police to explore whether this was an isolated incident”.

“Clearly something has gone drastically wrong in this case and this must be addressed as a matter of urgency or we risk all that hard work being undone,” he said. “I will ensure my office carefully scrutinise the review and any changes required to restore the public’s faith in this area of policing.”

Surrey police said it was aware of the ruling at Southwark crown court to stay proceedings against King, adding: “We recognise that there were serious organisational failings in the investigation, particularly in relation to disclosure process and we will continue to study the judge’s ruling in detail.”

A spokesman for the Crown Prosecution Service said: “During the trial, the police made us aware of issues with their handling of disclosure in the case. We asked the court to dismiss the jury and worked with the police to remedy this ahead of a retrial. We appreciate today’s decision will be upsetting for the complainants and will contact them to explain our decision not to appeal the ruling.

“While we are satisfied the CPS handled the disclosure process appropriately and robustly in this case, there is an unprecedented focus from police and prosecutors to drive improvements in this area.”

Birds solicitors, which represented King, said: “This case is yet another example of failings in the disclosure process. The judgment of the court sets out the detail of those failings which the judge described as a ‘debacle’.”

The CPS said King originally faced 24 charges, but one was dropped.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[Jill Havern]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  12m12 minutes ago


Remember this [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] beauty [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Not content with ruining [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] s tourism you tried to ruin [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] s too. Didnt half add some weight to Kate & Gerry [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] s "abduction" story for a short while tho eh [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Until the truth poured out...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[willowthewisp]

Hi Jill Havern,Verdi, So Mark williams Thomas left his Police " Note Book" with personal information with a Journalist,who No doubt broke the story about Mr Jonathon King gave close support to  Mr Cliff Richards at his "Privacy Trail" against the BBC,where it transpired the information passed as to person and Address in Berkshire with a live "Warrant" from South Yorkshire Police?

But it was Dan Johnson,the BBC Reporter "Blackmailing the Police",that forced them to reveal the person's address,well done Justice Mann for your "Fair Hearing" Not,held behind closed doors,something to hide Mr Mann about Mr Richards in regard to Operation Yewtree and a special guest house list in Richmond?

Just part of the elusive cover up on systematic child abuse in the UK," Nothing to see Here,Move along People " Bryn Alyn,Elyn,Kincora,Dunblane!?

[Tony Bennett]

It appears that Mark Williams-Thomas's name came up in the recent case of Cliff Richard v the BBC, which the BBC lost.

This would appear to be an extract from the judge's judgment:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

If so, it looks as though the alleged victim of Cliff Richard brought his story to the attention of the police via Mark Wiliams-Thomas and ITV.  

Also, according to the judgment in the case of the collapse of the second criminal case against Jonathan King in June, back in 2000 MWT was hawking around the names and addresses of King's alleged victims and offering journalists - for money - to arrange interviews with them.

Now, it seems that it was in the very same year (2000) that MWT 'left' Surrey Police, for reasons that until now we have not been able to find out.

A reasonable guess, based upon the sensational revelations in the Jonathan King case, would be that his misconduct came to light and that MWT was offered the choice by Surrey Police to resign - or be disciplined, or prosecuted, for misconduct in public office. As the Daily Mail reported, this offence, if proved, carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

It may be that MWT was vey fortunate not to be prosecuted over his alleged misconduct.

As we know, MWT WAS prosecuted soon afterwards for alleged blackmail - the offence of demanding money by making threats. He was eventually found not guilty.

It remains a mystery how he was given the information that led to him being able to front the programme which outed Jimmy Savile, making him look like a public hero.

On his website, he makes this boast:

QUOTE

Mark is a multi award winning investigative reporter and has amongst his awards, two Royal Television Society Awards, a Broadcasting Press Guild Award and an International Peabody Award. He is also BAFTA nominated.

He is a former police detective and a criminologist who has far-reaching experience of working at the center of high profile investigations and undertaking major reviews.

Mark has over the last decade reported on nearly all the biggest crime stories including: Oscar Pistorius , The Alps murders, Tia Sharp murder, Claudia Lawrence murder, the murder of Alice Gross and the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

One of Mark's greatest skills is his ability to get exclusive access and interviews with key people related to the cases.

====

We may legitimately ask: who exactly is helping him make these contacts - and why?

On the Madeleine McCann case, MWT was one of those sent out very soon to Praia da Luz where he made the ludicrous claim that Leonor Cipriano was innocent of the brutal murder of her own daughter, Joana, aged 8, despite the Supreme Court of Portugal in a long and detailed judgment having confirmed the guilt of her and her brother Joao, and sentenced them to 16-year jail terms (which I consider a light sentence btw).

He has made other strange pronouncements on this and other cases.   

He has also openly boasted on Twitter that he watches hours and hours of child sexual abuse, which he said was 'for professional reasons of research'. For anyone else, as with Pete Townshend of The Who, who ran a similar defence, this would be a crime. So, again, who exactly has given him permission to watch all this child sexual abuse - and why?    

Only last week he claimed that before Barry George/Bulsara was WRONGLY found guilty of murdering Jill Dando - he, MWT himself - knew the identity of the hit-man who killed her! And the media gratefully allowed him to come and spout this nonsense on TV just weeks ago!

I don't know about anyone else here, but I suspect that CMOMM member Richard D Hall was a lot nearer the truth in his recent 'Kill Jill' film than Mark Williams-Thomas will ever be about that execution.    



.

ETA:    My attention has since been drawn to this Press Gazette report (some time ago) in which it is CONFIRMED that Mark Williams-Thomas WAS the source of information and the man who put the alleged victim in touch with South Yorkshire Police.

So far Williams-Thomas's efforts in that case have resulted in:

* a multi-million pound investigation by S Yorks Police into Cliff Richard which got nowhere

* Cliff Richard suffering ill-health and having to spend over £1 million defending himself

* A court case by Cliff Richard against the BBC which cost licence-payers hundreds of thousands of pounds and which resulted in a judgment which could restrict press freedoms.

Well done again, MWT      

[Tony Bennett]

Here is Mark Williams-Thomas talking to a journalist in 2013 and boasting of how he would flout the law and police regulations by breaking strict police confidence about investigations:


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

[Keitei]

Check Tweets out here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[willowthewisp]

So what can anyone do if Mark Williams Thomas has been part of the "Masterplan"to cover up,who or what has been involved in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?

fuck all,that's what anyone can do?

You can link him to "Twitter" posts,Teddy Shepperd,connecting his part(MWT) to the obvious disgust of millions of people,where it states he was working for the McCann's all along,due to his part of being involved via the Metropolitan Police Service,Gold Group 8th May 2007/Operation Grange?

You can then connect,Martin Brunt,Sky News Corporation,via Teddy Shepperd,Twitter, the "Dossier" to Sir Bernard Hogan Howe,Big Jim Gamble,Gerry,exposure of the Trolls,Mrs Brenda Leyland,the excuse will be it's "Circumstantial" in a case of this complexity,put down to "Conspiracy Theories" with too much time on their hands?

The more you unfurl about what these people have been involved with leads to only One point,child abuse,but there is No obvious evidence of Madeleine McCann being abused?

The parents have stated an "Hellish Liar"Paedophiles have taken Madeleine,there are the connections to person's who have frequented a known Address in Richmond Surrey,who the parents met,then there is Clement Freud connections to powerful Media magnets, Rupert Murdoch,Rebekah Brooks,David Cameron,Andy Coulson,Kenneth Clarke,Ben Fellows all circumstantial,without one shred of proof,think about it? 

In May/June 2007 the Metropolitan Police Service/Interpol investigated to a possible Paedophile Gang to have abducted Madeleine McCann. In 2008,they concluded they could find No Paedophile ring or Gang in Operation,yet in other News Paper findings,they stated the opposite,so who knows what they did or Did Not find "Operational"?

Are they all connected to Alexis Jay IICSA, directed away from the Kincora Boy's Home, MI5/6,IRA,DUP, Ministers of the Church,Royal Family?

[Guest]

In the week a judge throws out a THIRD historic abuse case against pop mogul Jonathan King convicted of molesting boys... Police appear in dock over missing evidence of star witness who helped secure his seven-year sentence

Child sex abuse case that saw pop mogul Jonathan King handed a seven-year jail sentence has been reopened
Fresh evidence is being considered by the Criminal Cases Review Commission
The commission is set to decide whether it will be ordering a new appeal

By David Rose for The Mail on Sunday

Published: 00:17 BST, 12 August 2018 | Updated: 00:20 BST, 12 August 2018

The child sex abuse case that saw pop mogul Jonathan King handed a seven-year jail sentence has been reopened in the light of fresh evidence – including documents which dramatically undermine the testimony of a star witness at his 2001 trial.

Fresh evidence is being considered by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which will decide whether to order a new appeal. It emerged as a result of King’s trial this year on separate, though related, charges of ‘historic’ sex abuse, some dating back to 1970.

That case was brought to an end last week when the judge issued a damning ruling, accusing Surrey Police of failing to disclose critical evidence and misleading the court.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Judge Deborah Taylor told Southwark Crown Court that it would be impossible for King to get a fair trial because ‘the integrity of the criminal justice system and processes have been undermined publicly in a fundamental way by disclosure failures and persistent misleading of the court’.

She added: ‘A trial has been aborted due to the failures. The time of the court and public money have been wasted, in a time of scarce resources… Continuation would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.’

The Mail on Sunday can reveal that the fresh evidence to be considered by the CCRC includes:

Witness A – one of five underage victims King was convicted of abusing in 2001 – who gave a long, unpublished interview to the News of the World four years before he spoke to the police, in which he revealed a very different story from his trial testimony. This newspaper has established he told the reporter in 1997 that he met King when he was with a friend at an amusement arcade, and was not assaulted until weeks later;

In 2001, Witness A said former DJ King first approached him when he was alone at a market stall, drove him in his Rolls-Royce to a ‘peep show’ and, later that same day, took him to his home, where he assaulted him. The police knew of these discrepancies seven months before the 2001 trial, but allegedly did not disclose the 1997 account to the defence team;

As the MoS first revealed in 2016, an investigation by the author Bob Woffinden, who died earlier this year, shows that another boy King was convicted of abusing was not in the same country as the music mogul throughout the period when he claimed he was certain the alleged abuse took place. He was in England, but tickets, receipts and credit card bills unearthed by Woffinden show that King was in America;

A 2014 report by Merseyside police on Operation Arundel, the original 2001 Surrey investigation, was only disclosed to King’s lawyers shortly before the 2018 case finally collapsed. The report, triggered by Surrey’s widely criticised investigation of allegations against Jimmy Savile before his death, made sweeping criticisms of the way Arundel officers took statements from alleged victims, saying the method they used ‘increases the possibility of error’, and ‘the integrity of any statement taken in this manner is open to question’;

The report says officers failed to tape the questions they asked during interviews, while victims’ statements were written up and signed ‘days if not weeks’ afterwards from short ‘trigger notes’, instead of immediately. The CCRC will now decide whether this casts doubt on all the evidence that convicted King in 2001;

The first Arundel detective to take a statement from an alleged victim of King was Mark Williams-Thomas, now a TV presenter. According to Judge Taylor’s ruling, after Williams-Thomas left the force, police found ‘a document on his computer offering for sale names and introductions to victims of Mr King’. The judge also said that when he left, Williams-Thomas took his police notebooks concerning King with him. The prosecution said he should not have done this because they were force property;

In 2018, though not in 2001, King was charged with abusing Witness B, the alleged victim interviewed by Williams-Thomas. Witness B could not have testified in person because illness had destroyed his ability to speak: the jury would have been asked to convict King on the basis of his 2001 statement. Witness B’s medical records, which showed he had been in numerous mental institutions and had been a drug addict, were only disclosed in June, shortly before the trial collapsed.

Yesterday, King, 73, told this newspaper in an exclusive interview: ‘I’m naturally delighted by the outcome, but my real hope is to protect others in future, and to let the many teachers, care workers and others who have also been wrongly convicted of so-called historic sexual abuse to have their cases reopened too.

‘There needs to be change at all levels. But as Judge Taylor has done, we must start with the behaviour of the police.’

He said that Surrey Chief Constable Nick Ephgrave, the man ultimately responsible, should resign.

King’s long career in pop began in 1965 when he had a top five hit while still a Cambridge student. He went on to write, perform and produce many more, while also discovering bands such as Genesis.

His contacts were also impeccable. In 2001, Simon Cowell stood him bail, and when he was arrested, King had been offered the chairmanship of recording giant EMI on an annual £5 million salary.

Other famous friends included former Page 3 model Samantha Fox.

He admits the sexual opportunities that success gave him were endless, and some might find his promiscuous behaviour reprehensible.

But he says he never made any secret of it, and was always clear he was not interested in settling down. In a recent video, he ironically described himself as a ‘vile pervert’.

‘I’m bisexual,’ he said, ‘and I had sex with hundreds of people. About 40 per cent were women.

‘But I found it absurd that in the 1970s and 1980s, I could legally have sex with a 16-year-old girl but not with a boy the same age because the age of consent for gay sex was 21.

‘So I deliberately broke the law with young men who were over 16, and who wanted to have sex with me.’

King insisted he went to elaborate lengths to ensure he never slept with anyone under 16, adding: ‘I was very good at seduction. I’m sorry if some people have come to regret having sex with me in later life. But if anyone said no, I accepted it. I knew some of those who made allegations, but I didn’t have sex with any of them.’

In all, King has faced four trials.

The first – in which he was convicted of abusing boys aged 14 and 15, with offences ranging from buggery to touching inappropriately – led to his seven-year jail sentence, of which he served three and a half years.

In the second, in November 2001, he was accused of abusing two boys but found not guilty on all counts.

A third trial due after that was dropped by the prosecution.

The charges he would have faced then were ‘left on file’. But King was assured by his lawyers that they would never be revived.

Legal experts say it is highly unusual for charges of this kind to be tried years later. However, this is what happened in King’s fourth trial, which ended last week.

Of the ten alleged victims, seven – including Witness B – had first made statements in 2001, when their claims were either left on file or did not lead to charges.

The other three came forward after King was arrested in 2015 amid huge publicity.

The 2001 trial started in June. In April, King’s defence, led by solicitor Steven Bird and Henry Blaxland QC, had tried to get the case stopped as an ‘abuse of process’, arguing it was unfair to revive the old allegations.

At that stage, the judge disagreed. But then, following pressure from King’s defence, further documents were disclosed, including the Merseyside report on Operation Arundel and Witness B’s extensive medical records.

The prosecution, acting on information from the police, had wrongly told the court these documents contained ‘nothing of relevance’, and that there was no ‘final version’ of the Merseyside report – when, in fact, there was, and Surrey Police had a copy in their files.

King was found not guilty on the two charges which had lain on file, including the claim he abused Witness B. Then the case was aborted.

Meanwhile, a long statement to police by the News of the World reporter describing his interview with Witness A in 1997, with its many discrepancies from his 2001 evidence, had also come to light.

It had been sent to King’s office as part of a package of ‘unused material’ in October 2001 but he never examined it because by then he had been convicted, and was in Belmarsh prison.

King said he was sure that the reporter’s statement had not been disclosed before his trial, and if it had been, his barrister, Ron Thwaites QC, who had a formidable reputation, would have used it to undermine Witness A’s allegations.

The 2018 prosecution lawyers said ‘it is not possible to say’ if the reporter’s statement was disclosed before the 2001 trial or not, but admitted that the information it contained was ‘not in any statement made by [Witness A] himself’.

‘I was misled,’ Judge Taylor said at the end of last week’s ruling.

She added that, whether the misleading was deliberate or not, to allow this ‘would give rise to a belief that in this type of case, where there are sexual allegations against figures in the public eye, the courts are prepared to sanction the end justifying the means’.

Perhaps most astonishingly of all, she also suggested that the 2018 case had ‘not been driven by complainants’ allegations’, but ‘by concerns about reputational damage to Surrey Police in the wake of the Savile case and the consequent Merseyside investigation’.

Last night the CCRC confirmed that it had reopened the 2001 case. A spokesman said: ‘We will examine whatever material there may be which is relevant. Anything that concerns witnesses’ credibility will have a bearing.’

Williams-Thomas said he ‘not been given any opportunity to defend myself’ before the judge issued her ruling, saying that he should have been. He said he left the police with an ‘exemplary record’ and only kept his notebooks because he was advised to do so.

As to the document the judge said was found on his computer offering to sell details of King’s alleged victims, he said: ‘After two investigations, no action was taken against me.

‘It must follow that no offences were disclosed. I categorically deny any wrongdoing here or in relation to any of the other criticisms… I pride myself on my ability to protect victims of such crimes.’

A Surrey Police spokesman said: ‘We recognise there were serious organisational failings in the investigation, particularly in relation to disclosure.’

The force ‘deeply regret we did not meet the required standards to ensure a fair trial. For this we wholeheartedly apologise.’

The spokesman added that the force had commissioned an ‘independent review’ and a formal complaint by King was now being investigated. However, Chief Constable Nick Ephgrave had ‘no intention of resigning’.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]