Operation Yew Tree Wheatfields

Richard Card made this Freedom of Information request to Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The authority would like to / has responded by postal mail to this request.

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Please disclose the reasons, if any, your inquiry at Wheatfields Sue Ryder is failing to liaise or seek evidence from the Attorney General and Suffolk Police.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/y...

As you will see there were Commons questions raised in 1972

(1) Shadow Minister Barbara Castle MP called for inquiry under Section 37 National Assistance Act 1948 into the concerns of the late Matron McGill about poor care standards and "The distance kept between the care and admin sides" of the Leonard Cheshire and Sue Ryder charities.

You may be familiar with the name Sir Eric BERTHOUD for his work with SOE, Anglo Iranian Oil and Foreign Office and his part, with Ipswich Labour MP Richard RAPIER STOKES in the overthrow of Mossadeq to create a job vacancy for a Shah in Iran.

His role in answering questions from the McGILL family solicitor in 1972 (Eric was Head of Sue Ryder support group) is less well known (But Dominic Grieve knows). Eric in conjunction with an honorary solicitor for Sue Ryder explained (some time after the secret inquest and unlawful cremation) that the Sue Ryder Home had been circulated for inquest witnesses on the morning of the death itself.

I don't know if there was ever a warrant search of the Sue Ryder Home seeking the missing crystal ball. I say this because inquest testimony begins with the discovery of the body at 2 PM. By which time, according to Eric's post inquest account, the inquest witness list had already been drawn up and lunch consumed (presumably) ready for the body discovery stage to take place in the afternoon !!

Dominic Grieve thinks that a High Court judge would be so unimpressed by such evidence that said Judge should be spared it altogether and it should all be kept secret under Govt Law Officer custodianship of public interest (Section 13 Coroners Act 1988)

(2) Eric Berthoud you may know was something to do with a 1970s charity Colchester Cttee for Refugee Relief. I see that refugee relief is now a remit of the Airey Neave Trust. That would be Airey Neave of MI6 who was co founding trustee of Sue Ryder Homes with Harry Sporborg ex SOE.

You can be assured that diligent examination of the case has occurred at govt level. For example when Sir John Stradling Thomas MP first wrote to ministers putting together the Suffolk McGILL Decd case with the Welsh regional crime squad case, he wrote to Attorney General Patrick Mayhew and Police Minister Earl Ferrers.

Luckily they would not have had to do too much reading up. As Patrick Mayhew mmmm President Airey Neave Trust and Ferrers ancestral seat Staunton Harold became better known as Staunton Harold Leonard Cheshire Home.

By the time Roger Evans MP a barrister made the first Section 13 attempt to quash the 1972 McGILL suicide verdict circa 1993/94 the Attorney Genral had become Nicholas Lyell. Thank goodness an old boy of Stowe School just like mmmm Leonard Cheshire.

(3) You may find it rather odd that Dominic Grieve has indicated, on this FOI site, that Suffolk Police could be forgiven for failing to look at the Stefania Bronk autopsy report 1972 to see whether or not ileac crest bruising is recorded.

You may have the expertise (serious now) to know if Pes Recurvatus can occur other than congenitally. This featured in McGILL Decd 1972 but a New Zealand medical records check of the 1990s reported to the McGILL family that Mary McGILL did not have pes recurvatus.

The inquest witness to whom identification was attributed then clarified that he had never viewed the face of the body, had not in fact seen it immersed in the lake and had not taken part in its recovery from the lake. He in fact appears to have been a volunteer kitchen help who was an reportedly an outpatient and occasional in patient of Fulbourne mental hospital.

So the situation seems to be if the pes recurvatis was congenital the body was not Mary McGILL. Or if the body was Mary McGILL she had acquired unaccounted injury to the costal margin which was unbruised. Bruising was ileac crest and shin tramlime.

Here we have two govt interpretations of law. Lord Chanvellow specialist Coroner section agreed with me. The cremation was of an unidentified body and hence the jurisdiction is with Home Secretary to order an inquest.

The AG can apply to quash the suicide verdict on an unidentified body. But he cannot declare an inquest safe when he knows there was no proof of identification.

As you know Dominic was a Modern History man so he must have been studying the history of the trades union movement or something whilst the law dept was covering things like mmm Law and the Office of Constable and the Coronation Oath and Magna Carta and Crown authority for the administration of justice.

(4) So the matter of the Special Branch exercise discovered by Welsh RCS. There you may find it fruitful to have a word with Tony Burden former Chief constable of Gwent. Did he consent in the 90s for MI5 or Scotland Yard specialist nazi war criminal inquiries to trawl Gwent held RCS records ? And was this linked into the later inquiry 1994 when a bizarre burglary stole all Newport births marriages deaths records. Oh and what happened about the document burglary 1992 at the home of one of the retired RCS detectives ?

Tony should help you out with that.

(5) Maybe also you could chat with Tim Passmore whose occupation is PCC Suffolk and to his PA. The PA job title used to be called "Chief constable" if that helps.

(6) You can see where this is going. Charity that was de facto unlawful police no go area maybe for political reasons but there is no such thing as a mild case of police no go area. So please do not contain the Wheatfields inquiry to just Savile. there is a context and a history of suppressed inquiry into death with suspected abuse.

(7) Look at the Ixworth Beeches child deaths. Also refused care inquiry by Sir Keith Joseph in 1972. You could start with Hackney Social Services and ask why retrospective inquiry into abuse by residential social workers gave the Director of Cambridge Social Services terms of reference which excluded him from investigating the six year history of child deaths at The Beeches Ixworth.

Yours faithfully,

Richard Card

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

As you will appreciate my position is that if I was allowed access to High Court I think the McGILL suicide verdict would quash (IMO a turkey shoot)

In my affidavit with Attorney General I request, in the event of a quash, the High Court appoint itself HM Coroner for the new inquest procedure. In the public interest.

What I have not been able to pursue is anecdotal information:

(1) Attributed by an anonymous Christs College Cambridge spokesman to Bishop of Durham or past Bishop. That inquiry might be meritted to look at a charity called Katherine Low Settlement to see if it was a route used by volunteers and careworkers common to the Sue Ryder Home and the Beeches Ixworth.

(2) Security vetting flagging 1970s. Suffolk man flagging up on posituve vetting of Special Forces. "Undischarged bankrupt asset of the IRA acquiring information of use to the Soviet". In his remit, if he had one, was an interest in Sue Ryder and Leonard Cheshire activity Cavendish

(3) A womens' stillbirth or infant death self help group who were said to have rented a cottage at Cavendish watching the activity of Sue Ryder. This group, if it existed, was not absorbed I think into the well known SANDS charity. There was a suggestion they were from the Bristol area.

I feel I have met not just one but ALL the tests for unsafety of an inquest (McGILL Decd)

Insufficiency of Inquiry
Fraud
Rejection of Evidence
Irregularity of Procedure

I would like to see a new inquest under the Article 2 procedure. In fact the first argument I know of to incorporate Article 2 ECHR into inquest law was by me in the McGILL case. That rights to life cannot be protected by the state unless there exists concurrently the certainty of proper lawful sudden death inquiry.

I decided to give you some of the scuttlebutt to make of what you might.

Yours faithfully,

Richard Card

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Card

Freedom of Information Request Reference No:2014020000133

I respond in connection with your request for information which was
received by Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 29/01/2014.
Please disclose the reasons, if any, your inquiry at Wheatfields Sue Ryder
is failing to liaise or seek evidence from the Attorney General and
Suffolk Police.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/y...
As you will see there were Commons questions raised in 1972 (1) Shadow
Minister Barbara Castle MP called for inquiry under Section 37 National
Assistance Act 1948 into the concerns of the late Matron McGill about poor
care standards and "The distance kept between the care and admin sides" of
the Leonard Cheshire and Sue Ryder charities. You may be familiar with the
name Sir Eric BERTHOUD for his work with SOE, Anglo Iranian Oil and
Foreign Office and his part, with Ipswich Labour MP Richard RAPIER STOKES
in the overthrow of Mossadeq to create a job vacancy for a Shah in Iran.
His role in answering questions from the McGILL family solicitor in 1972
(Eric was Head of Sue Ryder support group) is less well known (But Dominic
Grieve knows).  Eric in conjunction with an honorary solicitor for Sue
Ryder explained (some time after the secret inquest and unlawful
cremation) that the Sue Ryder Home had been circulated for inquest
witnesses on the morning of the death itself. I don't know if there was
ever a warrant search of the Sue Ryder Home seeking the missing crystal
ball.  I say this because inquest testimony begins with the discovery of
the body at 2 PM.  By which time, according to Eric's post inquest
account, the inquest witness list had already been drawn up and lunch
consumed (presumably) ready for the body discovery stage to take place in
the afternoon !! Dominic Grieve thinks that a High Court judge would be so
unimpressed by such evidence that said Judge should be spared it
altogether and it should all be kept secret under Govt Law Officer
custodianship of public interest (Section 13 Coroners Act 1988) (2) Eric
Berthoud you may know was something to do with a 1970s charity Colchester
Cttee for Refugee Relief.  I see that refugee relief is now a remit of the
Airey Neave Trust.  That would be Airey Neave of MI6 who was co founding
trustee of Sue Ryder Homes with Harry Sporborg ex SOE. You can be assured
that diligent examination of the case has occurred at govt level.  For
example when Sir John Stradling Thomas MP first wrote to ministers putting
together the Suffolk McGILL Decd case with the Welsh regional crime squad
case, he wrote to Attorney General Patrick Mayhew and Police Minister Earl
Ferrers. Luckily they would not have had to do too much reading up.  As
Patrick Mayhew mmmm President Airey Neave Trust and Ferrers ancestral seat
Staunton Harold became better known as Staunton Harold Leonard Cheshire
Home. By the time Roger Evans MP a barrister made the first Section 13
attempt to quash the 1972 McGILL suicide verdict circa 1993/94 the
Attorney Genral had become Nicholas Lyell.  Thank goodness an old boy of
Stowe School just like mmmm Leonard Cheshire. (3) You may find it rather
odd that Dominic Grieve has indicated, on this FOI site, that Suffolk
Police could be forgiven for failing to look at the Stefania Bronk autopsy
report 1972 to see whether or not ileac crest bruising is recorded. You
may have the expertise (serious now) to know if Pes Recurvatus can occur
other than congenitally. This featured in McGILL Decd 1972 but a New
Zealand medical records check of the 1990s reported to the McGILL family
that Mary McGILL did not have pes recurvatus. The inquest witness to whom
identification was attributed then clarified that he had never viewed the
face of the body, had not in fact seen it immersed in the lake and had not
taken part in its recovery from the lake. He in fact appears to have been
a volunteer kitchen help who was an reportedly an outpatient and
occasional in patient of Fulbourne mental hospital. So the situation seems
to be if the pes recurvatis was congenital the body was not Mary McGILL.
 Or if the body was Mary McGILL she had acquired unaccounted injury to the
costal margin which was unbruised.  Bruising was ileac crest and shin
tramlime. Here we have two govt interpretations of law.  Lord Chanvellow
specialist Coroner section agreed with me.  The cremation was of an
unidentified body and hence the jurisdiction is with Home Secretary to
order an inquest. The AG can apply to quash the suicide verdict on an
unidentified body.  But he cannot declare an inquest safe when he knows
there was no proof of identification. As you know Dominic was a Modern
History man so he must have been studying the history of the trades union
movement or something whilst the law dept was covering things like mmm Law
and the Office of Constable and the Coronation Oath and Magna Carta and
Crown authority for the administration of justice.   (4) So the matter of
the Special Branch exercise discovered by Welsh RCS.  There you may find
it fruitful to have a word with Tony Burden former Chief constable of
Gwent.  Did he consent in the 90s for MI5 or Scotland Yard specialist nazi
war criminal inquiries to trawl Gwent held RCS records ?  And was this
linked into the later inquiry 1994 when a bizarre burglary stole all
Newport births marriages deaths records. Oh and what happened about the
document burglary 1992 at the home of one of the retired RCS detectives ?
Tony should help you out with that. (5) Maybe also you could chat with Tim
Passmore whose occupation is PCC Suffolk and to his PA.  The PA job title
used to be called "Chief constable" if that helps. (6) You can see where
this is going.  Charity that was de facto unlawful police no go area maybe
for political reasons but there is no such thing as a mild case of police
no go area.  So please do not contain the Wheatfields inquiry to just
Savile.  there is a context and a history of suppressed inquiry into death
with suspected abuse. (7) Look at the Ixworth Beeches child deaths.  Also
refused care inquiry by Sir Keith Joseph in 1972.  You could start with
Hackney Social Services and ask why retrospective inquiry into abuse by
residential social workers gave the Director of Cambridge Social Services
terms of reference which excluded him from investigating the six year
history of child deaths at The Beeches Ixworth. ALSO: As you will
appreciate my position is that if I was allowed access to High Court I
think the McGILL suicide verdict would quash (IMO a turkey shoot) In my
affidavit with Attorney General I request, in the event of a quash, the
High Court appoint itself HM Coroner for the new inquest procedure.  In
the public interest. What I have not been able to pursue is anecdotal
information: (1) Attributed by an anonymous Christs College Cambridge
spokesman to Bishop of Durham or past Bishop. That inquiry might be
meritted to look at a charity called Katherine Low Settlement to see if it
was a route used by volunteers and careworkers common to the Sue Ryder
Home and the Beeches Ixworth. (2) Security vetting flagging 1970s.
 Suffolk man flagging up on posituve vetting of Special Forces.
 "Undischarged bankrupt asset of the IRA acquiring information of use to
the Soviet".  In his remit, if he had one, was an interest in Sue Ryder
and Leonard Cheshire activity Cavendish (3) A womens' stillbirth or infant
death self help group who were said to have rented a cottage at Cavendish
watching the activity of Sue Ryder.  This group, if it existed, was not
absorbed I think into the well known SANDS charity.  There was a
suggestion they were from the Bristol area. I feel I have met not just one
but ALL the tests for unsafety of an inquest (McGILL Decd) Insufficiency
of Inquiry Fraud Rejection of Evidence Irregularity of Procedure I would
like to see a new inquest under the Article 2 procedure.  In fact the
first argument I know of to incorporate Article 2 ECHR into inquest law
was by me in the McGILL case.  That rights to life cannot be protected by
the state unless there exists concurrently the certainty of proper lawful
sudden death inquiry. I decided to give you some of the scuttlebutt to
make of what you might.

DECISION

I have decided to refuse access to the information you have requested
under the provisions of Section 8 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000
(the Act).

REASON FOR DECISION

Section 8 of the Act provides:

(1)         In this Act any reference to a "request for information" is a
reference to such a request which-

(a) is in writing,
(b) states the name of the applicant and an address for correspondence,
and
(c) describes the information requested.

(2)        For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), a request is to be
treated as made in writing where the text of the request-

(a) is transmitted by electronic means,
(b) is received in legible form, and
(c) is capable of being used for subsequent reference.

A request under the Act is required by statute to be legible and capable
of being used for subsequent reference. After careful consideration, I
have decided that your request does not meet this requirement as I am
unable to ascertain what information you have requested, as defined by
Section 8 (2)(c).

To enable us to meet your request could you please resubmit your
application in accordance with the above requirements. If for any reason
you are unable to do so, please contact me for assistance or seek
assistance from any other available source.

We will consider your resubmitted request upon receipt as long as it meets
the requirements stated above. You will receive the information requested
within the statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act,
subject to the information not being exempt.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to make a complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me via email, quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

James Young
SC&O Information Manager
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.  

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
 Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  01625 545 700

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk
Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Thank you for your response.

I will post you a copy of the sworn exhibit report in Matron McGILL Decd. By recorded delivery. Which includes copies of the original inquest testimony.

I have sent a submission by email to Dame Janet Smith Inquiry. I will provide a printed copy with the exhibit report.

Yours faithfully,

Richard Card

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Card,

If you wish to submit an FOI request you must ask for recorded information that the MPS might retain.

If you do not ask for recorded information your request will not be valid under the Act.

An example of this might be "please provide me with the minutes to the most recent management board meeting" or "please provide me with the statistics for the number of crimes on a specific borough."

Yours sincerely

James Young
SC&O Information Manager

show quoted sections

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Thank you. This FOI has achieved its purpose. I was giving you the courtesy information that I will send copies of the evidence file to Operation Yewtree. That is the submission of evidence and information NOT another FOI request.

Thank you for your time and response to this request.

This FOI is now satisfactorily concluded.

Yours faithfully,

Richard Card

Mail Delivery System,

This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.

A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:

SC\&[email address]
SMTP error from remote mail server after RCPT TO:<SC\&[email address]>:
host pnn-gw.pnn.police.uk [212.62.5.171]: 550 relaying denied. KB17297

show quoted sections

Richard Card left an annotation ()

I will be sending Operation Yewtree a copy of affidavits and sworn exhibit report. The inquest verdict quashing case in Matron McGILL Decd.

I will point out that in 5 areas of process there has been influence as follows:

(1) The Harold SHIPMAN Inquiry

Dame Janet SMITH, currently running BBC Savile Inquiry, was a Judge officiating in the SHIPMAN Inquiry.

At the stage which examined Death Registration process,as I understand it, advice to the inquiry clarifying terms of reference excluded them considering the 1971 Regional Crime Squad inquiry into GP Death Registrations Leonard Cheshire Homes Newport Gwent based. And excluded them looking at the implications if area Births Marriages Deaths Records are stolen (1994 burglary stole Newport Gwent Births Marriages Deaths Record)

(2) The Regional Crime Squad inquiry (see 1) allegedly being obstructed by Special Branch

(3) The New Zealand Govt request to re-open the Matron McGILL inquest obstructed by Home Office and Suffolk Chief constable April 1972

(4) The use of secret public interest custodianship power of Attorney General since 1992 to deny access to High Court to present the quashing case in Matron McGILL Decd

(5) Public interest decisions not to pursue inquiry into conspiracy against HM Coroner in his duty to determine true circumstances of death. The Matron McGILL Decd inquest. Similarly no inquiry into 4 inquest witnesses for alleged perjury.

I hope that puts the evidence on record with Yewtree and they reflect on the situation in which there is investigation into Savile at Wheatfields. Whilst govt public interest secret custodianship is being used to stop access to High Court and resultant inquiry into other tragedies in Sue Ryder Homes.

For the record "Pes recurvatus" is a typo in a transcript and it should be Pectis Recurvatum. I have established that the body did not have that condition and neither did Matron McGILL (Check of NZ medical records. The congenital condition was an hypothesis of Professor Bernard Knight when he gave an opinion on the original 1972 autopsy in 1992.

I see that in one of his second career mystery story books that an identification twist is featured. Based on the medical record search showing one thing about pectis recurvatum but the autopsy saying the other. IE The Decd had been given the identity of someone else.

This twist of course in his 2010 crime mystery story being exactly the situation in the McGILL Decd case arising from his opinion 1992.

I can now say that aspect of the identification anomaly is resolved. And the explanation for the costal margin distortion is still not known.

This FOI is now finished. With what for me is a satisfactory outcome.

Sincerely Richard Card