Monday 12 May 2014

Stalking Channel 4

This is interesting, Darren Laverty demanding answers from a Channel Four programme mentioning Bryn Estyn that he did not feature in.

Have a look.

I did not hear Bryn Estyn mentioned anywhere in relation to Peter Morrison, but Laverty seems to hear as much shit as he speaks.

He does seem very upset about this, has a bit of a jealous hissy fit as the idiot still believes that this programme went out 'across the globe'.

What an arse, I live in Cwmbran and I missed it, why? Because the only person who is even remotely interested in Bryn Estyn now is the one who has much to hide about his role in the abuse handed out there and the lies he has told.

*see the various instances of his lies elsewhere on this blog*

Tick Tock indeed Laverty, you are indeed correct, time is finally running out.

For you at least.

DOH!

Can you imagine being so stupid that you accuse everybody who is online of being the person you are stalking?

Darren Laverty is that stupid.

Can you imagine his surprise when the person he is attacking happens to own the biggest Anti-Stalking Company in the South East.

Also imagine the owner of that company calling him with details of him, his location, his wifes mobile phone number, all his online aliases and also knows all about his disgusting behaviour on the internet.

And knows exactly where he is.

Most people would be mortified I would think.

Not Laverty though, he still continues being the same kind of weird twat that he has always been.

No shame, no self respect and is so arrogant that he genuinely has no idea that his whole life of lies, stalking, bullying and compo-seeking is about to collapse around him.

Shame.

The Grey-Haired Man

THE PERSON WHO MADE one of the most revealing allegations in the entire North Wales investigation was a 25-year old Wrexham man named Brendan Randles. In December 1982, when he was fifteen, Randles, a likeable and happy-go-lucky youth, had appeared before Wrexham magistrates on a charge of burglary. He had been remanded into custody at Bryn Estyn where he spent a total of four nights.

In the years that followed, Randles made no complaints about his brief spell at the home. However, around. Christmas 1988, he found himself living in the same part of Wrexham as Darren Laverty and for a brief period he drank with him and his friends. Later, in the autumn of 1991, Laverty had given Randles's name to the North Wales police as somebody who had once been at Bryn Estyn. Laverty recalls that he had bumped into Brendan in Wrexham soon afterwards. 'I remember. Brendan saying to me "What the fuck are you doing talking to the police about me at Bryn Estyn?" I said, "Well, you were there weren't you?"

Laverty gives no details of what else he says to Randles on this occasion. In January 1992, however, the police took a statement from Randles, in which he claims that when he arrived at Bryn Estyn he was introduced to a stockily-built, grey-haired man who appeared to be in charge, but whose name he could not remember.

He then claims that, while he was having a shower, Laverty came in and accused him of going out with his girlfriend. He says that, with two other lads ('whom I can't remember'), Laverty had beaten him up. 

The grey-haired man is said to have watched this without attempting to intervene. The next day the man took him to the secure unit, placed his hand on Randles's penis and testicles, and tried to kiss him. Randles says he pushed him away and ran out the door. 'As I drew near to the door I saw Darren Laverty walking towards the building. I didn't stop to talk to him.'

He says that he ran into the pool room but that the grey-haired man followed him and said, in a whisper, 'I'm going to fuck you tonight.'

Later that evening the grey-haired man supposedly repeated these words to him several times when. Randles had seen him through the door of his first-floor flat. Randles, however, says he returned to his dormitory where he spent the night without further incident. He goes on to say that in the morning he was taken to court where he told his mother what had happened to him. He was then bailed and says that the next day he told his girlfriend 'exactly what had happened'. 

He ends his statement with the following words: 'I couldn't sleep after what that man had said to me because I honestly believed that he was going was going to do to me what he said.' From Randles's first statement it is therefore clear that the threat which the grey-haired man supposedly made was NOT carried out.

The complaint was one of indecent assault only.

The police took this statement from Randles on Friday 22 January.

The following Wednesday they interviewed Laverty. 

His version of events corresponded in some respects to that given by Randles but some details were different. Nowhere in his statement did Laverty mention that he had been in contact with Randles since they had left Bryn Estyn. Randles, similarly, gave no indication in his statement that he knew Laverty.

In that Randles had been unable to identify the grey-haired man by name, it was highly improbable that his allegation of indecent assault could have formed part of any prosecution. However, within the next few weeks, Randles met Laverty and they spent the evening talking about Bryn Estyn. About two months after this, Randles made another statement to the police in which he revised the account he had given three months earlier.

Without offering any explanation of how he has identified him, he now refers to the grey-haired man as 'Mr Howarth'. Whereas previously he described encountering him in three locations - the secure unit, the pool room and the first-floor flat - the second and third of these alleged meetings now disappear. Randles claims that in the secure unit, 'Mr Howarth' actually carried out his whispered threat. He supposedly did so by stripping Randles, punching him in the stomach, and then, as he bent over in pain, anally raping him.

At this point a strikingly new element is introduced into the allegation. Randles says that, as he was being buggered, another man came into the room: "I then heard the door open and then shut and I heard Mr Howarth speak to another man and say words to the effect "It's your turn."

Randles then claims that, without any preliminaries, the second man raped him anally while Howarth raped him orally. At this point it became evident 'that someone was coming down to the secure room, I think it was Darren Laverty although I'm not sure.'

The identity of the second man is left veiled in mystery. 'To this day,' says Randles enigmatically, 'I do not know who this man was, however I think he must have something to do with Bryn Estyn although I didn't see this person when I was there.' 

This second statement was taken from Randles at the beginning of May. Three days later the police visited Laverty once again. On this occasion they apparently asked him specifically whether he had been in contact with Randles. The history of the contact between Randles and Laverty (or part of it) now emerged. About three weeks after he had made his first statement, Randles, who had been drinking, came round to Laverty's flat with a bottle of Sherry. They talked about Bryn Estyn and and Laverty says he asked Randles to tell him what had happened there: 

'I tried to convince Brendan that whatever his problem was, he was not the only one and others had made complaints. Brendan told me the police had asked him questions and Brendan said "What do you want me to say, that he's fucked my arse?" I then asked gentler questions about what happened.'

It would appear that Laverty had actually discussed with Randles, complaints which had been made by others, and that he felt he was being put under pressure to go further than his original complaint and make an allegation of buggery. The reason why Randles's highly significant words had been preserved was that Laverty had actually taped part of the conversation: 'Brendan also knew that I was taping the conversation. I did this because I wanted to play it back to Brendan at a later date. If he should deny anything happened and also to assist the police in their investigation.'

The grey-haired man had not at this stage been identified. However Laverty evidently met up with Randles again and on this occasion he had shown Randles a photograph of Howarth: 'At a later stage I showed Brendan a copy of the Independent newspaper which had a photograph of Peter Howarth on the front page. Brendan told me that it was Howarth who had sexually assaulted him in the secure unit at Bryn Estyn.'

In the light of Laverty's police statement of 8 May, and of his subsequent evidence to the tribunal, it would appear that he not only encouraged Randles to make a more serious allegation against the 'grey-haired man' at a time when he was drunk, but that he was himself responsible for bringing about the belated identification of this man as Howarth.

There is no clear evidence that Laverty, however reckless and ill-advised his conduct, had deliberately set out to manufacture a false allegation.

On this occasion, as on others, it seems plausible to suggest that he was motivated by a kind of misguided idealism and that he may genuinely have believed that he was helping Randles to retrieve memories which had become buried, and that by doing so he was helping the police.

On any view, though, Randles's allegations were remarkable. 

His eventual claim that, before he had even spent 24 hours at Bryn Estyn, he had been viciously raped by two men, that he had remained silent about the assaults for nine years, and that he had been able to retrieve the memories only after drinking from a bottle of Sherry at Darren Laverty's flat, was one of the most far-fetched in the entire Bryn Estyn investigation.

One question, however, remains.

This concerns the identity of the second man - the shadowy figure who was supposed suddenly to have appeared in the secure unit and, as if by some prior arrangement, to have joined in the alleged sexual assault on Randles.

Who was this man, and why had he been belatedly introduced into a complaint in which he had originally played no role at all?

Sunday 11 May 2014

Gang Rape?

"One question which inevitably arises is whether Holden or Singer or both had been contacted by Darren Laverty and made aware of their role in his statement before they were interviewed by the police.

One piece of evidence which suggests that this is not the case is that Singer claimed in his first statement, that while he was at Bryn Estyn he had been gang-raped by a number of residents, among whom was Darren Laverty.

Confronted by this allegation by the police, Laverty said that it was not true. Asked if he had any more to say, he said that "Singer was evidently not well and that he felt sorry for him"

Prime Witness

Prime Witness

"Having portrayed Tŷr Felin as a tyrannical and bullying regime, cut off from the outside world and presided over by a Welsh 'Monster', Laverty goes on to describe the rest of his time in care. He says that he left Tŷr Felin after seven or eight weeks and went to a home called Eryl Wen where he stayed for a year. Then after six or seven weeks in Y Gwyngyll, he was transferred, in 1981, to Bryn Estyn.

He then offers sketches of a number of members of Bryn Estyn staff. Some are said to be bullies who would punch, kick or knee the boys in their care. Others are portrayed as possible sexual Abusers. His principal target in this latter regard is Peter Howarth.

According to his own statement:

"Mr Howarth was known as 'Vaseline' because it was believed by myself and others that he was queer (homosexual). The reasons for believing this was that were three boys namely Andrew Singer from Wrexham, James Shaldon from mid-Wales and John Evans from South Wales, who individually went to Howarth's flat in Bryn Estyn every night after 9pm.... The boys I have named admitted going to his flat, but they would never say why they had gone or what had happened whilst there. I used to see James Shaldon regularly walking over from Clwyd House where he was resident, to the main school and to Howarth's flat. Howarth was a single man and not particularly friendly with any member of staff. It was because the above named boys never offered any explanations for their many visits to Howarth's flat, that we assumed something indecent must have taken place. In addition to this Evans, Singer and Shaldon always had more money than the rest of us and were regularly taken by Howarth to play golf. Andrew Singer was a really effeminate boy.

Mr Howarth would always stand and stare at us when we were showering. No other member of staff would do this, they would merely supervise. A boy named Carl Holden was another regular visitor to Mr Howarth's flat. Carl was 14 or 15 years old. Although I didn't actually see it happen, the other boys in the dormitory told me that Stan Fletcher, the night care officer, would wake Holden up for him to go Howarth's flat."

In one of the reports prepared by Darren Laverty's social worker it is recorded that, in 1984, after Laverty had left Y Gwyngyll and gone into approved lodgings, he became involved in a dispute with his landlady.

At this point, he contacted Nefyn Dodd directly and asked whether he could be re admitted into residential care. Although this request was refused, the very fact that it was made at all suggests that Laverty's attitude at the time bore no resemblance to that which he later claimed.

At the time he apparently regarded Dodd not as a 'Vicious Monster,' but as somebody whom he could - and did - approach for help. 

There is indeed, no evidence at all that Laverty had ever held the view of Dodd which he expounded in 1991 during the period he was actually in care.

The circumstantial evidence suggests that he made the various complaints contained in his statement partly in response to the prompting of Alison Taylor and partly because of his own ability to 'create' vivid memories.

An Invaluable Placement

An Invaluable Placement

"After his brief spell of remand at Tŷr Felin, Laverty spent several months at two other homes in Gwynedd, returning in between to two placements with his family. Then in September 1981, at the age of 14, he was sent to Bryn Estyn.

It was perhaps not entirely surprising that this intelligent but unruly child, finding himself surrounded by other boys, and by an almost entirely male staff, appears rapidly to have arrived at the conclusion that toughness was a virtue and that 'might was right'.

Effectively schooled in a culture of bullying, the kind of culture which inevitably grows up amongst boys in male-dominated boarding schools (which in effect Bryn Estyn was), Darren Laverty soon emerged as one of the shrewdest and toughest of all Bryn Estyn residents.

In a note written during the period of Alison Taylor's placement, Matt Arnold recorded his impression of the boy.

"Laverty" he wrote, "certainly is becoming one of the most unpopular children in Bryn Estyn both amongst his peers and staff. This unpopularity is centred largely around his verbal abuse of all, coupled with threatening and belligerent attitudes to younger children and to such staff as he feels he can comfortably threaten."

To this assessment he added a single, seemingly gratuitous observation.

'Alison Taylor has a working relationship with Darren Laverty'.'

The John Roberts Accusation

"On this first occasion in Bangor, the police refused to take a statement from Laverty on the grounds that he had come to the wrong place. It was as a result of Taylor's intervention that an arrangement was made for him to make his statement at Mold, four days later. Laverty's evident haste to contact the police at the earliest possible point in the enquiry stood in curious contrast to his tardiness in bringing to their attention events which he said had happened up to thirteen years previously.

Neither Laverty's delay in making these allegations, nor the fact that he was apparently encouraged to do so by Taylor, automatically discredits them. Nor should any aspect of Laverty's statement lead to the conclusion that any of his claims were made either maliciously or insincerely. But, like all allegations of this kind, his claims need to be examined with more than ordinary care. One of the most significant features in this respect, is the complaint Laverty makes against the teacher John Roberts.

According to his statement, Roberts was one of three people - the others being Nefyn And June Dodd - who slapped him 'daily'. In the course of time, Laverty would dramatically enlarge the scope if his allegations he made against John Roberts, claiming that he was not only slapped, but also punched, kicked and caned by him. However, a scrutiny of the Tyr Felin records reveals a significant inconsistency in this claim.

The records show that the account of his time in care in his statement bears only a tenuous relationship to the actual chronology if his placements. Laverty had deduced that the date of him being sent to Tyr Felin from the time he was placed under a care order - 22 February 1978. Having found this date on his criminal record, he assumed that it marked the beginning of his stay at Tyr Felin. In fact, it marked the end. He was sent to Tyr Felin for a 21-day period of remand in 1 February 1978. On 22 February, he appeared in court at Holyhead where he was placed under a care order and transferred to Eryl Wen. He therefore spent a mere three weeks at Tyr Felin at this point instead of the eight or nine weeks he claimed in his statement. Much more remarkable than this is the fact that John Roberts did not begin working in Tyr Felin until September 1979, 18 months after Laverty had left.

The only time at which the paths of Roberts and Laverty might conceivably have crossed was during the period between 1 June and 10 June 1981 when Tanner had returned briefly to Tyr Felin pending his transfer to Bryn Estyn. Yet since Laverty himself remains adamant that the assaults he alleges took place during his first spell at Tyr Felin (and flatly refuses to accept that he ever returned there), his story is at odds with the facts.

The only conclusion we can reasonably draw is the allegations Laverty made against John Roberts in 1991, allegations that would become progressively more serious with the years, were completely untrue.

Laverty's further claim that he could not convey his unhappiness about Tyr Felin because nobody came into the home from outside is also contradicted by the records. The content of Nefyn Dodd's report and the existence of a Psychiatrists report, do not in themselves negate Laverty's claims. But they do cast doubt on his credibility. The doubts are multiplied if we compare the complaints he made to the police about Dodd in August 1991 with what he said on other occasions. One of the most interesting perspectives is provided by the verbatim records of what Laverty told Yorkshire Television almost exactly two years before he made his police statement."

An Abuse Victim?

REALLY????

Liverpool Daily Post

An attempt by Darren Laverty to sell a redacted copy of the Jillings Report was thwarted by some sharp-eyed people.

Wednesday 16 April 2014

The Chandelier

JOHN DUKE WAS NOT THE FIRST former Bryn Estyn resident to seek compensation from Clwyd County Council for abuse he had allegedly suffered.

On the11th of December 1991, less than two weeks after the 'Independent on Sunday' article (and the day after the police had paid their first visit to Martin West in prison), a story appeared in the Wrexham Evening Leader under the headline,"Men Sue Over Abuse Claims."

The story was one of at least four similar pieces which appeared in the local press around this time. One of the other stories featured a prominent photograph of Darren Laverty.

The story which appeared on 11th of December, however, was printed alongside a picture of Peter Wynne.

MEN SUE OVER ABUSE CLAIMS..

Two men who say they were abused as youngsters in children's homes are suing Clwyd's social services department. Mr Peter Wynne and Mr Darren Laverty, both 24, claim they were victims of physical abuse and ritual humiliation at the Bryn Estyn Home in Wrexham.

They decided to act after widespread media publicity of an alleged police cover-up of abuse at the home.

They have contacted Wrexham solicitor Gwilym Hughes, who has confirmed he will be representing them.

Mr Wynne of Gwenfro, Wrexham, was a resident at Bryn Estyn between 1979 and 1984.

He said he was suing the Social Services for alleged neglect, alleging a series of incidents involving physical abuse. He said, "I was put in the home to avoid that sort of thing, but I ended up being subjected to it by members of staff themselves."

Mr Laverty, of Napier Square, Wrexham, says he was physically abused at both Bryn Estyn and another children's home in Gwynedd.

Mr Wynne, a machine operator with Brake Engineering, on the Redwither Industrial Estate, Wrexham, said life for many residents at the home was 

He alleges a catalogue of incidents, including;

'Having his face rubbed in splintered glass as a punishment for breaking a chandelier.'

'Having a tattoo transfer on his arm rubbed off with a matchbox.'

'Being picked up by the throat.'

Mr Wynne, who now has four young daughters, said he is acting to prevent another Bryn Estyn.

He said, 'I went through five years of hell and I don't want anyone else to suffer the same thing.'

This story suggests that Peter Wynne and Darren Laverty were now co-operating and were both being represented by the same solicitor.

To those that knew them this must have come as a shock.

During the time that they were at Bryn Estyn, Laverty constantly bullied Wynne, verbally tormenting him because he had no family and because of his supposed sexual underdevelopment.

Laverty would call him names such as 'orphan', 'homeless' and 'pubeless'.

*Laverty ironically was also a product of parental neglect, with an alcoholic father and a prescription drug addicted mother.*

When I met Darren Laverty in August 2004, and asked him about Peter Wynne, he immediately admitted that he and the other boys at Bryn Estyn used to bully him partly because it was easy to provoke Peter into a spectacular frenzy, which they found highly amusing.

'Dinky Wynne,' Laverty recalled, 'was our Playstation.'

*Wynne had already committed suicide by the time that Laverty boasted about his bullying and torture of Peter Wynne and much younger, very vunerable boys*

Because Wynne was one of the younger residents of the main school, and because he was effectively without any family to care for him, one member of staff, Liz Evans, took him under her wing.

She persuaded Matt Arnold to allow Wynne certain privileges to compensate for his emotional depravation. In particular, he was allowed to keep a Budgerigar which became his beloved companion.

One day, however, he found that the cage had been opened and the bird was nowhere to be found.

It was a measure of the way that Wynne regarded Laverty, that he always believed that it was Laverty who had opened the cage to torment him with the loss of his only friend.

Laverty of course, now says that he does not remember Wynne's Budgerigar.

However, he did recall another incident (all about him as was usually the case), involving another bird at Bryn Estyn.

When he was about fourteen, he found a baby Jay which had fallen out of it's nest. He took it back to his dormitory and fed it; 'I loved that bird.' But after a week or so, in his words, 'it croaked on me.'

Laverty, as expected, recalls that he was heart-broken. He recovered his composure however, and summoned his gang: 'come on lads, get down the fucking bank; my birds died and there's going to be a funeral.'

He led them to the grassy bank in the grounds, and he had them gather in a circle around him. As some twenty boys stood with their hands together and, in some cases, presumably, their eyes shut.

Darren Laverty said the Lords Prayer: 'Our Father, which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy Kingdom Come......'

'That was my bird' he recalled twenty years later, 'it meant a lot to me.'

Laverty also recognised that he bullied Peter Wynne and others in a manner, which was completely 'out of order,' and seems to accept that, while they were at Bryn Estyn, Peter Wynne despised him.

When Laverty left Bryn Estyn in June 1983, he was transferred to Y Gwyngyll in Anglesey.

After 18 months, he went into lodgings and was finally discharged from care in 1985, aged 18.

Soon after that he was sent to a Detention Centre for three months. 'When I came out, I went to live in Wrexham and met a girl who's mother turned out to be a drug dealer. I went to prison for ten months for drug dealing and came out a reprobate - drinking, fighting and taking drugs.'

It was around this time that his relationship with Peter Wynne flared into violence. There are conflicting accounts as to why this happened, but it's easy to work out why this happened.

Wherever the truth may lie, however, it would seem that Wynne resolved to turn the tables against the person who had humiliated, bullied and tormented him in the past.

The first Laverty knew about it, was when there was a knock at the door of his Wrexham flat. When he opened it he found Peter Wynne standing in front of him brandishing a twelve-inch bayonet.

Wynne said 'Time for it, Laverty!' and raised the bayonet upwards to stab him in the neck or face.

Laverty, who now claims that he believed that Wynne had come to murder him, managed to deflect the blow with the result that, although he sustained injuries to his face, he remained standing.

Laverty also alleges at this point, one of Wynne's friends also advanced on him wielding a meat cleaver.

Laverty says he managed to get back inside the flat and barricaded himself in with a wardrobe.

He then called the police.

Peter Wynne was subsequently convicted for this attack and served a short prison sentence.

*It should be noted that Laverty made a successful claim for compensation against Peter Wynne*

When Wynne came out of prison, Laverty met up with him again in circumstances and for reasons which have never been satisfactorily explained.

As the Bryn Estyn investigation gathered pace in the autumn of 1991 in the wake of Dean Nelson's article, Wynne and Laverty appear to have forgotten their differences and were frequently seen together.

It was during this period that Peter Wynne's portrayal of Bryn Estyn, underwent it's dramatic change.

His original verdict on Bryn Estyn, that it was the best home that he had ever been in, and that he had enjoyed his time there, was communicated to the police on September 12, 1991.

By the time he gave his second statement, on 6 of January 1992, the account he gave of the home had been utterly transformed.

He now gave a vivid description of an incident which he had not even been mentioned in his first statement.

This incident, in which, incidentally, Darren Laverty played a key role, involved a horrific punishment which Wynne said had been inflicted on him by David Birch.

'On another occasion I was involved in an argument with one of the other lads called Darren Laverty. I remember we were in the dining room and Laverty called me names, and because he was a lot bigger than me I decided to hit him with a chair. I took hold of the chair and as I was swinging it over my head I hit a chandelier above my head and it shattered all three bulbs in it. The glass from the broken bulbs landed on the floor behind me and the next thing I remember was David Birch grabbing hold of the chair and he took it off me. When the chair had gone he still had hold of me and he told me to clean up the glass from the floor. I was in a temper so I refused to do it, saying that Laverty had started it so he should clean up the mess. Anyway he told me about four times to clean up the glass and I kept on refusing so he took hold of my legs and lifted them up in the air and held me face-down towards the floor. He then got me in such a position where he was holding both my arms and both my legs so that I could not move. He then pushed my head towards the floor until my face was right up against the broken glass with my legs pointing towards the ceiling. He pushed my face into the glass on the floor which caused me to recieve about 10 small cuts on my forehead. Two of these were quite deep and the others were only scratches. When he was doing this I kept on struggling and he kept saying 'Are you going to pick it up?' I think he held me there for some five or ten minutes although I can't be specific about the time. When he did let me go he just dropped me on the floor away from the glass, I got up, ran off in a craze and into the entrance to the dining room where, in a temper at what he had done to me, I smashed about six or eight small panes of glass in the sliding doors at the entrance to the dining rooms. I broke all these with my fists. I am not sure but I may have cut my hands doing this and I believe I had both my head cuts as well as the cuts on my hand treated by the Matron, Mrs Williams. When this incident occured I believe that Darren Laverty was present and saw what happened but I don't know if anyone else was.'

Although Wynne refers to a 'chandelier' it is clear from his reference to 'three bulbs' that what he had in mind was a simple light fitting. This aside, there are a number of features of the statement which raise questions. In the first place, it is barely credible that the incident that Wynne describes would, if the account is accurate, have been omitted from his initial statement. It is also curious that, at a time when both were making claims for compensation, Wynne should identify Laverty as the sole witness to what happened.

Laverty would later tell the police that he had indeed witnessed the incident which Wynne described.

More than five years later he repeated this claim in his evidence to the tribunal, and gave a vivid account of what had supposedly happened.

This account however, was never properly tested because the tribunal had failed to find the entry in the Bryn Estyn log book which referred to the incident.

As the tribunal report would later note, this entry was discovered only after the hearings had been completed.

The entry is dated 22 March 1984:

"[Peter Wynne] refused to wash his hands for Mr Birch at tea time. He was told he'd have his tea as soon as he did, but still refused. Peter said he didn't want any tea and went out of D/Room. I found him later in the kitchen waiting for Cook to make him some toast. When he was told he couldn't have any, he stormed back into the D/Room and smashed a light bulb, which he refused to sweep up."

The failure of the tribunal team to locate this entry is difficult to understand, not least because the police had already discovered it during their 1992 investigation.

In August 1992 they checked with Wynne, who confirmed that he could only recall one incident that involved breaking a light bulb. They then interviewed the House Mother who wrote the entry. She said that she did not recall Birch having to restrain Peter Wynne on any occasion and added "I do not recall Peter having any injuries at all on that day."

Judging by the statement they took from Wynne in August 1992, which discussed the date Laverty had left Bryn Estyn, the police had noticed a significant anomaly in the evidence before them.

For Darren Laverty had not been present in the dining room on the occasion recorded in the log book. Indeed he had not been at Bryn Estyn at all....

He had left the home on 6 June 1983, a full nine months before the dining room incident took place.

From other statements taken shortly after Wynne had made his allegation, it would appear that there probably was a physical confrontation between him and Birch.

But the log book entry which records the incident makes no mention to any injury.

Given that the House Mother on duty, whose integrity and reliability have never been questioned, would have been the first to know about any significant cuts or bleeding, and that Wynne himself had not mentioned the incident at all in his first statement, it seems likely that the injuries which he claimed to have sustained were a product of his imagination.

One thing which is certain is that the relationship between Birch and Wynne was exceptionally good, that it remained so after the incident in the dining room, and, indeed, after Wynne left Bryn Estyn. Liz Evans had confirmed this: 'Peter Wynne loved David Birch,' she told me.

'He used to look up to him like a dad.'

Wherever the truth about the incident may lie, there can be no doubt at all that the version of events that Wynne gave to the police, in January 1992 was simply untrue. Wynne's claim that the incident had it's origins in a clash between him and Laverty was clearly false. In this respect perhaps the most telling piece of evidence comes from another former resident, Christopher Hands.

While being cross-examined at the tribunal, Hands was referred to a statement he had made in August 1992 in which he had offered his version of events (which did suggest that Wynne had sustained some minor injuries). In this statement he had specifically said 'I do not believe that Darren Laverty was there.' Hands confirmed this: 'I do say that and that's true..... I thought he'd left.'

Hand's evidence on this point removes all doubt about the status of the testimony given by Wynne and Laverty. All the evidence indicates that they had arrived jointly at this version of the incident which Wynne related to the police in January 1992.

Whether Laverty had by this time become so highly suggestible, and so prone to imagining incidences of abuse, that he quite genuinely believed he had witnessed this one seems possible. It was also the case though, that Wynne and Laverty were both using the same solicitor to make a claim for compensation.

The untrue story which which they both now told would make a successful outcome much more likely.

The fact that both Wynne and Laverty appeared to have a financial motive for making up stories, however, should not be taken to indicate that this was their only motivation.

Laverty in particular, appears to have been driven by the kind of zeal which is sometimes shown by those who have a disadvantaged, or, indeed criminal background. He frequently acted in the manner of a campaigner - or even as a born-again evangelist, convinced of the need to do battle with all that is evil.

If Darren Laverty had by this point, embarked upon a crusade, it would seem that he had succeeded in enlisting the services of Peter Wynne to help him. In her evidence to the tribunal, Liz Evans said that she had kept in touch with a number of former residents after Bryn Estyn had closed in 1984. While she was being cross-examined by David Kniftin, the following exchange took place:

KNIFTON: did you ever from your dealings with any of the boys obtain an understanding that any if them were collecting allegations, if you understand what I mean by that, going round other boys bringing forward further allegations?

EVANS: yes... Liam Hempnall told me that a couple of boys had gone to his house to...... Encourage him to make allegations.

CHAIRMAN: this is a rather serious allegation. What did he say?

EVANS: he told me that a couple if boys had gone to his house.

CHAIRMAN: did he name the boys?

EVANS: he did, yes.

CHAIRMAN: who were they?

EVANS: Darren Laverty and Peter Wynne.

During this period Laverty and Wynne spent a great deal of time together and frequently talked to other former residents about their time at Bryn Estyn. In one particular case, which involved a former resident of Bryn Estyn, the part played by Darren Laverty would, as we will eventually see, have very serious consequences....

It is not clear to what extent the North Wales Police were aware that their evidence was being contaminated in this way. In relation to some allegations they continued to show a degree of scepticism. But their principal concern at this stage of their enquiry seems to have been less with investigating the complaints they were collecting, than with attempting to confirm them. The easiest route to such apparent confirmation was to go out and collect more allegations. This approach was a novel one. But they were now taking part in one of the most unusual operations in the history of British policing.

This operation would have a decisive influence on the methods adopted during the next decade by practically every police force in Britain....

Bryn Estyn (Section Eighteen)

16 Febuary 2000
I'd been doing Peter's portrait, finally making a start
Drawing all the detail, in a photo state of art
I recieved a telephone call, from my darling mother
"Have you heard the news?" She asked, "It's about your brother
Go and buy a newspaper, Daily Mirror or Daily Mail
It's about Bryn Estyn; it's like the weather as a gale
It tells of all the horrors, with childrens abuse
And tells why Peter died, and chose to use a noose"
I finished what I was doing, all things made a drop
And hurried down the High Street, to a paper shop
'650' was boldly written, on the heading page
That's how many were abused, roughly as a gauge
Perverts run the children's home, where the kids did dwell
Sexually abusing them, making lives a living hell
An investigation started, coz Peter made a complaint
With another who'd been abused, and both became a saint
Both went to the police, and started the interviews
When the story surfaced, it was highlighted on the news
I started to read the Mirror, to find out all the fact
And read a certain paragraph, of someone Peter attacked
He'd spotted him in a pub, then he went straight home
And got a Samurai sword, whilst he was on his own
He broke the sword in half, and put it in his jacket
Returning back to the pub, to make an awful racket
As I read the interview, I instantly realized
Why Peter had attacked him, which was no surprise
The abuser was abused, which he freely admitted
But was never punished, or even ever committed
Peter then got punished, and of which got sent to jail
Given a 6 month sentence, sending him off the rail
Peter had struck his face, three times with the sword
Slashing open the abusers nose, with the anger stored
Bryn Estyn got shut down, when the news had shaken
16 then committed suicide, if I'm not mistaken
With soon getting the answers, of Peter's suicide
I wished he hadn't done it, and hadn't bloody died
I read the Daily Mail next, reading pages of a few
And saw Peter's picture, not just one but two
There was a story written, why he was in care
With some slight confusion, coz the reporter wasn't there
I won't give all the reasons; but he broke my mother's heart
Making her so very ill, with the things he used to start
He'd been given two options, I remember much of them
One was to change his ways, and to be good again
He chose the other option, which of course was care
It was his own undoing, and why that he was there
He'd been a little tear-away, always in a fight
I always blame the divorce, which had caused the plight
Another thing the story said, he was missing his head-stone
Where he was laid to rest, buried on his own
I had wanted to choose it, but was locked away
And several years has passed, before that I could lay
He'll never be forgotten, although he is deceased
So my darling Peter, my brother Rest In Peace

(9th November 1967 - 6th January 1994)

By Stephen Wynne.

Saturday 12 April 2014

A Place Of Safety

ON MONDAY 25 January 1999, immediately after Newsnight, BBC2 broadcast a documentary, A Place of Safety, about sexual and physical abuse in children's homes in North Wales. Many who saw it found it one of the most harrowing programmes about abuse they had ever watched. 

 As the North Wales Tribunal, the longest and most costly public inquiry in British legal history, gets nearer to publishing its report, the BBC had lined up a succession of witnesses who were prepared to speak about the years and years of child abuse they said they had experienced.

All of them were adults. Almost all of them were men.

With one exception they spoke full-face to the camera and allowed their names to appear on screen.

They spoke of beatings and of bullying by the staff who were employed to care for them, of habitual sexual assaults and of cruelty and neglect on a scale that, ten years ago, would have been beyond belief. 

 As the programme went on, it became clear why North Wales has now become almost a synonym for abuse. Sir William Utting, chairman of the National Institute of Social Work, said on the programme: 'I think this is one of the names that will continue to resonate through childcare over the coming decades because it establishes a kind of benchmark for the combination of things that can go wrong in residential childcare . . . It will be the name that's used to terrify future generations of childcare workers.' 

This is now the received view of North Wales, held alike by journalists, social workers and politicians. But there is a problem with the story of North Wales. It is a problem that the BBC programme illustrated repeatedly and disturbingly. 

The first witness to appear on the programme was Brian Roberts. He had been sent to Bryn Estyn, the home said to have been at the centre of a web of abuse, in 1970 when it was still an approved school.

Standing in front of the buildings he said: 'It was just like something out of a horror movie, the beatings, the abuse, the sexual abuse. It was disgusting.' As atmospheric music played and the camera cut to a shot of crows perching on nearby tree-tops, Roberts went on to say that a man (whom he did not name) had taken him into the gym and attempted to bugger him. 

What the BBC did not tell us was that Brian Roberts only made his allegation of sexual abuse after watching a television programme about Bryn Estyn in 1997. This programme, which dealt with the setting up of the North Wales Tribunal, had mentioned the conviction of Peter Howarth, the deputy head of Bryn Estyn, for sexually abusing adolescents in his care.

(It did not mention that Howarth, now dead, always protested his innocence, or that some of his former colleagues still believe he was wrongly convicted.) 

Roberts immediately contacted the tribunal and told them that he, too, had been sexually abused by Howarth. He then made a formal statement to this effect.

At this stage it was pointed out to him that Howarth had not begun working at the school until November 1973, three years after he had left. 

Far from being sexually abused by Howarth, Roberts had never met him. 

The next witnesses to appear on the programme were Keith and Tony Gregory. Tony described a regime where physical abuse was commonplace. He said: 'You'd let it happen to you. You'd let the staff punch you in the face, or in the stomach, or throw things at you.'

He went on to make even more serious claims, including that he had seen Peter Howarth sexually abusing one of the residents. 

What the BBC did not tell us was that Tony Gregory had also given evidence to the North Wales Tribunal. One of the allegations he had made concerned a Mr Clutton who, he said, had thrown a leather football at his face so hard that it had almost broken his nose. During cross-examination it was pointed out that, although there had been a Mr Clutton on the staff of Bryn Estyn, he had left in 1974, three years before Tony Gregory had arrived. 

The next witness to appear on the programme was Steven Messham. He said that on one occasion, when he had been in the sick-bay with blood pouring from his mouth, he had been buggered by Howarth as he lay in bed. He said that on another occasion he was asked to take a hamper of food to Howarth's flat, where he was buggered by Howarth over the kitchen table. 

What the BBC did not tell us was that Messham claims he was sexually abused by no less than 49 different people. He also says he has been physically abused by 26 people. In 1994 the Crown Prosecution Service declined to bring his allegations against Howarth to court. None of his allegations has ever resulted in a conviction. In 1995 one of his most serious sexual allegations was rejected by a jury after barristers argued that it was a transparent fabrication. 

The next witness was Andrew Teague. Teague said he had been beaten and sexually abused by one unnamed member of staff and that he had also been sexually abused by Howarth. 

What the BBC did not tell us was that, although Teague had at one point agreed to appear as a witness at the North Wales Tribunal, .

The tribunal declined to use its powers to subpoena him. Counsel to the tribunal, however, did read out a statement which Teague had made to the North Wales police in 1992. In this statement he made allegations of physical abuse but clearly said:  His main allegation was of serious and repeated physical abuse by a care worker, Fred Rutter.

It was later pointed out to the tribunal that Teague was at Bryn Estyn between 1977 and 1978. Rutter, however, did not start working there until 1982.     

The next witness to appear was Andrew Treanor. He said that he had been abused at Ty'r Felin in Gwynedd, when a member of the care staff had punched him in the face. 

 What the BBC did not tell us was that in 1992 the North Wales police took a statement about a similar incident from a young woman who had been in care with Treanor. In her statement she recalled that Treanor had been arguing with a member of staff: 'Following the argument Treanor came to join us by the steps to the loft. He had a bruise on his face from an earlier incident 

The next witness did not appear under his real name, and was filmed in shadow. He told of how, some ten years ago, he had been sexually abused by Stephen Norris, the officer in charge of Cartrefle children's home. His testimony was detailed and convincing. There is a wealth of evidence to indicate that the sexual abuse he described (and which he complained of at the time) did indeed happen. Norris, who had previously worked at Bryn Estyn, subsequently pleaded guilty to offences against boys in his care and has served two prison sentences. 

Partly if the selection of witnesses who appeared on A Place of Safety is in any way representative, then the programme itself would seem to indicate that  

By far the most disturbing feature of the programme, however, was that the journalists who worked on it failed utterly to discharge the most basic duty of all journalists - the duty to investigate. 

The real question raised by the programme is not whether every detail of the complaints made in it was true or false. It is whether the witnesses it featured should have been relied on by responsible journalists.  In some cases they had tried to uphold their allegations even when the details of their complaints had been shown to be impossible.

Brian Roberts, for example, after having learnt that he could not have been abused by Peter Howarth, said that he had mistaken the identity of the staff member involved. The trouble, he said, was that 'we never knew the staff directly by their names, it was either Sir or Miss'.

According to those who knew Bryn Estyn at the time, Roberts' account of an institution whose staff had no names bears no relationship to reality. 

In most cases the amount of research needed to uncover the unreliability of the witnesses who appeared on A Place of Safetywas minimal. In the cases of Roberts, Gregory and Teague, for example, all the BBC needed to do was consult the relevant portions of the transcript of the North Wales Tribunal.

Yet even this piece of elementary journalistic research, which would have taken hours rather than days, appears to have been too much for them. The result was a programme that undoubtedly shocked many who saw it but which is actually far more shocking as an example of the low level to which some television journalism has fallen. 

The low standards of this BBC programme are all the more worrying in view of the planned publication, later this year, of the report of the North Wales Tribunal. This report was referred to in the programme. Steven Messham, the man who claims he has been abused by more than 70 different people (and who also frequently appears on Channel 4 News), spoke of the promise made by Gerard Elias QC that the tribunal would 'leave no stone unturned in its search for the truth'.

Messham went on to suggest that this was not so because the tribunal had failed to give proper consideration to the idea that a paedophile ring had organised a network of abuse in North Wales care homes. 

What the BBC did not tell us was that other observers have criticised the tribunal from a quite different point of view. In particular they point out that, although considerable doubt surrounds the conviction of Peter Howarth, the tribunal has explicitly declined to consider this question. The tribunal says that it is bound by the doctrine of res judicata, which prevents it from investigating matters that have already been brought before the courts. This may well have been a legally correct decision. But the effect of the ruling is to prevent Howarth's barristers from challenging the soundness of his conviction. 

In other words, one stone must remain unturned. And since the stone in question is nothing less than the foundation stone on which the entire North Wales story has been built, there are those who hold the view that the tribunal has not been able to conduct a proper inquiry at all. 

The North Wales Tribunal has cost the taxpayer an estimated £15 million, but if this expenditure is unprecedented, so too is the difficulty of the task it faces. No amount of money can buy access to the truth and we must hope that the tribunal will not end by wholly or partly endorsing a received view of the story of North Wales that is fundamentally false. 

But in view of the doubts that surround the story of North Wales - doubts that A Place of Safety, by its choice of witnesses, inadvertently illustrated - it is extremely important that the report, when it eventually appears, is thoroughly examined. For that to happen it is essential that the report is scrutinised by journalists who have themselves researched the story in depth, and whose appetite for sex, sensation and scurrility does not overpower their capacity to judge between what is true and what is false. 

On this front, the only reassuring news to have emerged since the broadcast of A Place of Safety is that the tribunal report is now unlikely to appear until the summer. This gives journalists both in the BBC and in other media throughout Britain at least three more months to research the story thoroughly themselves.

If we are to judge by the quality of journalism apparent in the BBC's A Place of Safety, they will need all this time and more. 

http://stevemoxon.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/not-first-time-bbc-newsnight-completely.html?m=1

Steven Messham

Simply put, Steve Messham is a conman.

Nothing more and nothing less.

He went into the North Wales care system from an abusive family home and was well aware of how the system worked from an early age. From his stories, which are many, he appears to have been abused from everybody from Scout leaders to the man in the corner shop.

There is ample proof to substantiate the fact that he was undoubtably abused both at home and at some point after entering the care system, but that is the only thing that is for certain.

It is however a flight of fancy on his part when he relates his constant accusations of 'gang rape' by persons unknown and the numbers involved in his alleged abuse change each time he tells the story.

Still Stalking



Still at it after more than thirty years.


Selfies


The Narcissistic and completely sociopathic Darren Laverty AKA Ryan Tanner.

Whenever a story appears about Bryn Estyn, it is guaranteed that Laverty will be around somewhere dripping poison and spreading lies.

He can normally be found with a Go-Pro camera, stalking, spying on and generally creeping people out.

Friday 31 January 2014

Scallywag

Top Secret

Poyser Street

Gordon Anglesea

Libel Witness Suicide

Observer #1

Darren Laverty

What can you say about Darren Richard Laverty? 

A consummate liar? 

An abuser? 

A bully?

A Narcissistic Sociopath?

All of the above and more?

To anyone who has looked at the real story of Bryn Estyn in any depth, it now appears that Laverty played an active role in the abuse of many of the weaker and smaller boys. It is now becoming clearer that in at least two of the cases where ex Bryn Estyn lads committed suicide, Darren Laverty made their lives a living hell right up to the time they ended their lives.

It is on record that Peter Wynne attacked Laverty with a bayonet at his flat in Wrexham following years of torment and abuse, and it is still a mystery how following this, he was able to persuade Peter to give evidence against certain Bryn Estyn staff members that Laverty hated. These accusations were shaky to say the least, and along with the constant stalking behaviour of Laverty were more than likely the reason he took his own life.

It would not come as a surprise to anyone familiar with the story to discover that the last face those lads saw was probably that of Darren Laverty.

Gary Cowell

Damned

Peter Wynne