Fabian Hamilton and Joanne Miles now advised me that my complaint was to be looked into by Kate Lampard CBE instructed by Jeremy Hunt to reconsider how my civil rights had been determined and now that the full report was published and more was known, to reconsider my case, through Fabian I wrote to Kate again to ensure she fully understood my complaint
01 March 2015 Confidential all replies to the email address above
FAO Kate Lampard CBE
Dear Kate
Joanne Miles has advised that you would like to conduct an investigation into the way in which the Leeds Hospital team (Ray Galloway and Claire Jones) conducted the meeting I volunteered to attend, I thought that me recollections of the meeting and actions post meeting may assist you.
When I arrived for the meeting on 23 May 2013 I was surprised to find that Slater Gordon (my solicitors) were not present and I was to be interviewed alone in a 2:1 situation.
I talked to Ray Galloway and Claire Jones for nearly an hour prior to them starting recording the meeting. During which I discussed my poor upbringing in an evangelical Christian home and how that my brother is a missionary in Brazil. I was then ambushed about content in my written statement, they asked me ‘if I was admitting to getting sexual gratification from one of my sisters, REDACTED, why was I expecting them to believe I had not behaved the same with my other sister’.
This question enraged me which got me flustered, I blurted out something about her being too young and not developed enough and that it was the sight of pubic hair and hands in knickers that I was looking for, that she claims I sexually assaulted her by going into her room and masturbating her every night for 3 years starting when she was 7. They turned this around on me saying that in my reply I had not said that it would have been wrong, despite my written statement supplied to the team paragraph 32 in which I say what I did with REDACTED was wrong.
During the unrecorded part of the meeting, Ray and Claire also quizzed me at length about the fact I have not been able to have sex with my wife since suffering with cancer aged 31, I was unprepared for this level of intimate questioning and tried to explain that I had not been well enough to have sex for approx. 2.5 years during my illness and recovery and following surgery to remove my left testicle, when we resumed sex, my wife became pregnant with a third child and later a fourth child, I explained that my wife was not well when taking contraceptive pills and that I did not wish to have any further surgery at this time so we chose to abstain until after the menopause, it was around that time that my mother wrote to my daughters primary school accusing me of sexually assaulting my daughter (9 years old at the time), when I confronted my mother she said that my little sister (not REDACTED) had told her repeatedly over a 10 year period that I had sexually assaulted her when she was 7 years old and that these attacks had lasted three years, the level of the assaults she claimed were indescribable and included anal sex, oral sex, masturbation and ejaculation over her whilst she pretended to sleep as she claims she was too terrified to wake up. I tried to explain this to the team in order for them to understand why I had not re started a sexual relationship with my wife who was made aware of my sisters allegations at the time.
The team than questioned me about the cancer I suffered which was diagnosed late because the injury to my testicle by Savile had been so severe that it had remained enlarged and swollen ever since, this meant I was not diagnosed until a year after symptoms started because I had told the doctors my testicle had always been enlarged, by the time I received a dignoses I had lost 3 stones in weight, gone into kidney and liver failure, developed a mass of tumours the size of a grapefruit in my abdomen, become severely jaundiced and been notified as suffering from suspected hep c, developed bed sores and was living on milk shakes as I was unable to digest any sold food, eventually I was admitted to hospital as a kidney patient, however whilst in hospital for 2 weeks a lump grew on my neck which was eventually biopsied to discover I had cancer.
At the end of this unrecorded part of the meeting I was very emotional and close to tears, the team gave me a few minutes to recover and then advised they could arrange for counselling/psychiatric care if I felt this was necessary, I accepted this offer and was then advised that the meeting was about to start and would I mind if it was recorded, I did not object.
I was now convinced that Claire and Ray did not believe my story and were in fact using the meeting to determine if my case would be strong enough to stand up in court, I felt now that I was taking part in a damage limitation exercise rather than volunteering information which could help to prevent future occurrences of abuse similar to that I suffered.
The meeting was recorded and I enclose a signed copy of the transcript with this letter.
The meeting was adversarial and this can be seen in the defence provided by both Ray and Claire in refuting my claims, stating the procedures in which dead patients are processed and transported within hospitals was so robust even in the early 1970’s that my recollections of the meeting with Savile could not have happened. my recorded conversation, having read a copy, is disjointed and rambling and at times completely irrelevant.
After the meeting I wrote to my solicitor Liz Dux of Slater Gordon by email and said;
Hi Liz
I attended a meeting with Claire Jones and the investigation team at the LGI today
I was surprised at the level to which my statement was challenged in this meeting, some of the meeting was recorded and I should receive a transcript in due course. I was under the impression prior to the meeting that I was volunteering to help the hospital to better understand how Savile had behaved and how he had got away with his behaviour whilst in a position of trust, I now feel that I have been unwittingly involved in a damage limitation exercise by the hospital with no solicitor present, during which my statement has been called into question and disbelieved.
I was challenged when I described the meeting with Savile outside Kentucky Chicken and we went to his car, I was told in no uncertain terms that my story was "unbelievable". The grounds for this was, that in the investigation teams opinion someone with the level of celebrity of Savile would never have risked behaving this way in the back of a car in a public place in daylight and that made my account of this "highly unlikely".
I was challenged when I described the encounter with Savile at LGI when he was pushing a trolley with a patient and asked me to help, in my statement I describe Savile kissing and fondling the women on the trolley who I believed was dead. The team described my statement as unbelievable and asked Claire to explain the procedures in place in all hospitals which are strictly adhered to in respect of the way a corpse is prepared prior to being transported by trolley, these included sealing the body into a shroud, placing it into a special container and always having two persons accompanying the body during moving it. The team challenged my statement as "highly unlikely" on the grounds that Savile would not have had access to a corpse in the way I described and the team seemed to take an attitude towards dismissing my account. I asked if it was a possibility that these procedures had not been adhered to on this occasion, this suggestion was dismissed out of hand, I explored other possibilities of how Savile may have had access such as a corpse arriving by ambulance into A&E or that maybe the rules were different in 1971/2 but these suggestions were robustly refuted.
I was further challenged over my statement re being with Savile when he delivered the woman on the trolley, the team felt that my statement was unbelievable. It was felt by the team that my being present with Savile to deliver a corpse was "highly unlikely" as this would have been questioned.
I was challenged following my description of the physical assault by Savile in the stairwell at LGI near to one of the main entrances, it was the investigation teams opinion that it was "highly unlikely" that a celebrity such as Savile would assault a child in public place and then simply walk away, they seemed to want to dismiss my account.
I was challenged over the claims made by my sister REDACTED that I had assaulted her aged 7 which had resulted in my mother writing to my daughters primary school, the team thought it strange that I had said that REDACTED was too young for me to have assaulted her, they expressed surprise that I had not said it was wrong, it was my opinion that the team did not believe my statement and preferred to believe I had assaulted REDACTED.
At the end of the interview I broached the issues about Savile which had been challenged and reminded the team that many other victims had come forward and described being attacked in the back of Savile's car, that one had described being attacked in a caravan outside the BBC, others had described being assaulted in front of other adults in his dressing rooms at the BBC and that a film had emerged of a live top of the pop's BBC broadcast in which it can clearly be seen that Savile is assaulting a young girl whist presenting the show, a risk he was obviously happy to take, I was then challenged as to how much of this I was aware of when I came forward to give my initial statement, I replied I had seen the ITV broadcast and that it was the sight of Savile's grave with the words "it was good whilst it lasted" which had prompted my decision to make a statement to the police.
Slater Gordon replied
“I have today spoken to both Claire Jones and Ray Galloway and have discussed your concerns with them. They told me that you had had a long meeting with them both and were able to explain what happened to you in your own words. As you have said they asked a number of questions and were concerned that your account differed to your police statement. The process is not meant to be an adversarial one however they do have to follow the correct process and where necessary have to question and/or challenge evidence in order to establish what happened, the same would happen at court should your matter continue to trial. Nonetheless I have highlighted your concerns to them and they have noted these.”
I did not receive a copy of the transcript of the meeting until October 2014 and it contained a number of errors which I submitted for correction, I received the corrected copy in January 2014.
On 01 May 2014 I received an email from Ray Galloway asking me to provide further corroborating evidence which he knew I could not provide, such as the dates my sister REDACTED was a patient at the LGI.
On 18 July 2014 Osborne Clarke wrote to Slater Gordon about my claim, they again requested information I was unable to provide, such as medical records for my sister REDACTED? Medical records to confirm the injury to my left testicle which I did not report to anyone? Confirmation of whether your client intends to produce any evidence to collaborate her (SIC) allegations i.e. from the girl that was allegedly in the car? A copy of any expert reports from a psychiatrist or an explanation of why none has been provided? Despite Claire and Ray having failed to provide the referral they promised. I enclose a copy with this letter.
Signed
REDACTED