Several months ago some documents, known by many as the’ Mary Moss docs’ found their way onto the internet. These documents were soon afterwards seized under warrant by the Operation Fernbridge police, following a raid. One particular document appeared to show a list of prominent visitors to Elm Guest House in Barnes, a place where boys from care homes, including Grafton Close, were taken and abused by men.
I’m going to look at three men named on that list in an effort to demonstrate why people looking into this need to be extremely wary about how they view these documents.
First, we’ll look at ‘Person A’. Like all of the three men, ‘Person A’ is well known.
‘Person A’ is gay though he has never come out of the closet. It is extremely likely that ‘Person A’ did visit the Elm Guest House, it was after all a gay guest house, a safe place for gay men to be themselves at a time, in the late 1970s, early 1980s, when social attitudes to homosexuality were markedly different from today. But I’m unaware of any evidence that ‘Person A’ ever abused young boys and I know people have looked very hard for evidence.
It must be very difficult for ‘Person A’. Not only has he lied about being gay in the past, he also would have to explain what he was doing at Elm Guest House, a place that has become synonymous with the abuse of boys.
So, problem number one when looking at those documents is that they may contain the names of men who had nothing to do with child abuse and who were unaware of what was going on at Elm Guest House.
Now, let’s look at ‘Person B’. ‘Person B’ almost certainly never visited Elm Guest House because, as I’ve already said, it was a place where young boys from care homes were abused, and ‘Person B’ was known to NAYPIC as a man who sexually abused young girls from a care home in a completely different part of London.
Two residents of the care home in question, and who are witnesses to abuse by ‘Person B’ at a ‘party’ in Brighton, exist but both have “moved on with their lives”. This has to be entirely respected and I hope those that read this will join me in wishing them well in the future. I only mention them in passing to demonstrate that ‘Person B’s’ abuse of young girls is not in any question in my own mind.
Patently, Operation Fernbridge, which seems specifically concerned with abuse at Elm Guest House is unlikely to arrest someone unconnected with their investigation. Nevertheless, it’s hard to feel any sympathy for ‘Person B’ being named on that list. It does, however, demonstrate another problem with the ‘list’, that it is not a definitive or even exclusive list of men who visited Elm Guest House.
The third man is ‘Person C’. ‘Person C’ did attend Elm Guest House and did abuse young boys there. Someone I trust without any hesitation has seen a photograph of ‘Person C’ in an extremely compromising situation with a young boy taken at Elm Guest House during a ‘Kings and Queens’ party. There is not anyone who I have talked to who has any degree of knowledge about what was going on who questions that ‘Person C was involved. ‘Person C’ is a child abuser and if there were any justice in this country he’d have already been arrested.
Anyway, I hope this helps people to understand that the ‘Mary Moss Docs’ should be looked at critically. In some areas they are misleading but in others they are correct.