by | April 24, 2015 · 11:54 pm

Lord Janner Victim Witness Statement.

Full credit to The Daily Mail

‘Alleged’ appears to be an extremely rare word today…

Click to enlarge pages.

Janner 1-1 copy.JPGJanner 1-2 copy.JPGJanner 1-3 copy.JPGJanner 1-4 copy.JPGJanner 1-5 copy.JPGJanner 1-6 copy.JPGJanner 1-8.jpgJanner 2-2 copy.jpgJanner 1-7 copy.JPGJanner 1-9.jpgJanner 1-10 copy.JPGJanner 2-3 copy.jpgJanner 2-1 copy.JPG

25 Comments

Filed under Abuse, News, Politics

25 responses to “Lord Janner Victim Witness Statement.”

  1. Callie
    February 1, 2016 at 1:55 am

    Justin, I have only just found your comments here, but they are spot on! Every single paedophile Nick met was a sadist. Most paedophiles are not sadists. This should have been a giant red flag from the beginning. It was for me, when I read his blog. I knew it could not be reality.

  2. Justin Sanity
    April 30, 2015 at 3:38 am

    @Sabre – I’m not ducking the jekyl-hyde concept that you’ve asked me to consider. If a hypothetical child rapist-murderer member of a pedophile ring was Janner’s “Hyde”, then the pederastic grooming offender described in this witness statement would have to be Janner’s “Jekyl”. But it’s not. The pederastic grooming offender IS Janner’s “Hyde”. Janner’s “Jekyl” is him with his family members, him as an MP, him as an advocate for holocaust survivors.

    The type of pederastic offender described by this victim-witness, would never share his chosen “special friend” with any other men. Janner might tolerate the boy having sexual adventures with other boys his own age – that would probably excite him, actually – but if Janner found this boy engaged in sexual acts with another man in their hotel room, he’d fly into an insane jealous rage. Guaranteed! He might even kill the other man. The idea that he would belong to a ring that passed their boys around amongst each other is just out of the question, for this type.

    If Janner walked into a hotel room and saw a comely youth tied up on the bed, being sodomized by a group of men, he’d go straight to the phone and dial 999. He would have to, because his self-protective delusions would tell him that he is a defender & protector of vulnerable boys. He has to believe that he would never intentionally harm a boy, that he is in fact an enemy of those who would. Such delusions protect him from comprehending that he is in fact a predatory danger to boys himself. For this type, if circumstances force their delusions to collapse and they can no longer hide from the truth about themselves, they frequently choose death over living in reality.

    This type sail their boat so far up the river de-nile that they actually believe their own BS. When Janner got up in the Commons to declare his “innocence”, I have no doubt he really believed in what he was saying. He would have subconsciously re-framed the events of his offending WHILE It WAS HAPPENING. I don’t mean amnesia, wiping out the memory. I mean re-interpreting what is going on so that it seems “innocent”. He didn’t “have sex” with this boy, they merely “fooled around”, “like guys do”, simple horseplay with no sexual motivation to it…
    That would be BS, of course, but very likely what he what really believe.

  3. Justin Sanity
    April 28, 2015 at 4:43 am

    This witness statement is just invaluable, for many reasons! (Thanks for putting it up, here). I don’t know the man, or even whom he might be, but I feel a lot of respect for him – for the way he has handled his life experiences, for his courage and integrity as a victim-witness, for the truthful expression of reality embodied in this account. Thank you, whomever you are!

    There are some things about “Nick’s” accounts of his alleged victimization that have troubled me for some time. Specifically, there are characteristic things about pederastic offenders missing from his stories, and some very uncharacteristic behaviour seems to dominate his narrative. I held off discussing this for a long while, so as not to provide anyone the opportunity of “correcting” their narratives, prematurely.

    It’s all here, though, in this man’s witness statement. Janner’s opportunistic involvement in child-centered activity; he attends children’s school plays! , he has his own magic act performances for child audiences, he visits children’s care homes, etc. This is very typical pederast modus operandi – spending a lot of time & effort cultivating and maintaining “innocent” access to children, especially more vulnerable children.

    Janner’s absolutely classic “grooming” of this man, as a child. Upon first meeting, complimenting the boy and making him feel special & important. Excuses to spend time alone together – “I could be of use to him, by showing him around”. Janner’s expressed interest in childhood activities, such as the adventure playground. Taking the boy around with him as a companion, involving the boy in his own adult activities. And of course the treats, gifts, monies, and increasingly ‘romantic’ letters. Genuinely cultivating a relationship with his intended victim – this is reality, this is characteristic pederast behaviour.

    All of this serves other purposes, it’s not just about seducing the boy. These behaviours reveal, and serve to reinforce, typical pederastic delusional rationalizations, justifications and self-image. The self-protective fantasy world that their delusional thinking constructs for them is beautifully exemplified in a statement made by a woman who was a fellow-resident with one of Janner’s alleged victims. She said that the boy had been bragging that he was a rent-boy with “very high-up connections”. Despite his youth, the boy had no delusions about the true nature of the relationship – it was prostitution, no matter how Janner might dress it up. Meanwhile, Janner is sending the boy love letters. Love letters! What a farsical & deluded fool!

    These delusions are very important, they both enable and drive the pederast’s offending behaviour, i.e., ;
    He’s not a “sex offender”, his sexual relationship with the boy isn’t harmful – it’s actually beneficial to the boy somehow. He’s not a child molestor, he’s a heroic and self-sacrificing mentor. He genuinely loves the boys, and they genuinely love him back [GAG! RETCH!]. He doesn’t make prostitutes of his “little friends”, he’s just a generous Uncle-patron type, proving some material comforts and life experiences that their guardians could never afford to give them.

    There’s no trace of any of this, in ‘Nick’s’ stories. There’s no grooming, no relationships, no shared activities other than sex. There’s only degradation and humiliation, violence, pain, sadism, suffering, blood and death. The boys are nothing but meat, property, sexual slaves. I’m not saying that pederasts are never cruel to their victims, that they can’t be sadists or violent, or even killers. But I doubt very much whether Cooke or Bailey had any delusions about being POS – they just didn’t care about that! On the other hand, a Grenville Janner couldn’t possibly maintain the delusion that his relationships with boys were actually beneficial to them, if he was strangling or beating them to death – or witnessing others do such things. So, I wasn’t surprised to hear that “Nick” now claims Janner was one of his Pimlico abusers – but I think that claim was a mistake on his part. I don’t believe it. If Janner was in fact a pederast, THIS witness statement describes the type of pederast he was – and “Nick’s” does not. I’m sorry, “Nick”, you may sincerely believe everything you’ve said, but I don’t think it’s reality.

    • Sabre
      April 28, 2015 at 8:38 pm

      I think that I know who made the statement posted here, Nick appears to have had a different type of encounter ( relationship really would be the wrong word) with Janner. Individuals are all going to have very different responses to these sort of things. We don’t know Nick we only know what is reported which is of necessity filtered.

    • Sabre
      April 28, 2015 at 8:49 pm

      Justin your comments are interesting, however, might you perhaps be assuming too much about the differences in behaviour one person can exhibit given differing times and situations.
      It has been reported that Peter Sutcliffe was a model husband, he showed genuine love, affection, empathy and support for his wife during some of her most troubling episodes with her mental health. There are dozens of people in the north of England that suffer evermore due to this model husband’s murderous rampage.

      • Justin Sanity
        April 29, 2015 at 6:25 am

        @Sabre – interesting, and highly relevant, that you would suggest a serial killer for a parallel. You wouldn’t know it from your nightly newscast’s obsessions, but statistics show murders are a tiny subset of all crimes against persons. Serial killers are a tiny subset of all murderers. Pedophilic sex murderers are a tiny subset of all serial killers, and child killers are a very, very small subset of all pedophilic sex offenders. Nevertheless, the first thing that comes to mind for most people when they hear “pedophile” or “child molestor”, is an image of Ian Brady or Sidney Cooke or John Wayne Gacy. Most people understand that these monsters are quite rare in our society, (not rare enough!), but this association is still reflexive for them, and that fact is being deliberately exploited in the UK right now. Let me show you something interesting…

        Contrast the tone & language of the victim himself in his witness statement, to that of The Daily Mail’s Guy Adams account of the same events;
        Daily Mail: “…a teenage boy lies awake. It’s eerily quiet, and he’s a long, long way from the children’s institution that has in recent years been home. The house is dark and shadowy. Scary, even. He feels frightened, confused and very much alone. But this boy is not alone”.
        Witness: “…when I woke up I saw that he was in my room. He sat on my bed and asked if I was ok, but I told him i was frightened because I was in a strange house and at this he cuddled and kissed me…”

        The “eerily quiet…dark and shadowy…scary…feels confused and very much alone” – none of that is in the witness’ account. Why is it in Guy Adam’s account? Simply for “literary color”? No. The witness account is actually kind of homey – it might even be touching if you didn’t know that Janner later molests the boy. And that tone, despite being THE HONEST VOICE OF THE VICTIM, just won’t do. It doesn’t portray Janner as a sadistic child sex maniac poised to ravage a totally helpless, trapped, confused & terrified child. It doesn’t convey: “Lord Janner = Leslie Bailey = torture & murder”.

        DM: “The boy also told how he had been raped by the MP in a swimming pool at Leicester’s Holiday Inn. Such revelations drew gasps in court. They ought to have been front-page news”.
        Witness: “We…swam naked in the swimming pool..a similar sort of sexual activity took place…and we touched each other’s privates while in the swimming pool”.

        I’m actually surprised that Adams didn’t go all the way and say: “brutally and viciously raped by the MP…” , considering what he obviously wants his readers to believe about Janner.
        The victim never uses the words “raped” or “assaulted”, at all, in his account. Rather, he simply describes the acts that took place. He never says that he was physically mistreated in a non-sexual way by Janner – no claims of being kicked, slapped, struck, punched, pinched, tied up, held down, etc. He never says that Janner forced, coerced or blackmailed him into doing anything. He makes no claims of Janner warning him not to tell, or threatening him in any way should he reveal their sexual relationship. He never says that he felt trapped, that he longed to escape from his relationship with Janner, or even that he wished it to end – despite the Daily Mail’s characterizatiion: “…repeated sexual assaults that he endured over two years…”.

        So, here’s the point. The Mail’s account isn’t simply a retelling of the victim’s own account – it’s a blatant rewrite. “Nick’s” account of being tortured, tied up & repeatedly raped by Janner is too dissimilar from the original victim’s experience to be believable – but “Nick’s” account MUST be believed, because it portrays Janner as a mindlessly sadistic child rapist – (Janner = Sidney Cooke) – just like the other alleged VIP pedophile ring’s alleged members in “Nick’s” account. The solution – rewrite the first victim’s account so that it sounds more like “Nick’s” alleged experience.

  4. Radford NG
    April 26, 2015 at 10:41 pm

    It also raises the issue of Frank Beck.There were claims of his innocence at the time;but he died in prison before these could come to court.Was he guilty of child molestation;or was he engaged in one of the batty California-style therapies that were current at the time?The police seem to have been keen to have got him;unlike their attitude to Janner.

    • Sabre
      April 28, 2015 at 8:27 pm

      Don’t know what to make of Beck, there are people on here that are well versed on him. I wondered aloud if he had been set up, I believe a strong case was made against him. He got several life sentences and yet the Sidney Cooke mob all served sentences for manslaughter and walked out of prison after relatively short sentences. The CPS/DPP decided that they wouldn’t bother explaining no murder charges despite at least 3 children being raped and murdered.

    • Sabre
      April 26, 2015 at 12:05 pm

      Every one did their nut re Butler-Sloss and Woolf chairing the CSA inquiry (rightly so) and yet Vaz is accepted as chairman of the Select Committee.

      Not only do we have the staunch support of Janner, he wasn’t exactly in the clear re expenses, The Filkin inquiry censured him , he was suspended from the House after lying about an ex cop, he along with Mandelson were up to their necks in the ‘Hinduja affair’, he tried to help Nadhmi Auchi evade French extradition re the Elf Aquitaine fraud (Vaz was a director of a subsidiary of Auchi’s corporation)

      He was also a solicitor employed by Islington Council.

    • Sabre
      April 26, 2015 at 12:07 pm

      On reflection, he’s obviously the man for the job!

  6. dpack
    April 26, 2015 at 10:33 am

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3055680/Lord-Janner-detective-proof-charge-child-sex-politician-20-years-ago-brass-told-stop.html

    the msm do seem quite selective in both content and timing as well as being very careful to exclude any “joined up thinking”regarding these matters.

    • Sabre
      April 26, 2015 at 11:21 am

      Told ya so. Reluctant to overly criticise the cops because we need them to come forward, however, all police officers especially CID of lead investigation rank are aware of their oath “…. without fear or favour …” .

  7. Sabre
    April 25, 2015 at 12:48 pm

    No stern faced cross armed politico journo or cop defiantly opposing the mob.

  8. Sabre
    April 25, 2015 at 12:43 pm

    It has taken a mere 23 years for some of the shit to hit the fan a glancing blow.
    All of Fleet Street could have published something similar a decade ago, and that would have been unforgivably late.
    All of Westminster could have acted a decade ago and that would have been unforgivably late.
    The BBC and ITN could have acted a decade ago ……..
    The fearless crusaders such as Panorama and World in Action …………

    There are countless police officers that could have said f**k this I’m not covering this up do your worst.

    • Becky
      April 25, 2015 at 2:11 pm

      Do you ever wondered just why the Fleet Street mob gets all it wants from cowering politicians – up to, and including the privilege to regulate itself outside of the law totally against the recommendations of the Leveson Inquiry? Could it be that the media junta have some information with evidence that would be powerfully damaging to the mainstream political establishment that the press barons can use this as a blackmailing tool to get ostensibly democratically elected representatives of the people to bend and tweak legislation to their favour – or else?!

  9. joekano76
    April 25, 2015 at 11:36 am

    Reblogged this on Floating-voter.

  10. chrisb
    April 25, 2015 at 9:58 am

    A question to ponder … Was a deal done in the run-up to the general election between Labour and Conservatives to protect both Janner and Brittan, i.e. one politician on each side? Clegg seems not to have been part of any deal as he has asked Saunders to reconsider her decision on Janner, in contrast to his silence on his father’s good friend.

    Credit to Simon Danczuk for putting party loyalty to one side and criticising Saunders’ decision.

  11. robert hutchings
    April 25, 2015 at 9:18 am

    this is the latest on janner http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=114437

  12. Pingback: Lord Janner Victim Witness Statement. | Alternative News Network

  13. Graham Tester
    April 25, 2015 at 12:26 am

    When “that woman” even ruled out a trial of the facts I immediately knew the whole system is corrupt and compromised. If you’re not going to try this dirt-bag on dubious medical grounds, the least you can do is hold a public hearing into how the abuse came about and therefrom put in place policies to help prevent it ever happening that way again.
    This woman is an abject failure and I feel utterly bereft for the victims of this vile man in their inability to obtain the justice they’ve already been waiting far too long for.

  14. artmanjosephgrech
    April 25, 2015 at 12:01 am

    Nick Clegg first Party leader to press DPP to reconsider decision

    • BarrieJ
      April 25, 2015 at 9:45 am

      Pure theatre, just like the reaction of Leicester police.
      Saunders has urged critics to challenge her decision in court.
      She’s a ‘safe pair of hands’ as would be the judge, who was required to review her decision.
      She and the rest of the political establishment are supremely confident in the contempt with which they can treat the victims and the public, because they’ve got every corner covered.
      Nothing in politics happens by accident.
      The rest is simply a performance, like a farmer playing classical music to his cattle.

      • Sabre
        April 28, 2015 at 8:57 pm

        Barrie, the surrealism is great I can just imagine a herd of Jerseys settling down to Elgar’s enigma variations and the sheep treated to a rendition of Pachelbel’s canon in D major.