Operation Midland is investigating allegations that children were tortured, raped and murdered by high profile individuals including senior politicians.
‘Nick’ is Operation Midland’s key witness.
His testimony has been described by police as “credible” and the operation has recently been stepped up.
Meanwhile, the mainstream media has mounted a concerted smear campaign against him, describing him as a “Walter Mitty” character and a “fantasist”.
As well as the “Walter Mitty” label, what is really notable about ALL of the mainstream media coverage of Operation Midland is the very selective reporting and the use of unnamed sources providing unsubstantiated evidence.
This is interesting, because bias and lack of evidence are exactly the things the media criticise Operation Midland for.
However, to coin another of the media’s favourite phrases, they offer “not a shred of evidence” to back up this criticism.
Contrary to ALL media reports, rather than “admitting mistakes” and talking of “winding down” Operation Midland, the Met’s recent statement actually focusses on criticisms of media coverage of the investigation, taking the unusual step of asking the media to take account of the vulnerability of witnesses and to
“consider following Ofcom’s approach by amending its code to recognise that vulnerability in reporting of crime is not just a matter of the age of witnesses or victims.”
The statement warns of “the risk that media investigations will affect the process of gathering and testing evidence in our criminal investigation” and gives one example in which the identity of a witness was revealed by a journalist to the person he was accusing. On this point, the statement is highly critical.
All of the media coverage of the Met’s statement centres on criticisms of Operation Midland.
Curiously, not one of the media headlines mention the Met’s criticisms of the media.
As evidence of my criticisms, all examples of media smears and dirty tricks will be dated, sourced and referenced, as below.
This first article somehow manages to twist the Met’s and the Chief Comissioner’s statements defending Operation Midland, calling the Chief “embattled”, calling the Met’s statement “rambling”, suggesting police are “struggling to corroborate” allegations but “have no choice” but to investigate the “difficult to prove” allegations. The article describes the operation as “in trouble”, saying police “still don’t know whether any of the allegations are true”.
This despite repeated explanations from police that sex abuse investigations take time and patience, that historic investigations take longer still, and that the investigations are still ongoing – of course they have not yet concluded whether the allegations are true – in fact, this is not for the police to establish – it is a matter for the courts.
Daily Mail – 24th September 2015
Met chief struggles to defend VIP sex probe
Daily Mail – 4th September 2015
“VIP child abuse inquiry is staring to unravel: ‘Grave doubts’ emerge over key witness’s claim that he saw boys murdered
Alleged abuse victim ‘Nick’ is ‘credible and true’, Met source said last year
Yet officers have not found a ‘shred of credible evidence’ to back up claims
‘Nick’ says Establishment figures murdered three boys in 1970s and 1980s
But there are now fears he is a ‘Walter Mitty’ who made up shocking claims”
By STEPHEN WRIGHT, ASSOCIATE NEWS EDITOR FOR THE DAILY MAIL
The Mail article claims unnamed officers say they have found no evidence and unnamed officers now fear ‘Nick’ made it all up.
The Met response to this has been unequivocal – they defend Nick’s evidence as follows:
“..after the witness had been interviewed for several days by detectives specialising in homicide and child abuse investigations, our senior investigating officer stated that he believed our key witness and felt him to be ‘credible’.”
Meanwhile, the Met Chief Police Commissioner reiterated that:
“there is no question of Operation Midland being scaled back” and called it “a very thorough and professional inquiry”.
No statement of any kind has been offered by any police source to corroborate the media’s claims that ‘Nick’s credibility, or that of Operation Midland, is under fire, yet every article on the subject carries headlines giving just that impression.
RT.com – 17th September 2015
The article below suggests “police” who “once described ‘Nick’ as a credible source” are now saying he could be “a ‘Walter Mitty’, making up the murder allegations”. There is no corroboration of this from any police source. In fact both the Met police AND Scotland Yard Chief Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe have just issued statements defending Operation Midland and insisting they still regard ‘Nick’ as a credible witness.
The article’s assertion that the force said they were unable to find victims, bodies or credible witnesses appears to be entirely made up. The investigations are still ongoing and the Met have indicated in the strongest possible terms their commitment to what the Comissioner describes as an excellent investigation.
The claims in this article appear to be fabricated – Walter Mitty style, it seems
“Operation Midland was set up nearly a year ago by the Met to investigate claims that boys were abused and killed by senior figures, including former prime minister Sir Edward Heath, ex-home secretary Lord Brittan and the former heads of MI5 and MI6.
One of the allegations relates to the death of Vishal Mehrotra, killed in 1981 when he was eight years old.
One 47-year-old witness, named only as ‘Nick’, said he was present when a Conservative MP murdered a 12-year-old boy inside the Dolphin Square luxury apartment block in Westminster in the 1980s.
Earlier this month, however, police said Nick, who they once described as a “credible source,” could be a ‘Walter Mitty,’ making up the murder allegations.
The force said it was unable to identify any of the alleged victims, discover any bodies or find any credible independent witnesses.”
STEPHAN WERMUTH, REUTERS