ELVEDENFriday, 22 March, 2013 10:51
From: “Paulette.Rooke@met.pnn.police.uk” <firstname.lastname@example.org>Add sender to ContactsTo: email@example.com
I have been asked by my Inspector to ascertain if you have any new evidence with regard to your allegations against those mentioned in your correspondence.
ADS PAULETTE ROOKE
JUBILEE HOUSE PUTNEY, 230-232 PUTNEY BRIDGE RD, London SW15 2PD
Internal 58526 External 020 8785 8526
DC Paulette Rooke
New Scotland Yard
8/10 The Broadway
London SW1H OBG
John Whittingdale MP
George Eustice MP
John Whittingdale MP
George Eustice MP
Gerald Howarth MP
Keir Starmer (DPP)
24 March 2013
Dear DC Rooke,
You ask in your email of 22 March whether I have any new information relating to the accusations I have made. The short answer is no. However, having listened again to the tape recording I made of my interview with Det Supt Jeff Curtis I shall be sending you a copy of that for the reasons given below in paragraph 4.
Happily you do not need any further information to begin investigations into Piers Morgan, Jeff Edwards and Det Supt Jeff Curtis. In fact, I think any disinterested third party would be rather surprised that the investigations have not already begun, bearing in mind that you have a letter sent to Morgan to the PCC in which he admitted that the Mirror had received information from a police officer in circumstances which can only have been illegal.
The reason the crimes (apart from the accusations of perjury before Leveson) were not meaningfully investigated when I made my original complaints is beautifully simple: corrupt practice by the police prompted either by the Blairs’ involvement in the story and/or a known or suspected corrupt relationship between Metropolitan Police officers and the Mirror (and other press and broadcasters).
The corrupt nature of the way my complaints were handled is exemplified by Jeff Curtis’ failure to interview anyone at the Mirror even though he had the letter from Piers Morgan to the PCC. Curtis told me this in a phone call and you can verify that this is the truth by looking at the original case notes. The tape recording of my meeting with Jeff Curtis is important because in it he says he will be going to the Mirror, says the case revolves around Morgan’s admission and says it is a straightforward case. The recording was made with Curtis’ knowledge and agreement. The fact that he knew he was being recorded is significant because it removed the possibility from his mind of saying something to me thinking he could deny it later. Clearly something irregular happened between him leaving me and starting the investigation. It is reasonable to suspect he was leant on by someone even more senior not to investigate the Mirror. That the police never interviewed anyone at the Mirror also means that the Mirror accounts and the journalistic records kept by Edwards and Morgan (and perhaps others) were never scrutinised for evidence of payments to the police. All in all, this is a very obvious perversion of the course of justice.
The events to which the these crimes relate are 15 years old, but that is irrelevant to whether they should be investigated now, both because of the serious nature of the crimes and the fact that those I allege against Morgan and Edwards were not investigated meaningfully when they were first reported. Nor is there any problem with a lack of compelling evidence because of the time which has elapsed. In the case of Morgan and Edwards you have Morgan’s letter to the PCC and the Mirror story, while Curtis’ perversion of the course of justice speaks for itself. Moreover, although it is 15 years since the events, the age of fully computerised accounts had arrived before 1997 and it is probable that a copy of the Mirror accounts for the period is still held in digital form. The same could apply to journalistic records held by Morgan and Edwards or other Mirror employees or freelances. I know from my use of the Data Protection Act soon after the Mirror published the story that the paper was holding information about me which they refused to release under the journalistic purposes provision of the DPA. They may well be still holding it.
As for the perjury accusations against Morgan and Edwards, these are very recent complaints about crimes recently committed which have never been previously investigated. You have the information you need to investigate the perjury because I have supplied you with the Morgan letter to the PCC, the Mirror story about me and the transcripts of the relevant passages in the evidence given by Morgan and Edwards before Leveson.
Apart from the killer fact of Curtis’ failure to interview anyone at the Mirror and a consequent failure to investigate the Mirror’s records, the circumstances of that failed investigation and of other complaints I made at the same time provide very strong circumstantial evidence that my original complaints against Morgan and Edwards were not treated normally. For example, why was a Det Supt from Scotland Yard investigating crimes which would normally be investigated by a Det Sergeant or just possibly a Det Inspector? To that you can add the array of senior police officers (the details of which I sent to you in my email of 29th January) who became involved in my various complaints at one time or another, despite the crimes being of a nature which would normally have been investigated by policemen of lesser rank. The only reasonable explanation for their involvement is the political circumstances surrounding my complaints.
There are two scenarios which fit the receipt of information by the Mirror from the police. The first is straightforward: a police officer, possibly of senior rank because of the Blairs’ involvement, has sold the information to the Mirror for mere personal gain.
The second scenario is more complex. It involves a senior police officer engaging in a conspiracy with Tony and Cherry Blair assisted by Alastair Campbell to feed misinformation to the Mirror. This is more than a little plausible because the Mirror story was a farrago of grotesque lies such as the claim that I had bombarded the Blairs with letters or that the letters were “full of graphic racist filth”. There was also a completely fabricated quote “if he gets elected he’ll let in all the blacks and Asians”. Ask yourself why the Mirror would have printed such things if they had read my letters after they were given them by a police officer simply out to make money with no political axe to grind. It would not make sense. If, on the other hand, this was all part of a conspiracy between the Blairs, a senior police officer and Alastair Campbell it would make perfect sense, because then it transmutes from a political story into an exercise in political propaganda to nullify me by smearing. The story would then be whatever they wanted it to be with the content of the letters an irrelevance.
It is noteworthy that Morgan in his letter to the PCC admits that the Mirror did not have copies of my letters and that he had not seen them. That could mean one of four things: the Mirror did not have copies, the Mirror had copies but did not wish to admit it because they knew the letters would not substantiate their printed story about me, Edwards had seen the letters but realised they were innocuous and not the basis for a smear story or no one at the Mirror had ever seen my letters but had written their story simply from false information given to them by the police informant. The last possibility fits in most neatly with the conspiracy theory.
Why would the Blairs wish to engage in such a conspiracy? The most plausible answer lies in the fact that they did not go to the police when I wrote to them, but only later after I had sent copies of my letters to the Blairs and the non-replies I was receiving from their offices to every mainstream media outlet at the beginning of the 1997 General Election campaign. That can only mean the Blairs wanted to silence me during the election campaign. Why? Only they can tell you that for sure. What is certain is that the Blairs must have been very seriously worried about the media taking up the story told in my letters and their non-replies to get involved with a criminal investigation during the most important weeks of Blair’s life, namely, the General Election campaign. Having miserably failed in the attempt to have me prosecuted it would have made perfect sense from their point of view to try to neutralise me by getting a friendly media outlet to print a false and hideously libellous story about me to dissuade anyone in the media from taking up the story told in my letters to the Blairs and their non-replies to me.
Here is something for you and your superiors to think upon. If the Met refuses to properly investigate my complaints (including questioning Morgan and Edwards) it will look like yet another cover-up to go along with the persistent failure by the Met to investigate phone-hacking until political pressure forced them to re-investigate cases which had previously been deemed to provide insufficient evidence for a prosecution or even a sustained investigation. The re-investigation of these supposedly hopeless cases has resulted in dozens of arrests and quite a few charges, a fact which tells its own tale.
I repeat my previous requests for an interview with you and a senior officer within Operation Elveden, preferably Steve Kavanagh . Apart from anything else you should be taking a formal statement from me based on the very strong evidence I have provided.
Tape recording of my interview with Jeff Curtis has been sent to you