IICSA: Mary Moss responds to Jerome testimony

In a video posted 8 March, inexplicably in the “Comedy” category on YouTube, Chris Fay’s former colleague Mary Moss has made a brief personal statement refuting some of Thursday’s testimony by MET Commander Neil Jerome.

Mary Moss statement

In the video she states:

My name is Mary Moss. I was mentioned a lot yesterday during the Child Sexual Abuse inquiry into the Westminster allegations.

I met Carole Kasir in 1989 when she walked into my office. I was a London development officer at 20 Compton Terrace in N1 Islington, and she had seen me on the telly, and she said that she wanted me to represent her son, and her daughter, who she believed had been taken into care to cover up for some MPs being involved some parties that she’d had, and that she’d been treated unfairly, and they said that her son was abused, and he said he wasn’t.

And anyway, she got murdered not long after, she left with me some documents—the guest book, the signing-in book, receipts. Obviously they were protected under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.

She was dead, it was a very frightening time for myself.

There was an advisor in our office who came in to discuss Melanie Klein House, Christopher Fay. I haven’t seen him since 1991, when I banned him from the NAYPIC offices following some information from the London Borough Grants Unit.

I have been wrongly associated with him in the Sexual Abuse Inquiry (sic).

I have notoriously worked for NAYPIC, I’m the commercial director of a flower shop, I set up two art galleries. I’m a professional, he’s a crook. I feel what Neil [Jerome] did yesterday was completely slanderous, and I went to the Child Abuse Inquiry (sic) to tell them that.

Okay. So they wouldn’t listen, they said put it in an email. No one else is listening. I’m fed up.

I just want a parliamentary budget for the kids, a pound a head per child in the country, and put an end to all this historical abuse, draw a line under it. As I say, it’s International Women’s Day, and what we need is to endorse the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and have an International Children’s Day, with parliamentary budget, by law. 

It’s incomprehensible to any sensible person that the Kasirs would have been found guilty of running a “disorderly house”, and yet still claim that their children had been removed from their care as part of a government cover-up of “some MPs being involved in some parties she’d had”. Would it not dawn on anyone who understood the nature of the guest house, that it would not have been a suitable environment for a child?

And yet Moss seems to imply that she believed Carole Kasir’s version of events.

While Kasir’s 1990 death was ruled a suicide—the inquest found that she had taken her own life as a result of an overdose of insulin, Jerome stated—Moss appears to believe the “murdered for what she knew” narrative.

As regards the documents which Moss said Kasir left with her, in his 7 March testimony, Commander Neil Jerome stated that in January 2013, Moss had published online a list of Elm Guest House attendees. The list allegedly included names of various celebrities and other prominent individuals from the 1980s.

As part of Operation Winter Key, police had asked Moss for access to the documents she claimed to hold, but she had refused. She did provide some of them to the BBC, who also refused to share them with police, as they had not received Moss’ permission to do so.

Subsequently, the police obtained a warrant to search Moss’ home, where they recovered substantial material, including a sauna appointments book and an appointments desk diary. They also seized about 40 boxes containing various handwritten notes, press clippings, and other materials.

However, they found nothing resembling the storied “Elm Guest House list”. Jerome said:

Clearly, there were notes and there were lists. But the provenance of that material could not be ascertained at all, and it was very unclear to the officers as to when those lists were generated and from what source material they were generated. So there is no evidence linking those to the earlier [1992] raid and the provenance of them was dubious.

In his written statement provided to the IICSA, Jerome wrote:

When the documents were reviewed by officers, there were suggestions that multiple people had attended the Elm Guest House at one time or another—but often without specific dates having been provided—and there were no specific allegations. …

From the material seized from Mary Moss, Operation Fairbank officers identified the following people as possibly having been connected with the Elm Guest House.

He responded in the affirmative to the IICSA lawyer, Mr O’Connor, who asked,

So, far from being an authoritative guest list, would it be fair to describe the documents as simply documents of uncertain provenance which, as you say, suggest the possibility that people may have attended Elm Guest House?

“That’s right, of uncertain origin”, Jerome said, “and certainly evidentially there’s no substance to them at all”.

O’Connor cited Chief Inspector Paul Settle’s prior IICSA evidence:

The first time I heard Harvey Proctor’s name mentioned to do with the Elm Guest House was on the infamous ‘guest list’ which proved to be a work of fiction created by Christopher Fay, Mary Moss, and Carole Kasir, the (now deceased) former owner of Elm Guest House. They put together a document purporting to be the guest room receipts for Elm Guest House. The guests were allegedly so high profile that they didn’t use their real names when checking in, but this dossier purported to tell the truth. The dossier was put online and spread on social media before the police were even made aware of its existence. I had met with Chris Fay during our research into the Elm Guest House allegations. … He was very evasive and certainly didn’t mention this dossier he had created. We only found out later, once Mary Moss put it on the internet. I found that behaviour rather duplicitous.

After investigating, it transpired that the names in the dossier were nothing more than a list of names of people who had been associated (in the media) or convicted of paedophilia, homosexuality, or any police officer who had had anything to do with the investigation. Despite the furore over the list initially, it was shown to have zero evidential value.

In her video, Moss states that she believes that Jerome’s IICSA evidence was slanderous, though she does not specify on the grounds for this allegation.

She is also adamant that while she is a “professional”, Fay is a “crook”; she claims to have severed their relationship in 1991. Given Fay’s unsavoury reputation, it’s not surprising that Moss would seek to distance herself from him now.

Mary Moss, 8 March 2019

24 thoughts on “IICSA: Mary Moss responds to Jerome testimony

  1. some documents—the guest book, the signing-in book, receipts. Obviously they were protected under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.

    This is a bewildering account, not least because Mary Moss somehow believes that it is reputation-enhancing. “I came into possession of documents which I thought were crucial for demonstrating that serious crimes had occurred, and for helping the police prosecute the criminals. I thought that it was my legal duty to hand those documents over to the police. So I kept hold of them myself.”

    I mean, why would one do that? I can think of a few reasons but they are not flattering.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Documents aren’t protected under PACE. PACE isn’t a code for evidence, it deals with certain aspects of it, for example regulating warrants for entry to search and seize of evidence, allowing court records to be used in evidence, and allowing courts to exclude unfair evidence. But there’s no provision for “protection”.

      There is ultimately one rule of evidence; is it relevant to the matter before the court? And then various exclusionary rules – would it be unfair to admit it – and rules for HOW evidence is to be admitted. But there’s no rule protecting evidence and I don’t even know exactly what she means. These lists would only be evidence if they were given in evidence, and then it would be for a judge, justices, or jury, to decide what weight to put on them, they wouldn’t gain any magic status in the process. And a fortiori for “evidence” which has never been given at all.

      BTW, am I the only person to feel some discomfort at Fay being attacked through his appearance? He looks like that because he’s old; I’m afraid that’s what happens as time passes, it has nothing to do with anyone’s worth as a person.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Top commentary on PACE.

        I understand your point about ‘appearance’ but I’ve spent too much time writing satirical articles to stop now. It wasn’t really a jibe about age. More a juxtaposition of two evil people with similar appearances and no redeeming qualities 😉

        Liked by 1 person

  2. It’s also worth reminding people that the past is a different county.

    Gay sex was only decriminalised in Scotland in 1980 and Northern Ireland in 1982. Tabloids were outing people and it was usually enough to end careers including MPs.

    It wasn’t until 2000 that a gay person was legally allowed to serve in the armed forces and 2001 that the age of consent was equalised.

    It’s hard to describe what it was like to modern audiences as the area is now tourist friendly and the air of menace had gone. Soho was the centre of Goth culture in the 80s, so I went there a lot (that’s my excuse and I’m sticking to it!) Gossips/Alice in Wonderland, The Intrepid Fox and The Spice of Life were our main hangouts but a pub I walked past regularly and a well known gay pub, The Admiral Duncan, was blown up by an anti-gay right wing nutter in 1999.

    The police would raid premises on a regular basis and, as I mentioned in a previous post, it was only a few years before in 1979 that Mary Millington committed suicide because of constant harassment by the vice squad.

    None of this is to excuse any alleged criminality at Elm Guest House, but context is being lost if we judge things through modern eyes. It was a very gay hostile time and that included the police.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Indeed it was only a ‘short’ time ago it was decriminalised in Australia as well, it was only delisted as a ‘mental condition’ in 1973 and it wasn’t until 1997 (only three years before my car was made!) that the last state (Tasmania) decriminalised it…
      Same sex marriages were effectively outlawed in 2004 (Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill) that was supposed to prevent any court rulings allowing gay marriages, this wasn’t repealed until the end of 2017…

      However in the 70’s and the 80’s, there were a rash of ‘gay bashings’ that the people doing the bashing usually got at best a minor slap on the wrist, and many were never even reported, as reporting a gay bashing was admitting to a crime yourself, the crime of ‘being gay’

      A friend of mine was heavily involved in the eighties to decriminalise it, and the flack he copped for it, nobody should have to go through, even the police would actively target him (his car regularly got defected, sometimes several times in a month, always for the most minor of things that anyone else would have gotten a caution for or at most fined)

      Liked by 2 people

      • To add to the above comments, the Republic of Ireland only decriminalised gay sex in 1993, though at least the then minister had the sense to ensure the age of consent was equalised between straight and gay, possibly learning from the British mistake in this matter.

        Liked by 1 person

    • I’ve often wondered if the paedo allegations against Cliff Richard (who appears on the fake EGH guest list) stem from the perception that he’s gay (which in turn is based on the fact that he never married). Back in the day, there was a bizarre prevailing misconception that being gay automatically meant you were a pederast.

      Liked by 3 people

  3. Thank you EC. There seems to be an anti-gay thread running through each story about this. Homosexuality was illegal at that time as we know. I hate the fact that homosexuality was mentioned alongside child abuse which can & maybe did, colour peoples’ (linguist help, where should the ‘ go or should there be a ‘ there) minds wrongly.

    I don’t know if I’m making sense though or just talking out loud, it wouldn’t be the first time.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Of course it’s anti-gay.
      The problem for these fanatics that have driven this rubbish is they now see that being LGBT is accepted by the greater public who couldn’t give a damn about people’s private lives (and never really did) so they have chosen a new target: so called pedos (many of them an invention in their minds) and there is a running them that it’s gay men who are the perpetrators.

      Those who have driven these false nightmares are sick and very twisted people, many who are psychopaths in varying degrees. And like most psychopaths they have a very strong drive and can perpetuate their hateful obsessions over years while ordinary people just don’t have such intensity.
      And you end up with costly inquiries after Fleet Street and the media are only too happy to promote these inventions.
      I mean how DARE Mary Moss now pop her head up to complain. She has had years to nip much of it the bud.
      While the IlSCA may clear the air, I doubt it..they will claim “cover-up”..it’s a bloody ludicrous situation where complete fantasies are being discussed by a battery of lawyers. Madness.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Yes, I very much doubt that the IICSA will clear the air. Already, those who push conspiracies are out there claiming that it’s all a fit-up, etc. Those for whom belief in lurid CSA conspiracies is a matter of faith will not be swayed.


  4. The first thing that I noticed was “I was a London development officer at 20 Compton Terrace in N1 Islington, and she had seen me on the telly, and she said that she wanted me to represent her son, and her daughter…”
    Why would you want a London development officer and not a solicitor?
    There may be reasons but Mary needs to explain that a bit more.

    This wasn’t the best video and just brings up more questions than answers.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Yes, I found it puzzling in many respects. She seemed to believe that simply saying, “I have been misrepresented” and claiming that Kasir had been murdered and her children taken into care as part of a cover-up should be enough to convince everybody of her side of the story. Very odd indeed.


  5. Homosexuality was actually decriminalised in the uk on the 28 July 1967. One Margaret Thatcher voted to decriminalise because she had the view that gay men shouldn`t go to prison, but should be treated in Hospital. Years later she was the main instigator of Section 28, she said, young people shouldn`t have the unamiable right to be gay. This is when the real hatred started. Interestingly Lesbianism has never been illegal in this country because people didn`t believe it existed. But I do remember all the stuff in the gutter Sundays, about Elms Guest House, and celebrities, who were Gay, having crap written about them, I remember Gay Is The Word Bookshop being raided, I remember the Bell Public House being raided by the police in 1993. Even today some people have the idea that Gay men are paedophiles, and paedophile recruiters,

    Liked by 2 people

    • There’s a lot of mythology here – people in the past were not as stupid as all that, they knew about lesbianism – any educated person, certainly a male, would be aware of it through their Greek studies. The reason lesbianism was never criminalised, is because homosexuality itself was never criminalised – certain homosexual acts were criminalised which women don’t have the equipment for, simple as that. Homosexuality, male and female, was CONDEMNED – just look at the response to Radcliffe Hall’s “Well of Loneliness” for that (the editor of the Daily Express said ” “I would rather give a healthy boy or a healthy girl a phial of prussic acid than this novel.”).
      As for hatred of gay people starting in the 1980’s, caused by a clause in an education act prohibiting the promotion of homosexuality in schools, would be nice if true. It would have made it unncessary for Wolfenden to investigate and it wouldn’t have taken 10 years after he reported to legalise anal intercourse in private between consenting adults over the age of 21.

      Liked by 1 person

      • If I really have to explain my self AGAIN! I was at school in the 1970`s this is when I came out, I was 13 years old, The reason why the hatred really started, was because of the rumours started by news papers and certain MPs YES IT WAS TRUE Gay bashings increased, the police did nothing, I really don`t care if you don`t agree with me, shall I carry on? Gay news paper offices were burnt down, after Dame Jill Knight suggested it should be. Gay Pubs were raided, as I said before, Gay and Lesbian hatred increased where as before, it was mostly ignored. Gay people as a whole where other wise known as pretending families. There is no mythology here as I saw it at the time. Thank you for your comments.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Clause 28 was passed in 1988 (Local Government Act 1988). So not the cause of gay-bashing in the 1970s, a hangover maybe.


  6. Strange woman. Could have spoken up years ago and helped avoid all this costly rubbish.

    Many of those falsely accused were gay. I laughed when they claimed Anthony Blunt went to Elm Guest House to abuse children.
    Blunt was a close friend of a gay barrister pal of mine whose London flat I lived in for a year while he did the circuit up North as a judge.
    When he came back to London on weekends he would always invite Blunt over for drinks and then the pair went off to certain pubs favored by Guardsmen, the bigger the blokes the better. I’m not sure they ever scored but they fantasied a lot.
    ‘He looked at me, I’m sure I could have had him”, that sort of stuff. Blunt was quite old fashioned and courteous but the Fantasy Crowd just loved inventing stories about their “VIP Pedo Rings” at Dolphin Square and other such rubbish.
    Typical that they picked up on high profile gay men like Proctor who they would never have heard of except for sensational scandals. Completely ignored all the other gay MPs. Lords etc who just kept very low profiles.
    In fact for all their conspiracy nonsense, I ‘m not sure they ever realised Cyril Smith was gay.

    Liked by 3 people

Comments are closed.