Private Eye‘s recent coverage of Jon Wedger’s “core participant” status at the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) has not only cast a harsh glare on the wanna-be whistleblower’s recent prevarications, but may have added a layer of complexity to Sabine McNeill’s 2016 invitation to speak to the IICSA’s Truth Project.
On 2 May, Wedger was granted CP status for the forthcoming investigation into Child Sexual Exploitation by Organised Networks. He claims to have applied many times, but until recently was thwarted—even going so far as to incorrectly claim that the Inquiry had initiated a judicial review to keep him out.
As we reported at the time, and the Eye confirmed in its latest article, “Wedger’s Pitch”:
Last October, IICSA chairwoman Alexis Jay rejected Wedger’s application for CP status in the Accountability and Reparations investigation because she was not satisfied he “played or may have played a direct or significant role”. On 8 March 2019, while IICSA was hearing evidence about an alleged Westminster paedophile ring, Wedger tweeted: “I was accepted as a core participant & my evidence was classed as credible corroborative and compelling yet IICSA sought a judicial review as a core participant stating I was too low ranked to give evidence which seemed to confuse the IICSA solicitor David Enright.”
The Eye asked IICSA for clarification. “Mr Wedger did not apply for core participant status in the Westminster investigation,” a spokesperson replied. “He and others made an unsuccessful application for core participant designation in the Accountability and Reparations Investigation.” What about being too junior to testify? “The Inquiry does not make decisions based on the rank of officers, nor has it been subject to a judicial review in this matter. The Inquiry makes no determinations upon the credibility of evidence until it produces its reports, some months after the public hearings. Also please note that David Enright is not the inquiry solicitor.”
The Eye speculated that IICSA’s previous reluctance to accept Wedger might have been related to his belief in Satanic paedophile networks, and noted,
In one of Wedger’s videos he and “Christian activist” Wilfred Wong discuss Satanic orgies and the ritual sacrifice of babies, children and animals — including the crucifixion of a cat. They repeatedly name the late Sir Edward Heath as a Satanic abuser, saying he was identified in a list going back decades and also during Wiltshire Police’s Operation Conifer (Eyes passim). They omit to add that the £l.5m investigation concluded there was no evidence for the Satanic claims.
We would agree that this makes sense, given the fact that no actual cases of Satanic abuse have been found in the UK since Professor Jean La Fontaine’s 1994 landmark study, which concluded that SRA really is not a thing.
However, this view seems to be contradicted by the recent discovery that Sabine McNeill, who notoriously promoted the Hampstead SRA hoax, had had her application for CP status with the Inquiry rejected…but had been previously invited to speak to the Truth Project at its Cardiff hearing in November 2016.
At that time, Sabine had been mentioned in Mrs Justice Pauffley’s High Court judgment on the hoax; she was under a 2015 mandatory injunction from the High Court and a restraining order issued following her Crown Court trial, and had barely avoided prison for violating the latter.
In other words, her predilection towards promoting belief in Satanic paedophile networks was, if anything, more established and publicly visible than Wedger’s.
Yet Sabine was invited to speak to the Truth Project, whose terms of reference state that
[Participants’] accounts are not tested, challenged, or contradicted. The information supplied is anonymised and will be considered by the Chair and Panel members when reaching their conclusions and making recommendations for the future. As part of the Truth Project, victims and survivors will be given an opportunity to write a message to be published together with the Inquiry’s annual reports.
The Eye article points out that even as a core participant, Wedger
…may not get the chance to air his theories about ‘organised networks’ of Satanists. ‘We will consider whether it will be necessary to ask Mr. Wedger to give evidence, and if so, about what, as the investigation progresses’, a spokesperson tells the Eye.
Presumably, had Sabine achieved her goal of core participant status, she would at least have been subject to the same consideration, and might even have been cross-examined if she’d been called as a witness to one of the public hearings.
Instead, she appears to have been allowed to “speak her truth”—which have been shown in court to be “vile lies”—to a member of the Inquiry who will neither test, challenge, nor contradict what she said.
Truly, ’tis a puzzlement.