A new transcription of the audio tape of the interview with the customs officer – and some comments on the recording

[As Jim Kirkcaldy makes clear in his comments below, this transcription does not claim to be definitive, but hopefully represents a palpable step forward in terms of detail. But others with access to the tape may have good arguments for alternative ‘hearings’ of passages – I would invite them to present those in the comments section below]

Since Saturday. July 19th, 2014, there have been a large range of heated exchanges online (though not in the mainstream media), primarily between the Exaro online news agency and the Needle blog, in particular following interventions from the veteran journalist and film-maker Tim Tate, who has made various features relating to the abuse of children over a period of almost three decades. This has also spilled over into social media.

See these links for the recent Exaro article relating to the tape (David Hencke, Mark Conrad and Alex Varley-Winter, ‘Audio file set to blow lid off paedophile scandal at Westminster’, Exaro News, July 19th, 2014 (do note the extensive comments underneath)) and the following for the responses on the Needle blog (including from Tim Tate) and a first transcript of the tape (‘Exaro Audio Tape Story’, July 19th, 2014‘Tim Tate Comments on the Exaro ‘Audio Tape’ Story’, July 20th, 2014; ‘Transcript of Audio Tape’, July 21st, 2014; ‘Beware The Backlash: The Media And The Politics of Paedophilia’, July 21st, 2014; ‘Correction To Audio Tape Transcription’, July 22nd, 2014; ‘For The Record: A Final Word On The Audio Tape Story’, July 24th, 2014; and ‘Exposed! Gojam’s Source For The ‘Vital’ Inside Information From Op Fernbridge’, July 24th, 2014). A further response can be found on ‘Bishop Brightly’s blog (‘What the Ex Customs Officer Said’, July 23rd, 2014).

In this blog, I will give some background, and give a new transcription of the tape in question, painstakingly done by James Alistair Kirkcaldy (jimkirkcaldy@yahoo.co.uk ), whose blog, Life is not an error, you can view here.


Background

In February 2014, an interview was conducted between James Fielding of the Sunday Express, which was the basis for an article published that month, reproduced here (James Fielding, ‘Cabinet minister in seized child porn’, Sunday Express, February 23rd, 2014).

Express 230214 - Cabinet minister in seized child porn

Soon after this article, a copy of a document to do with a 1982 Customs and Excise seizure began to be distributed online; this is printed here.

Customs and Excise Seizure 1982

The individual listed, Russell Tricker, is a former private school teacher convicted of child sex offences in the UK, who used his job as a coach drive to ferry boys from London to the Netherlands (see Nick Davies, ‘When sex abuse can lead to murder’, The Guardian, November 27th, 2000).

In two articles published a little over a month after that in the Sunday Express, Exaro claimed that this was the seizure in question, that Tricker denied knowing what was contained in the material, but that the video was passed to MI5. They also claimed that the customs officer had told friends that the former Conservative cabinet minister was on the video, and wanted to reveal this, but was constrained from so doing because of the Official Secrets Act (Mark Conrad and Mark Watts, ‘Customs seized video of child sex abuse and ex-cabinet minister’, Exaro News, March 29th, 2014, and ‘Man who tried to import video: ‘I did not know what was inside”, Exaro News, March 29th, 2014). Tim Tate asked several questions in the comments section of the first of this two articles, to do with what evidence existed to show (1) that the video referred to depicted child sexual abuse; (2) that the ex-cabinet minister is shown in the video; (3) that the individual referred to by Exaro was a Customs and Excise officer; (4) what work had been done to establish the credibility of the ‘friend’ of the customs officer referred to.

The Exaro story was also published in the Sunday People on the same day (Keir Mudie and Mark Conrad, ‘Ex-Tory minister ‘pictured in child sex abuse video’ confiscated by customs at Dover in 1982′, Sunday People, March 29th, 2014). This story, though widely discussed on social media (alongside others involving the same ex-cabinet minister) was not to my knowledge reported again in the press until a report in the Sunday Telegraph on July 4th gave a quite different version of events, which I reproduce below.

Gordon Rayner, Tim Tate, and Christopher Hope Senior, ‘Tory stopped with child sex videos ‘was reprieved’; More cases of sex abuse are uncovered by Home Office’, Sunday Telegraph, July 4th, 2014

A SENIOR Tory said to be part of a child sex ring was stopped by a customs officer with child pornography videos but got off scot-free, police have been told.

The former MP was driving back to Britain through Dover when a customs officer pulled him over because he was “acting suspiciously”.

The guard, now retired, has told detectives that when he searched the politician’s car he found videotapes of children “clearly under the age of 12” taking part in sex acts.

He passed the material on to his superiors but the MP was never arrested or charged. And, like a dossier of evidence compiled by the late Geoffrey Dickens MP, the tapes and paperwork relating to the seizure have since gone missing.

The latest disclosure will increase accusations of a cover-up, because no action was taken against the MP at the time the videos were seized.

The same MP is understood to have been named in the Dickens dossier, handed to Lord Brittan, who was then home secretary. The dossier has since been lost or destroyed.

The customs officer who stopped the MP in the 1980s has spoken to detectives from Operation Fernbridge, the Metropolitan Police investigation into allegations of child abuse by Cyril Smith and others at Elm Guest House in Barnes, south London. The guesthouse has since closed down.

A senior Tory politician has been accused of abusing a young boy at the guesthouse, but police are understood to have insufficient evidence to take action.

A source close to the investigation said the customs officer was originally approached over claims that a known paedophile had been stopped with a videotape showing the MP at a sex party with under-age boys.

The officer said the report was false but told police he had stopped the MP in question and seized child pornography videos from him.

The source said: “He viewed the tapes on a video recorder at the border control, and found them to contain pornography involving both under-age girls and boys together. He said the children were clearly under the age of 12.

“Unfortunately he can’t remember the exact date when it happened, but he had no doubt about the identity of the MP because he checked his passport.

“He said he had passed the details of the seizure up the chain of command and had no knowledge of what happened after that.

“The officers on the case have not been able to find the videotapes or any paperwork to corroborate his account.”

Tom Watson, the Labour MP who has once again posed questions about paedophiles within Westminster, last night called on Alison Saunders, the Director of Public Prosecutions, to examine the evidence relating to the former MP.

He said: “I sincerely hope the DPP has been made aware of these allegations and will be considering it as part of her examination of other allegations.”

Lord Brittan has faced questions over his handling of a bundle of papers handed to him by the late Mr Dickens, which contained allegations against the same MP, and against several other prominent figures.

Some of the men named were part of the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), which campaigned for the lowering of the age of consent.

The Labour MP Simon Danczuk has suggested that the dossier was “destroyed to protect the people whose names were in it”.

Meanwhile, The Daily Telegraph has learnt that four more cases of historic sex abuse have been referred to the police by Home Office officials in recent months.

An internal review of hundreds of thousands of Home Office files found 13 previously undisclosed “items of alleged child abuse” last year.

The Home Office said nine of the 13 cases had previously been reported to the police – including four that involved the department’s officials.

However, the remaining four were overlooked by civil servants – and have now been reported to the Metropolitan Police.

The cases were unearthed by an internal review ordered in February last year.
Mr Danczuk questioned why the Home Office had not passed on the cases to the police earlier.

He said: “It was never the job of the Home Office to try to determine what constituted potential evidence, that’s the job of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service.

“The public will think that people in the Home Office were withholding information from the police which could have led to the successful prosecution of child sex abusers.”

A Home Office spokesman said: “The review concluded that the Home Office acted appropriately, referring information received during this period to the relevant authorities.”

To date, 120 MPs have supported a campaign for a public inquiry into allegations of child abuse made against politicians.

Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, said yesterday it was time for “the truth” to be told.

He said: “I just want the truth to come out and justice to be done.
“When we’re dealing with allegations of such a serious criminal nature, I don’t think there’s any surrogate, really, for allowing the police to get to the bottom of what happened.”


The Tape

The tape was distributed to a range of people earlier this week, and I received a copy of it. In order to check in case the tape might have been doctored in any way, I sent it to an audio expert (who wishes to remain anonymous) with access to high-level software. The following were his responses to me:

First:

I have had a quick listen, and there don’t seem to be any obvious edit points. The problem is that it is a very poor quality recording full of pops and hiss, so finding any edit ‘ins’ or ‘outs’ would be pretty difficult. Also, digital editing nowadays (as opposed to tape) is pretty much seamless, unless you have a clean, smooth, constantly changing, easily identifiable background ambient.

Conclusion – it could very easily have been doctored by anyone with access to readily available free software, but proving it would be very difficult, even with some of the hi-tech software we have here.

IP: I wasn’t thinking just of editing, also whether other things might have been tweaked or distorted – do the same comments apply for that possibility?

It depends on what you mean by tweaked or distorted. Could you be more specific? You can change pitch for instance, or EQ. Not sure how useful those things would be in making something actually mean something different though.

IP: I was wondering if it was possible to change something to make it sound like something it is not – to make a mumble into a ‘yeah’, or something like that?

Probably not, you have to have the sound there in the first place.

A much easier approach would be to use vowel/consonant sounds from somewhere else in the recording. In other words parts of a word could be put together or used on their own to make a new word. On this note, if you could find where a suspect word came from in the recording, you could possibly visually overlay the sound waves on top of each other and prove they were identical. Doing this would be like looking for the proverbial needle on the haystack though!

IP: One last question, coming from the person who is doing the transcript [Kirkcaldy]. He told me the following:

‘I forgot to mention this bit. I find the bit at 10:10 suspicious. I detect a change in the accent on the word mem-ber [drawn out] occurring during the crash or bang. Also the bit at 10:19 is, in my provisional opinion, not a naming of the MP and the syllables used are no where in the ball park of [redacted name]. Also, CO: 10:19 may’o’Cab’net, yeh [short, running together] fits more logically given the reporters staccato utterance Reporter: 10:1(6)7 [staccato] Cab’net!? just prior. I would also add that another voice, which is further away from the mic but could be the same reporter, can be picked up and can be heard as ‘there’u’are [10:16] . Again the switch in volumes is suspicious when considered with what I said about a slight change in accent and the fact that it is these hard to hear bits, that exaro and others are focusing on. I’ll know more on Sunday’

Would you be able to just have a check of the passage from 10’10 to around 10’19 and say if you think anything seems suspicious to you there?

The bang could be a bit suspicious in itself. Why did something like that have to happen exactly there, right at a crucial point, and nowhere else in the recording? Also, the ‘there’u’are’ bit leads straight off the bang, so it (the bang) could possibly have been used to cover up a rather clumsy edit. On second listen as well, something I can’t quite put my finger on, but the bang does sound tonally slightly out of kilter with the rest of the recording (too many lower range frequencies – rest of recording is very toppy). I can’t be 100% about this though.

Also, on a much closer listen, there is a very short section where the report says ‘so it was’ then the reply sounds like ‘henry bidemac yeh’. Immediately after this, there is a distorted peak leading into something which sounds like ‘I was part of the EC at the time’. To me, this possibly sounds like an edit, as there is a bit of customs guy’s voice, running straight into reporter’s voice.

I sent it to several other audio experts, studio composers and others, two of whom have responded. First, from Lester Barnes:

The one big thing that stuck out to me on this recording was the short section from 4:32 to 4:35 – the insertion of “[redacted name]” is very out of place both in timbre, volume and flow. The section after the name stumbles and doesn’t really connect – sounds more like the voice of the reporter. If you listen to how the Indian guy speaks throughout the interview, he is very guarded and reserved about revealing or confirming anything. It doesn’t add up to me, that he would suddenly shout ‘[redacted name]’ in the middle of an otherwise guarded dialogue. (unless, it was meant to be the reporter interjecting ?)
(Do note the comments at this point in the transcript itself as well, which echo these sentiments)

Also, from Richard Thomas:

I’ve had a listen through it and the quality of the recording makes it difficult to make any definite judgements (it’s almost definitely a recorder in the reporter’s pocket). Also I think the dictation machine’s on auto gain, which would explain changes to levels, especially background. Something I did check throughout the 10:15-10:30 section was whether the clock in the background was regular, although the crashing completely masks it, it seems to come back into place at the right time. The crashing does seem to contain low frequencies which aren’t present in the rest of the recording- I’d expect a voice recorder type thing to have filters to reduce low frequency noise from handling etc. An explanation could be that it’s something being put down on a table the recorder’s on and the sound’s transmitted through the table, a reason why it’s not muffled

Something I think is an edit, however is the addition of “Henry/Henrik Bissner”? at 10:21. It sounds like someone else’s voice and the “s” on the end sounds like it’s been faded down. The way the noise floor is faded in too, doesn’t sound like it should. In order to actually prove it’s someone else’s voice you’d probably need access to someone who works in audio forensics . In addition there’s no clock tick here and I’d expect to be able to hear one there

It’s really hard to demonstrate anything visually using the waveform, as it’s so noisy I’m afraid.


Transcript

Preface by Jim Kirkcaldy:

The following transcript is a working document and like all things of this type it is open to correction and reinterpretation, as and when cleaner copies of the recording emerge and current copies investigated further using specialist software. There are bound to be mistakes in this transcript and I will endeavor to pick up on them as I produce a more thorough and in-depth piece. Your help is welcomed.

It is important to note that the spoken word, our utterances in conversation, are very rarely grammatically correct. It can sometimes be a mistake to listen to a recording and to try to put it directly into a grammatically correct and readable piece, straight away; where sounds of syllables, consonants and vowels, the phonetics, are forced into a word that seems most appropriate to them. I have opted to retain some of these phonetic qualities for now.

The transcript I have put together contains notes and coding for my own reference, with a view to using a more standard coding scheme on the most important bits of the recording. Other aspects, such as the pattern of breath of each speaker, the tonal qualities and intonations, the micro pauses and longer pauses, all reveal and indicate meaning. As you can see, some of my notes here are embedded in the transcript and the actual utterances and sounds made by participants, are marked in bold.

I have also come across what seems to me discontinuities in the recording that may indicate edits and the copying of bits from one part of the recording, to elsewhere in it. If I am right these could be attempts to conceal and mislead us and to promote certain interpretations over others. I stress that at this stage such a claim is nothing more than my suspicions and initial thoughts, prompted by my listening very carefully to the recording and those specific parts many, many times. More work needs to be done to get a definitive answer. I hope that my notes and my indicating these discrepancies will allow others, myself included, to investigate them more fully. It will come as little surprise that some of these suspected edits occur over parts that have been considered inaudible elsewhere.

On a final note I would add that I find the most revealing bits of this recording elsewhere than those bits already indicated by others. For example, such as the allusions to the nonverbal elements of this exchange and affirmations through body language use etc. Often a ‘mm-hm’ an ‘uh-huh’ or even a ‘yeah’, is accompanied by a nod of the head and this can sometimes be an unconscious act and considered ‘indexical leakage’.

There are other ways information and affirmation is given through the more verbal gestures and utterances, that point to some state of affairs. Whilst I think the authenticity of this recording needs to be questioned, there are genuinely other stories and narratives beyond the two presented to us in the Telegraph and Exaro pieces, to be further investigated. There is enough in these recordings to justify calling people to give evidence at a Parliamentary committee meeting. This would include the journalists making such recordings in the first place, as-well-as other Customs Officers and officials that would have been involved.

Reporter: 00:0(3)4 Ermm [pause 00:05] its to do with children, from Amsterdam [00:08]. Do you recall? 00:10

CO: 00:10(1) Err [micro-pause] maybe I might [00:12] you see, put some, er’ [00:13] just something I can’t really [00:15(6) interrupted by female voice] ,
Reporter: 00:12 [speaking over ‘might you see’]..what was contained on those videos [00:12(3)]

Female voice: 00:15 [interrupt and over ‘I can’t’, addressed to reporter] would you like a cup of coffee, tea, anything? [00:17]

Reporter: 00:17 er, I’m alright thank you, thank you though [00:18(9)]

CO: 00:19 Because this is an official-er [00:21 micro-pause 00:22] experience [00:23]

Reporter: 00:23 Yeah

CO: 00:23(4) I am bound by, er-secrets act [00:25(6) wavering on ‘er’ run into secrets]

Reporter: 00:2(6)7 OK

CO: 00:27 I am not supposed to-oo [00:28 dragged mico-pause] detail [00:29 emphasised DE][00:30] or spell out anything [00:31]

Reporter: [00:28] [interrupt over end of -oo, hushed near silent] talk to- [then interrupted by CO on emphasised DE]

Reporter 00:3(1)2 OK

CO: 00:3(2)3 Err, I think if you would like to know more about this [00:36 dropping tone on this] you’ll have to go to the right channel [00:37]

Reporter: 00:38 sure, but what I can do [00:39]

CO: 00:39 [interrupt on ‘can d-”] I’m retired now [00:40] and I can’t really [00:41(2) dragged]
Reporter 00:42 No, of course, and what I would do is-I wouldn’t name you [00:44], I wouldn’t put anything [00:45] to do with your identity bu-[00:4(5)6]

CO: 00:46 [interrupt and over bu-] {even that}, even that, I mean [00:4(7)8)]
Reporter: 00:48 [interrupt on ‘mean’] it’s just background information {as}{as}as t’ [00:49(50)] what-it- erm- [00:50]

CO: 00:50 [interrupt and over on ‘what-it-erm’] what sort of information [00:51(2)]

Reporter 00:51(2) [breath in] well what was contained [00:52(3)] on it [00:53] ’cause we think that there might of been [00:54], erm, [00:55 micro-pause 00:55(6)] pornography involving children [00:57(8) emphasised] that was involving also, er [00:59 micro-pause], maybe prominent people [01:00(1)] erm [01:02 micro-pause] at the time in terms of like MPes [01:04 dragged emphasised], if er that kind of thing [01:06]

CO: 010(6)7 Why don’t you approach the {d}department? [01:08]

Reporter: [01:0(8)9] We have, but it’s not th- {w}{w}which[01:11] department the- [01:12(3)]

CO: 01:13 [slight interrupt on ‘the-‘] Customs

Reporter: 01:13(4) [coupling with ‘customs’] Exercise. Well they-said-that-they, {tha}that they hadn’t got [01:15(6)0]

CO: 00:1(5)6 [interrupt on ‘got’] Did you go to, go to right channel like erm [01:18] er, the department er-in Dover? [01:22]

Reporter [01:22(3)] mm-hmm [acknowledgement]

CO: 01:23 errr, their the people [01:24] who have all the records [dragged 01:25(6)]

Repoter: 01:26 mm-hmm [acknowledgement]

CO: 01:2(6)7 erm, I’m bound [emphasised 01:27(8)] by the secrests act [01:29] not to [01:30(01) pause 01:30] not to-oo [dragged 01:32] disclose ..

Reporter: 01:33 mm-hmm [acknowledgment, go on]

CO: 01:34 ..any sort of information [dropping 01:35] in m-y [01:35(6) held] career [01:36]
Reporter: 01:37 mm-hmm

CO: 013(7)8 So I hope you understand what I’m trying [01:39(40] to tell you.

Reporter:01:40 [interrupt and over ‘you’] Of course, of course but I mean would you be able to just [01:42] sort of let me know {off}off [01:44] completely off the record record [01:45 pause 01:46] the material that was found on that coach [dropping 01:48 micro pause], involved videos of children and [01:50] it also involved children [breath taken in 01:52 micro-pause] with, er, a prominent MP [01:54]

[pause 01:54]

CO: 01:5(6)7 mm-huh [very hushed, closed mouth, nasal, low tone on mm low tone on huh but high than mm *consider likely non-verbal accompaniment(?)*]

Reporter: 01:57 you sure? er, that MP [01:58] was name-his name was [name redacted] [02:00 ]

CO: 02:01 yeah [higher on ah, guttural, possible question intonation]

Reporter: 02:0(1)2 Is that correct?

[pause]

CO: 02:04(5) mm-huh [closed mouth, low tone on mm higher tone on huh, clearer tone distinction than 01:5(6)7, *consider likely non-verbal accompaniment–likely affirmation of reporters question(?)*]

Reporter: 02:05 Ermm [micro-pause 02:06] {did you}{ha}have you spoken to the police? [02:08]

[pause]

CO: 02:09(10) Not recent

Reporter: 02:11 Did you speak to them at the time? [02:12]

CO: 02:13(14) Err, hah [02:15 nervous laughed ‘hah’], its a long time ago [02:16]

Reporter: 02:16 [over ago] mm-huh

CO: 02:17 and {er}I have, as you probably-know [slurred and lisping 02:19] we get lots of these things [02:20(1)]

Reporter: 02:01(2) mm-huh

CO: 02:(1)2 and I have been involved in quite a few [02:23 slurred and lisping] [0:23(4)]

Reporter: 02:24 mm-huh

CO: 02:2(4)5 Now I can’t pin point one [02:27] one par-tic-ular [02:27 dragged micro-pause 02:2(7)8] er [micro pause 02:28(9)] case.. [02:29] [pause]

Reporter 02:2(7)8 [during micro-pause 02:2(7)8 before ‘er’] mm-hm

CO: 02:31 ..All{all] [dragged {all} 02:32] records are kept at Dover [02:34]

Reporter 02:35 mm-huh

CO: 02:36 I think you got’a-go there [02:38]

Reporter: 02:38(9)OK, do you know where abouts in Dover? [02:40]

CO: 02:40(1) yeah [dropping] it’s er [02:41][micro-pause 02:42(3)] I’ll give you the address, one second [dropping to hush 02:43(4)]

Reporter 02:44 Yeah?

CO: 02:45 it’s er [hushed, low tone]

[pause of utterances, sound of activity, mic disturbed]

Reporter: 03:01 Did you yourself view the er [03:02(3)], any of the footage? [03:03(4)]

CO: 03:03(4) cO’duh’n’nuh [drop in volume, change in direction of address, not English (?) address to someone else (?) assess given reporter restates the question]

Reporter: 03:05 Did you have sit there and watch what was on the er [03:07(8) micro-pause] videos [dropping on -oes 03:08]

CO: 03:08 Oh yeah, I can’t just seize it [03:10] just like that [03:11]

Reporter: 03:10 [[over ‘just that’] Yeah

CO: 03:11(2) Er, you want to have the-address? [rising question intonation 03:13]

Reporter: 03:1(3)4 Yeah

CO: 03:14(5) er it’s er [03:15] H M Customs and Excise [rising intonation 03:16]

Reporter: 03:17 Yeah

CO: 03:19(20) Priory – Court [loud enunciated] P R I–O R Y [03:23]

Reporter: 03:23(4) Yeah

CO: 03:24 Court, [03:24(5)]

Reporter 03:2(4)5 Yeah

CO: 03:25 C O U R T [running together 03:26]

Reporter: 03:27 Yeah

CO: 03:2(7)8 Saint Johns Road [03:29] Saint [03:(29)30]

Reporter: 03:30 Yeah

CO: 03:30(1) Johns Road

Reporter: 03:31(2) yeah
CO: 03:32 Cer-[03:33] abrupt stop, self regulation] Dover [03:34]

Reporter: 03:35 mm-huh

CO: 03:36 CT 17 [03:37]

Reporter: 03:38 What was it, sorry?

CO: 03:39(40) {C!}C! T! [03:41]

Reporter: 03:4(1)2 one-seven [running]

CO: 03:42(3) one-seven, nine [03:43]

Reporter: 03:43 [over nine] yeah

CO: 03:44 S for sugar, H [03:46]

Reporter: 03:46(7) H, OK

CO: 03:47 yeah [dropping]

Reporter:03:4(8)9 Right [micro- pause] erm [03:50(1)] from what you remembered-though-of-it [03:52 running] was there actually abuse taking place [rising question intonation 03:54] by this MP ? [dropping 03:54(5)]?

CO: 03:5(5)6 Sorry?

Reporter 03:56 Was the MP [name redacted] actually [03:58 dragged micro-pause 03:59(04:00)] err [raised] abusing children on the video? [dropping 04:01]

[pause]

CO: 04:03 Well I cant disclose anything [04:04(5)] sorry [04:05]

Reporter: 04:05 No but, I mean a- [04:05(6)]

CO: 04:06 [interrupt on a-] I can’t disclose any more [04:07]

Reporter: 04:07 [interrupt on -ore] Off the record you-mean-you’ve-said [04:08(9) running] you told me [04:09] that it was{hi-}[name redacted] [04:11] was..

CO: 04:11 [interrupt on ‘was’] {wha}What I can suggest is-erm..[04:13] dropping]

Reporter: 04:13 [over -erm] mm-huh

CO: 04:1(4)5) You can approach my department there.. [04:16(7)]

Reporter: 04:17 yeah

CO: 04:1(7)8 and ask for the details [04:19]

Reporter: 04:19(20) Yeah

CO: 04:20 Whatever the detail you want [04:21] they’re supposed to tell you [04:22(3)]

Reporter: 04:23 hm-huh

CO: 04:24 {but}{bu}but I’m not supposed to tell you anything [04:26]

Reporter: 04:26 No, but this-is-just-off-the-record [04:28 running], it’s for research really [04:29]

CO: 04:30 Well I can only//can’t say it [04:32 ‘can’t say it’ staccato out of place, tonal difference, suspicious possible beginning of edit or doctoring //= cut]

Reporter: 04:33 But [name redacted]// .[// indicates edit and last syllable of name runs straight in to CO’s accent on ‘is’. ‘But’ and ‘[name redacted]’ is near identical, in my opinion, to the latter citation of his name at 04:36 by the reporter. The drag on the last syllable is very telling at 04:36 when contrasted with 04:33]

CO: 04:34 //is a par-tic-ular//Logged of everything [//=cut, ‘Logged’ jumps in before -ar in ‘particular’ is complete and is at a higher volume; -ular the breath is ending then with the breath on ‘logged’ suddenly returning and allowing a greater voicing. There should be, bio-mechanically speaking, evidence of a breath being taken first before ‘log’ (?). Check verbalisation elsewhere in recording to identify where they could have been copied from] [inaudible]

Reporter: 04:36(7) But [name redacted] [dragging on last syllable] {was involved} [04:37] was in [pause 04:3(8)9] on [04:39] one of the videos [dropping, 04:40].

[Lester Barnes: The one big thing that stuck out to me on this recording was the short section from 4:32 to 4:35 – the insertion of “[redacted name]” is very out of place both in timbre, volume and flow. The section after the name stumbles and doesn’t really connect – sounds more like the voice of the reporter. If you listen to how the Indian guy speaks throughout the interview, he is very guarded and reserved about revealing or confirming anything. It doesn’t add up to me, that he would suddenly shout ‘[redacted name]’ in the middle of an otherwise guarded dialogue. (unless, it was meant to be the reporter interjecting ?)]

CO: 04:40 Ieeah’ I don’t understand er [04:42 pause] err [04:43(4)][long pause 04:46(7)] I’-honest-don’t, -it-was-a long time ago [running, lisping, dropping hushed 04:48 micro-pause [04:49(50)] it was-er [micro-pause [04:50(51)] some{b}-{jee}tail, or whatever-I-don’t-know [04:53 cognitive stress broken language function, running end to utterance]

Reporter: 04:53 uh-ha

CO: 04:53(54) But I think [emphasised ‘THInk’] your right approa’ is to-go-to Dover [dragged, emphasised Do{e}-{Va} 04:57]

Reporter: 04:57(58) uh-ha

CO: 04:58 and go to this place [04:59]

Reporter 04:59(05:00) yeah

CO: 05:00 They should have all my records [05:02] all the records of the event [05:03(04)]

Reporter: 05:04(05) hu-hm [micro-pause 05:05] OK

CO: 05:05(06) [interrupt of ‘so’] yu’know. So other than ask me whichever I might be [micro pause 05:09] tell you something or whichever [05:10(11) emphasis on ‘TEll’]

Reporter 05:11 [interrupt on ‘whichever’] Nono-{uh}-what-I’ll do is [05:12] I’ll go and check these dee- whatever you tell me now [05:13] I’ll go and check the details [05:15 dropping, micro-pause 05:16] er{this}this point, St John’s road, [05:17] HM Customs & Excise, Priory Court [05:19 breath in]. {wha}is that an archive system?

CO: 05:13 [interrupt on and over ‘now’] yeah [05:13]

CO: 05:21 Pardon?

Reporter: 05:21 Is that the archive? [05:22 pause 05:23(24)] THE archive [emphasised THE 05:24] er the Customs & exercise, this particular address here, is that [micro pause] THE archive where they have all the information wi.. [05:29]
CO: 05:29(30) [interrupt and over ‘wi..’] Yeah that’s {the-ee}our{a}, {uh}our{er} [05:32] {eh}{eh}HQ in Dover [05:34 cognitive distress on understanding the word ‘archive’, disrupted language function]

Reporter: 05:35 OK [05:36 pause 05:37] And just whe.. [05:38]

CO: 05:38 [interrupt on ‘just whe..’] {I}{I}as I said this was long time ago [05:40]

Reporter 05:40 mmm

CO: 05:40 (41) They might not ha-ve [dragged 05:42] all the{er} records {a}at there.. [emphasised ‘THere’ 05:44]

Reporter: 05:44(45) mm-hm

CO: 05:45 ..they might of [ 05:46 micro-pause ] forwarded it to London [05:47] office yu’know [05:48 tailing, dropping]

Reporter: 05:49 Sure

CO: 05:49 But{er} your best bet [05:50 emphasised ‘BEst-BEt’] is Dover [05:50(51)]

Reporter: 05:51 But you remember watching them [05:52 micro-pause] the videos, you-had-to (?) [dropping intonation 05:53, ‘you-had-to’ running]

[pause]

CO: 05:55 Well as I said [05:56] you can’t just seize them without re{e}v’ing- them [05:58]

Reporter 05:56 [interrupt on and over and repeating CO ‘you can’t just..] yeah, you can’t jus’ seize them without ree.. [05:58 there is a change in volume levels for both the reporter’s and CO’s utterances and the background noise, review and check for edits here] and {was there}{wa}was this an attempt, this- was-an{er} [06:00 micro pause] tipped off from the{er} [06:01] Dutch intelligence [micro-pause 06:02] ermm [06:03 micro pause 06:04(05)] {thert}tipped off the{er} British police and the British Customs & Exercise that this coach [06:08 micro-pause 06:09(10)] had {conce}[micro-pause] did contain erm [06:11 micro-pause 06:12(13)] material involving children (?) [06:14]

[pause]

CO: 06:16(17) [breath in] Sorry I can’t tell you anything [06:18]

Reporter: 06:18 {ar}alright, OK

CO: 06:19(20) I’m bound by the r{eh}ffcia{ence}..[06:21]

Reporter: 06:21 [interrupt over and at same time ‘the r{eh}’] No, of course {bu}{i}{its}its, it won’t come…[06:23]

CO: 06:22(23) [continued from 06:19(20) over and at same time as ‘it won’t’] and I think.. [hushed] ALL your details [[06:24] emphasised interrupting ‘ALL’] {a}All the details.. [06:25]

Reporter: 062:5(26) hmm

CO: 06:26 [breath in before ‘will’ at 06:26]..Will be kept[ micro-pause, saliva swallow, micro breath in 06:28] back at-{whe}//there//up there [06:30] [06:29 // indicates possible edit point. Breath in for greater voicing and emphasis on ‘WILL be kept’ ,then movement of lips, tongue and saliva inside mouth and on lips, followed by a short breath through nose to allow a greater voicing and emphasis on ‘BAck’. The fullness of the breath and voicing over ‘at-{where}//there// up there’ drops unnaturally at the // point and becomes fuller again on ‘up there’ at the second // point with no additional breath taken . *Take a closer graphical look to check*]

Reporter: 06:30 uh-hm

CO: 06:30(31) They should have all the information [06:32]

Reporter: 06:32(33) This, [dragged ‘is’ micro-pause] this, ’cause the only reason I asked about [name redacted] [06:35(36) dropping on surname, micro-pause 06:36], is’because [pause 06:37, movement of mic and reporter moving] it says under his name here, it says [initials redacted] [06:39(40)]. {a’vidi}one videocassette entitled [initials redacted] [06:43]

[long pause, sound of something being past and rustled, perhaps paper and what is referred to by ‘this’ and ‘here’. The reporter’s movements above and disturbing of the mic would also indicate something is passed to the CO to read. Longer pause as document is read (?)]

Reporter: 06:49(50) {an’i}{an}it’s, come to my attention that it might [06:52], {i}{i}it involves [06:53], so-I’ve-been-told, [06:54] it involves the MP [name redacted] [06:55 dropping on surname].

CO: 06:57(8) [slight cough and throat clear] {ah}[throat clear]{it’ch’a} could be [06:59] [the pattern of throat clears with broken syllables of speech is suspicious and needs to be looked at more closely] [pause 07:00(01)] as I say [gravelly voice] I mean {I}I can’t recollect-a-complete [07:04 stumbling syllables], complete err [07:05 micro-pause] case [emphasised ‘CAse’ 07:05(06)]

Reporter: 07:06(07) yeah

CO: 07:07 errr [07:08] it happened long time ago [07:10]

Reporter: 07:10(11) mm-hmm

CO: 07:11 and err [07:11(12) pause sound of clicking 07:15] {see}what happens every {wha}when [07:17] ever a case comes along.. [07:18(19)]

Reporter: 07:19 mm-hm

CO: 07:20 ..is then passed on to the [07:21(22) pause 07:22(23)] head of headquarters [dropping [07:24(25)

Reporter: 07:25 mm-hm

CO: 07:25 and they’re the people who will [micro-pause [07:27] check {lench’ext door}//{all}all [07:28(29)] of the information [07:29(30) // possible edit where ‘-or’ bit in sound {lench’ext door}, ends abruptly and runs into the stammered ‘{all}all’. Give it a closer look ]

Reporter 07:30 mm-hmm
CO: 07:31 Because this something er [07:32] I don’t want to be involved [07:33 dropping]

[pause]

Reporter: 07:34(35) [double click before ‘no’] No! Of course. Which is why you passed it on to me//which [07:37] is why you passed it on to//the police at the time in 1982 [07:40 The possible edit // on ‘me’ has the ‘ee’ sound uncompleted and abruptly ended. It is nowhere close to -ome as in ‘some’ as found in Tim Tate’s transcript, the sound is very much different. Further, at the start of the first run of ‘Which is why..’, the sound of a vehicle accelerating and /or the Doppler effect of its sound starts with a low tone and rises. This unnaturally cuts back to the low tone for the vehicle on the second run of ‘Which is why..’ . Second // indicates a possible second edit and a change in the background noise, where the tone of the vehicle does not reach its previous tonal high. Take a closer look to confirm with software] erm [07:42 pause 07:43] But they hadn’t spoken to you recently? [07:44]
CO: 07:45 Who?

Reporter: 07:45(46) The Police

CO: 07:47 What For?

Reporter: 07:47(48) Well [micro-pause], because they{wer}because of [07:50 micro-pause] who it might contain on the actual videos [07:53]

[pause]

CO: 07:54(55) yeah [hushed grunt 07:55] A gentleman came yesterday..

Reporter: 07:57 uh-huh

CO: 07:57 …and you are the next one[07:59]

Reporter: 07:59 uh-huh

CO: 07:59 (08:00) Prior to this [micro-pause] {oer}I had no person [08:03] or {eh}{which}anybody [08:03(04) check for edits more closely]

Reporter: 08:04 was the {je}, {w}was the gentleman who came yesterday police [micro-pause] or a journalist ?

CO: 08:09 Journalist

Reporter: Do’ you know {when}[micro pause] was he from the Independent [08:12]

CO: 08:13 yeah [hushed whispered]

Reporter: 08:13 Paul

CO: 08:14 [interrupt on Paul] {Independ}Independent{er} newspaper [08:15(16)]

Reporter, 08:16 Paul, Paul his name was wasn’t it [08:17]

CO: 08:18 yeah

Reporter: 08:18(19) Paul Peachy, OK, erm [micro pause 08:21] and what did you say to Paul, did you tell him [08:23 mciro-pause] anything else about what happened [08:25]

CO: 08:25 [interrupt on ‘happened’] Exactly same thing [08:26]

Reporter: 08:26 uh-hm

[pause]

CO: 08: 27(28) As I say I am bound by [micro-pause] O..[08:29]

Reporter 08:29(30 [interrupt on ‘o..’] Oh! Nono, {I}I completely understand [08:30(31)]

CO: 08:30(31) [interrupt and over ‘completely understand’] {I}{I}I can’t [08:31(32)] really, errr [08:33 micro-pause 08:34] I can’t point detail out [08:35 check use of ‘can’t’ here in possible copy back and edit at 04:30] for this par-tic-ular case [08:37 check use of ‘particular’ here in possible copy back and edit at 04:34]

Reporter: 08:38 uh-hm [micro-pause 08:39] nah, OK I understand that [08:40] but-I-mean-is-there- any [running then micro pause] {er}having come from London [08:41] I-{wanna}-really-want-to-sort of-get-a-few.. [08:43]

CO: 08:(43)44 No, I understand but I {err} [08:45 tailing on err into a chuckle /laugh]

Reporter: 08:45 But can you remem-, can you erm [micro-pause 08:47] remember {wha}{ca}can you tell me what you can remember about it that you can [emphasized Can 08:50] tell [micro pause] and which {I }{can} I can get [micro pause] checked [08:52] within this place in Dover? [08:54 mic disturbed on ‘within’]

CO 08:56 [disturbed mic, muffled speech, ‘move on’ clear] Move on, same as before [08:57 check ‘same as before’]

Reporter: 08:57 Well just{I}, I was wondering [08:58] whether I could just make a note of what you remember about this particular case [09:01], so I can get it checked with the Customs & Excise at St John’s Road in Dover ? [09:05 rising intonation on ‘-over’]

CO: 09:(06)07 You’ve got enough details there [dropping 09:07(08]

Reporter: 09:08 yeah

CO: 09:09 ..and if you contact-errr [09:10(11)] the Dover office..[09:12(13]

Reporter: 09:13 mm-hm

CO: 09:13(14) ..where the records are kept [09:14]

Reporter 09:14 mm-hm

CO: 09:15 They will [micro-pause] know err, to what to tell you [09:19]

Reporter: 09:19(20) uh-hm

CO: 09:20 And{er} yu’know{er}, you will get an idea what’you’re after [09:23(24) running ‘what’you’re’ check not they’re. ‘what’you’re’ sounds corrects and fits logically. Dropping tone on after]

Reporter: 09:24 OK [pause 09:25(26)] is it public record though, will they have to [09:27(28) some knock or bang similar to 10:10, cup on table? Micro-pause09:28(29)] err provide me’cause what I wanted to know [09:30] {n}which they might not tell me, which I was hoping that I might be able to get a [micro pause] just a, literally, {n}just a.. [09:34(35)]

CO: 09:(34)35 [interrupt on ‘just a..’ ] No{ah} you’ve got enough{a}-enough thing there, [09:36 dropping]
Reporter [09:36(37) hmm

CO: 09:37 Once you mention my name and the date and the case yu’know, [09:40 breath ending]

Reporter: 09:40 mm-hm

CO: 09:41 err, they’ll be able to tell you what happened [09:43]
Reporter: 09:43(44) OK

CO: 09:44 [mid breath out] and I’m er therefore you see where to go basically [09:47 dropping, breath ending, ‘basically’ barely completed. Recheck this line more closely ]

Reporter: 09.48 alright’ well what they might not be able to tell me is who was, er, on the video [09:51pause] are you able to er just sort of let me know [09:55] if I’m I {b}{b}barking up the wrong tree {b}by

CO: 09:5(7)8: [interrupt on {b}by]{s}sorry {d}{d}don’t don’t try to force me ’cause I can’t [10:00]

Reporter: 10:(0)01 [interrupt on can’t] {n}{na}{na}no [10:02] {is}{is}if you can’t tell me [10:05]

CO: 10:03 [interrupt slight on ‘me’] No(-ah)

Reporter: 10:04 {but}but {I’m}I’m not far wrong when I say certain members, certain MP[e]s at the time, were included in those videos [10:10]

CO: 10:10 [interrupt on os] Well`it`was, er, because, er, [sound of crash over and between*.* muffeled] *[10:14end] me-mber [drawn out] of ca[bnet][10:15]*

(other voice possibly same journalist but there is a distance to it; ‘there’u’are [10:16])

Reporter: 10:1(6)7 [staccato] Cab’net!?

CO: 10:19 may’o’Cab’net, yeh [short, running together]

10:20 so it was [name redacted] wasn’t it?

CO: 10:2(0)1 [interrupt first name of MP, cross talk over muffled, isolate later, possible name recite ‘Henry’] yeh [10:21 on exhale, tailing][moves to say something else interrupted 10:2(2)3]

Reporter: 10:2(2)3: [interrupt] ’cause he’s part of the EC at the time [10:24]

CO: 10:2(4)5: but as I say, I mean I can’t, {I}I can’t pin point everything

Reporter: 10:2(8)9: No but it was..

CO: 10:29: [interrupt on it was] {eh}{eh}in reality [10:31] my memory’s failing me as well [10:33]

[Richard Thomas: Something I did check throughout the 10:15-10:30 section was whether the clock in the background was regular, although the crashing completely masks it, it seems to come back into place at the right time. The crashing does seem to contain low frequencies which aren’t present in the rest of the recording- I’d expect a voice recorder type thing to have filters to reduce low frequency noise from handling etc. An explanation could be that it’s something being put down on a table the recorder’s on and the sound’s transmitted through the table, a reason why it’s not muffled.

Something I think is an edit, however is the addition of “Henry/Henrik Bissner”? at 10:21. It sounds like someone else’s voice and the “s” on the end sounds like it’s been faded down. The way the noise floor is faded in too, doesn’t sound like it should. In order to actually prove it’s someone else’s voice you’d probably need access to someone who works in audio forensics . In addition there’s no clock tick here and I’d expect to be able to hear one there.]

[Other anonymous audio expert: The bang could be a bit suspicious in itself. Why did something like that have to happen exactly there, right at a crucial point, and nowhere else in the recording? Also, the ‘there’u’are’ bit leads straight off the bang, so it (the bang) could possibly have been used to cover up a rather clumsy edit. On second listen as well, something I can’t quite put my finger on, but the bang does sound tonally slightly out of kilter with the rest of the recording (too many lower range frequencies – rest of recording is very toppy). I can’t be 100% about this though.

Also, on a much closer listen, there is a very short section where the report says ‘so it was’ then the reply sounds like ‘henry bidemac yeh’. Immediately after this, there is a distorted peak leading into something which sounds like ‘I was part of the EC at the time’. To me, this possibly sounds like an edit, as there is a bit of customs guy’s voice, running straight into reporter’s voice. ]

Reporter: 10:3(3)4: [interrupt cross talk] no, of course

CO: 10:34 [interrupt on rse] yu’know,

Reporter: 10:3(4)5: [same time] erm

CO: 10:35: [same time] but er [1036]

Reporter: 10:3(6)7: [fast, running, excitement] Do you-know-if{heah-er-was}-he-was-never, I don’t think [name redacted] was ever charged [pause] with anything? [10:41]

CO: 10:(2)43: [animal sound or squeak 10:42] roll-a (not English)

Reporter: 10:4(5) Erm

CO: 10:45 because if the case was passed onto, er-our headquarters and then what ever I don’t know [end of breath tailing].

Reporter: 10 :40/50 OK 10:51 erm, [pause till 10:5(4)5] and-do’you know, {wi}{with}{the}, when you say Europe, he was {in-th}the European Commissioner, the EC [10:59] [pause] 11:01 erm, do you know what ha-, what was happening on there, was it [11:04 short pause] abundantly clear that this member of the, er, cab’net [11:08] was abusing children or was just on a video [11:10]?

[silence long]
CO: 11:1(3)4 oh, I can’t [hushed] remember that

Reporter: 11:1(4)5 [interrupt] but just that you might of – he was on the video

[pause]

CO: 11:18 Well [pronounced] that person was involved and er [11:20], that’s why we had to seal the video [11:2(2)3]

Reporter 11:23 OK

CO: 11:2(4)5 and then er the department they [micro pause] superiors took over and that’s the end of my *years [*talked over on last word, isolate later to confirm] [11:31]

Reporter 11:31 [interrupting] yeah [micro pause] OK 11:3(2)3 but you saw him on the video?

CO: 11:35 I [emphasised, dragging] can’t tell you that [tailing hushed] [11:36]

Reporter: 11:3(6)7 No, erm but [11:38 pause] OK, well-its [ first name redacted] here [11:41], {we}we -er, we haven’t gone [emphasised g] to [name redacted] [11:44] yet, {we}we’re tryin’ to-sort-of-er, he might be the next port of call, to-sort-of, he is up in [location redacted] now, to speak to him [11:51] erm, but {yu}you’ve certainly had no calls from the police [11:54] from Yewtree, you know the Yewtree that was set up after, {t}the Jimmy Savile sandal?

Co: (11:59)12:00 Yeah-I-know-them [fast running together]

Reporter: 12:00 They haven’t contacted you {a}at all about erm

CO 12:02 [interrupt on erm] Nonono, nothing actually [12:04] The last [emphasised] thing was the gentleman came yesterday and *you are the next one*[12:07-11:10 *isolate and check*] and that’s it.

Reporter 12:(09)10 Before that it was probably what, 80s? 1982 when you last spoke to the police ?

CO: 12:14 Er-I haven’t spoken since, to anybody

Reporter 12:18 OK [micro pause] erm,

CO: 12:19[interrupt on erm] As I say, I mean this is, er, this was m-y job and er [12:24] it happened and everything was then, er [12:28] sorted out then and-er [rising tone] the matter was [micro pause] closed [emphasis], as far as I’m [emphasised, aggressive] concerned [12:33]

Reporter 12:33 Are you surprised though that [name redacted 12:35] never

CO: 12:3(5)6 Pardon?

Reporter: 12:36 Are you surprised that [name redacted] never, erm, [micro pause] was facing any police investigation? [12:42]

CO: 12:43 Nah [low breath]

Reporter: 12:4(4)5 You weren’t surprised. Is that because {it} it was [micro pause] perhaps a cover-up? [12:48]

CO: 12:51 [breath drawn] It’s difficult to say really [ rising speech 12:53]

Reporter: 12:5(3)4 You can’t say ’cause of, er, [micro pause 1.5 secs], OK [micro pause 1.5 secs] erm, [pause], is there-er-is there any contact number I can get, your phone number? [13:02]

CO: 13:02 My phone number? [rising, surprise]

Reporter: 13:03 Yeah, it’s-just-a-it-was-er, [running 13:04(5)] it will only be to check things with you [13:06] {n}{n}nothing more

CO: 13:07(8) [interrupt on ore] OK [emphasised, extended]

Reporter 13:0(7)8 Yeah

[long pause]

CO: 13:10 Its, er, [dialing code location]

Reporter 13:11 and that’s (local dialing code), is that right? [13:13]

CO: 13:13(4) [dialing code]

Reporter: 13:14 Yeeahh [dragged]

CO: 131(4)5 [number] [pause 13:16] [number] [13:18]

Reporter 13:1(8)9 [number repeat]? [pause 13:20] OoK [13:21] [pause] Ermm [13:25] [pause]

CO: 13:29 Have you got yourr [dragged, rising, question intonation] card or some-thing? [13:31]

Reporter: 13:31 I can-I’ll check [emphasised ch-eck13:32 mic volume change] if I haven’t I’ll leave you with all my contact details [13:3(4)5] mic volume change] [micro pause] [13:36] I usually do [pause] [13:39] OK, s’none around with me but I’ve been [13:41 micro pause] I’ve-sort-of-had [running] a bit of a clean out in the wallet [13:43] errrrr [long dragged 13:45] not my own but-I-got-other [running] people’s [micro pause] business cards [13:47] but-what-I’ll-do-is [running] I’ll preven.. [self regulation word stop 13:49] I’ll write down all the, er, [micro pause 13:51] my contact de-tai–ls [tone dropping, dragged, begrudged 13:52]

[pause, rustling and microphone movement]

Reporter: 14:0(2)3 ermm [micro pause] do-it-on-this{s} [14:03 running, dropping, tailing]

[long pause, writing heard]

14:44 grunt or cough

[long pause, sound of clicking]

Reporter 15:0(4)5 erm, as I said [15:06] everything you’ve [pause 15:09] you’ve told me, {is}is off the re-cord [dragged, dropping, tailing 15:11] the fact that nad- [self break 12:12(3] {th}the nod towards [name redacted] [15:14] that’s off the record as well [15:15].

CO: 15:15(6) lovely [micro pause] thank you [slight drag, high(thank) to low(you), gratitude, relief 15:17] [pause] just in case, you know? [15:(19)20]

Reporter: 15:20 [slight interrupt on ow] nono I understand completely [15:2(1)2], er

CO : 15:22 [at same time -letley] ye-ah [dragged]

Reporter: 15:22 [same time and over ye-ah] I mean his name has come up [micro pause 15:2(2)3] a number of times, and, [15:24] we were told that {hi}his initials, [redacted][15:26] stood for [name redacted] [15:27(8)]

[female cough 15:27 at same time as end of cited surname, continues till 15:32, in another room]

Reporter 15:(29)30 ermm [pause 15:31] what we didn’t know what was on the videos [15:33] we’ther or not they contained any MPs [15:34 micro pause] or whether or not it was simply him [15:37 micro pause] and someone in Amsterdam [15:38] [pause 15:4(0)1] {wa-was it} was it footage [rising, excited] taken in Amsterdam [15:42 dropping] or was it [15:43 dropping] footage taken from-[1544]

[15:37 sneeze, female on ‘or’]

CO: 15:44 [interrupt on ‘taken from’, speaking over] I can’t remember that now

Reporter 15:45 No

CO: 15:4(5)6 nah [micro pause] I,-ee-ar you know [15:47] {I}{ I}{as’a}, as I say-ay [dragging extended, tired 15:49] thirty time-, long time ago [15:51 cognitive language error ‘time’ used for ‘years’ by CO]

Reporter: 15:51(2) mm-hm [acknowledgment]

CO: 15:53 and er, we-sh [dragged slurred lisping] could get all this for obsvlee, all the time [15:56 slurring and lisping on words, cognitive damage on language use]

Reporter:15:57 mm-hm [acknowledgment]

CO: 15:5(7)8 yu’know [micro-pause 15:59] er [mico-pause] Mr [surname redacted] [dragging on last syllable16:00] or what ever [micro pause 16:01] the name was [16:02 rising on ‘was’]..

Reporter 16:02(3) [on -as’ at same time] mm

CO: 16:03 ..err [dragging] this err [dragged ‘this’ 16:05] doesn’t ring me {any}any bells [16:08]..

Reporter: 16:09 mm-hmm

CO: 16:09 at the time

Reporter: 16:09(10) [on ‘time’] mm-hmm

CO: 16:10 yu’know [16:11] he was, so [micro pause] I will [micro pause] could be anybody [rising 16:15] yu’know [trialing breathless dropping 16:16]

Reporter: 16:1(6)7 mm-hm

CO: 16:17 but this is [micro-pause] normal thing, everything it keeps on coming by, yu’know [16:2(1)2 trailing breathless tone dropping] [pause 16:23] it was a job, an’my-job [16:24]

Reporter: 16:24(5) mm-hm [short dropping]

CO: 16:25 errm [1626] I never thought that this will have [micro pause] yu’know [16:29 pause 16:30] compromise this way [16:31 check ‘compromise’ accuracy]

Reporter 16:31(2) No, but{did you}did you, when you watched the video of him [breath taken, micro -pause 16:33] did you instantly recognise him as [16:35 pause 16:36(7)] the MP? [pause]

CO: 16:38[9] {I can’t}I can’t tell you that, I don’t know I can’t remember [16:42] off hand now [16:43 running slightly]

Reporter: 16:(3)44 When did you find out that it was [micro-pause][name redacted][dropping16:45]

CO: 16:47 Your best [emphasised] bet is er, to

Reporter 16:48 [interrupt on to] yeah

CO: 16:49 yu’know [dropping breathless, knowingly]

Reporter: 16:5(49)0 yeah, I-{kno}know {I}I’ll [rising 16:50(1)]

CO: 16:50(1) [interrupt on I’ll] {I}I [emphasised loudly] don’t think {I-will}I can go too much into that [16:53]

Reporter: 16:53(4) No, of course

CO: 16:55 [interrupt on rse] Its not fair really [dropping]

Reporter 16:56 [staccato] Nonono, er sorry-[hushed]-what-ever you-tell-me [running from sorry], its completely off the record [16:58] I’m not gunna [16:59], erm, [micro-pause 17:00] mention your name or anything at all [17:02] its all off record but-as-I-said [17:04] I{did}it was told to me [micro-pause] that it was [name redacted] and you’ve seen [micro-pause 17:06] the video of [name redacted] [17:07][pause 17:08(9)] {on that}, on the video {contained in}contained on that, erm [17:12] coach, erm [17:13(4) micro pause 17:14(5)] but, what we’ll do I’ll check that with [micro pause], to see if [micro pause] erm [micro pause 17:19] if there is any more details at the [micro pause] address that you gave me in Dover [17:22 pause 17:23] is that all the information, that you can’t give any more information? [17:25]

{CO: 16:59 [over reporter speech] yeah [dragged disbelief] 17:02 yeah [over reporter ‘all’ dragged disbelief]}

CO: 17:25 [interrupt on infor- spoken over reporter on -ation) no-{ah} [dragged, low breath], I can’t, honestly, I’m not supposed to give any.

Reporter: 17:29 No [mic knocked]

CO: 17:30 but er, you can understand my position

Reporter: 17:32 yeah, of course, of course, {did}did, erm, [17:34] Paul, who spoke to you yesterday, did he mention [micro pause] [redacted name] name? [17:39]

[pause]

CO: 17:41 nee-chee-la-chee (not English addressed to someone else?)

Reporter: 17:4(2)3 Did you tell him as well that it was, him, did you mention to him… [17:45]

CO: 17:45 [interrupt on ‘him’] No {I}I told him exactly what I’m telling you [dropping, slight anger] [17:47]

Reporter: 17:47 aha

CO: 17:48 That I can’t [micro pause] say more than what I say already [17:50]

Reporter: 17:51 yeah

CO: 17:52 If he need more information, that’s the place in Dover, yu’know [ 17:56 pause 17:57]{they}they should have all the information down there [18:00] I’m sure they will be able to [micro-pause] tell you, {wha}whatever [18:04].

Reporter: 18:04 yeah, OK

Advertisements

11 Comments on “A new transcription of the audio tape of the interview with the customs officer – and some comments on the recording”

  1. gojam says:

    Hi Ian

    Great Job by yourself and Jim and everyone involved,

    I very much doubt that this has been edited. For James Fielding this would just have been notes of his interview and I have a fair idea of the trail this audio took before it went public (MB – CF – MW) and I don’t think any would have changed it because they all believe it was sufficient to prove their case.

    I am, however, still confused about how the EC came up (could be European Community or European Commission)

    Reporter: 10:2(2)3: [interrupt] ’cause he’s part of the EC at the time [10:24]

    Reporter: 10 :40/50 OK 10:51 erm, [pause till 10:5(4)5] and-do’you know, {wi}{with}{the}, when you say Europe, he was {in-th}the European Commissioner, the EC [10:59]

    The Reporter says “When you say Europe” but there is no record of the CO mentioning Europe and it seems odd that James Fielding would have mentioned it as it is completely out of the time frame he was previously asking about.

    There is something missing or lost which would suggest that the CO was talking about a different incident IMO.

    • I have been wondering about exactly that myself. I think there are 2 possible explanations.

      Firstly, having nudged the CO into confirming this specific member of the cabinet as having been involved, he was now giving him the chance to confirm he had also been a member of the EC. As it stands this creates confusion, as you cannot be both at the same time. But if the CO had confirmed he had also been prominent in the EC this would have provided a second form of identity confirmation. However, this would hardly seem necessary with the CO having already confirmed a name. The extent to which he had confirmed the name is debatable, but he certainly had not denied the name that was repeatedly put to him.

      Secondly, the reporter concentrated his interview upon the 1982 Tricker seizure, with almost all of his questions relating to that event. However Tim Tate has since written in the Telegraph about the same minister having been stopped by the same CO at Dover at a later date, when he may have been a prominent member of the EC. It is at least possible that this reporter, who wasn’t Tim Tate, had also heard rumours of this incident. With no documentary evidence to back up this rumour the reporter would have been treading carefully. But it would have been worth floating a boat, just to see what reaction he got. I don’t think the reporter and CO were talking at cross-purposes but more than one seizure may have been touched upon in this instance. However the CO didn’t react in the slightest.

    • Hi gojam. As I said, more work needs to be done to confirm the possible edits and copy backs. Some of the possible ones I indicate are, in my opinion, very, very strong candidates where as others are not so strong. If you get a chance by all means have a listen to those points on a high volume and experiment with the graphic equalizer settings, to better the audibility. On a final note, yes, the ex-Customs officer mentions that he was involved in ‘quite a few’ of these incidents and there are a number of other possibilities to be explored along the lines you suggest, as well as others.

    • ex-officer says:

      Andy?

    • ex-officer says:

      Who is Andy and Lisa?

  2. Just to add an important point. I think that that Customs notice Ian shows was handed to the ex-Customs officer in this interview at this point;

    Reporter: 06:32(33) This, [dragged ‘is’ micro-pause] this, ’cause the only reason I asked about [name redacted] [06:35(36) dropping on surname, micro-pause 06:36], is’because [pause 06:37, movement of mic and reporter moving] it says under his name here, it says [initials redacted] [06:39(40)]. {a’vidi}one videocassette entitled [initials redacted] [06:43]

    [long pause, sound of something being past and rustled, perhaps paper and what is referred to by ‘this’ and ‘here’. The reporter’s movements above and disturbing of the mic would also indicate something is passed to the CO to read. Longer pause as document is read (?)]

    Reporter: 06:49(50) {an’i}{an}it’s, come to my attention that it might [06:52], {i}{i}it involves [06:53], so-I’ve-been-told, [06:54] it involves the MP [name redacted] [06:55 dropping on surname].

    CO: 06:57(8) [slight cough and throat clear] {ah}[throat clear]{it’ch’a} could be [06:59] [the pattern of throat clears with broken syllables of speech is suspicious and needs to be looked at more closely] [pause 07:00(01)] as I say [gravelly voice] I mean {I}I can’t recollect-a-complete [07:04 stumbling syllables], complete err [07:05 micro-pause] case [emphasised ‘CAse’ 07:05(06)]

  3. Bandini says:

    While I applaud & recognise the hard work that has gone into this article, I have to wonder if a rather simpler method of establishing the recording’s value – or otherwise – isn’t being missed: what led Fielding to link the initials ‘LB’ with the man ‘L.B.’ in the first place.

    I have tried to get to the bottom of this, as you can see by reading the following posts:

    http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1062171368&postcount=81322
    http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1062172093&postcount=81333
    http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1062178182&postcount=81390

    There are other relevant posts, but you’ll get the gist of it from the above. I also posted this one today, linking to this very article:

    http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1062179472&postcount=81398

    There is information in there about the source of the discovery of London Gazette listing (which came far before the Express article of February 2014 and not after as described at the top of the page) and yet… and yet… the silence from those who could explain this mystery is deafening!

    Ian Pace, you yourself as a musician will well appreciate that the spaces that come between the notes are of equal – if not greater – value than the notes themselves.

    I believe it may well be the case here.

    For there is no logical reason (in the public domain) to explain why a reporter would have RAISED the name he did based solely on the Customs listing mentioned above (and which fuelled this tale).

    And the silence on the matter is… dramatic. Only a Tristan chord is going to resolve this one!

  4. GMB says:

    Solanki interview…stands up on original and paper notes but soooo yesterdays news. Better than Solanki audio of 2014 has now been passed to me. This one stays tight unrtil select committee. Lets hope there are screens and blinds in the room!

    • I would very much like to transcribe further material GMB. I am still not clear whether the recording I have transcribed is the same as the recording James Fielding has. I am beginning another project soon with respects to these abuse networks; I am going to graph them as best I can with information in the public domain. I am an analyst so I will be coming at it from that angle. I will also be commenting on my analysis of the above transcript too but am holding off until further information comes in.

  5. […] A new transcription of the audio tape of the interview with the customs officer – and some comment… (29/7/14) (relates to allegations against a former cabinet minister) […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s