UK UK - Martin Allen, 15, London England, 1979

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

With such public and media pressure, I'd like to see them try.

Also, does anyone have or know of a copy of the Guest house list?
 
I personally think this isnt even the tip of the iceberg. There appears to have been a very well organised cover up of child abuse committed by people at high levels of power and importance. I believe there are many unsolved missing person cases and possible murders that are linked to this scandel. If the rumoured link between elm guest house and sidney cookes gang is true then there are some incredibly evil men out there who need to be brought to justice.
 
Such a sad, eerie case. I hope they find his body at least. I have a feeling he is no longer living.
 
brit1981 said:
I made a mistake. Assuming the underground has not changed, and there were no closures, Martin woudl ahve staye don the Piccadilly line from Kings cross all the way to gloucester road. The witness says he saw Martin with a man who seemed to be threatening him, getting onto the tube at gloucester road and getting off together at earls court. According to the newsreport robin posted, this was the raynors lane tube, which would have been the piccadilly line. So Martin had to have got off the piccadilly line at Gloucester road. I find Gloucester road an odd place to hang out to abduct a child so I think he must have been followed either from kings cross, or from someone getting on en route to gloucester road. Lots of trains change at earls court even on the same line, so I do not think it can be taken as a given they were not getting onto another train at earls court.
I find it hard to believe that whoever took Martin, and got away with it, did not go on to commit other crimes against children. You do not abduct a child, and murder them, get away with it and then go on to lead a blameless life.
Click to expand...

ruth21 said:
The investigation into the murder of Vishal Mehrotra has been referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. His, and the murder of at least two other boys, seems to be linked to a "Westminster Paedophile Network."

http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5561/vishal-mehrotra-sussex-police-refers-its-murder-probe-to-ipcc

The site I have linked to is a quality news site that involves experienced investigative journalists.
Click to expand...


Unreleased witness testimony from 34 years ago throws fresh light on the disappearance and death of eight-year-old Vishal Mehrotra in 1981, previously believed to have been the victim of an establishment paedophile ring.

The original police report into the boy’s death, obtained by The Mail on Sunday, reveals that three witnesses spotted men and a woman ‘of Asian appearance’ who may have been involved in the abduction, raising questions as to why the murder was ever linked to the VIP ring...

Reports have linked Vishal’s case with Operation Midland, an investigation chiefly based on a witness named only as ‘Nick’, much of whose account has been discredited...

The new Sussex Police report, released under the Freedom of Information Act, dates from 1983. One witness saw two men in a layby near where Vishal’s remains were found and recalled the men swinging a 4-5ft heavy hessian sack over the fence. He also described seeing an Asian woman in a car parked at the site. A second witness, a female petrol station attendant nearby, recalled three Asian men in a car with a boy aged around ten calling in on the day of the Royal Wedding.
Click to expand...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...abducted-1981-WASN-T-killed-VIP-sex-ring.html
 
I have LBC's podcast series What happened to Vishal? on my tablet but I have got round to listening yet. I was reading about Martin yesterday and after your post Rayemonde I think I'll try catch up on that today.
 
I advise giving both LBC and the Daily Mail a miss. The Daily Mail is amongst the worst dregs of British journalism and will only ever present whichever version suits their purpose. A much better source is at https://theneedleblog.wordpress.com...gation-into-disappearance-of-vishal-mehrotra/. This is an independent blog which has long looked at the child abuse issues which have been raised in the UK and it has a record of both digging out uncomfortable facts which the MSM choose to ignore and it has put the finger on those who have fabricated accusations - so it does not only play one side. Do not be put off by the comments section on the blog; like all such blogs it attracts the nutters. The authors of the blog itself are thorough and unbiased. The link contains a long summary of the report of the original Chief Superintendent looking into this (in 1983) for Sussex Police. It is much easier to follow than the report itself (although this is linked on the LBC site) and it also links to a piece on the 2005 review of the case. It contains all the information about the sightings of Asian looking men near the body dump site but does not draw inferences from these sightings. It records other sightings (such as a young Asian boy with adults in Petersfield, a nearby town) which were subsequently discounted when innocent explanations were found for the sighting. It would be wrong to draw any conclusions about probable guilty parties from the material in the reports.

I have also noticed various references to the Exaro site (and have previously pointed in that direction myself). I would now treat it with some caution. It is quite clear that their recent work in this area has been tainted by a failure to properly check sources. This has led to much criticism, both from the MSM following an agenda and from better sources such as the needleblog linked above.
 
alb1on said:
An interesting article from the London Evening Standard.

http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle...o-the-elm-house-paedophile-ring-10249285.html
Click to expand...

What struck me about this is Martin's brother confirming that he did get home from school that day:

On November 5, 1979, Allen was at home making dinner after a day’s work as a goldsmith’s apprentice. Martin came home around 5pm but went straight out again to see their brother, Bob, who lived near Holloway Road, with a bag of baby clothes their mother had knitted for Bob’s son. “He came home to collect a pound, of all things, to take to my sister-in-law. He had bought a red LED digital watch from her catalogue company.”

All the other reports I've seen suggested that he went missing between King's Cross station and his home on his way home from school.

What is not clear is whether he stayed long enough at home to change out of his school uniform into everyday clothes. Going "straight out again" perhaps suggests that he did not do so, and given that he was apparently planning to stay overnight at his other brother's house it would make sense for him to have his school uniform and books with him for the following day. So what was he wearing when he left the house?

I need to go back and read all the available information in light of the fact that he did make it home around 5pm.
 
In the BBC report linked on the first page (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8427297.stm) and dating from 2009 is the following:

Martin left a friend at a foot tunnel leading onto the southbound Piccadilly line platform at King's Cross station at about 1550 GMT. This was the last definite sighting of him.


After a TV appeal later that year a Tube passenger said he saw a man and a boy acting suspiciously at Gloucester Road Tube station about half an hour after Martin disappeared.


The man was standing with his arm around the boy, who resembled Martin, and both appeared nervous as they got onto a Tube train.


As the pair left the train at Earls Court station the man said to the boy: "Don't try to run."

It has been said that this might have been Martin being abducted. But half an hour after 15.50pm is 16.20pm, and it now appears that Martin made it home safely around 17.00pm. If the latter is true, he presumably cannot have been abducted some half an hour earlier. How certain is it that the man and boy who reportedly got on a train at Gloucester Road were the same indiivduals who got off at Earl's Court (when?)?
 
MelmothTheLost said:
What struck me about this is Martin's brother confirming that he did get home from school that day:

On November 5, 1979, Allen was at home making dinner after a day’s work as a goldsmith’s apprentice. Martin came home around 5pm but went straight out again to see their brother, Bob, who lived near Holloway Road, with a bag of baby clothes their mother had knitted for Bob’s son. “He came home to collect a pound, of all things, to take to my sister-in-law. He had bought a red LED digital watch from her catalogue company.”

All the other reports I've seen suggested that he went missing between King's Cross station and his home on his way home from school.

What is not clear is whether he stayed long enough at home to change out of his school uniform into everyday clothes. Going "straight out again" perhaps suggests that he did not do so, and given that he was apparently planning to stay overnight at his other brother's house it would make sense for him to have his school uniform and books with him for the following day. So what was he wearing when he left the house?

I need to go back and read all the available information in light of the fact that he did make it home around 5pm.
Click to expand...

This is odd and had not registered with me. The 15.50 sighting makes sense given that secondary schools often finished at 3.30 and the route he would have taken home would be to change at Kings Cross onto the Piccadilly Line. However, if he made it home and was on his way to his brother in Holloway he would not have got off at Kings Cross. The Piccadilly Line runs directly from South Kensington to Holloway Road. Also, Gloucester Road is one station south of South Kensington on the Piccadilly Line. If that sighting had any relevance it would make more sense if he had been abducted on his way back from school and forced to stay on the train beyond South Kensington. Going north (to Holloway Road) he would be on the wrong side of the station at South Kensington and any abduction there would be more obvious than in the more crowded and warren like Kings Cross of the period. Equally confusing (whether going home or to Holloway at the time of disappearance) is the observation that the boy at Gloucester Road got on a tube and then off at Earls Court. Earls Court station is also on the Piccadilly Line so this sighting (if correct) would suggest either that he got off the train unnecessarily at Gloucester Road (if travelling south from Kings Cross) or chose to get the tube south from South Kensington rather than north to Holloway (which in turn would suggest he was picked up at South Kensington, but still not explain why the getting off at Gloucester Road).

I do not know what to think but agree this inconsistency needs clearing up.
 
alb1on said:
This is odd and had not registered with me. I do not know what to think but agree this inconsistency needs clearing up.
Click to expand...

Let's assume that Martin was indeed seen at King's Cross at 15.50, and that he managed to get on a train within 5 minutes. It was the start of the rush hour so trains would have been running every few minutes.

The estimated normal journey time from King's Cross to Gloucester Road is 21 minutes (http://www.londondrum.com/transport/train-journey.php?from=kings-cross-st-pancras&to=gloucester-road), so arriving around 16.15.

It's therefore not impossible that it was indeed him reportedly seen with the man at Gloucester Road station at around 16.20. But if so, he must have parted from this man at some stage if he arrived back home at around 17.00. One question is how we account for the 40 minutes between that apparent sighting and his arriving home.

A second is whether it was Martin with this man supposedly seen later (when?) at Earl's Court station. Earl's Court is only one stop beyond Gloucester Road on the Piccadilly line, and the distance between the two stations is only around 500 yards. Given that it was the height of the rush hour, how likely is it that Martin could have met this man after leaving his home shortly after 17.00, and been abducted by him via the underground? By the time you've fought your way through the tunnels at Gloucester Road (3 lines pass through this station), it would probably have been quicker and less hassle to simply walk overground to Earl's Court. Assuming both sightings were indeed of Martin and the same man.

A further question in my mind is why the later firm sighting of Martin at home around 17.00 (assuming it is reliable) has not been more widely reported or picked up as it does seem to me to change the timeline of that late afternoon significantly.
 
The more I think about this the less sense it makes.

According to the BBC report of 23 December 2009 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8427297.stm):

After a TV appeal later that year a Tube passenger said he saw a man and a boy acting suspiciously at Gloucester Road Tube station about half an hour after Martin disappeared.


The man was standing with his arm around the boy, who resembled Martin, and both appeared nervous as they got onto a Tube train.

So Martin arrives at Gloucester Road, gets off his train at around 16.15 and is supposedly forced back onto a train on the same line at around 16.20, getting off again with his abductor at Earl's Court what must be only a couple of minutes later. The stations are only 500 yards apart, remember.Yet he then turns up at home, near Gloucester Road station again around 17.00and is sufficiently unconcerned about what we are asked to believe has just happened to him that he immediately goes back out.
Something is not right. The simplest explanation is that both the Gloucester Road and Earl's Court sightings are complete red herrings and that neither involved Martin, though obviously it does raise the question of who the man and boy were, assuming both sightings were of the same couple.
 
I agree that the Gloucester Road sighting must be unconnected if the information of him being seen at home at 17.00 is correct. However, having gone back to some of the original newspaper reports (they are available both as scans and transcriptions on several sites) it is apparent that no mention of such a sighting (at 17.00) was reported at the time. What was reported at that time was that he intended to head home to collect money before going to his brothers house in Holloway. I suppose it is possible that the 17.00 sighting has somehow been added over the years as having occurred, when it was actually expected but did not happen. I should also clarify one other point; I suggested he would normally have got on and off the Piccadilly Line at South Kensington. This is incorrect. Reports at the time (and a closer look at maps) confirm he used Gloucester Road as his local station. So if the sighting at 16.15 is relevant it means he was taken there rather than at Kings Cross (since, if the latter, he would simply have been kept on the train to Earls Court). My closer look at the original reports also makes the Gloucester Road sighting more compelling. It was confirmed by 6 independent witnesses, which explains why it was investigated so thoroughly.

I suspect the answer to this case does not lie in pursuing the case itself. Rather, it lies in untangling the cover up by the authorities of various activities at the time. If the Allen case is related in any way to paedophiles in the establishment then it is also related to the cover ups. I am not a great one for conspiracy theories (they tend to come apart simply because it is harder to keep a secret than people imagine). However, in the case of these activities, there is overwhelming evidence of a cover up. The Chief Constable of Derbyshire has confirmed he was ordered to stop investigating a similar matter in the late 1980s (when a sergeant). Chief Inspector Clive Driscoll (a very respected London officer) was removed from command of a similar investigation in 1998 when he made it known that some well known names were on his POI list. Theresa May (the UK Home Secretary) has refused to give ex-police officers a guarantee that they can speak out without fear of being prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act (she has just offered ambiguous 'reassurances'). And I found this interesting quote from an edition of The Australian of 31/1/2015 in a story on the Martin Allen case;
"For more than 30 years, the activities of this incredibly well-connected pedophile network was apparently protected from scrutiny through the issuing of government D-notices, which prevent media publication of anything deemed to affect national security. It is believed this stymied police *investigations."
Whilst other elements of the cover up are now well known this is the first time I have seen the confirmation of the use of D-notices and I suspect it is no coincidence that it has been printed outside the UK.

The answers to this and other cases lies in exposing who gave the orders to call police off cases and suppress press reporting. D-notices are only issued with cabinet minister authority. If the Goddard Inquiry focuses on identifying the conductors of the cover ups the threads will lead to the underlying truths (which I would expect to show both some very unpleasant facts and to disprove some of the wilder stories).
 
Martin did not go home as far as we know, the last sighting of him was a 4-45. He was I believe abducted at Gloucester Road Station, forced back into the station to earls Court, which is only a four minute journey. they then left the front of earls Court station, walking down a side road to the back of Earls Court Station, intending to walk to North End road.
But Martin was then probably forced back into the station, and onto a train to West Kensington. A witness saw them getting onto a Richmond train, and west Kensington is a four minute journey. This brings them to the other end of North End Road.
I believe the man changed his mind about walking to north End Road, a five minute walk, because when Martin found out where they were going, he may have told the abductor that his brother was working in Seagrave Road, which is just off Lillie Road, and they would have had to pass by the top of that road to get to North End Road.
I have put pages 1 to 43 on my twitter page, an account written at the time. Approveds @approveds
 
There is a continuing stench about this case. Recent media reports about the 'Nick' allegations have attacked the police for giving these allegations credibility because Nick described the murder of an 11-12 year old boy who looked like Martin and, as the papers say, Martin was 15. However, he was less than 5 ft tall and looked much younger than 15. The only explanation for this false attack on Nick's story can be that the media is complicit in a continuing cover up or are totally incompetent. I favour the latter explanation largely based on the huge alcohol consumption of the journos I know - but I could be wrong given that the media must have had some sort of leverage to get off all the hacking charges they faced.

I should add that I believe Nick is a fantasist (or a 'black' plant) as his stories have successfully derailed the focus on other allegations where solid evidence from police, customs and social services is available.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 143 more.
Total: 2,622 (members: 144, guests: 2,478)

Online statistics

Members online
144
Guests online
2,478
Total visitors
2,622
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
601,981
Messages
18,132,871
Members
231,203
Latest member
btc121296
Back
Top