Video Archive
Interviews, documentary reporting and recorded official material, to be embedded with the original source, publication date and an explanation of the evidence and its limits.
Visit the video archive →Research library · Source standards
Evidence first. Conclusions carefully.
The value of this project depends on the ability to tell a firsthand recollection from an original record, a public investigation from an allegation, and a genuine finding from an unanswered question.
Using the archive · 22 October 2026
See the document, then judge what it actually proves.
Primary records, historic press coverage, testimony and subsequent official findings have different evidential weight. Not every statement in a record is a proven fact; repeated reporting is not independent corroboration.
Jump to evidence collections and methods
The public evidence areas
Crime Map
Historically labelled areas, uncertainty boundaries and location context. A marker is not proof that an offence occurred at its centre.
Browse location records →Detective Board
Evidence-linked records, cases and historical groupings. Connections are not inferred merely from proximity or time.
Browse case records →Police and IICSA
Public records from historical operations and inquiry reports with careful separation between remit and findings.
Browse public research →My Grafton Close Records
The actual redacted 1984 admission entry, its historical reason-code key and Richmond Council’s later records position. Original documents, date-specific context and clear limits.
Examine my recovered care records →Primary record now available: John Stingemore
A facsimile of an earlier criminal-record extract records a guilty plea for a Grafton Close offence on or before 31 July 1981. The precise court date, full provenance and any institutional response remain under investigation. Inspect the original exhibit and its limitations ↗
How a document becomes a claim
1. Provenance comes first
Identify the document, date, author or custodian, legal context and the exact passage relied on. A contemporary original is not interchangeable with later commentary.
2. Independent corroboration counts differently from repetition
Multiple articles quoting one original statement are not three independent witnesses. Later memories can be valuable while still requiring a separate assessment of what they establish.
3. Disputed matters remain disputed
Survivor accounts, reported allegations, convictions and official findings are identified as different evidence classes. Lack of a prosecution does not automatically establish either innocence or the truth of an allegation.
4. Missing files are gaps—not verdicts
Unlocated policies, destroyed books or unavailable minutes should drive focused archival requests. Their absence cannot itself prove that a rule, event or duty was absent.
5. Public display is an additional decision
I do not publish private case records or identifying details of other survivors without appropriate authority. Where I publish a document or summary, I explain what it establishes and what remains uncertain.
Contact about a source: If you hold an original record relevant to the investigation, please review the contact guidance before sending personal or confidential information.
Additional original records and historical documents
Grafton Close Floor Plans
Original drawing alongside my separate annotations about the entrances, staff office and recollected events.
Explore both plan images ↗Earlier Staffing Evidence
Staff-list extract dated February 1972 and a historic photograph, with careful source attribution and research gaps.
Examine original images ↗Surviving Grafton Close and Rodney Road logbooks
Read all 697 pages of the officially redacted Grafton Close 1980 and 1982 day books, with archival provenance, sample pages and dated context. The identified Rodney Road volumes covering 1982–84 remain a separate disclosure issue.
Open the redacted 1980 and 1982 logbooks ↗Government and parliamentary letters
Read redacted correspondence from MPs and Richmond Council, alongside official parliamentary answers concerning Grafton Close and institutional accountability.
Explore the official correspondence archive ↗Building records · Later planning history
Grafton Close after the children’s-home period
A scanned planning-register entry records 1990 proposals involving accommodation for young mothers and young people, and a 1995 seven-flat conversion decision. The full planning files and subsequent occupancy information remain unverified. The exhibit raises further safeguarding questions without establishing any later offending or a breach of duty.
Examine the dated planning-register image and source assessment ↗
Primary court case-system extract · The Netherlands · 1990
Saunders: official Dutch COMPAS case record and English translation
The Hague court-copy extract, file 09-007722-90, identifies an offence entry dated 28 February 1990 in Rijswijk and cites Article 247 of the Dutch Criminal Code. The supplied two pages are from a six-page case-system printout, not a complete criminal judgment. A privacy-redacted reproduction and a field-by-field UK English translation are published in Police Investigations. The Hague is the court location, not the recorded offence municipality.
Read the source document, English translation and evidential limitations ↗
Newly recovered 1984 Council minutes
Original records of the extraordinary closed meeting concerning Louis Minster, with the 30 October 1984 resolutions and the wider Grafton Close context: read the document analysis and evidence register →.