Woman's Hour - Epstein files, Lindsey Vonn, Knife crime, Charles Dickens' women

Episode Date: February 9, 2026

At the end of January, the US government released new files from its investigation into the sex offender and disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. The latest drop of material consists of three million pages, and thousands of images and videos. But why has the focus of the coverage been on the political fallout, appearing to show exchanges with high-profile men? What does this say about society’s attitude to women more broadly? Some have already been voicing their concerns. Nuala McGovern is joined by Times journalist Helen Rumbelow and Penny East, Chief Executive at the Fawcett Society.At 41, Lindsey Vonn was hoping to become the oldest athlete to win a downhill skiing medal. The American skier has dominated the sport winning 84 World Cup races along with her three Olympic Winter Games medals. Having already suffered an ACL injury ahead of the Games, but still determined to compete, during the downhill event yesterday she crashed just a few seconds into her race. She had to be airlifted off the course. To find out more, we speak to two-time Winter Olympic snowboarder and broadcaster Aimee Fuller.Tonight BBC’s Panorama focuses on the murder of two teenage boys in South London, Daejaun Campbell and Kelyan Bokassa, killed in 2024 and 2025 - both victims of child criminal exploitation and groomed by local gangs. Nuala speaks to Jodian Taylor, Daejaun’s mother, and BBC’s Frankie McCamley, the documentary’s reporter.A new exhibition at the Charles Dickens museum celebrates the women who influenced the great Victorian novelist's female characters, social commentary and campaigning to improve the lives of vulnerable women. But how does this sit alongside the other, darker narrative, that Dickens himself was a misogynist who mistreated his own wife? To sort the fact from the fiction, the exhibition curator Kirsty Parsons & the historian Professor Jenny Hartley are in the Woman's Hour studio.Presenter: Nuala McGovern Producer: Kirsty Starkey

Hello, this is Neu La McGovern, and you're listening to The Woman's Hour podcast. Hello and welcome to the programme. In a moment, the Epstein files. Since the latest released, so much has been said about the potential political consequences with the women and girls who are at the centre of this story conspicuously absent. As you've just heard in the bulletin, a royal spokesperson said Prince William and Princess Catherine are deeply concerned by the latest round of revelations and they were focused on the victims in light of new information contained in the documents.

Well, my guests have been thinking deeply about the victims and also what they say, the latest files reveal about misogyny in our society. That's coming up in just a moment. Also, there were audible gasps as American skier, Lindsay von, crashed in Cortina, destroying her hopes for an Olympic comeback. We are going to speak to the Olympian snowboarder, Amy Fuller, this hour. Also, the mother of a 15-year-old boy who was stabbed to death

has accused social services of failing to help get her son away from drug dealers who had groomed him. Georgian will be with me in studio. Plus, we'll explore the female characters in the novels of Charles Dickens and what they tell us about his relationships with the real women in his life.

It's all part of the inspiration for a new exhibit called Extraordinary Women. If you want to get in touch with the program, You can text us. That number is 84844 on social media. We're at BBC Women's Hour. Or you can email us through our website. For a WhatsApp message or voice note, that number is 0300-100-400-44. But let me begin.

As you will have seen, the US government released millions of files from its investigation into the sex offender and disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. And you may have also have seen with this latest drop of the Epstein files. most of the headlines have been focused on the political ramifications and not on the women and girls in this story. The latest material consists of 3 million pages and thousands of images and videos. They include a number of household names, details of which have been reported in the press in the past couple of weeks.

There is no suggestion that appearing in the documents implies any wrongdoing and many people who have featured in previous releases have denied any wrongdoing in relation to Epstein. I was joined by Helen Rumbullough, journalist at the Times newspaper, who has written about what she believes these files reveal about power dynamics in our society between men and women, and also how the women and girls are treated, and how sifting through those files made her feel. We also have Penny East, Chief Executive at the Fawcett Society that campaigns for gender equality. She joined to give her reaction.

Helen spent two days reading the files and I asked Helen what her reaction was to the detail that she saw. I think it's not just my reaction as well. I wrote the piece and then I've been in journalism for decades and I've basically never had the response to this material as I did to the work I did on Epstein. Almost all from women universally very, very angry, which is what I felt, you know, and I think that's because we grow up as teenage girls,

not feeling safe from male predators, and then not feeling safe in the criminal justice system. And then when we get older, we're sort of authority is kind of questioned much more than men's. We don't feel we have access to the back channels of power. And yet we're always slightly sort of pattered on the head and said, don't be paranoid. The feminist project in the West is over. And here, finally, uniquely, we have a chance to actually see what's going on, actually, you know, how the world of power works. You know, we see under the lid. And it's probably worse than we feared.

You know, this is a clubbing, collusion of men, helping each other, you know, making alliances defined by abuse of girls and women, whether it's verbal or physical. and its cover-up. And yet, this story is still being framed as harms to a very few men, you know. And it's not. I think this is what women feel. It's deeper, darker, more systemic and runs through our whole society. Let's get into some of the specifics that you came across. The language, for example, in the emails that you saw,

because money won't have gone through them in the detail that you did. How would you describe it? I mean, I have written about Virginia Jafray before and I read her book. And in that she says that Jeffrey Epstein joked with her that women were just life support systems for vaginas. And when I was reading these emails between men, and it's not just Jeffrey Epstein, it's not just a few of these big names that have come out. You know, it's so many men at so many levels of power. you know, it's lawyers, academics, sports people, celebrities, tech, parents, all of it.

The way they talk about women, that joke was not a joke. You know, it is literally just the word for women's genitals. You know, that comes up time and time again. They call women by their genitals, you know, the word pussy. I think, if you could imagine any slower word men use for women's genitals, that is the name they give. I mean, dehumanizing is. mild. You also talk about the extensive redactions many will have seen and you call those black boxes of redaction little black boxes of power. Why? Yeah, because I mean I understand why the

girls, often very young girls involved in Epstein's crimes were redacted. You know, they have these boxes but to protect their identities. I understand that completely. but what actually does make you angry when you look in the Epstein files is quite how many men's names are redacted so you go through and you see this complete imbalance between the girls, you know, it's photographs basically and it's horrible because you see

what is obviously a very young girl's pair of legs or something and then the rest of her is redacted but then you think all these emails to inform Epstein with all this disgusting language about women and yet the names are still redacted. Why? You talk about somebodies and nobodies literally. One of the lines from your article was so stark.

You said there are everyday exchanges making the cogs of the world turn oiled by porn-saturated woman hating. And I wondered after I read that, where did you go from there to have hope? It's extremely bleak, isn't it? I think hope, you know, I'd, talk about opening the box, you know, hope, flew out of the box kind of thing. It's hard, isn't it, when you have a president of the free world

who has been found by jury to have sexually assaulted someone who himself, President Trump, talked obviously, about grabbing women by the pussy. And, you know, continues to single out female journalists for silencing and mockery based on their sex. You know, I think it's quite hard for men to imagine actually living. in that environment now. But I think perhaps the hope is that we are lifting the rock.

You know, we are seeing it. I think that helps women to think because I think a lot of the time that there's that sort of suggestion that we are overreacting to things and we are kind of like, you know, think that there's a vast conspiracy against us when there isn't. And here it is. You know, here we have the receipts. In relation to U.S. President Donald Trump, he has consistently denied any wrongdoing in relation to Epstein

with whom he says he severed contact decades ago and has not been accused of any crimes by Epstein's victims. I know, Helen, you're referring to other incidences and I don't have a specific response from the administration on that. But some of the lines

that you say there do bring me back to your article. You say for a brief moment, women can finally open the box and see what's been said. Echoed, I feel, by Marina Honour. in her article in the Gartgen who said,

using again some of those same terms, it's the Pussy Grabber's World, we just live in it. The only difference is you can now see it laid out in black and white. Penny, let me bring you in here. What do women do with that? I think it's really, really difficult.

I mean, I think in terms of what the files have exposed is quite the level of misogyny that still exists within society. And it must be one of the most kind of downplayed social challenges that we have. I mean, there have been some brilliant and forensic articles, not at least Helens, as you say, but there have also been some articles, mainly I have to say by male commentators

that have really downplayed what has happened. There was an article that talked about the fact that the lords will be a kind of poorer place without Cads like Mandelson in it, or the fact that, you know, I had an American commentator talking about women getting their knickers in a twist over this. I mean, that level of downplaying for male commentators, it feels almost kind of representative of violence against women and girls

on a kind of societal level, which is essentially a kind of significant minority of men committing the crimes, but then a much larger proportion of men looking the other way or downplaying it or pretending it's not happening. And women feeling that kind of ever frustration of feeling like you're shouting into the void of trying to say that these problems are still there. I mean, when I first took the job of running forces society, one of the first questions was asked to me is we don't need women's organisations anymore. As Helen just said, I have people saying to me, feminism has done its job.

It's just this kind of shocking golf between the reality of what women are experiencing and this idea that feminism has done its work. I mean, misogyny is absolutely alive and kicking in society. And whether it's the most powerful or whether it's men in their own homes, it is very much still a huge social problem. And you say, Helen, that's something. very significant about society is revealed through these files that you read. It is, but it's, as Penny's saying, it's so hard for us to actually see it. And I sometimes think it's interesting to have a kind of thought experiment. You know, if these victims of Epstein were straight men, middle-aged men,

and he was luring them to his mansion and them to his island and, you know, perpetrating on them crimes that left them, you know, damaged and psychologically ruined and throwing them away and all of that. Would his buddies be so quick to invite him back to the top table, you know, try and rehabilitate him? I think it's the fact that they were girls that meant it didn't matter, A, or B, even that it was a kind of feather in his cap. You know, he was enjoying the rightful spoils of masculinity. That's the way they talk about him in the files. It's interesting, just as you're speaking there, Helen, I'm thinking that a lot of the batting back of accusations against certain people

has been that they feel they were manipulated by him. Interesting, using some off that language, whether people accept that or not, is another matter. I want to turn to one other aspect of this. Lily Isaacs has written in The Observer about the huge number of online memes that have proliferated. She said, something chilling is happening here. Epstein's grotesque, extensive sexual abuse network

is being processed by the internet as a meme, she goes on to say. Memes flattened reality into irony and disintegrate consequence. You don't have to ask who enabled him, protected him, benefited from his silence or joined in on his abuse when the story itself becomes a joke. Penny, I'd like your thoughts on what impact you think these memes could have or are having on the way our society responds to misogyny. I think it absolutely downplays and belittles the reality of what has happened. I mean, maybe it is almost too brutal and harsh to face up the realities of what has been happening for decades to these young girls and women and what people have turned a blind eye to. And society as a whole is trying to find some relief through things like memes and humour, but it absolutely is inappropriate and unhelpful.

And as I say, not only are those memes, but that is going alongside commentary from kind of respectable mainstream, broadsheet, sheet papers and commentary that is also really putting the first. focus on things like political risk and reputational damage and that kind of thing. I'm really not leaning in to the absolute brutal reality of what happened to these women and girls. So I think there's memes on the internet, but I also think there is a role in terms of mainstream media as well to not shy away from what has actually happened. Helen. I think when there is a situation like this, where there's such an enormous gulf between

the establishment response and what people genuinely feel, which is so much. anger and shock. I think in that gap comes some anxiety and it's relieved by humour sometimes. I think that people are just, you know, there's into that void. They're filling it with all these kind of responses which aren't always, you know, it's because of the gap. It's because of the lack of response from on high that that's being filled by the internet, I think. There is also, of course, it can be lucrative to create memes, other aspects of this story online, and making money really of these tragedies

that happen to these young girls and women. Yes, I mean there's a kind of bottom feeder aspect of this, isn't there, that there's still men being titillated by the idea of young girls being brutally assaulted. And I think that transfers across, I might say to pornography, which I think is actually a missing part of this story. You know, threaded through the Epstein files are his searches for pornography, which are obviously 14 categories, which is, by the way,

you know, one of or if not the most search for category in the legal porn sites. The tech barons are making a lot of money out of it. And it is connected to deeply punishing attitudes towards violence towards girls. And the word punishing, I know that comes up in the files as well in relation to some of the girls and young women. Penny. Yes, I mean, I would just absolutely support Hans Point there in terms of the role of violent pornography. I mean, as a society to allow the kind of normalisation and mainstreaming of some of the most aggressive misogynistic pornography, which is widely available, has a huge impact on the mindset of men. And we have to be able to tackle that.

but absolutely I can see that the role of pornography and the kind of dehumanising of women and girls is a key part of this. Melinda French Gates gave an interview to NPR last week and there was a line in it that stayed with me. She said, I think we're having a reckoning as a society, right? Question mark, she said. And I'm wondering, do you agree, Penny?

Well, someone compared it to kind of the Me Too movement from a few years ago. And I think, of course, there are these kind of peaks of realisation as a society where everyone kind of realises that suddenly actually misogyny and violence against women and girls is this terrible epidemic. But it's about whether that moment of reality can be retained into actual action. It's all very well having everyone talking about it for a bit. But unless something comes from it, we will just see in another couple of years, another story where we all kind of look at each other shocked that this is still happening.

What about that, Helen? You know, with Me Too, everyone initially shocked, as Penny says, demanding change and then life moves on and for many nothing really changes. I agree. I think that's the danger here. I think when you say everyone's having a reckoning, I think it's women having a reckoning and not actually everyone. I think it's us talking about it

whereas men are I think quite quick to tell me, you know, oh, that's not something I recognise, that's not me, that's not my world and being very reassuring actually and trying to tell me that things aren't as bad as I'm imagining. It's so interesting. Penny, are there practical changes that you think might come out of these awful revelations

or that you would like to see? I think one of the things that we need to kind of confront is the fact that misogyny, as I say, is this terrible downplayed social challenge that has such a profound impact on the lives and safety of women and girls. And yet, if you look at the funding going towards women and girls' organisations, women and girls' organisations get less than 2% of charitable funding. So it's completely out of whack with the size of the problem

in terms of violence against women and girls and misogyny and how much funding goes towards these organisations. I was actually doing some research over the weekend and saw that one single cat charity generates £100 million income every year. You could put 10 women's organisations together, and they wouldn't have half of that money. You know, there's a completely disproportionate level of funding going towards some kind of charitable or social challenge areas compared to women and girls.

And yet actually, since I've been in the job, not a day has passed without some horrific story that has misogyny is its root cause. And yet there is just not the funding and support for women and girls' organisations. Alan, where do you go from here? I mean, you've talked about the response that you received. Where is your mind going now? What do you feel you need to delve into further? What I found going through the files

and is first you think it's this big jumble of, you know, emails literally between the sort of heads of, you know, some of the most important parts of our society and descriptions of crimes against women. And it feels very discordant. What I came to realize and I now come to realize is that it is all connected. And actually the safety of young girls is a metric

of a healthy democracy because I think that, you know, this entire attitude is about taking what you are not entitled to. You know, it's about corruption. It's about covering up for people. It's this profoundly anti-democratic system of men colluding and abusing.

And it's not until, you know, girls feel safe and feel safe in our society that crimes will be properly prosecuted. That, you know, we have a sense. safe democracy at every level from the top down. And I think that's not the society we live in. The Times journalist Helen Rumbolo, her article on Epstein in that publication. Also Penny E's chief executive at the Fawcett Society.

And I want to remind you that Galane Maxwell, who was found guilty of child sex trafficking and other offences in connection with Jeffrey Epstein, will testify under oath today before the US Congress House Oversight Committee that is investigating the handling of the Epstein Files. She will do so virtually. Maxwell is currently serving a 20-year sentence for sex trafficking. Her brother, Ian, has told the press that she will invoke her Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination when she appears via video link from prison on Monday. He explains that the recent publications from the Epstein Files means that she, and I quote, runs the risk of being accused of perjury if she provided evidence to the Congressional

Committee conducting the investigation, unquote. More on that on the BBC News throughout the day. and also I do want to say if you've been affected by anything you've been hearing in this discussion you can go to the BBC Action Line where you can find help and support links. Now I want to turn to Lindsay Vaughn maybe you've been watching the Winter Olympics

over the weekend. Lindsay at 41 was hoping to become the oldest athlete to win a downhill skiing medal. The American skier has dominated the sport winning 84 World Cup races along with her three Olympic Winter Games medals. She retired from the sport in 2019

but came out of retirement in 2024. You might know she suffered an ACL injury, anterior cruciate ligament at the World Cup race ahead of the games, but she was still determined to compete. However, during the downhill event yesterday, she crashed just a few seconds into her race, horrendous to watch.

She had to be airlifted off the course. It was revealed later that she has broken her leg. We want to get some reaction to Vans attempt to come back and also hear more about what to watch out for this week. Back with us is the two-time Winter Olympic snowboarder and broadcaster Amy Fulner. Amy, good morning. Good morning. Thank you so much for having me back.

I mean, watching this crash, it's a really difficult thing to watch. What was your reaction? First and foremost, it was horrific to see. and I think it's the outcome that no one predicted. Yeah. She is the greatest of all time. And she has redefined what strength looks like for women in sport. It was just incredibly painful to know what she's been through,

having ruptured her ACL just a week before the Olympics, to then brace up and commit to competing in this event. I think it just shows pure pursuit of being incredibly fearless, but just such a travesty to see her go down like that. She retired, I mentioned briefly there, five years ago. But, I mean, so many were kind of, so wanted her to succeed with this Olympic comeback. And I mentioned also at 41. What do you think is behind that?

you know, to be a dreamer, to be a sports person, to be aspirational. I think she sets the presidents for women's sport. She has redefined what strength looks like, what resilience looks like, and has proved that people do exist that are fearless. I interviewed her a few years ago, and something that I struggled with in my career was fear towards the back end of it. Really? He's 41 years old and she's stood up there proud, strong and confident and hasn't been defined by her failures.

So first and foremost, just to attempt it, I think is quite mind-boggling. She has had so many injuries. And the fact she went down, she got bucked, essentially. Like, if you were imagine you were on a bucking bronco and thrust you. into a high-speed spin in that moment, there is no coming back from it and there is nothing you can do. So utterly terrifying to see

and I think it just really is a showcase of how dangerous these alpine sports can really be. And for those that say it was a foolish move to try it? I think if you were to take yourself into the position, You imagine Lindsay has put so much hard work into this. This is what she lives for. So imagine being one week away from the Olympic Games, getting injured, for everything you've worked for to then not attempt it.

I don't think it's in Lindsay's nature or make up to, it was her own decision in essence. And I can connect to that as in I remember qualifying for my second Olympic Games and I did a grade two on my lateral ligament in my ankle. And when you work so hard for something, you don't want to just give it away. And that's what we saw. Lindsay didn't let her dream slide away.

She attempted it. So I think we have to give her the utmost respect for that and for her fearless pursuit. However, it is just a showcase of the fact that she was injured and she just couldn't deal with the compression in that high-speed course. And the compression being? Essentially, when she came 13 seconds into the run, she's coming into the turn. And the compression, so essentially these skiers are experiencing huge, huge G-forces.

So as she comes into the turn, she's not able to put all of her weight confidently through her leg, which is damaged at ACL. and in essence, just getting bucked and literally like thrown forward. And in that moment, there's just nothing you can do. Right. So incredibly high risk. The sport is high risk. And I think it was just really, really unfortunate.

In snowboarding, we say there's snow snakes. And occasionally you can get caught quite literally up in the snow. And that's what we witnessed yesterday. Yeah. And we wish you're all the best. And for a speedy recovery, a broken leg is the low. latest that we have heard. I have to say I love when the Olympics are on winter or summer because there is always something to watch on television, right? And I want to talk a little bit with you

about what's happening for Team GB today. Potential of medals. Yeah, an incredible day in store. So definitely buckle up. We have two of Team GB's Golden Girls very much in action. So starting with Kirstie Muir in the Slope Style. She qualified through in third place. She is such a talent at such a young age. We know she's got the ability to up the ante and do some bigger tricks on her last jump. So expect to see potentially a 1260 or a 1440.

And I really think this could put her very much in contention for a gold medal. So this is free ski, slope style. And a 1260 or a 1440 to the uninitiated, Amy. Let me unpack that for you. So a 1260 is three and a half full rotations. Okay, makes sense, yeah. And where Kirsty is different to some of the other competitors, she has the ability to insert these bigger tricks

that we normally see in the big air event into the slope style. So she also has 1440 in her locker. And I spoke to her coach, Joe Tyler, and he said they were just cruising through qualification, a solid run on the board, so she's got plenty of room to improve. So definitely tune in to that one. And you threw out Big Air, like we're all, also down with the lingo, which we all will be by the time the Winter Olympics is over.

But the big air final, Mia Brooks, it's a snowboarding event. What can we expect? Mia Brooks, 19 years old, already a world champion, a veteran, within the sport of snowboarding, yet she's at her first ever Olympic Games. She is a phenomenon. So, Big Air, we have a 22 metre jump. If you imagine literally getting a London double-decker bus, inserting it in between the takeoff and the landing.

We're going to see riders tonight. They have three runs and they have to do two different tricks. And they are travelling the distance and the height of the London double-decker bus. bus. So from Mia Brooks specifically, we know we saw in the qualification last night, it's a very, very tough field. She does have the possibility to step onto that podium, but she is going to need to put down her best tricks and maybe even a new trick that we've not seen from Mia before. So that really is one that you need to buckle in for. New dog, new tricks. Amy Fuller, thank you so much for joining us. We will be watching.

great to have you back on with us. I'll be on air on T&T this afternoon, so it's going to be an epic showdown. I'm looking forward. Epic is the word to use. Terrifying is another that we could. But you can get in touch, of course, 84844. Also, lots of updates on Lindsay Vaughn and others

on the BBC Sport website as well. I want to let you know a little bit more about our latest episode of Send in the Spotlight. It's on BBC Sounds. It's all about transport. Now this is a contentious issue. It has a hugely increasing cost to local authorities. There are disagreements over which children should be eligible.

So to find the latest episode of our podcast, send in the spotlight, BBC Sounds, search for it while you're there. You can subscribe for free so that you never miss an episode. Really interesting to hear the people that are involved in that. I want to turn back now to September 2024 when 15-year-old Dejohn Campbell was killed by two teenagers in a knife attack in Woolwich in the south-east of London. His murder, which happened in broad daylight,

came months after he was groomed by older boys involved in weapons and drug distribution. Among those attending his funeral was 14-year-old Kellyan Boccasa, who was also killed in a similar attack a few months later in January of 2025. like Dejean, Kellyan was targeted and groomed by local gangs. Both boys' families say their sons were failed by the system that was in place to protect them.

There's a new BBC Panorama called Knife Crime, What Happened to our boys? And it traces the boys' stories and it will be broadcast tonight on BBC One. I'm joined in studio by Panorama reporter Frankie McAamly. Good morning, Frankie. And also with this is Dejaon's mother, Jodianne Taylor. Hi, Jodian. Thank you very much for coming in. Thank you for having me. Let me begin with Frankie for a moment.

Perhaps you could tell us a little more about the circumstances of these boys' deaths. Yeah, of course. I mean, you said quite a bit of it. A lot of people might remember these deaths to 15-year-old Desjon Campbell. He was murdered in Woolwich in Southeast London back in September 2024 in broad daylight. And he was stabbed with a zombie knife that we hear so much about here in the capital. And then three months later, his friend, Kelly and Bocasa, who was just 14, stabbed to death on a London bus on the top deck of a London bus.

Again, another story. A lot of people will remember. And I think it was just after those that we started putting the pieces together, really, and finding out that these two boys were friends. Their lives overlapped. And not only that, when we were speaking to both of their mothers, Jodi Ann, who's here and Marie, finding out. out that both of their mums knew that they were in danger and they both said that they asked for help. They asked the social services for help and other authorities for help. And that that help wasn't forthcoming, Jodi Ann. Let us begin perhaps by talking about your son. How would you describe him? Dejan was incredible. He was talented. He was funny. He was athletic. He would represent his school in multiple sports. he was caring and most of all he was incredibly articulate.

I saw photographs off him in the panorama smiling as a young kid. He had his brothers, he had you. But his behaviour did start to change, I think, when he was a young teenager. What was he? You were like, there's something up here. What started happening? He started talking back at home. He started coming home late.

There's a lot of times when he would. go out, he keep mentioning particular friends. And with the behavioral changes, he started vaping. I would see videos in his phone. Vaping escalated to smoking cannabis. He would start, he started swapping clothes with people and I would bring bin bags to the school. I don't want these items in my house. I've provided him clothing and I don't want them. I haven't purchased these things for him. So those were some of the changes I noticed. He became. a lot more boisterous and I thought he's going to an all-boy school so you know maybe that's how the rough and tumble takes place in school however when he's displaying that behaviour towards his

siblings I just didn't like it so I thought okay what's happening here why has his behaviour changed because nothing at home had changed you mentioned clothing there and I was struck by the fact he came back in a very expensive jacket one said that you had refused to buy for him when he asked for it. And your antenna went up thinking, hang on a second, what's happening here? Yeah, you know, at first he said to me he's just trading clothes with people. So what he would do, I would purchase him something, then that would go missing. And then he's come back with something new. So that's how it started. They were swapping clothes. So, you know, he might have a green track suit.

Someone has a black one and he just, oh, I want that track suit in another colour and they decide to trade. That's how it took place at first. And then he started saying, People are selling items. And I'm like, why would I buy a second item from them? Because, you know, and I will purchase it for you. I just won't be able to do it right this minute. So you began to suspect he was being groomed. But I didn't suspect he was being groomed.

You didn't? Yes. So my concerns were him vaping. His friends coming home late saying he's hanging out with these people. it was the services when I got them involved, their suspicion, and they informed me that he's being groomed. I have no knowledge of how grooming works. Because you very much were very open about everything you found,

going to the school, going to social services. So it wasn't social services to begin with. They suggested fast family and adolescents social services. And I agreed. And then that escalated to social services. And with that, though, when they came back, social services speaking about potential grooming, at that point, what were you able to do? They suggested escalate in the matter.

They're like, okay, other people or this organisation can do a lot more than we're currently doing. They work internally with the school and with other organisation, i.e. the police and stuff like that. and they all have a better grasp on it than they currently have because what they're able to do is limited. So Frankie, you know, as we see in the episode and as Jodi-Anne tells us here, she was making a number of attempts to get her son help. You've been in contact with the school and the local council.

What do they tell you? Well, I think one of the points here that Jodyan was raising and constantly talking to the school, and you were saying, look, I need more help. You know, I need this escalated. The school said that they did try to escalate it. They got Dejean counselling. They asked Greenwich Council to provide help for the family.

And then there was a stage in which the school, we talk about this quite a lot in the film, the school says that, well, the school had to stop some of Dejean's friends from coming to school because of their links to weapons and other things outside. So they stopped those friends from going to school. But what happened there was the school didn't tell Jodi Ann that this was the case, that some of his friends had stopped, weren't allowed to go back to school.

Now the school says that they couldn't share that information because all children, you know, they're allowed a clean slate. They make mistakes. But I think one of the main points here, Jodian, is that the school didn't tell you that a lot of his friends had been stopped. That is it. So there is a... When Dejan passed, I asked for a document. I can't remember the name of it.

I don't know if you can, Frankie. I requested that document. That would tell you? So it tells me what they know. Okay, I understand. So I started reading that document. It says that his affiliations were drugs, weapons and violence. Not once did the school ever share that with me.

That must have been so shocking for you. It was shocking. I haven't read further than that. that. But my thing is, I've come to you and I ask what's happening here. You are aware that these are the risks and dangers that he's been exposed to. I'm not from the area. I was placed in that area. So I went there. I explained to them. I'm new to the area. I don't have any friends and family around here. I always travel back to them. And you're telling me that my child was exposed to this and they didn't share this information with me. Now, they're in a position.

to safeguard not only the children there, but families of the children there, the community. Why are you not able to share this information? I didn't ask for personal information. I ask what's happening here, why my child's behaviour has changed. Let me read a little. This is from the school.

This is Tom Lawrence, the head teacher at Woolwich Polytechnic School for boys. He said schools have a legal and moral duty to keep every child safe and to respect their privacy. This means there are clear limits on what we can share about individual pupils or specific situations.

These safeguards are essential to ensuring children are treated with care, dignity and respect. We understand this can feel frustrating, especially for families or members of the public seeking clarity, and that feeling is understandable. However, our first responsibility must always be with the welfare of children. We therefore cannot share personal or sensitive information

even during periods of heightened interest. I personally believe that's an insult. Those responses in my situation are very insulting. I wasn't asking for personal information. Dejan even said to me and I went to the school. I spoke to his head of year. I said he said he needs a fresh start. There's too much influence at this school.

I didn't know what the influences were. I asked her, can you assist me and change in his school? Her response to me at the time was all he has to do is hold his head down for another year, get through year 11, get his GCSEs. She corrected herself in that moment. and said, actually, it's only eight months. He didn't make it through the first month of year 11.

So those responses, how, I can't take that as a response. For me, that's an excuse. Because had you told me the risks and dangers that my child was exposed to in your establishment, I would have gone, I could have done more. I feel as though, you know, someone said to me, one of my friends said to me, send him to Manchester. And I'm thinking, you know what, he's not in that much dangers.

that it wasn't exposed to me, I would have sent him to Manchester because my thing was no one can take better care of my child than I can. How can't you just take accountability? You have failed. You also contacted the police when Dejan would go missing, for example. What response did you get from them at that stage? On occasions they would say to me, I remember reporting him missing. He had turned off his location when his location was back on.

I was at work at the time. When his location came back on, I told them where he was. The officer's response to me at the time, seen as you know, you now know where he is, it's your parents or responsibility to go and get him. I said, first of all, that would be trespassing. I am not trained to walk into these situations. They're like, oh, you can go, if we go there and we can't remove him from the property, if he doesn't want to come with us.

You can go there and we'll be on the other end of the phone. You can just call us and we'll be there immediately. I've come to find out that this address was already known to them. And these were potentially dangerous situations were people that were dealing in illegal activities, be it drugs and as we also talked about weapons. Frankie, you've been in touch with the Met. We have, and the Met have, of course, said that their thoughts

remain with Kellyan and DeJon's families. Their priorities are to bring offenders to justice, but also continue to safeguard young and vulnerable people who are at risk of being exploited through, gang crime and drugs. They say that their approach has been affected with, effective with teenage homicides in London, falling by three quarters since 2021. But I also want to raise one other point, Jodian, that you were, I mean, your case, Dejean's case did finally get escalated, didn't it? He did get, he was given social services help, but that help didn't

arrived, did it? No, it didn't arrive. So he was assigned a long-term social worker, an assessment social work came in, and he assessed the situation, and he assigned a long-term social worker who I've never met. She never turned up to any meetings. I've since come to find out that she was apparently on annual leave whilst I was emailing profusely. I was even making contact with the assessment social worker because that's who introduced himself to me. And his response to me was, you don't contact me. You need to contact the social worker that you've been assigned. Only for the day after my son died, the assessment social worker emailed me to give me an appointment. And my response to him was he's

dead. How I am emailing, I'm not getting responses. You know, you want me to believe she was on annual leave. If you have a colleague and my child is in danger and I'm emailing you, I'm keeping you up to date, I've come to also learn that the school had been sending emails and no one checked to see who was covering her files during this period. I'm asking answers. I'm asking questions about this and no one's answering me. I'm asking who was covering the files. In the emails that I've sent to her, there were no bounce back emails to say she was on annual leave until such and such a time. And you're dealing with vulnerable children. Let me read a little from the Borough of Greenwich. This is a statement from Councillor Okareke. It says two separate statutory child

safeguard and practice reviews are currently underway which explores the council's involvement with both boys. Because of this, we're still unable to comment on the circumstances around the murders of Kellyan and Dejohn until we've established the facts and analysis surrounding their lives. Once the reviews have been finalised, we'll share its findings and keep the families updated. Dejohn's review is due to be published at the end of February

and Kellyan's review is scheduled to be published at the end of March. That's news to me because last week I emailed asking when the review is going to be published, can I have an update? And I didn't get an informed response from the reviewer. And I find the whole process, they keep mentioning lessons to be learned. Now my son didn't meet the threshold. One of the questions I do ask now is, does he meet the threshold now? Because he wasn't naughty enough for the things that I was asking. And the things that they were doing, I didn't find them to be effective. For me, it's like there's a blueprint

of failure that they just go around with and tipboxes. And the response, I can tell anyone right now, the review is an insult to me. It's an insult to my family and most of all it's an insult to my son from what I've read so far. You find that policy overrides common sense in a lot of these situations. And yeah, it's, I need accountability. I've been told already I won't get the accountability I'm looking for. And how are lessons going to be?

be learnt without accountability, without you holding your hand up and say, you know what, this is where we've gone wrong? What lessons are you actually going to learn if you're covering it up with the same documents that you're hoping to learn from? I want to thank you, Jody Ann, for coming in. Thank you for having me, Nula. And for speaking about your son, Dejan. I'm so sorry for your loss. Thank you also, Frankie McCamley. You will see on BBC Panorama's programme knife. crime, what happened to our boys. It would be broadcast by BBC 1 tonight at 8pm. It's also available on IPlayer. Frankie and Jodian, thank you. Thank you. Have a nice thing.

You too. Now, I want to turn 84844, actually, if you want to get in touch, maybe some of the conversations that you've heard today, some of them very powerful, maybe you'd like to get in touch and share your thoughts on them. But I also want to talk today about a new exhibition that is extraordinary women. So think extra slash ordinary, so extraordinary women and ordinary women at the Charles Dickens Museum, celebrating the women in the life, literature and also letters of the great Victorian novelist and social commentator. Next to the London home that he shared with his wife, daughters and sister-in-law, there is a collection of portraits, keepsakes, letters. They're all on display, some for the first time, providing missing links to his

female characters. The exhibition also documents his work to improve the lives. of vulnerable women, including women who sold sex for living, for example, female prisoners, some that were in poverty. But how does all that sit with the other darker narratives about Dickens that have arisen from his mistreatment of his own wife? We'll have to sort out the fact from the fiction. I'm joined by curator of the exhibit, Kirsty Parsons. Hello.

Good to see you again because I managed to pop in and see this exhibition along with historian Professor Jenny Hartley OBE. Welcome. Thank you. Lovely to see you in the studio. Well, let us begin, Kirstie, with you. This is opening 214 years after Dickens's birth, almost to the day. How would you say women were viewed by the Victorian society that Charles Dickens was born into?

Yeah, so some of the themes we explore in the exhibition, looking at some of the sort of Victorian stereotypes that really come through in Victorian literature in general, but that Dickens did sort of write to, but also kind of played with and explored as well. So thinking about the angel of the home narrative that the woman provides a stable home that her family can kind of retreat back to and take a break from the public sphere

and thinking about those women who, sort of the moral young woman, who's kind of innocent and virtuous and holds up the moral standards of society and society holds her up to very high moral standards as well and it's that kind of symbiotic relationship that one has to kind of preserve the other. So yeah, they're the kind of stereotypes that

we're exploring through this expression. Well, let's talk about some of the characters and whether they resemble the women in his life. Some people listening will be very familiar with Dickens' work. Other, for example, might never have read a word.

Who do you, who are some of the prime characters you think they should know? So I think one of the ones that is probably more kind of known about is his sister-in-law, Mary Hogarth, who has been linked to Little Nell in the old Curiosity Shop. So it's believed that she and another character, Rose Maylee, in Oliver Twist, are inspired by Mary Hogarth because of Dickens' immense grief at her death. She died very young when she was just 17,

and she died in his house, in the house that the museum's in at 48 Doughty Street. So she was, you know, a young woman. She died before her time. And she was much loved by both Charles and Catherine and was a member of their household. And Rose Maley was written a year after Mary died in all of a twist. But Little Nell was many years afterwards. But there's a letter where he writes to a friend that basically writing this death scene of Little Nell, it's like Mary's died all over again.

It's very much losing his. his grief to kind of bring. But perhaps a bit of a difference between the actual character and the real life. Yeah, absolutely. And that's the thing that we're exploring in the exhibition that, you know,

he used his personal experiences and the people in his life to kind of influence his characters. But they're not the fully formed version of these women. And that's what we're using the exhibition for to kind of bring those women to the forefront. So with Mary Hoga, she was a teenager.

She was lively. She enjoyed, you know, social conversation and travel and things. So she was very much a lively young woman. which might be the picture we get sometimes indeed in Dickens novels. I want to turn to Professor Hartley, the home for homeless women that he co-founded with banking heiress Angela Burdett, Coots. Coutes, we might remember, is still going when it comes to banking families. What impact did that have? And what do you think it tells us about Dickens and how he felt about women? Oh, I think it tells us a lot that he responded directly to the young women he saw on the street. Angela Burdette Cootts wanted to start this home because she saw prostitutes on the streets on the steps of her home in Piccadilly.

What can we do for these young women? And some of them were very young indeed. And we have to remember, when we first see Little Nell, she is on the streets at night. So she's in a very dangerous place. And the person who sees her, this old man, he says, I feared the worst for her. So there's a real strong crossover there with his feelings.

Yeah. And he, he, and he, himself had been on the streets as a boy, you know, working because when his family were in prison, he had to be on the streets to get to work and so on. And what he wanted to do was to rescue these young women who were coming, as you say, out of prison and so on. And he wanted them to have a new start. He thought it should be abroad because he thought, if you just stay here, you'll fall back into your old ways. And so he and Angela Burdek-Coutts, they started this wonderful place called Urania Cottage, which was in Shepherd's Bush, it was.

It was on the site in Lyme Grove, where BBC TV started. So he would love that. And they would stay for about a year. They would be trained, educated. They would be, you know, how to run a house. He thought they're reading and writing definitely, you know, so there's that kind of education. And then they would go abroad and start new lives.

And that's interesting because it also, he championed female writers and journalists. So we have this one picture of Charles Dickens. But I come back to you, Kirstie, because some people question. about what sort of husband was he or father. His marriage to Catherine broke down. Tell us a little bit more about how all that played out. Yeah, so Dickens and Catherine separated in 1858. So they didn't divorce, so they could have.

The Matrimonial Causes Act came in the year before. So the mechanism of divorce did exist, but it was, you know, the husband had to prove adultery, the wife had to prove adultery and something else. So it was a very, big deal to go through and you know someone of his standing it would have been a very sort of public thing to go through um so they they just went for a separation and built a wall oh yes so leading up to um the the the separation yes there were instances such as that where yes he um asked his servants to

discreetly kind of build a wall between uh the bedroom and the dressing room and to convert the dressing room into his room and then the uh bedroom became mrs dickens's room as uh as he wrote But they do talk about him preventing her from seeing his children, for example. Yes, yeah. So the eldest son Charlie, he was an adult that time, so he decided to stay and live with Catherine. But all the other children, as was the legal mechanism at the time, were under the sort of custodianship of the father.

So they lived with Charles and yeah, he limited her access to them. Absolutely. And also was very public. Almost seems very modern this. He wrote, there's a couple of, of it at the house of so-called violated letter. He talked about his side of the story, very much making sure that he didn't come out the bad guy after this divorce.

Do we know anything about Catherine's side of the story? We know, we don't know a massive amount, unlike Dickens, she didn't publicly write, but she was very keen for her letters from Dickens when the couple were younger to be put into the collection of the British Museum, so that as she says, that people would know he did love me once. And she made sure that her daughter, Katie, did this for her. So even though his treatment of her was not, it was very much below par,

she still held a flame for him, perhaps, in some ways. Jenny? Well, I think he was rewriting history. With the letter, the violation? Yes, yes. Oh, we never got on. And he said at one point about his marriage, the page which was written on is now completely, the page which was written on is now

completely blank. So he's rewriting. People behave very badly when marriage is breakdown, you know. And he worst of, my father was a madman, Katie said. So it really, you know, he was really out of order. His daughter talked about that also having a teenage mistress. How do you, Jenny, reconcile the many contradictions of his character, the public and private person, trying to help women that were down on their luck, but then within the house? in some ways in the house he was a Victorian father wasn't he and he did

you know he liked his daughters better than his sons really he often said that because he thought his sons was a rather feeble he was like you know when I was your age and that sort of thing but you know he was conflicted obviously he did in the end the end of the marriage was terrible

I always think there's rather too much emphasis put on that if we look at all that he did and all that he wrote he's done wonderful things for women both in real life and in his books. Interesting. Do you find it difficult to reconcile

in our last 20 seconds or so, Kirstie, the public and the private? Yeah, I think that, you know, people are people and they are complicated and they often contradict each other at different points in life as well. So I think there's sort of truth to both sides that he was a family man

and really, you know, wanted to make sure his family had a good life. He had a lot of sort of experience with debt and knew what that could do to a family. So he wanted to make sure he provided that stability. But yeah, he also had sort of more traditional Victorian values that went with that and they both are valid. Well, I very much enjoyed seeing the exhibition Extraordinary Women.

It opens on Wednesday. It runs until September. It's at the Charles Dickens Museum in London. And my guests have been curator, Christy Parsons and Professor Jenny Hartley. Thanks very much to both of you. Also, from Tamsin, she says, I've been crying throughout your conversation with Jodi Ann. Thank you so much for sharing your personal testimony, Jody Ann, of what happened with your son. Indeed, I'll see you tomorrow. That's all for today's

Woman's Hour. Join us again next time. What would you do if your deepest secrets were held to ransom? In 2020, every patient who had used a Finnish psychotherapy service called Vastamor had their therapy notes stolen and held to ransom by a faceless, remorseless hacker. It could be some extortionist gang from Eastern Europe

or it could be somebody living next door to me. I'm Jenny Clemen. Join me as I discover just how vulnerable our deepest secrets can be. I think I'm going to have a heart attack. From BBC Radio 4 and intrigue, this is Ransom Man. Listen first on BBC Sounds.