The Slog’s reproduction of The Rocks Lane List appears to be fairly high-profile, and in the light of new information, I’m editing it at the moment. But the most significant thing I’ve been told is that Downing Street “is following developments in the case very closely indeed”. It would be odd if it wasn’t, but at the same time it could become negatively significant for me if by accident I have misled anyone. I would stress in saying this, mind you, that a large proportion of the new information merely confirms my doubts and supports my overall direction.

Following yesterday’s post about the Mary Moss list of alleged Elm House regulars, The Slog has received a shoal of emails and comment threads pointing out inaccuracies, omissions, and links – while providing further information. I am in the process of editing the piece this morning and preparing a follow-up in due course, but the following points are important to establish or reiterate:

1. As I said quite clearly in the piece, ‘These connections are not made to suggest guilt or in any way accuse these peripheral players of being paedophiles. They are made and researched to illustrate precisely why only minnows on Richmond Council and cadavers are being outed’. The central point of the piece was to question the time it’s taking to make any substantial arrests, and to preempt any strategy from Downing Street suggesting that none of what took place is connected to what’s going on today.

2. I read the list on a French website (and elsewhere in Europe) and so largely in foreign languages….with foreign commentators getting some facts muddled and wrong. These will be corrected this morning.

3. The list itself is still controversial, and the subject of heated debate both inside and outside the Rocks Lane police investigation – hence the stress I am reiterating at Point 1 above. It is, I’m told, an extrapolation of some receipts, records and notes handed to support groups…as well as alleged identifications made by victims to them and others.

4. Some of the names are misidentified as policemen, some as council workers, and vice versa. In particular (and I am genuinely grateful for this help) it seems likely that while Peter Bottomley – who finds his name on the Moss lists –  knew some Monday Club members quite well, he wasn’t ever a member of that association.

It is important to get facts right and avoid incorrect accusation, but on the other side of this bad penny, nobody should see these qualifications as evidence of me backtracking on the overall tenor of the piece. I now have more solid leads than ever before, several of which are both fresh and promising.

Stay tuned.