Ella’s appeal: How it all came apart

In late July, Ella applied for permission to appeal the findings of Mrs Justice Pauffley on 19 March 2015. She also applied to introduce additional evidence—including the a report she felt would challenge Mrs Pauffley’s assessment of the veracity of the children’s video descriptions, and the content of the BBC interview the children’s father gave to Victoria Derbyshire.

You might recall the appeal hearing, though it was overshadowed by Sabine’s dramatic arrest in the courthouse. Oh, and apparently the hearing was so important to Ella that she couldn’t be arsed to show up for it. You know, just another day in Hoaxtead. 

The actual appeal judgement was released 04 August, and we present it here: Court of Appeal Judgement

It’s heavy sledding at times, with a lot of possibly unfamiliar legal jargon, but we think the basics come across.

For example, the legal team representing the children themselves disagree with Ella’s claim that the police botched the investigation:

  1. Grounds 1 and 2 are repetitive and stripped of some meaningless phraseology, they represent a submission that the police investigation (note, not the court proceedings) were procedurally irregular because there was (A) a lack of prompt investigation, (B) a lack of effective investigation and (C) a breach of Police and Criminal Evidence Act codes which separately or together represented a breach of the children’s Article 3 ECHR rights.
  2. It is to be noted that the independent legal team representing the children do not support the mother’s position in this regard.

Then there’s this gem:

  1. Before this court, in order to obtain permission, the Appellant must demonstrate a real as opposed to a fanciful prospect of success. She cannot do so on the material provided to this court.

Well, there’s a shocker. In polite terms, it sounds as though the court is saying, “Pull the other one, Ella”.

As to why Ella failed to attend the original hearing before Mrs Pauffley:

  1. In support of the permission to appeal application there is no material which suggests that the mother was prevented from participating in the fact finding hearing. … There is no witness statement from the mother and no application to adduce additional evidence from her relating to her participation. That is a remarkable omission given the strength with which the mother’s present lawyers assert that her Article 6 right to a fair trial has been violated.

But wait, there’s more!

  1. It should be recollected that the mother had previously chosen to divest herself of her lawyers for reasons which she is entitled to keep to herself. The judge invited her to participate and she chose not to do so.
  2. The mother could have attended the court as a litigant in person with or without her McKenzie friend, and insofar as it was proper, she would have been assisted by the court to put her case. She could have requested a telephone or video link. She could have requested an adjournment.
  3. She did none of these things because she chose not to participate. There is a finding of fact from the judge to that effect. In my judgment, the judge had ample material upon which to base her conclusion. Accordingly, it is wrong to say that the mother was “prevented from participating” in the hearing.

As we’ve said all along, Ella and Abe created this situation, and all their machinations to turn it to their own advantage have failed miserably:

  1. The judge’s findings of fact are not dependent on her impression of the ABE interviews. There was much more. In reality, the mother and Mr C created the case against themselves by their own extended and arguably abusive investigation of the children, which was critical to the impression to which the judge came.

On the matter of Dr Hode’s use of a questionable technique to determine whether sexual abuse had taken place:

  1. The paediatrician’s opinion was but one element in the evidence that was available to the judge. It was clearly a bold opinion at odds with the published reports and advice in the specialist profession of paediatrics of which the expert was a member and the judge was entitled to take note of that.

And further:

  1. …that is a side issue. It was the judge who weighed up all of the evidence and this was but one part. Even if she had accepted the evidence of Dr Hodes, the overall balance of the evidence was still against sexual abuse.

On the topic of Ricky Dearman’s BBC appearance:

  1. Finally, in respect of the first appeal against the findings of fact, there is an application to adduce the additional evidence of a BBC interview with the father conducted after the fact finding hearing in April 2015. It is said in that interview that the father sets out a false version of the police investigation of him and that that can be used to cast doubt on his credibility.
  2. I remind myself that there are many reasons for someone not telling the truth, not all of which are indicative of them being an abuser. Even if the Appellant is correct about the light in which this interview casts the father, I cannot see how it can materially effect the judge’s factual conclusions which centre on the children’s treatment by Mr C and the mother.

There’s more, but this is enough of a chunk to digest for now.

It’s hardly surprising that the Hoaxtead hawkers aren’t making much of a fuss over this judgement: it really doesn’t show Ella and Abe in the best possible light, and it tears apart some of their fondest delusions, such as the fantasy that Ella was ‘driven abroad’, or that Dr Hode’s diagnosis was in any way valid.

It does explain one thing we’ve wondered about: Abe’s recent and very intense obsession with birthmarks and tattoos (or as he likes to call them, TATTOOS).

Really, given the way this judge tore apart the rest of Ella’s appeal, there’s not much left to focus on, is there?

a_judge_photolibrary

Nice try, sugar. Next!

17 thoughts on “Ella’s appeal: How it all came apart

  1. not on subject but this Charlotte dame is now circulating libel and hate to other schools. I note this about libel in Suriname:
    “Suriname’s insult laws are the harshest in the Caribbean, with citizens facing up to seven years in prison for “public expression of enmity, hatred, or contempt toward the government of Suriname.” Insulting the head of state or a public authority carry possible prison sentences of five and two years, respectively. These laws are in addition to criminal libel laws, which can land journalists behind bars for up to three years.”

    Liked by 2 people

  2. “She could have requested a telephone or video link. She could have requested an adjournment.” It seems that the court were bending over backwards to get Ella to take part in the proceedings but surprise surprise she just couldn’t be bothered. Why go to court to help your children who were supposedly being abused when instead you can flee the country with your dopey boyfriend and do what you want without the kids holding you back?
    I believe her children will have a much better life now that they are not living with Ella and Abe.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. It will be interesting to see the judgement for the next hearing. The one where her solicitor argues about getting the unredacted documents that Ella seemed so desperate to get her hands on unredacted, and other stuff that’s been mentioned.

    I can see from the judgement that things didn’t go down as we’ve been told.

    One point. Where the judgement says about Ella not being in contact since 17th February. That’s a cut and paste from the fact finding Judgement. She may well have been in touch with the local authority since that hearing.

    That bit about Ricky Dearman, it’s where he says what the police questioned him about. They actually questioned him about specific incidents that were alleged to have happened. In hindsight he could reasonably take a different view, that the police were questioning him about being in a baby killing cult. That’s not the same thing as lying in my opinion. And if he actually lied the next question is what relevance is that lie to the case or his credibility in general. It looks like they weren’t particularly specific.

    And where it says “a bold opinion” I think that means something like “one very few others would hold”. Of course Dr Hodes got completely trashed giving evidence about that conclusion. The hoaxteaders don’t like it. But the Judge was no doubt aware of the Cleveland enquiry because she mentions it in the judgement. A specialist like Dr Hodes would not be unaware of it either. I imagine Dr Hodes was cross examined about it.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Haha, I took the same impression from the description of Dr Hode’s ‘bold opinion’–‘bold’ being polite court-speak for ‘wacky’.

      As for whether Ricky lied…hard to know, really. And as the appeal judge points out, telling a lie does not necessarily translate into being Satanic child abuser.

      Like

      • Some people (yes those sort of people!) have mentioned how he must be a murderer and/or a liar because he said in the BBC interview (paraphrasing here) that the police questioned him about being in the cult, but actually the police focus was quite narrow.

        Like

        • You know what would be really nice? If more people understood the basics of our police and legal system. You know, what constitutes an investigation; how police conduct questioning; how charges are laid; just the basics. That would be brilliant, actually. Oh, and it’d be nice if those same people understood how logic works, too. I don’t think it’s asking too much.

          Like

      • By all accounts, he simply got his dates mixed up, hahaha! That is it! He knew, I think 2 days after he had said. And given having to go through several thousand reports, papers etc, and that it happened months and months before, it was understandable. Imo🙂

        Liked by 2 people

  4. Pingback: Abe and Ella’s blog: Dead in the water | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

  5. It is really easy to mix up things when overwhelmed by the stress of a tv studio when your brain has already been frazzled and overwhelmed by such a kafkaesque event.

    Any person critical of RD’s responses must ask themselves, must imagine, ‘what must it must be like to be going about your life, innocently, to be accused, unjustifiably, of such heinous crimes’?.

    How would you hold up in this kind of situation, with such extraordinary, unprecedented, and unbelievable things happening to you? Such madness, accusations, an unregulated media hate campaign, death threats?

    Would we not all have broken down, been confused, mixed up, during this nightmare?

    How could you separate such trauma and keep it straight in your mind, especially under the glare of studio lights and knowing millions of people are watching you?

    Add to that the embarrassment of crying in front of strangers, it is no surprise that it all came out in a jumble, confused.

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.