Many thanks to our friends and colleagues who contacted us and/or commented on Abe’s ‘letter from the IPCC’ earlier today. As always, we appreciate your knowledge and expertise, and your generosity in sharing them with us.
Of course, an anonymous commenter on Abe’s own blog pointed it out first:
Here on Hoaxtead Research, Sam pointed out that the letter as published looks like something Abe might have received, and then doctored to his own liking. He notes:
….I have seen responses from the IPCC and they are not couched in those terms. Someone has dodged this up for Abe (he’s too much an idiot to do it himself).
It makes leaps of logic about the case. The IPCC do not operate in a vacuum, they must refer to the investigating officers and get their viewpoints as to why actions were undertaken.
Remember—even the IPCC must operate under laws and they are very careful in naming any officer as to do so even in a letter to someone like Abe could result in a libel case.
The letter makes points about the father not being arrested. Officers have the power to question people in several ways- by invitation, by arrest, or under caution. In whatever way they question the person being interviewed must tell the truth (or say y=the usual ‘no comment’). In either of the 3 ways a person is interviewed—it makes no difference to the outcome. It is the IO’s right to question the way he/she feels is the right method to obtain the truth. I cannot see why the IPCC would even question this aspect—but the claim reinforces Abe’s lunatic rantings.
In fact if the father had been arrested or under caution he would have legally been able to say ‘no comment’ – as it is the IO obtained more information by not arresting him.
The police must also be wary (not that they always are) of an accused person’s rights. On the fantastical claims made : 100s of babies eaten, mass rapes at a swimming pool and above McDonalds etc etc – the police moved very cautiously & correctly.
Remember half of Hampstead was being accused of the same crimes- not just the father. Yet not a mention in that letter of all the others accused of murder & rape, just a long rant about the father. The letter also ignores the very fact the case proceeded to court and a judgement entered.
This last point is particularly interesting: as usual, Abe lets his hatred and jealousy of RD seep into his attempts to sound rational and sane…and in the process, forgets about the other, much larger, lies he’s concocted.
As well, Sam points out that “if the letter were real it would mean any police officer who did not arrest your neighbour because you claimed he was a serial killer could be sanctioned“.
In fact, this is at the crux of the Hampstead hoax: people’s ability to make monstrously ridiculous claims about their neighbours, and have them believed and acted upon by the police.
Another commenter kindly passed along a link that takes us to a bona fide letter from the IPCC, related to another case.
Note a few details that Abe missed: the IPCC uses real letterhead, even in its email transmissions. The header states the nature of the case under investigation, rather than simply ‘Re Ms Ella Draper’, as Abe’s fake letter would have it.
In any case, we’ll be forwarding the link to Abe’s latest forgery to the IPCC and police for their comment. We’ll let you know what they say.