IPCC report: Massive holes in Abe & Ella’s arguments

This week we’re delving into the report on the IPCC investigation which Abe and Ella have (finally, after 3 months) shared on their blog. The report is a goldmine, as it spells out why police acted as they did, and shows Abe and Ella’s allegations up for what they are: foolish and without basis in fact.

---

Yesterday we reported that the IPCC investigation report revealed both that Abe had just been released from prison at the time he became involved with Ella and the children, and that Ella is still wanted by police for child abuse.

Today we’ll address some of the allegations that Abe & Ella have made against the police investigation—allegations which have fuelled the arguments of the hoax’s supporters, who don’t believe that they were answered adequately by Mrs Justice Pauffley’s judgement in March 2015.

First, though, the question on many people’s minds: how long can Abe & Ella keep this thing going?

Can Abe and Ella appeal this report?

According to the deadlines specified in the report’s cover letter, Abe and Ella had 28 days in which to submit an appeal, should they choose to do so. After 21 April, 2016, the IPCC would not be obligated to accept any appeal. However, Abe and Ella stated on their blog that the IPCC graciously allowed them some extra time to throw together yet another barrow-load of bilge: To be honest, this surprises us.

In our opinion, far more than enough public money has been wasted on explaining to Abe & Ella why their ludicrous fantasies simply do not hold water. We find it shocking that the IPCC is willing to allow them to go another round in this fight.

However, we suppose Abe & Ella need something to keep them entertained in their charming pied-à-terre in the Principe Alfonso.

Did the police really tip off RD before his interview?

This is one of the allegations Abe & Ella levelled against the police, and it’s addressed in full in the IPCC investigation.

Sorry for the crooked screenshots: this is how they appear in the original document.

As DS Fernandez notes in this statement, RD was not, in fact, warned by police:The police tried to locate RD using information provided by his children, but despite the fact that they’d described his house in detail, even down to the alleged secret staircase leading to the basement, the children did not know where the house was located. (As it turns out, this is because RD was not living in London—so the children were forced to guess.)

Following the unsuccessful drive-round, the police tried various other methods to locate RD. However, just as he stated in his BBC interview with Victoria Derbyshire, RD had learned from someone in the Local Authority’s social services department that the police wished to speak with him.

Did he immediately decide the jig was up and book it for Spain, like Abe & Ella did when they realised the police were interested in speaking to them? Did he panic and tell his solicitor to keep the officers talking while he climbed out a back window and bravely ran away?

Oddly, he did neither of these things.

He did what any normal, responsible, non-guilty person might do when they know the police wish to talk to them in a matter concerning their children: he went to the police station and volunteered to be interviewed.

Well. Imagine that.

Why were no other ‘suspects’ interviewed?

According to Abe & Ella, ‘clear medical evidence’ along with the children’s ‘clear allegations’ should have led to those they named being interviewed, and then arrested.

However, the IPCC report points out that the children’s evidence was far from clear.For one thing, they specifically named police officers who did not exist.

They offered detailed descriptions of the church, stating that the skulls and other evidence were stored in drawers and a refrigerator. When the church was searched extensively by police, no such hiding places were found.

Here’s the thing: just because the children’s allegations were clear does not mean that those allegations were true and accurate.

We could describe in great detail the Tyrannosaurus Rex that just ate the tree and several lilac bushes in our front garden, but that would not mean that a giant prehistoric reptile had in fact made a lunch of our oak tree.

We hope this is clear to the hard-of-thinking: clarity ≠ truth.

As for the ‘clarity’ of the medical results, it seems that initially, no written report of Dr Hodes’ findings were available to police. When Dr Hodes was contacted on 12 September, 2014, she told DS Fernandez that she was ‘alarmed’ by the children’s story, which she believed to be true. (We won’t get into the fact that Dr Hodes should not have approached these exams with any opinion as to the truth of the children’s stories.)

Dr Hodes did not deliver her written report to the investigating team until early January 2015, despite several requests to do so. And when she did, the report stated that while the slight anomalies observed might have been caused by abuse, they might also have been caused by other factors.

However, long before the final report was received, the children had been taken into protective custody and had retracted their allegations. While this might come as a shock to Abe & Ella (and their legal advisor, apparently), once allegations have been withdrawn in a case, the investigation comes to a halt.

Literally, the case ceases to exist. It is no more. It has gone to meet its Maker. Bereft of life, it rests in peace. It is an ex-case.

That means that people who might have been ‘suspects’ while the case was active are no longer under suspicion, and thus they cannot be questioned. No matter what kind of grudge Abe & Ella might hold against their enemies, the police are now no longer empowered to haul them in and arrest them.

Abe & Ella might not like it, but that’s the way it is, and all the temper tantrums and appeals in the world won’t change it.

Gee, too bad. It was all looking so promising there, for about 5 minutes.