IPCC Report: What about the tattoos?

Hey, who wants to talk about tattoos and distinguishing marks again? Hands up!

Well, too bad.

We’re doing it anyway, and here’s why: in the IPCC report on the investigation into the September 2014 police investigation, the police explain exactly why this question was irrelevant. They do so carefully and simply, in words that even a Hoaxtead pusher could understand.

We know perfectly well that Abe and Ella aren’t going to make this uncomfortable information public, so we’re taking it upon ourselves. You can thank us later.

Here’s the question as it appeared in the 15 May, 2015 complaint:

Point 13 – Suspects should have been medically examined for scars / distinguishing marks.

One thing that becomes very clear on a read-through of the IPCC report is that police work is both methodical and fluid. It proceeds in a step-wise fashion, with each step forming the basis for the next. And it’s fluid, in the sense that at each step along the investigation, certain facts are established which rule out other possible steps…or suspects.

In this way, a solid basis of evidence is accrued, and certain people who might have been considered in the beginning are removed from the list of potential suspects.

As we know, Ella provided a detailed list of numerous suspects whom she claimed the children had identified to her and Abe. This list included some police officers. However, those police officers turned out not to exist.

This in itself would not necessarily have been enough to cause Barnet police to question the children’s allegations, but it wasn’t the only troubling inconsistency.

A thorough search of the church revealed that none of the features described by the children existed: no baby skulls in drawers, which were too shallow to accommodate them in any case; no refrigerator full of baby corpses; no secret rooms.

And then, during the police drive-round the children were unable to point out a single house belonging to an alleged abuser (despite having been coached by Abe the previous night). The house the boy pointed to as belonging to his father turned out to be completely empty and had been for some weeks, according a neighbour questioned by police.

Let’s pause on all of this for a moment.

A rather large group of people were accused of terrible crimes. The police took these allegations very seriously, and investigated them methodically and carefully. However, at each step along the way, not a single piece of evidence was found that could corroborate the original allegations.

This set off a rather large warning signal, as it ought to have. And in the absence of any evidence, no arrests could be made. Ergo, no tattoo inspections.

Couldn’t the accused have just come to the police and revealed their privates to prove their innocence?

In fact, that’s not how it works.

In order for the police to determine whether any tattoos or distinguishing marks existed, they would first have to arrest the suspects.

(True story: police aren’t allowed to just ask people to strip down for a looky-loo on a whim. They must arrest the person first, then have them examined by a medical professional.)

They couldn’t arrest the suspects without evidence—which we’ve already established they were unable to find. None of the children’s allegations had proven to be true, which left the police with only one option: forget about arresting anyone, until or unless some very convincing corroborating evidence should turn up.

This didn’t happen, and then on 17 September, after the children had been removed from Ella’s care, and were confident that they wouldn’t have to answer to her or Abe, they told police that they had been forced to lie. None of the allegations were true.

At this point, the case was closed. No one would be arrested, no one would be inspected for tattoos or birthmarks or witch’s marks or any other distinguishing mark.

Here’s a question for the Hoaxtead mob:

If someone were to accuse you of a dreadful crime, and the police were to find out that literally nothing your accuser said held up under investigation, and then your accuser changed his or her mind and said you hadn’t done anything wrong, would you want the police to ignore all of this and just keep thrashing around, hoping to find something they could pin on you anyway?

We thought not. You’d see it as a gross violation of your civil rights, and you would be correct.

Now, kindly get off the pot about the tattoos and distinguishing marks. It’s a non-starter.