Children’s retractions were valid: IPCC report

Over the past several days we’ve been reviewing some of the aspects of the IPCC report on the police investigation that took place in September 2014. Today we’d like to talk about a piece that has been the subject of much discussion amongst Hoaxtead pushers: the children’s retractions of their original allegations.

In the original complaint to the IPCC, the retractions were identified as seriously problematic:

  • Point 4: Retraction statements were inadequate due to the level of detail in the initial complaints.
  • Point 5: Retraction statements were made after the children were threatened.
  • Point 18: Retraction statements were coerced from the victims and inconsistent. Concerns raised over the language used by the interviewing officer.
  • Point 19: The officer led child Q to retract the allegations regarding the murder of children.

All of these claims were rejected by the IPCC, for various reasons. Let’s look at them one at a time.

Retraction statements were inadequate due to the level of detail in the initial complaints.

IPCC Professional Standards Champion DCI Treena Fleming points out in the report that while the children’s initial allegations were indeed detailed, they were not accurate.

For example, the children alleged that several police officers were involved in the cult. These police officers did not exist.

On the drive-round by police, the children were unable to point out their father’s house, despite having earlier alleged that some of their abuse had taken place there.

“The details in relation to the Church were indeed very detailed,” writes DCI Fleming, “but it was by virtue of this detail that officers could prove beyond doubt that it was factually incorrect”.

While DCI Fleming agrees that the initial allegations were indeed horrific and shocking, she notes that the children themselves stated that Abe had provided them with some of the details. They also said they’d been involved in concocting some themselves: IPCC report-retractions 2016-06-28Some of the more macabre details seem to have come from a film that made an impression on both children. The little girl stated that the idea of the room behind the wardrobe, as well as the idea of eating babies, both came from the film Mask of Zorro. The little boy said that the idea for the baby skulls had come from Mask of Zorro.

(Contrary to what some Hoaxtead pushers claim, the children never stated that they got the whole idea from that film, but rather just a few details.)

Retraction statements were made after the children were threatened.

In their complaint to the IPCC, Ella & Abe alleged that the children had retracted their allegations only after having been ‘threatened’ by some unspecified combination of social workers, police, and Cafcass.

As DCI Fleming points out, no evidence, specific allegations, or specific individuals were named in this regard.

Those of us who were watching this situation unfold last year will recall that when the police interview videos came out, the Hoaxtead mob were beside themselves with delight…until they watched the third set of interviews, in which the children retracted their allegations.

The mob, spurred on by Abe & Ella, immediately began searching for possible rationales for this sudden turnaround: the children had been subjected to post-hypnotic suggestion; they’d been terrorised into retracting; they’d been re-captured by the ‘cult’ and reprogrammed.

Anything to avoid the obvious: the children were relieved to be out of Abe’s sphere of influence, and now felt comfortable disclosing that he’d tortured them into telling lies. As many people have noted, both children seem to relax for the first time, knowing they’re free to tell the truth.

Retraction statements were coerced from the victims and inconsistent. Concerns raised over the language used by the interviewing officer.

Here’s what DCI Fleming had to say:

IPCC report-point 18 2016-06-28She makes the point several times throughout the report that “Unfortunately you were unavailable to discuss this aspect of the complaint”—this is a reference to the fact that Ella is currently on the run in Spain, fleeing charges of child abuse.

DCI Fleming also challenges Abe & Ella to provide a single shred of evidence that DC Martin had anything but good intentions while interviewing the children.

Referring to the retraction interviews, DC Martin says:IPCC report-DC Martin 2016-06-28Of course we know that this will not convince the die-hard Hoaxtead mob, who desperately need to believe that the children’s retractions, and not their initial statements, were made under duress.

But to most reasonable people, DC Martin’s statement rings true.

Having stated that she fully accepts DC Martin’s version of events, DCI Fleming asserts quite pointedly that “serious consideration has been given to the possibility of re-interviewing the children to collate more evidence about why the allegations were initially made”.

In other words, it is clear to her, as it was to the investigating team, that the children’s initial allegations were coerced, and that it was likely that they could have given evidence that would have led to charges against Abe & Ella. Luckily for the two fugitives, however, the investigating team decided that further questioning would have been too traumatic for the children, and so that idea was dropped.

The officer led child Q to retract the allegations regarding the murder of children.

Those who watched videos of the third police interview will likely recall DC Martin saying to the little boy, “Are you sure? It’s okay if it hasn’t happened as long as we talk about it now”.

We’ve all heard the screeching from the Hoaxtead pushers: that mean bad terrible officer was coercing the child! He was pushing him to say what he wanted him to say! Naughty, naughty DC Martin!!

But any good parent who has caught a child lying knows that the child is far more likely to admit to the lie if he or she is given an opportunity to save face and avoid punishment. Telling a child that they won’t get in trouble for a lie is one of the best ways to ensure that you’ll hear the truth.

In addition, DCI Fleming points out the following: IPCC report-Q retraction 2016-06-28As DC Martin mentioned in the beginning of the interview, the little boy had begun to retract his initial allegations in the car on the way to the interview. Quite rightly, DC Martin asked him to hold that discussion until they’d reached the interview suite, where all conversation would be properly recorded.

By this time, the children had begun disclosing the truth to the various helping professionals involved in their case: the psychiatrist, social worker, and so forth. It was DC Martin’s job to probe this information further, and he did so. Ultimately, his role as interviewing officer was to help the children tell the truth.

Ultimately, the IPCC report comes to the same conclusion that most rational people have already reached: the children’s retractions were honest, sincere, and voluntary. And they were returned to a life of safety and sanity by a team of police officers who did their jobs well. seek truth

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

17 thoughts on “Children’s retractions were valid: IPCC report

  1. It’s all very detailed and factual but I’m sure the officers must have been seething & really wanted to say “you are lying sociopath evil cretins”.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Over and over again, as I have followed this case, I have been impressed by the professionalism, thoroughness and politeness of the police. The Hoaxers have wasted so much of their own time, and public money, trying to uncover corruption that just isn’t there.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Yes–the waste of public money has been spectacular. And they seem to be going for yet another IPCC appeal, though the chance of that being accepted seem minuscule.

      Like

  3. The childs welfare is paramount and focus correctly given to affording them a chance to heal after being physically and emotionally abused by Christie with the active collusion of their mother.

    Christie and Draper may have fled facing up but they cannot hide forever.As has been stated before the children and paternal family will have extensive claims against numerous individuals in good and due course.

    Agree with above posts in regard to officers retaining professional ,calm detachment in tone through out and containing i would argue a perfectly natural urge to utilize a piece of 4 by 2 and be done with it.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I don’t always side with police in every instance, but in this case I think their work was admirable. The IPCC did state 2 areas where there was room for improvement; we’ll look at those in our next post.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Well worth watching : the Oz ABC program Foreign Correspondent called ‘Honouring Noah” about one of the kids killed in the Sandy Hook shootings. Mother & father describe the cruelty of the Truther movement who abuse them calling it a ‘False Flag’ and claiming Noah never existed or is ‘crisis actor’.

    Dad doesn’t show his image as he has had death threats and is fighting the online Truther mob. The mother is so dignified considering the terrible loss she has suffered.

    McKenzie and all this Hoax mob are intertwined with the Troofer creeps. You really have to wonder what dark cesspits of minds they have.

    http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2016/s4490666.htm

    Liked by 2 people

    • The Sandy Hook troofers make me ill. The same people who cannot accept that innocent children were massacred by an armed lunatic seem to see no contradiction in turning round and claiming that an entire school community is secretly raping, killing, and eating hundreds of babies and children…and no one else has noticed anything unusual.

      Like

    • Thanks for that link, Sam. Mr Pozner was once quoted as saying;
      “These people aren’t ‘truthers,’ they’re hoaxers. All of their ridiculous theories have been debunked. They manufacture evidence, falsify documents, and misrepresent facts to create their own whacked-out version of reality.”

      Describes the Hampstead Hoaxers perfectly.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Indeed these truthers just love it when there is breaking news of a tragedy.They have a race to “expose” the “secrets” to draw attention and max traffic to their cottage industry of sensationalist bullshit without a thought for victims or loved ones.
        Only today i saw someone declaring “false flag” regarding the Attaturk airport bombings and of course all video clips/interviews are made by government operatives using “crisis actors”.

        As you say Jake precisely the same self serving callous mindset as Christie and his inglorious acolytes.

        Liked by 1 person

        • As one of our commenters said some time ago, it’s all grist for the conspiritainment industry. These days it seems that ‘reality TV’ has been usurped by ‘anti-reality conspiritainment internet’. It’s a disturbing trend indeed.

          Like

  5. I would be willing to bet that the two separate lawyers that Ella initially employed, were of the same opinion as the people here. That the retractions were honest and not coerced in any way. I guess that’s why she sacked them.

    Liked by 3 people

    • I believe that’s exactly what happened, Dave. A few people involved in this hoax have sacked lawyers who told them the truth, much to their eventual detriment.

      Like

    • Indeed her lawyers would have seen the nuts and bolts of the case and advised their client as to the best possible way forward given the material evidence.

      Advise would have included a retreat from the unsubstantiated bizarre allegations that simply did not stack up and to adopt a focus on the childrens best interest as appropriate for a mother.

      Without excusing Draper I suspect the psychotic,delusion soaked control freak of her choice Christie would have ranted on about satanic infiltratration, moon entering pisces,vibrations in his nether regions ad nauseum.

      My best guess is that her lawyers could see they were on a losing wicket attempting to represent Draper particularly given Christies overpowering influence and sighed with relief when relieved of their duties.

      I do wonder whether the handing over of the evidence bundle to the mother was done in a somewhat rushed ill considered fashion.Wisdom of hindsight as ever is a great thing of course.

      If nothing else i would hope the process of releasing such sensitive material is subjected to some review to avoid future damaging scenarios.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Pingback: IPCC Report: What DID police do wrong? | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

Comments are closed.