IPCC Appeal 2: The children’s retractions

Yesterday we discussed the newly revealed appeal letter from the IPCC, which Ella’s solicitor seems to have received in late November 2016. To no one’s great surprise, Kristie Sue Costa leapt onto the appeal letter and began waving it about, screaming, “See? See?! We were right all along!” (This based on one sentence from the appeal letter, in which the case manager states that she is not satisfied with the findings of the previous investigation.) On the contrary, the appeal acceptance letter upholds certain parts of Ella’s appeal and rejects a great many others. It certainly doesn’t “prove” the validity of the hoax, but it’s hazardous to get between a troofer and their cherry-picked “evidence”. Mind the spittle.

Today we’re going to address one of the biggest bones of contention in the original police investigation in September 2014, the children’s retractions of their allegations. In their appeal of last spring’s IPCC investigation report, Ella and Abe alleged that

  • Retraction statements were inadequate due to the level of detail in the initial complaints (Point 4);
  • Retraction statements were made after the children were threatened (Point 5);
  • There was a lack of investigation due to concerns that the case would cause a stir in society (Point 6);
  • The case was not referred to specialist units in the MPS (listed) (Point 7);
  • Retraction statements were coerced from the victims and inconsistent. Concerns raised over the language used by the interviewing officer (Point 18); and
  • The officer led Child Q to retract the allegations regarding the murder of children (Point 19).

Here’s what the IPCC letter states about points 4, 18, and 19:

ipcc2-2017-01-17-1 ipcc2-2017-01-17-2As with the points we covered yesterday, the primary concern of Ms Alderson, the IPCC case manager, is that inadequate records were made of the conversation between the little girl and the police officers in the car on the way to the final set of interviews. This seems a reasonable expectation, as such notes could have confirmed that precise way in which the conversation began, and could have helped to eradicate lingering doubts about the veracity of the retraction statements.

The case manager also states that “the children continued to make reference to the allegations after 17 September to their foster carer”. Again: quite reasonable, given that they had spent an entire month in Morocco being severely traumatised—”tortured” was the word Mrs Justice Pauffley used, and we think it was an apt description. To expect the children to simply forget what happened within a month or two of the events would be completely unrealistic in our view.

The boy’s retraction

Ms Alderson reserves her most stringent criticism for the way in which the little boy’s retraction was handled. She states that DC Martin “appears to lead the retraction. He asks questions and when G gives an answer that is not the desired one, DC Martin pursues this until G agrees that it did not happen”.

On the face of it, this is an accurate observation. However, anyone who has ever had to confront a child about a lie they’ve told will understand what DC Martin was doing: he was offering the boy a chance to retract his allegations without losing face. When children say things they know not to be true, they can have great difficulty letting go of the lie: they will earnestly insist that they were absolutely not the culprit who ate the chocolate cake in the refrigerator, even though they are covered from head to toe in cake crumbs and icing. Admitting that they have lied can be very difficult for children of a certain age, and sometimes an experienced parent will understand that the child needs an “out”—an opportunity to tell the truth, knowing that they won’t face punishment for having lied.

We believe that this is what DC Martin was trying to do: he was offering the boy a chance to correct the record, consequence-free.

Unfortunately, while this makes sense as a valid way of helping a child tell the truth, in a police interview video which has been illegally plastered across the internet, it looks bad.

Failing to observe cues?

Another IPCC criticism of the interview with RD’s son is that

…at the beginning of the interview DC Martin states: ‘Tell me if you are tired and we’ll stop. G replies ‘Well I’m tired’. DC Martin: ‘yes if you’re tired we’ll stop.’ He then continues to discuss the ‘rules’ and continue with the interview completely ignoring G’s desire to stop.

It’s interesting that when we initially listened to the video of this interaction, we heard the little boy say, “or I’m tired”, as though he was echoing what DC Martin had told him. Only upon listening closely to the video a second and third time were we able to hear it as “well, I’m tired”. It’s possible that DC Martin heard it the way we did; once again, we will not know until and unless a further report is completed and made public.

These are the IPCC case manager’s primary criticisms regarding points 4, 18, and 19 in the retraction interviews. Essentially, she is stating that she would like further information to help her understand what was said in the car on the way to the interviews, and she wants to know why the little boy’s retraction was handled as it was. As we discussed in yesterday’s post: “show your work”.

Were the children threatened?

As for the other points (5, 6, and 7), Ms Alderson states that there’s no evidence the children were threatened in order to extract retractions from them:

ipcc2-2017-01-17-3This, it seems to us, is one of the critical points upon which Abe and Ella’s arguments hang: if the children could be shown to have been threatened into making their statements, it would go toward showing that the police, social services, and others in positions of authority were “part of the cult”.

Nor does the IPCC accept that the investigation was curtailed because of “concerns that the case would cause a stir in society”:

ipcc2-2017-01-17-4In fact, Abe and Ella set out to “cause a stir in society”, which they hoped to milk for their own gain. Interesting, then, that they accuse the police of doing the very thing they intended.

Finally, the complaint that the case was not handled by the proper specialist unit is dismissed as just plain silly:

ipcc2-2017-01-17-5If not the “Child Abuse Investigation Team” (CAIT), then where?

Abe and Ella invested a great deal of time and effort into their various IPCC appeals. Given their gloating at the first accepted appeal, it was clear that they felt they had a chance of being vindicated by an IPCC investigation. However, the report last spring fell far short of their expectations, and this new appeal acceptance does very little to repair that damage. Yes, the IPCC case manager is asking for further information on a number of points; but nowhere is it categorically stated that the police investigation was fatally flawed. Nor is there any allegation that the conclusions the police reached were incorrect—and surely, this must have been what Ella and Abe were hoping for.


This is part of a series on the IPCC appeal letter which person or persons unknown posted on Scribd on Sunday, 15 January 2017.
Coming up in tomorrow’s post: the medical evidence, and the alleged tattoos and “distinguishing marks”.

police-jacket

Advertisements

98 thoughts on “IPCC Appeal 2: The children’s retractions

  1. The comments re being tired need to be slowed down. It’s easier to hear slowed down. What is said is:

    Policeman: I won’t go too long. If you get a little bit tired….you tell me and then we’ll stop.
    Boy: OK
    Policeman: Yeah? If you say ‘I’ve had enough’ we’ll stop.
    Boy: Or I’m tired.
    Policeman: If you’re tired…if you say to me ‘I’m tired, I’ve had enough’ we’ll stop.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I agree, it sounds like ‘or’ I’m tired. The officer then repeats what he can say to stop the interview and promises he will stop. The boy says ‘ok’ to both. If it was ‘well i’m tired’ you would expect the boy to repeat it rather than say ‘ok’.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Good work, Fnord…This should really be reported to Ms Alderson and whoever is her manager…..I am sure the entire forensic technology available to the UK police force could assist her in doing what Fnord did. Even I could download a free trial of camtasia and slow it down…..Not very impressive investigative prowess, Ms Alderson.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. How disappointing for Ella Draper to find her 2 children were not raped 100s of times by dozens of people, local coppers and teachers in a cult.

    I’m amazed she hasn’t been put forward for the Mother of The Year title.

    I rarely agree with the Daily Mail but their description of her as “evil” was spot on.

    Liked by 2 people

      • A Very Peculiar Practice! – which was a black comedy based on the author’s experiences at the University of Warwick. I don’t think Angie got a credit for co-authoring it.

        Liked by 2 people

    • What’s she banging on about anyway? She said she doesn’t have to pay bills if she just shows the creditors her birth certificate; and it can’t be an energy bill, as she has a machine that can produce unlimited electricity for free, right?

      Liked by 2 people

    • I can’t see why she can’t manage on the rental income from the Oldcastle property.

      The monthly rent in Lanzarote is 450 Euros, so why can’t she manage?

      Her fags are only 25.50 Euros a week, so what the hell is she spending the rest of the rental income on?

      Can she claim benefits in Lanzarote?

      I bet she can, after all it’s in the EU, so what is all this rubbish that she needs money?

      It wouldn’t surprise me if Housing Benefit in Lanzarote is paying for her anyway.

      She’s one greedy, spoilt, bitch that is too big for her boots and thinks she is something special, when she’s clearly not.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. This section strikes me as even more suspicious than the first one. If these have not been faked, or altered, then I’d have to conclude this “Ms Alderson” doesn’t understand what she’s talking about – which would be equally disturbing.

    Her statements about the boy’s retraction seem to express the type of simplistic understanding, about the problem with asking children “leading” questions during a forensic interview, that people absorb from watching tv police dramas.

    It is always preferable that any witness, but especially child witnesses, should be encouraged to provide a free narrative account by asking them open-ended questions. Example: “tell me what you remember”.
    If the witness’ free narrative rambles away into irrelevancies, as young children’s narratives often can, or becomes unproductively repetitive, the interviewer can solicit a more focused response with “specific-closed questions”. Example: “you said blah-blah, can you tell me any more about that?”
    Either-or, yes-no choice questions are problematic and to be avoided if possible, as are “leading” questions – but that doesn’t mean such questions can never be employed.
    The absolute no-go zone for leading questions, are questions which suggest that a specific criminal act took place or that a specific person committed a criminal act. Asking the same question repeatedly should also be avoided, because that implies the child’s previous answer was somehow “the wrong one”, but again this is of greatest significance if the child’s answer could implicate a specific person in a criminal act.

    Free narrative accounts are gold standard, but what if the witness account contains serious inconsistencies? Inconsistencies can be internal – the witness says something at point A and contradicts that thing at point D – or external – the witness says something which is contradicted by other witness statements, by previously established facts, or by reality itself. Let’s say a child witness states that a scar on their arm was a result of being bitten by the family dog, but the family doesn’t have any pets and a sibling stated witnessing the boy committing self-harm at that spot on their arm. If resolving this inconsistency is crucial to the investigation, and leading or repetitive questioning about it cannot implicate anyone in a criminal act, then such questioning may be appropriate.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Yes, that makes a great deal of sense, Justin. I don’t think the child interviews were conducted perfectly, but I certainly don’t think they were a shambles. And as you say, it’s all about context.

      Incidentally, we had confirmation this morning from an extremely reliable source that this IPCC document is the real thing. Just to set people’s minds at rest.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Whoop De Doo! Form over Substance.(duck! incoming trooofer Spittle!) Weird how it got posted online Again!? Draper is a SCUZ and probably “Caused” it to be posted, just like original vids. Those cops failed to Write Down what a crappy BS story everyone, including the kids, Knew it was. They are expected to WASTE more time and resources on this drivel. Much ado about nothing. I remember G’s retraction statement as stated here in comments E.C. Abe and Ella should be charged costs for this B.S. “Complaint” when they are finally convicted of Aggravated Child Abuse and False Statements. Sheesh! Thanks for breaking it down!

    Liked by 2 people

  5. If I had to categorise the officers questions in that third interview, I would categorise them as gentle challenging, rather than leading.

    It’s strange that they focus on the questions from the officer, while ignoring the other things the boy says. For example, the very first thing is the officer reminding the boy that he had something he wanted to say in the car, and asks what that was. The boy describes Abraham ‘accusing’ him. That Abraham would insist that their father would hit him really hard, and when the boy disagreed, Abraham would say ‘yes he does’. So already the boy has changed his story without any leading/challenging and is describing Abraham coercing him.
    The officer moves on to ask him if what he said in the other interviews was true. The boy says yes. The officer simply reminds the boy of what has been said in the other interviews by saying “so all the stuff about the babies…the church”. So that is reminding, not leading or challenging. The boys response is to struggle with what to say and then says “well there is some of the babies killed”. So again, changing the story of his own accord.

    The context is that in the girls second interview she has already described Abraham hitting her with spoons to get the “truth”. Then in the girls third interview the girl retracts (something ignored by hoaxers and Ms Alderson). Then in the boys third interview he has began by describing Abraham insisting that his father hurt him, and changed the story about the babies. Surely you would expect some gentle challenging by the officer at that point.

    I would be amazed if the children had not ever mentioned the so called cult for some time after the retractions. Abraham and his supporters often bang on about mind control. Abraham spent months beating the children into submission whenever they disagreed with what he said. A form of conditioning and a form of mind control. It should be no surprise if they would need time to filter that out their minds. What we do know is that they expressed the same violent coercion by Abraham to the child psychologist after the police interviews.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. For people who haven’t seen or heard the videos or audio of the children’s supposed abuse disclosures:

    In the recordings made by Abe, Ella, and Jean Clement, the manner in which the children discuss their alleged abuse experiences is very peculiar. I’m not referring to the blatant coaching by the adults, and the children’s obviously practised responses – although that’s also peculiar. I’m talking about both of the children consistently over-disclosing.
    What I mean by that is – in response to the adult’s leading questions, the children don’t just give a simple and direct answer, and then stop and wait for the next question. Frequently, they give a direct response and then add more detail to that and more detail to that, etc. When they are being questioned together, they ‘compete’ with each other to be the first to give the “right” answer, and then add more detail to what the other one said, back & forth, etc. When the adults are talking about what they themselves are alleging, or theorizing, or fantasizing, the children sometimes break into the conversation to “correct” them – with unsolicited additional information.

    That is very odd behaviour for sexually abused children.
    I highly recommend a study titled: “Why didn’t they tell us?” available to read as a pdf. This study, compiled by Save The Children Sweden, contains a unique validating element. Unlike almost every other study of children’s abuse disclosure behaviour, the abuse experiences of the children in this study were documented by their abusers in the form of CSA images recorded by the perps. There is no doubting that they were abused, and no question about what exactly happened to them, because of this documentation.
    The interviewers have seen the recordings of the children’s abuse, so they already know “what happened”, but in most of the interviews the child doesn’t know that they know.

    Almost universally, the children do not disclose their abuse when first invited to do so. Where they do make a victimization disclosure, the child only reveals a bare minimum of information necessary to communicate that they were violated: “He touches me”
    As the interviews progress, the interviewer sometimes reveals a bit of what they know, and how they know it, but this doesn’t significantly alter the child’s reluctance to volunteer greater detail. It is apparent, that the children make appraisals of “what, exactly, does this adult already know?”, and that they may be willing to validate what is known but careful not to disclose much more.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Yes, Fanny Adams, I was thinking Sabine, Rupert Q and Belender to prep for One of their probable Defenses that he/she/they “reasonably believed” (lol) the Hoaxers??(due to report “findings”??) Such Scammers and capable of Anything! I see Neelu’s real ax to grind is losing her Pharmacist Job, based on LIES(lol)? They probably censured her or yanked her ticket…Sick Peeps!

    Liked by 2 people

    • He has nothing to do in the trailer he lives in other than repeatedly press the ‘funny icon picture’ button ad infinitum. I bet he laughs uncontrollably when he does it too. Oh well, at least it gets him out of answering all those uncomfortable questions he keeps running way from. Plus, as long as he’s thumping his keyboard like a dribbling gimp, his nieces and nephews are safe.

      Liked by 1 person

    • No Arfur there were not 25 acres in West Pennant Hills in the 1980s but maybe in the 1880s

      I thought it was your father who bought them. Now it’s your grandfather. Land prices in your grand-dad’s day, 1 acre cost about £20 so it’s conceivable that someone could have bought 25 acres if they worked hard.

      But it wasn’t until the 1990s that the prices in Northern Sydney suburbs began to rise to the $million due to the area becoming highly desirable for well heeled Asian families who tend to have at least 3 if not 3 generations living together.

      Arfur you can always ring Ray White Real Estate: they have details of all property ownership in the area on their computer along with all details of when they changed hands and for what prices over the past 40 years as does every local realtor. They know of no-one who owns any large portfolio that consists of 25 acres which would mean at least 60 houses on them.

      They have one person listed who has been developing home unit buildings and her name isn’t Kaoutal unless you have a drag name.

      Anyone can access local property details at the council office.

      Stop smoking hash Arfur.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. Managed to beg someone into handing over their hard-earned cash so she could pay her bills…

    Immediately went out and spent it on a new smartphone:

    Classy, Angie. Classy.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Her “little band of regular partners”?

      Gentlemen callers?

      Leave twenty Euros on the dressing table on your way out. Don’t lock the door, my next client is due in ten minutes..

      Liked by 1 person

    • I am not sure exactly how monitizing you tube videos works but I suspect a pretty well subscribed channel with significant view counts (well into the thousands)will be a requirement before any worthwhile ad revenue would ensue.

      Given Angies output is pointless.self opinionated bullshit she hasnt a hope in hell.She tries to make cash from her pan handling beggery so in that respect she does monetise–<- pathetic.

      She would any grab cash with both hands if her output was of a quality and interest to warrant such.

      Maybe Angie should try some product placement,T square manufacturers may chuck a few bob in her direction.Beyond that the best way to get some fag money would be to offer to stop her pathetic attention seeking crap and completely fuck off.I would donate a sheckle or two to that worthy cause.

      Liked by 1 person

      • My experience of YouTube monetization is, if you allow enough annoying adverts onto your video you make some small change from every couple of thousand views. Unless you have viewing figures in the hundreds of thousands it is hardly worth it.

        Liked by 1 person

  9. Oh my God, we are being spoilt tonight:

    “BENEFITS …who are the real scroungers??
    ANGELA POWER-DISNEY·WEDNESDAY, 18 JANUARY 2017

    I want to make it clear that although I do not receive state benefits, living in the Canary Islands off of Spain, a country which unlike the UK does not dish out instant benefits only the opportunity to work within the European Union…..I DO NOT CONDEMN, JUDGE OR LOOK DOWN ON any child sexual abuse survivors who DO live off of state disability payments or even the meagre Job Seekers Allowance! Governments worldwide should follow CANADA´S lead in affording HOUSING, COUNSELLING & varied SUPPORT to ALL survivors of child sexual abuse, a lifetime sentence of pain and fallout for those who make it into adulthood….

    Whilst offenders and perpetrators of horrific crimes against children are rarely caught or prosecuted, and when they are receive OUTRAGEOUSLY SHORT sentences, victims are changed forever by the most heinous violations in their formative years. Often condemned to solitary existence where trust is so damaged they cannot sustain committed and healthy relationships, survivors if they transition to that from victims suffer mental INJURIES not illnesses as so often stigmatised…..

    Far from being scroungers these survivors and I include myself should be hailed as HEROES for not only resisting the suicide path and / or battling against the addiction path they live to fight another day AND EXTEND THEMSELVES TO FIGHT TO GIVE THE CHILDREN OF TODAY A VOICE which was denied to them in the most horrific isolation imaginable….exacerbated by fake inquiries, fake promises of help, fake and foiled hopes of justice for their demon-possessed and arrogant, often establishment PERPETRATORS !

    I write this note at risk of losing my facebook profile of many years but HEY lets get real people, a social media presence is easily replaced and rebuilt….the life of a child now adult tortured, raped, beaten, intimidated, sometimes imprisoned is FAR MORE VALUABLE!!!

    I attach a few videos on the REAL benefits scroungers although one video claims the British public end up QUIDS IN for having the monarchy living off their tax squids….the Queen availed in the not too distant past of a HARDSHIP GRANT for her palaces for heating!! Buck House was due for a deep clean which no doubt would wipe away all but the most forensic dna evidence of any wrong doing in terms of CHILD RAPE AND MURDER….should such exist cough cough. Houses of Parliament due same not long after WESTMINSTER PAEDOPHLE RINGS almost got exposed again….

    Check out GORDON BOWDEN work on youtube and I hope to have him as a guest on my show ANGELA´S CACHES on CCN Media in the not too distant future for the true money trails of where TRILLIONS have disappeared to ….check out BILL MALONEY´S work on all things childrens homes and ESTABLISHMENT

    And then talk to me about benefits. HUMPH!

    I may post this in the first instance as a blog on CONSCIOUS CONSUMER NETWORK where I broadcast weekly on Mondays 5 to 7 pm gmt. For the simple reason that this free and indepedant media network broadcasts from OUTSIDE the UK and has multiple levels of security to PREVENT censorship and take downs of TRUTH!! Or given that my website is not yet up due to FINANCIAL constraints I may just take a deep breath and tell the truth while we still can!

    I am a survivor and an overcomer though there are still days I cannot get out of bed and end up in the foetal position with complex post traumatic stress disorder….I don´t say that for sympathy just to be honest about the life sentence that child sexual abuse is. I live in Spain both for safety and health reasons. If I were living in the UK or IRELAND I most certainly would apply for disability benefits given my health and history. In Spain one has to contribute self employment or employment stamps for 7 years in order to qualify for state support. Not a bad idea. If I live long enough I may even make my pension here!! But if not, I will die with the sun on my face and the sea as my healing waters….with no regrets.

    RESPECT to all fellow survivors and hoping this CLARIFIES my position!! Do comment and share….and if you are able do DONATE using the link to help me do my part in any way I can for as long as I can or until I get my pension lol !! And don´t get your knickers in a twist at my gofundme figures…10 grand was an inheritance from my murdered sister….most other donations were in kind….and hey ….how much would benefits annually come to??
    WE HAVE NO NEED OF SHAME IT IS NOT OURS IT BELONGS WITH OUR ABUSERS!

    https://www.gofundme.com/JOURNOANGIE
    Yours in the battle for true equality and justice ESPECIALLY for survivors!!

    ANGIE”

    https://www.facebook.com/notes/angela-power-disney/benefits-who-are-the-real-scroungers/10158069408080006

    Like

      • Angie stands out from the crowd all right.

        Lots of folk have disappointments and life traumas to negotiate their way through,self inflicted or otherwise.The vast majority elect not to project whingeing,self pitying,narcissistic,maleficent bile onto the internet and hope to build an earner out of it at the potential expense of vulnerable children.

        Liked by 1 person

    • I do not believe she lives in Spain.

      She takes every moment to mention the fact.

      The decor behind her is very English / Irish. People do not transport family pictures objet d’art etc to Spain unless they live there permanently in a property they have bought.

      Her endless rants about the Royal family are amusing. People have the right to think whatever they like. I’m a royalist but for mainly practical reasons. Changing the system to perhaps a presidential head of state just installs a new system they may or may not work.

      On a practical level while people can object to the fact the Royals cost tens of millions of pounds they are also a billion pound tourism industry that generates 100 times what they cost.
      Windsor Castle is the most visited tourist destination in the UK and one of the world’s most popular attractions. Tourists flock there as they do Buck House because they are real almost fairy tale type locations with a real live Queen, princes and princesses.
      And London without all the splendor? I’d hate to think about it.

      Like

    • Governments worldwide should follow CANADA´S lead in affording HOUSING, COUNSELLING & varied SUPPORT to ALL survivors of child sexual abuse, a lifetime sentence of pain and fallout for those who make it into adulthood….

      Where in the name of all that’s holy does she get this bull-pucky from? In Canada, housing and social benefits are administered by the provinces, not the centralized federal government in Ottawa, and while you can get support if you have a long-term disability, there’s no such thing as a blanket housing, counselling and general support program specifically for people who have been sexually abused.

      Another factoid emerging fully-formed from the rectum of APD.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Why don’t you bog off to Canada then Angela?

        Is it because you won’t be able to claim your benefits there?

        Or is it because they’ll see through your bogus crap?

        Running through forests, you’re a laughing stock my dear.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Can you imagine the rorts that would go on if people could claim they were abused and then got a subsidized home.
        All for council housing-should be more of it but everyone should be treated equally when applying.

        Like

  10. Pingback: IPCC Appeal 2: The children’s retractions | ShevaBurton. Cross of Change Blog

  11. I believe this may have been the info I provided yesterday a link to a certain forum thread and also a link to the Scribd documents posted twice under 5555 and another 55555 filename.
    Maybe you already had it anyway but I have been doing my part as I am disgusted by these abusers.

    I have also found the audio tapes recorded by the Brother in law that show AJC Coaching and being very abusive, even making the children pick up dog mess and talking about the hero Jn Clmnt saying they will write a book about his role if he doesn’t report it.

    The audio sounds like a horror movie the way AJC talks to Jn Clmnt it sounds very threatening and his pervy references in front of the children about a black man blushing is vile.

    https://youtu.be/JBzqToRR86o (you can remove if not appropriate as I do not want to bring any further distress to those involved) im sure you know much more than I but the Med Docs are still up on that A-;a-n;-g-i-r-;f-a)N persons blog and as with other leaks are vile.

    Anon email like before so wont reply just let me know if I am harming or helping.

    Best wishes to all those who can actually use their brain cells.

    Liked by 2 people

Comments are closed.