IPCC Appeal 2: The medical reports…again

We confess that when we saw that the latest letter from the IPCC included questions about the way in which Dr Deborah Hodes’ medical reports for the police had been handled, we groaned. Dr Hodes’ findings are one of the main pegs upon which the hoax pushers hang their metaphorical hats. Because she chose to submit the children to a second examination in which she looked for “reflex anal dilatation”, which most physicians believe is a discredited finding in cases of child sexual abuse, and found it in one of the children, the hoaxers feel justified in claiming that a “respected medical expert found conclusive evidence that the children’s allegations were true”.

Last spring, when Abe and Ella released the IPCC investigation report on their blogs, we were interested to read that there was some confusion as to when Dr Hodes had released the full findings of her forensic medical examinations to the police. The problem seems to lie not in the conclusions Dr Hodes drew, but in when the police learned of those conclusions.

ipcc1-medical-findingsSo the information that the police had at the time when the children retracted their allegations was that the medical findings were “inconclusive”; the final report did not become available until 8 January 2015.

Interestingly, Dr Hodes did find that the female child had “no damage to her vaginal area”, which is strange considering that the report Ella had given the police at the outset stated that the cult was “doing sex to boys’ bottoms and girls’ front private and bottoms:

cris-report-06-september-2014By 14 November 2014, when Sabine uploaded Ella’s “victim statement” to her Dropbox, the story had changed, and was now more closely aligned with Dr Hodes’ findings:

dropbox-doc-14-november-2014In the November 2016 IPCC letter, Ms Alderson expresses concern about the medical report timeline, stating that there is some confusion about precisely when Dr Hodes’ report findings were made available.

Ms Alderson says, “An entry on the CRIS dated 13 September 2014 states ‘DS Fernandez spoke to Dr Hodes re CP (child protection) medical who said she was alarmed at the account from the children and had grave concerns'”. This information conflicts with the information in the report from last spring, and the discrepancy does seem to require some further explanation.ipcc2-medical-evidence-2017-01-18-1 ipcc2-medical-evidence-2017-01-18-2 ipcc2-medical-evidence-2017-01-18-3

It does seem to us that this timeline discrepancy ought to be ironed out, if for no other reason than to ensure that the police investigation dots all its i’s and crosses all its t’s.

We do know that it was Dr Hodes who recommended that the children be taken into police protection, as a result of the physical injuries which they had sustained while in Abe and Ella’s care—injuries including facial bruising, hearing loss, and a ruptured eardrum in the little boy.

This is an element of the case that the hoaxers rarely mention.

They prefer to fixate on the fact that, having found no conclusive evidence of sexual abuse during her first examination of the children (using the exam technique recommended by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health Review 2008), she conducted a second medical examination four days later, in which she found evidence of “reflex anal dilatation” in one of the children. RAD is found in a large number of non-sexually abused children, and so has been discredited as a diagnostic sign, but Dr Hodes nevertheless persisted in claiming that it ought to be taken seriously.

It should be noted here that the IPCC does not take issue in any way with the medical findings, nor with the ultimate outcome of the investigation. The problem is one of clashing timelines.

Dr Hodes’ role in this case cannot be underestimated, and we believe it will be important for the IPCC and the officers involved in the criminal investigation to resolve any timeline discrepancies. To be sure, this won’t change the outcome of the investigation, but public confidence in the police is eroded when issues like this remain unclear.

uk-police

Advertisements

71 thoughts on “IPCC Appeal 2: The medical reports…again

  1. Draper & Christie tried to claim these kids were raped & abused on a weekly basis by dozens of people and then engaged in the killing of babies and dancing around with their skulls (nice one Ella)

    Do the hoaxers take the general public for complete fools? Do they think children are somehow immune from terrible events and not affected by them? Do they really think children being raped repeatedly by dozens of adults would not demonstrate a range of serious psychiatric problems even at that age?

    Do they really think children could participate in the murder of dozens of babies and blithely carry on playing as kids daily without a care in the world. When a kid only has to stub his/her toe and runs to seek sympathy? You don’t have to be a child expert or even a mother to know children need a lot of protection at that age and are best shielded from some of the horrors of the world.

    But kids will participate in a game of telling wild tales containing the above as it becomes like fairy tale talk. And especially when there is a brute like Abraham to clip you over the ear (very hard if he perforated an ear drum) tortures you & threatens you with dire consequences like burying you in the desert. The way the 2 kids jostle almost excitedly to tell these tales is such a giveaway they have been taught a script and are eager to please, as is the wont of children to please even their torturer.

    Simply cannot imagine what they will think of Ella when they become teenagers.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Yes, I have to wonder how many of the hoaxers have actually raised or interacted with children, let alone children who are victims of abuse.

      The recital of the alleged events, the vying with one another to give the “right” answers, the way they each tried to add details and please their tormentors…it’s so obvious, one wonders how anyone could fail to see it.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. I think there is a problem here also with the IPCC that takes an extremely rigid view that any policing investigation must take a rigid course without a single diversion.

    Life is rarely like that even with government bodies. Corners are cut, boxes not ticked and so on. We’ve all become frustrated with humans who are not perfect beings who perform to a strict set of rules. Whether it’s our electricity supplier, local mechanic or a police investigation.

    In the end it’s whether the task in question is concluded successfully for all involved.

    The police did their job correctly despite a few small failings. The High Court agreed and courts are not there to simply mark the police’s homework as perfect. They often criticize them. They did not criticize any the management or the evidence in this case.

    We’re dealing with total fanatics who will never be convinced. You can see with the @pizzagate lunacy. Lie upon lie has been created and I’ve seen fabricated Podesta emails now and it’s being weaved into the Hampstead case.

    No wonder politicians are all jumping on the mental health bandwagon. Madness seems to be spreading like a wild fire.

    Liked by 2 people

    • I have just looked at the whole report and the IPCC have asked for more info on a number of issues, They seem to be minor issues which wont lead to a re-opening of the case (my uninformed opinion) I doubt anything of importance will come of this.

      Liked by 2 people

      • I think you’re right, and this is why the hoaxers haven’t made more of it. The questions asked are simply nibbling about the edges; the investigation is not going to be reopened, as that is not the IPCC’s remit. It can only recommend that certain questions be clarified.

        Like

        • I would like to say I am surprised that Kristie Sue has mentioned it at all, but after getting to know her a little (we are in the same Fbook group. Hi Kris! lol) I’m not, she really is quite mad. She finds meanings in things that only exist in her dark psyche. She is stuck in a feedback loop which is doing her no good at all.

          Like

    • No, the case won’t be reopened (sorry, Kristie Sue). The hoaxers seemed to believe it would, first time round, but only the hardcore nutters think that any longer. That’s why we were surprised that Ella’s second appeal was allowed: in practical terms, this report will only prompt the police to reinvestigate the original investigation (which has already been investigated) and make another report to the IPCC. In practical terms, it’s an exercise in futility.

      Liked by 1 person

      • And a waste of police time who I’m sure have 100s more complex cases to look at since this hoax was perpetuated.

        There must be, given the High Court ruling, a law that covers what has been a serious criminal conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. This was a carefully planned hoax and a serious attempt to get a lot of people wrongly jailed. No matter how ridiculous Draper & Christie’s attempt was, it was one of the most dastardly conspiracies aided by numerous cohorts like McNeill, McKenzie and a whole host of people.

        The IPCC are indulging two people who should be on an Interpol arrest list and for who extradition warrants should have been issued. In fact I think the IPCC is well out of order in this matter.

        Innocent parties may have the right to question an investigation but this is no different to a couple of bank robbers who have fled to Spain moaning to the IPCC about aspects of the case.

        They lost in the High Court and lost an appeal. The case cannot be re-opened and in effect, the IPCC is aiding these two criminals by responding to their petty claims when it’s clear the IPCC responses get published on the internet which is a clear breach of the Judgement by Draper & Christie.

        It’s a bizarre situation and I’m sure the innocent parties including the father would have a case against the IPCC for aiding in the harassment of them.

        Perhaps the person writing these reports is bloody ignorant of the case and who she is helping but she needs to be told that all confidential responses are being illegally published and the criminal law of identifying abuse victims is being published.

        One Hampstead resident should complain to their MP that the IPCC is now aiding in further attacks upon them.

        Liked by 1 person

        • I suspect that the case manager here had no inkling of the broader picture, and was “just doing her job”. This illustrates the piecemeal approach that’s been taken with this hoax up till now. To deal with things effectively, this must change, and the sooner the better.

          Like

          • I tend to read bits at a time which may not be best and is no doubt what the hoaxers do as they cherry pick parts and take them out of context.

            But these reports do not appear on the IPCC list of cases presumably because they involve child abuse victims yet each report is published by Ella Draper as she receives them which is a breach of criminal law as it identifies those children.

            To me the IPCC officer seems ignorant to the fact each report she issues is published and in effect, aids the perpetrators of the hoax, Draper & Christie.

            The whole scandal came about by someone illegally publishing videos of the children yet here we have a government body repeatedly responding to fraudulent claims and finding fault at time with very minor details of how an investigation unfolded (while not agreeing that the children were sexually abused by Hampstead residents) and has not warned the claimant that such a report should remain confidential.

            If that officer is ignorant of how the case unfolded she is not helping anyone. She is re-igniting the situation with each response.

            And that’s why I think any resident who was harmed by this hoax should be legally tearing strips of the IPCC who continue to aid in the promotion of a hoax, albeit unwittingly but nonetheless, harmfully.

            The officer should be telling Draper she will respond to her requests but given Draper’s active role in identifying her own children, invited her back to the UK and requested she attend the office with her lawyer and then be given a response.

            Liked by 1 person

  3. Hopefully the next response from the police will clear up the confusion. I think I remember something in the CRIS report by Fernandez stating that during the verbal discussion of the medical report, he was informed that constipation, or a large poo, could cause such injuries. That maybe one reason they didn’t act immediately on the information, even with another possible cause being abuse, and felt it better to wait until the ABE interviews were complete. They did ask the girl about the anal fissures during the retraction interview, so that would fit.
    Also, if I remember correctly, Dr Hodes wanted the children placed in police protection after the first strategy meeting on the 9th Sept, before she had even examined them. However, big bad social services wanted to wait until another strategy meeting had been held. In the end, the girls disclosures of Abraham’s violence on the 11th brought about an emergency protection order.
    I can’t be 100% of the above and don’t have access to the CRIS report right now to double check.

    The sad thing is that the time spent by police answering all these questions could be better spent helping victims of sexual abuse. Not that the hoaxers will care about that.

    Liked by 2 people

      • Given the company some of the hoaxers keep, that would be my conclusion too. I’m afraid this sort of thing seems to be designed to push us back to situation where we automatically doubt allegations, rather than approaching them with an open mind. Certainly I feel more inclined towards doubt than I once was.

        Liked by 2 people

          • I Sheba has made a very pertinent point, the whole exercise seems to be to anyone who even mentions child abuse seem like ‘not that again’
            Considering many of the hoaxers own dubious backgrounds, it almost seems like a concerted and deliberate campaign to minimize the chances of victims coming forward or people reporting real cases for fear of being tarred with the ”hoaxer’ brush themselves

            Hopefully that’s not the case, if so then some of them would be even less human than they currently appear

            😦

            Liked by 1 person

  4. I think Dr Hodes deliberately put off submitting the final draft of her ‘medical evidence/report’ as her findings had by then been heard, and justly criticised by the wider staff team who quite rightly challenged her initial findings. She must have a big egoShe even had the cheek to argue with a judge who knew more than she about what was and was not appropriate in terms of undertaking further buggery (if such existed in the first place) in such cases. Hodes’ initial interpretation HAD to be changed, but how to do that and keep your credibility? FFS her ‘method’ had already been discredited in other cases gone wrong (Cleveland). This is what Pauffley highlighted. I reckon she had to hold herself back from openly mocking her in court. It is not rocket science: How can a girl who has been sexually abused for years still be a virgin? Evidence in past (real) cases of prolonged abuse and buggery in children results in funnel shaped, hugely enlarged rectums, as in nature, anus’s simply are not designed for such penetration when done on such a large scale, as was claimed. In such cases, it would be impossible not to leave incontrovertible proof behind. Which idiot does not get this? This is where the expertise of the wider team did what it was designed to do, and question highly unprofessional practice. Such input provides balance where impossible interpretations, like those of Hodes, are put forward. And rightly so, since they have experience in seeing entrails hanging out etc where such abuse has REALLY taken place on such a grand scale over many years. It is just plain common sense. Ask a gay ‘ power bottom’….or women who damage themselves when submitting to such practices, eg in trends in porn. But maybe they will be too sensitive to having to admit to wearing nappies. I am sure Ella would have noticed such things

    I think Dr Hodes delayed, delayed and then delayed some more in submitting the final draft, finding herself in a quandry, since she now had to somehow do some damage limitation, balance her previous findings whilst at the same time admitting she was wrong. This would be ego bruising, professionally ’embarrassing’ and would have consequences if not handled the way it was. The hospital trust she worked for would probably have sought a legal opinion on what to write.. Any lawyer in future abuse cases in which she took part would now be in a position to refer to her former mistakes and so rubbish any opinions she might offer. Hodes had to find a way to stick to her guns, for reasons of self-preservation, in order to salvage her professional credibility, possibly to protect the hospital she worked for….her ‘amended’ report must have had her up at night., worrying. There are probably issues concerning employment law, her pension, her salary, lost salary due to not being promoted etc, her ‘mistake’ must have been recorded on her employment record?. Has Hodes ever apologised for the mess she created? Because it was her ‘evidence’ that gave credence to the mad allegations at a critical time. Had she not supported the story by being sucked in and manipulated by Ella, she could have put a stop to innocent people being accused and traumatised for life. People who have been affected may like to look into her professiona/public indemnity insurance cover….for damage done to innocent people. And how can she justify buggering two children twice in a few days? Does she not think that was trauma in itself? IF the allegations had been true, she was retraumatising the children. Hell, it’s enough to traumatise anyone, I can attest to that! I bet the children don’t like doctors now, and are afraid. This could make them avoid getting medical diagnoses or tests when necessary in later life. What price would you put on that? Life curtailed due to avoidance of medical opinion when necessary? I would seek damages on behalf of the children, and all the people named who have suffered due to Hodes inappropriate medical examinations which endorsed lies, and, yes are a kind of legal buggery, by medical implement….But this could be argued in court: As the method is not endorsed, not suggested as a way of dealing with such claims by NICE in the UK….. A group action should be considered….Hodes second attempt to look at something that was inconclusive can never be justified in the circumstances.

    Liked by 2 people

    • This is fascinating, Bob’s Uncle. Several aspects I hadn’t really considered, especially the possibility of lawyers in future abuse cases now having standing to query Dr Hodes’ conclusions, given her prior performances.

      I fully agree with you that any child who’d suffered the number of anal violations that RD’s kids were alleged to have done would most likely be incontinent; at very least, damage would not be limited to minor “scarring” which could later be admitted to be ruggae, or natural folds, in the anal verge.

      I think Dr Hodes stepped in it, she knew it, and she didn’t know how to step back and admit her error. Sadly, that error has acted as fuel to the fire that Ella and Abe set.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Not only would they be physically damaged, a child raped by dozens of people several times a week could easily die from internal injuries.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Was n’t there a peer review of the Dr’s findings too, I’m not sure now where that fits in the time scale now, December?

        In the publicly released judgement when the issue of enemas was raised the Dr did not dismiss them but, described them as another part of the jigsaw.

        Part of a jigsaw?

        doesn’t sound very conclusive to me.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Belinda McKenzie needs to rein her followers in and put a final full stop to the promoting of this hoax.

      She’s not stupid and knows full well those children didn’t suffer anal rape by paedophiles.

      I hope she’s not funding Power-Disney, surely not?

      Perhaps she feels a bit sorry for Rupee having been lured into this by the groomer Power-Disney and that is why she is helping him now or perhaps she fancies staying with the Quaintence’s in Culpeper.

      Liked by 2 people

    • You seem to have triggered Arfurs raw nerves big style Spiny.I can almost see the fumes billowing out of his orifices.Perhaps an arrangement could be made with the Australian national grid to tap into this valuable renewable resource?

      Liked by 3 people

    • It’s just not fair !
      I almost had Arfur lured back into my boudoir with my best Mati Hari impersonation and Spiny comes along yet again to seize Tubby Tits from my grasp.

      Liked by 3 people

    • “Liam Farnhill
      Is there a story with this or are we just listening to the guy who sounds like he’s on ice?”

      Like

    • LOL! You know, I seem to dimly recall from my misspent university days that “concrete thinking” is a stage of cognitive development that most people grow out of once they’re past middle childhood. Sadly, it seems that Kristie Sue has not managed to make it past this stage—it’s pretty clear to me that Sound Affects was offering “posting illegal videos of my children” as a hypothetical construct, not an actual fact.

      As for her detecting abilities, she was quite correct when she conceded to Charlotte Ward that she wasn’t much of a researcher. The words “organise”, “brewery”, “piss-up”, and “couldn’t” keep coming to me. Can’t think why.

      Liked by 2 people

      • They seize upon the slightest little thing, take it out of context and scream Eureka !. It would not matter that there is a lack of evidence or proof is shown that what they claim is not true, their per-conceived conclusion is fixed and cannot be altered.

        It’s a terrible thought that these type of people could easily end up on juries: dumbed down and internet “educated”, their brains riddled with falsehoods and saying they will approach a case with an open mind which is the last thing they will do.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Spot on, EC. I also didn’t say he had posted them – I said that’s the kind of thing he would do. LOL!

        Liked by 2 people

  5. Pingback: IPCC Appeal 2: What happens now? | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

Comments are closed.