What exactly did the medical reports state?
Officers of Metropolitan Police Service initially attempted to undermine the findings of Dr Hodes, and now state that they never received the reports until January 2015, and therefore were not aware of its findings. It is unacceptable that the findings of a police instructed doctor were not allegedly communicated with the police. We are of the view that the police were fully aware of the contents of the medical reports and the conclusive findings. To understand the position of the police, it is important to know what is contained within the reports, as that would, in the view of the complainant, explain why it is the police feel the necessity to maintain their position of undermining / ignoring the findings and stating that they did not receive the reports until January 2015, as it did not support their “investigation” strategy.
The examinations of the children by Dr Hodes were on 15th and 16th September 2014, after the children were “taken into care”. During the police investigation, Dr Hodes prepared 3 reports dated 15th, 16th and 22nd September respectively.
Conclusion of reports dated 15th September 2014, examination date 12th September 2014.
Both the reports dated 15th September 2014 are addressed to a Chantelle Stevens of Family Services and Social work. The fifth and final page of both reports has what appears to be an address blacked out. This may be the address of the police and the name of the person this report was sent to in the police department. Therefore, we require disclosure of the un-redacted version of this medical report, as the police have claimed that they did not receive this report until January 2015, which the complainant does not agree with. In fact, we for the same reason, require disclosure of all medical reports referred to by the police in their response in un-redacted forms, so that we can review the veracity of their claims.
The medical report states:
“(G) In both the general physical examinations of G today, there are physical signs that are consistent with the allegations given by both G and A. The scar in the anus is from a healed fissure, secondary to the application of a blunt penetrating force that he has alleged. In summary, G has physical signs that support his allegations of both physical and sexual abuse”
“In general physical and genital examination of A today, there was evidence of findings consistent with the allegations given by A. These were of inflicted physical injury – physical abuse and insertion of a blunt penetrating instruments into her anus. The scars in her anus are from healed fissures, secondary to the application of a blunt penetrating force that she has alleged”
Report dated 16th September 2014, examination date 16th September 2014.
This report, drafted after Dr Hodes attended strategy meetings on 8th and 15th September 2014, has details of how both children have been repeating their allegations to the foster carers.
Upon seeing Vaseline in a shop, G says “Is that what they put on my bottom” referring to abuse “from their dad and his friends including Mr Hollings“
Within the report:
‘A’ described a ‘plastic willy’ to the foster carer and that her ‘dad makes them in his shed’.
‘A’ describes how “’Vaseline original’ in a square container was used on their ‘bottoms and willies’” and sometimes they inserted “plastic willies in her bottom” but sometimes “real willies”.
Both children said it hurt less with real willies but that the perpetrators wanted it to hurt them so they used a plastic willy”.
“They also said that they did not want it to hurt so much that it scarred otherwise their mother might discover this when she bathed them” This suggests that the perpetrators took active measures i.e. the use of Vaseline and other water based lubricants, to ensure that the abuse was kept secret and hidden from the mother, Ella Gareeva.
“They both experienced bleeding from their bottoms afterwards…given a wet tissue to wipe it with. They described how they wiped blood or sometimes ‘white stuff’ that came from willies’.
“When asked why they did not tell their mother whilst this was happening, they said they were too scared, as their father had told them that he would kill their whole family if they told”
The report describes how the children have nightmares of their “dad killing them” and G said “that he suddenly remembers what happened and his eyes go blurry. He then sees monsters and if he closes his eyes he sees ‘a picture of his dad killing him”. We cannot begin to imagine the amount of pain and fear G must have experienced when he was hoping that the “good policeman” would believe him and his sister.
“G described that when he stayed at his dad’s house for two or three days his dad did not let him “go to sleep at night” by being “scary” and putting on a “monster costume so that he could not go to sleep.”
Sleep deprivation is a common technique employed in Trauma Based Mind Control programs.
Summary of findings
“Evident that his (G) experience of abuse has had a significant impact on his emotional well-being.
Further general examination today confirms the physical findings of a scar in the anus from a healed fissure, consistent with inflicted injury from a blunt penetrating force that he (G) has alleged”.
In respect of A, the report states “Based on today’s assessment, it is clear that G and A’s experience of abuse have had a significant impact on their emotional wellbeing. Physical findings today FURTHER CONFIRM the allegations of inflicted anal injury from insertion of a blunt penetrative force, and ARE CONSISTENT with A’s allegations of Sexual abuse”
Medical report dated 22nd September 2014
This report was drafted after Dr. Hodes attended strategy meetings on 8th and 15th September 2014, (the appendices 1-2 attached to the report contained notes of the strategy meetings but the local authority and the police failed to provide us with this) supervised the consultations for both children on 12th and 16th September 2014 and spoke to Camden Social workers who informed her of the ABE interview on the 17th September 2014.
The report concludes in respect of A:
“The physical injuries found on her (A) skin are consistent with her allegations of physical abuse.
In the absence of a history of constipation, medical illness and accidental trauma ACCORDING TO THE GP NOTES, the anogenital findings of the scar and the RAD are consistent with her allegations of the application of a blunt penetrating force to her anus..sexual abuse.”
The report concludes in respect of G:
“The physical injuries found on his (G) skin are consistent with his allegations of physical abuse..
In the absence of a history of constipation, medical illness and accidental trauma ACCORDING TO THE GP NOTES, the ano-genital findings of the scar and the RAD are consistent with his allegations of the application of a blunt penetrating force to his anus…sexual abuse. “
Police interpretation of Dr Hodes’ findings by choice of words.
Please note the medical reports’ use of words that physical injuries “confirm”, “are consistent” and “evidence of findings consistent with” the allegations of sexual abuse, as opposed to the police manipulation of the words to describe and deliberately, in the view of the complainant, undermine the findings of Dr Hodes, such as;
1. CRIS report entry by Ds Fernandez 13th September “can be the result of a large solid poo”
2. Police initial response dated 8th July 2015 “could be consistent with allegations of sexual abuse” and
3. Current response dated 24th March 2016 “may have been caused by physical abuse in the absence of a medical explanation. The discussion DS Fernandez had with Dr Hodes were such that she verbally reported inconclusive results on the 12th September 2014”
In our submission, it is clear that the police have attempted to undermine the findings of Dr Hodes on several occasions by misrepresenting her findings. This is a tactic we are familiar with, as the police have endeavored to do the same with our complaint, i.e. manipulate and misinterpret what we have complained about.
In any event, even if the medical reports had stated or used the phrase “could be consistent“ with allegations of sexual abuse, this does not negate the duty for the police to investigate further.
In fact it still provides support to the allegations of sexual abuse, as it does not rule it out and therefore is evidence that should be acted upon during the police investigation.
It is a note of interest that the police report dated 24th March refers to “absence of a medical explanation”. You will note from the medical report of 22nd September that Dr Hodes reviewed all GP notes and that there was no past history of constipation or other medical condition that could explain the injuries to the anus area of both children. Therefore, Dr Hodes had reviewed the children’s medical history and confirmed there is no other explanation, other than what the children alleged, as to how the injuries to the anus could have been caused.
In fact, the GP notes attached to Dr Hodes report of 22nd September 2014 confirm that that the mother was concerned about A’s behavior on 17 January 2011 as the notes state:
“Mother concerned re A’s behavior. Father given visitation rights last 3 weeks, sees them weekly. Since then A acting strangely, wakes mid sleep at night in hysterics, cries uncontrollably, clingy to mother, sometimes wakes and throws all bedding off the bed”
It is untoward that that the children had to go through two medical examinations to prove that they had been abused. This would have been difficult, horrific and demanding for them. Yet the suspects, whom the children described as having distinguishing marks, tattoos and piercings on or around their private parts, were not arrested, interviewed or even intimately searched.
Is it fair and just to have the children, the victims, thoroughly medically examined on two occasions but not the suspects? The police perhaps hoped that the medical results of the children would be inconclusive, so that it would assist in closing the investigation. Unfortunately, the medical findings were conclusive and definitive so it seems the police decided to focus on the original strategy and maintain that the findings were ‘inconclusive’ and doubtful regardless of what Dr Hodes, the medical expert, had to say.
The report of the 22nd September also refers to the retraction of the allegations but still confirms that injuries are consistent with the allegations of sexual abuse;
“In my opinion, A and g are suffering significant harm as evidenced by the following; -
- Both children have physical signs of sexual abuse that supports their allegations.
- They have symptoms of post-traumatic stress
- It is my opinion, the extensive and detailed accounts given by both children that were repeated to different professionals, contains details of sexual acts, that such young children would need to have some sort of direct experience.”
Therefore, the position of Dr Hodes is that her findings are conclusive even after the retraction interviews.
Amended Medical report of Dr Hodes Dated 4th December 2014?
The police report refers to an amended medical report dated 4th December 2014. Firstly, this medical report is dated two months after the investigation and should not be relied on by the police to justify their actions or non-action between 5th and 22nd September 2014. Secondly, this report, despite the attempts by the police report to undermine it, is still conclusive.
Even if we lend some agreement with the position of the police that the findings were inconclusive, the fact of the matter that this did not rule out sexual abuse by the suspects is an important consideration. If the medical report did say “may be consistent” with allegations of sexual abuse, this does not mean that the police can ignore the findings during the police investigation as that would not be considered as following all evidential or potential evidential leads. Without following ALL evidential or potential evidential leads, how can a police investigation be prompt, effective and in harmony with Article 3 ECHR?
As evidenced above, Dr Hodes, on 4th December 2014, confirms for both children that “the physical injury found on his [her] skin ARE CONSISTENT with his [her] allegations of physical abuse” and that “in this case it was alleged that lubrication was used which adds to the probability of lack of physical signs”. In respect of ‘A’, Dr Hodes adds that “the anogenital findings IS CONSISTENT with her allegation of the application of a blunt penetrating force to her anus i.e. sexual abuse”. Conveniently, the police report omits the conclusive findings of Dr Hodes in her amended report dated 4th December and seeks, again, to undermine her findings.
In addition, Dr Hodes provided a further report on the 5th February 2015 where she states “I saw and documented physical signs of abuse that were consistent with their allegations” and “the overall situation is such that it is my view that the allegations / accounts need to be taken very seriously despite the confusing picture”.
As demonstrated the findings of Dr Hodes have been conclusive throughout her various reports.
The final view of Dr Hodes is that the allegations need to be taken “very seriously” which the police, in our submission failed to do. The police, are therefore, still under a duty, to follow the evidence of Dr Hodes and investigate the alleged suspects by, and not limited to:
- arresting the suspects,
- interviewing them and taking them to account for all the allegations
- performing intimate examinations for distinguishing marks,
- taking the children to the home address of the father Lewis Hollings and the church so that they can endeavour to show the police the exact locations of secret rooms,
- search the home address of the suspects,
- seize their laptops and computers (especially given that children said in ABE’s that Mr Dearman had naked pictures of the children and images of them involved in sexual acts),
- cell site the phone of Mr Dearman that was in use during the period of alleged abuse so that it could be determined if he attended the school on a regular basis as described by the children
Please note in the police response to the JR application, they claim that they were still investigating the sexual abuse claims, but as we gather from the police response to our complaint, the investigation was closed. Again, contradicting information.
No independent Evidence and inconsistencies in disclosures.
Given the above, it is difficult to reconcile how the police are able to state that the “truth of the allegations not being supported by independent evidence or intelligence” and that there were “inconsistencies in the disclosures”.
Is the position of the police that if children make claims of sexual abuse and give details of distinguishing marks on the alleged abusers, the police require independent evidence before they can start investigating the claims properly and in line with normal procedures? That they require other evidence to verify the children’s claim before they start arresting suspects, examining them for distinguishing marks, seizing their computers and phones, searching home address etc.
What happened to believing the children?
In any event, the strong evidence of Dr Hodes was clearly independent and indeed Dr. Hodes was instructed by the police. If we take the police version of Dr Hodes evidence at its best, even then the position would be that Dr Hodes never ruled out that the injuries may have been caused by sexual abuse and therefore even under that balance of probability, the police had and have a duty to investigate the allegations by arresting the suspects and interviewing them in order to allow for a prompt and effective investigation.
In respect of “intelligence”, the police have failed to provide any evidence or information as to what checks they carried out in respect of gathering intelligence. In our initial complaint, we referred to comments by Theresa May in the Telegraph published on 14th March 2015:
“We already know the trail ( of historic child abuse) will lead into our schools and hospitals, our churches, our youth clubs and many other institutions that should have been places of safety but instead became the setting for the most appalling abuse. However, what the country doesn’t yet appreciate is the true scale of that abuse….. how abuse is woven, covertly, into the fabric of our society.”
Therefore, the independent child abuse inquiry has the above intelligence of abuse in schools and churches, yet the police investigating the claims made by the children did not? Did the police fail to carry out proper and adequate intelligence checks, after all, they failed to link previous allegation by the mother against Mr Dearman?
Finally, the police refer to “inconsistencies in disclosures” but have failed to demonstrate or confirm what these inconsistencies were. Any one that has listened to the children, including Officer Yaohirou, Dr Hodes, the foster carer, Drs. Gun and Al Jilaihawi (as referred to in the medical report dated 22nd September 2014) confirmed that the level of detail of sexual abuse in the disclosures could only be learnt from direct experience of sexual abuse. Perhaps this is why the police are ignoring this detail and concentrating on the visit to the church and the drive around because if they concentrated or acknowledged the consistent descriptive details of disclosure in respect of the actual sexual abuse, then, the investigation strategy would have had difficulties in ensuring that the lid was kept on the allegations and that the investigation was concluded without any arrests or proper investigation that would have been expected in line with the available evidence available i.e. Dr Hodes and the evidence of the children in the videos and ABE interviews.
We mentioned how Officer Yaohirou confirmed that he believed the children due to the level of detail disclosed about the abuse but the police failed to respond to this in their report. In fact, DCI John Foulkes in preparation of his report, did not feel it was necessary to question Officer Yaohirou or DC Savage, the officer who interviewed Mr Dearman. The police could have also questioned Dr Hodes and obtained a final report of her findings and confirmation that she did not provide the police with the medical reports as alleged by the police and the reasons why she failed to do this given that it was the police that instructed her. But no, that would be too direct, just like arresting the suspects and taking them to account for all the allegations, checking for distinguishing marks, searching home address, seizing laptops and phones, taking the children to the church and house of Lewis Hollings to identify the secret room.
Drawing of Head Teacher Kate Forskyde, by Alisa
The complainant alleges that the police strategy seems to have been, to obscure the investigation and the evidence by means of a drive around where the identified address is not even searched, attending the church for a “good look around” looking for a secret room without the children who would know where it was, undermine and ignore the medical evidence, interview Mr Dearman under caution plus 3 with an allegation that seems to have been fabricated, possibly by the police because the children never alleged such as that which was put to Mr Dearman, before relying on a weak, inconsistent and coerced retraction statement. This is possibly the “confusing picture” that Dr Hodes refers to, a confusing picture created by the police investigation team from the outset to serve as a basis for the Judgement provided by Justice Pauffley on 19th March 2015.
Conclusion regarding the Medical Findings.
The above demonstrates how the police were fully aware of Dr Hodes findings but conveniently disregarded them by attempting to undermine them. The claim by the police that they were not aware of the conclusive findings of Dr Hodes, and did not have her reports dated 15th 16th and 22nd September 2014, which were all within the investigation period, is simply not accepted nor is it feasible.
If however we accept that the police did not have sight of the medical reports until January 2015 we have a serious issue. The police allege that despite several requests for disclosure, the local authority kept the medical reports from them until January 2015. We render this to be further evidence that the course of justice was perverted, as not only did the social services contact and tip off Mr Dearman, they ensured that the police did not have sight of the medical reports until January 2015. Please note that the local authority also ensured that we, as acting for the mother, did not have copies of all the available papers during the family proceedings at Court until the end of July 2015, a week before the appeal hearing and the final welfare hearing. Even then we were not given all the case papers and that which we received were heavily redacted. Playing for time, it seems.
Perhaps the police could have contacted Dr Hodes, an expert whom they had instructed, who was present at Strategy meetings, and whom DS Fernandez confirms in an entry dated 15th September 2014 that her findings were that the injuries were “consistent with the allegation of sexual abuse,” and asked her for further clarifications. But it seems, in the view of the complainant, that this was not an enquiry suitable for the police investigation. Perhaps the police could not locate her, just as they could not locate Mr Dearman, and were dependent on the social services for such contact?
Or maybe, the situation is that of Lewis Hollings, an individual that may hold vital damning evidence as he was alleged to have distinguishing marks / tattoos around his privates and a secret room in his house via a wardrobe. The police were aware where he lived, but decided to ignore him completely and instead concentrate on the suspect that the police allegedly did not have an address for and whom could not be located, Mr Dearman.
Drawing of Head Teacher Kate Forsdyke, biological father Ricky Dearman and class teacher Lewis Hollings, by Alisa
Same position with the findings of Dr Hodes?
The police have ignored vital aspects of our complaint about the medical evidence and what they have stated in their report is misleading and inaccurate.
Medical Report 15.09.14.
Medical Report 22.09.14.
Given the definitive medical findings, whether the police received the report in January 2015 or in September 2014 during the investigation, their failure to investigate the children’s allegations in a prompt and effective manner in line with normal procedure and what the medical evidence established, breaches the children’s rights under Article 3 of the ECHR, as they have a right not to be tortured and the police have a duty to protect them from such torture.
Any proper, impartial, and objective investigation into our complaint would have identified the issues above and addressed them accordingly.
------------------------------------ second 10 pages of IPCC 'Free the Hampstead 2' Appeal document.
NEXT : Arrests, PACE CODE G and Article 3 ECHR
A good précis of what went wrong, those children really deserve to be with their beautiful Grandparents who have everything they could wish for, just waiting for them to be allowed to go home to their true family who love them
I am shocked , that so many people I know and respect will not even think for even one minute about this horror ! Just take one minute to think as a living breathing human with a soul and say okay, I have to read about this problem . Thus far I have gotten absolutely not one friend willing to look down this dark, deep ,rabbit hole , because once you do your very soul will prevent you from looking away. My thoughts and prayers are with you all and I will continue to spread this news , I am so sorry you and your children are living this torture , Tom.
This is Unbelievable that these children are still with there father who sexually abuses these children everyday and no one has been arrested and no one is being investigated. This is absurd. Please help these children NOW!!!!
Comment from: Andrea [Visitor]
I’m just learning about this type of evil. I will continue to pray for these kids and the others, and everyone who is shaken by this demon. GOD WILL have the last say!
Form is loading...