A. Arrests, PACE CODE G and Article 3 ECHR
“PACE CODE G states that “the power of arrest must be used fairly, responsibly, with respect for people suspected of committing offences and without unlawful discrimination”. It is argued that the powers of arrest in this instance were not employed fairly or responsibly and with unlawful discrimination, in that Mr Dearman, a suspect, was subject to positive discrimination, as he was never arrested and never interviewed about the allegations made by the children.
In fact the powers of arrest were never exercised during the police investigation in respect of any of the alleged abusers. The only one “interviewed”, although it was an inadequate interview in our submission, was Mr. Dearman”.
We referred to PACE Code G in our complaint to demonstrate the positive discrimination that Mr Dearman was subjected to due to the non-arrest, the poor police interview, non-seizure of computers, mobile phone or search of his home address. We also stated that this led to a breach of the children’s rights under Article 3 ECHR, because their evidence alone given during the ABE interviews is sufficient to arrest Mr Dearman and the other main suspects. The police report has ignored and failed to respond to the aspect of positive discrimination and breach of article 3 by the non-arrest and lack of investigation into Mr Dearman. We also referred to the positive discrimination that the other main suspects were privileged to, but the police failed to address this directly. For this reason, the police response at point 8 is invalid, as they have sought to misrepresent what we complained about and thereby failed to address the real issues raised by our reference to PACE Code G and the positive discrimination and breach of the children’s right under article 3.
Please note that the issues in this investigation taken as a whole or individually indicate a breach of the children’s right secured under article 3 and suggest a “cover up”. That has been our position from the outset, but the police have failed to refer to this. The police have failed to respond to this aspect in their whole report except in respect of point 19 (the officer led child Q to retract the allegations regarding the murder of children). However, we raised Article 3 and “cover up” issues several times regarding individual concerned and as a whole.
Arrest Criteria and Grounds of Arrest
The police report states:
“The necessary criteria has to be met before a suspect can be arrested”
However, they conveniently failed to detail why this criteria, in their view, was not fulfilled.
In our view, this is because the police cannot justify that the arrest criteria were not met, therefore we are given a bold statement without substance and quoted a statute without any application. Is the police position that if victims make allegations and give explicit details of sexual abuse and of distinguishing marks on the suspects, there is no need to arrest anyone? On the point of distinguishing marks alone, is it not necessary to arrest in order to carry out intimate searches for the marks / tattoos as there could be no other way to prove whether or not they existed? If someone reports a theft, sexual assault, possession of firearms, the police would not go and arrest the suspect until they have independent evidence or have attended the crime scene? What if the evidence of victims is supported by medical evidence obtained by the police? Is there still no need to arrest?
“In this case a decision was taken that Mr Dearman would attend a police station voluntarily for interview. Arresting a suspect would have provided the same result” (point 8)
Firstly, we all know that a decision was made for a CAUTION PLUS 3 interview (and not voluntary interview which the police report will go on to say refers to a ‘interview under caution’ which is not exactly the same thing as a CAUTION PLUS 3 INTERVIEW and is thereby misleading).
Yet again, the report conveniently fails to detail why, how and when the decision was made for Mr. Dearman to attend voluntarily for an interview and not be arrested. This is what we complained about – what was the basis of the decision for the non-arrests. Maybe the mysterious decision not to arrest is why the social services telephoned him and advised him that the police were looking for him. Could this have been discussed in the strategy meetings?
“There were no grounds to arrest Mr Dearman, therefore the appropriate action was to conduct an interview under caution” (Point 10)
That, in our view, is incorrect and misleading. The police report, once again, conveniently fails to detail why there were no grounds for arrest. Is the position that the children making the allegations, with extensive details of sexual abuse that no child without direct experience could know, not enough?
In addition and in support of the curious claim made by DCI Foulkes that there were no grounds of arrest, DC Savage, the officer who interviewed Mr Dearman and drove the children for the interview on 17th September 2014, informed the Court while giving evidence at the Fact finding hearing at the High Court that the reason Mr Dearman was not arrested was because “there’s no evidence to arrest him” (page 6 of the transcript of evidence given by DC Savage).
The police report has further attempted to justify the “no grounds for arrest” by stating; -
“There is an entry by DI Cannon on page 6 of dets (details of investigation) on crime report 2419891/14, which details his rationale for non-immediate arrest” (point 10)
We have underlined the relevant part for ease of reference. DI Cannon’s rationale is for NON IMMEDIATE ARREST and not that there were no grounds for arrest. In fact his entry confirms that there were grounds for arrest but had to be delayed. Furthermore, this entry is dated 6th September 2014 at 00:44, several hours after the ABE interviews on the 5th September 2014. How relevant this entry is 10 days later on the 15th September when Mr Dearman is invited for an interview is a matter not discussed by DCI John Foulkes. On 6th September the immediate arrest was delayed, but what happened on the 15th September 2014? Sufifcient time had lapsed since the 6th September 2014, why was Mr Dearman not arrested on the 15th September 2015, the same day as Dr. Hodes confirms her conclusive findings? No response contained in the police report in that regard.
Strangely enough, we are somewhat confused by the statement of DCI John Foulkes in the police report that “there were no grounds to arrest Mr Dearman”. Simply because at paragraph 21-23 of our complaint, we referred to two entries that were ignored by the police report. One of them, related directly to DCI Foulkes as we have copied it below:-
“Page 15 (onwards) of 77 [crime report 2419891/14], entry by DI Cannon on 8th September 2015 at 11:44 hours;
Saturday 6th September 2015.
"I briefed DCI Foulkes regarding this investigation based on the information we had, we had grounds for arrest, however no fixed address for the suspect".
The above entry is self-explanatory. DCI Foulkes has clearly ignored this entry, and his personal knowledge to come to his absurd conclusion of no grounds for arrest.
Also, the police report states at point 13 that following the children’s retraction, “At this point, no grounds remained to arrest any of the named suspects” thereby clearly suggesting that prior to the retraction interview, there were grounds for arrest of all suspects (Mr Dearman was interviewed prior to the retraction interviews).
So the position is that DCI Foulkes was briefed about this case during the investigation and informed that there were grounds for arrest. We even repeated this in our complaint, which the police report, prepared by DCI Foulkes, ignored. How can, DCI Foulkes then go on to say in the police report that there were no grounds for arrest?
We have provided various details in our complaint dealing with how the arrest criteria were satisfied as soon as the children made the allegations, and this was confirmed by various entries in the crime report 2419891/14 which we had highlighted (see our initial complaint dated 15th May paragraphs 14-23).
The police report has ignored it all and has not referred to a single entry in the CRIS report that we have referred to that demonstrate that the police acknowledge that the arrest criteria was satisfied. The Police have not responded as to why they feel, despite the entries in the crime report 2419891/14, that when the children made the allegations on the 5th September 2014, the arrest criteria were not fulfilled. Because to justify that would mean that if someone, especially children, made allegations of serious sexual nature, the police could only arrest if they had independent evidence, collaboration from other witnesses, the children to point out addresses and absolutely no inconsistencies in the disclosure no matter how minute or irrelevant they are to the substance of the claims, for the arrest criteria to be satisfied. What happened to believing the children?
If I reported to the police that Mr X stole my mobile phone and £1000 and my laptop, would the police not go and arrest Mr X and search his persons and possibly his house? Or would they say that they could not arrest Mr X as there was not enough evidence to do so and I needed an independent witness? Or they would not search his home address because he lives outside London and I had claimed that the incident happened in London?
In addition, the entry by DI Cannon briefing DCI Foulkes states that they did not arrest the “suspect” as there was no fixed address. Is this even a sufficient reason not to arrest a suspect? Oh sorry we are unable to arrest you as you have no fixed address. Please get one before we can fulfil our duties. Seriously?
In any event, there was more than one suspect including Lewis Hollings whom the police had addresses for, but they failed to investigate him. So, in weighing out what to do and with the limited police resources, the police decided it was best use of resources to concentrate on the suspect they did not have the address for instead of the one they did whom also was a main alleged abuser and had distinguishing marks and a secret room in his house. What would the police have done if the children pointed out an address where Mr Dearman was and the police looked from the outside and he was at home? Would he have been immediately arrested, in line with the entry by DI Cannon, or would he be asked to come in for an interview where the interviewing officer seems almost apologetic that Mr Dearman has attended the police station for an interview? What if he was not home but the description of the premises matched that given by the children? The police could not enter the house without a warrant or the owner’s permission, what would the police have done? From an objective view, that exercise would only serve to tip off the suspect about the investigation.
The above is a clear example as to why DCI Foulkes should not have been the OIC completing the report, as he is not independent and was involved in the investigation. We are unclear of his level of involvement in the police investigation into the allegations as evidently, the CRIS report fails to document much of the investigation and that which it does document is inconclusive and mostly misleading. This in itself nullifies the police report because of the obvious and apparent danger of lack of impartiality and objectivity.
Arrest Vs Interview under Caution or Caution Plus 3 Interview?
The police report goes on to say; -
“The end result would have been the same for both arrest and interview under caution. This was rightly achieved by inviting him for an interview under caution. If an interview can be achieved in this way and the necessary criteria are not met, then quite rightly he cannot be arrested” (Point 10)
Again the police failed to explain why the ‘necessary criteria’ were ‘not met’. The ‘necessary criteria’ were met upon the children making the allegations, hence why the circulation for “immediate arrest” as detailed in the CRIS report and as ignored by the police report. It would also have been ‘necessary’ to arrest Mr Dearman and other suspects in order to carry out intimate searches for distinguishing marks and tattoos, and to put the allegations to them. Because without an arrest, the police could not carry out an intimate search and without an intimate search the police could not verify the claims made by the children that specific abusers had specific distinguishing mark.
We also dispute that the end result would have been the same. Firstly, please understand that our complaint did not compare an ‘interview under caution’ with an “arrest” as of course an arrest would normally lead to an interview under caution which is the method the police adopt to interview suspects about allegations.
What we actually complained about, and please excuse DCI Foulkes for misinterpreting us, that Mr Dearman was invited for a CAUTION PLUS 3 interview instead of being arrested. The difference between a caution plus 3 interview and an arrest is that an arrest would mean police could lawfully and would have a duty to confiscate his mobile phone, his laptop and computers, search his home address, etc. They would also have been lawfully required to put all the allegations to Mr Dearman and not one that seems to have been made up.
Furthermore, under a caution plus 3 interview the suspect attends the station voluntarily, is not searched and sometimes not even booked into the station. Under an arrest, that would clearly have been different, for example, the laptop he was offering during the interview, if it was on his person, would have been seized and booked in, along with any mobile phone and property he was in possession of, as soon as he arrived into the custody department at the police station, as he would have been searched.
An arrest would also mean that an intimate search for tattoos and distinguishing marks could have been conducted because the children alleged that Mr Dearman also has tattoos. This would increase the need for an arrest and further proves why the ‘necessary criteria’ were met.
Consequently, the police report confirms this at point 13 “In relation to the others who were named, they would need to be arrested prior to any intimate search and examination to prove or disprove if they had marks, tattoos or piercings. Certainly upon arrest this is an action that could have been undertaken to prove or disprove their involvement in an offence”. DCI Foulkes is clearly swimming/drowning in contradictions.
In addition, please note point 12 in the police report where it states “Police would have been unable to conduct home address searches [of numerous main suspects including Mr Dearman] in view of the non-arrest decision”. Therefore, clearly in contradictory statements, the police report itself demonstrates that the end result for both arrest and interview under caution, sorry, both arrest and CAUTION PLUS 3 interview, would clearly not have been the same. Perhaps that is why DCI Foulkes compares the arrest with an interview under caution rather than a caution plus 3 interview, as otherwise he would not have been able to make some of the strange statements he has.
Furthermore, police are aware that a caution plus 3 interview is normally adopted when there is insufficient evidence to arrest and the very nature of it suggests that the police did not believe the children. In fact in our view, the very nature of the investigative actions taken / not taken at the very least demonstrate that the police did believe the children and actively sought to undermine the investigation.
Again note that the police report fails to explain why the decision not to arrest was made and ignores the aspect of positive unlawful discrimination which suggests that some are above the rule of law.
Please also refer to our response to police point 1 headed “No power to seize further property or make arrests” and “DC Savage Evidence at the Fact Finding hearing”
Under the police report point 10 it reads:
“The issues in respect of the decision to interview Mr. Dearman under caution rather than arrest were covered in point 8 above”.
However, as explained, we compared an arrest with a CAUTION PLUS 3 INTERVIEW, and not an interview under caution so this statement by DCI Foulkes is misleading and cannot be relied upon.
Therefore, the police have failed to explain why they decided not to arrest him and invite him for a CAUTION PLUS 3 interview. The police report also fails to explain: -
- why, how and when they decided to invite him for a voluntary caution plus 3 interview,
- who contacted him from social services,
- why did someone contact him from social services,
- why is this not considered perverting the course of justice,
- whom did Mr Dearman then contact at the police, when was this and what was discussed etc.
- how did he know exactly which police force he should contact etc.
B. The Interview of Mr Dearman
The evidence of Dr Hodes available during his interview
We refer to point 11 of the police report “Mr Dearman was interviewed about one specific allegation but not the full allegations of satanic abuse” which begins by stating;
“Paragraph 25 of the letter dated 15th May 2015 refers to the interview of Mr. Dearman and suggested that he was interviewed about one specific allegation of
sexual assault at Finchley swimming pool because it was easily disproved and would appear to suggest some action was being taken”.
It then commences by concentrating only on this aspect.
Firstly, paragraph 24-32 is relevant and many aspects of it have been ignored by the police report. This includes how Dr Hodes conclusive evidence was available and known by the police whilst Mr. Dearman was being ‘interviewed’ under caution plus 3. We know this because of the entry on the Crime report on page 40 of 77 at 16:49 on 15th September 2014 by DS MJ Fernandez that Dr Hodes had confirmed the;
“injuries to the children and that the child had implicated…his father for causing injuries to the anus area”.
Yet, as demonstrated above, this vital entry has been ignored by the first and the current police report. It is a damning entry leaving no doubt that Mr Dearman, whom the police failed to arrest on the basis of the evidence given by the children at the ABE interviews without any explanation, should have now without any excuse been arrested, his mobile phone laptop / computers seized, home address searched, questioned about all the allegations and his connections with the others alleged to have been involved including Lewis Hollings and Kathy Forsdyke.
Because at this point, the police had the evidence of the children through the ABE interviews on the 5th and 11th September 2014, “independent evidence” in the form of Dr Hodes conclusive medical findings and there was no retraction interview at this stage. This was more than enough to not only arrest Mr Dearman, but all the other main suspects.
In addition, by the time of Mr Dearman’s “caution plus 3 interview”, all the alleged suspects would have been aware of the investigation and there could have been no question of delaying their arrest by placing reliance on the excuse that the arrest of main suspects would be counter-productive as they would be tipped off and may destroy, conceal or hide vital evidence. But of course, one cannot hide the evidence of distinguishing marks and tattoos, even now.
Furthermore, we are aware that the members of the police did listen to the videos including the recording by officer Yaohirou, and therefore this evidence was also available and considered. The suggestion from Mr Dearman’s police interview is that he may have viewed or was aware of these videos prior to his caution plus 3 interview.
The police, having failed to arrest the suspects since the allegation were made, could have now carried out the arrests on the 15th and 16th September 2014 as they could no longer rely on the “tipping off” aspect to delay arrests. But they waited until 17th September 2014 to obtain an inconsistent and strange “retraction” that in our view cannot even be deemed as “retractions” as explained further below.
Hampstead Cover Up. 17.09.14. Masonic Mind Controlled "Retraction" Interview With Gabriel.
HAMPSTEAD COVER UP. ALISA'S 'RETRACTION" INTERVIEW. 17 09 14. PART 1
HAMPSTEAD COVER UP. ALISA'S 'RETRACTION" INTERVIEW. 17 09 14. PART 2
The Interview of Mr Dearman - Finchley Swimming Pool and the ‘fabricated allegation’
Secondly, and very importantly, the ‘allegation’ that was put to Mr Dearman in his caution plus 3 interview was never alleged by G. It is crucial to understand the difference between what G said, and what the police have alleged that G said about East Finchley swimming pool.
The police report fails to acknowledge and respond to the distinction that we complained about in paragraphs 24-29 of our complaint dated 15th May 2015, which we shall expand on below.
IPCC Complaint, 15.05.16.
The police questioned Mr Dearman during the caution plus 3 interview in the politest manner about an incident at East Finchley swimming pool between November 2013 and July 2014, namely 5th July 2014. Specifically, the interviewing officer DC Savage asked Mr Dearman 2 questions;
1. Did Mr Dearman touched G’s back side whilst changing? and
2. Did Mr Dearman “insert anything into [his] son’s backside”.
That is all Mr Dearman was asked in the politest, almost apologetic manner. The curious fact is though, G Never alleged this and therefore the response under point 11 is misleading and invalid, as it does not address what we complained about.
What G alleged in his ABE interview on the 11th September 2014 was that he and his sister were abused “lots of times” at East Finchley swimming pool when he was about 4 years old by his father and his friends, including Kate Forsdyke. He said that the abuse occurred mainly in the disabled toilets and that the culprits included “lots of people”, about 20. This is likely to have been between November 2010 and July 2011 as G d.o.b is 22/06/2006 and he would have been 4 at the time. This also coincides with the GP notes attached to Dr Hodes report of 22nd September 2014 which 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…..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”.
Perhaps A was suffering due to the abuse at the swimming pool?
Children abused by 20 abusers together and individually in the disabled toilet or abused by 20 abusers in the disabled toilets over a period of time?
The figure of 20 abusers is an approximate number of abusers who allegedly abused the children in the disabled toilets of the swimming pool.
G does not claim that all 20 abusers would be in the disabled toilets at the same time, and abuse him, his sister and other children. He claimed that they all abused him, his sister and other children in the disabled toilets which would clearly mean either one after the other, or in groups over a period of time. If you ask an abuse victim where were they get abused, and by how many people, they may say 20 people in a small room in a flat lots of times. This would not be interpreted as the victim being abused by all 20 in one go at the same time together crowded in a small room.
DC Martin and the investigation team wrongly interpreted what G had alleged to mean that all 20 alleged abusers were in the toilets in one go. DC Martin does not question G further for him to clarify and neither does he use the word “together”, “at once” or “same time” in the toilet when he is questioning G. Had he used those words / phrases, it is likely that G would have corrected him. That said, it is clear what G meant i.e. they abused him in the toilets, and not that they abused him together in the toilets at once - there is a big difference between the two, but the police seem to cling onto what fits the strategy to undermine the claims, as demonstrated throughout their investigation into the claims by the children.
In the view of the complainant, the police deliberately misinterpreted the details of number of abusers in the toilets and did not ask G to expand on it so that they could manipulate this and use it to cast doubt on the allegations made by the children in line with the ‘non-investigation strategy’. Because if anyone thought that G was claiming that all the abusers are in the disabled toilet together at once abusing him and his sister, they would ask for clarifications as to what exactly did G mean and how would that be possible. But DC Martin relies on his own misconception, fails to ask G for clarification in order to unfairly deny the children their right to a full prompt and effective investigation into their allegations.
The “Specific” Allegation
One of the questions that the police report failed to consider is why was it that DC Savage interviewed Mr Dearman as opposed to the ABE interviewing officer, DC Martin?
The police were clearly aware of what the children had alleged about the swimming pool, including DC Savage (interviewing officer of Mr Dearman) who was taking notes\ during the ABE interview of the 11th September when G describes the abuse at the swimming pool when he was 4 years old. This is evidenced by the following entry in the CRIS report by DC Martin on 13th September 2014 at 11:23.
The above makes it clear what the allegation was by G and how DC Savage (interviewing officer of Mr Dearman) and others would have been aware of it. There is clearly no mention of an incident of 5th July 2014 where he alone, was abused by his father by touching and by insertion of “something” or “anything” into his backside (Mr Dearman police interview transcript 15th September 2014).
DEARMAN'S POLICE INTERVIEW TRANSRIPT
What is “something” or “anything”? Why did DC Savage not even use the phrase “plastic willies” as mentioned by G. Who advised DS Savage about an incident on 5th July 2014 that G never alleged? Where did the details for the 5th July 2014 come from?
The police report states that;-
“DS Fernandez took a decision that the interview was to be initially focused on one specific allegation”, that the interview of Mr Dearman on the 15th September was “to be the first of staged interviews” and “being the first of a series of staged interviews”.
This is the first time we have heard the police refer to staged interviews, as from our understanding, they did not mention this in the CRIS report, nor during any interviews, nor did they mention it at Court during the “fact finding” hearing or even in their previous response. In fact DC Savage, when giving evidence at the “fact finding” hearing has the following exchange:
June Venters (counsel for the father): ..there is a lengthy transcript of the interview that took place, and would it be fair to say that you would be satisfied, as a police officer, at the end of that interview, had it been necessary to investigate him further or re-interview him, you wouldn’t have hesitated in doing so?
DC Savage: Definitely not, definitely not, definitely not.
June Venters (counsel for the father) Thank you. No further questions. “
DC Savage makes no mention of staged interviews but instead infers 3 times that there were no further interviews planned, no reason to investigate him further, he had asked Mr. Dearman all the relevant questions and that was the end of the matter.
Additionally, whilst giving evidence at the fact finding, DS Fernandez suggests that the police wanted to “put a full allegation to them…. rather than doing it sort of piecemeal”. He states this in respect of alleged abusers Mr. Dearman, Mr. Hollings and MS Forsdyke. This, in our view, is the opposite of the comments made by DS Fernandez in the police report regarding “series of staged interviews” and putting “one specific” allegation to Mr Dearman. We refer you to page 14 of the transcript of DS Fernandez evidence, Mr. Ageros counsel for children’s guardian is asking the questions:
Q. “Now the other matter which I know has exercised the mother from various documents she’s produced to this court is that at a fairly early stage in your investigation you did have the names, didn’t you, of people that the children had identified as being ringleaders. One of those was Mr Dearman, and we know he was interviewed. Two other people were specifically mentioned, weren’t they? They were Mr Hollings and Ms Forsdyke of Christchurch School. Why were they not interviewed under caution?
A. When we were looking at this, the allegations, it was just decided, or I decided that through, that I didn’t want to basically tip off anyone, give anyone prior knowledge of what we knew, so it was to, again, get as full an account as we can so that we can actually, if we were going to arrest somebody we can put a full allegation to them with all the evidence supporting that, rather than doing it sort of piecemeal”.
Consequently, in Court DS Fernandez confirmed that the position of the police was not to put allegations in a piecemeal fashion but in respect of the police report he states that the decision was to have “series of staged interviews” with one specific allegation put to Mr Dearman.
DS Fernandez cannot have it both ways and it needs to be clarified if DS Fernandez lied on oath, or lied in his statement that was used to complete the police report or whether there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for the obvious contradiction.
Please also note how DS Fernandez states that he did not want to “tip off anyone, give anyone prior knowledge of what we knew”. Therefore, once Mr Dearman was interviewed, it is clear that the others would be tipped off and therefore there should have been a pressing need to arrest the main suspects, put the allegations to them and check for distinguishing marks and tattoos including in or around the genital area. Curiously, one wonders how the police reached the view that attending the church or looking for addresses during a drive around and peeping through the window would not serve to tip off the alleged suspects;-
“Dear alleged abuser, can we come in to have a look?
“No, plus we saw you looking in from the outside window”.
“ok, at least you have been warned”.
In any event, the police report fails to detail why the decision was made to focus on a specific allegation that G never alleged, what would have been its objective, how would it benefit the investigation and stay in harmony with a prompt and effective investigation and the children’s rights under article 3, especially given the earlier entries in the CRIS report claiming they did not want to arrest Mr. Dearman as he may be “alerted” and thereby may conceal or destroy evidence. It fails to explain when the next staged interview was planned, as I am sure the police would have a detailed strategy to the interviews in that regard.
Consequently, the police report failed to address the issues raised above and we require clarification on: -
- Where did the police get the information for the specific incident that allegedly occurred between November 2013 and July 2014, specifically 5th July 2014? i.e. that Mr Dearman touched, and / or “inserted something” / “anything” into G’s “backside?” If G did not allege this, then who did?
- When and where were the details of this specific fabricated allegation discussed by G and the police?
- When and where was it determined that the specific fabricated allegation of East Finchley Swimming pool would be put to Mr Dearman in the first of a series of staged interviews and who was present when this was discussed and agreed?
- When, where and who was present when the approach of staged interviews was discussed and agreed?
- Who determined that Mr Dearman would only be asked 4 direct questions about the specific fabricated allegation that G did not allege?
- What did DS Fernandez mean in Court when he suggests that the police approach was to not do interviews where allegations are put in a piecemeal fashion?
- Why did the police fail to question Mr Dearman about G, his sister being and other children abused by numerous people including Kathy Forsdyke, Lewis Hollings, Miss Wilma, Miss Unwin, Miss Clover, Miss Reece etc. at East Finchley swimming pool when G was aged 4?
- Why was Mr Dearman not asked about his connections with these individuals?
- Why was Mr Dearman not questioned about the allegations as a whole and not asked about his connections with the named suspects?
- Why was his phone, laptop and computer not seized and his home addressed not searched?
- Why were Mr Dearman and the other main suspects not arrested and examined for distinguishing marks / tattoos, even after Mr Dearman’s interview?
This list is non exhaustive. The police report claims to address the above issues, but on careful considerations it fails to address any issue raised above and in our complaint.
Next 5 pages of IPPC Appeal document:
DEARMAN , FERNANDEZ AND CHANTELLE STEPHENS, SOCIAL SERVICES
No feedback yet
Form is loading...