DEARMAN, FERNADEZ AND CHANTELLE STEPHENS , SOCIAL SERVICES.
HAMPSTEAD COVER UP, ORIGINAL CHILDREN'S TESTIMONIES
“Videos”, coaching by mother and ‘Chantelle’ of Social services referred to in the Interview of Mr Dearman, 15th September 2014
We note from Mr Dearman’s police interview that he makes crucial references to “videos” of the children repeating the allegations and about Ella “telling them what to say”.
We refer you to page 13 and 14 of tape two of Mr Dearman’s interview;
“R Dearman - Would the Cafcass reports saying that they have a concern about Ella telling the kids stuff –
-And telling them what to say..
DC Savage - yeah”
The above clearly suggests that Mr Dearman was premeditating the course of the investigation, ‘retraction’ interviews, and the outcome of the family proceedings as he was asking DC Savage if the CAFCASS reports stating that Ella effectively coached the children into falsifying allegations would be considered. DC Savage agrees.
The transcript goes on; -
“R Dearman – And same with the video of her telling the kids how to be and what to say
DC Savage – what happens is, sir, the police and the Social Services ...have to work together. We all work together….I know for a fact that DS Fernandez has been to every single meeting with the social services. So I’m assuming information would be shared”
This can infer that Mr Dearman was aware of the video recordings of the children and the recording by officer Yaohirou. It suggests that Mr Dearman had already seen the videos of the children repeating the allegations.
It is important to note that on 15th September 2014, these videos had not been published on the internet and the only persons with access to them were the police, Ella Draper and Abraham Christie. Indeed, the children have stated in a video recorded after their initial police interview on the 5th September 2014 that the “good police man” had told their dad that they reported the allegations to the police. Interestingly, at page 3 of the transcript of the interview of tape 1, DC Savage states;
“obviously before we started, sir, and in front of your legal representative I did sort of say I know you have a lot to tell me, I’ve been told by one of my colleagues.”
Page 12 of tape 2 of the transcript of the police interview of Mr Dearman;
DC Savage “once the tapes are finished…. We’ll get to Ds Matt Fernandez – and see if he can have a quick chat with you”
Accordingly, in addition to speaking to social services, it is clear that Mr Dearman has been speaking to a police officer prior to the interview about the allegations and the mention of DS Fernandez suggest that it may be him. The complainant alleges that Mr Dearman was aware that attempts would be made to blame Ella Draper/Gareeva for coaching the children and that he had viewed the videos of the children repeating the allegations.
Please note that it is also clear that DS Fernandez attended all strategy meetings with Social services, and this would have included the one on 15th September 2014 when Dr Hodes was in attendance with her report dated 15th September 2014 and her conclusive findings that the injuries were consistent with the sexual abuse allegations. It is also clear that information is shared between the police and social services, yet the police are of the view that they can rely on stating that they never received the medical reports until January 2015, when it is clear that Social services were in possession of them during the police investigation and therefore highly likely they shared it with the police (if of course Dr Hodes had not already shared it with the police).
Furthermore, we raised an issue as to who it was that contacted Mr Dearman from social services and tipped him off about the police looking for him. The police have sought to ignore these admissions made by Mr Dearman in his BBC Victoria Derbyshire interview.
Father falsely accused of being a 'satanic cult paedophile ring leader' Victoria Derbyshire
From page 14 tape 2 of Mr Dearman’s interview, we note the following:
“ R Dearman – I wasn’t happy with social services, I spoke with Yvonne and Chantelle last week, I said ‘guys, the three, four year reports”
This clearly indicate that Mr Dearman, as well as a police officer, was also in contact with the social services at least a week prior to the interview – this could easily have been around the time of the ‘drive around’ and the visit to the church giving the alleged abusers ample time to conceal, hide or destroy evidence. Yet the police were having difficulty locating him? Did we not just hear how social services and the police share all information and work together and Mr Dearman was in contact with them for over a week before his interview? Is this not another reason why DCI Foulkes has failed to investigate and respond to our complaint including the aspect of perverting the course of justice and cover up?
Of great interest is the fact that Mr Dearman, during his police interview refers to a “Chantelle” of social Services. The medical reports drafted by Dr Hodes were all address to;
Senior Family Practitioner
Family Services and Social Work
Children Schools and Families
London borough of Camden
9th Floor St Pancras Square
London N1C 4AG”
It seems this is the one and the same Chantelle. Should the police not be investigating her, the social services team and the police officer(s), she worked closely with?
The police report states “the reasons for not putting all the allegations to Mr. Dearman should have been recorded on the Details page of the crime report or on the decision log page on the CRIS”. However, as detailed above, the police report itself fails to give the reasoning behind the decision to have “staged interviews”; how it would benefit and advance the investigation, who made the decision for the single specific incident that G did not even allege etc. Also DS Fernandez has contradicted this “series of staged interview” proposition during his evidence at the “fact finding” hearing.
The police report upholds our complaint in respect of police report point 11 and states that DS Fernandez will be subject to management Action “for failing to ensure that all allegations were put to Mr. Dearman (and if they were not, failing to accurately record the rationale on the crime report)”. This sentence accepts that the police proposition to have staged interviews was not the correct procedure that should have been adopted by the investigative team, and therefore it should have been an important consideration for DCI Foulkes when preparing this report to consider why such a decision was made, especially given that our complaint alleges a “cover up”. Crucially, the sentence also ignores the issue of the fabricated allegation that was put to Mr. Dearman that G did not allege.
In any event, point 11 is invalid as it ignores vital aspects of our complaint that make this issue much more serious than something to be resolved with “management training”. Also our complaint has been such that if any aspects of it are found to have merit, involved individuals should face misconduct and criminal proceedings, not management training, especially given that DS Fernandez is a highly experienced officer. This decision of management training action is not accepted and DS Fernandez and others involved should be subject to misconduct and other criminal proceedings given the serious nature of our complaint.
In view of the above, it is clear the police failed to address the issues we have raised and have attempted to confuse the picture by ignoring various entries in the CRIS report. Amongst many failures, they have failed to detail why the children’s rights were not breached due to the non-arrest of Mr Dearman and other suspects and have failed to explain why they decided not to arrest Mr Dearman and other suspects. The aspect of a “cover up” has not even been considered by the police report.
For the aforementioned reasons, police point 8, 10 and 11 are not accepted and DCI Foulkes has failed to properly investigate what we actually complained about. Any objective investigation into our complaint would have identified the issues raised above.
Any reliance on Mr. Dearman’s interview, or his and other suspects non arrest in any part of the police report is misleading, inaccurate and flawed and should be ignored. Thereby, the whole police response is flawed.
-------------------------------------------------- Pages 30-35
NEXT “Retraction Interviews”
Comment from: [Member]
Google “Ricky Dearman polygraph test”
Form is loading...