C. RETRACTION INTERVIEW
In respect of the retraction interviews, the police have failed to provide an adequate response and have omitted vital aspects; a pattern that we are now familiar with. We dealt with this in our complaint dated 15th May 2015 paragraphs 43-47.
Please note paragraph 38 of Kylie Wilson’s witness statement regarding the interviews:
“Retractions are common especially where there are external pressures, such as care proceedings, court proceedings and family or caregiver pressures and as such the retraction itself is not always true”.
Statement - Kylie Wilson 28.12.14 - Interviews
The police report fails to explain why they are of the view that there was no issue with the retraction interviews and why it is accepted in a blanket way as being truthful. We addressed how, especially in domestic and sexual abuse cases, police are reluctant to adhere to a retraction statement and often continue with prosecution. Indeed, we have witnessed this in many cases, yet the police fail to acknowledge and provide their reasoning in this instance. The police have also failed to investigate the truthfulness of the retraction allegations.
Hampstead Cover Up. 17.09.14. Masonic Mind Controlled "Retraction" Interview With Gabriel.
Murder and Cannibalism of babies, and ‘Retraction’ interviews led by DC Martin
The police have referred to the retraction of the murder of babies under their point 19 - The officer led child Q to retract the allegation regarding the murder of children. This was actually the sacrificial murder, and cannibalism of infants. The police failed to account that if there was no cannibalism of babies, how would the children know about what blood tastes like (metal / iron)?
POLICE RESPONCE TO THE IPCC COMPLAINT
The police report claims that “there is no evidence to suggest that DC Martin coerced the retractions” by simply ignoring and failing to address the evidence we provided which we will endeavor to detail again to expand on our point.
The police report reads “DC Martin's response:
In response to this report I have reviewed the final ABE interview of Gabriel and Alisa. I deny this allegation. Both children give explanations information as to why they fabricated the allegations of abuse, the explanations given fit the information known and is supported by the subsequent fact finding hearing at the family court. The children have shown throughout they are capable of challenging things if they feel I have them incorrect. They interacted throughout the ground rule process and by the third interview showed a strong understanding of what those rule where. My behavior towards the children has been professional throughout."
DC Martin has sought to provide a blanket denial without actually referring to the extract from the transcript that we produced in paragraph 44 of our complaint dated 15th May 2015.
He fails to explain why the extract does not support the assertion that he coerced and influenced the retractions. He has failed to explain, why, after receiving confirmation from G that babies were killed by his dad, did he not ask questions like, when, who else, where, how often etc. (The children had also described how they were too weak to cut the babies neck using a knife, so their dad would hold the knives in their hands, assist them in cutting the babies neck after which he would hold the baby upside from its ankles to drain the blood – the officer failed to ask if the retractions were true, how did G and A know all this graphic detail). He failed to ask the children how and when they were ‘coached’ regarding explicit sexual details, why they were told to include various suspects and distinguishing marks and how were they able to remember such great detail if it was not true.
Instead the officer has sought to introduce the movie “Mask of Zorro” as an explanation for the murder of babies. It is clear in the interview of G that DC Martin introduces Mask of Zorro as an explanation rather than G himself thereby leading G in his interview. This prompts G to accept what DC Martin has suggested as G is now aware that DC Martin is not listening to him. Here is the extract again; -
IO: “We talked in two other interviews didn’t we?”
IO: “Was what you told me the truth?”
Q “Yeah” Affirmation 1.
IO “So all that stuff about the babies….”
Q “Yeah.” Affirmation 2.
IO “and the Church and all that?”
Q “No the babies, well the babies, there is some of the babies killed yeah.” Affirmation 3.
IO “OK, are you sure?”
Q, starting to give in: “Yes, but not much, not every single day, not every single day killed no. Not like that.” Affirmation 4.
The theme that runs through this interview is with G (Q) saying things have happened, then not so much then agrees they aren’t true (Kylie Wilson statement of regarding interviews, paragraph 53(i)) and we say that this change is because of the influence of DC Martin and others unknown.
For example, at this point, DC Martin should have continued with questions requesting further details on the murder of babies including where, when, how, and by whom, as DC Martin says the purpose of the ABE on 17th September was to obtain further details about the sexual allegations.
However, DC Martin seems determined to illicit retractions from G. Please also note that throughout the ABE interviews on the 5th and the 11th September G has informed DC Martin about the sacrificial murder of babies several times but DC Martin has ignored it and failed to ask further questions about it. This could easily be identified by anyone listening or reading the ABE interview transcripts – we are happy to point this out to the IPCC should it require us to point this out to them.
G (Q) has repeated his earlier allegations of murder from the previous interviews and affirmed them now four times in this interview. At this point the interviewing officer provides further leading questions.
IO: “Cos I heard you watched a film Zorro, is that right?”
IO: “and there was someone kill…. killed there someone was killed there, weren’t there? Because it sounded to me like, what it sounded to me was similar to the story you told about the babies. And that’s why I was a bit (sic) wondering, wondering, are babies actually killed?”
Here it is clear that DC Martin has introduced Mask of Zorro and explained to G that it sounds like that is where he got the allegation of murder of babies. This is clear evidence of DC Martin leading G into the retractions and the police report fails to address this.
DC Martin has also introduced the movie ‘Mask of Zorro’ during the ‘retraction interview’ of A.
Furthermore, Kylie Wilson in her statement dealing with the interviews at para 52(d) states;
“In the interview of Alisa on 17/09/2014 again conducted by Steve it is clear from the opening conversation that there have been conversations about what will be discussed on the car journey to the interview suite. Steve talks about what they have discussed and Alisa states “Abraham told us to tell some things which are not true.” Steve says “You mentioned about Zorro and about heads being cut off in that film and obviously I wondered whether or not that…is that how you knew about the babies.” Alisa replies “Yes because I had an idea, so then I told to Abraham and then Abraham said “good, then do that and tell that to the Police”. This is a very leading question from Steve and it would appear this is either due to this subject having been discussed outside of the interview (of which there should be a record if this was so) or an assumption by Steve that then leads Alisa into agreeing.
HAMPSTEAD COVER UP. ALISA'S 'RETRACTION" INTERVIEW. 17 09 14. PART 1
HAMPSTEAD COVER UP. ALISA'S 'RETRACTION" INTERVIEW. 17 09 14. PART 2
In addition, statement of Kylie Wilson, para 63 dealing with the interview states;-
“[G]’s retraction is particularly confused and he appears to be led through it by the police interviewer”
Conveniently, the police report ignores the observations made by former detective constable Kylie Wilson.
Therefore, it is difficult to reconcile the statements by DC Martin in the police report such as “The second point suggests I coerced the children. This is not true, the explanations made by the children as to why they made points of their allegations up and how they made them had not been influenced by me” point 18. The above clearly indicates that it was influenced by DC Martin and the police report has sought to ignore this in order to make the justifications it presents.
This is pretty much the pattern with most of the police report i.e. make bold statements without substance, ignore vital information of the complaint to justify unjustifiable acts.
Perhaps this is why DCI Foulkes decided to investigate our complaint by serving Section 14 notices and requesting statements from the investigating officer rather than interviewing them because during an interview, it is likely that the officers would have been required to explain such bold statements with reference to what we have complained about in detail. If the interviewer failed to ask such questions during an interview of the officers, it is likely that he/ she would also be subject to a similar complaint.
In addition, Kylie Wilson, in her statement in respect of the CRIS report states at paragraph 43:
“The Mask of Zorro, which I have reviewed as part of this report, is a swashbuckling sword-fighting movie. There is a scene where a head is cut off, however this is off camera. The only particularly gory scenes are ones where a head is an apparently in a hessian sack with blood dripping from it and another where a head and hand are floating in liquid and a cup is dipped into the liquid and drunk. There are no skulls to be seen or satanic type ritualism, nor is there anything involving children or babies”
Statement - Kylie Wilson 28 12 14 - CRIS-2
This analysis, not surprisingly, was ignored by the police report. Did DC Martin ever watch Mask of Zorro to confirm what the children were saying is true or not? Or was this not part of the investigation strategy, in the same way that the investigation team failed to investigate the mysterious Sophie?”
The extract of G interview on the 17tH September 2014 continues; -
Q: “Yeah”. Fifth affirmation. Ignored.
IO: “or is that something you’ve been made to say?”
Q: ”Yeah it is something I was made to say.”
IO: “Are babies being killed?”
Q:”No, not much but there is yeah.” Sixth affirmation.
IO “By who?”
Q “By my dad. Not much” Seventh affirmation.
It is submitted that the interviewing officer, DC Martin, inexplicably completely refuses to pursue the obvious line of questioning here. He has been told that the father specifically killed babies. Neither pertain to the movie Zorro, so any reasonable interviewer would solicit further details; When did it happen? Where did it happen? Who else was there? What time of the day did it happen? What day of the week? How many times? etc. and if the story was not true it would obviously collapse under scrutiny once all those details were provided. How many times does a witness have to say that something has happened before it is acted upon? The police report fails to address this directly.
The interview continues;
IO “Are you sure? It’s ok If it hasn’t happened it’s ok as long as we talk about it now.”
This, it is submitted on behalf of our client, taken in it’s proper context, is an indirect intimidation for Q to retract his allegation otherwise it won’t be ok. The police report refers to this statement, but out of context, because it ignores the 7 affirmations of the sacrificial murder of babies and why the failure to question G further in respect of this does not breach his rights secured under Article 3 ECHR and does not evidence a cover up.
The Mysterious “Sophie” and the non-follow up Investigation into the retraction interviews
This was dealt with at paragraph 46-48 in our complaint to the police dated 15th May 2015.
The police report fails to mention or discuss the issue with “Sophie” ( Sophie Hurlocker), the schoolgirl who allegedly introduced the children to sexual acts and was a strong basis for the ‘retraction’. It also fails to address why the police felt there was no need for any follow up investigation to confirm the veracity of the claims made in the ‘retraction’ interviews.
As you are aware, both statements of DC Kylie Wilson, have been ignored even though they contain vital criticisms of the police investigation and the interviews as a whole. For example, at para 49 of her statement dealing with the CRIS report states:
“The Mask of Zorro is a partial answer, but there were further answers such as what Alisa was shown by Sophie that have not been probed sufficiently that are suitable for further investigation”
Kylie Wilson, at paragraph 49 of the statement dealing with the CRIS report states:
“If the retractions are considered to be truthful (and since this came after the children were taken into Police Protection and an Emergency Protection Order applied for) consideration should have been given to identifying and interviewing Sophie; who if this is correct, has over sexualized behaviour and access to pornography. What actions have been taken in this regard with the school, social services and police in regard to safeguarding this child?”
From what we understand, no action has been taken.
Kylie Wilson, at paragraph 52 (e) of the statement dealing with the interview states:
“Alisa talks about Sophie and her friends touching her and telling her to touch her brother in her retraction as her explanation for how the allegations came about in the first place. Alisa also states that Sophie showed her plastic willies on her IPad mini and that she likes “sexy stuff”, that Sophie showed her a picture of plastic willies sticking in a bum and that she told Gabriel this”.
Therefore, “Sophie” should be of most interest to the investigating officers not only to confirm the veracity of the “retractions” but also to safeguard a clearly troubled and disturbed child. That is, if she even exists.
Are the police of the view that claims made in retraction interviews do not need to be verified? Or that it is ok, in view of the police and social services, for a girl named “Sophie”, whom the police did not even bother perusing the children for further information about; what she looked like, what was her full name, what class was she in etc. to engage and encourage sexual touching of other school children and show them plastic willies sticking in a bum? Is this acceptable behavior for a school child? Are the police not interested in determining who this “Sophie” is, why would she encourage and engage in sexual activity with other children, and has she been victim of sexual abuse herself etc.?
The police, conveniently, and this seems to be a pattern, ignored this aspect of our complaint because in our view, acknowledging this would mean that they could not give the explanations that they have given in points 4, 5, 18 and 20 and anywhere else within the report where they sought to rely on the retraction interviews as a justification for non-action, for example, arresting and interviewing suspects.
Retraction statements were inconsistent
The police response, however, under point 18 states: -
“You highlight inconsistencies in the children's accounts in your complaint. Statements from children including retraction statements often have minor consistency issues as do statements taken from adults”
Strangely enough, the same i.e. “statements have minor consistency issues”, could be said for the ABE interviews of the children on 5th and 11th September 2014 regarding the perceived and manipulated inconsistencies that the police rely on.
For example the location of the secret room in the church (police should have taken children with them to identify secret rooms), the drive around (police could have taken children directly outside the house they pointed out to determine if it was the house they were alleging, so they could give further descriptions and explain where everything was, or they could have just taken the children to the address of Lewis Hollings to identify the secret room – but that would be too direct for the investigation needs) and 20 people in a disabled toilet abusing children at East Finchley Swimming pool (G never alleged that all 20 were in the toilet at once abusing at the same time, that is a fabrication by the police just like the single fabricated incident that they put to Mr. Dearman in his police interview).
We mentioned in our complaint that the retraction interviews were inconsistent and gave details and examples of why we reached such a view. The police refer to the inconsistencies that both we and Kylie Wilson have highlighted as “minor” but fail to detail the inconsistencies that have been complained about and why would it be considered “minor”. We refer you to the statement of Kylie Wilson, paragraph 63 dealing with the interview;
“It is clear from the retractions that Alisa and Gabriel are not giving the same account in their retractions. They do not give the same sources of material as to where they got their ideas from for touching, whether they touched or not, where the idea for plastic willies came from etc. Gabriel’s retraction is particularly confused and he appears to be led through it by the police interviewer”
And, Paragraph 53(l) statement of Kylie Wilson dealing with interview:
“When questioned about plastic willies and whether he has seen one he says “no, I never ever in my life ever seen one” Steve responds “so how did you think of that idea, was it you that thought of it” “no, no, yeah I am the one that thought of it, when he found out I was touching he said, he said yes they put real willies in my bottom…then he said they also have plastic willies don’t they…”. This appears to contradict the previous assertion above that he and Alisa had never touched. As to whose idea the plastic willies were, Alisa had previously said that it was her friend Sophie who had showed her this and she had told Gabriel”.
This was also directly addressed in our complaint but has been ignored. Are the above considered “minor” inconsistencies in the retraction interviews? One wonders what would be a major inconsistency in a retraction interview of sexual abuse? Perhaps investigation into “Sophie” may have proved she does not exist but then again, there is no need for such lines of enquiries as that would be a “minor” inconsistency?
We are of the view that the police are reluctant to address the issues raised in respect of the retraction interviews because if the retractions are not considered truthful then it would appear that the children are making up accounts that differ and they are not under the influence of Mr. Christie or Ms. Draper and therefore the issue of coaching by Mr. Christie and Ella Draper must be re-examined and so too the allegations as a whole. The police behavior strongly suggests that such a discovery needed to be avoided and ignored at all costs. After all, we understand that the emergency protection order that removed the children from the care of the mother was due to expire on the 17th September 2014, the same day as the “retraction” interviews.
Accordingly, the police response in this regard is not accepted and they have failed to investigate our complaint properly, objectively and to a satisfactory standard.
Were the Retraction Interviews obtained after Threats (police response point 5)
It is normal practice in such interviews to ask if the children were being threatened, coerced or forced to make the retractions. This question is especially vital here as the children have indicated numerous times to numerous professional that they feared for their lives if they make / continue with the allegations. They even informed various professionals of nightmares that they were having of their dad coming to kill them. Yet, DC Martin at no stage throughout either ‘retraction’ interview asks G or A whether they were being forced, coerced or threatened to make the retractions. This was addressed in our complaint but the police report fails to address this directly. The police report just claims there is no evidence that the children were threatened to make the retractions without actually addressing the evidence we provided.
At point 5, the police report confusingly states:
“You have provided no specific evidence to support this complaint or indicated why this is your belief. Unfortunately, neither you nor Mr. Christie are available to speak to in order to gain greater clarity in respect of this head of complaint”
And at point 18 (Retraction statements were coerced from the victims and inconsistent. You raised concerns over the language used by the interviewing officer) the police report states:
“Unfortunately you were unavailable to discuss this aspect of the complaint and you have not provided details of who you believe is an alleged abuser and what evidence you had to support this belief”.
We do not agree with this. We have provided various reasons, analysis and evidence in our complaint and in this response about the likelihood of the ‘retractions’ being coerced. In the complainant’s view, we are dealing with individuals that are satisfied to turn a blind eye on the evidence before them.
What evidence do the police have that Ella Gareeva aka Ella Draper and we, as her instructing solicitors, were not available to clarify any confusions that the police perceived. What attempts did the police make to contact Ella or us? As far as we are aware, police made no such attempts. In fact we sent the police several emails requesting updates on the police response to or complaint but we were largely ignored. Therefore, the evidence shows that it was the police that seemed unavailable, not the other way round. However, to be fair to the police, I must admit that since the police report was served on us on 1st April 2016, they have responded to our post 1st April 2016 emails in a prompt and efficient manner. These emails could be provided to the IPCC on request.
Swimming Pool Incident and allegations of Dearman supplying Cocaine Not Retracted
Please note that we stated in our complaint that the children, especially G did not “withdraw” the allegation of the swimming pool and he clearly confirmed during the interview of the 17tH September that it had happened, but DC Martin failed to pursue this further and he seemed more interested and determined in achieving withdrawals. Any attempt made by police to address this (under point 15 and 20) is invalid for the reasons stated above, as the suspects should have been arrested and questioned with regards to the abuse at the swimming pool toilets. Therefore, this is yet another aspect of our complaint which has also not been addressed.
We also referred to the fact that G did not withdraw the allegation that Mr. Dearman supplied him with cocaine and forced him to sniff it. G, in great detail, during his ABE interview of the 11th September 2014, describes the cocaine, its packaging and its effects after sniffing. He stated that it made him sneeze and go “achooo”. His detailed description could only come about if he had direct experience of using cocaine. DC Martin never puts this to him during the interview of the 17th September and thereby it is never “retracted,” if that interview could even be considered a valid “retraction” interview.
G and A Repeating the Allegations to Foster Carers After the “Retraction Interviews”
The police report ignored paragraph 47 of our complaint dated 15th May 2015. This referred to notes from the foster carer of the children written after they were removed from our clients care on 11th September 2014. This document was exhibited as FC1. It had details of both children repeating the allegations and expressing their fears of Mr Dearman coming to kill them. It stated that A said the allegations were not true on 30th September 2014. It remained silent on whether G stated the same suggesting he did not.
The police report fails to explain why this has no impact on the closed investigation as it self-evidently questions the authenticity of the “retraction interviews”, for why would the children still be repeating the allegations after the retraction statements if they were not true. This lends further support to the suggestion that they were coerced / threatened to retract the allegations.
Had the police referred to this, it would have been even more difficult and misleading for them to state that the retractions were not coerced such as in point 18 of the police report where DC Martin states; -
“The suggestion that I coerced them in order to make the children say these things is untrue”.
Unfortunately, police failure to respond to this and other aspects of our complaint has made it rather difficult to accept this statement and others alike.
Please note, we did not infer that DC Martin was the only one involved in the allegations of coerced and threatened retractions. Our complaint makes it clear that we suggested that either DC Martin and/or Mr Dearman, members of social services, members of police involved in the investigation and others that the children alleged as suspects were involved in, what the complainant refers to as, coerced and threatened retraction interviews. In addition, we are aware, from his police interview, that Mr Dearman was in contact with Chantelle Stevens of Social Services at least a week before his interview of the 15th September 2014, coincidently, around the time of the “drive around” and prior to the visit to the church. We also know that Mr Dearman, in his police interview, refers to “videos” of the children being told what to say and how to behave.
We are also aware from the CRIS report page 34 of 77 that Mr Dearman was due to have contact with the children on the 13th September 2014. We know this from an entry by DS Fernandez at 14:45 on 10th September 2014, which was in respect of a strategy meeting held on the 10th September 2014 at Camden. The entry details some of what was discussed in the meetings. It states:
“The Father is due to have contact on Saturday 13.09.14 SW will contact and put him off and obtain his current address”
We do not know if this contact went ahead. Why did the police not decide to arrest him knowing social services had contact? Why did the police not search his home address when he attended the police station on the 15th September 2014?
A justification, which has never been mentioned anywhere before, is given at point 9;
“there was no evidence to support a search of the address where Mr Dearman was living as this was located outside of London and your children had not indicated that any offences had been committed outside of the London area”.
Is that so? If a victim, a vulnerable child at that, alleges they were abused in London and the suspect lived outside of London, would the police say that there was no need to search his house for supporting evidence? Even when the victims allege, and A and G did allege this in their ABE interviews, that the abuser had naked and sexual images of them on their computer and laptops? And that he made plastic willies? If a drug dealer lives outside of London but deals his drugs inside of London, will the police refuse to search his house? If a murder happened in London, and the suspect lived outside of London, would the police refuse to search the suspect’s house?
So the police not only put an allegation to Mr Dearman that G did not allege, they found a ‘reason’ not to search his address. What was the point of the ‘drive around?’ This response by the police is clearly unsatisfactory and therefore point 9 should be ignored as well.
Following the strategy meeting on the 10th September 2014, the children were taken into care. Mr Dearman’s contact with the children was due on the 13th September 2014. Mr Dearman attended the police station for a bizarre voluntary caution plus 3 interview on the 15th September 2014. The understanding is that the emergency protection order was due to expire on the 17th September 2014. The “retraction interviews” took place on the 17th September 2014. No action was taken on 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st September 2014. The investigation was closed on the 22nd September 2014 despite conclusive findings from Dr Hodes on 3 occasions (15th, 16th and 22nd September 2014), which the police alleged were never communicated to them, and there is no reason why they did not follow it up in the 5 days after the ‘retraction interviews’.
The aforementioned would have been abundantly clear to a someone properly and objectively investigating our complaint and would have prompted such a person to approach the above sequence of events with an abundance of caution.
Absence of a response from the police to this and other vital aspects of or complaint, only provides further evidence, if not, at the very least strong inferences, that there is more than just merit in what the complainant alleges and something seriously untoward has taken place.
Retraction Interview Conclusion
For the reasons above, the police points 4, 5, 18, 19, 20 all dealing with the retraction interviews, are not agreed and their reasoning, like much of the police report, is flawed, misleading and ignores vital aspects of our complaint. There has been a clear breach of the children’s rights secured under Article 3 by the way the police carried outs their “investigation” and this has been ignored by the police report.
Each aspect of our complaint, individually and as a whole represents a breach of Article 3. It also establishes a breach of Article 8, right to private family life, as the children were removed from the care of their loving mother when they came to the police for assistance in ending the horrific abuse that they have alleged.
Whatever happened to believing the children?
There are also grave concerns of conspiracy to pervert the course of Justice and conspiracy to intimidate witnesses.
Any reliance on the retraction interviews in any part of the police report is misleading, inaccurate and flawed and should be ignored. Thereby, the whole police response is flawed.
----------------------------------------------------------------- end of 10 pages 36 -45
JEAN CLEMENT RECORDINGS
Comment from: [Member]
Google “Ricky Dearman polygraph test”
Form is loading...