DEAR #HomeOffice: what about the #WhistleblowerKids’ safety after “What do you want me to say?”

Dear Home Office
Here is a letter I sent yesterday to the MoJ. As you know I have contacted you before concerning this case which has now been through the High Court and is awaiting further Appeal on behalf of the Mother.
My prime concern is for the children’s/victims safety in the interim from this moment in time until Appeal case is heard. I urge you to contact the MoJ and request details on what they plan to do in light of EU LEGAL DIRECTIVES which very clearly, give their full support only to the child-witness/victim statements given in freedom from influence of alleged abusers.
I quote from the letter below for details on exactly why Justice Pauffley’s recent High Court Judgement on the case reflects serious negligence to honour EU law and thereby, has left two children and perhaps many others, at serious risk of sexual abuse and even murder.
‘Considering how many times the children have changed their story depending on whom they are with i.e. alleged abusers and non-abusers – how in light of the LAW is it possible for any credible Judge to ignore the possibility that there is reason to doubt, the children’s latest testimony?
EU Law Directive 26 very clearly directs immediate investigation into any suspicion/possibility of child sexual abuse, child trafficking and child murder and regardless if witnesses etc retract their suspicions or allegations – mere suspicion is LEGALLY, enough to warrant an immediate and FULL investigation.’

And, most especially, when the later, video-recorded retraction interviews given to police (after children are removed from Mother and placed in care of their alleged abusers), begin with the 9 year old girl asking “WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO SAY?”
This kind of EVIDENCE has to be taken into account when examining cases of child sexual abuse and on
what grounds can anyone be SURE that those children are NOT still at risk given their latest testimonies are given while under direct influence of abusers the children are RECORDED as saying had THREATENED TO KILL THEM IF THEY DISCLOSED???
How DARE such blatant ignorance be presented as ‘Justice’ in a civilised nation. It is truly despicable that NOWHERE, does there seem to be ANY consideration or compassion for the children as probable and possible long suffering victims of serious abuse, living in probable, possible fear for their lives, surrounded by their abusers consisting of father, police, cafcass officers and social workers – imagine if their story is true – HOW those children are suffering right now – how terribly let down they must feel – how afraid and HOW AT RISK.
 
According to EU Law, that risk CANNOT JUSTIFIABLY BE DENIED BECAUSE ALL RETRACTIONS OF ORIGINAL STATEMENTS WERE GIVEN WHILE IN HANDS OF ALLEGED ABUSERS.
Failure to act WILL result in charges of Treason against ALL Authorities who FAIL TO STAND BY THE LAW AND ACT TO PROTECT VULNERABLE CHILDREN.
I URGE that the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice move JOINTLY to act IMMEDIATELY and remove said children from care of present Authorities.
I URGE that COMPASSION be shown to the children and most especially, in light of the SERIOUS PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE shown in the handling of their case by ALL Authorities concerned, that rather than children being handed over to yet MORE strangers, they are instead, permitted the MERCIFUL comfort of being allowed to
return to the familiarity of their London home, where their grandparents await and who are ready and capable to care for the children in the interim until the Mother’s Appeal.
It is also, of UTMOST importance that arrest warrants issued against Mother and her Counsel are made VOID in light of the children’s original allegations regarding abusive authorities and in light of police & Court FAILURE to HONOUR E.U. LAW. The Mother needs to be able to FREELY present her case in PERSON and she has a RIGHT to have contact with her children; those children NEED that reassurance right now.
The issue here is NOT whether or not the children’s story is true or false, the issue is about the LEGAL LEVEL OF EVIDENCE REQUIRED FOR A FULL INVESTIGATION INTO VERIFIABLE FACTS. It is OBSCENE that NO IMMEDIATE INVESTIGATION TOOK PLACE (not even after medical evidence CONFIRMED REPEATED SEXUAL ABUSE) and because of that negligence, ALL ALLEGEDLY ABUSIVE PARTIES WERE GIVEN AMPLE TIME TO COVER THEIR TRACKS AND HIDE EVIDENCE. This is truly DESPICABLE because now, we may NEVER know the truth and that means many MORE children could be left at risk and with their resulting trauma left UNADDRESSED.
IT IS THESE ‘IF’S AND ‘COULD’S THAT EU CHILD PROTECTION LAW WAS WRITTEN TO DISPEL.
Please DO SOMETHING – restore some FAITH to the people of Britain that some with SENSE is up there in the HIGH OFFICES – PLEASE MOVE SWIFTLY TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN AND PLEASE DEMAND AN IMMEDIATE, AND INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION.
Yours Sincerely,
Miss D. Mahmoudieh.
Advertisements

11 thoughts on “DEAR #HomeOffice: what about the #WhistleblowerKids’ safety after “What do you want me to say?”

  1. What a very well presented letter and I agree whole heartedly with it. These children and others remain at serios risk and a full criminal abuse MUST be launched.

    Like

    • RE: JUDGE PAUFFLEY JUDGEMENT

      107. It is a curious fact that prior to the launch of these proceedings, no police officer had listened to the audio recording made by Jean Clement Yaohirou or watched the film clips of the children. DI Cannon made inquiries at my request to discover that DC Rogers, the member of his team who received the film clips and the audio recording from Mr Yaohirou, had sent them to a property store in Chingford. The focus would appear to have been upon arranging almost immediate ABE interviews.
      108. I say no more at this stage than that the police and social services inquiry could have taken an entirely different course if attention had been given to those recordings. At the very least, the questions asked of P and Q at interview would have been directed towards other areas of interest.

      In para.107, Judge Pauffley is unequivocally stating that the home videos in which the children give detailed descriptions of their attackers’ private parts (with the warts, tattoos spots, etc.) i.e. evidence enabling the police to positively identify the perpetrators, were NOT seen by the police. The information in these recordings(the “Distinguishing Marks” videos and the one with the detailed drawings) DID NOT form part of the police interviews, or the overall investigation. DC Rogers was either staggeringly ignorant of how important this video evidence was to the investigation, or he/she was COMPLETELY AWARE of its significance. Either way, he/she effectively concealed evidence crucial to a very serious crime investigation. Concealing evidence is a very serious crime – and ignorance of the law is no defence, especially in the case of a police officer. Was DC Rogers acting on his/her own, or was he/she ordered to conceal this evidence? And why was DI Cannon happy to leave these recordings in storage? Was he unaware that a member of his team was concealing evidence? I think Judge Pauffley points to the answers in the final sentence of para 107: The focus would appear to have been upon arranging almost immediate ABE interviews. The intention then, it appears, was to achieve BEST evidence, not just simple straightforward evidence. BEST evidence? What does that mean? It’s like saying the BEST fact, or the BEST truth. A fact is a fact, evidence is evidence! It’s obvious that such damning evidence, offering the opportunity to establish irrefutable proof of the identification of the attackers, is not the BEST evidence for some, namely the perpetrators or anyone involved in these crimes.
      Judge Pauffley is saying in para. 108, that if the “Distinguishing Marks” and “Drawings” videos had been available and not concealed, the police interviews of the children would have had to include questions regarding these distinguishing marks and the names of the individuals the children identified. Also, the investigating officers would have been compelled by law, to require those people named and physically identified by the children, to submit themselves for medical examination in order to be eliminated from the inquiry. As the very serious crime of concealing evidence in a rape and murder investigation has been committed by DC Rogers – be it alone, under the instruction of, or in collusion with others – this investigation CANNOT lawfully be closed. Judge Pauffley has put it down in black and white, so the police are no longer unaware of the existence of the “Distinguishing Marks”and “Drawings” videos. Therefore, the police investigation can continue and those people named and physically identified by the children can come forward to undergo a medical examination to clear themselves.
      In short, Judge Pauffley has clearly stated in para.107 and 108 that the investigation would have taken a very different course if the concealed recordings had been made available to police. Judge Pauffley appears to imply that now it’s too late to consider the most damning evidence(apart from the medical evidence)of this case. NOT SO! DC Rogers’ crime of concealing crucial evidence is the crux of this ATTEMPTED cover-up – it is NOT a fait accompli cover-up because it is exposed, and the attempt has not been successful. To believe we’re looking at an ABCO(Achieving Best Cover Up)here is wishful thinking on their part, and merely what they want us to believe. All good people, and the law, reject this.
      Any attempt at closing this investigation might well be considered legal, but it most certainly is not lawful.
      Separating a loving mother from her children can also be considered legal, but it most certainly is not lawful.
      There is overlap with what is legal and what is lawful in some instances(just to confuse us!), but mostly what is legal has nothing whatsoever to do with what is lawful.
      “Everything Hitler did in Germany was legal”. Martin Luther King

      Stay strong Ella and Abe, Gabriel and Alisa. All the millions of good people who know of your plight, and all the billions of good people who are coming to know of it, support you with all their hearts.

      Drifloud & friends

      Liked by 2 people

    • RE: JUDGE PAUFFLEY JUDGEMENT

      107. It is a curious fact that prior to the launch of these proceedings, no police officer had listened to the audio recording made by Jean Clement Yaohirou or watched the film clips of the children. DI Cannon made inquiries at my request to discover that DC Rogers, the member of his team who received the film clips and the audio recording from Mr Yaohirou, had sent them to a property store in Chingford. The focus would appear to have been upon arranging almost immediate ABE interviews.
      108. I say no more at this stage than that the police and social services inquiry could have taken an entirely different course if attention had been given to those recordings. At the very least, the questions asked of P and Q at interview would have been directed towards other areas of interest.

      In para.107, Judge Pauffley is unequivocally stating that the home videos in which the children give detailed descriptions of their attackers’ private parts (with the warts, tattoos spots, etc.) i.e. evidence enabling the police to positively identify the perpetrators, were NOT seen by the police. The information in these recordings(the “Distinguishing Marks” videos and the one with the detailed drawings) DID NOT form part of the police interviews, or the overall investigation. DC Rogers was either staggeringly ignorant of how important this video evidence was to the investigation, or he/she was COMPLETELY AWARE of its significance. Either way, he/she effectively concealed evidence crucial to a very serious crime investigation. Concealing evidence is a very serious crime – and ignorance of the law is no defence, especially in the case of a police officer. Was DC Rogers acting on his/her own, or was he/she ordered to conceal this evidence? And why was DI Cannon happy to leave these recordings in storage? Was he unaware that a member of his team was concealing evidence? I think Judge Pauffley points to the answers in the final sentence of para 107: The focus would appear to have been upon arranging almost immediate ABE interviews. The intention then, it appears, was to achieve BEST evidence, not just simple straightforward evidence. BEST evidence? What does that mean? It’s like saying the BEST fact, or the BEST truth. A fact is a fact, evidence is evidence! It’s obvious that such damning evidence, offering the opportunity to establish irrefutable proof of the identification of the attackers, is not the BEST evidence for some, namely the perpetrators or anyone involved in these crimes.
      Judge Pauffley is saying in para. 108, that if the “Distinguishing Marks” and “Drawings” videos had been available and not concealed, the police interviews of the children would have had to include questions regarding these distinguishing marks and the names of the individuals the children identified. Also, the investigating officers would have been compelled by law, to require those people named and physically identified by the children, to submit themselves for medical examination in order to be eliminated from the inquiry. As the very serious crime of concealing evidence in a rape and murder investigation has been committed by DC Rogers – be it alone, under the instruction of, or in collusion with others – this investigation CANNOT lawfully be closed. Judge Pauffley has put it down in black and white, so the police are no longer unaware of the existence of the “Distinguishing Marks”and “Drawings” videos. Therefore, the police investigation can continue and those people named and physically identified by the children can come forward to undergo a medical examination to clear themselves.
      In short, Judge Pauffley has clearly stated in para.107 and 108 that the investigation would have taken a very different course if the concealed recordings had been made available to police. Judge Pauffley appears to imply that now it’s too late to consider the most damning evidence(apart from the medical evidence)of this case. NOT SO! DC Rogers’ crime of concealing crucial evidence is the crux of this ATTEMPTED cover-up – it is NOT a fait accompli cover-up because it is exposed, and the attempt has not been successful. To believe we’re looking at an ABCO(Achieving Best Cover Up)here is wishful thinking on their part, and merely what they want us to believe. All good people, and the law, reject this.
      Any attempt at closing this investigation might well be considered legal, but it most certainly is not lawful.
      Separating a loving mother from her children can also be considered legal, but it most certainly is not lawful.
      There is overlap with what is legal and what is lawful in some instances(just to confuse us!), but mostly what is legal has nothing whatsoever to do with what is lawful.
      “Everything Hitler did in Germany was legal”. Martin Luther King

      Stay strong Ella and Abe, Gabriel and Alisa. All the millions of good people who know of your plight, and all the billions of good people who are coming to know of it, support you with all their hearts.

      Drifloud and friends

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Dear Deborah

    you are absolutely spot on – may I add one further point of consideration

    “EU Law Directive 26 very clearly directs immediate investigation into any suspicion/possibility of child sexual abuse, child trafficking and child murder and regardless if witnesses etc retract their suspicions or allegations – mere suspicion is LEGALLY, enough to warrant an immediate and FULL investigation”

    How blatently obvious the failure of the national judicial system (which obviously needs to be thoroughly overhauled) when victims of crime feel forced to appeal to EU law for their last resort?

    and again, the point here is not pro or contra EU, the prime concern is for the children’s/victims’ safety. It’s about PRO or CONTRA children in need of help. PRO or CONTRA child protection by the best legal provisions possible, on a national AND international basis. National law must be exercised to that end.

    (sorry, my English is not perfect but I hope I’ve made myself clear and got the point over)

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Thank you to Deborah and Drifloud for your excellent efforts. I, too, am very worried about the children. We must draw attention to their plight and keep them in the public eye to keep them safe. I am sending them my thiughts of love and protection every day. My heart goes out to their poor mother and grandparents, too. On watching the video prepared by Belinda Knight, anyone with a heart (and that would seem to exclude a lot of the people associated with this case, including the police involved and Justice Pauffley) cannot but be convinced of the genuineness, love and extreme distress of the poor grandparents.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Brilliantly written, thank you.

    Just tried to ‘Share’ this from the Social Media Courtwatch site and it said ‘Could not share content – error while sharing..’ What? What is going on in this beautiful world of OURS!!

    Liked by 1 person

  5. I´m so far away from London,but here in Germany my heart and spirit is with you people and the brave kids.I´m so worried about them
    and all the other kids,which suffer under these satanic rituals,but ton top, one feels so much let down by the police and people who could have easyy the power to stop this.
    well,they all in it
    what a nightmare
    at least I connect through Facebook with many people and spread the thruth and raise awareness
    blessings to you all
    sorry my english is pretty rough
    I heard that David Icke is maybe helping in this matter
    let´s hope so

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s