CCPS Video 20: Forensic Linguistic Analysis

Please note also the ‘amateur’ analysis with its valuable comments on http://crimesofempire.com/2015/03/01/hampstead-analysis-of-the-september-17th-police-interview/ as well as the Witness Statement by a former Metropolitan Police Constable: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Byzy22cCtwpda01ENVdqZU1FVnc/view?usp=sharing

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “CCPS Video 20: Forensic Linguistic Analysis

  1. It is impossible to decide how much credence we can place on this interview or the claimed ‘retraction’ of some or all previous claims, without knowing precisely what went on in practice in the six days preceding it. This is the period between about half past two in the afternoon on the 11th September, 2014 when “Q” was interviewed in Barnett police station and 11 am on the 17th September, 2015 when he was interviewed somewhere else (not altogether clear). We assume from the video equipment this was also a police station or some other purpose made premises.

    Between these dates the eight year old male and his nine year old sister were effectively removed from the care and protection of their mother under a police initiated procedure in liaison with presumably the local Social Services (SS) department. We know little or nothing what discussions were held with the mother or whether the children’s opinion was sought in this. We must assume it was an arbitrary act against the wishes of the mother and imposed on the children without seeking their consent or agreement. No doubt it was done in as humane and considerate way as possible but this does not lessen the serious or cruel nature of it.

    Nor are we party to the specific discussion or rationale that underpinned the decision. It is an extreme act to remove children, particularly children that have undergone trauma, from a natural parent unless there is concrete evidence to support the conclusion that not to do so would render them to imminent and serious harm. The decision is inexplicable insofar up to that point there was no evidence of harm coming from the mother and even the step father, that would justify it, and that all accusations by the children pointed to the father for whom there was corroborative evidence of past violence, against whom there were Court Orders preventing and limiting access. So why was removal from the mother decided upon and justified? Given that the children after nearly eight months have not been returned, this initial reasoning needs to be explained.

    If there was no concrete evidence of harm from or by the natural mother or partner, the act of removing the children must by definition be unreasonable, unjustified and illegal. If the authorities had genuine reason to believe that the children were at risk from the Step Father or natural father, steps could have been taken to controlling the threat short of abducting the children completely. This is a horrifying aspect of the case, apparently not unique, that the children were doubly punished and traumatised by trying their best to tell the truth on the assurance, repeated several times by ‘Steve’ the policeman that if they did they “wouldn’t get into trouble”. It is hard to envisage a worse ‘trouble’ for young children to be forcibly separated from their caring and loving mother so the promise was clearly reneged on.

    If in fact the decision was influenced less by real risk from the mother but more to do with getting control of the children to prevent the allegations escaping to the public domain, with all its implications on the school and community, it would be an outrage of significant proportion. We cannot be sure this was the prevailing reason but the way the case was handled, investigated and subsequently interpreted by Judge Pauffrey, gives rise to suspicions that this was the case. The fact that both children in six days of separation from the mother could be persuaded to (sort of) retract their earlier versions, rather supports it.

    So returning to my original point, without knowing what actually happened to the children in that six day separation it is impossible to make judgements as to what persuasion or influence they had been subject to, promises made, threats floated, or the consequent state of mind or motivations resulting from them. As the above video analysis points out in the case of boy ‘Q’ in any event the so called ‘retractions’ are far from unequivocal, despite the obvious subtle pressure exerted. In respect of ‘killing and eating babies’ and the insertion of ‘plastic willies’ he obviously tries to moderate the claims to make them less onerous to please his very gentle inquisitor. In the case of the events at the baths he never does retract and indeed the police interview of the father would tend to support them, for what father takes photos of their children in that location or rubs hair cream (?) into them?

    In any event, a vague, indifferent, reluctant negation of a story can never have the persuasive power of a detailed, extensive and natural positive description of events. One has only to view the first police video from the 5th September, 2014 (here: Gabriel-05-Sep-I-27-min) to be utterly convinced of the veracity of the allegations in contrast to that of the 17th September 2014 (here: http://zeeklytv.com/video/19738/Gabriel-17-Sep-24-min) to be satisfied as to the dubious reliability of the retraction.

    There is no disguising, as I pointed out when they originally became available, in the second of these two on the 17th, we are dealing with a very different child as demonstrated by the contrast in behaviour and non-verbal signals. In the first he is relatively relaxed and attentive. His facial expressions and hand movements are wholly congruent with what he is trying to describe. For example when he explains the closeness of his father to a named teacher he moves his palms together in a prayer-like gesture; he describes in hand movements the size and significant details of the ‘plastic willies’ supported by un-contrived subjective experiences as to their manufacture and use; and whenever he strays onto something painful or disagreeable his nose screws up unconsciously. In an eight year old this totally convincing.

    In comparison in the interview on the 17th after six days of separation and unknown pressures and influence, the change in his demeanour is immediately apparent. Now although maintaining his composure his nervousness and inner conflict is demonstrated by fine picking at the sleeve of his top garment and almost continuously engaging in wild circulatory hand gestures. Not only are the retractions highly suspect where made, we can see a child trying desperately here to provide a script expected of him, to satisfy the interviewer’s clear intent, to come to terms with the inner turmoil of being expected to lie to contradict the earlier truth to ensure that the present torture of separation can be terminated and he can be returned to his former life.

    The “earlier conversation in the car” needs to revealed as does the substance of all the informal contacts between SS and police in the six days preceding the interview. We should be told at what point it is claimed the children viewed the film ‘Mask of Zorro’ if it is suggested it had such an unbelievably potent effect to enable them to contact such outrageous but compelling accounts. Finally I cannot help taking the view that the old police interview trick of using one witness account to undermine another, by suggesting his sister had said something different, was quite incorrigible. It also suggests as further twist of inhumanity the children were kept apart and ‘worked on’ separately. If true it is yet another despicable item to add to the litany of such, this case reveals.

    It should be noted that the interviews of girl ‘P’ are not discussed at all here or indeed the interview tapes of ‘Q’ on the 11th September, 2014. Nor have I examined in detail all the earlier home made videos that are consistent and persuasive as to their claims.

    Like

  2. Not only are we seeing indisputable evidence of SRA in this case but also all the classic signs of state cover-up. The story should be headline news in all the newspapers. The fact that it isn’t, indeed that they have trumpeted the irrational and perverse judgement and have even endeavoured to portray the principal accused in a positive light, that fortunately totally back-fired on them, shows I think how deeply this corruption runs, how influential are the participants, and how desperate they are to expunge all reference to it. The only tragedy is that the children at the centre of it, brave enough to speak of their experiences, have been abducted by the state and subjected to who knows what threats or inducements, to back-track on their accounts. The case is final proof of the utterly desecrated nature of power systems in this country and of the immoral state in which we have allowed it to stoop. If there is any positive lessons to be drawn from it, it is to make public the reality of dark satanic practices in the midst of us, the complicity of the institutions of central and local government in it, and the parlous state of child protection in this country. The big question is how public awareness and outrage to such injustice can be channelled to ensure the issue is properly addressed?

    Like

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