# 15 Scott Neeson defames David Fletcher?

Dear Scott

A few more questions for you to go on record:

On the Khmer440 blogsite earlier this year I asked you, in a very public forum, a few questions. The proprietor of the site, Peter Hogan, very quickly banned me from making any further posts or from making comments on other unrelated posts.

Such a ban was understandable given that Peter Hogan is a friend of yours. Also, as owner of Khmer440, he had a right to turn away whomsoever he chose.

This year Khmer440 passed out of Peter Hogan’s hands and into those of a new proprietor. However, I find myself still banned from Khmer440.

It occurs to me that there may be some truth to the rumour going around that you are the new owner of Khmer440; that Khmer440 has become part of your Cambodian empire. So, my first question for you today is:

“Are you the new owner of Khmer440?”

And now to a more serious matter, Khmer440 being primarily a vehicle to be used by expatriates angry with life and needing some outlet for their spleen!

You will recall, back in June 2010, speaking the following words to Andrew Drummond – in Cambodia for 72 hours to do an ‘in depth’ story about David Fletcher:

 “There is little doubt Fletcher devotes his time to grooming young girls….The fact is these children can be bought. It’s difficult to stop it. The British Embassy have been told about Fletcher. Many organizations have files on him, but nothing has happened. If you can get this guy sent packing you are doing a service to the children here.” Scott Neeson, speaking to journalist Andrew Drummond in June 2010. Fletcher was ‘sent packing’ one month later and has been in jail ever since.

“Little doubt!” is one of those slippery expressions intended to vilify but which leaves you with a ‘Get Out Of Jail Free’ card of sorts if it turns out that there is no evidence that Fletcher devoted “his time to grooming young girls.”

My second question for the day:

“Do you still believe, in October 2014, that David Fletcher was grooming young girls? If not, do you intend to offer him a public apology for having defamed him?”

Whether a public apology will be sufficient to stop David Fletcher from suing you for defamation I do not know. I suspect that it would be given that his major concern right now is to have his reputation returned to him - his reputation having been shattered by the allegations that he was ‘grooming’ young girls and that he raped Yang Dany.

There is, incidentally, no evidence of ‘grooming’ to be found in Andrew Drummond’s 20^th June 2010 article:

“Preying On The Garbage Dump Children”.

“Convicted child sexual abuser runs ‘charity’ for rubbish dump kids in Cambodia.”

Nor is there any credible evidence to be found in the court documents I have read that David Fletcher was ‘grooming’ young girls. And there is certainly no credible evidence in the court files that David Fletcher raped Yang Dany on 15^th and 22^nd March 2009; no evidence that would stand up in a properly constituted court whose proceedings were in accordance with the Cambodian Code of Criminal Procedure. Indeed, there is to be found in the court files credible evidence that Fletcher could not have raped Yang Dany. It comes in the form of a medical report, prepared for the court, in which the examining doctor declared Yang Dany to be a virgin – her hymen still intact after two ‘brutal rapes’. This extract from the September 2010 doctor’s report, prepared for the Phnom Penh Municipal Court, speaks for itself.

I will get to why I am relating all this to you shortly but before doing so some context is required for those who are reading this on my blog.

I learnt through my research into your own (CCF’s) illegal removal of children from the homes of poor Cambodian families that back in the early days of the Cambodian Children’s Fund, when you started helping families living in the Phnom Penh rubbish dump, that you had a ‘competitor’ – David Fletcher. Fletcher was also helping families in the dump. There was no love lost between you and Fletcher – for reasons that are only of marginal anecdotal interest and need not be gone into here.

You were, however, a friend of Peter Hogan’s – the then owner of the blogsite Khmer440. And here is where joining the dots becomes interesting.

Here is Peter Hogan, on Wed 2^nd Oct 2013, at 3.33 pm posting a under the moniker ‘keeping it riel’ - in celebration of David Fletcher’s recently announced jail sentence:

“Cold drinks will most certainly be taken this evening to toast Fletcher's first night in his new abode.

I recall that 4(!) years ago when Grandslam and myself hatched our plan, we made a sequential list of desirable outcomes beginning with getting his 'charity' closed then moving onto having his shithole-in-the-wall bar closed, having him outed in the press (and fuck, did we achieve that one!) etc etc.

Today, the last box on the sheet ('Fletch in Prey Sar') was finally ticked off so I'll allow myself a few strong drinkies in celebration and will be raising my glass to Grandslam back in the UK.

Goodnight Cambodia and good mental health.”

Elsewhere on Khmer440 Hogan makes reference to other friends of his who were privy to his plan to nail Fletcher.

“Were you privy to Peter Hogan’s plans, executed over a period of four years, by his own admission, to see 'Fletch in Prey Sar'?”

From September 2010 onwards, both the Phnom Penh Municipal Court and APLE were in possession of a medical report declaring that Yang Dany remained a virgin after the alleged rapes. Both decided that Yang Dany’s virginity was not going to stand in the way of proceeding with the prosecution (dare I say ‘persecution’) of David Fletcher. A trial was conducted based on the premise that Fletcher had raped Yang Dany, whilst both the Phnom Penh Municipal Court and APLE knew that no rape could have taken place.

I have just one more question for you, Scott. For today at least:

“At what point, on what date, did you discover that Yang Dany remained a virgin after the alleged rapes?”

You may find the most recent post on my Cambodia440 blog of interest:

http://cambodia440.blogspot.com/2014/10/14-aple-complicit-in-perverting-course.html

best wishes

James Ricketson

A few hours later:

I have spoken today with David Fletcher and he assures me that if you apologize, Scott, for making the statement you did, about his ‘grooming’ girls, with no evidence to back it up, he will not sue you for defamation. On the other hand, if you have such evidence or if you believe others have such evidence, no apology is required and the truth or otherwise of your allegation can be determined in a properly constituted court. The same applies for Andrew Drummond and Richard Shears – both of whom were guilty of sloppy sensationalist journalism. The amnesty does not apply to Peter Hogan, however.