Sunday, October 19, 2014

# 8 What role did APLE play in having David Fletcher charged with rape?


Ana G. Pinheiro
Legal Coordinator
APLE (Action Pour Les Enfants)

16th October 2014

Dear Ana

A few weeks ago I introduced myself to you, online, as a journalist and documentary filmmaker. I requested an opportunity to talk with you or some other representative of APLE about a documentary film I am producing. My request to meet with you has, to date, fallen on deaf ears.

It seems, from your failure to even acknowledge receipt of my emails of 25th and 30th September that APLE does not invite scrutiny of its activities in Cambodia. If I am mistaken in this presumption I will, no doubt, receive a response to this email at your earliest possible convenience.

I am copying this email to some human rights NGOs and members of the media because I do not want APLE to be able to claim that I had made no attempt to get answers to certain questions from the organization of which you are the Legal Coordinator.

My questions relate to the role played by APLE in investigating David Fletcher’s alleged pedophile activities in Cambodia in 2009 and 2010, in his arrest and subsequent conviction for the alleged rape of Yang Dany in 2009.

It would seem, from all that I have read in numerous court documents, that APLE played a significant role in the apprehension and conviction of Mr Fletcher.  There are some aspects of this role, however, at least as far as it is presented in the media, that require clarification. Hence my writing to you to ask some questions.

Some context is required.  Let me begin by quoting from an article published by Richard Shears’ on 3rd Oct 2013 article for Britain’s ‘Daily Mail’. It begins:

“Notorious British paedophile expected to spend most of his life in mosquito-plagued Cambodian jail after raping 15-year-old girl he plied with champagne”

A few verifiable facts:

- David Fletcher has never been convicted of a pedophile offence in Britain or anywhere else in the world.

- Yang Dany,  was not 15 at the time of the alleged rapes. She was three months shy of 17 and referred to herself as David Fletcher’s ‘fiance’, ‘sweetheart’ and ‘boyfriend’.

- There is no reference, in any court document, to David Fletcher plying Yang Dany with champagne before allegedly raping her.

- Other than Yang Dany’s assertion that the rapes had occurred, no corroborative evidence was presented to the court.

Richard Shears has, by his own admission, lifted all of his ‘facts’ from other journalists. These journalists, in turn, have lifted their ‘facts’ from an article published by Andrew Drummond entitled:

“Preying On The Garbage Dump Children”.
“Convicted child sexual abuser runs ‘charity’ for rubbish dump kids in Cambodia.”

Just as ‘facts’, can be made up to suit a journalist’s agenda, so too can verifiable facts be ignored if they stand in the way of telling a good (and in this case, a damning) story.

A pertinent fact ignored by Richard Shears is that in June 2010, when Yang Dany was one month away from being 18, she told Andrew Drummond in a tape-recorded interview that David Fletcher was, her ‘sweetheart’, her ‘boyfriend’ and her ‘fiance’. She referred to Mr Fletcher also as a ‘good man’.

These are not the descriptions one would expect a young woman to use when talking about a man who had ‘brutally raped’ her 15 months earlier – on 15th and 22nd March 2009!

Writes Richard Shears, in Oct 2013:

“Fletcher fled to Thailand in the wake of claims that he was using a charity to groom for sex a number of poverty-stricken children who lived in a rubbish dump.”

‘Claims’ is a slippery word for a journalist to use. The reader can all too easily presume (and indeed is invited to presume) that such ‘claims’ are  based on verifiable facts. At the same time, the journalist who uses the word can let him or herself off the hook if the ‘claims’ turn out to be untrue: “I did not assert that the claims were true! Only that someone claimed that the claims were true.”  A useful ‘Get Out Of Jail Free’ card for a journalist to use!

In accordance with this disingenuous use of words, a journalist in search of a story can refer to any ‘claim’ that suits his or her purposes. In short: there is never any need to let the facts stand in the way of a good story! (“Ana Pinheiro fled to Cambodia in the wake of claims that she had…(fill in your crime of choice.))

Whilst Richard Shears does not name the person who made these ‘grooming claims’, Andrew Drummond shows no such restraint. He quotes Scott Neeson, Executive Director of the Cambodian Children’s Fund,  as saying:

“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.”

“Little doubt!” Another of those slippery expressions intended to vilify but with a ‘Get Out Of Jail Free’ card of sorts for the person who makes the statement if it turns out that there is no evidence that Fletcher devoted “his time to grooming young girls.” (“There is little doubt that Ana Pinheiro…(fill in your crime of choice.))

At the time Andrew Drummond’s June 2010 article was published, and at the time of Fletcher’s  arrest one month later, there was no evidence at all that Fletcher had been ‘grooming’ girls in Cambodia. This, as we shall see in subsequent posts, is a verifiable fact. In June 2010 there were only Scott Neeson’s unsubstantiated allegations of ‘grooming’ and scuttlebutt to be found on a popular Cambodian blog site:  Khmer440.

Here is Scott Neeson again, talking with Andrew Drummond in June 2010, one month before Mr Fletcher’s arrest:

“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.”

One month later, in July 2010, Fletcher was ‘sent packing’ – arrested by Thai police, with the complicity of the British Embassy, and charged, at the outset, with breaching Thailand’s Immigration laws.

Was Fletcher subsequently held in prison in Thailand on the basis of information contained in the files Neeson refers to? Or was he held on the instructions of the British Embassy in Thailand, acting on the basis of the ‘facts’ contained in Drummond’s article?  

Andrew Drummond’s article is factually incorrect in so many ways as to render him an unreliable source for anyone in search of verifiable facts, evidence or the truth. (Andrew Drummond was convicted earlier this year by the Pattaya Provincial Criminal Court on charges of criminal defamation.) 

Could it be that the file containing the damning evidence that Mr Fletcher had raped Yang Dany was the one compiled by APLE and given to the Ministry of the Interior’s Anti—Human Trafficking and Juvenile Protection unit?

I could ask you this question, Ana, in hopes of an answer. However, since the answer is already on file in documents submitted to the court, my question is rhetorical. In part, the three presiding judges (Mr. Ke Sakhan, Mrs. Chaing Sinat  and Mr. Chea Sok Heang) relied on the APLE report when they found Mr Fletcher guilty of rape in in a trial held in secret and to which Mr Fletcher was unable to attend.

On 23rd June  2010, almost exactly one month before Mr Fletcher was arrested in Thailand, APLE  (known to the court as “Action for Children”) informed the Department of Anti—Human Trafficking and Juvenile Protection that APLE has been “watching” Mr Fletcher since 22nd Jan 2009 on the grounds that the NGO “suspected he may have sexual relationship with minor girls.”

The key word here is ‘suspected’.

Despite having been ‘watching’ Mr Fletcher for 17 months, APLE had yet (as of 23rd June 2010) to come up with any evidence of inappropriate sexual behavior on Mr Fletcher’s part. This 17 months of ‘watching’ includes 15th and 22nd March 2009 - the dates when, it is alleged, Mr Fletcher raped Yang Dany.

How did APLE’s vigilant ‘watching’ miss these two alleged rapes?

Given the chronology of events, the following extract from this 23rd June 2010 APLE Report is relevant:

“On 30 May 2010, Mr Fletcher had built a relationship with a new girl at Stoeng Meanchey named Yang Dany, aged 17 (according to Residence Book). At that day he took her to visit Prey Veng. According to questioning, Dany told that Mr Fletcher was her sweetheart, and he proposed marriage to her by promising that he would give bride price in the amount of $5,000. On 7th June Mr Fletcher took some items like glasses, plates, wardrobe to Dany’s house and stayed there till over midnight without returning.”

Other than the innuendo inherent in “stayed there till over midnight” there is no suggestion in this APLE report that Mr Fletcher had had either consensual or non-consensual sex with his ‘sweetheart’ Yang Dany.

This report was written 4 weeks before Mr Fletcher was charged with having raped Yang Dany 15 months previously! (Excuse me for belabouring this point but dates and time frames are, in this matter, of the utmost importance.)

In the event that Mr Fletcher and Yang Dany had had sex when Mr Fletcher “stayed there till over midnight” do you believe, Ana, that Dany’s reference to Fletcher as ‘her sweetheart’, ‘boyfriend’ and ‘fiance’ is suggestive of his having raped her more than a year beforehand? At the very least, alarm bells should have started ringing for anyone with legal training. Indeed, for anyone using their common sense!

To recap: One month before Mr Fletcher was charged with raping Yang Dany, despite 17 months of ‘watching’, APLE had no evidence that Mr Fletcher had engaged in an inappropriate relationship with or had consensual or non-consensual sex with Yang Dany.

As will become apparent from court documents it is clear that Mr Fletcher and Yang Dany had not engaged in either consensual or no-consensual sex. (I will deal with this in detail at another time.)

In his 3rd Oct 2013 article Richard Shears writes:

“According to The Cambodia Daily, Fletcher is the first pedophile ever to be sent back to Cambodia to serve a prison sentence. Last night, Mr Samleang Seila, director of the anti-paedophile group Action Pour les Enfants, spoke of his gratitude to the authorities for pressing on with their attempts to have Fletcher extradited. 'We are satisfied with this extradition,' Mr Seila told the Daily.

My first question for you, Ana, and for APLE is:

Is Richard Shears correct in attributing to Mr Samleang Seila ‘his gratitude’ for Mr Fletcher’s extradition and the fact that he is ‘satisfied with this extradition.’

Given that on 23rd June 2010 APLE had no evidence on file regarding Mr Fletcher’s alleged rape of Yang Dany in March 2009 such evidence of rape must have come to light, for APLE, at some point between 23rd June 2010 and the date of Mr Fletcher’s arrest one month later – 24th July.

My second question:

What was the nature of the evidence pertaining to Mr Fletcher’s rape of Yang Dany that led to Mr Samleang Seila being ‘satisfied’ with Mr Fletcher’s extradition?

Let us return to the chronological sequence of events again for a moment.

I am not, incidentally, relying for my facts here on anything Mr Fletcher has told me. I am relying only on information I have gleaned from the documents submitted to the Phnom Penh Municipal Court by various interested parties, including APLE.

On 25th June 2010, two days after APLE had filed its report, the Department of Anti-Human Trafficking and Juvenile Protection filed a report of its own - the subject of which is the allegation that David Fletcher was “suspected of having sexual relationships with minors.”

Again, suspicions but no evidence. Suspected by whom? APLE? Scott Neeson?

The outcomes of this Anti-Human Trafficking investigation relevant to the charge of rape are, according to court documents, as follows:

“A girl named Yang Dany described that in May 2010, Fletcher tried to get in touch with her and asked her to go sightseeing with him in Prey Veng province. She revealed that Fletcher was her boyfriend and that he had asked to marry her by offering her a dowry of $5,000. The man bought her glasses, plates and wardrobe.”

There is no reference at all in this Anti-Human Trafficking report to Mr Fletcher having raped Yang Dany twice in 2009. There is no suggestion, in the report that David Fletcher and Yang Dany had engaged in either consensual or non-consensual sex. The very worst offence Mr Fletcher could be accused of, on the basis of this Anti-Human Trafficking report, is that he asked her to go to Prey Veng and offered to marry her and pay $5,000 bride price.

In these court reports Yang Dany describes Mr Fletcher as her ‘sweetheart’, ‘fiance’ ‘boyfriend’ and as a ’good man’. Are these the words one would expect a 17 year old woman to use in relation to a man who has brutally raped her 15 or so months previously? Especially given that Yang Dany had had ample opportunity to inform SISHA, APLE, CEOPS that her  ‘sweetheart’, ‘fiance’ ‘boyfriend’ had raped her 15 months earlier?

Why did Yang Dany wait until after the publication of Andrew Drummond’s article in June 2010 before making her rape allegations? Or, to be more precise, why did Yang Dany’s mother file he complaint on behalf of her 18 year old daughter whilst, at the same time, requesting $30,000 in compensation?

The request made by the Anti-Human Trafficking Unit on 25th June 2010 reads as follows:

“To continue to work with APLE to monitor the activities and locate victims for interviews to collect evidence against the suspect.

To work with the British Embassy and CEOP organization to collect additional related information and background of David John Fletcher.

In the event of lack of charging evidence and citing his dangerous behaviours on Cambodian children, the department hereby.”

From these observations, to be found in court documents, certain assumptions can be made:

- APLE, the Anti-Human Trafficking unit, the British Embassy and CEOP had been working together in hopes of finding evidence of ‘dangerous behaviours on Cambodian children’.

- APLE, the Anti-Human Trafficking unit, the British Embassy and CEOP had not, as of 25th June 2010 uncovered any evidence at all that Mr Fletcher had raped Dany, had sex with her or had committed “dangerous behaviours on Cambodian children.”  

(That British Embassy in Cambodia was involved in the ongoing investigation into Mr Fletcher’s activities in Cambodia is a topic that will be explored in more detail elsewhere in the fullness of time.)

To recap:

If this 25th June 2010 report is an accurate record of events it can be inferred that APLE and the Anti-Human Trafficking unit had been working together and would continue to do so; that the British Embassy in Cambodia, SISHA and CEOP were involved in ongoing investigations. Between them, no evidence at all that Mr Fletcher had raped Yang Dany had been uncovered by the organizations that had been looking for such evidence. In the case of APLE this search for evidence had been going on for 17 months.

24th July 2010

Four weeks later David Fletcher was arrested in Thailand. He was accused of “sexual carnal knowledge offense commitment on some of children in Cambodia”.

No such evidence had existed 4 weeks previously but now, in the wake of Andrew Drummond’s June 2010 article, suddenly their was sufficient evidence to warrant Mr Fletcher’s arrest!

What new evidence had come to light in the previous 4 weeks?

Did it occur to anyone at APLE to ask Yang Dany how it was that she was telling a completely different story about David Fletcher in July 2010 to the one she told in June 2010?

In the court documents I have read, (and I have read most of them) there is nothing to support the proposition that Mr Fletcher had ‘carnal knowledge’ of any of the children he was working with in the Phnom Penh rubbish dump. The only evidence of illegal acts on Mr Fletcher’s part is Yang Dany’s insistence that Mr Fletcher raped her on 15 March 2009 and on 22 March 2009 at his bar – ‘Bogie and Bacalls’.

If Mr Fletcher had been present at his own trial he would have been able to inform the court that ‘Bogie and Bacalls’ did not exist, as a bar, in March 2009.

What happened between 25th June and 24th July 2010 (just four weeks) that enabled APLE the Anti-Human Trafficking unit, CEOPS, SISHA and/or the British embassy to transform David Fletcher from ‘boyfriend’, ‘fiance’ or ‘sweetheart’ into brutal rapist?

Given APLE’s ‘satisfaction’ with Mr Fletcher’s extradition and the ‘gratitude’ expressed by Mr Samleang Seila, APLE must, at the time, have been in possession of evidence that was strongly indicative of Mr Fletcher’s guilt of having raped Yang Dany. Given that there is no evidence on file, other than Yang Dany’s assertions, that Mr Fletcher raped her in 2009:

What evidence does APLE have that the allegations are true or even worthy of serious consideration in a court of law?

This is not a rhetorical question, Ana.

On 27th October 2014, at 2pm, there will be a hearing at the Phnom Penh Municipal Court to determine whether or not Mr Fletcher is entitled to a re-trial. Given that he has never once been interviewed by any policeman, by anyone from the Anti-Human Trafficking unit or by an Investigating or Prosecuting judge, given that he has never had an opportunity to present a defense in court, I trust you will agree that Mr Fletcher is entitled to a fair trial. I trust that you or some representative of APLE will be in court on 27th Oct to see to it that Mr Fletcher’s legal rights are respected in accordance with the Cambodian Code of Criminal Procedure.

best wishes

James Ricketson

No comments:

Post a Comment