Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre
33 Vauxhall Bridge Road
London
SW1V 2WG
United Kingdom
Dear CEOPS
re David John Fletcher
I am an Australian journalist and filmmaker investigating a case
that CEOPS was involved with in 2009 and 2010. The matter concerns a man by the
name of David John Fletcher, currently serving a 10 year jail sentence in
Cambodia for the rape of a young woman by the name of Yang Dany in 2009.
It is clear from newspaper articles and court documents that
CEOPS was involved in investigating claims made by Scott Neeson (the Cambodian
Children’s Fund) and others that Mr Fletcher was ‘grooming’ young girls in 2009
and 2010.
I have not been able to find evidence in any court documents that
Mr Fletcher had been grooming young girls. Nor have I been able to find any
report written by CEOPS containing evidence either of ‘grooming’ or of rape. It
would seem, unless there are documents missing from the court file, that CEOPS
did not, in the course of its investigations, find any evidence of wrongdoing
on the part of Mr Fletcher. Am I correct in making this assumption?
I am currently writing a book and making a film about this case
and would appreciate any information you can provide me with regarding CEOPS
involvement in it. As you will appreciate, it is imperative that both my book
and my documentary be factually accurate.
I am moving around the world a good deal at the present time and
the best and most reliable way to contact me is by email.
best wishes
James Ricketson
FOUR DAYS AGO I RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING RESPONSE FROM DEBBIE
CHISOLM, PRESS OFFICER, NATIONAL CRIME AGENCY
Hi James,
Thank you for your recent
letter.
The Child Exploitation and
Online Protection (CEOP) Command of the UK's National Crime Agency is aware of
a British national being convicted of child sexual abuse offences in Cambodia,
but the detail and nature of the offences that led to his conviction are a
matter for the local law enforcement.
The CEOP Command works
closely with national and international law enforcement agencies, providing
specialist expertise and support in relation to complex child sexual abuse
investigations. However, we do not comment on investigations that are led by
partner agencies.
Hope this is helpful.
Debbie
MY RESPONSE TO DEBBIE:
Debbie
Chisholm
Press Officer
National Crime Agency
1-7 Old Queen Street
Westminster
London, SW1H 9HP
3rd Nov 2014
Dear Debbie
re David John Fletcher
Your email of 31st. Oct,
far from being helpful, raises more questions:
“What are the
names of the ‘partner agencies’ that led CEOPS investigation into Mr Fletcher?”
Is CEOPS happy
with the way in which these ‘partner’ agencies’ have used the results of CEOPS’
investigations in legal proceedings?
These questions are pertinent both to
Mr Fletcher’s forthcoming court case and to my own desire, as a
journalist/writer and documentary filmmaker, to be in possession of as many
verifiable facts as possible regarding this matter; to give all involved an
opportunity to present their side of the story.
CEOPS investigators came to Cambodia in
2010 with the express intention of investigating allegations made by Scott
Neeson that Mr Fletcher was ‘grooming’ young girls. In none of the court
documents can I find any reference to CEOPS having uncovered evidence of Mr
Fletcher’s being guilty of doing so. This leads me to believe that CEOPS did
not find anything illegal or untoward about Mr Fletcher’s behavior towards
young girls. Is this correct?
As CEOPS is well aware, Mr Fletcher
was not charged in Cambodia with ‘grooming’ but with rape. As CEOPS is also
aware (and has been since September 2010) the ‘rape victim’ was found by an examining
doctor to be a virgin after the rape. And, as CEOPS is also now aware, the ‘victim’
has recently admitted, both to my camera and to other journalists, that no rape
took place.
Whilst evidence pertaining to
‘grooming’ was not, in accordance with the Cambodian Code of Criminal
Procedure, admissible in Mr Fletcher’s secret rape trial, Scott Neeson’s
allegations (not backed up by any hard evidence) were aired in court and these
played a role in the judges finding Mr Fletcher guilty of rape! (If you trace
Scott Neeson’s allegations back, you will find that they begin with Peter
Hogan, the owner of a Cambodian blog by the name of Khmer440; they began with a
man who, by his own admission, spent 4 years pursuing Mr Fletcher with the
intention of having him imprisoned.)
If CEOPS is in possession of evidence
that Mr Fletcher was guilty of ‘grooming’ (or of any other offence against
children) he should be charged with such offenses. He has not been. In flying
all the way to Cambodia to investigate Mr Fletcher, and making your
investigation publicly known to Peter Hogan, CEOPS cast a shadow of doubt over
his behavior – raising in the minds of the general public the legitimate
question: “Why else, readers of Andrew Drummond’s June 2010 article would quite
legitimately ask, would CEOPS be in Cambodia investigating Mr Fletcher if there
was nothing to investigate?”
The appropriate course of action for
CEOPS to have taken, once it had completed its investigations in June 2010,
would have been to announce: (a) We have found no evidence of Mr Fletcher’s
guilt or (b) We have provided the Cambodian authorities with the results of our
investigations.
Perhaps this is what you mean with
your reference to ‘partner agencies’. If (b) be the case, the question arises:
“Is CEOPS happy
with the way in which these ‘partner agencies’ have used the results of its
investigations to have Mr Fletcher imprisoned for 10 years for rape?”
I am trying to place CEOPS’
involvement in a time line, Debbie, and I hope you can help me.
At some point in June 2010 CEOPS
completed its investigation into allegations that Mr Fletcher had ‘groomed’
young girls. CEOPS had not come to Cambodia to investigate allegations that Mr
Fletcher had raped Yang Dany. Indeed, at the time CEOPS completed its investigations
(June 2010) no such allegation had yet been made. It was not until after Mr
Fletcher had left Cambodia that the rape allegations were made.
Shortly after their return to the UK
(June 2010), CEOPS investigators familiar with the case would have learned that
Mr Fletcher had been charged with rape. Given that there had been no talk of
rape a few weeks earlier, surely this must have caught their attention and made
them wonder how this rape allegation could come out of the blue as it did,
after they had left the country. And by September 2010, when a doctor’s report
was prepared for the court, these same CEOPS operatives would have become aware
that Yang Dany remained a virgin after her rape. Did no alarm bells ring for
these CEOPS investigators? Did it not occur to them that Mr Fletcher may have
been set up on fake rape charges to extort money from him? The CEOPS
investigators could not fail to be aware that Cambodia is amongst the most
corrupt countries in the world!
“Did CEOPS, in
September 2010, ask any questions of its ‘partner agencies’ in Cambodia
regarding Yang Dany’s intact hymen after her alleged rape?”
“If so, did
CEOPS accept the proposition, endorsed by the judges in the secret trial, that
Yang Dany’s hymen must have grown back?”
If CEOPS does not accept the
‘hymen-grown-back’ explanation for Yang Dany’s remaining a virgin after her
rape:
“Has CEOPS made
any representations at all to its ‘partner agencies’ – asking for more
information? Particularly now that Yan Dany has admitted that no rape took
place?”
Or has CEOPS washed its hands in the
investigation and is prepared to see Mr Fletcher die in jail on the basis of
evidence that would not stand up in any court of law in any country that actually
abided by the rule of law?
By now, I think you will agree, CEOPS
had been identified in a very public manner as being very much involved in both
the investigation into Mr Fletcher’s activities in Cambodia and his conviction
for rape. Refusing to answer any questions at all is not, from a moral point of
view, an option.
Whilst I am primarily concerned with
Mr Fletcher’s right to a fair trial, I am also interested (as both a
journalist/writer and filmmaker) in the question of his ‘grooming’ of young
girls. If he has done so, if there is evidence that he has done so, he should
be charged with this offence.
This brings me back to my original
question:
“Does CEOPS have
any evidence at all that Mr Fletcher is guilty of ‘grooming’?”
If you simply refuse to answer this
question, as I suspect will be the case, this will leave Mr Fletcher in a no-man’s
land vis a vis his guilt or innocence. Some readers and viewers will conclude
that CEOPS must have evidence of his guilt. Others will conclude that CEOPS
found nothing and draw their own conclusions from CEOPS’ silence, in Nov 2014 -
now that Yang Dany’s post-rape virginity and her denial that any rape took
place are in the public arena.
One last question:
“If CEOPS found
no evidence that Mr Fletcher was guilty of ‘grooming’, will CEOPS testify to
this effect at Mr Fletcher’s forthcoming trial?”
I passed your email on to Mr
Fletcher. He wrote an email back to me, asking that I pass it on to you. It
reads:
Dear Debbie,
A recent communication from CEOPS to Mr James Ricketson
has come to my attention that suggests and implies you have evidence of
unsavoury acts with children by myself.
I officially request from CEOPS, as my right under the
F.O.I. act that you supply me with copies of all documents you hold pertaining
to me.
I attach a copy of my drivers licence as I.D. and i am
very sure you are aware i am known by the the British Embassy in Phnom Penh. I
do not have a valid passport as this was destroyed ' by mistake' by the fco in
Bangkok, according to their unsubstanciated explanation.
Furthermore, i request a fully itemised receipt and the
return of my personal property that was in store and stolen in Phnom Penh in
2010 by CEOPS personell.
I also request the percentage of funding you receive from
the fco, as an ngo this information should be freely available to the public.
This letter, your reply, or lack of may be published.
Regards,
David John Fletcher.
On a final note on my return to the
UK i shall be paying CEOPS a visit for an explanation of their agenda.
I have attached a copy of a document
signed by David Fletcher giving me the right to ask questions on his behalf. My
question is: “What must Mr Fletcher do to make an FOI request to obtain copies
of documents relating to his ‘grooming’ of girls held by CEOPS and relating to
his forthcoming court case.”
best wishes
James Ricketson
No comments:
Post a Comment