Dr Kek Pung
President, LICADHO
Phnom Penh
Cambodia
23rd Dec 2014
Dear Dr Pung
In response to my letter to you of
yesterday I received the following in my INBOX today. As you have been copied
in the email interchange below you can vouch for the authenticity of it.
Dear Mr Ricketson
I can confirm what you write in your letter to
Dr Kek Pung about Naly Pilorge thinking she has more information about Mr
Fletvher’s case than you or the courts. This is the email I sent to Dr Pung
three days ago:
On 12/21/2014 6:54 PM, .... wrote:
Dear Dr. Kek Pung,
cc: Director Naly Pilorge,
my name is xxxxx. I live in Cambodia since
2003 and believe that i
contributed to the wellbeeing of the Khmer
Citizens as much as i can.
I have met Mrs. Naly Pilorge before she left
Sihanoukville and found that she was a great defender of Human Rights,
particulary concerning
those of the Khmer People. I recently learned
from other expats that you are aware of the David Fletcher Case who is
imprisoned at PJ Jail in Phnom Penh on charges that cannot be true. The details
are well known to you as i can read in one of the most engaged blogs on this
subject> cambodia440.blogspot.com run by
australian Mr. James Ricketson. I learned from the blog that you do not respond
to any of his enquiries or emails.
My question is WHY ?
It seems obvious that David Fletcher is a
victim of miscarried Justice
in Cambodia. He therefore is as much a person
that should get all
support of a human rights organisation like
yours. The same is true for
Mr. Matt Harland another Barang in Jail
without any fair trial.
I would very much appreciate if you would
answer to my email because
otherwise your non-reaction will make me
wonder what kind of Human
Rights Organisation you are if you do not
protect the human rights of
Barang also.
Best regards
Naly Pilorge wrote back to me with these
words:
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014, at 04:52 PM, LICADHO
Director (Naly Pilorge) wrote:
Dear
Thanks for your email. We are following the
case, our findings differ from James Ricketson but we cannot reveal the details
of the case to protect the parties involved, thanks.
Naly
Naly Pilorge
Director
Save trees - please do not print this email
unless necessary
I wrote back to Naly Pilorge with these words:
dear naly,
thank you for your prompt answer. I don't know
in what way your findings differ from those of James Ricketson but it is
apparent that Mr. David Fletcher was denied basic rights when i simply follow
the news in the Media and the proceedings (or non action) of the court. So my
question remains, where do you Licado stand on Human Rights when it concerns
other than Khmer. By answering this question you do not reveal any detail
of the David Fletcher case. In denying any statement that would give me a
clearer picture of where you stand. Currently you appear to simply protect the
interest of aplecambodia.org and it's
highly controversial methods which are illegal in most countries around the
world. And the remaining question still is : WHY ??
Naly Pilorge did not reply to my email.
Naly’s response to this anonymous
correspondent (copied to yourself) raises a whole host of questions that I do
not have time to deal with on Christmas Eve. I will mention just a few:
Why has Naly chosen to respond to
questions put to her by this anonymous correspondent and to none of the
questions I have put to her - regarding her being a founding member of APLE,
for instance?
Given that I am in possession of
copies of all the Phnom Penh Municipal Court documents relating to Mr Fletcher’s
case and in not one of them is there any evidence that he raped Yang Dany, how
can Naly be in possession of information that neither I nor the Phnom Penh
Municipal Court are aware of?
As for my ‘findings’, for Naly’s ‘findings’,
it is not for either Naly nor myself to pass judgment on Mr Fletcher; to decide
on his guilt or innocence. This is the task of a properly constituted court.
However, that said, the intact nature of Yang Dany’s hymen, plus her admission
that she was not raped should be sufficient for LICADHO to make a very public
call for Mr Fletcher to be provided with a fair trial. Instead, it seems that
Naly’s ‘findings’, in her view, make
such a trial unnecessary. Naly, as investigator, prosecutor and judge has found
Mr Fletcher guilty but she cannot share the evidence upon which she bases her
‘findings’ with the Phnom Penh Municipal Court, with myself or with anyone else
involved in this case.
Is Naly in possession of copies of
all the court documents relating to this case?
Naly’s ‘findings’ are irrelevant. My
‘findings’ are irrelevant. It is for a court to decide, on the basis of Naly’s
‘findings’ (evidence), my own ‘findings’ (evidence) and the ‘findings’ of
others involved in investigation into Mr Fletcher’s activities in 2009 and 2010
whether he is innocent or guilty of the crime of rape. That there are problems
with the Cambodian judicial system I am sure we can agree on. However, LICADHO
should not be setting itself up as prosecutor, judge and jury of men such as Mr
Fletcher and thus usurping the role of the Cambodian courts.
Again I ask, why will LICADHO not
make a public statement to the effect that Mr Fletcher is entitled to a fair
trial?
best wishes
James Ricketson
In all this, I think you bring up an interesting point about the responsibility of these NGOs - they have the capacity to gather and present evidence to the police, who, along with prosecutors, can then investigate and carry the case forward in the courts. But the idea that LICADHO is acting as prosecutor, judge, jury etc is quite preposterous. It seems to be quite the opposite, in fact, that the NGOs have deferred to the justice system, flawed as it may be. And it could be argued that, in itself, is irresponsible.
ReplyDeleteHowever, would you have us believe that David Fletcher - convicted in his 50s of the statutory rape of a 15 year old in the UK, and notorious for being inappropriate with the vulnerable young girls he worked with in Cambodia - was not sexually abusive and manipulative with some of them? Besides the fact that there are multiple reasons for a victim and her family to want to recant their statements - preserve the reputation of their daughter & their family, maintain her social position later in life, wanting to stop a burdensome legal process, confusion etc - Fletcher still even admits to having this poor young girl take her clothes off for him!?! Given the simple fact that a convicted sexual offender moved to Cambodia and worked hard to give himself access to dozens of young, vulnerable, poor girls, I do see a bit of justice in all of this. Even if Cambodian courts are not going to be perfect.
THANK YOU! How refreshing to see the entire series of events rather than the selective half-truths posted by Mr Ricketson!
DeleteI will break the vow I made to myself to give myself a few days off over Christmas. Firstly, to the Anonymous who makes reference to 'selective half-truths' could you please provide some evidence in support of this broad and very vague statement. Point out to me one 'half-truth'. Just one.
DeleteAs for the longer response from yet another person who does not have the courage to put his or her name to their comment my response, broadly speaking, is that the reason why we have court cases in which evidence can be presented, challenged and considered, is to separate truth from plies, truth from half truths, truths from suppositions.
One such supposition is to be found in what you write here about Fletcher being "notorious for being inappropriate with the vulnerable young girls he worked with in Cambodia." Being notorious for doing something should not be confused with actually doing it. Do you have any evidence to back up this statement? Have you ever had first hand experience of David Fletcher acting inappropriately with young girls? I suspect not.So you have got this information from somewhere else. Where? From Khmer440? From the Andrew Drummond article in which Scott Neeson tells Drummond that Fletcher is 'grooming young girls'? From where? Does the fact that sScott Neeson says it and that lots of Khmer440 members join in the witch hunt mean that it is so? Would this evidence stand up in court? Should it stand up in court?
Yes, there are multiple reasons why a witness might wish to recant a statement. There are also multiple reason why s witness might make a statement in the first place. Again, this is where a properly functioning court should be able to look, with a clear eye, at why (in this instance) Yang Dany went from stating that David Fletcher was her boyfriend, fiance and a 'good man' on 20th June 2010 to being her rapist a week later. This evidence (masses of it) is available for anyone who wishes to look at it. Nobody does, however. And certainly not LICADHO.
The same applies for Yang Dany's recantation of the rape allegation. An impartial court would have to consider the possibility that I had paid Yang Dany and her mother to change their statements. Yang Dany would be cross-examined by both the Prosecution and Defence and the judges (and members of the media in the court, and human rights NGOs and the British embassy) would be able to arrive at their own conclusions and respond accordingly.
This same court would also examine the 9 page doctor's report that declares Yang Dany to have been a virgin after she had been raped. The Prosecution would be able, if it so wished, to call an expert witness to testify that a woman's hymen can grow back and the Defence present evidence that this is physiologiclly impossible.
And so on. I have used just a couple of examples here of evidence that can and should be tested in court. If you were in David Fletcher's shoes I am sure you would want to be tried on the basis of the facts, of the evidence and not on the basis of scuttlebutt, rumour and innuendo such as that he "worked hard to give himself access to dozens of young, vulnerable, poor girls."
If you are going to make the kind of supposition you are making here Scott Neeson could also be described as having worked hard to give him access to your vulnerable girls. You could say this of any and all NGOs who work with vulnerable young girls and you would be defaming all of them. You have fallen into the trap that so many people have, of presuming that anyone who wishes to work with vulnerable girls must, be definition, be a pedophile. Yes, some will be and these men should be dealt with appropriately but a judicial system that acknowledges their right to a fair trial. That is all that I have asked LICADHO to endorse - Fletcher's right to a fair trial.
Who does this 'lady' think she is? She doesn't want to do her job of protecting human rights, but wants to do everyone else's job of judge, jury and manipulator of prosecution? WTF??
ReplyDeletePeople suggest that this 'conspiracy is so prevalent and widespread that it is impossible, but not one person has been able to provide one bit of evidence, that it is NOT all completely true!!
ReplyDeleteThere's a very deep logical fallacy here, but I just can't quite put my finger on it.....
DeleteThe important point here is 'evidence'. There is a good deal of evidence that suggests, very strongly, that a variety of people have conspired to pervert the course of Cambodian justice. The most telling example of this is the sheer number of individuals, institutions and organisations who have known since Sept 2010 that the court-ordered medical report declared Yang Dany to be a virgin after she had, allegedly, been raped. Even without Yang Dany's subsequent confession that no rape took place, her intact hymen should have been enough for all of these individuals, organisation and institutions to request, in a very public manner, that Mr Fletcher be allowed a fair trial based on evidence and in accordance with the Cambodian Code of Criminal Procedure. They did not. They have not. And they will not, to this day. You can apply whatever word you like to this shared silence in the face of very strong evidence of Mr Fletcher's innocence. At the very least there has been, there is, a 'conspiracy of silence' afoot. And it is not just david Fletcher. The same seems to apply to Matt Harland also. It seems that he, like David Fletcher, has been denied even the semblance of a fair trial. And there are others. Many others. It seems as though all of those who are professionally committed to the protection of human rights (in this instance, LICADHO) have decided, quite consciously, to exclude from their remit, men accused of sex crimes. There could be a variety of reasons for this, which I will not go into here.
ReplyDeleteGetting back to the 'logical fallacy', I see the point. It is very difficult (impossible) to counter certain statements. "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is one such. There is no way to answer this question. The question is a false one and we ned to be careful of trick questions such as this.
If anyone reading this (and there are lots) can provide me and other readers with a logical explanation as to why LICADHO, ADHOC, other human rights NGOs, the British Embassy in Cambodia and the Foreign & Commonwealth Office in the UK - up to and including Foreign Secretary, Phillip Hammond - remain silent on the question of Mr Fletcher's right to a fair trial, I would love to hear it.
Mr. Ricketson, I believe you're missing the point that the intellectual tradition out of which the concept of a "fair trial" was born - due process, public and transparent legal process etc - also gave birth to the notion of the integrity of the child, and subsequent jurisprudence on the rights surrounding children, including amongst others "age of consent" laws.
ReplyDeleteIt's so interesting to see you go on and on about an imperfect judicial system in Cambodia - hardly a surprise - but seem to care little about the other reality of the case - if Cambodia had a more robust legal tradition protecting children, Mr. Fletcher would never have been allowed as a previously convicted child sex offender to create or participate in an NGO that would give him access to children. Nor for that matter, would or should Cambodia have allowed him into the country (it's certainly not a human right to go to any country one pleases, especially not as a convicted sex offender). The admitted and established reality that Fletcher had teenage girl strip for him, that she may have consider him his "boyfriend," suggests not consent but manipulation, abuse and exploitation. Am I willing to believe that the girl wasn't raped? Sure. Do I believe she was sexually abused and manipulated in a criminal manner, by a predator no less? I do as well.
So what we come to is a question of "choosing one's battles," that may provide a logical answer to your query regarding the silence of these stakeholders. Rather than being some elaborate, insidious conspiracy, do I find it more likely that these institutions would rather not risk their social, political, and networking capital to advocate for the legal rights of convicted child sex offender and predator, sacrificing the opportunity to advance the rights and dignity of children? Faced with an imperfect system, difficult choices are made. I can accept that.
It seems you can't. So I wonder, in all this mongering, what might you succeed in proving? That the Cambodian legal and judicial system doesn't maintain Western standards? That the British government wants to prevent the sexual abuse of children by its citizens? That there are Cambodian NGOs who are incredibly zealous about protecting the rights and dignity of Cambodian children? Bravo.
Are these the battles you want to choose? Just yesterday the government denied bail for members of the CNRP opposition party, 11 of whom will go on trial for "insurrection" in what is clearly a politically motivated case. I think most would agree, the future trajectory of legal and human rights in Cambodia rest far more on this case than on David Fletcher.
DeleteDear Anonymous
I agree with all you write in paragraph one.
Paragraph 2 is problematic. Fletcher was convicted of statutory rape as a result of a consensual sexual relationship with a young woman just shy of the age of consent. This was wrong, illegal and Fletcher has been punished for it. He was not a 'child sex offender', however.
Even if you want to stretch the definition of 'child sex offender' to include this offence, perhaps Cambodia should not have allowed Mr Fletcher to enter Cambodia. This would be Cambodia's call, not mine. Recent history suggests that Cambodia is not too choosy about which criminals it allows to live and work in Cambodia.
As for "The admitted and established reality that Fletcher had teenage girl strip for him" where does this information come from? Did you witness the teenage girl strip for him? Did someone you know well witness this incident? Did you read about it on Khmer440? Does this information come from a source that you consider to be reliable?
...to be continued...
...It seems as though you are referring to Yang Dany. I have met a few times with Yang Dany and interviewed her three times. On each occasion the story she tells is different. I do not know which of the stories is the truth but the one fact that emerges in all the versions I have heard is that David Fletcher did not rape her. This is borne out by the Sept 2010 doctor's report, commissioned to be presented in evidence, in which Yang Dany was declared to be a virgin.
DeleteNow, it could be argued, as the judges did in the trial held in absentia (illegal in accordance with Cambodian law) that Yang Dany's hymen grew back. Fair enough. Have that legal argument in a properly constituted court. Let a qualified doctor argue for her growing back of Yang Dany's hymen and another doctor argue that this is physiologically impossible.
This principle should apply to all the evidence - both in support of the proposition that Fletcher raped Yang Dany and that he did not. This is what courts are for.
As for human rights organisations not wishing to "risk their social, political and networking capital to advocate for the legal rights of a convicted child sex offender and predator," two points - one of which I have already made. Fletcher is not a convicted child sex offender and, unless you have evidence to the contrary, nor is he a 'predator'. If, on 20th June 2010, there were evidence of 'predatory behaviour' why did SISHA, APLE and CEOP have none of it - despite extensive investigations on the part of all three NGOs? How is it that one week later, they now all have evidence - namely that Fletcher raped Yang Dany in March 2009?
Again, as with Dany's virginity, perhaps there is an explanation as to why this sudden turnaround took place within one week. If so, it should be presented to a properly constituted court.
The second main problem with your 'picking your battles' argument is that it plays right into the hands of unscrupulous NGOs who require a constant stream of 'pedophile conviction's (for want of a better expression) to keep sponsors and donors happy and convince that they are doing a great job.
Such NGOs know that LICADHO and ADHOC will not advocate in any way for the human rights of men such as David Fletcher and so such men become easy targets.
What all this 'mongering' (as you refer to it) might succeed in proving is that all of those accused of crimes in Cambodia are entitled to a fair trial in accordance with the Cambodian Code of Criminal Procedure - Khmers and non-Khmers alike.
As for the British government wanting to prevent the sexual abuse of children I have no doubt, in theory, that it does. However, in reality this is not what has happened in the case of David Fletcher if one looks, as I have, at hundreds of pages of court and other documents. I will have much more to write on this subject in the not too distant future so be patient.
Yes, there are "NGOs who are incredibly zealous about protecting the rights and dignity of Cambodian children?" And there are NGOs who remove children from their families illegally. And many different sorts of NGOs in between. I can see no point in making a blanket statement about all NGOs.
Yes, CNRP members are, yet again, being victimised by the same judicial system that victimises the majority of those who pass through it. LICADHO and ADHOC and all NGOs should be very vocal in their protests about this. So too should the embassies of the countries who, through their donations, do so much to help Cambodia.
There is no either/or scenario here. Human rights are, as the expression implies, rights to be enjoyed by all people - politicians, members of a particular political party, land and home owners and men accused of sexual crimes. These rights have been extended to the men and women on trial for genocide during the Khmer Rouge era. They should be extended to all accused.
James, I may be in the middle of no where (which side I meant). But what's important is the videos you posted to your YouTube. I felt that you and your translator are poor in interviewing. All you collected from her and her mother was a coercing. She was not willing to answer but your leading and forceful questions made her unable to say any other things. Also, observing her feeling was totally incorrect. She was very uncomfortable to answer all of your questions. How many times each questions was asked to force for answer? You should spend more time to review how professional you and your interpretor are, rather than spebring time and spiting blood at other.
DeleteQuite a few years ago, I went on one of David's dump trips. I put up $75 and David put up another $75 from his fund. We stopped at the market to pick up supplies and stopped again to pick up bread that David had ordered earlier. We fed over 400 children and mothers: bread, apples, eggs, bananas and oranges. David did this without taking the children out of loving homes to be raised in institutional care by paid staff. Seems to me that the real losers in all of this are the children that he hasn't been able to feed since his illegal incarceration. Seems that the big winner in all of this is Scott Neeson, who raised over $5000 per child in his care (including double counts and part-time education students) according to his 2013 tax statement (raised over $10.6 million) located here: https://www.cambodianchildrensfund.org/images/stories/financial/CCF_990_Form_2013.pdf
ReplyDeleteThere is one guy on here always trying to link this back to Neeson, someone with their own grudge.
DeleteComparing a meal from Fletcher with what CCF does is hilarious. It's like saying "I gave some money to a bum, so I'm the same as the salvation army". Fletcher gave kids a meal, and the special ones (like his child girlfriend) got invited back to his bar. CCF gives kids everything from food and support, assists their families (most of the kids live at home), education, leadership training, and either a university education or vocational training. It's a model that works, and it is lifting families and communities out of poverty.
Hey Scott. Very nice to see that you are keeping up on this blog. Civilized projects or Counties don't take children from families due to impoverishment. They help the families.
DeleteYou are right it is hilarious. Neeson takes children from loving families, babies from their homes and mothers. Locks out the poor from their home because they owe him $12.50. Uses a convicted drug dealer in his CPU. Raises children in institutional care by paid staff. Takes over $80,000 plus benefits, from contributions, to put into his pocket. It is a model that works to raise money, not families.
ReplyDeleteAn average family in Cambodia lives on a little over $1200 a year, a teacher can make less than $125 a month. HE RAISES OVER $5000/CHILD (including the ones that live at home or are only 'night school' students)! Indeed it is a profitable business model.
Fletcher fed hundreds of children hundreds of times.
Thanks for the link to the tax info. Appears that CCF spends less than 8% of its revenue on the category that they call 'Community Outreach', what many (including myself) would consider to be the most important element of their project.
ReplyDeleteYup, I'm with the guy above. How come every reference to the PROOF of Fletcher's prior child sex abuse in England, his buying an underage girl and have her strip always lead back to Neeson innuendo about Neeson's funding, a guy with an impeccable reputation.
ReplyDeleteAnd you people have the hide to cry "witch hunt" about Fletcher!?! This whole blog smells of a grudge by a small bunch of losers. Of course, per Ricketson, a classic narcissistic twot, anyone who agrees with this must be Neeson himself....
Dear Mr. Eloquent, Are you getting your 'facts' from a bar in PP? Where do you get this: "his buying an underage girl and have her strip"?
DeleteThe fact that you'd say that a man who has taken hundreds of children from loving families 'has 'an impeccable reputation' says so much about YOU!
Believe it or not, Ricketson, isn't the only that knows this is WRONG!
For the Anonymous contributor to this debate who refers to me as a 'classic narcissistic twot'
DeleteFrom your tone and writing style I am making the presumption that you are a man. I may be wrong. Whatever sex you belong to you seem to have no interest at all in facts but only in the hurling of epithets. To refer to anyone, in a discussion, in an argument, in a debate, as a 'loser' or a 'narcissistic twit' contributes nothing at all. If you think I am wrong in my facts, argue with me about these. Point out to me where I am wrong - on the basis of facts and not on the basis of what you have read onKhmer440, what you have heard in a pub etc. The moment anyone can point out to me where I have my facts wrong, I will admit to it and correct my arguments accordingly. And I will sign my own name to my arguments and not hide behind the word 'anonymous' as you (and so many others) do
Have only just been informed that a 'twot' (as opposed to a 'twat' or a 'twit') is someone who is a Total Waste Of Time. I have not had such epithets hurled at me since I was a teenage, though I suspect that in this instance the hurler of such insults is not a teenager! I am not very up to date on internet vernacular but I think the word 'troll' is the one to use for someone who has nothing to say but hopes to annoy people for the sake of it. My suggestion: If you are going to resort to insults, (or what you hope will be taken as insults) you should be able to do better than 'narcissistic twit'!
DeleteIf your looking for dirt on Pilorge, Darnaudet and Hunter do some sniffing around in Sihanoukville asking about what these three got up to down there in the early days of APLE. You'll find out heaps.
ReplyDeleteI am not looking for 'dirt', but I am looking for evidence, if you have any. Or the names of anyone in Sihanoukville I should talk to.
DeleteJames
DeleteHere is the problem you have, you claim to be a journalist yet you haven't done any real research. You claim Fletcher has one charge of statutory rape, I suppose he didn't tell you of the 13 other charges that he was sentenced at the same time on including child pornography and the fact his victim was drugged and photographed. You continue to defend this convicted pedophile even after in your own interview Dany recounts what happened to her which at the lowest would amount to a crime of indecent assault or attempted rape. She clearly states that Fletcher got her in her room, locked the door and undressed her and began kissing her against her will, I can understand why you would not have that translated. Further everyone is missing the point that Fletcher is a CONVICTED PEDOPHILE in most western countries he cannot even be near children. In some countries he would have had additional charges just for doing what he was doing, feeding possibly grooming children. Your failure to research the truth of his conviction speak volumes and if you did your selective use of one of them speaks volumes.
Dear Anonymous, I am not sure which of the many Anonymous’ you are but here, in point form, is a response to your comment.
Delete(1) David Fletcher was not found guilty of being in possession of child pornography and was not found guilty of (or even charged with) drugging the young woman with whom he had a consensual sexual relationship. Yes, she was underage but she was a willing participant – as acknowledged by the judge.
(2) David Fletcher is not a convicted pedophile.
(3) I am defending David Fletcher’s right to a fair trial. After four and a half years in prison there has been no trial.
(3) In her interviews, Yang Dany gives more than one version of the truth. I do not pretend to know which one is the truth one. In none of her interviews does she say that David Fletcher raped her. At the risk of belabouring the point, this is backed up by medical evidence.
(4) If David Fletcher undressed and kissed Yang Dany against her will he should have been charged with this offence.
5) In June 2010 David Fletcher was being investigated by CEOP, APLE, SISHA and the Anti Human Trafficking Unit. As of 20th June 2010 none of these four investigative bodies had found any evidence, to quote Scott Neeson, that David Fletcher was “grooming young girls.” Up until 20th June Yang Dany describes David Fletcher as her fiancé, as her boyfriend, as a good man. A week later she changes her mind and says Fletcher raped her in March 2009. On the same day that her mother, Sekun, laid these charges (and it was Sekun, not Yang Dany, who laid the charges) Sekun sought $30,000 in damages from David Fletcher –this figure having been recommended to her by an NGO.
(6) As for translations of what Yang Dany says in her interviews I did not want to censor her in any way but allow viewers (as would be the case in a properly constituted court) to arrive at their own conclusions as to her reliability as a witness.
(7) Everyone is not missing the point that David Fletcher is a convicted pedophile. He is not a convicted pedophile. He was convicted of having had consensual sex with an underage girl. Three months under the age of consent.
I am quite happy to respond to any other comments you wish to make but it would be easier if you chose a name of some kind so that I can distinguish between you and the many others who choose to remain anonymous.
Dear James
DeleteI suggest you better ask FLETCHER for his conviction history as you are once again very wrong and showing your lack of investigative ability you have failed miserably in this regard, can you please detail the 12 offences he was charged and convicted of in the interest of all readers remembering it was a concurrent sentence..
Dear Anonymous, again, in point form:
Delete(1) At present David Fletcher is not contactable by mobile phone; only through an intermediary who smuggles notes and documents from the jail. As I am in Australia and so not able to ask him immediately for further details of his charges.
(2) Of what relevance are the 12 charges you refer to to the question of David Fletcher’s guilt or innocence of the charge of having raped Yang Dany?
(3) Since your own investigative powers are greater than my own and since you seem to know details of Mr Fletcher's charges and convictions in the UK, why don't you share them with us?
(4) Vis a vis the 12 charges you are referring to, are you trying to suggest that Mr Fletcher should, in the absence of any trial in Cambodia, in the absence of any evidence that he raped Yang Dany, spend 10 years in jail for having had an illegal relationship with an underage women 16 years ago?
Please make the point you wish to make regarding the '12 offences' and its relevance to the rape charges leveled at Mr Fletcher?
I am not sure it there is something wrong with my blog or if someone has hacked into it to remove certain comments. The following comment was made and then deleted. Each time I try to re-post it, it disappears almost immediately. This is an experiment to see whether this happens again:
ReplyDeleteMr. Ricketson,
You are incorrect in your above point that Mr. Fletcher does not have access to a phone in prison. He certainly does have access to a mobile phone and he has access to email. I know this because he has been sending me emails that cast blame for his conviction on every person on this earth but himself as well as sending me images of two young girls who he says he loves. The emails come from his personal email address and from a smartphone.
Apart from being extremely concerned that any prisoner in Cambodia has access to the internet and phones in prison (both of which I intend to report to Cambodian Authorities), I fear that you are being led a lie by Fletcher. As admirable as it is for you to stand up for him, I have no hesitation in believing that he will leave you out to dry once your allegations of conspiracy by numerous people is proven incorrect - which it will.
To anonymous above or to any person reading this blog, getting a copy of Fletcher's charge sheet, showing what the prosecutor charged him with, regardless of whether or not they were proceeded with, would certainly put an end to the speculation here.
Regards
Rachel
Some strange things happen from time to time online. Posts and comments disappear and there is a temptation to think that someone has hacked into the blog and is responsible. it seems not. The above post has not been deleted so I can now respond to it:
DeleteRachel
If you have read much of my blog you will be aware that David Fletcher has sporadic use of a mobile phone. This is the case for all prisoners in Cambodian jails. There are crack downs from time to time that make communication difficult or impossible. Do feel free to report Mr Fletcher to the appropriate authorities for using a mobile phone if you think this would be appropriate and helpful.
If you believe yourself to be in possession of emails/photos that cast Mr Fletcher in a bad light (which is clearly the light in which you see him) broadcast them, publish them, don’t make allegations that you are not prepared to back up with facts, with evidence.
At the risk of belabouring the point (since I have made this very clear on innumerable occasions) I am not ‘standing up for’ David Fletcher. I am ‘standing up for’ his right to a fair trial. This is a right that should be enjoyed by all men and women accused of a crime in Cambodia – whether they be Khmer or non-Khmer.
If you have a copy of Mr Fletcher’s 1998 charge sheet and feel that there would be some value in publishing it, please do. You clearly have some 2nd hand knowledge of what Mr Fletcher was charged with from someone involved in investigating his activities in Cambodia in 2009 and 2010. (You have, incidentally, identified ‘anonymous above’ – which fact I am sure, he will not be too happy about! Whether he should be sharing the fruits of his investigation with a blogger such as yourself I am not so sure!)
I will ask you, as I asked the now ‘not-so-anonymous’ person above, of what relevance is Mr Fletcher’s charge sheet from 1998 to the question of whether or not he raped Yang Dany in 2009?
If you have just the basics of an understanding of the law and the role of the courts, Rachel, you will know that being charged with an offence does not make one guilty of it. This is what the courts are for – to determined whether a person is guilty or innocent, based on evidence of the crime they have been charged with in the here and now and not with charges that date back 12 years.
I am closely associated with someone who was charged by the police (‘loaded up’ is the expression) with close to 300 offences. The number which was reduced to 11 by the time she went to trial and of which she was found guilty of 5. In accordance with the logic you are using, if she were to be accused of committing a crime 12 years down the track the 300 offences she had originally been charged with should be taken into account. From a legal point of view, from a moral point of view, from a common sense point of view, this is nonsense, Rachel.
David Fletcher was tried and found guilty of raping Yang Dany twice in March 2009. He is either guilty or not guilty as charged. There has never been a court case to determine his guilt or innocence. There should be. It is his right to a fair trial that I am defending. It seems that you are suggesting that he must be guilty because of charges laid (but not proven) in 1998 – none of which, incidentally, involved rape or violence of any kind.
Your understanding of the law might be a little shaky, Rachel, but at least you have had the courage of your convictions and attached your name to your comment – which is more than most contributor’s do.
Rachel, I hate injustice. If Mr Fletcher was guilty then he should rot in jail but since EVERYTHING points to corruption I wish you could open your mind and looks at the facts. He was not in the country when the offense took place. He went weekly to the DUMP to selflessly give to all the people there.
DeleteRachel Matters on the subject of Peter Hogan:
DeleteDecember 28, 2014 at 8:14 am
RIP to any person who passes suddenly.
But I can’t write something that isn’t true and praise the guy like some of the forked tongue posters on Khmer440 – who seem to be coming out in droves to support Peter Hogan but off this forum, I hear the same people cursing the guy .
I think the guy was an arrogant, obnoxious and self centred creep, who was quick to criticise anything anyone did, especially if it was something that put them above others or was in conflict with Hogan’s personal opinion. He had no respect for privacy of an individual, especially in death, which was evident ins one of his disgusting posts about people who had passed away. He had no respect for an individuals reputation, often writing terrible material that was based on nothing but Hogan’s opinion, caring little if his rants and blogs damaged a persons honour or hurt their family.
Lets be honest, he won’t be missed by anyone. Good riddance I say to a man who achieved nothing but hurting people. Karma is very real!
wpadmin says: December 28, 2014 at 10:24 am Do you see the irony of attacking KiR for lacking respect when someone died, when you’re doing exactly the same thing here Rachel? Reply
Rachel Matters says: December 28, 2014 at 10:55 am No wpadmin – I don’t – because I often told him that he was an arrogant asshole when he was alive. Peter Hogan was never a great admirer of mine nor my husbands. Reply
pete says: December 28, 2014 at 11:46 am I can’t begin to imagine why. And woah, you got a husband. Poor guy. Reply
wpadmin says: December 28, 2014 at 3:06 pm Pete and I didn’t agree on many things, but I sense he was right about you.
Just to clarify, from my own personal experience (i spent some time at the dump w an organization called PIO), David was at the dump, sometimes more than once a DAY. Whenever he could find humanitarians that would donate to feed the children, he would go to take them food.
ReplyDelete