# 98 Smuggling documents out of jail!

The following was sent to UK Foreign Secretary Phillip Hammond one month ago. There was, of course, no response!

Mr Phillip Hammond

UK Foreign Secretary

19^th Jan 2015

Dear Mr Hammond

Today I received the attached documents from Mr Fletcher – smuggled out of prison, photographed and sent to me. They speak for themselves. That such cloak and dagger antics must be employed by Mr Fletcher to communicate with CEOP and the FCO is absurd! Kafkaesque!

In accordance with Ross Allen and Joanna Roper’s fatwa on me (“we will not communicate with Mr Ricketson in any way or under any circumstances”) there is nothing I can do to assist Mr Fletcher to either (a) make an application to CEOP to acquire documents that he is legally entitled to under FOI legislation or (b) ask Joanna Roper when Mr Fletcher might be able to expect the second tranche of documents that were promised to be delivered to him in January.

The bureaucratic pettiness of Mr Allen and Ms Roper, on naked display, is of course the FCO’s way of trying to obstruct, in every way it can, Mr Fletcher’s quest for a fair trial! This is being done with your blessing.

Why, Mr Foreign Secretary?

There is a comic element to all this - of the Monty Python, Alice in Wonderland variety. In the note attached to these documents, sent to me by a very naughty prison guard today, I learned that during a prison visit by FCO staff last week to Mr Fletcher, a “skinny barang from Britain embusy with eye glases” was filming Mr Fletcher with his mobile phone while he “talk with Khmer woman from Britain embusy”.

Was this covert filming of Mr Fletcher done in hopes that he might use a four letter word and so give Ross Allen an opportunity to point out his duty of care to FCO staff not to have to hear such words?  I would be very surprised if Mr Fletcher used any four letter words. He has always been, in my experience, very gentlemanly in his dealings with those with whom he speaks.

I do not know at this point if Mr. Fletcher was aware that he was being filmed. He made no mention of it in his note to me. I have sent a message back to him asking if he was aware that his conversation was being recorded. I suspect not.

Why was the ‘skinny barang from Britain embusy with eye glases’ recording the conversation Mr Fletcher was having with the Khmer woman? Was Mr Fletcher informed that his conversation was being recorded? Is such covert recording of a conversation between FCO staff and Mr Fletcher legal, under British law? If so, can Mr Fletcher, under FOI legislation, request that he be provided with a copy of it?

I have included below the text of the letter I sent to Debbie Chisholm on 3^rd Nov 2014 regarding CEOP involvement in the pursuit of Mr Fletcher.

I received no reply from Ms Chisholm. Perhaps she too has been instructed by you to not communicate with me?

Debbie Chisholm

Press Officer

National Crime Agency

1-7 Old Queen Street

Westminster

London, SW1H 9HP

3^rd Nov 2014

Dear Debbie

re David John Fletcher

Your email of 31^st. 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

If neither CEOP nor SISHA have any evidence at all that David Fletcher raped Yang Dany (and there is certainly none to be found in the court files, all of which I have) and if Yang Dany remained a virgin after the alleged rapes (which she did), and if Yang Dany denies that any rapes took place (which she does) and if the Foreign & Commonwealth Office acknowledges that David Fletcher was denied his right to a trial (and, as FOI documents reveal, it does) why are you, Mr Foreign Secretary, doing all you can to obstruct Mr Fletcher in his quest for a fair trial?

Curiouser and curiouser!

I have lost count of the number of letters I have written to you and I do not really expect a response to this email, though I would be delighted to be surprised and proven wrong.

The hole you are digging for yourself, Mr Hammond, gets deeper and deeper with every passing week that you allow this travesty of justice to endure.

best wishes

James Ricketson