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
19th
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 3rd
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
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
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
