Dear
Scott
Imagine
this:
It
is June 2010. There has been chatter on Khmer440 about your inappropriate
behavior with young girls you have rescued from the Phnom Penh rubbish dump.
Several photos of you cuddling young girls have been published on Khmer440. The
rumour mill is working overtime. Peter Hogan can smell blood!
Andrew
Drummond writes an article based on the rumour, innuendo and scuttlebutt
floating around. Drummond quotes David Fletcher – a man who, like you, is
helping families in the rubbish dump:
“There is little doubt Neeson devotes his time to
grooming young girls….The fact is these children can be bought. It’s difficult
to stop it. The Australian Embassy have been told about Neeson. 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.”
Khmer440
goes crazy with excitement. The trolls join in the feeding frenzy!
A
week later you are arrested. No charges are laid. Three weeks later Yang Dany
says that you had raped her twice 15 months earlier. A trial is held in secret.
You learn from a press clipping that you have received a 10 year jail sentence,
despite it having emerged in this secret trial that Yang Dany’s hymen has
remained intact despite the two brutal rapes you have allegedly committed.
Your
pleas of innocence fall on deaf ears. No-one, including the Australian authorities,
the media or various human rights organizations is at all concerned that you
have been denied a fair trial.
You
get the picture.
How
would you feel?
Maybe
a few years later someone in the media starts to ask questions. S/he is not
satisfied with the narrative that has gone down and been accepted as ‘the
truth’.
Would
you welcome this member of the 4th state’s interest in your plight?
Might you ask, at the very least, that you be given a fair trial? A trial held
in accordance with Cambodian law?
I
have asked you many times this past year to please either withdraw your
statement about Mr Fletcher ‘grooming’ young girls or to provide evidence in
support of it. You will do neither. You know that you have the Phnom Penh Post
and Khmer Times onside and that neither newspaper will ask you any of the many
obvious questions that need to be asked about the Cambodian Children’s Fund. If
you just sit it out, refuse to answer any questions, get your trolls to shoot
the messenger at every opportunity they get, this dreadful blog of mine will
die a natural death and it will be back to business as usual with the Post and
Khmer Times as your unofficial public relations representatives.
Maybe.
We shall see.
How
would you feel, Scott, if yours and Mr Fletcher’s positions were reversed? It
could easily have happened, as you know, if Yang Dany had decided to go after
you and not Mr Fletcher.
On
several occasions this past year I have been told that the young woman in the
photo, snuggled up to you, is Yang Dany.
Is
it?
I
have dismissed the possibility for close to a year now but, given the passage
of time and the transformations that can occur through make up, I wonder if
my initial rejection of the possibility
was a little too hasty!
Given
the significant role that both you and Yang Dany have played in securing a ten
year jail sentence for Mr Fletcher, asking if this young woman is Yang Dany is
a valid question.
In a
properly constituted trial, one held in accordance with the Cambodian Code of
Criminal Procedure, your relationship with Yang Dany would have been thoroughly
explored. Unfortunately such a trial has never been held and a good deal of
effort has been put into guaranteeing that no such trial will ever occur.
In a
trial open to the public, open to the media, Mr Fletcher’s lawyer would have been
able to cross- examine both yourself and Yang Dany in relation to an email you
wrote on 14th July 2010, at a time when Mr Fletcher was being held,
without charges, in a Thai prison – at the request of Cambodian authorities:
The
‘San’ mentioned in your email was, as you know, your police ‘minder’ at the
time:
“In all honesty, I keep San out of loyalty and as an insurance
policy, eg if any locals tried to get money by threatening Fletcher-style
allegations, then San is a witness and will take appropriate action with
authorities. He is also responsible for keeping me free of compromising
situations eg when Dany was hugging and getting too friendly with me, I had San
tell her to back off (which apparently contributed to the sudden Fletcher
engagement). I have never had trouble with allegations or shakedowns so either
I'm paranoid or San's presence keeps me safe. I'm hoping it is the former but
planning for the latter.”
This
email, in conjunction with the photo of you and Yang Dany (if, indeed, it is she)
rises a whole host of questions:
- What
do you mean by, “threatening
Fletcher-style allegations?”
On
14th July no charges had been made against Mr Fletcher by Cambodian
authorities. The only ‘allegations’ about Mr Fletcher that had been made in the
mainstream media (though there had been plenty of Khmer440) were those made by
yourself.
Just
a few weeks earlier you had said to journalist Andrew Drummond:
“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. 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
- In
the event that anyone did try to make “ Fletcher-style allegations” against you, what “appropriate action” would San have taken?
- How
often did Yang Dany hug you?
- Did
you make it clear, after the first hug, that Yang Dany’s behavior was quite inappropriate?
If so, why did you allow her to hug you on subsequent occasions?
Your
allegations about Mr Fletcher’s alleged ‘grooming’ set off a sequence of events
that resulted in his arrest, without charge, in Thailand, a week later. Mr
Fletcher was, to use your own words, “sent packing.”
- Did
you play any role in inducing Yang Dany to accuse Mr Fletcher of rape, at about
the same time as you wrote this 14th July email?
- When
you offered to give Yang Dany’s mother, Sekun, $600, were there any strings attached
to that gift? Making the $600 ‘gift’ contingent on Yang Dany telling the police
that Mr Fletcher had raped her, for instance?
- When
you discovered, in Sept 2010, that Yang Dany was still a virgin, her hymen
intact, did it occur to you that perhaps Mr Fletcher had been set up?
Questions
such as those above, canvassed in an open court, would have generated a lot of
media interest of the kind that would not be helpful to the Cambodian
Children’s Fund and would have raised serious doubts about the evidence
collecting modus operandi of Action Pour les Enfants.
There
may be, of course, a perfectly innocent explanation for this photo of you and
Yang Dany – if it is Yang Dany. And your observations about getting Yang Dany
to back off and not hug you may be nothing other than the truth. And it is the
truth, surely, that a properly constituted court should be seeking.
In
the absence of a fair trial and with your refusal to answer the kinds of
questions I have spent the last year asking you (to no avail) it is hardly
surprising that tongues wag and speculation runs rife. Speculation that would
come to an end with some simple answers to questions.
I
will ask a few of these questions again:
- Do
you have any evidence that Mr Fletcher was ‘grooming’ young girls as you told
Andrew Drummond?
- If
so, why have you never presented this evidence to the appropriate Cambodian
authorities?
- If
you have no evidence, if you were misquoted by Andrew Drummond, or had words
put in your mouth that you did not say, will you now retract your ‘grooming’
statement?
I had to laugh today at the PP Post article about the government, embassies and school looking to tighten the checks to stops criminals working in schools. It is very ironic that the PP post have sought quotes from James McCabe - how can be asked to comment on protecting children and making it harder for schools and organisations to stop criminals working in them when he is a convicted criminal - is this some sort of sick joke. Seriously - the PP Post has a become a very fucked newspaper - does it have anyone with any brains and credibility working within its ranks who can screen articles before they are published.
ReplyDeleteThe Phnom Penh Post ceased being a credible source of news some time ago. If Neeson doesn't own it,he might just as well!
Delete"It is very ironic that the PP post have sought quotes from James McCabe - how can be asked to comment on protecting children and making it harder for schools and organisations to stop criminals working in them when he is a convicted criminal"
DeleteGood example of a non-sequitur.
In so far as him having been a policeman who was convicted of a crime, served his time, and then returned to help others, he may in fact be uniquely qualified to comment on such things, and his word may even carry extra weight and authority.
McCabe's story is really quite amazing. And I have this blog to thank, in part, for bringing him and his tale more fully to my attention. A policeman turned bad, falling hard, caught and convicted for serious crimes. Then after having paid his debt to society in full, he uses his new freedom and a second chance to turn his efforts to helping some of this world's least fortunate people - the poor, vulnerable and abused children in Cambodia. It is really an uplifting and hopeful story of human frailty, grace and redemption. Neeson showed great faith and courage in hiring him, and McCabe's actions to date show that this faith was not misplaced. McCabe's work to help children here seems to reveal a humble yet practical contrition, an honest desire to give even more back to the world after having stumbled and paid dearly for it (while the petty and vengeful sneer and deride him for it, calling for more blood.) Who in this world hasn't made mistakes, and hasn't hoped and prayed for a second chance? And for those fortunate enough to receive it, how many have used it to give of themselves to others, to the poor and down trodden, to try to make the world a better place? It is, in many ways, a story of the best that people can be. The stuff of books and movies (and sermons.)
APLE may be a dubious organisation, and Fletcher may not have received a fair shake and deserves a fair trial, but defending a convicted rapist (even one that might have been unfairly convicted) by tearing down a man who has already been beaten and is now trying to do good by helping vulnerable children, is a particularly ugly sight.
What a complete line of BS Anonymous 9:33 (or James McCabe).
DeleteYea McCabe might be an expert on advising how to keep policeman away from 15 year old girls, how to sell stolen drugs, and how to rob drug dealers at gunpoint! That is one great role model.
DeleteDear Anonymous 9.33
DeleteAre you aware that all you write about Mc Cabe applies to Fletcher also. If Mc Cabe paid his debt to society by going to jail, why does thr same not apply to Mr. Fletcher? If Mc Cabe is to be praised for helping disadvantaged Cambodians, why does the same not apply to Mr Fletcher?
The inspirational story of redemption needs to be tempered with a few facts that might take some of the shine of Mc Cabe's halo.
The Cambodian Children's Fund is involved in a housing scam. This is not just scuttlebutt. You can read the press releases for yourself and see that Neeson and CCF went to great lengths to let the world know about the 'gifting' of houses to impoverished Cambodian families. This was a lie. The houses have been 'gifted' to CCF.
CCF claims to spend $4,000 a year for each child that is in residential care and going to school. This is a lie. (see numerous previous blogs)
CCF does not return children to their families even if their parents ask. CCF insists that the parents have contracted with CCF and they will not break the contract. this is a lie. The contracts CCF forces parents to sign are, in themselves, illegal.
Through its own incompetence CCF failed in its duty of care to a 16 year old girl who died of a readily treatable ailment. as if this was not bad enough, CCF then tried to cover it up and is covering it up to this day.
CCF evicts the parents of kids in CCF care if they get $12.50 behind in their rent.
And so it goes. The list is a long one.
Any assessment of Mc Cabe (one of the three heads of CCF) must not only take into account his rehabilitation (as you see it) but also the many CCF scams he is a party to.
This inspirational story about Mc Cabe's rehabilitation reads like a Hollywood film. Or, should I say, what a marketing man would write about such a film!
"Are you aware that all you write about Mc Cabe applies to Fletcher also."
DeleteWell, a bit. Except that McCabe wasn't convicted of a sex crime against a minor like Fletcher and then went to Cambodia to work in an unmonitored, unlicensed siuation with children where he was caught and convicted yet again of another sex crime against a minor. But I agree (and already mentioned) that the story of McCabe does read like a Hollywood movie, whereas the story of Fletcher reads like a long list of banal Cambodia Daily articles of a convicted western sex offender that comes to Cambodia unfettered, works with children in unmonitored situations, gets caught here for another sex offence against minors and ends up in a squalid third world prison. Not the stuff of movies and books (or sermons.)
"The Cambodian Children's Fund is involved in a housing scam. This is not just scuttlebutt. You can read the press releases for yourself and see.."
"Take a closer look at this and you will see that it is a scam of rather large proportions. And it is only one of many."
This has been a reoccuring theme in this blog. It is not incumbent on the reader to investigate this, find evidence, look things up, talk to the people involved, try to confirm insinuations or rhetorical questions or whatever. If the reader wanted to do that they wouldn't be readers but investigators, and they wouldn't be reading this blog but writing there own. It is the job of the journalist to explain it in a clear, complete and accessible way and to cite the sources and references for all stated facts. If it is a "scam of large proportions" as you claim in another entry, and you really do have the evidence for it, one well written, properly documented article should be enough to end the debate. But telling the reader to go talk to so&so, or look closer at at something, or draw conclusions from leading questions, etc, is simply not going to happen and lends to the perception that you really don't have the evidence or argument to make your case. After all, if you did, you wouldn't be telling us to go find it.
There is a reason that these claims of yours about CCF have not yet made the mainstream press, and it it is not because all the newspapers, NGOs, embassies and governments are in a giant illuminatiesque conspiracy for CCF and against you. It is because, if there is truth in your claims, you have not made your case and/or not made your case in a reasonable way. The media loves a scandal. But it is up to you, as the interested journalist, to write it up and document it it in a way that you are able to get published in a reputable media outlet, not a personal blog. That is...or write it up and document it in such a way that you can get a real journalist working at a reputable media outlet to listen to you. I can see in several of their recent articles that the Daily is sniffing around for just such a story. If you have what you claim you have, surely you can get them to listen to you. Just look at the byline on the last couple of Fletcher articles and give that guy a call.
Dear Anonymous 9.42
DeleteI wish that you would at least adopt a fake name so that I did not have to keep referring to you as ‘Anonymous’. I enjoy your comments and it is a pleasure to communicate with someone who argues rationally and who does not feel the need to denigrate the person with whom s/he is conversing.
(1) Yes, Fletcher was convicted of having consensual sex with a 15 year old girl. Statutory rape. Mc Cabe was convicted of various crimes relating to drugs when he was an Australian Federal Police officer. Was Mr Fletcher’s crime that much worse than James Mc Cabe’s?
(2) Your reference to Mr Fletvher working in an ‘unmonitored, unlicensed situation” suggests that there are NGOs working with children that are monitored. Is this so? Who does the monitoring? Please don’t say MOSAVY. I haver had considerable experience with MOSAVY and I can assure you that, in all of my experiences (and they are several now) MOSAVY does no monitoring at all.
(3) I have been coming to Cambodia for 20 years. I have never set up an NGO. I have never been ‘monitored’ (whatever that means) and yet I have helped dozens of families over the years and do so to this day. Is being ‘licensed’ and ‘monitored’ any guarantee that an NGO, or individual member so fit, are doing the right thing? No. NGOs that wish to make up their own rules (and many do) can do so knowing full well that no-one is going to stop them – particularly when it comes to harvesting the children of materially poor families. There are dozens of NGOs, known to everyone in Cambodia, that have the removal of children from their families as their core business. Yes, they justify this in all sorts of ways but it is very often illegal and very often immoral and damaging to both the children and their families.
I mention this because ‘licensing’ and ‘monitoring’ are only ever going to be as good as the actual ‘monitoring’ that takes place. It is the Cambodian government’s job to monitor the work done by NGOs but it fails miserably in this regard. Yes, there has been much talk this past few years about rectifying this stae of affairs but I see little evidence of it occurring.
....to be continued...
...continuing...
DeleteYour comments about Mr Fletcher being “caught and convicted yet again of another sex crime against a minor” would be true if he had been found gulty in a properly constituted court. As you know, he was not. He has never once even been interviewed by the police or a Prosecuting Judge. And as for him being ‘caught’, Mr Fletcher was never caught. When he left Cambodia SISHA, CEOP and APLE between them had not ‘caught’ him doing anything wrong at all – despite two years of looking. Mr Fletcher was not ‘caught’ until 17 days after his arrest when Yang Dany announced that her ‘fiance’ had, in fact, raped her twice 15 months earlier!
Yes, I agree with your about the two different narratives. The Mc Cabe story is Mills and Boone and the Fletcher story is a much less inspiring read. However, my research suggests that this rosy story about Mc Cabe is nonsense, whereas the much more ‘sordid’ Fletcher at least has the ring of truth to it.
As for your observations about CCF’s World Housing scam, I have written about this before and really do not have the time to write about it again in detail each and every time it comes up. It is not hard for anyone interested to go back through the blog and find where I have devoted 2 or 3 blog entries to presenting it in a coherent form.
Your ‘conspiracy’ comments are a little tiresome. I have only ever used the expression ‘conspiracy of silence.’ I do not believe that a bunch of people got into a dark room and plotted Fletcher’s downfall. There was a sequence of stages, involving lots of people, that resulted in his arrest in Thailand. Then, once it became apparent that he could not be held in a Thai prison indefinitely (he had committed no crime in Thaland) it was incumebt on the Cambodian authorities to come up with a charge that would not only work in a Thai court but which would be strong enough to warrant extradition. By now CEOP and SISHA were out of the picture but APLE was still very much involved and fighting hard to get Mr Fletcher back to Cambodia despite knowing that yang Dany was still a virgin.
So, SISAH and CEOP played their roles, and so did the British Embassies in Cambodia and Thailand, and so did Scott Neeson, and so did Peter Hogan but I doubt that they were ever all in the same room together plotting anything.
As for a ‘reputable media outlet’, which media outlet are you referring to? As you know, newspapers are in decline and there are precious few resources to devote to the kind of investigative journalism that we expected of ‘reputable media outlets’ 10 or 20 years ago. What will happen, I think, what is already happening, is that bloggers and niche online magazines will step in and fill the void left by the demise of the ‘reputable media outlets’.
In the case of this blog, its readership grows each week. It used to be that I’d get 50 page views a day. Now I get 260 a day at the very lest. Yesterday was 343. A few days ago I got over 500. It varies but at a guess I’d say that on average 280 people visit this blog daily. The bulk of these ‘hits’ are in Cambodia. So there are at least 260 people who find what is written here of interest.
Needless to say, I do not publish here everything I know – for a variety of reasons. I am in no big hurry. I need to keep digging to verify that what I have learnt, what I have been told, can be backed up by at least on other source. There will be a book eventually that will lay all of this out in a way that will, if I play my cards right, be a page turner. And it may be, if I can find the time, that a long feature article will be written that is published in a ‘reputable media outlet’.
I am sure you will keep commenting. Please do. Give yourself a name – Tom, Dick, Harry…whatever…
Till next time.
I will try to remember to post under 'mornon,' since that's what the SISHA guy first labled me here. Though it looks like it will put a () for some reason. Guess I can be a 'mornon' when it comes to the internet stuff. ;-)
Delete1) In my 'moral universe', yes, sex crimes, especially against minors, is far worse than drug crimes. In fact, I think we are going to see many 'drug crimes' disappear from the books in the next decade or two. The same cannot be said of sex crimes.
Delete2) Though there is not a formal, reliable monitoring system here, when you are registered and licensed, and working with others in the NGO community, there is, at the very least, a far greater likelihood that your actions are open and visible. If not perfect, it makes it a bit more difficult to get up to mischief, it makes suspicious eyes more comfortable, and makes it more difficult to become the victim of false accusation. Come here as a stereotypical sex tourist (lone, western male hanging out in ted light districts,) and worse, one with a criminal history of sex crimes against minor, and then work with minor children in a far less than transparent situation, and you are going to raise suspicions even in other sex tourists.
3) Me too, and I acknowledge that it may not be the safest practice for me, which is why I do my damnedest to be as visible and open as possible in all respects, sometimes even a bit over the top in that regard. And I never allow myself to get into a situation where I am alone with minor children that are not my own. That would be just plain stupid. That may not be how the world should be, but that is how it is.
4) "Your comments about Mr Fletcher being “caught and convicted yet again of another sex crime against a minor” would be true if he had been found gulty in a properly constituted court."
It is still true, even if you don't personally consider it "a properly constituted court." That is the reality of choosing to live in a place like Cambodia. It's not like the shortcomings of the court system are a secret. And even if Fletcher is someday acquitted of these charges in Cambodia, it will still not be "a properly constituted court" by international standards. Talk of the failings of the Cambodian court system cuts both ways, and as such doesn't make for much of an argument for either side.
5) "Your ‘conspiracy’ comments are a little tiresome."
Yes, I was a bit loose in my use of the word 'conspiracy', yet you are still pointing at a long list of mainstream organizations that are generally considered some degree of reputable - embassies, newspapers, NGOs, storied do-gooders - and saying that they are not only all wrong but all wrong in concert with each other, whether by conspiracy, incompetence, greed, jealousy, maliciousness, etc., and that you, as a lone advocate of lost causes, is right. It is too much. It diminishes the credibility of your case.
6) "As for a ‘reputable media outlet’, which media outlet are you referring to?"
The Cambodia Daily, the Phnom Penh Post, Time, even the ridiculous Khmer Times, any publication that the general public and industry considers reputable, whether you consider them reputable or not. Get something published there and maybe people will begin to listen. After all, what is the point of this whole Fletcher exercise of yours? To get people to listen and get Fletcher a fair trial, or to satisfy your need to do things your way? You say that everything will be done in due time, but how long can Fletcher wait? If things are as bad as you portray them, with innocent men being jailed and Khmer children being kidnapped and trafficked, why os there no hurry?
These news papers have no investigative journalists. They fuel corruption by hiding it. They act as a PR arm for corrupt NGO's such as APLE and CCF, refusing to ask any questions to find facts in case. Chad Williams handling of ruining Liam Miller's life is classic Cambodian journalism. Phnom Penh Post and Khmer Times, shame on you.
ReplyDeleteIs Neeson wearing lipstick in that photo?
ReplyDeleteYeah that's Yang Dany in the photo. Neeson didnt fuck her tho. She hung around CCF probably hoping to set hyim up but he was clveer enough to figurte out what she was up to and got his cop minder to tell her to fuck off. A gold digger. That's what Dany was
DeleteRicketson you are a fucking dog jealous ot Scott Neeson and hoping to destroy his good work. You will censor this because you are a cunt.
ReplyDeleteWow Anonymous 2:46, you write on here a lot! Anything of value to offer?
DeleteYeah, I do. Fletcher lost in court. Tough shit. He was out played by superior opponents. Thats life. Now hes a sore loser and just wants to hit Neeson and Apple as hard as he can adn you are going along with it bcaause you are a fucking loser
DeleteQuite a valuable contribution! Makes you look a bit hateful don't you think? You must be having a very pleasant life!
Deletea sore loser; you rot in a prison as an innocent man and say poor loser; you are a jerk; why do you even post such nonsense? as to the pp post, it and its twin K 440 are sleeze papers uninterested in the truth; just as 344 is not interested in the truth; he probably knows the truth but refuses to open his eyes..if this can happen to David, it can happen to him or anyone; To tolerate lies and corruption and condone the mistreatment of the innocent may come back to haunt him and the very people who caused this to happen............just remember people, to sit and tolerate this is not acceptable; even the haters should want to know the truth; They may well have their turn;
DeleteMr Ricketson seems to think it was Khmer440 that precipitated Fletcher's demise. Does he really think it's that powerful a force?
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous 5.26
DeleteI have never suggested that Khmer440 precipitated Fletcher's demise. What did happen is that all the chatter, all the scuttlebutt, all the innuendo and gossip, created an atmosphere which led people to believe that where there was smoke there must be fire.
This in turn led to CEOP, SISHA and APLE to spend two years investigating Fletcher looking for evidence that the rumours and scuttlebutt were true. They found none but, having invested so much time, energy and money in finding such evidence they stood to have lots of egg on their faces if Fletcher escaped their clutches.
Some weeks before Andrew Drummond published his article, quoting Neeson, Fletcher had already made plans to leave Cambodia. A week after Drummond's article appeared, he left.
In the meantime, Neeson's comment about Fletcher 'grooming' young girls had, as with Khmer440 scuttlebutt, created an atmosphere in which going after Fletcher seemed to be the right thing to do. And Neeson had got into the ear of the British embassy and convinced it of Fletcher's guilt also.
So, the brief answer to your unspoken question is that Khmer440 and Neeson;s defamatory 'grooming' comment created a sense of moral panic that both the British Embassies of Cambodia and Thailand bought into. And, having been convinced that Fletcher was felling, that he must be guilty of 'grooming', the British embassies co-operated with the Thai authorities in setting up a sting operation that led to his arrest.
There was a big problem, however. Fletcher had broken no Thai laws and there was no good reason to keep him in jail. Nor had he broken any Cambodian laws. CEOP, SISHA and APLE had no evidence at all of wrongdoing on his part in Cambodia and had committed their lack of evidence to paper.
The only way out for them was if some charge could be found that would make the Thai authorities sit up and take notice; a charge serous enough to warrant extradition. And so it was, 17 bdays after his arrest in Thailand on no charges at all, that Yang Dany announced that she had been raped 15 months earlier.
The rest is history.
I suspect that Hogan was delighted that Fletcher got 10 years. Indeed, he announced how happy he was. A vindictive man was Peter Hogan. I have no reason to believe that Neeson intended to play such a significant role in a sequence of events that led to the 10 year jail sentence. It does seem, though, from Neeson's own words, that he was well aware that he could be set up as Fletvher was.
Given that Neeson knew in Sept 2010 that Yang Dany remained a virgin after the alleged rapes, and given his own wariness of Yang Dany's motives, the decent thing for him to do, at any point this last five years, would have been to declare, in public, that Mr Flwetvher was entitled to a fair trial. Neeson has not done so. He maintains that he has evidence that Fletcher raped Yang Dany but has never shared it with anyone. Mind you. Naly Pilorge, Director of LICADHO, makes the same claim but has shared her evidence with no-one.
"This in turn led to CEOP, SISHA and APLE to spend two years investigating Fletcher looking for evidence that the rumours and scuttlebutt were true. They found none..."
DeleteYou keep repeating that, but you cannot know that is true. There is an important difference between "finding no evidence" and not yet collecting what they considered sufficient evidence to safely support charges of a serious sex crime in a court of law.
Sometimes I am not sure if you really are just very imprecise in your writing, or don't understand the legal system, or if you're deliberately spinning suggestive tidbits into falsehoods that favor Fletcher. Though I do think it is probably part of the reason your arguments on Fletcher's behalf are not getting the serious attention you seem to think they deserve.
Please, Anonymous 9.42,
DeleteI do know that it is true because I have all the court documents. If CEOP, SISHA and APLE had proof that Fletcher was guilty of rape it would be there on the file. There is no such evidence from any of these investigating bodies.
I am aware that I am repeating myself here but at the time CEOP and SISHA bowed out of the investigation, neither had found evidence of either rape or grooming. Nor had APLE at this point. It was only 17 days after Mr Fletcher was arrested in Thailand that the rape charge was made. ANd this charge was only made after APLE had badgered Yang Dany and her mother, Sekun repeatedly and AFTER they had been told that there was a $30,000 windfall waiting for them in compensation if they charged Fletcher with rape.
Now this is what Yang Dany and Sekun were saying in late 2014 but were they telling the truth then? If they had both lied back in 2010, was there any guarantee that they were not lying now. No, not really. However, Yang Dany's virginity post alleged rape is certainly suggestive that the 2014 version of the truth is more believable than the 2010 version of it.
In a court of law is it not just one piece of evidence that wins (or loses) the day. it is the accumulation of pieces of evidence that suggest either guilt or innocence.
In a properly constituted court of law if the prosecution could not "collect...sufficient evidence to safely support charges of a serious sex crimes in a court of law", Mr Fletcher would have been found not guilty.
As for my not understanding the Cambodian legal system, the reverse is the case. i have read the Cambodian Code of Criminal Procedure many times and have pointed out the many ways in which this Code was breached in Mr Fletcher's case.
As for any 'falsehoods' that you believe I might be spinning to 'favour' Fletcher, please feel free to mention one or more of these to me and I'll address your concerns. Or try to. If I cannot address your concerns you are entitled (indeed, obliged) to take what I write with a grain of salt. However, if you don't tell me what your concerns are, in a reasonably specific way, I can['t address them. I am not, alas, psychic!
Your observation about my arguments on Fletcher's behalf "not getting the serious attention" I think they deserve, you are both right and wrong. Let me explain.
There are thousands of Cambodian's who have been screwed by the judicial system who do not get the attention they deserve. These include political prisoners at one end of the socio-economic scale and poor rice farmers and indigenous people at the other end who have had their land, their homes and their livelihoods stolen by members of the Cambodian kleptocracy. A solid argument could be made that there are many more deserving cases to be fought than Mr Fletchers.
So, given that my blog gets a minimum of 260 page views a day, his case is getting much more exposure, much more public attention, than 99% of those in prison who have no-one advocating on their behalf.
As for whether or not my advocacy will have any impact in the long run remains to be seen. I spent six years advocating on behalf of the parents of two girls who had been illegally removed from their family by Citipointe' church's 'SHE Rescue Home'. For fie of those years an outside observer could easily have come to the conclusion that I was wasting my time. And then, as a result of media coverage largely, the church finally gave up the battle and released the girls back into the care of their family.
So, one does not get involved in a battle unless one is prepared to keep fighting to the end. I do so not out of friendship with Mr Fletcher but because our paths crossed and I found myself in a position to help. Or at least try to help.
I think James should tell us a bit more about the young girl's hymen. We haven't heard about that for a while. If he can include a diagram as well, that would be helpful. Some people might wonder why James is so fixated on this girl's hymen, but I wouldn't. That would be churlish.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous 5.31
DeleteYang Dany's virginity, after 'two brutal rapes' is a key piece of evidence that would be tested, as it should be, in a properly constituted court case. This applies to Yang Dany's own insistence that she was not raped.
If I keep presenting key parts of the evidence over and over again it is because there are trolls here on a fairly regular basis who ignore the facts, ignore the evidence and cherry pick those parts of Mr Fletcher's history that support the narrative line they wish to push. I like to remind them (though fruitlessly, I think) that court cases are about looking at all the facts, all the evidence and arriving at a verdict based on these and not on whether or not Mr Fletcher is 'likeable'.
Mr Ricketson, are you aware that Scott Neeson has secured to
ReplyDeletehe legal services on one Gordon Elliot to sue you in Australia for defamation?
I think an attorney would need to have a case before he could sue Ricketson. Maybe that why we have been hearing these threats for months with no action. Ricketson would EXPOSE Neeson in so many ways, I don't think Neeson wants to be expossed in. Funny that you would suggest the liar would sue the honest man!!
DeleteI can see Team Neeson sitting around now saying "oh Ricketson wrote more truth, let's use donated money to sue him". They remind me of a 4 year old girl crying her eyes out because she dropped her lollypop!
DeleteDear Anonymous 12.19
DeleteI heard months ago that a lawyer by the name of Gordon Elliot was coming after me. I heard it from within CCF - from a source that is usually pretty reliable. In this instance, since I have not heard from Gordon Elliot or any other lawyer, I presume that my inside information is incorrect.
Thank you blog chicken pen Oct 21 at 6.18pm
ReplyDeleteI apologize combining your reply with another, but I know you are such an understanding gentleman and are aware of my limitations.
I am very flattered that you wish to place my book next to the site of your brain.
Please send me your name and address of your chicken pen and I will send you a copy.
Also same apologies to blog Oct 22 at 3.40a.m.
Thank you for your advice and analysis. If you or anyone else doubts my post, all you have to do is consult the French embassy. This was the very reason I posted the story, I can prove it. Maybe I was wrong on ages, I am not good at judging Khmer ages. That is the only point there could be a variable.
There was much more conversation, but as stated is private and privileged. But if pushed by any over zealous court, I can repeat it word for word. That is of course if ever I was allowed to defend myself, which has not happened in five and half years, other than courtesy and kindness of James.
On the question of lies please point out the lies from Scott Neeson, APLE, the nodding dogs and goldfish fraternity. All of whom open their foul mouths before they put their brains into gear.
Thank you for listening and sound advice.
David Fletcher
The problem with Fletcher is that as his contributions here show, he is such a nasty unlikeable prick that even if his conviction is unfair, there really aren't that many people who give a shit, especially given his past.
ReplyDeleteAs for Ricketson, well his whole agenda seems driven by professional jealousy that he is an Australian failed filmmaker angry at Neeson who it seems is an Australian filmmaker with a successful career. Bitterness is a horrible emotion
I also find it odd that Ricketson has pursued this issue for years, has likely spoken to the girl involved on numerous occasions yet isn't sure if it is the same girl in a photo he has used to ridicule Neeson with for years. Perhaps he was too busy looking at Dany's hymen to recognise her face.
We seem to have an absence of comments on this post by Ricketson. Personally I suspect the penny has finally dropped after Fletchers comment about the prince recently and like the rest of us he now realises Fletcher is one of the original Looney Tunes and that he has been conned by a convicted child sex offender
ReplyDeleteFletch lives in a fantasy land James (and we can only guess what many of his fantasies are about), surely even you must realise this by now.
An absence of comments from me!
DeleteWhat does Mr Fletcher's comment about the 'prince' have to do with whether he is innocent or guilty of the crime of rape? Or are you the same anonymous person who believes that he is not entitled to a fair trial because he is not 'likeable'?
From the tenor of your comments you don't sound like a very 'likeable' person yourself. However, if you were to get into legal strife I would support your right to a fair trial.
As for 'Fletch' living in a fantasy land, do you know Mr Fletcher personally or are you just making a wild stab in the dark?
"To cut a long story short, though much of the conversation is private. The young man said, David my father wants to know more about your project and he thanks you for helping his children, I was a little jealous at that remark as I always consider them my children. He would like to meet you and your Khmer wife. Do you know who my father is? I apologized and said I was not familiar with Khmer society. He said I am Prince !!!!!!!!!! and my father is His Majesty King Sihanouk...Even today I am happily reminded of this honour as I see the Prince on some of the banknotes."
DeleteFletcher also wrote: "I was convicted in 1997 in the UK. I was released in March 1998. My first visit to Cambodia was in 2004."
So the earliest possible date of this supposed meeting would have been 2004, probably later. Since Sihanouk only had 3 living sons in 2004. This means that Fletcher must be talking about either Sihamoni, Ranariddh or Chakrapong. The latter 2 were in their 60s in the early 00's. Sihamoni would have been in his 50s. Fletcher also notes that he sees "the Prince" on current banknotes. The only 'prince' to appear on banknotes is Sihamoni, the current king of Cambodia. So he must be referring to Sihamoni.
In 2004 Cambodia was in the midst of a political meltdown. There was no government and Sihanouk was desperately trying to negotiate a compromise between Ranariddh, Rainsy and Hun Sen to form a government. Under the pressure of politics and failing health, King Father Sihanouk abdicated in July 2004. His son Prince Sihamoni reluctantly ascended the throne in October 2004 to become King.
And Fletcher would have us believe that in the midst of all this, the imminent king of Cambodia, Prince Sihamoni dropped by Fletcher's place unannounced to give him a pat on the back for his fine works with children, which Fletcher, if he started his dump project immediately upon his arrival in Cambodia, could only have been doing for a couple months at most. Or if not in 2004, at some later date, then Sihamoni would not have been prince, but king.
Simply unbelievable, and maybe lese majeste.
Dear Anonymous 7.12
ReplyDeleteWhat does Mr Fletcher's likeability have to do with whether he is entitled to a fair trial or not? Or do you believe that only likeable (or who you consider to be likeable) people are deserving of a fair trial?
As for being jealous of Neeson, I am a screenwriter, documentary filmmaker, director, cameraman, sound recordist, film producer, journalist and blogger. Neeson has never made a film in his life, much though he likes to give the impression that he has.Neeson was in marketing in Hollywood and it would seem was very good at it.
In cambodia he has turned his marketing skills to raising a lot of money from sponsors and donors for the Cambodian Children's Fund.
The ideas that in form CCF are goo, noble. It is in the execution of them that serious questions arise about the extent to which CCF is a scam.
I stumbled upon Neeson years before I met Fletcher. I realized some years ago that Neeson plays fast and loose with the truth and has a very relaxed attitude to Cambodian law and the human right of both the children and parents of impoverished families. I need not repeat here what I have written about ad nauseum. I will say, however, that part and parcel of my job description as both a journalist and documentary filmmaker is to hold people in position of power accountable for their actions.
If I am jealous of Neeson, then the same must apply to any and all journalists who carry out investigations of the kind I am on this blog.
I have spoken with Yang Dany on four occasions. On each occasion she was not made up. She was also five years older than the girl in the photo. As I have written before, at the outset this photo was sent to me as 'Scott Neeson and Yang Dany." SHe did not look like the Yang Dany I had met so I have not, this past 9 months, attempted to make a connection. It is only after several people contacted me who knew Yang Dany back in 2010 and knew of her history with Neeson and who insisted that this was, indeed, Yang Dany, that I decided to ask Scott.
Clearly, Scott is not going to answer the question so I can't be sure if it is Yang Dany or not - regardless of how many people tell me it is.
You are correct Ricketson - its very clear. You compared to Neeson = he is a success and helping a lot of people and you - well i think most people can see for themselves
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 8.12
Delete(1) How do you know how many people I help - in Cambodia or elsewhere?
(2) What does my helping or not helping people have to do with my fulfilling my job as a journalist -in this instance, to hold Neeson and CCF accountable.
Do you really believe that journalists must limit themselves to writing about subjects they have extensive first hand experience of?
Im talking about stacking apples against apples - you and you are a lemon!
DeleteRef 9.04 James, where have I said his comment has anything to do with his innocence or guilt of rape charges ?
ReplyDeleteNo I am not the same person and yes, I make no attempts at being likable to the clan of Ricketson trolls.
Unlikely I will be getting in legal strife but thanks for the offer anyway.
Don't need stabs in the dark, just reading some of the passages from his book that you have published suggests his life is one long fantasy. From being a protector of the rich and famous to talking with Princes in sleazy joints in Phnom Penh to being the saviour of hundreds of children etc etc etc suggests he has more than one screw loose, sorry but I thought at last you had realized you were being conned but apparently not.
I certainly have better things to do with my time than to get into a long conversation/.argument about whether or not Mr Fletcher's story about the Prince is true or not.
DeleteMy primary concern from the outset has been Mr Fletcher's right to a fair trial - whether he is a fantasist or has a screw loose. You, on the other hand, seem to think that a person's eligibility for a fair trial is in some way associated with whether they are someone you like or approve of.
How would you respond if someone who was unambiguously a fantacist or mentally ill had been charged with rape? Would you deny them a fair trial on the grounds that they had a 'screw loose'?
Your primary focus has been to get your blog ratings boosted on Google nothing else - you couldn't give a fuck about Fletcher. Who are yo trying to fool? If he dies tomorrow, which would put a smile on my face because the world would be rid of one more dirty sexual predator, you would drop the Fletcher antics in a twitch.
ReplyDeleteSuch a hateful person! Why do you comment about Ricketson when you know nothing about him? Your number of posts make me believe you love seeing your opinion in writing....it must make you feel superior by sharing your rath with others?
DeleteDear Anonymous 12.39
ReplyDeleteWhen you, or maybe it was someone else, first made this suggestion some months ago I had no idea what 'blog ratings' referred to. Now I do. But I do not see what advantage there might be to me in having high ratings for a small blog in Cambodia! To make money? If so I'd love to know how!
Why would I write 157 posts about a series of interrelated topics just to get a higher rating?
Please explain this to me.
Because without this blog, you are an insignificant person both in Cambodia and elsewhere. Your previous work would not be listed in Google and n0-one in Cambodia would even give you a second sniff. So what you have done is created a blog that gives you and your name ratings and thus boosts you as a person on the internet. Please dont pretend to be a fool Ricketson - i think you are a lot smarter than that and you know exactly what you are doing.!
DeleteSo, I have written 157 blog entries for no other reason than to prove to others, and perhaps myself, that I am not insignificant?
ReplyDeleteAnd I chose this particular topic, why?
Thanks for the compliment about me being smart. I feel much less insignificant now.
And thanks for turning up here as often as you do to boost my ratings.
PS
I wonder how many page views I will need to get before feeling significant!?
Dany wasn’t a CCF girl. She used to hang around CCF a lot and flirt with Scott but that’s all. I think she just wanted him to help her and her mother. Sekun was a scavenger and never had any money. I don’t think Dny was trying to set Scott up, just to get some help for her and her mum. She was a bright kid but also very innocent. At least that’s how she seemed to me. Scott didn’t mind flirting with her but he wasn’t going to take it any further. Especially not after a whole lot of photos were taken of Scott and Dany. Not the one used here. Some others taken by an Australian guy. I cant remember his name.
ReplyDeleteWhen Scott got Drummond involved is where the problem began. Scott hated Fletcher. I never figured out exactly why but hes a very jealous man and if he thought Fletcher was fucking Dany he would have hated it. And he hated the way Fletcher was working in the dump and doubling up on the work Scott was doing.
And Scott got the British embassy involved too. And then did his Mother Theresa thing in front of Drummond offering to give Sekun $600 to pay off her debts. Sekun never got her $600 from Scott and he dumped her like a hotcake once Drummonds article came out. I really don’t think Scott gave that money so Sekun would accuse Fletcher of rape. I really dont. That was someone else and we all know who. But he did use her. Everyone has used her. And now Ricketson is using her for his own propaganda to help that creep Fletcher. The worst thing ever happened to Cambodia was all these fucking do-gooders coming here to ‘help’. Fuck you all.
Fantastic post - just shows how dumb you are. Its obvious you live in Cambodia and if I was a gambling man, you are most likely a creep yourself!
DeleteWould you say that of all of the people that went on Fletcher's dump excusions to help the kids, or just the ones that paid some attention to what was going on around them?
DeleteInteresting observations and take on the situation from someone who was apparently there at the time. I am curious why exactly you refer to Fletcher as a "creep," not that I disagree. I am just wondering your reasons. Was he sexually involved with Dany/other minors at the dump, or is it something else?
ReplyDeleteAre you all forgetting the medical report that says Dany was a VIRGIN? Of course she didn't have sex with Neeson or Fletcher!!
DeleteThere are more ways to have sex, or to rape for that matter, than deep vaginal intercourse.
DeleteGiven that Yang Dany remained a virgin after her friendships with Neeson and Fletcher I think it reasonably safe to assume that neither of them had a sexual relationship with her.
DeleteIf Dany is such a gold digger and from both sides pf the fence, she seems to have been looking to associate with both Fletcher and Neeson, how do we know the medical records aren't false and made up to assist Dany in her quest to obtain fortune?
DeleteDear Anonymous 9.21
DeleteThe medical report was commissioned by the Phnom Penh Municipal court. The report showed her to be a virgin. It is hard to see how this report, if it was fake, would assist an Dany in any way.
My own belief is that Yang Dany was just a pawn in a game being played by others. Once the decision was made to 'get' Fletcher, Yang Dany was an obvious choice as someone to whom an offer could be made she could not refuse.
My point, and it is the point of this blog, is that it could just as easily have been Scott Neeson who was set up as the 'rapist'. Or any other man that Dany knew.
In the absence of a Judiciary that plays by the rules clearly laid out in the cambodian Code of Criminal Procedure, pretty well any and every man could become a 'rapist' if the right palms were greased.
Dear Anonymous 9.16
DeleteYou are right, vaginal sex is not the only option open to a rapist. In this instance, however, the description of the sex that Dany's statement is very graphic and leaves no doubt. It was vaginal sex. And it went on for an hour!
The description of what took place, in the detail with which it is described, is not what one would expect from an 18 year old virgin. It reads like a description made by someone else - to which Dany was asked to apply her thumb print. Maybe not. Maybe Dany was much more worldly than her Virgin status suggests. Again, such questions should have been asked and would have been asked in a court in which the accused had an opportunity to present a defense.
9:16 - My comment was in response to the 8:07 post: "Are you all forgetting the medical report that says Dany was a VIRGIN? Of course she didn't have sex with Neeson or Fletcher!!" It was not a comment on the alleged rape that Fletcher was convicted of. She may have had sex with both at some point for all we know, just not deep vaginal sex.
DeleteFurther though, since you have brought it up again, if the description of the rape of Dany presented in court was not actually written by Dany and/or were not her words, but was written by somebody else, isn't it possible that the description is not wholly false, but inaccurate in the details, i.e. that she was raped by Fletcher, but not in exactly the way described in the statement. That would help explain why a naive young girl like Dany endorsed a document that said she was raped, even though the details of the rape in the document she thumbprinted weren't exactly correct. She may not have even fully understood the document and its exact contents. My point here being that though the details of the rape described in that document appears incongruence with the doctors report that she was apparently still a virgin, does not necessarily mean that she wasn't raped, but only that she wasn't raped in the exact manner described in a document that weren't even her own words. This is something that would presumably be explored during a proper trial, but regardless, the seeming incompatibility of those two documents (the rape report and the doctors report), does not justify the categorical conclusion that you seem to want to draw from it, i.e. that Fletcher did not rape Dany.
Dear Mornon (I am so tempted to leave out the first 'n' :-)
DeleteI have agued from day 1 that whether or not Yang Dany was raped is a question for a properly constituted court to decide. And such a court, in accordance with the Cambodian Code of Criminal Procedure, must allow the defence to present a defence, to call witnesses and so on.
In such a court the question of what constitutes rape would be properly canvassed. If Yang Dany insisted that she was raped vaginally, then the question of her intact hymen is an important one. If she was not raped vaginally then she and/or the police who got her to sign the statement have questions to answer about whey there is so much detail about vaginal rape in her statement.
So, yes, Mornon, what you suggest is possible and it is complexities such as the ones you describe that need to be dealt with in court in accordance with the law.
Jame 11:43 - Is trial in absentia disallowed under Cambodian law? It happens here fairly regularly. If it is disallowed, could you cite the relevant law please.
DeleteMornon
DeleteHere is the relevant part of the Code – Article 316.
It was Action Pour les Enfants that requested the trial be held ‘in camera’.
Article 316. Public Nature of Trial Hearing and Confidentiality
“Trial hearings shall be conducted in public. However, the court may order a complete or partial in-camera hearing, if it considers that a public hearing will cause a significant danger to the public order or morality.”
Did the court order an in-camera hearing because it believed that the facts of this case were likely to cause a significant danger to the public order or morality? If not, did the court provide any reason at all for the in-camera hearing?
No reason why an ‘in-camera’ hearing was necessary has ever been given.
APLE had known since Sept 2010, that Yang Dany was a virgin. Mind you, so had SISHA, CEOP and the British Embassy in Cambodia. An open court might have led to the media asking questions that would have been difficult to answer.
When time permits I will outline all parts of the Criminal Code that have been breached in Mr Fletcher's case. In fact, the Cambodian judiciary has adhered to virtually no part of the Code.
Of course, Mr Fletcher's case is far from unusual. There are countless Cambodians in the same situation. The CNRP protesters jailed for insurrection, for instance. I was present at most of those demonstrations and witnessed black helmeted thugs armed with iron bars and police with electric cattle prods beating up peaceful protesters.
'In-camera' and 'in absetia' are not the same things. And I think Fletcher was tried in absentia. Or am I wrong about that? If it was in-camera as well, is the court required to state a reason? Is that the complete list of reasons for an in-camera hearing? Is the protection of a special witness/victim also a possible reason for an in-camera hearings
DeleteMornon
DeleteMr Fletcher's trial was in camera, in absentia and illegal in accordance with Cambodian law. It was not a trial at all. it was a verdict that had been arrived at that required some (rather shoddy) paperwork to create the illusion of due process. One only has to look at the (very brief) judgement of the court to know what took place.
James 2:50 - So, if I understand correctly, in-camera and in absentia trials are legal under certain circumstances.
DeleteCould you say, in brief, exactly why Fletcher's trial was illegal, and cite the relevant law?
James 12:38
DeleteYou are correct that Cambodian law guarantees the right to a public hearing, but as you note, that right is not absolute. As you noted, Article 136 of the CCP states:
"Trial hearings shall be conducted in public. However, the court may order a complete or partial in-camera hearing, if it considers that a public hearing will cause a significant danger to the public order or morality. ('Morality' sometimes also translated as 'tradition')
This article, on the surface, would seem to omit widely accepted, internationally recognized legal standards (stated in numerous international protocols and treaties) which provide exceptions to open public trials for juvenile defendants, witnesses and victims of sex crimes and human trafficking, in order to protect their privacy due to their age, the sensitive nature of the crime and considerations for their safety.
But how exactly is 'public morality/tradition' in article 136 to be interpreted? Let's look at the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Cambodia is a signatory:
Article 14.1 of the ICCPR states, in part: "...The press and the public may be excluded from all or part of a trial for reasons of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the private lives of the parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice; but any judgement rendered in a criminal case or in a suit at law shall be made public ***except where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires*** or the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children." (Stars added for emphasis.)
While the CCP does not explicitly state this exception, as the CCP is intended in part to reflect international standards expressed in the ICCPR and does not specifically exclude the ICCPR exception, the Cambodian judiciary is left free to interpret the exclusions of CCP Article 136 in the context of ICCPR 14.1, as well as other internationally accepted legal protocols and treaties, if it so chooses.
So what might the judge been thinking when he granted an in-camera hearing for Fletcher?
He may have wisely, and in accordance with international legal standards stated in the ICCPR, interpreted the CCP exception provision regarding 'dangers to public morality/tradition' to allow for an in-camera trial in the case of a juvenile victim of sexual assault. This would appear to be both a legally defensible and morally laudable position, from both an international and domestic perspective.
You have spoken of 'moral universes.' The moral and legal universe which allows for the protection of juveniles in such sensitive cases as sexual assault is the universe inhabited by most of the civilized world. You also decry as morally bankrupt APLE prosecutors for standing firmly by legal technicalities (i.e. Fletcher's missed appeal deadline) which work in the favor of the prosecution. It would seem that in your moral universe legal technicalities that favor accused rapists (such as the narrow interpretation of CCP 136 which demands juvenile sexual assault victims be made subject to public scrutiny) are acceptable, while legal technicalities that work against accused rapists (such as prosecutors acting in the best interest of the prosecution) belong to some other moral universe than yours.
My 2 cents on article 136.
Dear Mornon
DeleteYou are attempting here to reconcile two irreconcilable propositions:
(1) Mr Fletcher is entitled to a fair trial.
(2) A trial held ‘in camera’ and in absentia, in the absence of Mr Fletcher’s constitutional right to present a defense, is in accordance with Cambodian law.
Parmenides, a Greek Sophist, argued, with unimpeachable logic, that change was impossible. His pupil, Zeno, argued with equally impeccable logic that an arrow fired at a target would never reach the target.
That you are going to so much trouble to absolve the Cambodian judiciary of any wrong-doing suggests that you have a stake in this matter that transcends being merely an interested bystander; that you will continue to use sophistry to argue that no breaches of Cambodian law have occurred in the case of Mr Fletcher; that his trial, held ‘in camera’ and in absentia was legal.
Yang Dany was an 18 year old woman when the ‘in camera’ trial was held. She was not a child, not a juvenile. She was, in both law and in accordance with common sense, an adult.
At a later date, when time prevails, I will go through the Cambodian Code of Criminbal Procedure and outline all the instances in which this has been breached. In the meantime, here is but one example:
Article 127. Investigation of Inculpatory and Exculpatory Evidence
“An investigating judge, in accordance with the law, performs all investigations that he deems useful to ascertaining the truth. An investigating judge has the obligation to collect inculpatory as well as exculpatory evidence.”
As you will be aware, but perhaps others reading this will not, ‘exculpatory evidence’ is the evidence an accused person presents to the court in his or her own defense.
To this day, more than 5 years later, Mr Fletcher has not been interviewed by the police, has not been interviewed by an Investigating Judge and has been given no opportunity, in any court, to present exculpatory evidence in support of his innocence.
Given your propensity for sophistry I am sure you will be able to find an argument to justify this serious breach of the Cambodian Code of Criminal Procedure.
James 6:49
DeleteParmenides and Zeno were not Sophists, either with a small 's' or a big 'S.' Parmenides 'On Nature,' in which he argued for the illusory nature of change, concerned itself with ontology and epistemological method. Zeno's paradoxes, including the arrow paradox (ironically also known as the 'fletcher's paradox') was an attempt to support and refine Parmenides' metaphysics of change. The pre-Platonic Sophists OTOH did not, for the most part, concern themselves with the nature of reality as Parmenides did, but with the art of practical rhetoric as applied to politics, law and civics. And Parmenides is never listed amongst the Sophists. Even Plato, who was largely responsible for changing the popular perception of 'sophistry' from a positive to a pejorative, held Parmenides in great respect. The issues that Parmenides raised reverberate through philosophy, mathematics and even science to this day.
Philosophy aside, my post detailing the legal justification for Fletcher's in-camera trial is not by any stretch of the imagination an attempt to reconcile Fletcher's entitlement to a fair trial with his in-camera, in absentia trial in which he was 'unable to present a defense,' as you would say. Again, your legal imprecision fails you. My post is narrow and addresses only the question of the legal justification for Fletcher's in-camera trial, not questions regarding trial in absentia, right to fair trial, right to present a defence, etc, etc. And I do so in a relatively uncontroversial fashion. In-camera trials in circumstances in which defendants, witnesses and victims fall into certain special categories such as juveniles involved in sex crimes is a normal and widespread practice throughout the world, especially in sophisticated western legal systems. The practice is enshrined in numerous international treaties and protocols addressing legal and human rights, including protocols to which Cambodia is a signatory. The argument that I made is not dissimilar to arguments made by internationally respected local human rights organisations such as CCHR. In fact I lifted part of the legal rational from CCHR. You may not agree with the rational, and I can think of a couple of legal retorts you could have made (but didn't), but it is anything but sophistry.
You speak of legals and human rights and how Fletcher, a convicted rapist, was denied his. You say that you are not his friend, that you are merely trying to get him a fair trial in accordance with the legal and human rights ordinarily afforded people in a fair system. Yet you are willing to deny Dany, the alleged child victim of a sex crime, the legal and human rights ordinarily afforded juvenile victims of sex crimes. It does not appear that you are acting as an advocate of human and legal rights, but simply as an advocate for Fletcher, and that given the legal opportunity, you are willing to trample on the legal and human rights of others, in this case the victim, to further Fletcher's case. You are looking far less the honorable champion of due process and human rights than a rather sloppy defence attorney with only his client's interests in mind.
And finally, to tie it all together, a small joke...
In a courtroom, Zeno is acting as defence attorney for an accused murder. Zeno holds up an arrow and says, "My client could not have killed anyone with this arrow." The judge says, "I'd like to examine the arrow, Zeno. Please approach the bench." Zeno responds, "I will Your Honor, but I'll never get there."
Ba dum tsh...
Mornon
DeleteYou are indeed a sophist. Or a Sophist!
Yang Dany was an 18 year old woman when the trial was held in 2011. She was neither a child nor a juvenile and to refer to her as either is sophistry on your part.
As an 18 year old woman Yang Dany was in a position to be able to say to the in-camera court, “David Fletcher did not rape me.” She did not. For whatever reason, she chose to accuse a man of a crime that resulted din his being jailed for 10 years. For a man of Mr Fletcher’s age, this is effectively a death sentence.
And yet here you are, arguing that 18 year old Yang Dany’s right to privacy trumps Mr Fletcher’s right to a fair trial! You are arguing that Yang Dany, now 23 years old, sent to China (possibly trafficked to China) by those who do not wish her to testify in any court, or be available to be interviewed again by journalists, is entitled to remain anonymous?
You seem to be unaware of the dangerous precedent you are advocating. To repeat myself:
A corrupt NGO pays money to a child, a juvenile (or offers to pay money) to accuse a man of rape.
A trial is held ‘in camera’ and the man is found guilty and receives a custodial sentence.
The child, now an adult, feeling guilty about having lied to secure the conviction of an innocent man (and never received the payment promised by the NGO), decides to tell the truth.
The media cannot report her name or show a photograph of her because the man she lied about is a convicted rapist and she was a child at the time of the alleged rape.
Such a scenario denies the legal and human rights of the alleged rapist in perpetuity. Such a scenario also denies the legal and human rights of an adult who, as a child or juvenile, was party to corrupt judicial proceedings, to speak out about this injustice.
The media is effectively muzzled, which is of course what corrupt NGOs wish the state of affairs to be.
You can spoilt legal hairs as much as you want but you are arguing for a corrupt system to remain in place and unchallenged.
Given that I am not an itinerant, ancient Greek teacher of rhetoric and oratory, no, I am not a Sophist. And expressing a legal opinion different than your doesn't make me a sophist either.
DeleteThe sex crime(s) committed against Dany was committed when she was a minor. If your statements about her age at the time of the trial are accurate, IMO the fact that she had just barely attained the age of majority in the interim would not be sufficient reason to exclude her from the exception. If I was Fletcher's defence attorney, I would try to make the argument you have, but I think it would fail, and the judge would still grant an in-camera trial or a partial in-camera.
PS - Always happy to discuss ancient Greek philosophy, if you like.
You conveniently forget, Mornon, that Mr Fletcher had no defence attorney in a position to argue against the APLE request that the trial be held 'in-camera'. Mr Fletcher did not even know that the trial was being held until he read about it in a newspaper clipping - learning that he had received a 10 year jail sentence.
DeleteYou want some truth Ricketson? Why is it that you have not spent 1 minute writing any blogs, letters of demand, etc etc to any of the Cambodian officials regarding the fire that took the life of your nephew. The guy who owned the place hasn't faced any litigation, hasn't had t answer questions and nothing has been done to improve fire safety in Cambodia. So if you are such a great person who looks to flesh out social issues, why haven't you done anything about that. Surely pressuring the cambodian government to do more to improve fire safety and protect lives would be am such more social conscious thing o do - but no - you won't do that because your blog is only about hate and jealousy towards Neeson and a blog about your nephew and the fire that took his life wouldn't get any rating would it!
ReplyDeleteWow Team Neeson is digging deep to discredit your work James! How would this this Team Neeson member have any idea what you have done? My guess is that it is someone assigned by Neeson to be as disruptive as possible!
DeleteWell said fuckwit - you are an insipid creature that is hiding under a rock and using Ricketson to voice your own little fears. Come out and identify yourself if you are so righteous. Rock spider!
DeleteWow. That is some real below-the-belt low slimy shit there. You are fortunate that James was enough of a gentleman to answer you. If I were him I would have just told you to eff off and deleted your post.
DeleteAnonymous 9.17 must really hate you very much for endangering his source of income (NGO) . Now he's even diggin out your dead family members. How low can you go?
DeleteTo answer to such an idiot is a waste of time....., he would qualify for
Borderline in a mental institution if you asked me.
Cambodia will eventually get rid of foul mouthed word-twisters like him
and the entire NGO Sector will see the end of their decades
long party in Cambodia as you can read here:
quote from: (
http://www.phnompenhpost.com/business/downside-economic-success)
Miguel Eduardo Sanchez-Martin, senior country economist for the World Bank in Cambodia, said the country’s transition to low-middle income would be officially recorded by the World Bank in July 2016.
He added that this migration would likely result in donors scaling back
their grants to Cambodia, but that the government was aware of this and in response was scaling up revenue generation.
“In fact, domestic revenue has been improving during the past several
years, thanks to the Public Financial Management Reform Program,”
Sanchez-Martin said.
unquote
Conclusion: All is going well in Camboida and there is little or no need
for foreign funded NGO with their own agenda to what's good and bad for the Khmer People.
Tom Selig - anything you say is just absolute frog shit. Its very sad that even Fletcher has a higher IQ than you. Sorry what is it you are doing these days? Running a bar or teaching children in an unregistered school? Top 10 expat losers to ever set foot in Cambodia.
DeleteThe death of my nephew has nothing to do with this blog, or with any of the topics explored here. As it happens, a great deal has been taking place behind the scenes, including a letter to the King. This resulted in a letter of response and the investigation into the fire being re opened. That investigation is now complete and sitting on a bureaucrat's desk. It's a waiting game now. This is Cambodia. Perhaps, when the results of the investigation are released, I will write something. If I do it will not be for this blog.
ReplyDeleteIt has everything to do with this your blog - the point is that you prefer to put more energy into talking up a convicted criminal and trying to defame people than trying to make changes to a serious issue that has taken the life of a family member. Call me old school but I know what topic I would be focusing my attention on if it was my blog. Perhaps I have different ethics though!
DeleteAnonymous 9.19
DeleteYou have no idea how much energy I and my family have put into trying to get answers to the many questions surrounding the death of Tom in the nightclub. And with a view to trying to prevent other young people from dying in nightclub fires.
Your presumption that all of my energy goes into this blog is quite incorrect. I am involved in a whole range of things - both professional and humanitarian.
As for your 'defame people' allegation, please tell me who I have defamed and when.
If you think that you haven't defamed anyone in your blog then you really are a delusional moron Rickets.
DeleteDear Anonymous 11.34
DeleteA pointless question, I know, but please do give me one example.
cheers
James (delusional moron) Ricketson
I think some of these would argue that DNA results are invalid because there is a one in three billion chance that it could have been someone else's DNA. From a brutal hour long rape (twice) resulting in a medical report of a VIRGIN, to one responder suggesting the medical was wrong! How pathetic!!
ReplyDeleteHere is a fact that all of team Neeson is missing...David Fletcher didn't rape Yang Dany!
ReplyDeleteDear Mornon
ReplyDeleteCould you please apply your legally trained mind to two legal questions?
One is in relation to a statement made by Scott Neeson to journalist Andrew Drummond in June 2010?
“There is little doubt Fletcher devotes his time to grooming young girls..."
(1) Do you believe this statement to be defamatory if, indeed, Andrew Drummond has quoted Neeson accurately?
(2) Given that Drummond's article was read by hundreds of thousands of people do you believe, if Drummond misquoted Neeson, that Neeson is under any legal or moral obligation to say "I did not speak those words to Andrew Drummond."
My third question is not, strictly speaking, a legal one, though it could well be in there were ever to be a court case:
(3) Given the role that both Yang Dany and Scott Neeson have played in Mr Fletcher receiving a 10 year jail sentence for rape, do you believe that Neeson is under any obligation at all to reveal that this is a photo of himself and Yang Dany if this is indeed the case?
If you could answer these questions in simply and easily understood language it would be appreciated.
1) If the statement was a) false; b) made in the knowledge that it was false and c) made with the intent of damaging his reputation, then, yes, possibly. Failing strong evidence for any one of those criterion, then no.
ReplyDelete2) a) Legal? No. Perhaps Drummond but not Neeson. B) Moral? Perhaps. Depends on how inaccurate the statement and/or what else he might know about Fletcher. If factually incorrect or not wholly correct, but somewhere in the ballpark, then he probably has the moral obligation to leave it alone to avoid muddying the issue.
3) No, none whatsoever. Purely a matter of personal choice. And given the repeated personal attacks and insinuations about him in this blog, he would probably be best advised to not lend this blog credibility by addressing anything in it in any way in this blog. Your rhetorical style has poisoned the waters.
Mormon
ReplyDeleteYou don't think that Neeson might have poisoned the waters somewhat when he told Drummond that Mr Fletcher was 'grooming' young girls? It's OK by you for Neeson to defame Fletcher but not OK for me to ask Neeson if the girl in the photo is Yang Dany!!!
Whilst it is a pleasure to have a civilised debate/dialogue with some who argues rationally, it does seem as though you are happy to let Mr Fletcher's accusers play by one set of rules but expect Mr Fletcher and those advocating on his behalf to play by a different set of rules. 'Team APLE' can breach whichever parts of the Cambodian Code of Criminal Procedure it chooses, breaching Mr Fletcher's human and legal rights, you see this as a valid way of winning their case, but when I ask Scott Neeson a simple (but significant) question you cry 'foul'. I am breaching Yang Dany's human and legal rights!
Given that there is no evidence of any kind other than Yang Dany's statement to the police (17 days after Mr Fletcher's arres!) that she was raped, she is clearly the key witness. A key witness who was sent to China very hastily when too many questions were being asked by journalists and when the possibility of a re-trial was in the wind.
If this is, in fact, Yang Dany in the photo with Scott Neeson, the following question is a valid one:
"Did you arrange for Yang Dany to go to China?"
If it is not Yang Dany in the photo there are few, if any, grounds to ask this question.
Your advice to Scott Neeson not to answer the question may well have the desired effect in the short term but if it transpires that it is Yang Dany Scott's silence may well be interpreted, in retrospect, in a way that does not reflect well on his much vaunted commitment to transparency.
Queensbury rules for Team Neeson;not rules at all for Team Aple and Team Neeson. Good one Mornon!
Delete"It's OK by you for Neeson to defame Fletcher but not OK for me to ask Neeson if the girl in the photo is Yang Dany!!!"
DeleteThe law is the law. If it meets those three criteria and that can be proven in a court of law, it is defamation, whether you or Neeson. If it fails to meet one, two or all of those criteria, it is not defamation.
"Given that there is no evidence of any kind other than Yang Dany's statement..."
We will only know that that is true (i.e. that there is no evidence of any kind other than Yang Dany's statement) after Fletcher's next trial and the prosecution makes their case in full, (if their is a next trial.) Your word as Fletcher's online advocate is insufficient.
If I were Fletcher's lawyer, right now I'd be worrying less about the details of the possible retrial than nailing down my arguments for getting an appeal. And that wouldn't involve any of these debatable factual points about Dany, Neeson, Fletcher, APLE, McCabe, China, CCF, defamation, embassies, missing passports, etc, etc, etc, but instead, identifying and demonstrating one or more serious procedural errors in his first trial.
Dear Mornon
DeleteThere will be no 'next trial'. The Appeal Court knocked back Mr Fletvher'[s request for a 'retrial' on the grounds that certain paperwork was delivered to the court late. APLE's lawyers requested in court that a 're-trial' be knocked back on these grounds. APLE does not want there to be a trial in which any evidence is presented. APLE could not win a trial in which evidence, facts and truth played a part.
I have all of the court documents and can assure you that there is no evidence at all that Mr Fletcher raped Yang Dany. APLE knows this and has done since September 2010. So too has Scott Neeson, SISHA, CEOP and Britain'[s Foreign & Commonwealth Office.
I put 're-trial' in inverted commas because in reality there has never been any trial at all in which evidence was tested or in which Mr Fletcher was able to present a defence.
Regardless of the spin you choose to use, you are advocating APLE's right to use whatever tactics they choose to deny Mr Fletcher a trial.
Yes, both the Prosecution and the Defence are entitled to use the rules of engagement (the law of the land) in whatever way they wish to win their case. However, when one side (in this instance, David Fletcher) is given no chance to present a case, the playing field is far from being level.
Given that there will be no trial for Mr Fletcher whilst the status quo remains, other tactics need to be employed to see that Mr Fletcher gets his day in court - literally and figuratively.
I thought there was mention after that hearing of taking this to the next level, the Supreme Court.
ReplyDeleteYes, there was mention of an appeal to the Supreme Court. This would take both a lot of money (which neither Mr Fletcher nor I have) and a lot of time. More importantly, the Supreme Court can only make judgments about 'questions of law'. See:
DeleteArticle 436. Decisions on Questions of Law
The Supreme Court shall make a decision on the questions of law which were raised by the requester and described in his briefs. (22)
The Appeal Court refused to allow Mr Fletcher to address these 'questions of law' and it is highly likely, based on my experience of the past year, that the Supreme Court will do likewise.
If 'questions of law' were of any relevance to the courts, Mr Fletcher's original trial would have been declared null and void four years ago.
And there is another problem, which i have only recently become aware of. The lawyer Mr Fletcher engaged to work on his behalf in the Appeal Court refuses to give to Mr Fletcher any of the documents he presented to the court. He insists that Mr Fletcher is not entitled to have copies of these documents - regardless of the fact that he was paid to produce them.
What I have discovered is that Cambodian lawyers like to keep their clients as much in the dark as possible. So, to secure the services of a new lawyer would involve him (or her) starting from scratch with no knowledge of what the Appeal Court lawyer presented to the court.
The system is stacked against the accuse and in favour of lawyers who can do deals with each other (and the courts) away from the scrutiny of their clients.
If you live and/or work in Cambodia you will be aware that this is the way things are. It is virtually impossible to play by the rules. ANd, it could be argued, only a fool would attempt to play by the rules.
Mr Fletcher and I are both fools.
Well, that's unfortunate for Fletcher. Sounds like he's going to do the rest of his stint in the slam. More than half done now I think, so half way home.
DeleteLeaves me wondering about the intent of this blog. It's certainly not making him look any more sympathetic or deserving, so I don't think anybody is going to be jumping forward with funds. So what are you hoping for here? What exactly do you hope to accomplish?
Dear Mornon
DeleteI'm afraid you have lost me. I had a certain respect for you capacity to at least argue rationally and without resorting to the kind of abuse we have seen Team Neeson so proficient in!
What has mr Fletcher's being 'sympathetic' or 'deserving'; got to do with his guilt or innocence? Do you really believe that only 'sympathetic' men (or women) accused of crimes are entitled to a fair trial? Entitled to have the media advocate on their behalf? You have revealed yourself to be as shallow as Team Neeson trolls.
This blog, intended to be short-lived, began with the hope that it might assist Mr Fletcher in his quest for a trial. Against the odds I still hope that it can help achieve that end. In the meantime Cambodia440 has spread its wings a little and, for as long as there is interest, I will continue to write about other related matters. When people stop reading it will, I imagine, die a natural death.
I thought your intent was, in large part, to secure justice for Fletcher, (if he hasn't received it already.) If, as you note above, there is no hope of that without additional funds, I would have thought that portraying him and his dilemma in a fashion that might help bring those extra funds, or perhaps mainstream media attention that might bring some sort of other help his way would be a possible goal of this blog. But it seems he has reached an unbridgeable impasse, and this blog, in revealing him as an unsympathetic and undeserving character as well as alienating pretty much everybody in the communities that might have offered assistance, does not seem to be working in his favor, which lead me to wonder about your future intent. And now, if I understand, you have given up on finding what you would consider justice for Fletcher, and plan to move onto other things...related issues as you say. So I guess here ends the story of Fletcher, at least in any respect that may have had a practical effect on his situation.
DeleteMornon
DeleteJustice is nit a beauty contest and your reiteration of the notion that only 'sympathetic' and 'deserving' people are deserving of justice reveals just how shallow you are.
Not only do I have no desire to presentMr Fletcher as being anyone other than who he is. not would he want me to.
As for alienating pretty well everyone who might assist him, who are you referring to?
Naly Pilorge, Director of LICADHO, made it quite clear close to a year ago that she believes Mr Fletvher to be guilty of rape. Ms Pilorge, like Scott Neeson, refuses to either provide any evidence in support of her beliefs or to retract her statement. So, that's LICADHO out of contention as an advocate for Mr Fletcher's right to a fair trial.
How about the Phnom Penh Post? Its treatment of Liam Miller should provide a clue. The Post published an article that was factually incorrect and defamatory and has, for some years now, refused to apologise, retract or in any way make up for the blunder it made. On top of this, the Phnom Penh Post is unabashedly a public relations arm of Scott Neeson's CCF and has made it clear that it will not even send a journalist to cover Mr Fletcher's court appearances. So that's the Post off the list of those who might advocate Mr Fletcher's right to a fair trial. The same applies, more or less, for the Khmer Times.
The UK's Foreign & Commonwealth Office was not only complicit in arranging for Mr Fletcher to be arrested in Thailand (with no charges laid) but also destroyed evidence that it knew was relevant to Mr Fletcher's case - namely his passport. The FCO has not, as a matter of principle, taken any interest at all in any Mr Fletcher's court appearances and is sublimely unconcerned with whether he gets a trial or not. So thats the FCO out of the contention as an advocate.
Who else do you think I should be trying to sell a homogenised version of Mr Fletcher to in order to get them to advocate on his behalf?
As for my 'future intent', I will continue to advocate in whatever way I can for Mr Fletcher's right to a fair trial for as long as he is alive. That my blog should branch out into other areas does not diminish my commitment to seeing justice done in Mr Fletcher's case.
NEESON'S NIGHTMARE:
ReplyDeleteDavid Fletcher found not guilty and suing him for defamation.
This is not just Neeson's nightmare. It is also the nightmare of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, senior members of which will have lots of questions to answer if Mr Fletcher is ever given a trial and found to be not guilty. It will be a nightmare for APLE also since a fair trial would expose APLE for what it is. And a nightmare for SISHA and CEOP - bothy of which would also be exposed for the role they played in either seeing to it that a man they knew to be innocent was jailed or, alternatively, as having deliberately turned a blind eye to the evidence they had before them in Septemeber 2010 that Yang Dany was a virgin.
Delete"David Fetcher found not guilty..."
DeleteSeems now, by Jame's own admission, there is no longer any hope of that.
Mornon, you can take what I write out of context, or change the context, to put words in my mouth if you so choose. Lwet me be clear here:
DeleteFor me, for as long as there is life, there is hope. For as long as Mr Fletcher chooses to stay alive I will do whatever I can to see to it that the truth about his case sees the light of day. This may or may not result in a fair trial (or in any trial at all) but I am an optimist at heart and not someone who gives up battling for what is right just because it gets hard.
I have met ricketson(i was unimpressed), I have met Fletcher in PJ(unimpressed except for his legendary bacon sandwiches), and I have met numerous prisoners at PJ, Prey Sar, T3 etc. and the most interesting thing i have learned is that not a single inmate is guilty. every single prisoner i have ever spoken to has told me they are innocent and only in prison because of corruption. Suprise Suprise. the 250,000$ payment ricketson mentions was for a middle aged woman who was caught smuggling heroin into Australia and was a joint operation between Cambodian Police and the AFP. but surely she is innocent and the Cambodians and AFP are terribly corrupt. david speaks of prrof and evidence but everything he has to show is hearsay and circumstantial at best.
ReplyDeleteDear Steve Morrish
DeleteYou have been writing to this blog anonymously for many months now but this is the first time you have unequivocally outed yourself. You are the only person I know who fits the description of yourself you have provided here. You will, of course, vociferously deny that it is you who wrote this comment.
C’est la vie!
Unlike yourself, I was impressed by you when we met. I took you to be a straight-shooter who, like Mr Fletcher, had been done over by Peter Hogan and Khmer440. You had suffered enormous reputational and professional damage as a result of rumour and scuttlebutt. I was sympathetic to your plight and even put you in contact with a lawyer friend of mine who might have been in a position to help you get SISHA off the ground again – as was your hope when we met.
As I have made clear, I have not said (or even implied) that those who claim to be innocent in PJ are innocent. My observation was that all (guilty or innocent) could get out of jail if they paid enough money to the relevant people. You know this to be true.
...to be continued...
...continuing...
ReplyDeleteYes, the woman I was referring to is middle aged. I do not know the circumstances of her case well enough to make a judgment of any kind about her guilt or innocence. It does seem, however, that the very kindest thing that could be said in her defense is that she was very very foolish to allow herself to be used as she was – more than once! It is, of course, for me to pass judgment. This is the role of a properly constituted court. And perhaps her trial was conducted appropriately.
This is not the point I was making, however, as you know. I was using her as an example of just how high the price of release from jail can be. I cited also an example of someone who only needed to come up with $10,000 to secure his release. And I know of another example where a man, arrested and charged with sexual misconduct, was told that if he paid $7,000 on the spot the police would release him. Because he maintained that he was not guilty he refused to pay the money. As it happens, in this instance, after many months in jail all charges against him in Cambodia were dropped for lack of evidence.
This case is an interesting one for a variety of reasons (and you will be familiar with it) – one of which is that the young women involved were involved in a few similar cases. How many times can young women, backdating their ages by three years, accuse men of sexual misconduct before their reliability as victims/witnesses be called into question? The expression ‘professional victims’ springs to mind.
The following comment of yours is an interesting one coming, as it does, from a former policeman:
“David speaks of proof and evidence but everything he has to show is hearsay and circumstantial at best.”
Firstly, Steve (and I should not need to point this out to a former policeman) it is not up to Mr Fletcher (or any other accused person) to prove that they are not guilty. It is up to the Prosecution to prove them guilty. And it is the defendant’s right to present a defense. Mr Fletcher has been denied this right.
Secondly, that Yang Dany remained a virgin after her alleged rape is not ‘hearsay’ or ‘circumstantial’. Her virginity was confirmed by a report commissioned by and presented to the court. That the FOC destroyed Mr Fletcher’s passport is not ‘hearsay’ or ‘circumstantial’, but fact. That Yang Dany and her mother Sekun were told they could receive $30,000 in compensation if they accused Mr Fletcher of rape is not ‘hearsay’ or ‘circumstantial’. It is there for all to see in the court documents.
The only evidence that Mr Fletcher raped Yang Dany is her own statement to this effect. There is no medical evidence. There are no witnesses and Yang Dany herself denies that the rape occurred. This constitutes a fairly strong case that Mr Fletcher may be innocent of the crime of rape.
But what about ‘grooming’? It is in relation to this charge that your comment “everything (the prosecution) has to show is hearsay and circumstantial at best,” should be applied. Where is the evidence?
You claim that there was evidence of Mr Fletcher’s guilt that never made it into court. You have put this in writing to me. If you have such evidence, Steve, come out and produce it. Stop sitting on the sidelines making anonymous comments and have the balls to stand by what you say off the record.
Even if, as you claim, you have evidence of Mr Fletcher’s guilt, it is not for you to decide. It is for a properly constituted court. I have asked you before, and I will ask it again, “Do you, Steve Morrish, believe that Mr Fletcher is entitled to a fair trial?”
I have been accused of "outing/revealing" myself as at least 3 different people on this blog. Let's hope your pedo detection skills are better than your anti-pedo detection skills.
ReplyDeleteSteve, your response is as I expected.
ReplyDeleteMake that at least 4 different people.
DeleteAnd if you knew the truth of it, pegging me as Mr. Morrish is truly ironic.
Honestly James, do you see a pattern here? You see bogeymen everywhere. You think the whole world is against you and Fletcher - from Screen Aus to K440, every anti-pedo and HR org in Cambodia, from Neeson to Pilorge and every do-gooder in between, every newspaper in Cambodia and the international press too, and on and on. And the only person you can find telling the truth is one convicted rapist who happens to be your MacGuffin of the moment. You make up outrageous slanderous things about people and repeat it ad nauseum, you send dozens of aggressive, repetative communications to the same people over and over and don't seem to be able to understand why they see it as harrassment. You get banned from every forum but your own and you see it as censoship. Do you see a pattern here James?
I like you James. You are a man on a mission, and may even be fighting some version of the good fight, but you are your own worst enemy and your perception of what is going on around you is seriously skewed. Please try listening to others a bit. Find somebody to trust a little and bounce ideas off, and don't take their dissension and criticisms as evidence of yet another person who is against you.
Just because somebody doesn't agree doesn't make them corrupt and an enemy, and just because somebody makes agreeable sounding noises doesn't make them a friend or somebody you want in your corner. Really.
Anonymous 10.55
DeleteLet's go through your comment here bit by bit. You speak/write in generalities. ANd with good reason. It is easy to make broad brushstroke statement that sound, on the surface, to make sense but which, upon closer examination, reveal themselves to be hollow.
The world is against me and Fletcher.
When have I ever said or intimated that the world is against me?
As for David Fletcher, the world dos not care less about him. Or you. Or me. Certain people do care, however. At the risk of belabouring the point,lets look at a short list:
(a) Scott Neeson cared enough to tell Andrew Drummond that Mr Fletcher was 'grooming' young girls. If this was a true statement, Scott Neeson has never provided any evidence in support of it. If it was a false statement I think,to use your own terminology, that it is fair to say that Neeson is 'against' Mr Fletcher.
(b) By its own admission, the Foreign & Commonwealth Office destroyed Mr Fletcher's passport whilst knowing that it was evidence he needed in the event that he was ever granted a trial. Again, using your own terminology, I think it fair to say that the FCO was/is 'against' Mr Fletcher.
(c) I will not bother to get into a discussion with you about whether or not you are Steve Morrish but will refer to Steve in the 3rd person. Morrish issued a press release AFTER Mr Fletcher had been arrested in Thailand and more than 2 weeks before Mr Fletcher was charged with rape. At the time of Morrish's press release Yang Dany was nothing other than a young woman who described Mr Fletcher as her 'fiance' and as a 'good man'. Over the next two weeks, however, Mr Fletcher became a 'rapist'.
...to be continued...
...continuing...
DeleteFor the previous two years Morrish (SISHA), had been investigating Fletcher and had come up with zilch. How embarrassing! And now Fletcher was out of the country. What to do! All that time and effort and no result! In emails to me Morrish says that he had evidence of Fletcher's guilt but that the Cambodian police fucked it up. Morrish did not way if he had evidence of Fletcher raping Yang Dany or of some other sexual misdemeanour. I suspect the latter since Morrish discovered in September 2010 (as did all others involved in his pursuit) that Yang Dany was still a virgin. Did Morrish put up his hand and say, "Hang on, something is wrong here." No, he didn't. I have asked Morrish several times (a few of them on this blog) if he will at least make a statement to the effect that Mr Fletcher is entitled to a fair trial. He will not do so. Again, using your own terminology, I think ti fair to say that Morrish had (and still has) a vested interest in being 'against' Mr Fletcher.
...tobe continued...
...continuing...
DeleteDo you see a pattern here? Individuals who, for their own reasons (often different reasons) who are 'against' Mr Fletcher.
(d) Naly Pilorge. Naly has put in writing that she has arrived at 'different findings' to those I have arrived at. In other words, Naly is in possession of (or believes she is in possession of) evidence of Mr Fletcher's guilt. She cannot divulge just what her evidence comprises but I can assure you that whatever evidence she thinks she has is not to be found in court documents. It is second a=or perhaps 3rd hand. Given that she was one of the founders of APLE and is a friend of Thierry Darnadaudet's perhaps her 'findings' are based on what APLE has told her. In an event, Naly also refuses to say that Mr Fletcher is entitled to a fair trial.
(d) APLE. I don't think I need to go into too much detail about how APLE is 'against' Mr Fletcher. From APLE's insistence on an in-camera trial with Mr Fletcher absent and unable to present any form of defence, through to APLE's active obstruction of Mr Fletcher's attempts to be given a fair trial, APLE has made no bones about its position. It is 'against' Mr Fletcher.
....to be continued...
...continuing...
DeleteI need not go on. There are others and I have written about them. My point is that it is possible for a variety of people to be 'against' Mr Fletcher without the need for a 'conspiracy' of any kind - other than a conspiracy of silence.
Your reference to Fletcher being a 'convicted rapist' would only carry weight if he had been allowed to be present in court when his trial was held; if he had been able to present a defence. This 'convicted rapist' tag makes as much sense as to describe CNRP activists as 'guilty of insurrection' simply because this is what the courts have found. The 'convicted rapist' tag suits your propaganda purposes but does not reflect the reality we are dealing with - a man denied anything even approaching a fair trial for the crime of rape.
As for my being 'banned from any forum' this is simply not true. There is only one forum which I have been banned from - Khmer440. And, in fairness to the current proprietor, the reason is this:
he told me (he wants to remain anonymous) that if I were to contribute I would not be able to identify those commentators who made defamatory comments about others. (As you will be aware, it is not hard to find out just who is hiding behind the names they use on Khmer440.)
I did not want to abide by this ruling and so cannot contribute to any discussions that occur on that site.
As for your 'liking' me, journalism is not a popularity contest. I don't care if you, or anyone else, likes me or not. I do not do what I do to make friends. What I am doing here is nothing other than what countless journalists all over the world do all the time - within the constraints imposed on them by country, culture and the censorship rules that apply where they work. Blogs have opened up a new venue for journalists and we are all still discovering the good and bad things about them.
There is a swaying which, if I remember correctly, goes something like this: "News is what someone somewhere doesn't want you to publish." Cambodia is a country in which the rule of law doe snot apply. This spills over into the way in which many people conduct their business in Cambodia. ANd many of these people making up their own rules as they go, and ignoring the laws of Cambodia, are going to hate anyone who attempts to hold them accountable. And, on a blog such as this, many of them will attempt to shoot the messenger or, as you have here, make broad generalised statements in hopes of convincing other readers that the blogger (me in this instance) is slightly unhinged, engaged in a vendetta or must be a pedophile himself giver that he is advocating on behalf of a 'child rapist'.
The old adage, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen," applies here. I expect heat. It doesn't bother me. Yes, there will be some who are convinced by your arguments and those of others who want to shoot the messenger. And there will be others who will wonder why it is that answers are never forthcoming from Neeson and others to whom they are addressed.
Isn't freedom of speech a wonderful thing?
So who is unfairly against Fetcher in your book so far:
Delete1) The anti-trafficking NGO SISHA
2) Steve Morrish of SISHA
3) The anti-trafficking NGO APLE
4) APLE director Samleang Siela
5) The child protection organisation Cambodian Children's Fund (CCF)
6) The renowned founder of CCF Scott Neeson
7) James McCabe of the Child Protection Unit (CPU) of CCF
8) Alan Lemon of the CPU
9) The Child Exploitation Online Protection organisation (CEOP)
10) The human rights organisation LICADHO
11) The international respected human rights advocate Naly Pilorge of LICADHO
12) The human rights organisation ADHOC
13) The Cambodian judiciary
14) The forum Khmer440
15) Peter Hogan of Khmer440 (I agree with you on this one.)
16) The new management of Khmer440
17) The Khmer Times
18) The Phnom Penh Post
19) The EiC of the Phnom Penh Post Chad Williams
20) The Cambodia Daily
21) The British Embassy
22) The FCO
23) Everybody who has made a less than supportive comment on this blog
Have I missed anybody?
"Have you stopped beating your wife?"
DeleteSome questions are just plain stupid, and this is one of them, Anonymous 12.43.
DeleteThe framing of he question makes it impossible to answer - as with the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question.
A more interesting question, and one the answers to which would be illustrative, is:
"Who on this list you've put together supports the right of an accused person to be tried in accordance with the cambodian Code of Criminal Procedure?"
If, as I suspect would be the case, all would agree that an accused person is entitled to a fair trial, the next question is:
"Do you believe that a trial held in-camera and without the accused present and able to present a defence is fair?"
Again, I suspect that most on this list (if not all) would agree that an accused person should be able to defend him/herself in court,to call witnesses and have an opportunity to have his/her lawyer cross-examine prosecution witnesses.
Note that I have not referred to any particular accused person or any particular crime. The principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty applies to everyone, including men and women accused of the crime of genocide.