Hampstead Alleged Abuse. Open Letter to High Court.
Dear Mr Clark,
We are not in a position to know whether the well publicised claims of the children, are true in fact or not. We are however able to conclude that they have been remarkably consistent and detailed, displaying anatomical, physiological, geographical and procedural information, that in children of that age is highly unlikely to have been gained from imagination or coaching alone, even were that to be the case. Perhaps more importantly the information has been corroborated (incredibly ignored by police) by medical, behavioural and third party evidence. In short their statements have been credible and compelling and must not be dismissed out of hand, as appears to have been done so far.
Secondly, were we to accept that the children's testimony was embroidered, exaggerated or even inaccurate, in part at least, it is thoroughly consistent in this regard at least, that the natural father is the subject and focus of the specific claims of abuse. This is corroborated by other evidence of related violence, in which the police were involved, that led to the mother being given full custody and limitations placed on his access, which it is alleged he flouted, seeing the children, it is claimed by them, daily. They also claim they were under threat of death by him were they to reveal what he had done. Yet despite this, quite incredibly, he has apparently been afforded access to the children by the Family Court, whilst the mother, against whom no suggestion of abuse has been levelled, indeed both children in police interviews repeatedly restated her love and care, has been forced to flee the country, on threat of arrest!
Thirdly, in view of the nature of the allegation by two young children, of both rape and murder, the police approach has been as inexplicable as it has been incompetent. As far as it appears, no concrete steps were taken to properly inquire into the specific allegations, either to substantiate or disprove them. This repeats what has been revealed most recently in the Oxford and Rotherham cases - i.e. a refusal to believe or to act on information received.
This is then compounded by the way the children were treated in three interview situations that are now widely available on the internet. Can it be right that these highly vulnerable children were questioned by a male officer, alone and unsupported? Has the Metropolitan Police learned nothing in such cases? Further that the evidence is there to see that the officer in question appears unable or unwilling to seek detailed information about the alleged abuse or to follow natural lines of enquiry provided by the children's statements. Rather quite the opposite, on the third occasion, seeks to prompt confusion and retraction, upon which flimsy basis the police decide no further action is necessary. In contrast to this inactivity, "ten burly officers", could be provided, to arrest, without warrant, the mother at her home?
What sort of 'topsy turvy' - even corrupt - country are we living in, when officers sworn to protect life and property and uphold the law, operate in such a perverse fashion?
In the light of all this, I sincerely hope that justice will at last prevail, and the High Court at least can be trusted to secure it, by returning the children without further delay to their mother or at least the maternal grand parents, who appear more than competent to provide them with a safe and caring home, that all the grandeur of the British State has so far, conspicuously failed to do.