QUESTIONS for Mrs Justice #Pauffley #HampsteadScandal #WhistleblowerKids

In the Best Interest of the 'Whistleblower Kids'?

Deborah Mahmoudieh mentions our submission

It refers to

Among Deborah’s questions:

  1. On what grounds do you claim that the children’s allegations are ‘baseless’?
  2. Do you have evidence from a police investigation?
  3. How can you judge this case until the Met’s “Operation Hydrant” is completed?

From a commentator:

So many questions remain unanswered.
How come haven’t they examined the other children who were mentioned that were abused too?!. Why would the mother and partner include physical abuse of other children in the story they “made up” when they “brainwashed” A…

View original post 170 more words

Advertisements

About Sabine Kurjo McNeill

I'm a mathematician, software designer, system analyst, event organiser, independent web publisher and online promoter of positivity.
This entry was posted in Acting as McKenzie Friend, Public Interest Advocacy and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to QUESTIONS for Mrs Justice #Pauffley #HampsteadScandal #WhistleblowerKids

  1. Tim Veater says:

    All High Court Judges, on appointment, must take the Judicial Oath (or Affirmation) which is as follows:
    “I, (name), do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth in the office of (office), and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm (or colony), without fear or favour, affection or ill will.”
    Reading this, and now being informed at length in a public document, of Lady Pauffley’s judgement and how she came by it, it is hard not to conclude she has breached her oath of office! Even were this not to be a criminal act (as it surely must or what would be the point of it?) it must be the most serious impediment to her continued occupation of the public position that she holds, and undermine any confidence the public might have in her holding it.
    She observes that the interested public must be “evil and/or foolish”. She also states prominently in the “Introduction and Executive Summary” that, “It is inevitable that a large proportion of those (the 4 million who had viewed the material on-line) have a sexual interest in children.” The fact that she bases these observations on no more than intuition, is sufficient to question her judgement of fact. It should also be regarded as a clear breach of her oath to, “Do right …. without fear or favour, affection or ILL WILL”.
    Nor can the manner in which Judge Pauffley undertook the “fact-finding sessions” support the notion that she fulfilled her Oath of Appointment, insofar that BIAS is clearly apparent, both in the proceedings and judgement. A fair and just assessment of the facts was plainly impossible without a “balance of arms” and transparency of proceedings in the case. The mother or her representative were not present; the proceedings were carried out largely in secret and unreported; children themselves were not apparently met, interviewed or allowed to give evidence. To rubbish their testimony as “hearsay”, when much of it was first-hand testimony of what they experienced and a failure to follow up on the specific allegations, clearly demonstrate an abrogation of her oath and the most basic rules of natural justice.
    Her failure to fulfill her oath to “do right without fear or favour” is illustrated, but not exclusively, in her treatment of the genetic father and “step-father” in the case. Only one paragraph (Para. 63) is devoted to the former’s denial of all accusations against him. This despite specific and repeated allegations by both children; objective police evidence of a propensity for violence and animosity to his former partner; evidence of earlier breaches in complying with court orders; circumstantially supportive factors such as geographical connections and business interests, including specifically participation in films of a sado-masochistic nature. All this is regarded as irrelevant and not even worth mentioning, before giving him a “clean bill of health” in the conclusion, “Neither child has been sexually abused by … Ricky Dearman” she concludes.
    In contrast no less than 39 paragraphs (paras. 69 to 108) relate directly or indirectly to the involvement of the step father, leading to the extreme conclusion, “Torture is the most accurate way to describe what was done by Mr Christie in collaboration with Ms Draper”!
    I hold no truck for Mr Christie’s behaviour, methods or child rearing skills. Indeed I was disturbed by an apparent aggressive and unsympathetic manner demonstrated in some of the recordings but this does not negate the testimony of the children themselves, consistent and detailed to a number of different interviewers at different times. Nor should mistreatment by him, even if proved, be used to distract or absolve those that are principally accused. Yet again this is clear evidence of a failure to fulfil the solemn oath to implement English justice “without fear or favour”. Indeed quite the contrary, it appears to indicate the most obvious and damning bias!

  2. It fills me with horror to discover the ways that injustice and corruption can be woven into such a strong web of lies and deceptions.

  3. Pingback: COWBOY Law Enforcement: Witch Hunt (2008) BELIEVE the CHILDREN #HampsteadScandal #WhistleblowerKids | No Punishment without Crime or Bereavement without Death!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s