Why was Dr Hodes’ expert medical evidence ignored?
Thanks to H, who reminds us:
The statement in Dr. Hodes medical report is: “Physical findings today further confirm the allegations of inflicted anal injury from insertion of a blunt penetrative force and are consistent with the allegations of sexual abuse.”
That is quite clear and unequivocal and in conjunction with the children’s detailed disclosure and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, this should have been enough evidence to prompt an immediate criminal investigation.
March 11th, 2015.
Leaked Medical Reports End All Doubt About Sexual Abuse Claims.
The medical reports end any debate regarding the fact that children A and G were the victims of child sexual abuse in Hampstead and underline the criminal nature of the police interviews of September 17th, 2014. The question now is who is being protected? Who has the influence and power to cause the British police such an obvious and inexplicable mid investigation rethink? Clearly there is much more than a Z grade actor and the reputation of a school at stake here. Neither would logically merit the police choice to destroy this investigation and cover up these heinous crimes.
September 5th 2014.
“A referral was made to the Barnet CAIF by (mother’s partner’s) brother in law who is a special constable. Following a disclosure by A and G that they had been sexually abused by their father and “teachers” and were part of a cult. This disclosure had been made when they were in Morocco over the summer. And the parents stated they were unsure who to inform as many people seemed to be involved, (including allegedly police and social workers.)
Initial police interviews conducted.
8/9/14. Initial strategy meeting held.
10/9/14. Visit to family home ahead of ABE interview.
11/9/14. Emergency Police Protection Order issued after the ABE yesterday evening during which witness A, witness G and witness E (mother) were interviewed separately.
Allegations of physical abuse from the mother’s partner towards both children and sexual abuse against both children by their father and “teachers”. They are now in Emergency Foster Placement.”
Police conduct the retraction interviews in transparent attempt to bury the truth and vandalise justice.
Interviewing officers clearly bully false retractions from the children for unknown reasons that can only be sinister.
22/9/14. Police inform the mother E that they have found that the crimes against the children cannot be confirmed. The investigation is over.
22/9/14. Dr. Hodes writes the second medical report affirming the veracity of the sexual abuse allegations despite the retractions. Dr. Hodes cites a specific research finding that found that 16% of victims will retract the allegations and affirming therefore that the physical evidence of abuse should outweigh the retractions.
Lindsay C Malloy, MA Thomas D Lyon JD, and Joia A Quas
Fillal Dependency and recantation of Child Sex Abuse Allegations.
J.Am Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry. 46:2, 2007.
These statements were made without reference to the disgraceful performance of the interviewing officer in the retraction interviews, which only strengthen Dr. Hodes’ assertions.
The Medical Reports. Who wrote them and are they authentic?
There are two Medical Reports, one dated September 15th, 2014, the other September 22nd. Written on the stationary of the University College of London in a way that leaves no doubt as to their authenticity. Background checks on the names of the people who signed the documents end any doubt . To illustrate this I will cite the best known of the Doctors who have signed these reports Dr. Deborah Hodes (FRCPCH) Consultant Community Paediatrician. A cursory internet search indicates that Dr. Hodes is employed in that role at the University College London and is an expert in the field of child abuse having more than twenty years experience.
Dr Deborah Hodes
The first report dated September 15th appears to have been written by Dr Harriett Gunn (SHO Senior House Officer)* but is also signed by Dr. Hodes, The second Report of September 22nd appears to have been written entirely by Dr. Hodes, as she is the sole signatory.
The Medical Examiners are highly experienced and well qualified.
This does not mean that they are infallible, of course, but these medical reports have been signed by medical practitioners considered to be authorities in the field with decades of experience.
Dr, Deborah Hodes, part of the examination and assessment team that physically examined the children on several occasions is absolutely unequivocal, even after the retraction interviews that the children have physical injuries, that substantiate their claims of physical abuse at the hands of the mother’s partner and more importantly the sexual abuse at the hands of the father and cohorts.
A Brief Overview of the Facts that Emerge from the Medical Reports.
The counter narrative states that the children’s stories were coached and fed to them by their mother’s partner who was himself guilty of minor physical abuse of the children.
The police retraction interviews tried to construct a narrative that the children had been denying the actions of the mother’s partner whilst making the claims against the father and school, yet the Medical Reports show that the children made the claims concurrently and were concurrently examined for both the injuries related to the minor physical abuse at the hands of the mother’s partner and the extremely serious sexual abuse at the hands of the father and staff at the school.
The male has one scar on his anus consistent with blunt force trauma, the female has several and has actually been physically damaged by the abuse in ways that really do not bear mentioning suffice to say that she has multiple injuries “consistent with the application of a blunt instrument.”
They could not be clearer. Someone has been doing deeply unpleasant things to these children, the more lurid claims relating to this case may be exaggerated, but there is a very simple and unmistakeable truth expressed in those medical reports.
After they were taken into Foster care, the children were heard to discuss the use of Vaseline as a lubricant their abusers used on them. They are no longer in the presence of the mother’s partner, there is no need for any story to be told, yet they were speaking about it in a matter of fact way.
The children independently told their story on multiple occasions to numerous Doctors and other disinterested parties and were consistent in their claims against both parties. There was medical evidence to support the claims that were made against both parties.
Both children were observed to be suffering the symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
Both children complained at their treatment at the hands of the mothers partner, yet it was absolutely clear to the examiners that it was the father they feared. Each child independently expressed the fear that their father would kill them, one had nightmares about it. Expressions of fear do not get more profound than that.
The details outlined in these reports are deeply unpleasant. Unfortunately it is necessary to do this and I will ensure that only the completely necessary information is included. There is a duty to attempt to spread the truth in a matter of gross injustice such as this case represents and I have sought not to identify anyone by name other than the Doctors whose role appears to have been an honourable one.
Key Excerpts from the Two Medical Reports.
September 15th, 2014.
“Witness G “does not report any history of constipation or diarrhoea . However he does report that it does often hurt and he has often bled when opening his bowels although this had decreased significantly in the past two months which his sister says is because it is two months since they have seen their father. (the children were also removed from the school). He opens his bowels everyday and reports that his stool is soft. “( a detail that is unfortunately necessary due to later events)
“Both G and A report that they have been hit multiple times with a metal spoon by mother’s partner over the head and the legs. They also report they have been pushed into walls. They also allege that mother’s partner holds his hand over their mouth till they “can’t breathe.” On a recent visit to Morocco over the summer witness G explains that he was hit on the ear by the mother’s partner in the left ear which caused his ear to bleed and his left eye to be swollen and bruised. G and A said that G was then not allowed to leave the holiday home until the bruises had disappeared.”
(Note: the details contained here completely destroy the notion that these allegations were made as the result of coaching. Did the mother’s partner also coach the children to make all these detailed and specific allegations against him? Of course he didn’t. The fact that these allegations against the mother’s partner were made at the same time as the allegations of sexual abuse is clearly overwhelming evidence that these children spoke the truth to the best of their ability about both issues and were not under external control of either party to a custody dispute as they made the allegations.)
Sexual abuse allegations.
“ A has explained that at school a teacher named Mr. H calls children over and makes them take off their underwear. A explained that she and other children including G are made to bend over and a “plastic willy” is inserted into the anus. Whilst Mr. H holds onto their hips. A also stated that Mr.H “makes noises” while this is done.
Of note, she says that he gives them a refresher bar to eat as a reward and to chew on while this is happening so they “can’t scream or make a noise” and they are asked to face forwards and not look backwards. G has said that the same thing has happened to him. G says that after this has happened he has bleeding from the anus and subsequently. it is very painful when he opens his bowels.”
Victim G Physical injuries described.
His (G) anus was examined in the left lateral position using gentle buttock separation for 30 seconds. He had one anal fissure scar at 9 o’clock on examination of the anus. There was no reflex anal dilation.”
“In both the general physical examination and the genital examination of G today. There are physical signs consistent with the allegations given by G and A. The scar in the anus is from a healed fissure, secondary to the application of a blunt penetrating force that he (G) has alleged.
In summary, G has physical signs consistent with his allegations of both physical abuse and sexual abuse. “
Dr. Harriett Gunn (SHO) to
Dr. Deborah Hodes.
Medical Report Dated September the 22nd 2014.
The report begins with Dr, Hodes outlining her extensive experience in the field. Twenty four years worth.
Dr.Hodes states that she was present at two strategy meetings and two physical examinations relating to this case. In addition Dr. Hodes has spoken to Camden area social workers and also reviewed the photographic evidence pertaining to the children’s injuries.
Summary of Relevant Evidence Victim A..
“She alleged that lubrication was used prior to the insertion of the penis or plastic penis and identified and discussed this with her foster carer.. She also told me about having had an injection. She alleged that bleeding occurred after the event and then had pain on opening her bowels.”
“She told me that she has difficulty getting to sleep and she has bad dreams including dreaming of her father killing her ”
“Below is a list of injuries found in a physical examination of A shown in body maps and the police photographs.”
1.“3 x 4mm abrasion to the pinna of her left ear and 3mm laceration posterior to her left ear overlying the mastoid, A alleged she was pinched and picked up by her ear on Morocco.”
2. “7mm longtitudinal abrasion (excoriated) on the right lateral aspect of her right ankle. A alleged she had been pushed against an outside wall and “had picked it” when she was in Morocco.”
3. “2.0cm x 0.5cm healing abrasion on the left side of the chin. A alleged that she was hit across the face with a metal spoon while in Morocco.“
Below is a list of injuries found on ano-genital examination of A recorded in the DVDs.
(Warning Note: This is deeply unpleasant and awful and a quick summary is that there are multiple and in my opinion horrific injuries to A’s nether regions)
“1. In the left lateral position with gentle buttock separation there was anal laxity and a brief view of the rectum. In the knee chest position with gentle buttock separation, there was reflex anal dilation (RAD) after 5-10 seconds. The reflex anal dilation continued and there was a view into the rectal ampulla and there was no stool present.
2. There was a healed scar in the ruggae at the 10 -11 o’clock position extending from the anal orifice to the anal verge. It was seen in both the left lateral position and the knee to chest position. The abnormalities in the ruggae at the 4 0′ c;ock and 5 o’clock positions may represent healed scar tissue or variation in the ruggae.configuration.”
There are between two and four injuries, with two undoubted and two speculative.
Conclusions regarding the allegations.
“The physical injuries found on her skin are consistent with the physical abuse she described.
In the absence of a history of constipation, medical illness or accidental trauma according to the GP’s notes, the anogenital findings of the scar and the RAD are consistent with her allegations of the application of a blunt penetrating force to her anus (2); sexual abuse.”
She has described symptoms of post traumatic stress.”
Summary of A and G by Dr. Hodes.
“In my opinion A and G are suffering significant harm as evidenced by the following:-
1.Both children have physical signs of physical abuse that support their allegations.
2.Both children have physical signs of sexual abuse that support their allegations.
3.They have symptoms of post traumatic stress.
4. It is now understood from a 2007 substantiated study of child sexual abuse that retraction occurs far more commonly (16% in this series) than previously thought.
5. In my opinion, the extensive and detailed accounts given by both children that were repeated to different professionals contain details of sexual acts that such young children would need to have direct experience of.” (Note: in order to be able to describe them is the unwritten implication.)
To put it simply, Dr. Hodes is stating that there is physical evidence in support of both sets of allegations which really highlights how farcical the entire “they were coached” counter-narrative really is. Because children who have been coached to make false allegations in order to influence a custody battle we are told, were not even coached to lie about the minor physical injuries they suffered at the hands allegedly of the mother’s partner. What kind of coaching is that?
It really shows the desperation to protect that this preposterous and absurd notion was even floated as the counter-narrative. It is pathetic and insulting. Truly laughable.
Ethical and Legal Issues.
The leaking of these documents may constitute a criminal offense, I honestly do not know, but it is obvious that these records have been released in the broader public interest in order to oppose and expose a clear and outrageous injustice. These are exceptional circumstances in which otherwise unethical or even unlawful actions are necessary and just in my opinion.
Why is this happening?
It beggars belief that this investigation was curtailed and destroyed in order to protect a Z grade actor or even the Staff and Institutional reputation of the school and church involved. Something far more important is being protected here, but it is completely unclear whom or what have managed to engineer the stunning travesty that led to the Investigating Police coaching and bullying retractions from the child victims, Witnesses and Victims A and G.
The real mystery at this point is who is protecting this and why?
The way it is being covered up you would almost get the on it’s face ludicrous idea that this was some type of mad, satanic leadership induction program. The people involved may believe they are doing what is right for their children in some sick parallel universe sense.
We Are Living in a Twilight Zone of Serial Denial.
It is completely possible that elements of the stories the children tell that do not relate to events they actually witnessed may be embellished or even incorrect. There is sadly no doubt that whatever the veracity of the claims the police made a decision, a bizarre and inexplicable decision to destroy the case and conduct a cover up. Unless and until the police have a rethink as is inevitable but may take decades, there is little that can be done to even begin to seek justice for the Hampstead victims beyond trying to expose this to enough people that it causes an uproar that requires an immediate police rethink.
We seem to exist in a bizarre twilight zone where anyone with any connection to power can apparently do what they like to children and expect to suffer only the infamy of the grave. As long as you are not fussed about your reputation when deceased and you are connected you do not even have to be discreet. Once you die it will all emerge of course and your name and reputation will be destroyed but other than that there is no penalty.
While it has become clear again and again that the unthinkable has actually been rather routine, that these unbelievably evil crimes have been happening for decades and yet when confronted with a genuine contemporary cover up, the entire “official” British media have literally not a word to say.
Other than the Hamptead and Highgate Express. The local weekly paper had their say recently, they covered the story from the point of view of the alleged perpetrators, predictably, so the reference to the case was rather incidental, but telling.
Google under fire after leaked personal details of Hampstead residents remain on web – Crime & Court – Hampstead Highgate Express
The real story is instantly dismissed thus “The claims, which the mainstream media is barred by court order from reporting on, are said to have been investigated by police and found to be baseless.” Which I think can be fairly claimed to be a downright lie. Perhaps gratitude is the right response to the total lack of mainstream news coverage. Please note the brazen hypocrisy of the Hampstead and Highgate Express stating that “ which the mainstream media is barred by court order from reporting on” before continuing “are said to have been investigated by police and found to be baseless.” Clearly reporting (and indeed completely mendaciously and inaccurately) without naming or even alluding to a source, let alone any evidence to back up their dishonest claim. I hope they are proud of their work at the Hampstead and Highgate Express. Their efforts in support of evil will be rewarded in the deserved manner eventually I am sure, one way or another. It’s only a matter of time.
Return #WhistleblowerKids and #AbuseSurvivors to their Russian Family!
Sabine Kurjo McNeill | Voluntary Public Interest Advocacy
14 09 15 Medical report.pdf – Google Drive
14 09 22 Medical report.pdf – Google Drive
Aangirfan: HAMPSTEAD – DOCUMENTS
Aangirfan: FROM HAMPSTEAD TO SAN FRANCISCO
Royal Free Hospital in Hampstead to be investigated over links with Jimmy Savile – Health – Hampstead Highgate Express
PLAYLIST of 45 videos re #Whistleblower and #WhistleblowerKids | ‘Whistleblower Kids’ in the Court of Public Interest
JUSTICE DENIED: Live Recording as Police raid Pedophile Ring Whistle-blower kids mum’s home
Abusers Online | ‘Whistleblower Kids’ in the Court of Public Interest
‘Whistleblower Kids’ in the Court of Public Interest | From Child Snatching and the Secrecy of Family Courts to Forced Adoptions, Child Sexual Exploitation and Satanic Ritual Abuse
JOINING Video Dots with #WhistleblowerKids: Exposing World run by Powerful #Paedophiles | ‘Whistleblower Kids’ in the Court of Public Interest
Dr Deborah Hodes
FORWARD UK on Twitter: “FORWARD Trustee, Dr Deborah Hodes, announces opening of the first specialist #FGM clinic in London
ZeeklyTV – Anonymous’s Channel
Dr Hodes Sources.
Lindsay C Malloy, MA Thomas D Lyon JD, and Joia A Quas
Fillal Dependency and recantation of Child Sex Abuse Allegations.
J.Am Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry. 46:2, 2007.
Bradley Ar, Wood, JM, How Do Children Tell?
The disclosure process in child sexual abuse.
Negl. 20 881-891. 1996
The British Medical Association Confidentiality Guide for Staff.(called the confidentiality toolkit)
Excerpts Relevant to this Case.
1. The duty of confidentiality
Confidentiality is an essential requirement for the preservation of trust between patients and health professionals and is subject to legal and ethical safeguards. Patients should be able to expect that information about their health which they give in confidence will be kept confidential unless there is a compelling reason why it should not. There is also a strong public interest in maintaining confidentiality so that individuals will be encouraged to seek appropriate treatment and share information relevant to it.
Using and disclosing information
3. data should be anonymised wherever possible .
occasionally, when it is not practicable to obtain consent, information may be disclosed where the law requires or where there is an overriding public interest, eg where child abuse is suspected
• disclosures should be kept to the minimum necessary to achieve the purpose
Information may be used more freely if the subject of the information is not identifiable in any way.
Usually, data can be considered to be anonymous where clinical or administrative information is separated from details that may permit the individual to be identified such as name, date of birth and postcode. Even where such obvious identifiers are missing, rare diseases, drug treatments or statistical analyses which have very small numbers within a small population may allow individuals to be identified. A combination of items increases the chances of patient identification.
When anonymised data will serve the purpose, health professionals must anonymise data to this
extent and, if necessary, take technical advice about anonymisation before releasing data. Whilst it is not ethically necessary to seek consent for the use of anonymised data, general information about when their data will be anonymised should be available to patients.
*S.H.O Senior House Officer A junior doctor in the pre Modernising Medical Careers era (pre-2007) of training in the UK, in the 2nd post-graduate year–i.e., immediately after the PRHO–pre-registration house officer year, which is now designated Foundation Year 1–FY1. SHOs are now called FY-2. Some SHO posts still exist and are taken as a prelude to certain specialities–e.g., surgery, but are no longer a standard year in training schemes for junior doctors in the UK