This is a letter from the late Professor Freda Briggs to the police commissioner which has NOT been acted upon ! The question needs to be asked WHY ? This letter is NOT from some arbitrary , off the street coward and bully ! This letter is NOT from some uneducated , uncaring , unloving father !
This letter is NOT from some “little “man who sees himself as the be all and end all to the sports community !
- This letter however IS from a former child protection officer with the Metropolitan Police attached to Scotland Yard !
- A TEACHER of child related protection studies at a tertiary level in 1970
- Australia’s most PROMINENT RESEARCHER into child abuse since 1984 .
- A Director of early child hood studies for the State College of Victoria in 1975 .
- Dean of the Institute of Early Childhood and Family studies 1980 .
- Foundation Professor of child development at the University of South Australia 1991 .
- Adviser to the Prime Minister on protection of children with disabilities .
- Child abuse Consultant to the Minister of Education .
- Consultant to NSW , Victoria and South Australia’s Education Departments for writing their child protection curriculum for schools .
- Child protection Consultant to Victoria Police .
- Researcher and Consultant for Police for 21 years .
- Advisor to Avon and Somerset Police for their Child – Safe program .
- Has published 21 child protection-related books .
- Has received numerous awards including an Honorary Doctorate and an AO in recognition of her work .Dr, \
- Freda Briggs expertise is in child abuse/protection and child development .
Questioned by NO ONE , except of course by one COWARDLY , BULLYING , LITTLE MAN whose only claim to fame is the sexual abuse of his children and sexual and physical abuse of his wife !
Professor Briggs states the following :-
Apparent inadequacy of the knowledge and professionalism of Townsville Child Protection Police for handling allegations of child sexual abuse made by very young traumatised children as exhibited in a case which will shortly be before the family court .Apparent inadequacy of the knowledge and professionalism of Child Protection Officers for handling allegations of child sexual abuse made by very young traumatised children as exhibited in a case which will shortly be before the family court .The behaviour of these officers suggests bias against mothers , bullying and the inadequate interviewing of young child sex abuse victims . Alarmingly , the evidence of these officers will probably determine the future safety and well-being of these children .
- NOTE lawyers were concerned and asked Professor Briggs to examine and critique the case .
- NOTE Professor Briggs states that the following case is ONE OF THE WORST EXAMPLES OF POLICE MISHANDLING SHE HAS EVER COME ACROSS !! why ARE WE not SURPRISED ? DOES THIS FACT ALONE NOT REEK OF CORRUPTION AT A POLICE LEVEL ? Surely this fact alone should prompt a RE INVESTIGATION of this case ? But to date NOTHING !!!! Makes one wonder why ?
Professor Briggs did not name the children as Section 121 which is supposed to protect the identity of the children ALSO protected the identity of the father Michael James Watter which is why he has been able to get away with ALL his LIES and remonstrations UP UNTIL NOW !
The matter was brought to the attention of Senior Police by no less than Hetty Johnston the Director of Bravehearts . Police gave her the impression that the interview DVD’s would be re examined and they would get back to her – NOTHING as of yet ! We have copies of these DVD’s and will be publishing them on You Tube for the whole world to see and comment on . Said DVD’s LEAKED to us by one VERY concerned and HONEST policeman !
Professor Briggs states that when a child discloses sexual abuse the mother is in a dilemma as if she does NOTHING then child protection services can remove the children and put them in foster care .If she turns to the Family Court to seek an order or no contact with the abusive father , the focus is on her as she is at high risk of losing the children as she will be declared mad or bad and therefore the dangerous parent . Professor Briggs states that this happens so frequently that Family Lawyers and Women’s legal Services advise mothers not to mention domestic violence or child abuse in that arena ( McInnes 2013 )
- Note how skewed the system is !
- Note the need for reform !
- Note that NO reform is happening !
- Note how Michael Watter through his lawyers has custody of the children for these exact same reasons !
- Mothers are more often than not accused of training their children to make false reports !
- Note false reports are RARE and are likely to be made equally by fathers and mothers ( 5 % ) as per Associate Professor Thea Brown , Monash University .
- Note that alternatively children are removed from their mothers when declared delusional and the mother is then FORCED to undergo a psychiatric examination and even treatment to make them believe their children haven’t been abused ( when they say they have ) ( McInnes 2013 )
- Note Professor Briggs says the magistrate removed the children from the care of Cassie because the child safety officer CLAIMED that Cassie when reporting the abuse , said that she would “get “the father ( or words to that effect ) . THERE IS NO RECORD OF THAT SUPPOSED CONVERSATION .
Police ignored court order
Note disks of the interviews were NOT made available until the third day of the trial and in spite of a court order were not handed over until long after which disadvantaged the mother’s lawyers ! WE HAVE COPIES OF THESE INTERVIEWS ! Police disobedience is this not ? A sign of police interference in due process is it not ? And yet NO RE INVESTIGATION ordered !
Note the Townsville police left the children ( 5 years old they were ) unattended in an interview room for a whole hour prior to the interview , HOW WOULD YOU FEEL IF THIS HAPPENED TO YOUR CHILDREN ? 5 years old and scared to death ! The camera was on and one of the children expressed a need to go to the toilet . NO ONE attended to her needs
- Note that twice the children went looking for help in the corridor and NO ONE was there to help them ! HOW would you feel if that were your children ? VERY PROFESSIONAL THE POLICE WERE ! NOT !
Note the children could have left the building ! Police negligence AND unprofessional behaviour at ALL levels .
All of this is indicative of how bad the police were in this case from many and ALL aspects ! Yet NO re investigation ordered !Room for a re investigation ? It hasn’t happened yet has it ? Why not ? Corruption at the highest levels ?
- Note , as Freda says , that all of this would have increased the children’s anxiety and would have detrimentally affected their evidence ! A sign of pure NON professionalism exhibited by the police and yet NO re investigation ordered .
- NOTE the children informed the police that Michael Watter filmed his sexual activities on his mobile telephone camera !!
- Note this appears NOT to have been investigated ! WHY ?
RE INVESTIGATE Why abuse is not substantiated
- Note the abuse disclosed by the children was NOT substantiated – why ? See below :-
a. The interviewer did not spend sufficient time developing a rapport with the child . ( The transcripts show that the Queensland Police officer spent no time at all developing a rapport before interviewing them about sexual abuse by their father )
Note total lack of professionalism shown by the police ! Room for re investigation ?
b. The children were not interviewed in a child friendly environment . ( They were interviewed in two police stations and a school office ) .
How pathetic is this ? NO common sense !
c. The interviewer used an authoritarian manner and lacked the empathy and understanding needed to interview traumatised children . ( The police officer is brusque , showed irritation rather than empathy when the children were extremely distressed and did not seem to know how to interview traumatised children ) .
Child friendly ? NOT ! Professional ? NO ! Need for re investigation ? YES !
d. The children did not understand the questions because they were not worded appropriately or the concepts were too complex for their developmental levels . ( The transcript of the meeting shows the interviewer admitting to the mother that one of the children was very distressed and “she either didn’t know what we were wanting to talk about or what we were talking about just wasn’t happening “ . This could have been because the interviewer was not communicating on the children’s wave length and was using inappropriate language in questioning and again begs the question of whether police officers are trained to comprehend and respond appropriately to the complex understandings of traumatised five year olds in relation to sexual abuse by a parent ) .
Professional ? NO ! Re Investigation ? YES !
e. They were too afraid to reveal what happened because they had been threatened by their abuser that terrible things would happen if they did not keep the behaviour secret , such as – they would be taken away and placed in foster care –which actually happened in this case . ( One of the children told trusted adults that Daddy created this secret but police were remiss in not investigating it or asking what would happen if they talked about the secret ) .
Enough said ! Re investigate ? YES !
f. They sensed that their world was falling apart as a result of the disclosures and think that if they retract their allegations , the abuse will stop and their world will be restored . ( Consequent to Child A’s diclosure of sexual abuse , these 5 year old children were placed in foster care for several days without seeing their mother . It is possible and even likely that the retraction was the result of the realisation that her earlier disclosure resulted in being placed in foster care ) .
Well done to the police ! NOT ! To take two traumatised and abused children away from their mother is DISGUSTING ! Professional ? NO ! Re investigation ? YES !
g. The children said their father told them that police could not be trusted . Might this have affected their willingness to talk to the officers and led to the retraction ? Police failed to take this into account .
Well done Michael Watter ! The epitomy of what a good father is all about – telling the kids not to trust the police ! YOU are a dirty piece of rubbish !
HOW MANY TIMES DO WE NEED TO ASK ? RE INVESTIGATE !!
How many times must children have to disclose abuse to be believed. Note the children disclosed sexual abuse by their father to no less than 12 different people over the space of 18 months ! In case ALL you supporters out there do NOT understand this perhaps the question should be asked is this “HOW MANY TIMES OVER A PERIOD OF 18 MONTHS DO YOU THINK THE CHILDREN WERE RAPED ??
Disclosures were to a GP , a psychologist , a therapist , the maternal grandmother and her friends , independent supervisors some of whom made reports to the police or the child safety department !
The childrens MOST FREQUENT REQUEST was for people to to ask their DADDY TO STOP HURTING THEIR VAGINAS !!
The one child described her father’s penis as a big . stiff , hairy sausage that he plays with .
She said he played with it and rubbed it against her vagina until it was sore .
The girls complained frequently of sore genitals and were given frequent medical attention .
The children were often observed acting out inappropriate sexual behaviours !
WHERE do you think they learned them from ? Surely NOT the loving , caring , SEXUALLY abusive Michael Watter ?
Both children TOLD THE POLICE that their father tickled their vaginas and that they had to play with his penis AND one of the children demonstrated his movements and facial expressions ! FOR GOD”S SAKE WHY WERE THEY NOT LISTENED TO ??? WHY WOULD THESE PEOPLE LET THIS CONTINUE TO HAPPEN ??
The two police officers Michelle Faint and Detective Sergeant Dave Miles acknowledged these disclosures were made !
They disregarded this fact !
They had NO supportive evidence to discard this fact !
They took the father’s side They accepted the fathers saying that the children had been coached .
ALL OF THS despite the fact that Cassie had been supervised on 93 occasions !
ALL 93 reports on the supervised meetings by INDEPENDENT contact supervisors reported that the mother’s parenting was EXEMPLARY !
ALL 93 reports said there was nothing to suggest she alienated the children .
ON the contrary as Cassie distracted them EVERY time the children asked that their daddy stop hurting their vaginas . Cassie had been BANNED by the authorities from discussing their complaints !NOTE police explanations were contradictory – The police said the children reported abuse because Cassie provided comfort – What kind of RUBBISH is this ? There was NO evidence of this in the supervisor’s reports on her parental behaviour !
The mother and the children shared a mutually affectionate relationship but when disclosures were made , the mother distracted them .
On the other hand the police condemned Cassie for distracting the children saying she should have questioned them further !
AT THE SAME TIME the police said her questioning them further ( for which there was no evidence in the transcripts ) caused emotional damage , which then resulted in further problematic sexual behaviour and further disclosures !
DON‘T EVEN TRY AND MAKE SENSE OUT OF THIS BECAUSE YOU CANNOT – THERE IS NO SENSE !!
The DVD’s which we will post on You Tube at some stage suggest the poor quality of police interviewing and the fact the children were placed in foster care resulted in the emotional damage to these children !
RE INVESTIGATE !!
Police failed to provide a child – friendly environment
Note three interviews were carried out with the children .
Note four adults were present when the one child was investigated and NO child safety officer .
Note children were interviewed until LATE in the evening .
Note the children were kept until midnight before being placed in foster care accompanied by a male stranger . They were 5 years old – for GOD’S SAKE !
Note they did not see Cassie for several days !
Note even the police admitted that the children were traumatised and distressed in interviews that followed !
Note the police blamed Cassie for the distress !
Note the police took NO blame for the distress .
RE INVESTIGATE !!
Outrageous explanations for the disclosures of child sexual abuse
Note after all the trauma and continued distress caused by the police one of the children said it was just a dream that she imagined when she was 2 years old It doesn’t get much wilder than that does it ?
Note that as amazing and as incredible this may seem , the Queensland Police Child Protection and Child Safety Officers enthusiastically believe and accept this explanation for the abuse !
UNBELIEVABLE AS IT MAY SEEM THE POLICE BELIEVED THAT:-
A TWO YEAR OLD CAN DREAM THAT DADDY RUBS HIS PENIS ON THEIR VAGINAS WITHOUT HAVING EXPERIENCED IT ;
A TWO YEAR OLD CAN DREAM THAT DADDY PLAYS WITH HIS PENIS WITHOUT HAVING EXPERIENCED IT
A TWO YEAR OLD CAN DREAM THAT SHE HAS TO PLAY WITH HIS PENIS AND IT IS STIFF AND LOOKS LIKE A BIG FAT HAIRY SAUSAGE
TWO CHILDREN AGED 4-5 YEARS WILL RE-ENACT ADULT SEXUAL BEHAVIOURS FROM ONE DREAM THAT ONE OF THE CHILDREN DREAMT THREE YEARS EARLIER AND CAN’T EVEN REMEMBER
TWO CHILDREN WAGED 4-5 YEARS WILL REPORT CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE TO AT LEAST 12 DIFFERENT PEOPLE AS A RESULT OF A SINGLE 3 YEAR OLD DREAM SUPPOSEDLY EXPERIENCED BY ONLY ONE OF THEM
Note that in a nutshell , both the police and child safety officers believed and accepted that one dream involving child sexual abuse was experienced by one of the twins at age 2 and this dream was SO powerful that for the previous 18 months it had caused BOTH 5 year olds to seek help from MANY people TO STOP DADDY FROM HURTING THEIR VAGINAS .
Note the officers did not think it suspicious that despite it being such a powerful dream the one child had no memory of what the dream was about .
Note the same officers did not find it suspicious either that a dream experienced by one of the toddlers could affect the other child !
HOW DID THESE OFFICERS QUALIFY AS POLICEMEN?WOMEN ?
PERHAPS THEY WERE USED SPECIFICALLY FOR THEIR STUPIDITY TO ENABLE THE CHILDREN’S ABUSER TO GO FREE !
Note the police accepted that the one child was HIGHLY intelligent and yet it did not occur to them that her retraction could have been the result that living with Dad was preferable to living with foster carers !
Note the officers were biased against the mother !
47 pages of a transcript of the meeting with Cassie proves this !
Note the police not only accepted this rubbish but they also INSTRUCTED Cassie to DISMISS future disclosures of abuse ! To move on ! To bury the issue !
NO WONDER THE MOTHER WAS CONFUSED ON HOW TO REACT !
Note that Professor Freda Briggs said this was OUTRAGEOUS and demonstrated the police’s ignorance of the effects of sexual abuse on the children , and that if the children were being abused , that any denial by the mother , would have caused further long term psychological harm !
Note the officers accepted the dream explanation .
Note they used the story to support Michael Watter .
Note they used the story to blame the mother .
Note they told the father – as is shown oin the DVD which will be shown on YOU TUBE in due course – that the children had not disclosed sexual abuse !
NOTE THE BLATANT LIE !!
So where is the re investigation ?
Note the one child says her father told her it was a dream .
Note her mother said it was NOT .
Note that AFTER returning from foster care that both girls said their father Michael Watter HAD PLAYED WITH THEIR VAGINAS but that it happened a long time ago when they were three !
Note that incrdibly and amazingly the police officers dismissed all of the allegations and indicators of sexual abuse as nothing more than a dream experienced by one of the children some three and a half years prior when she was aged two !
Professor Freda Briggs further states that she would have expected experienced child protection officers to have KNOWN that young children CANNOT imagine or dream about adult sexual behaviour UNLESS they have been traumatised EITHER BY BEING ABUSED OR BY SEEING EXPLICIT , DISTURBING PORNOGRAPHY !
THERE WAS NO SUGGESTION THAT PORNOGRAPHY WAS AN ISSUE AND THE CHILDREN CONSTANTLY STATED THE FATHER MICHAEL WATTER WAS THE ABUSER !
RE INVESTIGATE !!
Police acting outside their role
Note that having read the 47 page transcript of the interview with the mother , Professor Briggs notes that the police took on roles for which they were not qualified !
Note these roles include pseudo psychologist , marriage guidance and parent cousnellor , and even medical expert !
Note Officers David Myles and Michelle Faint , appeared to have acted improperly .
Note said officers reached conclusions and made statements that were far beyond their sphere of competence .
Note that much of what is said to the mother on page 10 did NOT make sense .
Note as per page 4 that Myles acted as a pseudo psychologist !
Note both Myles and Faint had decided that both girls had dreamt about sex with their father when in fact only one of the children had mentioned it !
Note the police offered implausible and incomprehensible explanations for the allegations of child abuse !
Note these explanations would be laughable if the case was not so serious !
Note that when Cassie asked the officers to explain their reasoning the answers were gobbledigook ( Professor Freda Brigg’s words ! )
The officer said it was because the mother “planted the seeds “ and the workings of the brain were spitting these thoughts images back at the girls and saying that they had no memory .
She went on to say “they were too young to get it out – no one has ever been able to get it out of them about the dream .
That being the case , why did they accept this as their explanation for dismissing so many disclosures of sexual abuse ?
The same officers failed to explain how the knowledge exposed by the girls could be accounted for by “planted “ seeds or dreams that the child could not remember
Freda notes that Freud’s theory that girls imagine sex with their fathers was discredited long ago including by La Trobe University Professor Ron and Dr. Juliette Goldman who undertook a massive study of children’s sexual development in the UK , Australia , USA and Sweden .
Findings were published in Show me Yours – Understanding Children’s Sexuality ( Penguin 1986 )
CHILDREN OF 2-5 YEARS OLD CANNOT IMAGINE THE CHANGES THAT OCCUR TO MALE GENITALS WHEN SEXUALLY AROUSED .
THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ACT OUT ADULT SEXUAL BEHAVIOUR FROM A DREAM .
Note that if the mother had trained the children of that age to make false reports , common-sense suggests she would not have told them to say that it only happened once a long time ago when they were three .
Note that the three officers dismissal of the allegations of sexual abuse ( as a result of a dream ) was very concerning as it showed their inadequarte knowledge and lack of professionalism proving their inadequate knowledge of children and sexual abuse .
Note their opinions also likely to influence a judge who may not have been an expert in either child sexual abuse or development .
Note Ms Faint took it upon herself to become a medical practitioner and blamed the girls painful and inflamed genital on a urinary tract infection as a result of poor personal hygiene !
Thank you Doctor Faint !
Cassie is a Director of a paediatric Child Health and Development Centre yet two pages of the transcript are dedicated to lecturing Cassie on how to wipe the çhildren’s bottoms IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT MICHAEL WATTER HAD CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN and disregarding the fact that Cassie had already been instructed to not get involved in their toileting ! IDIOT policewoman !
Note the child safety officer dismissed the soreness as a rash although the GP found NO rash ! Another IDIOT !
Note the pain and inflammation occurred over several months ! Did the child wear the same knickers all the time ?
The child would have informed the father if the knickers were hurting her although by all appearances the father wouldn’t have given a damn anyway !
THE CHILD DID SAY HOWEVER THAT DADDY’S PENIS HURT HER !
Note that given the amount of times the children complained that Michael Watter would have taken them to the GP or asked Cassie to do so ! Did NOT happen did it Michael !
Note that in dismissing the inflamed , painful genitals of both girls , the interviewer said that all girls of this age have red , sore vaginas which is NOT ONLY UNTRUE BUT IS RIDICULOUS AS WELL !!
Note again she is giving FALSE evidence that she is probably not qualified to give !
Professor Freda Briggs says the officers also took on a counselling role suggesting that the mother should return to her solicitor and seek a 50-50 arrangement because both solicitors would be going for full custody !
Note our earlier comments on aprevious LEAK where it was indicated that the Independent Childrens Lawyer Meade was not so Independent !
RE INVESTIGATE !! >> Police LIED
Note the interviewing officer LIED when telling the parents there had been no disclosure of sexual abuse during the interviews — RE INVESTIGATION WHERE ARE YOU ?
Note it was on record that one of the children had made disclosures of sexual abuse and in the final interview the children said it happened “only once – a long time ago when they were three “ . WHY WOULD THE OFFICERS SAY THAT NO ABUSE HAD OCCURRED ? and yet NO RE INVESTIGATION !
Police give dangerous guarantee
Police repeatedly told Cassie they were the ‘ experts ‘ and gave her a guarantee that the father had NEVER abused the children ( after only two interviews ) . They REPEATEDLY said the children were SAFE .
Note they could and should NEVER have given such a guarantee !
“NO RESPONSIBLE PROFESSIONAL WOULD EVER GIVE A GUARANTEE OF THAT KIND “
Note they could not possibly have known what happened in the past never mind what would happen in the future !
Note their actions jeopardised the children !
Note the father’s contact with the children was NOT supervised !
Note that Cassie’s contact was supervised !
RE INVESTIGATE !!
Police and child safety officers said they will not investigate future allegations of abuse involving these children .
Who made these officers God ?
Who and WHAT gives them the right to tell Cassie this ?
RE INVESTIGATE !!
Police threatened to arrest mother
Note Sgt. David Miles said it was ABHORRENT and DISGRACEFUL that Cassie looked at the genitals of her 5 year old child when she had complained OF PAIN IN THE VAGINAL AREA CAUSED BY DADDY !
What kind of policeman is this man ?
Note he also threatened Cassie that she would be charged with a ‘criminal offence ‘ if it happened again !
MAY WE ASK WHAT THE CRIMINAL OFFENCE CHARGE WOULD BE ?
THE CHILDREN SAY MICHAEL WATTER ABUSED THEM AND THEY THREATEN TO ARREST CASSIE !
BULLYING OF THE WORST KIND !
The officers claim the mother ‘s concerns ( and not Michael Watters behaviour ) led to the children examining their vaginas daily to see if they were red .
There is NO evidence of the children saying this in the transcripts !
NOTE A TOTAL FABRICATION !
Given that they are well hidden ( Dr. Freda Briggs’words ) she doubted that the children could have inspected their own vaginas and there was no suggestion the used a mirror OR examined each other !
RE INVESTIGATE !!
Police threatened to influence DOCS to place the children in long-term foster care .
Note Sgt David Miles THREATENED Cassie that he would influence DoCS to place the children in out of home care ! GOD AGAIN !
WHO does this officer think he is ?
Does he wield that much power and influence ?
Another example od BULLYING !
RE INVESTIGATE !
Police admitted ignoring reports by professionals
Note that Myles confirmed that he had IGNORED the report of a psychologist who thought the report of sexual abuse to be serious enough to report the matter to the authorities !
WHO in the hell does Myles think he is ?
Note the same psychologist sent a copy of the child’s sexually explicit drawing with the child’s statement “ THAT DADDY PLACED HIS PENIS BETWEEN HER LEGS “
Note Cassie told the police the daughter had disclosed sexual abuse to the psychologist .
Note the psychologist allegedly said “Do not leave those children with the father “ .
Note Myles admitted he had not seen the report .
Note Myles dismissed the report as irrelevant !
Note Myles suggested his knowledge was superior !
FOR GOD’S SAKE RE INVESTIGATE
Note that in August 2011 one of the children disclosed sexual abuse by Michael Watter to a GP and an occupational therapist !
Note the GP notified the Department of Child Safety .
Note that TWO MONTHS LATER the same child was taken back to the same GP complaining that her vagina was painful .
Note the police and DCP interviewed her but she did not disclose abuse .
WHY was the GP and occupational therapists words taken as gospel ?
Why traumatise the child again ?
Note Michael Watter had custody of the children 95 % of the time !
Dr. Freda Brigg’s found it to be VERY STRANGE that the Department was pointing the finger at Cassie for the children’s behaviour considering the above fact !
Note that Cassie had ALWAYS had supervised time with the children and was critiqued on her behaviour after each visit !
Note the comment passed “ POLICE APPEAR TO BE GOING TO EXTRAORDINARY LENGTHS TO SUPPORT THE FATHER’S ALLEGATION THAT THE MOTHER IS THE DANGEROUS PARENT AND ONE HAS TO WONDER WHY “
FOR GOD’S SAKE RE INVESTIGATE
Police accepted that the children repeatedly disclosed abuse because no-one responded to them
Note that school child protection programs instruct children to “ tell and keep on telling people you trust “
NO-ONE helped !
Note the mother was banned from discussing it ! WHY ?
Note police contradict themselves again because the officers criticised Cassie for not responding to them !
Note children will persist in making disclosures when they get no positive reponse from an adult !
Note children remain anxious until something is done about it .
We repeat NO-ONE did anything to fix the situation .
Note the children complained for 18 months and yet it appears MICHAEL WATTER never discussed these matters with the children and the police did NOT ask WHY !
Note this leaves the question of “ WHY WOULDN’T AN ACCUSED PARENT DISCUSS CHILDREN’S ALLEGATIONS IF HE WAS INNOCENT ? WOULDN’T HE WANT TO KNOW HOW THE CHILDREN ACQUIRED THIS INFORMATION ? “
FOR GOD’S SAKE RE INVESTIGATE
Professor Freda Briggs says “ The research shows that when children of this age make reports of abuse , their evidence is reliable and they only retract when threatened and they realise that their statements are leading to changes to their world that they can’t handle “
Note International literature on child protection instructs adult recipients of such disclosures to respond on the lines of :-
THANK YOU FOR TELLING ME’; I BELIEVE YOU
YOU HAVE DONE THE RIGHT THING BY TELLING ME ; IT SHOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED .
ADULTS KNOW THAT THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO THIS TO CHILDREN
THIS CAN’T BE KEPT SECRET…THERE IS A SPECIAL PERSON WHO HELPS CHILDREN WHEN THIS HAPPENS , I.E. A SOCIAL WORKER OR POLICE
Note THIS NEVER HAPPENED !
NOTE THAT WITH NO RESPONSE FROM ADULTS TO STOP THE SEXUAL ABUSE THAT MORE PSYCHOLOGICAL HARM WOULD HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE CHILDREN BY THE ABUSER .
Professor Freda Briggs stated “ It is therefore even more alarming that the two police officers subsequently ordered the mother to ignore further disclosures of abuse , andworse , instruct them to tell , that what they are reporting was just a dream “
HOW DARE THESE POLICEMEN ACT THIS WAY !
RE INVESTIGATE !!
Bullying by police and child safety officers
The transcript of the meeting between the two police and DoCS officers with the mother ( September 2012.47 pages ) gives insights into their bullying behaviour . The interviewer began by saying that they were about to be brutally honest , They were certainly brutal but not honest . They banned the mother from having a support person present , explaining that they wanted her to listen . Obviously , accurate listening is improved when there is another person present because the targeted person can check later with the witness as to whether she understood correctly . Having the mother alone with three opponents enabled them to harangue and bully her without there being any independent witness .The transcript shows they had her in tears several times . Police interpreted the mother’s normal anxiety as a character deficit . Given what she was hearing and what the children were doing I suggest that any caring mother would have been anxious . She had no control over their safety when they were with their primary carer .
Although the children’s allegations involve the father , the police focus is entirely on the mother . It appears that they were desperately trying to prove that she trained the children to make false reports to regain residence . What comes through consistently is the mother is “ damned if she does and she is damned if she doesn’t “ . The Sgt ( who wasn’t even present during the interviews with the children but appears to be there to support his junior officer ) criticised her for giving the children a “ happy time – it’s fantastic …… your kids see your time as fun because you always do fun things and that’s great “. He then blamed the mother for the fact that the children describe their father as boring . They said he spends a great deal of time on his computer .
Both officers said repeatedly that the children are safe with their father . Contradicting what the children had said .
While advising the father to teach protective behaviours , the officers again acted outside their policing role by arbitrarily banning the children from seeing the protective behaviours book written for p[re-school children entitled “Everyone’s got a bottom “ . This little book was published by Family Planning Queensland and , paradoxically , is recommended by Queensland’s Child Safety Department and can be found in kindergartens nationwide . This book is sensitively written and illustrated and it could never have been responsible for the children’s alleged description of their father masturbating , rubbing his penis on their vaginas and hurting them . It most certainly would not have caused any 2 year old child to dream about sexual crimes .
It is interesting that Sgt David Miles expresses expert opinion and bullies the mother despite not being present when the children were interviewed .
Why do you think the officers banned the mother from having a support person ?
Or was it Only Myles who banned her from having a support person ?
Interesting don’t you think ?
Or are you a blind follower of Michael Watter who can read nothing into all of this ?
Do you leave YOUR children unattended in his company ?
Can you see the book being responsible for Michael Watter rubbing his penis on his OWN daughters vaginas ?
Can you see the book being responsible for the father masturbating in the company of his OWN daughters ?
Evidence of inappropriate questioning of young children .
Please read this section of Professor Freda Briggs’ letter and ask your self the following questions :-
WHY did Michelle Faint not bother to obtain the children’s trust ?
WHY did she not give the child a voice ?
WHY did she clearly indicate to the child that she was NOT believed ?
Why would Michelle Faints questions be worded in such a way as to confuse the young girl ?
Why would she deny her the capacity to respond and increase her anxiety ?
WHY would the officers NOT make the children feel comfortable and try to gain their trust and confidence ?
WHY would they leave two very young children ALONE in the room for one hour before the interview ?
WHY would the officer show irritation when the child cried in particular when it was the officer who caused the child to cry ?
WHY would the officer ask inappropriate questions of a 5 year old ?
WHY would the officers make no effort to get to know the children ?
WHY would the officers NOT make them comfortable in the three different venues ?
WHY were the children NOT even offered drinks during the lengthy interviews ?
WHY am I even asking these questions ?
WHY is there no re investigation ?
WHY is officer Michelle Faint ONLY interested in finding evidence to support ONLY her assumptions ?
WHY did Faint NOT investigate the statements made prior to the foster care ?
WHY does Faint refuse to accept the child’s testimony when the Queensland Criminal Law ( Sexual Offence ) Act 1978 and the Criminal Code 632 specifically prohibits any judicial suggestion that a class of persons ( such as the children ) are unreliable witnesses ?
IN OTHER WORDS THE JUDGE WOULD HAVE TO GIVE A CUSTOM MADE DIRECTION TO THE OFFICER REGARDING THE EVIDENCE OF THAT PARTICULAR WITNESS .
WHY would Faint NOT approach this matter in the correct manner as this appears to be the case ?
WHY did the officers fail to cater for the developmental age of the children , in particular their thinking and communications , given that the questions asked were OFTEN inappropriate ?
WHY did the officers NOT ask essential questions which would have revealed exactly what happened ?
1. At the outset it was noted that Child A was breathing quickly , distressed and close to tears . The interviewer began questioning her immediately about her vagina and repeated this questioning , contrary to best practice .
2. The interviewer said that it was her job to “ help kids to stay happy , well and safe “ . Child A is described by police as very intelligent and she would have recognised the hypocrisy given that revealing what her father did at the previous interview led to both girls being placed in foster care . This may have made them safe but certainly not happy as shown by the change in their demeanour and appearance from being confident and talkative at the first interview to being extremely distressed and traumatised at subsequent interviews .
3. There was a lack of eye to eye contact . The interviewer looked down at the questions on her pad and wrote notes . Why is this necessary when interviews are recorded ?
4. The interviewer reminded Child A that on the previous Saturday “ You told me about what happened with Dad — so tell me everything you can about that time ( Tell me everything about that time is not an appropriate instruction for a 5 year old . )
5. The child said she was having a rest when Daddy “ snuck in “ . She said “ he pulled the covers off me “ . The interviewer then asked her to demonstrate how , adding the word “ Pretend “ . Given that no blanket was available the child tried to demonstrate using her arm saying “ He just grabbed it and pulled it off “ .
6. The officer eventually noted that Child A was distressed , but , contrary to best practice , she continued questioning her . Her manner could be described as brusque and authoritarian . She said that the child could tell her anything that upsets her and , several times , guaranteed that she could not get into trouble for talking to the police . This officer was in no position to make such a promise . An intelligent child was likely to have realised that the officer could not be trusted given ( a ) her earlier disclosure led to her father being very angry with her for exposing abuse and ( b ) that her disclosure at the previous interview led to the girls being placed in foster care .
7. The child said that the father was going to tickle her ( on her vagina ) but Child B stopped him . Three times in succession the interviewer asked “ then what happened ? “ to which she learned that Dad watched TV , read another book then wrote something . The interviewer said “ Huh , huh , huh “ each time .
8. Child A wept . The officer asked brusquely “ what are the tears for ? “ Eventually the child said she missed her Mum . She hadn’t seen her for several days, What about Dad Child A “ Sometimes “ Interviewer “ How come you miss your Mum more than your Dad “ Note ( Not a suitable question for the average 5 year old . Most would not be able to analyse and articulate feelings ) .Interviewer “ Yell me how you feel about Dad / “ ( Not an appropriate question as above) Child A “ He’s a bit…?? and sometimes he’s not . ( Not what ? The officer did not ask what she meant ) .
9. The interviewer asked : “ On Saturday you said that Dad pulled down the blankets and tickled your vagina . Did that really happen ? You told me that you were lying down – he took the blanket off – lifted up your shorts and nickers . Did that happen ? Given that there were 5 components to this question , it was clearly inappropriate for the child’s stage of development .
As in the previous interview , the officer never asked if the Dad was sitting or lying on the bed or standing when this happened or what he did when he was finished… bearing in mind that a witness had seen the children re-enacting sexual activity in the bath with one child on top of the other . If he ejaculated , he would probably have wiped the child and himself but no questions were asked that might lead to this information . Importantly the child did not say that her disclosure was untrue but police assumed that it was .
She remained silent then very slightly shook her head which the interviewer interpreted as retracting the information previously given .
10. The officer is supporting the father’s claim that the mother trained the children to make false reports when she said :
“ Who told you about Dad tickling your vagina “ . Child A replied “ I guess I must have had a dream about it “ . She went on to say that the dream occurred when she was two years old but she couldn’t remember it . There was obviously a strong possibility that the father told her to say that it was just a dream but that was not investigated . It is important to note that although the children disclosed sexual offences over an 18 month period , a dream was only used to dismiss the allegations of after they had been placed in foster care and she could have rationalised that life with Dad was preferable to life with strangers . It is important to note that “
1. children of 2 do not dream about sex with adults unless they have been traumatised by sexual abuse or by over – exposure to pornography ( which also constitutes abuse ) . Ther has never been any suggestion that pornography is involved ; only the father has been accused by both girls .
2. the police interviewer failed to ask who told her to say that she only dreamt it and her mother said she did not .
3. the interviewer asked “ How do you dream ? “ ( clearly an inappropriate question for a child of five . ) The child responded that she didn’t know where the dreams came from .
4. The interviewer : Has Daddy tickled you or touched your vagina ? “ Child A replied “ Only … “ ( she did not finish her response and the officer was remiss in not allowing/encouraging her to complete the sentence . )
5. The interviewer reminded the child that she previously said that her that her Daddy took off his pants and got his penis and moved it on her “ tushka “ . Child A said it was a dream .
The interviewer : “Was that another dream or the same dream ? .. How did you come to dream like that …and who had you been talking to ? “ ( 3 questions in one and a question as to “how “ you dream are again inappropriate for a 5 year old ) . Child A responded that she talked to her teddy .
6. The interviewer said she knew that the child had told Mrs. Jinny and Aunty Cherie that she wanted to talk to Mum and she said “ Mummy , his penis stands up and he wants me to tickle it “ . The officer asked who “ he “ was and the child replied “Daddy “ , and , as an afterthought , added that it was in the same dream .
7. The interviewer asked “ why did you have bad dreams “ ? ( at age 5 a child could not know why she dreams ) . Child A replied that before you dream you get imagining .
8. The interviewer : “ On Saturday you described Daddy’s penis . When do you see it ? “ Child A replied “ When he has a shower “ . The officer did not question this further although the implication must be that she sees Daddy sexually aroused in the shower .
9. The interviewer questions Child A about the book Everyone’s got a bottom published by Queensland Family Planning and recommended by the Child Safety Dept. Child A said that she read it when she was two .
Please Share and Sign This Petition (Click Here)
Help us clarify the leaks we are leasing, so we can discover which are significant and which are not. You may securely and anonymously submit information via WikiLeaks
WikiDetecives will prioritize the list based on the available information and seek to ascertain the leading candidates directly, through the legal system, or indirectly through our network of journalists, intelligence sources, volunteers and readers. If you email us (email@example.com) we will alert you when the record has been obtained.
The current order reflects the order of submission and is unlikely to be related to the final order. If you personally need help, press the RED SUPPORT BUTTON on Left side or click our toll-free number now 1800UNSEEN to connect to a Australian Cyber Detective Hotline.
131 total views, no views today