Watching the Watchers
Dr Pridgeon, on Federal Police, calls a spade a spade
- Published: Wednesday, 26 June 2019 11:26
- Written by Dee McLachlan - Gumshoe News
I was at the Brisbane Magistrate’s court on Friday when Dr William Russell Pridgeon, Patrick O’Dea, and several others had to make an appearance for their court case. (These good men were arrested in October 2018 for protecting children.) A vigil had been organised for the day, and many people had flown in from all over the country to attend.
A red carpet was rolled out, and there were a number of banners calling for a Royal Commission, protection of children, and a banner reading Operation No Ethics — referring to the charges laid against them (as part of the Australian Federal Police Operation Noetic).
After a two year investigation, and six months post-arrest, they are seeking to further delay the proceedings. In court, the prosecutor sought a four-week adjournment, saying that they had only completed about 80 per cent of the brief of evidence — which was about 40 gigabytes of material, and that more forensic examination of the computers needed to be done.
Very little was reported in the mainstream media, even though the mainstream media were there — also filming Daniel Morcombe’s parents leaving court for the last time. In an article entitled, Abduction accused doesn’t like GPS tracker, the Brisbane Times, the focus was on the GPS trackers — not the issue of child protection:
“[Pridgeon’s] lawyer, Andrew Owens, told the court Pridgeon did not like his newer-style GPS tracker which requires him to sit down next to a charger up to two hours at a time when the battery runs low… ‘They’ve just changed the types of GPS trackers. They used to be able to home charge it and take it off so they can walk around the house,’ Mr Owen said.
Forcing Dr Pridgeon and O’Dea to wear these bracelets is the most extraordinary exercise of humiliation and intimidation. They have helped Australia by calling attention to child protection – and they land up wearing ankle bracelets.
What’s On The Computers?
I believe I heard the prosecutor claim that this was the largest haul of data ever in an investigation. So what is on all these computers?
You can be sure that there will be a lot of “evidence” to convict people.
They are sure to find the damning report from the late Prof Freda Briggs AO, Australia’s pre-eminent authority of child sexual abuse. (As Foundation Dean of the University’s Institute of Early Childhood and Family Studies, adviser to the Prime Minister, child protection consultant and researcher to New Zealand Police for 21 years, author or co-author of 20 books, Professor Briggs was a world leader in child protection.)
Will the investigators find the many (93) reports written by thirteen contact supervisors referred to in Professor Brigg’s report? Those reports stated that the children made frequent disclosures of sexual abuse to thirteen different people. And the abuse was ignored.
Will they pay heed to the findings of the Police Crimes and Misconduct Commission that concluded that the officers involved “conducted an inadequate and unprofessional investigation with poor quality interviews of the children… non-compliant with the Nationally-accredited ICARE interview model…” The Commission acknowledged that officers failed to re-investigate after the misconduct finding.
So, will the prosecutor pay heed that the police did not investigate according to their own standards, and that they need to re-investigate.
What are they going to do with this material exposing child abuse? Are they now going to go after the child abusers, rather than those protecting children?
Are they going to break the law, and ignore these crimes perpetrated on Australian children? (In some
The integrity of the Australian Federal Police and the Courts are going to be tested by this case. They have all the evidence, so what are they going to do with it?
After a brief court appearance, Dr Pridgeon then addressed the media:
Dr Pridgeon’s speech:
“This case is not about child stealing, it is about child protection. It’s about the desperate efforts of good people, good law abiding Australians, desperately trying to protect children from the worst sort of sexual abuse. We are not criminals. There is no law in Australia against protecting children from rape. We are not criminals. We have a right to protect our children. We have a right to protect our children even against court orders [that lead to] sexual abuse. Family Court orders… We have a duty to protect our children. If we didn’t protect these children we would be breaking the law. The criminal code [Act], section 260 I think it is [note SECT 286], demands that we protect children, keep them safe, and we’ve done that, yet we are being charged with crimes. The people who have abused these children are not being charged, they are being protected, they are being protected by the AFP. The AFP are denying this abuse, even though they know that these children have been abused. This denial is absolutely blatant, and absolutely brazen. It’s quite wrong.
“Raping children is a crime. It is an abomination. Ordinary decent Australians regard it with horror and disgust, but the AFP apparently do not. And the public servants who were supposed to protect these children did not. Apparently they don’t regard child sexual abuse as a problem here. The child protectors, we the child protectors are being prosecuted by the very people who failed to protect these children in the first place. This is a crime to hide a crime. The AFP knows the full effect of these children’s abuse. They have access to the police databases. They have taken our computers, they’ve taken all our documentation, and that documentation that was leaked with the description and evidence of the children’s abuse. Yet they do nothing, yet they continue to lie about the children’s abuse. They say the abuse did not occur, it occured! The descriptions that we have of the children’s disclosures are graphic; they are horrendous. They know this, and yet they lie. The AFP know what we know. They know that these children have been sexually abused. We protected these children from abuse. Whatever we’ve done, we can say that we have given these children four years of freedom from rape. These children made 30 plus disclosures to 13 different adults. When they were between the ages of 4 and 5, over a period of about 18 months, only one of those adults was ever interviewed by the police. This wasn’t an investigation, it’s not a bona-fide investigation. It was a coverup. Those witnesses were excluded from testifing in the family court, which then gave custody of the children.
“Professor Freda Briggs did a report on these children. She was so disgusted with what she found, she made a complaint to the Crime and Misconduct Commission. The Crime and Misconduct Commission found that the officers who dealt with this case had done an inadequate and poor quality investigation. Nonetheless there was no remedial action, nothing would be investigated, but the narrative, the false narrative that these children were never abused, continues.
“Incestuous child sexual abuse, is a crime of secrecy. It occurs in the privacy of the family home. It occurs behind closed doors. There are no witnesses. If we choose to disbelieve the children, then we commit the perfect crime. Our Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, promised the children of Australia, that they would be believed, and they would be protected, and that’s what we did. We believed these children. We believed them and we protected them.
“This is a very dark moment in the history of the Australian Federal Police. Their behaviour is appalling. They have shamed Australia.”