Govt. Admits Sex Abuse Did Occur after Charges Dropped

by **proldic** » Tue Aug 09, 2005 7:40 pm

Scotsman 8/09: Satanic case report claims 'child sex abuse did occur' by STEPHEN MCGINTY A CRITICAL report into the collapse of Scotland's biggest child sex abuse investigation has concluded that the three girls at the centre of allegations did suffer physical and sexual abuse. The official inquiry into the satanic abuse investigation on the Isle of Lewis in 2003 is expected to make strong criticisms of the way in which medical evidence was gathered and how child protection orders were served. Seven men and one woman were arrested in a series of co-ordinated raids on the Isle of Lewis and in Dorset, Leicestershire and West Yorkshire in October 2003. They were later charged with sex offences involving girls under the age of 16. Last year, however, all the charges were dropped by the Crown Office. It is understood that the Crown Office explained to the girls and their carers at the time why the charges were being dropped. The new report by the Social Work Inspection Agency (SWIA) is understood to conclude that the children were subjected to "severe and prolonged abuse" which continued "over many years". The new report means a cloud of suspicion now hangs over those individuals who were initially arrested, some of whom are considering taking legal action against Western Isles Social Services. The 150-page report - which is expected to be published later this month - will describe the case as "disturbing" and that it has "serious implications for all those involved in delivering child protection services in Scotland." The report will urge ministers to tighten up the guidelines on obtaining testimonies from child witnesses in cases involving a large number of alleged victims and abusers. Under measures to be announced by ministers later this year, defence and prosecution lawyers would lose the right to question alleged child abuse victims individually. Instead, both sets of lawyers will be required to agree a line of questioning which will then be carried out by a professional agent during videotaped interviews. The Lewis case is understood to have begun when three girls were taken into the care of the Western Isles social services department. The initial allegations of abuse were said to have centred round two people who were accused of touching children in an inappropriate way. However, concerns that they were the victims of a satanic sex abuse ring were triggered by allegations made by Angela Stretton, 37, a Lewis resident, who, it later emerged had been convicted of making false allegations of child abuse in the Midlands in 1987. Her allegations of animal sacrifice, orgies and child abuse were investigated by police officers in Lewis, Leicestershire, West Yorkshire and Dorset. In October 2003, a series of arrests were made on Lewis and in three counties in England and eight people were later charged with sex offences. Last night a spokesman for the Crown Office said: "All the available evidence was considered thoroughly before the decision was made that there were to be no criminal proceedings." A Scottish Executive spokesman said: "No date has been fixed for the publication of this report although we hope to have it released soon. Although we cannot comment on leaks, we are committed to improving child protection and want to ensure lessons are learned."

by **robertdreed** » Tue Aug 09, 2005 9:18 pm

That isn't good for the Scots.

by **biaothanatoi** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 1:06 am

My curiosity was piqued by the nebulous statement in this article that one woman, Angela Stretton, ‘triggered’ the Lewis ritual abuse allegations. There is an inference that a few girls were ‘inappropriately touched’ (eg that was their initial disclosure, which the article infers is the ‘real’ disclosure) and then Stretton is somehow responsible for the expansion of the investigation and their disclosures from thereon. What the article doesn’t tell us, and what I haven’t been able to find, is Stretton’s relationship to the victims or to the police investigation. Why was she involved at all? In what capacity – social worker? I presume she didn’t walk in randomly off the street. <a href="http://www.rickross.com/reference/satanism/satanism95.html" target="top">Article on Stretton in ‘Scotland on Sunday’</a> I’m particularly interested by the statement in the above article that she “had a history of making false allegations”. If you read the article, this ‘history’ amounts to a one hundred pound fine for making a number of emergency services calls (alleging that her former landlord was sexually abusing his daughter) and hearsay from her mother and brother (who was implicated in the sexual abuse scandal). The police put out a statement that they were aware of “allegations by her which resulted in convictions and custodial sentences against people she had accused of a variety of offences, including violent and sexual crimes." I’m going to go out on a limb here, but she reads like an abuse survivor. Her mother and brother claim that she ‘makes it all up’ but she had inside information on perpetrators that has resulted in convictions – how do they account for that? And how can the paper justify the statement about ‘false allegations’? She actually has a history of making substantive allegations against sexual offenders (some of whom are now in jail), and a small ‘nuisance’ fine from emergency services when they couldn’t substantiate her claim that one man was abusing his daughter. Reads like a big beat up to me. Christ, I hope I don’t get set up by the media the way this woman has been.

by **Sokolova** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 10:13 am

But isn't it also possible she is just making it up? The 'nuisance fine' might be genuine, mightn't it? As I said on another thread, it's just as crazy to assume all the accusations of abuse are true as to assume they are all false. Sometime somewhere, the claim that this person is just a trouble-maker is likely to be true. If we don't allow for that then we are leaving the path of reason aren't we? The difficulty is knowing when and where that is true. It must take the most delicate judgement. Maybe this lady has been badly handled - but also maybe she's someone with a history of making false accusations. A lot hinges on which is true and yet it's almost impossible to know which is true. Deciding to believe something in such a case is an act of faith and that's all it is. Where does reality go in a situation like that? Ellie

by **proldic** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 10:38 am

His-story

by **biaothanatoi** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:54 pm

> But isn't it also possible she is just making it up? In retrospect, we now know that her allegations of a broader, violent, organised paedophile ring were correct. She also had a history of pointing the police to other violent offenders, who were found guilty and convicted. So, no, it's not possible that she was making it up. It turns out that she was right and nobody listened. > The 'nuisance fine' might be genuine, mightn't it? The fine is real, but that’s not the point. Claiming that a one hundred pound fine for a nuisance call constitutes a 'history of false allegations' is a long bow to draw, don't you think? There are several ways to read the situation with her landlord, and I'm not inclined to accept the journalists view simply because he is a journalist. > Sometime somewhere, the claim that this person is just a trouble-maker is likely to be true. Why? Because the newspaper told you so? The cops involved said something altogether different from the journo ie She’s been right before, let’s listen to her now. I also know from experience that there is always much more material available to witnesses and police on paedophile cases then is ever printed in the media. It is pointless to try and assess someone’s credibility on the flimsy premise that the journalist has presented us with, particularly when there is more evidence to suggest that she knows what she's talking about. > If we don't allow for that then we are leaving the path of reason aren't we? The challenge is not just to assess the various truth claims in the article as ‘true’ or ‘false’ – that would accept the implicit frame that the journo has couched the truth claims within. What about his framework itself? I’d question his implicit suggestion that the entire case for ritual abuse hinges on this one, crazy woman, because, regardless of her credibility, I know that the police don’t operate that way. Trust me, I’ve been the ‘crazy’ person who has gone running to the cops to get them to stop ritual abuse – and, in the credibility stakes, I was a federal political adviser at the time - and they didn’t do a damn thing! > Deciding to believe something in such a case is an act of faith and that's all it is. Where does reality go in a situation like that? I don’t get the impression that you’ve ever been involved in a ritual abuse case. Would that be correct?

by **jenz** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:03 am

There might be a need for some of us who have gad experience of r.a. cases to put something together for data dump, along the lines of explaining or rather describing why r.a. cases never get anywhere. (I haven't got anything comprehensive worked out btw) There is a circularity about 'belief' which we know - a perpetrator I know of once said to a journalist, who asked questions after a deliberately bodged investigation into allegations arising from her and others' crimes, 'if there had been anything the Police would have found it wouldn't they" . If you have faith in our police, justice system and media to get it right then just about all of us posting here are mad or misguided or gullible.

Govt. Admits Sex Abuse Did Occur after Charges Dropped

Govt. Admits Sex Abuse Did Occur after Charges Dropped

Re: Govt. Admits Sex Abuse Did Occur after Charges Dropped

Re: Govt. Admits Sex Abuse Did Occur after Charges Dropped

Re: Govt. Admits Sex Abuse Did Occur after Charges Dropped

Where does reality go in a situation like that?

Re: Where does reality go in a situation like that?

r.a.cases

Who is online