Complaint against Police

Over a year after I initially complained about police handling of my reports of sexual assault against my children and I, I received a letter from Police Internal Investigations saying that an interview with me had been recorded without my knowledge.

On the 26th of May 2015 I was emailed a copy of both the audio recording and a transcript purportedly of that recording. The two did not match up, and the differences change the meaning of the interview completely. The following is a link to the Police’s transcript, with hand written corrections made by Dean and I. TCSTPoliceCorrectdTranscript27May2015.  There are over 220 “inadvertent errors” in the transcript as provided by the Police. We have summarised a few of them below.

We would love to share the original audio with you too, but it won’t be available until we can bleep out the words which would identify the victims.

We raised out concerns with Commander Bonde and received the following reply on May 28 2015:TCSTPoliceReplyReTranscriptErrors27May15

As time allows we will bring you the other pieces of this puzzle.  For now we are eager to share this:

Context: Becky attended the police station with the intention of handing over notes made over 2 weeks while her children had disclosed abuses to her.  Before the recorded interview Constable “E” spoke with Becky and told her that he had investigated and come to the conclusion that she is mentally ill and it is all in her head.  E claimed that the 2013 accused had fled to Europe because it was “Becky stalking the accused” (by applying for employment at his workplace while in a relationship with him?!!), not the other way around.  Becky asked for a third party to be in the room.  When Police Officers P and B entered the room the recording began.

Transcript as supplied by Police: Becky: “it’s really interesting that you would ask why I was at my fiance’s work back when we were as far as I knew in a happy healthy relationship.

Actual recording: Becky: “it’s really interesting to me that you ask why I would apply for work at my fiance’s work back when we were as far as I knew in a happy healthy relationship”

Our analysis: The exclusion here removes evidence of the inappropriate accusations levelled at Becky by the Police immediately prior to the recorded interview.

Transcript as supplied by Police: Becky: “…I’m aware that one of the woman that used to see him regularly also has a police (inaudible). Ok, so I’m wondering, how does that play out in how this gets handled?”

Actual recording: Becky: “...I’m aware that one of the other women that he has been seeing regularly also has a police as a father, so I’m wondering ok, so how does that play out in how this gets handled?”

Our analysis: The reference to the conflict of interest has been removed, and the resulting sentence looks garbled giving the reader the impression that I am speaking nonsense.

Transcript as supplied by Police: Becky: “well I don’t know if these are the facts.”

Actual recording: Becky: “look, I…no, no, no, ok, let’s have the facts.”

Our analysis: Takes an attempt at objectivity and instead gives the impression of confusion

Transcript as supplied by Police: Becky: “in my reality I’m finding it terrifying and if that’s your opinion  I’m very concerned about the conversation going on here”

Actual recording: Becky: “in my reality I’m finding it terrifying, and if SASS (Sexual Assault Support Service) were sitting here as well, I think they’d be really concerned about the conversation going on here

Our analysis: Removes a plea for accountability from the record. In fact, every single mention of SASS during the interview was removed, mostly marked as “inaudible”.

Transcript as supplied by Police: Becky: “I have until two o’clock to get through this guys”

Actual recording: Becky: “I have until two o’clock today, and I really want to to get all this to you guys, so, you know…”

Our analysis: Immediately before the recorded interview I had attempted to hand to Constable “E” a handful of A4 pages containing notes that I had made over two weeks of disclosures by the children. To this date, Police have never looked at, or taken a copy of, those notes. The Police transcript effectively hides the fact that I have attempted to present police with the collaborative evidence.

Transcript as supplied by Police: E: “Yeah, and she won’t make a statement about it. She just told me she doesn’t want to make a statement, ok. She told me that over the phone”

Actual recording: E: “Yeah, and she won’t make a statement about it. She just told me over the telephone ok”

Our analysis: The original recording suggests that a verbal statement was made by my witness, but the Police version of the transcript leaves the reader to believe that the witness made no statement whatsoever.

Transcript as supplied by Police: Becky: “but my concern is (inaudible) my situation on Monday and I’m saying it should be in your hands, not mine like you’re saying the same thing that it is really important that you guys get this information.”

Actual recording: Becky: “but, what I’m concerned is I’ve been receiving these disclosures from my six year old since Monday and I’m saying it should be in your hands, not mine like you’re saying the same thing that it is really important that you guys are getting this information”

Our analysis: Police version removes reference to the disclosures that I was trying to give them as collaborative evidence.  Clearly audible on the recording….

Transcript as supplied by Police: Becky: “I saw (inaudible) and they want to see me a few times and then they’ll counsel her. She’s got a psychiatrist at school, but I saw the psychiatrist on the Wednesday two weeks ago and then she started to go on Monday, so it was a week and a half before she could see that”

Actual recording: Becky: “I saw SASS, and SASS want to see me a few times and then they’ll counsel her. She’s got a psychiatrist at school, but for example they’ve seen the psychiatrist on the Wednesday two weeks ago and then she started disclosing on Monday, so it was a week and a half before she could see that”

Our analysis: Another reference to SASS removed. A reference to disclosures removed. Gives the impression that I am seeing a psychiatrist for myself. In fact I was not seeing a psychiatrist, and I have mistakenly referred to the school psychologist as a psychiatrist.

Transcript as supplied by Police: Becky: “…she said ‘I saw him come into the room and kiss Jane on the lips (inaudible)’ and I said ‘was this before or after’ to try and gauge whether she was making it up or remembering something and she said ‘that was before you broke up’ and of course Jane has reacted going ‘(inaudibe) you don’t have to see him again alright?’so that was the start of that”

Actual recording: Becky: “…she said ‘I saw him come into the room and kiss Jane on the lips and kiss her privates‘ and I said ‘was this before we broke up, or after?’ to try and gauge if she’s creating fear or if she’s remembering something and she said ‘that was before you broke up’ an of course Jane has reacted going, we were in the car going to school, she’s going ‘I feel sick, I feel like vomiting. I’ve just eaten and I feel like vomiting’ right. So that was the start of that.

Our analysis: The Police version removes the disclosure of sexual abuse. It also represents me as suspecting my child of “making it up” which was not the case. Their version removes the description of Jane’s emotional response to the trauma of hearing Emily’s disclosure.

Transcript as supplied by Police: Becky: “I had my session at nine thirty…”

Actual recording: Becky: “I had an appointment at the sexual health clinic at nine thirty...”

Our analysis: The Police version removes references to me behaving in a way that is congruent with having been sexually assaulted, ie. being tested for infection.

Transcript as supplied by Police: Becky: “…it sounds like he brought home sex toys and used them on her. She also describes times when she (inaudible) and he back to her and times he’s put her in an outfit and I was not responsible. He was abusing me and abusing her”

Actual recording: Becky: “…it sounds like he brought home sex toys and used them on her. She also describes times when she’s seen him doing stuff to Jane, he’s done stuff to her, times he’s put her in an outfit while I was there and I was not responsive, he was rolling me around and abusing me and abusing her”

Our analysis: Removes detailed disclosures of sexual abuse, exactly what you would expect to see in a true allegation. Leads the reader to believe that I have said that I was not responsible. Removes the very important point that I was not responsive at the time the abuse was taking place!

Transcript as supplied by Police: Becky: “oh, I’d say there’s a lot more to it than that, I’m just painting the picture about over an extensive time.”

Actual recording: Becky: “oh, I’d say there’s a lot more to it than that, but yes you’re getting the picture, but over an extensive time.”

Our analysis: Takes my (premature and mistaken) acknowledgement that police are actually receiving the disclosures now and instead leads the reader to the impression that what I am saying is fiction.

Transcript as supplied by Police: ” CONST B ‘Are your children getting together and discussing it amongst themselves?” BECKY ‘no that’s not what I’m saying is…’ CONS B ‘yeah, but you don’t spend 24 hours a day with your children though’ BECKY ‘I know, but. ”

Actual recording: “CONST B ‘Are your children getting together and discussing it amongst themselves?” BECKY ‘no that’s  what I’m saying, there was that disclosure in the car…’ CONS B ‘yeah, but you don’t spend 24 hours a day with your children though’ BECKY ‘no, they’re at school’ “

Our analysis: Removes reference to disclosure. Removes my attempts to refute Constable B’s claims that the children are discussing the abuse amongst themselves. Police version has me agreeing with Constable B when in fact I am disagreeing.

Transcript as supplied by Police: Becky: “no they don’t seem to be, because Jane will just express it and then she’s off doing her thing. So I gave them a card, I put cards on my desk with birds and stuff on it and said if you need to say something put it in hand and I’ll know so that way I’ll know where the other one and she’s not going to hear what this one is saying has happened to her”

Actual recording: Becky: “no they don’t seem to be, because Jane, Emily seems to be needing to express it and then she’s off doing her thing. So I gave them a card, I put cards on my desk with little birds and stuff on it and said if you need to say something put it in hand and I’ll know so that way I know to go somewhere where the other one isn’t so she’s not going to hear what this one is saying has happened to her”

Our analysis: Police have effectively removed the description of me managing the children’s need to disclose in a way that is in keeping with current best practice had it been in a clinical setting. By chance my mothering instinct had helped me to come up with exactly the right strategy. The Police version took a clear, accurate description and turned it into nonsense.

Transcript as supplied by Police: Becky: “…one of these woman said ‘Becky I know this guy and I’ve known similar situations but I’m just worried that it’s so similar’ but I can’t do that, they need to see their dad, and you know (inaudible) ”

Actual recording: Becky: “….one of these women had said to me ‘Becky I know this guy and I’ve known similar situations but I’m just worried that it’s so similar. Get out of your house, get safe.‘ but I can’t do that they need to see their dad and you know, if you’re going to talk about disappearing, the counsellor, my psychologist, was saying ‘these people are very sick, you need to make yourself safe and disappear.‘ ”

Our analysis: Removed references to collaborative witnesses and the fact that witnesses found me to be plausible, were concerned for my safety and that of my children, one of these being a professional. Effectively turned my statement to nonsense.

This matters because Child Protective Services, doctors, school staff, family and friends have all been “informed” by the Police’s negative assessment of the plausibility of our allegations of abuse.   

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Complaint against Police

  1. Pingback: Thankyou for checking in on us | The Case Study

  2. Pingback: Update, response from Commander Bonde | The Case Study

  3. Pingback: Updated | The Case Study

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