Judge Pauffley: Professionally Negligent or Criminally Complicit?

Judge Pauffley: Professionally Negligent or Criminally Complicit?

All of the Witness Statements provided in condemnation of Justice Pauffley's latest High Court Judgement on this case, expose the many and very serious failings in her judgement and again, considering the risk to children in light of our legally valid suspicions, those failings either reflect professional and possibly criminal negligence or else, Justice Pauffley herself, is part of the alleged paedophile conspiracy either by force or by choice. Below is an extract from Witness Statement B:

The Probability-Factor is an important point of evidence in all allegations of child sexual abuse; Witness Statement B:

1. 
   Two child Witness/Victims report credible, separately and repeatedly given testimonies which match and are supportive and do not contradict one another.
   
2. 
   Medical evidence confirming sexual abuse and emotional trauma.
   
3. 
   Details are given in testimonies by children aged 8 & 9 who are not in probability likely to have experience of, know about or even, so accurately imagine i.e. 'special tools for removing babies skin'.
   
4. 
   A huge amount of instantly and easily, verifiable facts are given.
   
5. 
   Multiple professional people including father Ricky Dearman, are cited and named as alleged abusers:
   

• Was it probable that David Cameron's Senior Policy Adviser, Patrick Rock, would be forced to resign from his role at number 10 Downing Street in view of his admittance to and later conviction for paedophile activity?

• Was it probable that SENIOR Essex police officer Ben Hodder, would be 'facing jail after pleading guilty to making five indecent images of children'?

• Was it probable that a British Prime Minister, namely, Margaret Thatcher would be guilty and complicit in covering up paedophile crimes within her own cabinet and other Government Ministries as has been recently revealed to the British public?

• Was it probable that multiple Councils, Police and child care providers would all be found complicit in covering up and participating in paedophile activity of every kind?

26: Because all of the above once considered improbabilities are now proven FACTS OF CRIME and with a multitude of historical victim-survivors pressing charges for the crimes they suffered and which were SYSTEMATICALLY IGNORED as "improbable", all present allegations of sexual abuse of children which involve multiple professionals can no longer be dismissed as improbable. Indeed, it is these ever increasing revelations to the British public that have contributed to even deeper suspicions of mother, her McKenzie Friend and the lawful, public authority in this case in the sense, that P and Q's initial allegations are actually, very probable.

In her Judgement, Justice Pauffley minimises Mr Dearman's severe mental health problems, violence and aggression being symptomatic of those problems;

“A non molestation order was made against the father in 2010. There was some involvement on the part of the London Borough of Camden; in December 2008 a core assessment was prepared. Between May 2010 and October 2013, therapeutic sessions occurred intermittently at the Tavistock Clinic. There was a period, notably between November 2011 and November 2012, when the children did not have contact with their father." p26

The father's tendency to violence and aggression is reflected in the children's original testimonies where both independently describe how their father would tell or force them to behave violently toward each other and/or he would behave with violence and aggression toward them and their mother. Validity of those allegations fall more on side of truth considering above evidence as presented in Justice Pauffley's summary.

Therefore, suspicions against the father as a probable/possible abuser are further increased.

It is to be noted that Barnet Police were made aware of Mr Dearman's violence and aggression at the time his alleged crimes against children were reported and yet still failed to immediately arrest Mr Dearman for questioning and further investigation.

This ignoring of solid evidence which is highly relevant and supportive of TWO children's allegations against their father and others is again, contrary to EU Directives.