http://www.gaiaguys.net/vic.ombudsman.htm
CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE VICTORIAN DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN REGARDING HIS "INVESTIGATION" INTO THE EXISTENCE OF AN ORGANISED CHILD PORNOGRAPHY/PEDOPHILIA NETWORK AND THE ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN, AND
PROTECTION OF, THIS NETWORK BY MEMBERS OF THE VICTORIA POLICE.
(Please note: all names have been changed.)
In early 2001, as a consequence of the discovery that the Victoria Police Ethical Standards Department (ESD) had appointed pedophile-protecting Detective Flanagan's close colleague and friend to conduct the investigation into the misconduct of Flanagan and his (specialised sexual crimes against children) unit, the Victorian Police Commissioner recommended that the Deputy Ombudsman (Police Complaints) Ian Softman, take over the investigation. Softman was very pleased with this as he had sought to have control of this investigation from the beginning. He seconded Detective Senior Sergeant Jock Westland from the ESD branch to be a co-investigator.
The following section details the correspondence between Sarah Connor and Ian Softman (Deputy Ombudsman) in relation to the misconduct of ESD police officer Detective Senior Sergeant Jock Westland. The correspondence also highlights the actions of Softman himself, which could also be interpreted as highly suspicious at best, and active sabotage of the case at worst (or perhaps, most realistically).
As you will remember from the main article, Sarah discovered that Westland had failed to pass on crucial information concerning the existence of a video-tape depicting police members actively participating in the ritual abuse of children from the Mornington creche (circa 1992). This information had been provided to Westland by a sexual abuse counselor (Mary) who had worked on the case in 1992. As becomes evident, Westland was also given crucial information from another counselor who worked on the case (Jill Somers). This counselor provided information to Westland about the child-victims' identification of a police officer's/pedophile's home, where the children had been taken to and sexually abused by numerous offenders, including the police officer/s.
Thus, Westland failed to pass on extremely important information that SPECIFICALLY concerned the active involvement of police members in both child pornography and the organised sexual abuse of children by a network of "elite" pedophiles. Westland did this on two separate occasions, and on both occasions he denied having ever received the information. It was later to be proved that Westland lied about these events.
As you will see, what is most significant is that Deputy Ombudsman Ian Softman dismissed Westland's misconduct and overt sabotaging of the investigation as mere "incompetence" and refused a request for the matters to be investigated further.
As is also evident, the correspondence reveals that Softman himself participated in active sabotaging of the investigation by deliberately inserting false information into records and notes for further investigation. Further examples of Softman's own suspicious actions throughout the course of his "investigation" are outlined in a letter written to the Chief Commissioner's office. [See end of this page.]
SARAH REQUESTS AN UPDATE INTO THE INVESTIGATION INTO WESTLAND'S FAILURE TO PASS ON INFORMATION CONCERNING THE EXISTENCE OF A VIDEO TAPE DEPICTING POLICE MEMBERS ACTIVELY ABUSING CHILDREN FROM THE MORNINGTON CRECHE.
ALSO, SARAH ASKS IAN SOFTMAN WHY HE INSERTED FALSE INFORMATION INTO HIS NOTES TO THE INVESTIGATOR FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION.
_______________________________
From Sarah's Organisation (email address withheld)
To Ian Softman (email address withheld)
Message-ID <22661d9d.1d9d2266@bigpond.com>
Date Wed, 02 Apr 2003 111813 +0700
X-Mailer Netscape Webmail
MIME-Version 1.0
Content-Language en
Subject Request from Sarah Connor
X-Accept-Language en
Content-Type text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding 7bit
Dear Ian ,
Could you please give me an update regarding the investigation as a
whole, plus the investigation into concerns I raised regarding certain
actions of Jock Westland during the investigation? I am quite confused
as I have not heard anything regarding these issues. Also, could you
please clarify the following issue? Around November 2002 I called you
and told you (amongst other things) that a Channel X board member was
related to one of the victims at Goldtown. I declined to give the name
of the board member over the phone and said I would do so in person.
The message you then passed on to Judith named Bill Pokeen as the
Channel X Board member and stated that he was "in a relationship" with
one of the victims from Goldtown. As I did not name Bill Pokeen
at any stage, and in fact did not even know a Bill Pokeen (I have
since found out he is not even a Channel X Board member) I am very
confused as to why you did this? Rather than speculate, I'd really
appreciate it if you could explain it to me, as it has caused me a
great deal of confusion since. Thank you for your assistance in these
matters. I look forward to hearing from you. Yours sincerely, Sarah
Connor.
________________________________
From Sarah's Organisation (email address withheld)
To Ian Softman (email address withheld)
Message-ID
Date Thu, 03 Apr 2003 103504 +0700
X-Mailer Netscape Webmail
MIME-Version 1.0
Content-Language en
Subject Fwd Request from Sarah Connor< BR>X-Accept-Language en
Content-Type multipart/mixed; boundary="--22af3e3217ac4be1"
Dear Ian ,
Please note that I am presently overseas and can only be contacted via
email. I look forward to hearing from you (via email) at your earliest
convenience.
With thanks,
Sarah Connor
SOFTMAN DENIES INSERTING FALSE INFORMATION AND PRETENDS NOT TO KNOW POKEEN. HE PROVIDES A COPY OF HIS NOTES WHICH HIGHLIGHTS ANOTHER INSERTION OF MISLEADING INFORMATION.
________________________________
----- Original Message -----
From "Ian Softman"
Date Tuesday, April 8, 2003 627 am
Subject Re Fwd Request from Sarah Connor
Dear Sarah,
Re your emails - .
Firstly, in relation to Jock Westland, we are having difficulty in
obtaining from Southern Health, call charge records which may enable us to
determine in relation to Jock and Mary, who rang whom, when and for how
long. If these are not available this week I will need to make a decision
on the basis of the somewhat inconclusive information we have.
Secondly, in relation to your telephone call on 18 November last year, I
have printed out in full, my contemporaneous file note of our conversation-
complete with typos.
As I don't know any Bill Pokeen, I do not know why I would have
included this information unless you told me. I certainly recall being
surprised and concerned by this information - particularly when combined
with the information about Bob Sisterly. Perhaps you might let me
know if the other details accurately reflect our conversation.
Yours sincerely.
Ian.
T/I Sarah Connor.
Ian Softman Date 18 November
2002
Encryption
keys
Proposed action Judith to ring Connor to arrange meeting
Body text
1. Bob Sisterly is going to Queensland with Channel X - finds this a
"very intersting ' change of plans given he had always said he would be
retiring shortly in Vic. Also thinks it is interesting (sinsiter)
that victim Sammy is now in a relationship with Qld Channel X board
member Pokeen.
2. John Mackhallen Principal at Epping is on "kissing terms" with Liz Slattery
, head of Eucations Investigtaion Unit ? raises serius concersn of conflict
of interest ? particularly since no action has been taken against Newman.
Agree.
3. Enid Ireland of Childrens Protection Society ( in some ways a rival
organization) told Evan of her Board following the making of the above
allegation against Newman that she should drop the allegation.
Enid Ireland had also said Nick Flanagan was also aware of her
complaint to Education Dept about Newman. How were Flanagan and
Ireland are of her complaint to Education?
4. Enid Ireland has generally bad-mouthed Connor to her
sponsors with serious consequences.
Notes
Created on 18 November 2002 by Ian Softman.
Modified on 18 November 2002 by Ian Softman.
SARAH CORRECTS THE OTHER PIECE OF MISLEADING INFORMATION BY SOFTMAN AND HIGHLIGHTS THE IMPORTANCE OF HER ORIGINAL INFORMATION (WHICH SOFTMAN HAD DISTORTED).
________________________________
Sarah's Organisation (email address withheld)
To Ian Softman (email address withheld)
m> cc
Subject Important clarification
08/04/2003 0852 PM
Hi Ian ,
Just a brief note to clarify point 3 in your notes. When Enid Ireland
approached Evan Paul and said that Nick Flanagan "knows about
Sarah's complaint", she was not referring to the complaint about
Dick Newman, she was referring to the complaint about police
misconduct at Goldtown. I think this is a very important
clarification. She also intimidated Evan by stating that he should
cease his association with me "for the sake of (his) professional
reputation". Evan later phoned me and encouraged me to drop the
complaint against Nick Flanagan (which I did not do).
I think that this clarification is very important to make, as it has
implications for the Goldtown case.
Thanks,
Sarah
________________________________
Subject Re Important clarification
To Sarah's Organisation (email address withheld)
Cc Judith Shinner (email address withheld)
X-Mailer Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001
Message-ID
From "Ian Softman"
Date Wed, 9 Apr 2003 090949 +1000
X-MIMETrack Serialize by Router on smtp/External/VICGOV/AU(Release 5.0.11
|July 24, 2002) at
09/04/2003 090952 AM
MIME-Version 1.0
Content-type text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Thanks Sarah,
Ian .
SOFTMAN REPORTS THAT ANALYSIS OF TELEPHONE RECORDS PROVE THAT WESTLAND WAS LYING AND HE IS REMOVED FROM THE CASE.
________________________________
Subject Detective Senior Sergeant Jock Westland
To Sarah's Organisation (email address withheld)
Cc Judith Shinner (email address withheld)
X-Mailer Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001
Message-ID
From "Ian Softman"
Date Tue, 22 Apr 2003 153912 +1000
X-MIMETrack Serialize by Router on smtp/External/VICGOV/AU(Release 5.0.11
|July 24, 2002) at
22/04/2003 033917 PM
MIME-Version 1.0
Content-type text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Dear Sarah,
Finally, Judith was able to obtain relevant call charge records in relation
to calls made by Mary Davies.
The call charge records prove that there were two telephone conversations
- the second quite lengthy (some 12 minutes) as she claims. While we
cannot prove what Mary said, the fact that the call was made and its
duration, disprove Senior Sergeant Westland's belief there was probably
only one , but in any event , very short (3 minutes at most)
conversation(s). He has no notes of any conversation with Mary
claiming it was very short and basically referring him to Jill Somers.
Senior Sergeant Westland was unable to offer any satisfactory explanation
for why he has not included any reference in his notes, to the information
I am satisfied Jill Somers provided, in relation to a child in the
Mornington investigation pointing out a house(s) where a possible child
molester/police member lived.
In all the circumstances, I have decided to dispense with Senior
Sergeant Westland's assistance and have advised ESD accordingly. I will
have Judith continue with the investigation without police assistance at
this stage but may need to call on further police assistance in the future
on an "as required" basis. Thank you for bringing this matter to our
attention. I will have Judith pass on my appreciation for Jill's and
Mary's co-operation w hen she returns next week.
Yours Sincerely
Ian Softman
________________________________
From: Sarah Connor's Organisation (email address withheld)
To:Ian Softman (email address withheld)
Message-ID: <6c2ec6cd3b.6cd3b6c2ec@bigpond.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 13:49:29 +0700
X-Mailer: Netscape Webmail
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Language: en
Subject: Re: Detective Senior Sergeant Jock Westland
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear Ian,
Thank you very much for getting back to me with this news. I look
forward to meeting with you to discuss the progress of the
investigation when I return to Australia. In the meantime, I hope that
we can continue to correspond, when necessary, via email.
Yours sincerely,
Sarah Connor
SARAH ASKS SOFTMAN IF OTHER ASPECTS OF THE 'PRELIMINARY' FINDINGS WILL BE REVIEWED, GIVEN THE SERIOUSNESS OF WESTLAND'S MISCONDUCT.
________________________________
From: Sarah's Organisation (email address withheld)
To: Ian Softman (email address withheld)
Message-ID: <1fa7222ef4.22ef41fa72@bigpond.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 12:02:15 +0700
X-Mailer: Netscape Webmail
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Language: en
Subject: Request from Sarah Connor
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--64a839712cb11e88"
Dear Ian,
In light of the findings that have been made in relation to the
conduct of Senior Sergeant Jock Westland, and the implications thereof,
I am writing to request that all findings/reports by the officer
concerned be rigorously examined.
Specifically, I have received information from a senior police officer
that important aspects of my complaint regarding events at Goldtown
have been dismissed as inaccurate. However, the information I have
provided regarding events at Goldtown is accurate and supported by
both documentation and eye-witnesses. In light of the aforementioned
issues, I therefore feel compelled to request that there veracity of
all assessments regarding this case be stringently examined.
For example, the Student Welfare Coordinator of Goldtown, Ms.
Marianne Worthington, was present throughout much of the investigation activity
at the school. Ms. Worthington was present at the Sexual Crimes Squad's
interview of 12-year-old victim/witness Lucy.
Ms. Worthington can verify that the conduct of the police officer/s during
this interview was so extreme that it surpassed "incompetence" and
amounted to victim/witness intimidation. Thus, the eye-witness account
of Ms. Worthington, an experienced sexual assault counselor and former Child
Protection officer, is in direct contrast to the findings of "police
incompetence" and "management" problems.
However, to date Ms. Worthington has not been interviewed.
I hope that you will understand both the need for, and importance of,
this request. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank you
for your assistance into the matters I have raised, both past and
present. I look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,
Sarah Connor
________________________________
From "Ian Softman"
Date Monday, April 28, 2003 924 am
Subject Re Request for review
Thanks Sarah,
These and other matters will certainly be reviewed.
Regards ,
Ian .
________________________________
From Sarah's Organisation (email address withheld)
To "Ian Softman"
Message-ID <60ea260534.6053460ea2@bigpond.com>
Date Mon, 28 Apr 2003 103942 +0700
X-Mailer Netscape Webmail
MIME-Version 1.0
Content-Language en
Subject Re Request for review
X-Accept-Language en
Content-Type text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding 7bit
Thanks Ian , and thank you for the swiftness of your reply.
Best wishes,
Sarah
SARAH ASKS ABOUT THE HEALTH OF THE OMBUDSMAN WHO SUFFERED A RECENT STROKE.
________________________________
----- Original Message -----
From "Ian Softman"
Date Tuesday, May 6, 2003 610 am
Subject Re How is Mr. Evian?
Sarah,
Unfortunately, Mr Evian is still unconscious but there has been some
improvement in his condition and he is now out of intensive care.
Reads Ian .
SARAH ASKS SOFTMAN IF THERE WILL BE FURTHER INVESTIGATION INTO WHY WESTLAND DELIBERATELY FAILED TO PASS ON INFORMATION SPECIFICALLY CONCERNING POLICE ACTIVE INVOLVEMENT IN CHILD PORNOGRAPHY AND PEDOPHILIA, ON TWO OCCASIONS, AND THEN LIED ABOUT IT.
________________________________
From Sarah's Organisation (email address withheld)
To "Ian Softman"
Message-ID
Date Tue, 13 May 2003 132552 +0700
X-Mailer Netscape Webmail
MIME-Version 1.0
Content-Language en
Subject How is Mr. Evian this week?
X-Accept-Language en
Content-Type text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding 7bit
Hi Ian ,
How is Mr. Evian this week? It is very good news that there has been
improvement in his condition. I hope that he continues to improve and
that he makes a full recovery. Has he regained consciousness yet?
I was wondering, is there going to be an investigation into WHY Jock
Westland chose not to pass on such significant information (for
example, was he protecting a friend/colleague/s? did he get offered a
bribe or a favour?) or is it just going to be assumed that it
is "police culture" for members to protect each-other (even if they are
working in the ESD unit)?
I'd be very interested to find out what follow-up is or is not being
conducted, and what, if anything, it reveals. I am mindful that you and
your office are under enormous pressure at the moment, so I understand
if I don't hear back from you for a little while.
Thanks Ian , and best wishes to you and Judith,
Sarah
SOFTMAN SAYS THAT THERE WILL BE NO FURTHER INVESTIGATION INTO WHY WESTLAND DELIBERATELY FAILED TO PASS ON INFORMATION SPECIFICALLY CONCERNING POLICE ACTIVE INVOLVEMENT IN CHILD PORNOGRAPHY AND PEDOPHILIA (ON TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS) AND THEN LIED ABOUT IT.
SOFTMAN'S REASON FOR HIS DECISION NOT TO INVESTIGATE SUCH SERIOUS MISCONDUCT AND ACTIVE SABOTAGE IS THAT WESTLAND'S BEHAVIOUR WAS MERE "INCOMPETENCE".
________________________________
Received from smtp.dpc.vic.gov.au ([203.14.41.25])
by psmam05.bigpond.com
(MailRouter V3.2g 101/26158873);
19 May 2003 133335
Subject Re How is Mr. Evian this week?
To Sarah's Organisation (email address withheld)
Cc "Judith Shinner (email address withheld)
Message-ID
From "Ian Softman"
Date Mon, 19 May 2003 133330 +1000
MIME-Version 1.0
Content-type text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Dear Sarah,
Firstly, Mr Evian is still unconscious but medical opinion is still for an
eventual positive recovery.
I am not proposing any further investigation of Det. Westland as there is
no evidence that his poor handling of the matter was due to anything other
than incompetence.
I consider the resources of this Office can be best utilised by focusing on
the substantive investigation and I have assigned Anne Bell, newly
appointed investigator - previously with the New South Wales Ombudsman's
Office - to assist Judith.
Regards
- SARAH WRITES AN URGENT LETTER TO THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER TO HIGHLIGHT NUMEROUS DEEPLY SUSPICIOUS ACTIONS BY SOFTMAN THAT HAVE OCCURRED THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF HIS "INVESTIGATION".
________________________________
From Sarah's Organisation (email address withheld)
To (email address withheld)
Message-ID <7774876245.7624577748@bigpond.com>
Date Sat, 24 May 2003 122840 +0200
X-Mailer Netscape Webmail
MIME-Version 1.0
Content-Language en
Subject Serious Concerns regarding Ian Softman Investigation
X-Acept-Language en
Content-Type text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding 7bit
Dear Chief Commissioner Franklin,
I understand that you will be holding a meeting with Ian Softman on
Tuesday. I wish to draw your attention to the most serious concerns I
have regarding the integrity of Mr. Softman's investigation into the
existence of an organised child pornography/pedophilia network and the
active participation in, and protection of, this network by members of
the Victoria Police. I will summarise a number of events that have
occurred which form the basis of the grave concerns I hold. Please be
aware that I have numerous other examples in addition to those provided
here.
1. Ian Softman requested that our initial interview be taped. This
was agreed to on the condition that a copy would be provided to me at
the end of the interview. Judith Shinner then stated that she would
have to make a copy of the tape for me but that a copy would be
provided to me as soon as possible. This was agreed upon. However, when
my lawyer brought out his own tape-recorder and requested that we also
be able to record a copy of the interview, Ian Softman refused and
stated that neither he nor I (and my lawyer) would tape the meeting.
2. The failure to interview a key witness in the Goldtown, Ms. Marianne
Worthington, after 15-months of investigation is inexcusable. Ms. Worthington's
testimony supports my claim that the police (mis)conduct during the
Goldtown investigation far surpasses "incompetence" (Mr.
Softman's "preliminary conclusion").
Similarly, there has been little effort to contact my former Assistant,
Ms. Cathy McDonald, whose contemporaneous notes also verify my assertion
that the (mis)conduct of the police during the Goldtown investigation
far surpassed "incompetence". Further to this is Ms. Shinner's claim
that "If Cathy does not want to talk to us there is nothing we can do".
Considering the importance of Cathy's testimony and the significance of
her notes in verifying my assertion that the (mis)conduct of the police
was most serious, the apparent indifference to obtaining this
information is astounding.
Both of the above examples demonstrate a striking lack of commitment to
obtaining information that contradicts Ian Softman's preliminary
conclusion of "incompetence".
3. The fact that it took Ian Softman's investigation 12-months to
even request the Department of Education file regarding repeated acts
of child abuse by (teacher) Dick Newman is totally unjustifiable
given the seriousness of the issues.
4. Ian Softman inserted false information into material that I gave
him for further investigation. Specifically, in a telephone
conversation with Mr. Softman I informed him that one of the victims at
Goldtown is related to a Network X Board member. I declined to name
the board member over the telephone but said I would do so in person. I
later discovered Mr. Softman falsely inserted the name 'Bill
Pokeen' into his notes to Judith for further investigation. Bill
Pokeen is not even a Network X Board member. Had this issue been
investigated further, my credibility would have been seriously harmed
by this false information. When I asked Ian Softman why he did this
he denied having done so.
5. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that Judith Shinner
was made aware of the serious issue concerning Jock Westland's failure
to pass on crucial information concerning police active involvement in
child pornography and pedophilia for two weeks and no action was taken
by the Ombudsman's office. Specifically, it was only after my letter
requesting your assistance that anything at all was done to follow up
the issue. The failure of Ian Softman to take immediate action is
most questionable.
Furthermore, his dismissal of Jock Westland's failure to pass on
information specifically relating to police active involvement in child
pornography and pedophila, on two separate occasions, and then lie
about (not) having done so, as mere "incompetence" is simply
inexcusable. The decision not to investigate this most serious
misconduct of Jock Westland further is nothing short of outrageous.
I came to you in December 2001 because I believed that you were a
person of the highest integrity and courage and because I believed that
you could and would do something to address this terrible situation.
Once again, I request that you personally take it upon yourself to
ensure that the issues that I have shared with you are not simply white-
washed and swept under the carpet. So many children have suffered and
continue to suffer as a result of the child pornography/pedophile
network's most successful attempts to elude justice. I implore you to
do whatever you possibly can to see that this does not continue.
I am happy to expand on any of the above issues at any time. I look
forward to your personal response so that I can be sure you have
received all of this information.
Yours sincerely,
(Dr) Sarah Connor
BACK TO MAIN ARTICLE
BACK TO UPDATE