########################################################################## # If Goanet stops reaching you, contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] # # Want to check the archives? http://www.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet/ # # Please keep your discussion/tone polite, to reflect respect to others # ##########################################################################
Ref: JU/PC/2004-05/e - 198 Date: 6th December 2004 Reg: Tourism Related Paedophile… a blind eye Reply to Reuven Proenca With reference to your queries – 1. We were ‘tracking’ the paedophile for 2 years – in the sense that he was on our list as a suspect and we were investigating about him to collect more information before drawing our conclusions about his activities. Normally we wait for substantial information before moving the police to take action. 2. It takes a long time because the modus operandi of paedophiles makes it difficult to track them. They move from place to place within & outside the State. They have their own contacts and brokers who procure children for them who are also not always easy to access. 3. Our experience with the police in the case of Middleton Colin John was negative. Infact, the police officer/s incharge of the case left no stone unturned to ensure that the case became a no case despite some useful corroborative evidences. 4. Also, we do not provide police with information till we have enough evidence to make a complaint, for various reasons: i. The police always demand strong/hard evidence. ii. They are normally not willing to act without such evidence and if they do act it is in an unprofessional manner with a horde of police, no proper investigation, etc making it a futile operation. We have had a couple of experiences of this kind. For that matter, take the case of Ringleman. Despite strong evidences revealed by Tehelka, what did the police do? Ask him to leave the country and that’s all. They did not think it necessary to arrest him, probably for want of a complaint. We also have it from CRG that information about Ringleman was handed to the police much before the Tehelka sting operation, but, no action was taken by the police. iii. We have reservations about some of the police maintaining confidentiality and silence over sensitive information and even leaking out information, which would forewarn the suspects. 5. Given these experiences we have our own way of following up on cases and we try to do it to the best of our limited abilities (after all we not professional investigators) and time spaces (it is often necessary to investigate at night which is not possible for us). 6. A question to Reuven – In your write-up in GT on 31-8-04 you claimed to have reliable information (the source of your information would interest us) on 4 highly suspected paedophiles and approached the SP who asked for a list of suspects and promised to get back after conducting investigation. Was the list provided? If so, what happened to the investigation? Did the police get back with any concrete results? Was any follow-up on the matter? 7. I am reminded of the Rickwood report, which had provided valuable information to the Govt. including names and the modus operandi of paedophiles. Did the Govt. through its channels and enforcement agencies do anything about it? Does merely providing information help to make the Govt./police act and bring about preventive measures to protect children from these paedophile wolves? Infact, the Goa Children’s Act has enough protective and preventive measures that can be implemented. But we know the situation. 8. In addition to investigation on the paedophiles, we also carry out preventive and supportive programs for the benefit of vulnerable children and their families including awareness generation, personal contact, open school for migrant labour children, sessions in schools, PTAs, open schools, basic communities, youth and parish council groups, panchayat members, etc. It was this preventive measure that brought back the 10-year-old girl to report to us. 9. Many of these points were there in the handout given to the press reporters or in response to the question of JG of GT, besides other larger issues connected with the paedophile threat. However, the GT reporter got a little stuck with 1-2 not so important points (according to us) including a disproportionate representation of the point on cooperation of the police, and lost sight of larger perspectives in the report. It might help to be soberly present next time. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail