##########################################################################
# 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

Reply via email to