PLEASE NOTE: ALL NAMES IN THE FOLLOWING HAVE BEEN CHANGED, EXCEPT FOR THAT OF DR. REINA MICHAELSON AND POLICE COMMISSIONER NIXON.

(This letter is mirrored here: http://www.whatsmells.com/reina030304.html)


The following letter by Dr Reina Michaelson is a formal complaint to the Victorian Police Commissioner and those involved in the current "investigation" into the organised child pornography/pedophile and ritual abuse network, and police corruption within Victoria, as revealed to them by Dr Michaelson, Executive Director of the Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Program Inc. This formal complaint has been published as an open letter on this website to ensure that under the closer scrutiny of Australia's ordinary citizens, and other ethical people around the world, justice will finally be done, and the many deeply suffering victims of these serious child abusers will at last be relieved of their torment.

Be sure to also read our full introduction and the original exposť about this sickening scandal.


 

(Dr) Reina Michaelson
Executive Director
Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Program Inc.
P. O. Box 80
Briar Hill 3088
Victoria

email: csapp@bigpond.com


FORMAL COMPLAINT


3 March 2004


Dear Chief Commissioner Nixon, Assistant Commissioner Underwood and Inspector Kurd,

It is with great disappointment that I write to you all. Whilst you have each earnestly assured me that the current investigation into my allegations of an organised child pornography network and police corruption within Victoria would be both rigorous and genuine, my experiences of this investigation to date serve only to confirm my concerns that this case is being mishandled, at best, and at worst, actively covered up.

I would like to cite a number of examples of recent events that have significantly undermined my faith in the current investigation.

1. DENIAL OF PREVIOUS COMPLAINTS TO VICTORIA POLICE OF THE ORGANISED PEDOPHILE / CHILD PORNOGRAPHY NETWORK.

Last year I drew your attention to the fact that there have been other reports of the organised child pornography network which were the subject of my own allegations. I highlighted this issue due to the fact that representatives of Victoria Police had reacted to my own allegations as if such reports had never been made before.

Inspector Kurd responded to my assertion that Victoria Police has received other reports of this criminal network with a denial that any reports have been made, or at least, in his thorough search of the data base he found no such reports.

My request that he ask Jim Neel (police officer) if he has ever received any information concerning this network resulted in Jim Neel's statement that he has never received any such information. A similar request to ask Noreen Maccabie (police officer) resulted in her response that she "can't recall". Finally, my request that Graham Hardy (police officer) also be asked resulted in his admission that he had been involved in the investigation of a previous complaint concerning this criminal network.

All of these police officers have been identified by witnesses as having received information concerning this criminal network, and being involved in the subsequent investigation.

The fact that there are numerous witnesses to attest to the involvement of Jim Neel and Noreen Maccabie, in spite of their denial and "can't recall" responses, suggests that there is something seriously amiss in this case. Furthermore, the fact that Inspector Kurd is prepared to accept responses of "can't recall" (Noreen Maccabie) and "don't recall" (by Graham Hardy, when asked which other police officers were in receipt of the information and involved in the subsequent investigation) is, quite simply, unacceptable.

I simply cannot believe that Noreen Maccabie "can't recall" receiving allegations of child sex offences perpetrated by (arguably) Australia's most famous celebrity PLUS a former Minister of Police. I find it equally impossible to believe that Graham Hardy "does not recall" who assisted him in the investigation into these most extraordinary matters.

The issue of why this file could not (initially) be located within Victoria Police records is similarly disturbing. Inspector Kurd has reported that he could not find any reports of a criminal pedophile/child pornography network as described by me.

It must be highlighted here that Inspector Kurd was in possession of significant information pertaining to this criminal group, including the detailed dossier I presented to the Chief Commissioner in 2001.

The information provided by me and now in Inspector Kurd's possession highlighted the following components of the criminal network and its activities:

1. The criminal network involved high profile celebrities as offenders.

2. The criminal network involved politicians as offenders.

3. The offences included the production of child pornography.

4. The crimes committed included human sacrifice.

5. The criminal network engaged in activities that can be described as satanic-ritual-abuse.

Inspector Kurd previously stated that he was unable to locate one record of a complaint that matched my own allegations. (He later referred to an anonymous telephone call that had been made to Crimestoppers by me).

However, he has now conceded that a complaint was made to Victoria Police. He has stated that he did not believe the cases were the same, despite the fact that this complaint, made independently of my own, also includes the
following components:

1. The criminal network involved high profile celebrities as offenders.

2. The criminal network involved politicians as offenders.

3. The offences included the production of child pornography.

4. The crimes committed included human sacrifice.

5. The criminal network engaged in activities that can be described as satanic-ritual-abuse.

It is impossible to accept that Inspector Kurd could not recognise the overwhelming similarities between these two independently-made complaints to Victoria Police.

The situation is made worse when Inspector Kurd conceded that Ernie Old and Rick Marks were identified as offenders by both myself as well as the original complainant, and yet, in his recent email, he stated

"To be quite honest Reina I am not even certain that the matter that Graham has told me about is the same matter as you have alleged." (2 March 2004)

It is outrageous that despite all of the overlaps described above (1 - 5), and in addition to these, the naming of two very prominent offenders (Ernie Old and Rick Marks) Inspector Kurd is suggesting that the reports
may not be referring to the same criminal network!

I am sure that every member of our community would be as dumbfounded by these events as I am.

2. INTERVIEW CONDUCTED WITH DENISE ROBERTSON

I am concerned about the way in which the interview was conducted to obtain my (witness/complainant) statement concerning the threat to kill by Bob Sisterly I informed Inspector Kurd of my (witness/complainant) ill-health and specifically asked that he conduct his interview with appropriate sensitivity.

At the beginning of the interview Inspector Kurd explained to my (witness/complainant) the potential processes involved once a statement is made. I understand that this is necessary. However, Inspector Kurd spent a great deal of time emphasizing the fact that my (witness/complainant) may have to go to court and testify against Bob Sisterly. My (witness/complainant) became visibly distressed by this topic, but Inspector Kurd continued to emphasize this issue, despite my (witness/complainant) clear distress. I asked him to desist from going on about this issue as it was clearly distressing my (witness/complainant). In fact, my (witness/complainant) and I had to leave the room and go for a walk because she was so distressed. When we returned my (witness/complainant) stated that she wanted to proceed with the statement. Soon after this Inspector Kurd again repeated that she might have to face Bob Sisterly at court. At this point I expressed my dissatisfaction at Inspector Kurd's repeated emphasis of this issue despite my (witness/complainant) obvious distress.

Inspector Kurd later apologised for this and stated that he would have been negligent if he did not explain the processes that occur after a statement is made. However, there is a difference between outlining possible processes in the future (which I accept) and continuing to refer to possible events that clearly result in the distress of the complainant.

My (witness/complainant), (witness) and I all perceived Inspector's Kurd's repeated references to court and my (witness/complainant) having to face Bob Sisterly to be a discouragement from making her statement. Thankfully, my (witness/complainant) was not totally put off and did proceed with the statement.

I remain concerned that Bob Sisterly is yet to be charged, despite witnesses to the events leading up to the threat (whom Inspector Kurd said it was unnecessary to interview) as well as Bob Sisterly's letter of admission.

3. INVESTIGATION INTO ME AND INAPPROPRIATE INVOLVEMENT OF NICK FLANAGAN IN THE PRESENT INVESTIGATION.

At the meeting attended by Inspector Kurd, Assistant Commissioner Underwood, Jane McLaurel and myself (24 November 2003) Inspector Kurd promised that neither Nick Flanagan, Jim Neel nor any of the other officers under investigation would have any influence over this investigation. This promise has been breached. It has come to my attention that Nick Flanagan, who is one of the subjects of this investigation, is taking an active part in this investigation and that Inspector Kurd has been complicit in this.

Specifically, it has come to my attention that Nick Flanagan informed Ms. Bridgitte McCarthy (a close colleague of Nick Flanagan) that I have made particular allegations. Nick Flanagan then informed Ms. McCarthy that Inspector Kurd is conducting an investigation and is seeking to obtain information about me, the complainant. Nick Flanagan then asked Ms. McCarthy to contact Inspector Kurd and she agreed to do so. Ms. McCarthy subsequently telephoned Inspector Kurd and Inspector Kurd indicated that he did not want to discuss the matter over the telephone and an appointment was arranged.

I find it immensely disconcerting that Inspector Kurd is conducting an investigation into me, the complainant. Inspector Lawrence Smythington has indicated that Victoria Police has already conducted an assessment of my credibility,
and that it is intact.

"It should be very re-assuring to you that your credibility has been questioned but has been found to be intact." (25 November 2003)

As such, there should be no need for an investigation into me. Why then is Inspector Kurd now conducting an investigation into me? If all is transparent and open, why have I not been informed of this "new" aspect to the investigation and why have I not been asked to provide my referees, while Inspector Kurd has allowed Nick Flanagan to play an active role in this "new" component of the investigation by informing him of what he is doing and then accepting his 'referrals'?

I find it THOROUGHLY and COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE that Nick Flanagan, who is one of the subjects of the investigation, is directing his close colleagues to contact Inspector Kurd to provide information about me. And I find it intolerable that Inspector Kurd has been complicit in these unethical activities.

I have repeatedly asked that any meetings I have with Victoria Police investigators on this case (including Darren Underwood and Tony Kurd) be taped. However, I have repeatedly been met with the response such as

"In relation to your request to tape record the meeting, Darren has indicated reservations in relation to this course of action as it may suppress open dialogue and not be conducive to developing a trusting work relationship." (20 November 2003).

I have been encouraged not to tape such meetings, which has been to the detriment of my cause on a number of occasions, and yet the rationale for not taping such meetings has been centered on the issue of "trust". The fact
is, representatives of Victoria Police have repeatedly breached my trust and faith throughout this entire case, including this most recent investigation.

As I have stated so often in the past, I have always had great faith in Chief Commissioner Nixon. I have proceeded with the investigation by the Crime Department to demonstrate my goodwill and hope that Victoria Police will at last conduct an honest, competent and genuine investigation into the issues I have raised. However, the events that have occurred throughout this most recent investigation, from the denial of past complaints, to the handling of the case against Bob Sisterly, to the active involvement of Nick Flanagan in this investigation, have steadfastly eroded my faith and goodwill.

The victims of organised child pornography and organised pedophilia deserve so much better than the appalling situation that exists in Victoria. I am sickened and saddened by Victoria Police's obvious decision not to conduct
an honest, competent and ethical investigation, and I am deeply disappointed in the Chief Commissioner's decision to allow such a deplorable situation to continue.

I repeat my call for a Parliamentary Inquiry into this whole case.


Yours sincerely,


(Dr) Reina Michaelson
Executive Director
CSAPP Inc.
Victoria


You can read some follow-up correspondence between Dr Michaelson and Victoria police here.

Back to homepage