Trouble at the Embassy

Share Button

The document is posted.  As you can see  I decided to post it both fully redacted, and as  text version with pseudonyms replacing many of the redacted names and hence, hopefully, making it easier for everyone to follow the gist the gist of what happened:

10 November 2013:  Trouble at the Embassy (Statement signed by victim’s mother recalling events which transpired after son was sodomised by Brother Lawrence) (Accused/Accused G-L/Lawrence:  Brother Lawrence Lambert fic)

10 November 2013:  Trouble at the Embassy (text version of above with pseudonyms rather than redactions for  many of the names) (Accused/Accused G-L/Lawrence:  Brother Lawrence Lambert fic)

Yes, I will be commenting.  But, not now.  Time for a break.  However, I will let you know that prior to posting the document I contacted the Australian Embassy in Tokyo to ask if there was any comment or clarification regarding the mother’s statement as to how the situation regarding the sexual abuse of her son by Brother Lawrence was handled by officials with the Embassy.  I received the following reply from am Embassy official:

In response to your enquiry, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has deep sympathy for victims of abuse. It takes these allegations seriously and has provided the attached statement to the Australian Federal Police. As the embassy staff allegedly involved are no longer employees of the department, the department is not in a position to investigate. The department has passed to the Australian Federal Police any material relevant to the matter.

I am still thinking that through.

Enough for now,


This entry was posted in Accused or charged, Brothers of Christian Instruction, Circling the wagons and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Trouble at the Embassy

  1. Australian Embassy lies ? says:

    I can not accept the official response from the Australian Embassy as being truthful. For the official Australlian Embassy response to expect that Sylvia would accept that the Embassy can not investigate criminal acts as the perpetrators are no longer employees defies belief. If we are to believe these statements it would follow suit that if any Australlian diplomat commits a crime that they can resign and hence no longer be an employee, and there will be no investigation. This proposition is absurd to the extent it must be untruthful. It would follow suit that the writer treated Sylvia as a fool and thought this would placate her. It is more like a red flag to a bull in a china store.

    I can now see the Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop becoming embroiled to facilitate a truthful response. No doubt the writer was very junior Embassy staff member, not a diplomat, perhaps a low level Attaché not experienced in dealing with sensitive matters, nor dealing with a tenacious person with the grip of a bulldog.

    I can’t wait to read Sylvia’s sequel (s) to this letter.

  2. Why didn't they shoot them? says:

    Why didn’t the Australian diplomats just put a bullet through them both. After all diplomatic immunity aside, they could then resign, hence cease to be employees, and that would be the end of it. Or in the grounds of the Australian Embassy, protected under the Vienna Convention, say nothing after the bullets and put the bodies on the street. Japanese Police would be powerless to investigate (genuinely legally powerless) to investigate a matter inside the Embassy.

    OMG. How can this official denial of investigative ability be accepted A load of \~<#}]{.

Leave a Reply