As the title says, this is going to be a time line from the first accusation involving my daughter up to the final Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case. Those things that should have been brought out in court will be analyzed here. After all, the court never had a chance to hear the case because the accused fled a warrant for his arrest, and the President of this country (now deposed) ordered the case withdrawn from court, denying the court the jurisdiction to adjudicate the case. Is he guilty? Let the reader be the judge, because the courts that should have heard the case were denied to properly judge and convict or reprieve.
November 17, 1997: Police blotter states that child accuses one (1) boy of sexual molestation ten (10) or more times. Boy banned to his parent’s home some 33 kilometers away, never to come back again. Shay Cullen later claims that the half brother of the girl was also accused at this time. Was he?
November 17, 1997: Medical examination done showing hymen intact, anus intact, and mere abrasions (scratches) in the area. Shay Cullen later claims that the doctor could not see the lacerations (tears) because they were healed (hymens do not heal to become intact again, or do they?), and that the doctor could not detect the lacerations because of a poorly equipped hospital. Such a statement should be considered along with his other statements about the “sleazy bar” of Mr. & Mrs. Joost.
January 29, 1998: Preda contacts Olongapo City National Bureau of Investigation, Department of Social Welfare and Development, San Fernando, Pampanga for assistance in taking into custody a child continually being abused by one boy. Iba, Zambales Provincial Social Welfare and Development (PSWD) called by San Fernando and directed to assist in securing custody of the alleged abused child , convincing the authorities that the child is only adopted (see note, reproduced here. Investigations by PSWD confirm that one boy was allegedly having sexually abused my daughter, but time element not investigated as to whether abuse was ongoing or not. Custody initiated by PSWD. Note left for father at his house, another at the school. Verification of medical examination made at the San Marcelino District Hospital by PSWD. Report released 3 Feb. Contact made with PSWD worker by father, who is informed that child will be held “2-3 days only” for investigation of the alleged sexual abuse. NO CHARGES FILED by PSWD or PREDA and interviews as required by law not followed (See Republic Act 7610).
January 30, 1998: Contact made by father of Gloria and mother of alleged abuser with Shay Cullen. Request to allow Gloria to attend her birthday party on 31 January denied by Shay Cullen, even if social worker attends to monitor the child for her safety and security. Shay Cullen says he will file charges against father for obstruction of justice. Cullen tells me to sign agreement to provide my daughter with mental/emotional counseling. I was not given a copy until 5 March 1998 when he provided it as an attachment to his answer to the Habeas Corpus hearing. Said agreement gave away my parental rights to a Catholic priest for a year, and I’m not Catholic! I was of the understanding that she was going to be given treatment, and I clearly was trying to get her home, and Shay Cullen knew this.
January 31, 1998: House girl interviewed by Cullen, also tricked into signing custody of her son over to Preda (she claims she was not allowed to read it, and that it was snatched away from her the moment she signed it). However, Preda did not require his presence and sent him home.
February 3, 1998: On this date, Shay Cullen learns of the intact hymen of my daughter, as the medical report is issued.
According to the previous chapter, I mentioned that Shay Cullen was already trying to have me discredited as a father. If you look carefully at the note here, you will see that my daughter is referred to as "adopted," and this is dated January 29, 1998, some 104 days after the first police report of October 17, 1997. Here is a captured view of link dated May 15, 2005 where he is still referring to my daughter as adopted.
Now, this is before I ever had a chance to talk to these people from Iba, the provincial capital. How can they make such an assumption? Considering that Shay Cullen not only then, but several time later (for which I accused him of libel) called my daughter adopted, even using the term "from Filipino parents in Angeles City." I will be pointing out quite often his misstatements. It is up to the reader to decide who is telling the truth.
A time line needs to be established as to the events regarding this rape of a child. Was she RAPED by two slightly older boys? Or, where they doing only what children all over the world do about that age? Or was it really only ONE boy that did the troubling acts, and the other is only a scapegoat?
For one thing, the incidents being acted upon by Shay Cullen occurred in 1997, had been duly reported to the police and the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), were duly logged and investigated. The only boy referenced in the police reports was no longer in the area, but some 20 miles (33 kilometers) away. This could have been easily tested by simply asking the teachers if the boy had been at school at any time since the reported incident and when was the last time that he was seen in the area, but these questions were never asked. Why?
According to the Mayo University, children get interested in the opposite sex about seven years old and then again about twelve. At the time of this first happening (June/July 1997) the girl was six and the boys were 11.
She was picked up on January 29. The note above is just one proof that this statement is true, but there is also a police report on that date that confirms this, further identifying only the house maid's son as the accused.
Shay Cullen presented not one, but TWO (2) log book entries for this date. This in itself is suspicious as to the truth of his denials. One log book entry was obviously back dated from 30 January to 29 January. Look at the enlarged area of the log book at the changed date. Was this the original? Was this presented as proof of his innocence by mistake? Is this the reason that a second log book entry, signed by the same person was presented? Why was a second log book made, differing only in the language used and signed by the same person who signed the tampered log book entry? Was it Shay Cullen's mistake to present both log books as his evidence? Why did the person who wrote the resolution for the Office of the President ignore this evidence that the Department of Justice had in its possession? Was he paid off? How can Shay Cullen tell the world that I fabricated evidence? Am I wrong, or did Shay Cullen fabricate or direct his workers to fabricate the evidence for himself?
The resolution is published later in this book, and the reader can determine for himself if there seems to be any corruption involved.
Until February 3, 1998, there was NO indication at all that her half brother was involved. Please look at the October 1997 police report and the January 1998 police reports. They clearly indicate only ONE boy was accused, yet according to Shay Cullen, "she told her teachers, the DSWD workers and the police...." Is this statement of his really true?
I was interviewed at Preda by Shay Cullen on January 30, 1998, said interview is reproduced as separate pages here. The complete interview is pages 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21.
Interestingly, he made a shorter version with even more direct accusations against me and presented it as evidence later, and it is here as pages 1, 2, 3. I will comment about the differences, as well as some very exact points here (to be added):
Further, if you look at page 6 of the above interview, you'll note that my son was waiting downstairs, and was interviewed after I, yet to this date, Shay Cullen has never released not one word of that interview, yet he has filed charges against my son for the rape of my daughter. I think it would be very strange if, because I now mention this fact, a "transcript" of that interview should ever be published by Shay Cullen. But I wouldn't put it past him, but also I'd be very skeptical of the contents of any "transcript" that shows up YEARS after it was done.
He also had me sign an agreement on this date, saying that it was for treating my daughter's mental and emotional state. Certainly, because he was a "priest" I signed the document, but I was not given even a copy of the document, which was done in the local language, and Shay Cullen knew I did not speak the local language. It was not until later that I found out that I had signed away my parental rights for a year at a Catholic institution (and I'm not Catholic)! I did not get a copy of this document until it was presented to the court on 5 March 1998 as part of his answer to my petition for Habeas Corpus.
Now the child was picked up 29 January. I, my son, and the house maid was interviewed on 30 January. The house maid's boy was asked to be presented on 1 February. It seems that there was very little interest to find out his side of the story. Wonder why?
The house maid's boy was called back on 3 February. Note the other things that happened on this day:
1) The medical examination was released, not to Preda as Shay Cullen claims, but to Mrs. Fronda of the DSWD in Iba.
2) Now is the date that my daughter is interviewed by Shay Cullen. Why was she not interviewed on January 29 as required by law? Why was the police, DSWD personnel or NBI not involved with the interview as strongly suggested ("Whenever practicable, the Department shall conduct the interview jointly with the police and/or a barangay official.") in the law? Besides, the NBI (National Bureau of Investigation) was only about a mile from the Preda Foundation, and they took FIVE (5) DAYS before they interviewed her! Was she being fed information as to what she should say (watch for more evidence of this possibility later).
3) The boy is called back to Preda, arrives before his mother, and is taken immediately before his mother arrives to see the prosecutor of child abuse cases to swear out an admission of his guilt for two (2) counts (not ten (10) as Shay Cullen has so often claimed) of sexual abuse as well as a complaint for against me for violation of the child abuse law.
4) The house maid's daughter is also interviewed, and Shay Cullen claims that she admitted sexual advances by me, yet he did NOT place her into protective custody, as he did my daughter!
5) The house maid's daughter is taken to the Provincial capital and I and her mother stayed outside while the DSWD interviewed the daughter. This was done because Shay Cullen made the accusation at PREDA that he had evidence that I was sexually abusing the child. Now, to note clearly here, Shay Cullen acted immediately with involuntary custody of my daughter based on an accusation of rape by one boy. HE DID NOT, NOR DID THE DSWD act to take custody of the maid's daughter EVEN WHEN PRESENTED TO THE DSWD FOR VERIFICATION OF THE ACCUSATION, yet to this day he presents on his web page the "transcript" of her interview (published in violation of the law) of her "confession" of being sexually molested. Note that the date of the interview was 3 February 1998, yet the accusation was never raised to court, nor was involuntary custody made while the child was a minor. Inasmuch as he continues to proclaim my "guilt" on the Internet, does the reader get the impression that he has no case, yet he continues to libel me over an unproven accusation? Is this continued libel of his for glory, donations, or what? Is he in fact conning the readers, or am I?
My question to the reader is this: Why do you think that the prosecutor for child abuse cases did not immediately forward the two statements of the boy named "Roger" on Shay Cullen's web site to the court, immediately causing justice to be served? Is there a possibility that he knew that the statements were false? Why is it that this same prosecutor, who has knowledge of Shay Cullen's publicizing, has never at least chastised him for it? Why do you think this same prosecutor, now a full judge, filed a case in court against me for "malicious prosecution" for my complaining about his interference in my daughter's case AFTER HE INHIBITED HIMSELF AND THE CASE WAS ASSIGNED TO ANOTHER PROSECUTOR? With a boy who claims (on paper) that he knows that a criminal act is being done on his sister, and the sister "admitting" that she was being sexually abused, it would seem to me that a very strong case was afoot! Yet Shay Cullen could not in actual fact persue the case because he knew it was a frame up that would backfire, and the prosecutor who took the two damning statements did not file the case to court for the same reason! Or, if he claims that it was not a frame up, then what was it?
Another strong possibility: The boy claimed that he did NOT read the documents, but only signed them, and therefore did not know their contents. Now, the boy tells this priest that he raped the girl two times, is given two documents to sign with the understanding that he will not be prosecuted if signs the documents. The boy is twelve years old, scared, without his mother to help him, and the priest says he'll help him. What does the reader think really happened?
