Families SA paedophile testifies to the Royal Commission

FAMILIES SA child rapist Shannon McCoole said he would reveal all – but then refused to answer multiple questions about his vile crimes in a Royal Commission his lawyer described as a “witch hunt”.

• How did McCoole infiltrate Families SA?
• McCoole discussed friend’s vile plan to buy Romanian baby and sexually abuse it
• How Families SA paedophile Shannon McCoole turned into a monster

MOMENTS after Shannon McCoole sat in the dock of a Royal Commission into the state’s child protection system today the Families SA sex predator said there were no topics about his depraved crimes he would not answer.

Five hours later, McCoole had offered no recollection to a series of alleged “red flags” raised by his co-workers and outright denied any offending that police hadn’t proved with seized evidence stored within his computer.

He also refused to answer specific details about the alleged sexual assault of a young girl, which lead to his suspension before he was cleared and promoted a year before his arrest, or discuss various details of chat logs with associates on his international child exploitation website on the grounds it may incriminate him further.

In contrary to evidence obtained in the contemporaneous chat logs, McCoole told the commission he had no intention of abusing a child before gaining employment with Nanny SA, a branch of Families SA, in February 2011.

It took the notorious paedophile just two weeks from winning the Nanny’s SA role before he abused a young verbally limited boy in a car after picking him up from childcare.

Wearing a white shirt with a collar, a heavier McCoole at first seemed nervous and glanced at the packed gallery awaiting answers. But soon, McCoole relaxed his left elbow against the dock and for the most part clasped his hands together in front of him as he spoke confidently and articulately.

On several occasions, his lawyer, Stephen Ey objected to the lines of questioning claiming they were a “witch hunt” and not focused on the commission’s objectives – to investigate failings by the state’s child protection systems.

Court sketch of Shannon McCoole by Tim Ide.

During his evidence, McCoole denied planning to abuse seven children in state care over a three and a half year period and claimed little memory of the incidents.

“A lot of offending I don’t recall very clearly at all so it’s hard to say what my thinking was at all,” he said.

While the specific words of the logs remain suppressed, The Advertiser can reveal that in the lead up to his employment with the child welfare department, McCoole allegedly wrote of:

AN intention to offend against children when he gains the position

HOW to gain access to children through his employment

STRATEGIES to avoid detection

In his evidence, McCoole dismissed the entries as “fantasies” and that he never really intended carrying out the abuse.

In other evidence revealed today, McCoole told the commission he had repeatedly brought his personal camera, which he used to photograph his crimes, in a backpack into the care houses but had no fear of it being detected.

He denied a strategy, or intricate degree of planning to his crimes, saying he took the opportunities when they arose by “happenstance”.

“If I found myself in a situation where I was alone with a child then I might offend at that time,” he said.

“I think I was past the point of caring if I was arrested in some ways.”

Despite being uncloaked as a predator in June 2014, McCoole denied a co-worker’s earlier evidence that he had been interrupted sexually assaulting a girl in mid-2013.

The co-worker had raised her concerns with management but McCoole was cleared after an investigation and promoted soon after. He has not been charged over the allegations.

McCoole also said he was not sanctioned or disciplined, or made aware, by superiors of complaints alleging his inappropriate behaviour towards children by co-workers.

He told the commission he had no memory of being spoken to for allowing a child to reportedly touch him inappropriately and said he did not realise an R-rated movie, about young couples having sex, was on a hard drive when he bought it into the care house.

Counsel assisting the commissioner, Emily Telfer, questioned whether McCoole had deliberately left the hard drive for the children to “accidentally” find.

McCoole denied this and admitted he was “relieved” when superiors decided he should be supervised for a short period but no further action be taken against him.

He also denied other sexually motivated reports, including barging into the bathroom while a girl was partially nude, saying he did so because he believed she was self-harming.

He said he abused children with whom he had built up a rapport and denied ever telling them to keep the abuse secret.

“I have thought about it a lot ... I think it happened partly to do with my association with other people that if the children enjoyed it, or appeared to be enjoying it, it was OK – it wouldn’t hurt them.”

McCoole said he realised he was attracted to young children at about 14 or 15 years old and had feared his entire life his secret would be revealed.

“I don’t want to be this way. It is hard to describe how much you hate yourself, you know something is wrong but I still thought I would be able to control it.”

He said he did not seek professional help as he was scared he would lose everything.

“I would lose my family, my friends, everything that I held dear to me. I did not believe the psychologist would keep this confidential. I thought they had a responsibility to report.”

He said he could not recall during his recruiting process ever having to answer a question probing whether he could possibly pose a sexual danger to children.

Last year, McCoole was sentenced to 35 years jail with a non-parole period of 28 years. He is appealing the severity of that sentence.