BULLETIN: What was on Abraham Christie’s phone?

/ 21/09/2015

Amid speculation about the contents of Abraham Christie’s mobile phone, which was apparently lost, found again, then lost…and eventually wound up in the hands of the police, we have received a startling piece of information: at least some of the pictures found on the phone were of the young daughter of one of the teachers at Christ Church Primary School.

According to very reliable sources close to the case, Abe had been making a habit of covertly stalking children connected with the school, and snapped shots when and where he could.

Would you like this man to follow and photograph your child?

Would you like this man to follow and photograph your child?

This appears to have been part of Abe’s orchestrated campaign to terrorise and humiliate families associated with the school, the neighbourhood, and environs.

We’ve received no further information on the other possible contents of his phone, but we’ll update this story as we receive further news.

Girl_Stalked_440px

Related posts

41 thoughts on “BULLETIN: What was on Abraham Christie’s phone?”

  1. Well. I suppose this answers the question on everyone’s mind: “How low can Abe stoop?”

    My heart goes out to the people he’s targetted. Just horrible.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Well the Hoaxteaders will have some sort of rationalisation or justification for that.

      If they don’t care that he physically abuses children, by admission, as documented in medical reports, as alleged by two of his victims and last but not least according to his criminal history they won’t care that he’s taking creep shots.

      I’m sure that will get dressed up as him trying to save the children.

      Photography in a public place probably isn’t illegal, but why would he do that? To release their images in the public domain perhaps as some of the 20 so-called special children and rape victims? This would be illegal. Or he’s just a pervy creep who doesn’t give a monkey’s about children? Or the harrassment of the alleged cult members?

      Liked by 2 people

          • Photography in a public place isn’t illegal; and I would hope it doesn’t become so. As I understand it there are rules that prevent you taking photographs on private property or of some one on private property using a telephoto lens. Most of the time these things are handled sensibly, but not always.

            Liked by 1 person

            • No, it’s not illegal, but in the context of Abe’s record, as well as the nature of the Hampstead hoax, it’s decidedly creepy. I know I would strongly object if I had a child who was being photographed by Abe.

              Like

  3. Abe is beginning to look like a pervert of Savile dimensions. Photographing children while fantasising about shoving dildos up them, drawing pictures of what he imagines the school teachers and parents privates look like. All this psychological projection on to perfectly ordinary people. Really makes you feel sick! He is a nasty piece of work.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. This wouldn’t be the first time Belinda has supported a paedophile in the name of protecting children. I wonder if Abe has compared notes with Brian Pead?

    Liked by 1 person

  5. If he has actually done this, like I said before, people who think he’s uncovered a cult thousands of years old won’t care or even see anything untoward in his behaviour.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Grim stuff. Perhaps Neelu might explain tomorrow to all her friends what they see in him.

    Tomorrow 22/09 at 1030 she is due at court 4 at Blackfriars Court : listed as T20150661 BERRY Neelu With a target referral trial date of 02/03/2016, presumably to a Crown Court due to the serious charges.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. ∩＿∩
    |ノ ヽ
    / ● ● |
    | (_●_) ミ
    彡､ |∪| ､｀＼
    / ＿＿ ヽノ /´> )
    (＿＿） / (_／
    | /
    | ／＼ ＼
    | / ) )
    ∪ （ ＼
    ＼＿)

    Liked by 1 person

  8. It’ll be documenting the children who he believed were the 20 others I guess? The ones with tattoos?

    If they are clothed then no further action will be taken, as pointed out, a crime has not been committed.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. http://theukdatabase.com/2012/05/04/alistair-stewart-barr/

    – Another indirect link to the Hollie Greig case. Alistair Stewart was brought to police attention by Matt Quinn, who was a part-time lecturer at the same college. Quinn (an ex-cop himself) went over his college bosses heads and brought the guy’s odd behaviour (hanging around a primary school near the college) to the attention of his former Police colleagues. Stewart was jailed of course. But Quinn, having apparently rocked the boat at the college by going to the Police first rather than allowing them the opportunity to get rid of Stewart quietly, was later bullied out of his job for his troubles – so much for whistleblowing!

    Anyway, I digress; Abe seems to have played copy-cat in relation to filming the kids “accounts” of abuse in a similar way to Malcolm Konrad-Ogilvy. I wonder if these pictures of other Hampstead kids were taken with the intention of PhotoShopping them in the same way Stewart did? – He having possibly also got that idea from some of the material surrounding Hollie Greig?

    Again; just a thought. – And if he’s been photographing children on school/private premises, surely there is a problem there because they have a reasonable expectation of privacy? i.e. Those premises are not “public places”. Intent is also important too surely? He’s hardly likely to be able to paint a picture of himself as a social historian or artist is he? They’re not his friends’ kids. – So whilst there is no direct offence in taking pictures, surely they evidence a pattern of behaviour that amounts to harassment?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Certainly in England photography is not illegal whether that be on public or private land. You can be asked to leave private premises if an objection by the land owner or their representative is made as that becomes trespass, but the act of photographing something or somebody is not illegal.

      Photography from a public space of a private space is also not illegal, so be on guard for long lenses, CCTV cameras and drones!

      Now if it was lewd or if you were in somebody’s face then a judge might take a view on that of course as you may cause alarm or distress, but I talking about simply taking photographs of people and places.

      Like

  10. Like other psychopaths, Abe’s crimes would have escalated, had he not been discovered and exposed. Goodness knows what the photo’s were for, apart from him salivating in fantasy planning. We can imagine the eventual acting out would have been a step up from what he did to P&Q. Chilling. I fear for Spanish children.

    Like

  12. Pingback: Some pertinent questions for Abraham Christie | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

  13. Pingback: Abe & Ella: ‘Child-abusing scum’, says commenter | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

Comments are closed.