False reporting of child sex abuse: Hoaxtead checks all the boxes

One of the ongoing disputes between the Hoaxtead hawkers and those of us who believe the original allegations are a load of crap is the idea that ‘children don’t lie’ about sexual abuse.

We agree that all allegations of sexual abuse should be taken seriously, and children should be believed when evidence is found to substantiate their claims. The vast majority of child sex abuse allegations are in fact validated. But a significant minority are found to be untrue. The question is, how can investigators determine which is which?

One of our team recently ran across this checklist, used to help investigators evaluate false claims of sexual assault:

Let’s have a look at the ‘Indicators of True and False Reports’ in the context of Hoaxtead:

1. Abe and Ella did not report their suspicions of child sex abuse immediately. Rather, in early August 2014, they mentioned to Jean Clement, Abe’s brother-in-law, that the kids had been sexually abused. JC told them they’d need evidence; Abe said he’d get some. When the children allegedly began to relate the details of their abuse, rather than rush them to the nearest hospital or police station, Abe and Ella kept them in Morocco, then made the infamous videos during the trip back to the UK.
2. The amount of detail the children seemed able to recall was astounding. Most kids who recount sexual abuse tend to be vague on certain details, but that’s not the case here. Names, dates, techniques, physical descriptions…it’s all here. Unfortunately none of it checked out upon investigation, but the children recited the details like champs.
3. The children recite their stories as though they’re describing a trip to the seaside. One might expect kids who’d been brutalised in the way they describe to be at least a little shaken by the experience, but that’s not the case here. They talk about repeated soul-destroying physical and emotional trauma as if it’s perfectly normal. No tears, no hesitation, no distress whatsoever.
4. The allegations are physically improbable, impossible, and bizarre. End of story.
5. There are multiple inconsistencies in their stories. For instance, at one point the little girl says she doesn’t know how the babies are skinned to make shoes for the cult members. A couple of days later, though, she describes the process in detail.
6. The physical evidence is completely lacking. No secret rooms. No blood, no bodily fluids, no missing or dead babies, no human remains, no nothing. The only physical evidence of abuse are the scars and bruises on the children’s faces, which are obviously very recent and attributable to Abraham Christie’s physical assaults on them.
7. The children’s injuries are completely inconsistent with the type and extent of abuse reported. While the Hoaxtead pushers insist that Dr Hodes’ initial finding of anal fissures is conclusive, it has been repeatedly shown to be incidental and not significant. And no other physical evidence has ever been shown to exist.
8. Material omissions, misrepresentations, false statements, and other attempts to bolster claims? Where do we even begin?

In light of all of this, it seems bizarre that anyone would actually continue to take Abe and Ella’s story seriously. We can only imagine that those who do so are motivated by an agenda that has little to do with the truth of the situation.