Pookster takes on Hoaxteaders

For months now, Hoaxtead promoters have flooded the internet with preposterous allegations and unsubstantiated claims, some of them physically impossible and others just highly improbable, as they try desperately to bolster their ‘case’.

They ignore the fact that it’s done and dusted now: the courts have made their decision regarding the veracity of the case, Ella’s appeals have been rejected. It’s over, but not for the Hoaxtead pushers.

They continue thrashing, like the tail of a dinosaur that hasn’t yet received the bad news: its head went missing several months ago. That’s why we’re so grateful to the valiant warriors out there who continue to try to speak sense to idiocy.

One of our favourites is Pookster78, who brings both humour and rationality to everything he says:


(We should mention that we don’t actually know the PookMeister’s gender, never having met him/her. If she’s a lady, we apologise…but we’re sure she’ll understand.)

Here’s a great example of Pookster taking Abe apart, piece by piece:

Pookster78 2015-11-25 2

Abe, using his ‘Dicky Rearman’ sock account, writes this eye-wateringly long and rambling attempt at a strategic offensive move:

The mysterious, unexplained motive for the mother, ella and her partner abe, for coaching the children is… still UNEXPLAINED https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Aj5hoHEp-eQ
As is the reason why the mother and her partner would coach the children to give such clear and graphic descriptions of genital distinguishing features such as birthmarks, tattoos, warts, pierce-rings – the absence of which could easily be revealed by a simple medical inspection.
And there is the IMPOSSIBILITY of coaching actual anal-scarring in both children, and RAD in the case of xxxxx, which consultant paediatrician Dr Hodes confirmed were consistent with the children’s allegations of sexual abuse.
There is no need, whatsoever, to SPECULATE whether the children are telling the truth or not: those accused of rape and genitally-identified by the children, either possess these distinguishing genital features, or they do not. This still can and NEEDS to be investigated NOW. Anything that may have been removed surgically/by laser treatment over the last year would still leave signs that such an operation had recently been performed.
Yet the police, judiciary and the MSM are united in sticking to their completely irrational story that the children were coached. And, as far as I am aware, not ONE MP has had a word to say publicly about this case – but then that’s no surprise…
HAMPSTEAD CHILD RAPE AND MURDER COVER-UP Imagine you are a detective and you receive a report from a mother that her two children have been raped by a number of adults known to them. The children give very clear, detailed descriptions of distinguishing marks (warts, pierce-rings, tattoos, etc.) on, and around their attackers’ genitals. They even make detailed drawings of these distinguishing genital marks. They name many of their attackers, most of whom are teachers and parents at their school. Mum and partner have recorded all this evidence on mobile-phone videos and a laptop which you now have possession of. The children are interviewed individually, on two separate occasions, six days apart. The children give consistent accounts of being brutally raped by the people they have already named and genitally identified on the two occasions they are interviewed, which is consistent with the video recordings testimony. What more evidence would you need before you decided to question those accused? Don’t know? Well, imagine that during the investigation, medical examinations of the two children conducted by a consultant paediatrician with more than 30 years’ experience, confirm findings which are consistent with the children’s allegations of sexual abuse (anal-scarring in both children, and RAD in the case of the girl). What more evidence or testimony would you require the children to provide before you decided that questioning those named and genitally-identified adults was necessary? The above situations are real – these events happened during the Hampstead Child Rape and Murder investigation September 5th- 22nd, 2014, and are fully documented. Now consider what the Metropolitan police actually did – AND DID NOT DO – during that so-called investigation.
On the very first day of the “investigation”, detectives DI John Cannon (leading the investigation) and DC Alan Rogers immediately concealed the highly-incriminating identifying evidence from the other members of the investigating team. The mobile-phone and laptop containing this crucial video evidence was stored in an unidentified location in another part of London for the duration of the entire investigation.
FACT: Not one of the people named and genitally identified by xxxxxxx and xxxxx was required to undergo a medical examination to check to see if they possessed such distinguishing genital features.
FACT: Not one of the people accused of rape and genitally identified by the children was even questioned by the police!
FACT: The consultant paediatrician’s medical examinations’ findings were not only ignored by the police, but the police closed the investigation the SAME DAY Dr Hodes completed her full medical report (22nd September 2014) – and Detective Inspector John Cannon, leading the investigation, did not enter one word of Dr Hodes’ medical report in the police CRIS report.
Imagine if you were one of the accused and you KNEW you were completely innocent. What would you do? Wouldn’t you be outraged and vociferously deny the accusations? Wouldn’t you immediately take the mother to court for false accusation, slander, defamation of character, and any other charges you could think of? After all, you wouldn’t be alone, would you? You would have the full and determined support of all those others who had also been falsely accused, wouldn’t you? All the teachers and parents would be united in their determination to ensure their good names were cleared, wouldn’t they? You would never allow such blatantly untrue and disgusting accusations to go unchallenged, would you? And you know that you have no such genital markings corresponding to the children’s descriptions – and could prove this if necessary, couldn’t you? Or would you choose to slink off and hide, staying silent, keeping a low profile until you believed the whole thing had blown over?
All of the named and genitally-identified accused have chosen to do the latter: they have remained silent – many appear to have disappeared completely. The only one who has said anything is Ricky Dearman, who is named as the Cult leader. And he gave an interview on National television where he LIED to millions of viewers.
Drifloud ·
Police, social services, (U.K. equivalent of Child Protection Services in U.S.) and the judiciary/court masonic cult members and minions were accustomed to quickly and quietly covering up their depraved actions with all the resources at their disposal, expecting the Hampstead Cover up to be yet another simple case. Hampstead is their Black Swan.
Black swan theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The black swan theory, or theory of black swan events is a metaphor that describes an event that comes as a surprise, has a major effect, and is often inappropriately rationalised after the fact with the benefit of hindsight.
The theory was developed by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, to explain:
The disproportionate role of high-profile, hard-to-predict, and rare events that are beyond the realm of normal expectations in history, science, finance, and technology.
The non-computability of the probability of the consequential rare events using scientific methods (owing to the very nature of small probabilities).
The psychological biases that blind people, both individually and collectively, to uncertainty and to a rare event’s massive role in historical affairs.
Unlike the earlier and broader “black swan problem” in philosophy (i.e. the problem of induction), Taleb’s “black swan theory” refers only to unexpected events of large magnitude and consequence and their dominant role in history. Such events, considered extreme outliers, collectively play vastly larger roles than regular occurrences.[1] More technically, in the scientific monograph Silent Risk , Taleb mathematically defines the black swan problem as “stemming from the use of degenerate metaprobability”.[2]
Nemesis )+(

Yes, complete with cut-and-paste bits from Wikipedia, bless his hemp-stained little cotton socks.

Most people would be daunted at the prospect of trying to respond to this mishmash, but watch how Pookster slices and dices it:

Ella explained her motive to Jean Clement in the secret recording. That RD had just regained access and she didn’t want him to see the children.
I asked Abraham what his excuse will be if they ever do look for tattoos and find none. His response was telling. Abraham wrote back to say that it wouldn’t matter because KF has a port wine birthmark. I pointed out that the birthmark is said to be huge, and on her upper leg and thigh. Areas which the children will likely have seen during swimming or normal PE. Abraham deleted my comment and his response.
Dr Hodes thought she found scarring, but in February, she amended her report to say that it might be other irregularities, a possible normal variant. (i.e. not scarring at all). Abraham still does not understand this.
Dr Hodes also found RAD in the girl but as Pauffley pointed out, there has been some controversy over RAD. The judge was right and Dr Hodes and her team have possibly solved the controversy in their 2015 meta analysis. It seems that RAD is only rare for non abused children in the LL position, but more commonly found in the KC position. Dr Hodes did not find RAD in her initial examination in the LL position, only in the KC position. New recomendations, co authored by Dr Hodes, describe that the KC position should never be used alone.
Interestingly, the meta analysis also showed that enemas are a cause of RAD. The court was told that Ella gave the kids enemas, and Dr Hodes conceded it could have cause the RAD.
Actually, the police only closed the satanic cult element on that day. They kept open the possibility of sexual abuse. There is a document entitled “Acknowledgment of service” which details that. Strange that Abe and Ella wouldn’t know this, because it’s their document.
Taking someone to court costs tens, sometimes hundreds of thousands of pounds. It also costs a lot of time and stress. Plus, in this case the mother had the excuse that Sabine released the tapes. Sabine has the excuse it was Tapnewsblog and they always have the excuse of blaming the children.
Nobody needs to prove their innocence. They will probably also know it is futile as the goal posts would just be changed (as Abraham did earlier in my comment). However, the most likely explanation is that they have been advised by the police and their solicitors not to engage with the conspiracy nuts. To do so would give them credibility and set a precedent whereby they would think they could direct all investigation.
Imagine you are a police investigator and you have to caution a man for assaulting his own son. Imagine that the same man pops again a few months later, with two children covered in cuts and bruises. With one particularly visible scar on the girl’s chin. The children are making highly implausible claims about several schools and a church. Imagine that you can’t find the father’s address but the children do claim to know where a teacher lives and where secret rooms exist in the church. Obviously you would search the church and see if the children really know where the teacher lives. You also decide to check the swimming pool cubicle and send the children for medical examinations.
Imagine that the children could not show you the teacher’s house. That there were no secret rooms and the cubicle at the swimming pool was too small for what they claim (likewise with other features).
Imagine that when you next see the children they begin to describe being hit by the same man you previously had to warn for assaulting his son.
Imagine that what they had previously accused their father of (spoon licks), they were now saying was Abraham. Imagine that when they go to the medical it turns out they have numerous wounds attributed to Abraham that couldn’t possibly be the father, because the wounds were too fresh.
Imagine that you bring the children for their third interview and they now say there was no sexual abuse or cult, and that Abraham coerced them to lie using violence. Would you really storm people’s houses and demand to see their genitals?…….would that even be legal anymore?
There are many more white swans than there are black swans.

Abe is clearly a bit befuddled by this succinct and accurate series of facts, so he falls back on his precious ‘black swan theory’ (dammit, why’d Ella ever let him watch that movie?):

Pookster78 2015-11-25 3Of course, Abe has no intention of tackling Pookster’s points, so he slinks off once more, muttering to himself about black swans and melanin and rainbow children. Here’s a fun fact about Abe: he really, really, really doesn’t like being made to look stupid. And Pookster does such an excellent job of just that.

So let’s raise our Saturday morning cups of coffee (or tea, as the case may be) to our favourite keyboard warrior: to Pookster!



11 thoughts on “Pookster takes on Hoaxteaders

  1. Pookster should be congratulated for efforts beyond the call of duty.

    This sentence nicely sums up this case : “They continue thrashing, like the tail of a dinosaur that hasn’t yet received the bad news: its head went missing several months ago”.

    Ignored by the ‘cult promoters ‘ is the fact video “evidence” as in this case is now not accepted in all the English speaking countries I know of : UK,Canada, USA & Australia and I’m pretty sure the same may apply throughout Europe. Strict procedures must be followed as they were in the police interviews with the kids because of a child’s wonderful ability to create a world of their own which in this case, the evil Abe has perverted into a vile scheme to undermine justice.

    Liked by 2 people

    • I think that’s an excellent point. Hoax supporters forget that the kids’ videos are far from evidence–they’re just home videos with a particularly grotesque twist.


  2. From the Judgement:

    60. According to the mother, the “most convincing argument of their believability is the
    utter consistency between what they are saying separately and together, on holiday,
    back home, when with Jean Clement Yaohirou on 04.09.14 and in the interviews with
    Barnet Police on 05.09.14 and 11.09.14.”

    Note Ella’s claim of ‘utter consistency’.

    Yet in the Jean Clement tape, Abe reveals:

    ‘we question them separately, like the police do…*anything that corresponds perfectly*, we…(1:20 mins https://www.youtube.com/watchv=DijXrJOP83Y)…

    …indicating that his acceptance of the children’s accounts was limited to those aspects in each that ‘corresponded’ according to his approval.

    Later in the tape he explains further how he skews the children’s ‘evidence’, presumably before continuing his ‘badgering’ of them (his own description, from the Jean Clement tape):

    Ella and I, we will begin to discuss further aspects of the situation and by discussing it we brainstorm and together we come up, we work out, we work things out…..

    He describes one child ‘distracting’ them in their ‘work’.

    Something Abe is obviously unaware of, and should consider -as he was never trained in the highly specialist area of interviewing children in abuse cases – is that there are good reasons why anyone with a vested interest (or lack of objectivity, and sensitivity) should never question a child where any abuse is suspected due, in part, to the inherent suggestibility of children. Inappropriate questioning of children about sexual matters is an abuse in itself. Abraham abused the children.

    Does Abe have any ‘insight’ into himself at all?: He has already been convicted of child abuse, but he ploughs on, in such sensitive territory, regardless. Like a bull in a china shop, but worse.

    He would do well to read this from a paper on children’s suggestibility: Things to know before interviewing a child

    Confirmatory Bias

    It has been shown that people have the tendency to be biased towards information that confirms their own personal beliefs, rejecting information that disagrees with those beliefs (Goodman & Melinder, 2007). This tendency has been demonstrated even among professionals and social scientists. A person’s established beliefs are often difficult to change and resist contradictory evidence (Ross, Lepper, & Hubbard, 1975). This phenomenon, referred to as “confirmation bias”, can have especially detrimental effects when working with child witnesses. If an interviewer enters a room, prepared to question a child, and brings along pre-established beliefs about the case or the accuracy and credibility of the child, the interviewer may unintentionally put disproportional weight on some statements the child makes while ignoring others. If the interviewer’s initial suspicions are incorrect, this could create a false report. Confirmation bias is potentially a problem for all people who may interact with a child witness, even professionals in the field of forensics, human development, and social science. In fact, experts tend to be more confident in their evaluations of witnesses than others, despite not necessarily being more skilled at distinguishing accurate from inaccurate statements (DePaulo et al., 2003 and Wessel et al., 2006)….

    ….Even One Suggestive Interview Can Create False Memories

    A number of studies demonstrate that repeated suggestive interviews taint the accuracy of children’s memories (e.g., Bruck et al., 1995, Bruck et al., 2002 and Leichtman and Ceci, 1995). Many studies have also reported that children can incorporate suggestions about salient events after a single suggestive interview (e.g., Ceci et al., 2007a). In one study, Hritz (2014) found that asking children to knowingly make a false accusation in one interview caused a third of the children to maintain the false accusation during a later neutral interview, even after being told the first interviewer had made a mistake.

    Current research has explored how a single suggestive interview can have equally detrimental effects as multiple interviews when (1) the strength of the original memory trace is weak or the memory is of repeated events and (2) the timing of the misinformation occurs relatively close to the original event compared to the time from the memory test. These findings illustrate the importance of evaluating every interview with a child, as even one biased interviewer can taint a child’s testimony…..


    Liked by 1 person

    • ..although in this case it was not ‘false memory’ but forced memory. But still relevant overall re suggestible nature of children, and how easily they can be moulded or intimidated to say what adults want.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Yes, the children were well aware that they were being forced to say things–as they told the police once they were sure they were safe from Abe.


  3. LOL! Abraham says: “The police, judiciary and the MSM are united in sticking to their completely irrational story that the children were coached. And, as far as I am aware, not ONE MP has had a word to say publicly about this case.”

    …and he is surprised?? haha… they all know it’s a hoax Abe!.. and they have all yet to see one iota of evidence of SRA. Give up your ludicrous game, Abe. NOBODY (who is sane) believes you!! 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Question, I actually never thought that this was real, as basically I am aware that parents will concot the most amazing stories, especially if there is an acromonious feud between partners. For some reason when it comes to the children, parents can go overboard, as indeed can social workers; it seems they enter the realms of Alice in Wonderland whereby they fabricate woven webs of dishonesty, whilst trying to both discredit their partner and distract the system.

    Problem being that some parents and indeed professionals are exceptionally adept at this indeed Social workers unfortunately can also enhance this cycle of blame counterblame creativity, especially if they take the side of one parent over the other, without good reason. What appears to have happened in this instance is that one side of the partnership decided there was no way on earth that the other was going to see the child concerned, therefore concots an incredible story based around child abuse and cults, possibly from learning about such on the media? I have seen Social workers and indeed Local Authorities twist an event into something which never actually happened and vice versa, i.e attempt to state that an event which did actually happen, didn’t. It needs to be said that both parents and professionals are capable of the wildest tails imagnable and I have come across this several times when it comes to the professionals.

    The system for its part also contributes to the mania, because of the terrible fear factor which surrounds it. ALL parents are likely to be traumatised especially if there is a threat to remove their children, whether they have provably, – (and that is the important part), – done something to them or not.

    Question how do you prevent something like this from happening again? What safeguards can be put in place in the way of help and reassurance to parents that the state is going to act with integrity and honesty and treat the individuals concerned equally and impartially, especially when it comes to a divorce case. For my part, when I divorced (Im not perfect), I completely refused cafcass involvement as did my ex partner, we sorted everything out ourselves. Basicaly because of things we heard on the media. The divorce was amicable. – By the way, both of ours are at Uni now. I digress. The state for its part has chosen to get involved with individual lives at an individual level and thereby makes itself wide open to all kinds of accusations and counter accusations. Worse, those working for the state can also premeditatedly lie, scheme, fabricate and engineer. Whereby the type of scenario we see above can easily come from both the professional side and the parent. One only has to remember the Cleveland child abuse scandal, or for that matter the scandal surrounding the Sally Clark case, the Harold Shipman case and many others to know that.

    Making the family courts open will be a start, it is surprising how people will change their attitudes if they think for one second they are going to be monitored or reviewed. However, on its own, that is insufficient to guarantee better practice. For her part Sarah has suggested all interviews made by Social Services should be recorded and I agree with her. More than that though, every social worker, judge and cafcass representative, should be made fully accountable to a higher authority, perhaps an “ofsted” type system? which has powers to monitor, investigate and act on reported irregularities. If there is no excuse for parents to engineer and fabricate in this highly disturbing manner, then there most certainly is no excuse for professionals to indulge themselves similarly.

    Liked by 1 person

    • How do we prevent this from happening? I think one possible deterrent would be to lay criminal charges against people who’ve made false allegations. It might make would-be fabricators think twice, though of course it wouldn’t stop the genuinely mentally ill.

      I don’t necessarily agree that family courts should be open, though. As some others have pointed out, most people aren’t keen to have their lives dissected and laid open for the tabloids’ benefit.


Comments are closed.