Abe/Driffy admits: The accused did come forward

We’ve remarked before that it’s amazing what you can find when you look back over old material with more experienced eyes.

For instance, the issue of who gave the videos to the police has come up before, and at first glance it seemed less than critically important. Later, when we looked at it again, it turned out that in fact, it was very important indeed.

And then, in a conversation yesterday in our Comments section, some very interesting insights emerged.

It started innocently enough. Regular reader Capt. Mainwaring, talking about Abe/Drifloud’s Twitter page, commented:

In amongst the bollocks there appeared to be excerpts of the transcript from the fact finding hearing. The home made videos are mentioned, thinking of the post the other day about these. One excerpt mentioned that the videos were handed in to the police by a friend of a friend of Abe’s, he had given to keep safe. Apparently this friend watched them, recognised one of the parents mentioned as his friend, this friend passed them to the police and possibly contacted a lawyer.

Hey ho, what’s this then?

Abe gave the videos to one of his buddies, who watched them and recognised one of the parents mentioned as his friend, so passed them along, and this ‘friend of a friend’ gave them to the police. That’s peculiar, isn’t it?

Capt. M., lovely fellow that he is, went and dug up Abe/Drifloud’s old tweet, with its snippet from the fact-finding examination. Here we have Mrs Justice Pauffley questioning DI John Cannon:

Drifloud-who took video to police?

The print is pretty tiny, so here’s the text version:

Questioned by Mrs Justice Pauffley

Mrs Justice Pauffley: Where you say, on G91, ‘A video of Abraham and the mother helping the children’, etc. ‘has been obtained’, what I infer from what you have told me now is that in fact Ms Draper gave you that video?

DI John Cannon: No, it wasn’t, it wasn’t Ms Draper who gave us the video. What had happened…

Q. Where did it come from?

A. What had happened is, and this was from almost a friend of a friend, Mr Abraham had given this video to a friend of his—

Q. Mr Christie you mean?

A. Sorry. Mr Christie.

Q. Mr Christie.

A. —to a friend of his to look after. This friend had looked at the video and recognised one of the parents when they had said the name of one of the parents that they were talking about, and he called up this chap who then took a copy of this video and contacted us. He also contacted, I’m not sure if it was his lawyer or someone, but then we got the copy of that from him.

Q. Who is this person, do you know?

A. Offhand I can’t recall his name, but I could find out.

Now, keep in mind: this is not ‘the videos’, but ‘a video’, singular. And it contains evidence of ‘Abraham and the mother helping the children’—so from this, we infer that the video in question is the one made at Jean-Clement’s house.

YdychyncachuTracey picks up the trail next:


So, from those bits of information, Ella Draper had videos but the police never asked for them, they may have been on devices that were sent to the property store, or may not, but, here’s the thing, someone saw it who was named by the children, and they WENT TO THE POLICE VOLUNTARILY AND PROVIDED THE VIDEOS THEMSELVES! They must have been pretty sure of their innocence! Like very sure! Or brazen, but I’m guessing that it was the former.

This hardly sounds like the behaviour of a guilty person, does it? You might expect a guilty person to dispose of the video right away quick, but no….this person takes it to the police.

More from YdychyncachuTracey:

So, the first thing someone does when they hear what the children have accused them of, is let the police know, and provide the evidence of the children naming them, it is as good as dropping their trousers for their genitals to be examined in my book. The accused came forward to clear their name. What they have wanted to settle this case all along.

Hear that, Drippy Abe?

The accused came forward to clear their name. This is exactly what the Hoaxtead pushers have been baying for: evidence of completely non-guilty behaviour by one of the alleged ‘cult members’.

And the best, most delicious irony of all? It was Abe who pointed it out to us.

You lost the game


29 thoughts on “Abe/Driffy admits: The accused did come forward

  1. It is so great to have a group looking at the tiny pieces of the jigsaw that are available to us, to make sense of the whole, as there are so many missing bits of information about this case.

    I know it is really none of my business. I blame Abrella for having brought this all to my attention, and thus infecting me.

    The court was in a powerful position: They had ALL the information, and so was able to come to its conclusions. If only people who believe Abrella could really see this, realise what they do know is SO selective. What Abrella want us to know and think. If only we had balance, and could see as much of the other side of the coin. But we don’t, and so we have to do the best with what we have. We try and piece it together: The group mind brings together so many individual strands of knowledge, experience, and creativity.

    I read the tweet Drifloud put out as a tweet, shown above, in its tiny form, but only upon considering this blogpost and its analysis did it really come to me, click to me, what really happened here. Yes, someone who was supposedly on Abe’s side, one of the people entrusted with the video that watched it, must have thought: ‘Hey, but I actually know so and so, and they don’t seem like baby-eating satanists to me!. I better check it out with them (in Abe’s eyes this would be ‘snitching’) Let me show them the video, let me do my own investigation here.

    So even Abe’s trusted friends ( Ella describes them thus, here: 1:26:30, https://youtu.be/aCj5pCg3P1s?t=1h26m20s) did not believe the story once the shadowy fantasy figures brought into imagination when watching those tapes transpired to be real people that they actually had experience of. Under such conditions of cognitive dissonance, they could not remain ‘believers’ in the fabricated story, and saw through the ‘evidence’ Abrella had cobbled together.

    The person contacted by Abrellas friend, upon finding out the horror of the accusations, did what any normal, law-abiding, person would do: THEY DID NOT RUN AWAY. They went straight to their solicitor and the police, to clarify things: They said: ‘Here I am, I am being accused, I am innocent, I make myself available to you: Check me out, please!’

    Abe, Thanks for releasing these snippets. They are so helpful.

    Ella, please do more interviews, I really appreciate them. The admission about the bloodless pants was another piece of the missing puzzle. Thanks again.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Exactly right: first, that it really helps all of us to build a more solid understanding when we’re able to look at this and share our insights. That’s one of the best things about this blog, in my opinion.

      And second, of course, that Abrella only need to keep talking and accidentally dropping clues for the whole sordid story to come out. They inadvertently provided tons of stuff via their blog, and Abe is continuing to do so on his Twitter account.


  2. Vulnerable children were dependent and reliant on Abrella.

    They had already been well primed under continual ‘parental alienation’ attempts from Ella over a number of years.

    Now they were under the total influence of this ‘mother’ and her newly recruited thug enforcer in Morocco.

    The children had no one else there to balance the madness of these ‘caregivers’.

    They were isolated.

    Perfect conditions for brainwashing.

    Was that part of the plan?

    Liked by 3 people

    • Probably.

      Getting children to recite lines about SRA repeatedly certainly sounds like brainwashing for sure.


    • I’m certain that this was part of the plan, yes. The children’s vulnerability, and Ella’s ‘priming the pump’ by keeping them away from their father, is what made it possible to successfully ‘brainwash’ them.


      • Also, what sort of woman allows their partner to get her children to chant “Kill the baby, Kill the baby, Kill, Kill, Kill, Kill.”..with him egging them on to chant more because he “likes the sound of it”.
        What a twisted and sick pair Abrella are,

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Merry Christmas guys!

    /\ not going to take the chance that it will explode all over the comment section. It is A4 size.

    It looks better when you get rid of the text(legal stuff) on the right bottom.(you guys have photo editing software right?)

    This image is for printing. I can’t send the document because the thing with Microsoft Publisher documents is that you can find out who made the document.(if you search hard enough)

    Maybe there is a way to stay hidden when sending Microsoft Publisher documents, but I don’t know it.

    A benefit to using an image version is those of you that don’t have Microsoft Publisher can access the poster.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Just to show how dangerous this lot are, I would avoid the Lotus Princess facebook page. She is directing people to a website authored by another of these crazy satanic cult fantasists who has published drawings of her ‘recovered memories” of child abuse- drawings of a child engaging in sex with adults. I know for a fact via the grapevine that authorities have been alerted and are taking the matter seriously as legally these are considered child abuse material. It’s typical of this lot, and they are like a Cult themselves- they seem think nothing of breaking numerous laws yet accuse 100s of innocent people of the same. People going about their day to day lives until this lot of creepy accusers enter and cause havoc.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. It also raises a few more questions,

    Did they go to the police in the first instance or did the police go to them?

    Liked by 1 person

  6. That would make most sense. That the person Jean Clement recognised was given a copy which was handed to the police. The police then take Jean Clements phone that he recorded on, and the laptop he used to make a copy, into the storage at Chingford.

    While they refer to a single video, it could have been a copy of all the videos lumped into a single file via laptop, described as a single video. With Fernandez watching the copy handed in by the friend, negating the need to watch the versions from storage.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I think it could have been a number of people that Abrella gave the video to that then gave it to the ‘spotted person’? Ella says they gave a copy of the videos to ‘some’ people, and that in the end the police did get those videos, that they were guessing and suspicious of who could have done that….. In the same way the email Ella circulated with the names of the alleged got back to the police via a circuitous route for a second time…it was already on CRIS. All roads lead to rome, as they say.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Wasnt it Abes “friend” or brother in law or something similar, the police officer Abe first went to that thought something was off and reported it in the first place. Its been a while since I was knee deep in the details, I think that is what led to the pictures being found on Abes phone. Im getting a bit rusty on this case now.


    • Abe’s brother-in-law, Jean-Clement Yaohirou, was the Special Constable who Abe originally told about his story. JC said it would go nowhere without evidence, and Abe said no problem, he’d get some. Then he and Ella took the kids to Morocco for a month of torture and brainwashing, and came back with them ready to say what he wanted them to. They went to JC’s house and Abrella put the kids through their paces, with JC taping them. He was the one who took the thing to the police (Abrella had been planning to take it to Family Court, as their ace in the hole to keep RD away from his kids forever).


      • You explained that in a nutshell, EC.

        How can anyone not see through their game after reading a comment like that? It should be left under every YT video featuring the children.


  8. Pingback: Drifloud’s drivel: What’s he really saying? | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

Comments are closed.