Was the retraction video coached?

One of the accusations the conspiraloons use to try to keep the Hoaxtead myth rolling is the claim that the children’s retractions were forced, coached, or even hypnotically implanted (yeh, right!) by the interviewing officer.

Yesterday one of our regular readers, Emma, posted a very insightful comment that we think clears things up nicely.

(Please note: survivors of sex abuse might find the following material triggering.)

Drifloud/Abe posted a link to the last retraction video on twitter today implying it was directed and led:


What Abraham fails to understand is that girl child was interviewed first, and further glaring inconsistencies in the story-so-far emerged.

Steve was compelled to probe and challenge, and to give permission, and encourage, subjects to speak honestly. This is true for any criminal investigation, even children. With all the other intelligence and evidence that was uncovered about Ella and Abraham, these factors had to all be kept in mind simultaneously by the interviewing officer.

With children it is appropriate to tell them that they will not get into trouble if they have lied. Steve gave permission to the child to change his statement if necessary, without fear of punishment for not being truthful.

As the boy revealed things had not happened as he had stated in the earlier interviews, with no sense of reprisal he became emboldened and gradually pulled back the covers, inch by inch, confident now that he had nothing to fear. That’s why he had the courage to ask to not ever have to see Abraham again at the end.

Viewing that video again only strengthened my views, and illustrated the very real struggle the children had put up to Abraham, unsuccessfully:

Steve: ‘So has anyone ever put anything in your bottom?’
Boy: ‘No’. (shakes head vigorously)
Steve: ‘Nothing?’
(Boy confirms Steve’s ‘nothing’? by continuing to shake his head, indicating ‘No’.
Steve: ‘And have you ever seen a plastic willy?’
Boy: ‘No, I never even seen one in my life, seen one’.
Steve: ‘How did you think of that idea, was it you that thought of it, or…’
Boy: ‘No, no, yeah, I am the one that thought of it, when he found out of us touching he said, he said ‘yes they put real willies in my bottom’, Abraham said, ‘yes, he said they put real willies in your bottom’, and then I said ‘ no they don’t’ and he said ‘yes they do’ and I said ‘no they don’t’, and then he said ‘don’t argue,yes they do’, and then he says, then he says, ‘they all have plastic willies don’t they?’, and i say ‘no they don’t…’

Boy continues this with circular hand gestures:

‘Yes they do’,
‘No they don’t’,
‘Yes they do’,
‘No they don’t’,
‘Yes they do’,
‘No they don’t’

…indicating the to and fro/arguing between him and Abraham – congruent body language, again.

Steve: ‘Ah, ok, so no one’s put any plastic or real willies in your bum?’
Boy shakes his head, no, confirming Steve.
Steve: ‘And I heard that from the doctor one of your ears is hurt, as well.’
Steve: ‘How did that happen?’
Boy: ‘It’s because he slapped me really hard.’
Steve: ‘Who slapped you?’
Boy; ‘Abraham’.
Steve: ‘When did he do that?’
Boy: ‘In Morocco when, um, he slapped me, he slapped me, as hard as he could’. (emphasises ‘hard’)
Steve: ‘Why did he do that?’
Boy: ‘Because he said ‘You’re lying, I’m lying, I’m lying, I’m lying…’

Many thanks for carefully transcribing this, Emma.

We think it shines a light on an important piece of evidence, one that’s been twisted beyond all recognition by Abe and those who still follow him.





35 thoughts on “Was the retraction video coached?

  1. People say ‘children can’t be coached to tell lies in such detail’. I can only say ‘Yes they can.’ The Hampstead children were able to do it because they’re very bright and did their best to survive. Once they knew they could tell the truth in safety they did so and you can see them become more relaxed after the retraction interviews. In fact it’s bloody obvious.

    Those who perpetuate the Hampstead hoax seem to think that we here don’t believe child abuse ever happens or that we’re part of a cover-up. I know the facts and figures about child sexual abuse and I know for a fact (because I’ve met so many victims over the years) there have been paedophile rings operating in some (not all) British childrens homes. I also believe there’s been a Westminster cover-up. I just don’t buy the Hampstead or Hollie Greig stories. The evidence isn’t there and at the core, both cases have people with agendas who trot out the same old tired BS to raise money, get their egos stroked or get attention. They do real victims no favours.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Yes–anyone who’s ever had a child (or been one) knows that the best way to get the truth from them is to reassure them that it’s safe to talk. That’s what the police officer did here.

      It’s the opposite of Abe’s tactics, which were to intimidate, torture, and threaten the children until they told the lies the way he wanted them to.


  2. They even got images of other Hampstead children. Should I add all Hampstead children to my operation? Like… if the image of children connects to a hoaxer blog, then report it? But I can’t think of what laws they are breaking?

    Apparently Satanists aren’t human according to McNeil. Also according to McNeil, all humans ally with God. Does she know that not all people are Christians?

    Liked by 1 person

    • There were quite a few photos of pupils and teachers out on the internet already connected with “normal” news stories before the hoax. I don’t like the thought of these images being misused, but I am more concerned about private photos stolen from the Facebook pages of the parents and teachers. The lovely Charlotte published quite a few of those.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Sabine lives in a very strange make-believe world, where anyone who doesn’t follow her belief system is sub-human. She’s also very anti-Semitic, an ugly trait that runs through a great many of the Hoaxtead hawkers.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. I think specialist advice regarding the use of images and what can and can’t be reported, or other options available , eg education/awareness building would be helpful. My sense is that misused images could be used for harassment, or, if associated with sexual content, for example, they may constitute child abuse. Children are classed as vulnerable at all times, therefore what may be allowable for an adult may not be when a child is involved. Sassy poses a good question, and one that is hard to answer for a lay-person. It may be that the best way forward is heightening the awareness of the damaging aspects of misused images in those that are putting them up directly. Head on confrontation is probably counterproductive, but difficult to avoid when emotions are triggered. I know that that is a big ask with some of the characters that are involved in this case. I have looked at your website, Sassy, well done.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. I think this actually shows DC Martin’s experience and training.
    Reinforcement via punishment or reward can lead to false information. What DC Martin was doing was probing with as neutral a challenge as possible. He was not saying “if you admit lying about plastic willies before, you can go watch more Harry Potter and have more popcorn”, which would reward him. He did not say something like “I don’t believe you and if you continue saying there were plastic willies, you will go to jail”, which would be punishment. DC Martin is simply telling the truth and being neutral, that if he lied before he will not be in trouble.

    Coaching would be beating up the kids and threatening them with jail and burial if they don’t tell Abraham’s version of the ‘truth’.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. I have not watched these videos since they first came out, but what struck me the most was the boy’s reaction at the end. He seems very relieved, happy even.

    They claim that he did not fully retract the killing of babies part. They like to pick on small parts without looking at the whole.

    They also like to point to the conversation mentioned in the car on the way to the interview, forgetting it is the policeman who brings this up.

    If this was a cover up as claimed would not the cult/police have been in a position to have rehearsed rerecorded an absolutely perfect retraction video.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. I think people misunderstand the concept of ‘coaching’ and imagine it to be a set piece of work, as in ‘learning lines’ and such, whereas it could be an instilling an attitude, and beliefs, over a period of time. Parental alienation could thus come under the heading of coaching. Indeed we can think of what happened in Morocco as not just severe parental alienation, but P.A. gone mad.

    People who still believe the original allegations should ask themselves if it is natural for children to speak the same set phrases *in unison* as was done in the ‘papa kills babies’ video, and whether is it normal for children to finish each others sentences when talking on camera. Might this indicate repeated utterances of these very sentences in the time period just before the shooting of these clips, ie in Morocco? Of course: this is all coaching. Now add a few ear slaps and heated spoons, isolation from support and reinforcement by the primary caregiver, ie Ella, and….we know the rest: Not just coaching, but brainwashing.

    How many 8 and 9 year olds recite lines from Dune, ie ‘fear is the mind killer?’

    Another question: Why were the videos not shot in Morocco, but on the way back home? It seems a little strange. Although the whole thing is very strange.


  7. It breaks my heart to think of the children left alone with Abe bullying them into saying things they really did not want to say. They must be so relieved to be out of that awful situation.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. The amount of times I’ve read comments from Hoaxters saying how young children could never have learned or been coached such an elaborate story…

    Have they never seen any young actors and actresses in movies? How on earth do they think the child actors learn their lines??

    Liked by 1 person

    • Well yes, plus the kids weren’t memorising the names and personal details of people they didn’t know–they were simply attaching Abe’s stories to people and places they already knew quite well. Where things began to break down was on the material they weren’t already familiar with (but which Abe had made part of the story): teachers’ houses, non-existent ‘secret rooms’ in the school, etc. They had no idea where those were, since they didn’t exist. If Abe and Ella had kept the stories simpler, there’s a much better chance they’d have gotten away with their hoax.


      • Very true..but the hoaxters cling to anything, don’t they? They’re a strange lot to want this sordid tale to be true and the children to have been sexually abused.
        Not even the children saying they haven’t been and that Abe forced them to tell his lies satisfies them.

        Liked by 1 person

        • It’s all about them wanting to be proven right in their larger belief system, I think: they are convinced that the world is run by a secret cabal of people who engage in ‘Satanic’ practices, and they think this case proves their point.


  9. Pingback: David Shurter doesn’t like Hoaxtead Research | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

Comments are closed.