The IPCC letter: A giant red herring

We’ve been having some interesting discussions around Abe and Ella’s IPCC letter and what it really means. On their now mercifully defunct blog, Abe gloated that it meant they had ‘won!’…but we’re not so sure. 

For one thing, not all of us are convinced that the IPCC letter Abrella claim to have received is, in fact, real.

Sam, a regular commenter here, says:

I read the IPCC letter again and I am convinced it is a fraud. It’s far too wordy and long (way too long) and is contradictory in parts and indeed, if it was genuine the media would have picked up on it as this case, shocking that it is, is a very juicy media tale.

Yes, that’s an excellent point. If the police could be shown to have acted improperly in a case like this, you’d expect it to be all over the media. Oh, except that the media is controlled by shape-shifting reptiles. Whoops, silly of us to forget about that.

Sam continues:

The IPCC like many organisations send out regular press releases and most certainly would have in this case as they want to be seen to be active.

My guess is that Abe has doctored a genuine reply which would have been a rejection of Abella’s claims- the main reason being that police actually carried out all the right procedure – the screeching claims of the hoaxers re: body tattoos, RD not being arrested etc., etc., are rubbish. The IPCC does not criticise police if they carried out correct procedure. I would go as far to say Ella genuinely believes it’s a real response and Abe has tricked her as you are correct, Ella is his meal ticket.

That seems entirely possible: as others have mentioned here, Abe doesn’t have much to offer Ella other than his ability to keep this hoax going on her behalf.

Furthermore, Sam points out, the case has already been decided; it seems as though the alleged IPCC investigation is merely a distraction to keep the last remaining conspiranoids hooked into the Hampstead hoax:

I cannot recall any case where the IPCC have criticised a matter that the courts have already dealt with. This case has been decided in the High Court and an appeal has been heard & lost by Abella. If the IPCC had written that letter it would be a condemnation of how the police and Family Court conducted the case & it would be huge news. The media would have jumped on it. Their silence is deafening.

Even if Abella thought they had a case the IPCC is the wrong body to approach. Their lawyers would need to try to mount a new case but they would need new evidence to get past first base.

This is another good point: if Abrella really wanted to reopen the case, they should have mounted a new case, revealing all the great new evidence they’d uncovered to support their arguments.

Oh, except there was no new evidence; and the old evidence had all been shown to be deeply inadequate. Kind of a problem, that.

Sam also asks an obvious question: where’s the report?

Mysteriously the IPCC’s decision does not feature on their website where they list all their investigations.

As I say, they issue press releases after every investigation for obvious reasons that the public has a right to know. Perhaps the Cult has finally infiltrated them and removed all mention of the Abrella Case.

Dave, another reader, notes that even if the IPCC letter is real (and that’s not a foregone conclusion), it contains some puzzling contradictions:

There certainly appears to be a contradiction between the IPCC stating that they cannot comment on the thoroughness of the investigation, and parts where they do appear to comment on it. For example, that the police didn’t mention other allegations to RD, and didn’t follow other lines of enquiry.
The IPCC role is to investigate the mis/conduct of police officers, so I suppose they could try argue that the above is part of that.

I noticed the IPCC stated that their decision is based on the IO report and Abraham’s 20+ page complaint. That the IO report was only 5 pages long and half of that was giving background. I doubt the IO would be able to cover every aspect of the complaint in a few pages. Therefore, the IPCC is asking for greater clarification and that is fair enough, but that is all it is. They are not saying the investigation was poor or inadequate, just the report in response to Abraham’s complaint was inadequate.

That is why I think a more thorough report will satisfy the IPCC, but will never satisfy Abraham. Though of course, you could be right and it is completely fake.

Conclusion: we’ve been leaning toward the ‘fake IPCC letter’ theory ourselves, but even in the event that Abe and Ella aren’t lying about this one (and why wouldn’t they, when they’ve lied about everything else?), the letter itself does nothing to further their case.

It’s just another distraction, a giant red herring thrown out to divert our attention from the fact that Abe and Ella lost this case months ago.

red herring







25 thoughts on “The IPCC letter: A giant red herring

  1. I’ve always had my suspicions about this. You may recall me saying at the time: “Check out the IPCC website. The fax addresses don’t match. Also, there is no case reference number or complaint reference number on the letter.”

    By the way, good detective work, everyone, and thanks to that nice Mr. Coyote for collating it all 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

      • It could be that it has not reached final stage yet, ie appeals process not exhausted, not finished, deadlines/ time limits not reached yet etc. I looked at one decision that was published and it was from June iirc yet only put on the system in Oct, so there might also be a time lag in publishing, on top of this. From a quick look only, I may be wrong.

        Liked by 1 person

          • I have to admit I waffle on this one. I tend to think that at least part of the published response is fake, but the extent of that part ranges from ‘some’ to ‘all’…ultimately, though, I think it’s clear that Abrella are only publishing the bits of info’ that are favourable to themselves.


  2. If I were them I’d make a further complaint to the IPCC that their letter is unreasonably confusing.

    I think this letter is probably genuine and it won’t be the first time, in my experience, that an authority has managed to produce a letter that confuses the hell out of everyone.

    The clue though is in the statement “The appropriate authority are directed to re-investigate the complaint taking into consideration all points of complaints made by the complainant in the two letters submitted to the DPS.”

    What I think is going on is that when they talk about ‘investigation’ they’re not talking about the criminal case but about investigation into the complaints. The IPCC want the police to explain themselves properly and address each point in the complaint letter.

    i.e. they’re being asked to justify in writing why they did what they did and why they didn’t do some things.

    It sounds to me like when the complaints were received the police response was inadequate and there should have been more detail and particularly explanations of each point mentioned in the complaint. They obviously didn’t do this, leaving some questions standing.

    If you want to speculate as the reason for this it could be (a) they’re part of a huge baby sacrificing cult who dance about wearing baby skin shoes and skulls for necklaces and they’re part of a cover-up or (b) they’re busy, got limited resources and all this takes time.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I’m not convinced for several reasons- one being the lack of any mention on the IPCC website and secondly- Abraham Cristie and Ella Draper have been named and accused in the High Court judgement of an deliberate abuse & torture of children for nefarious reasons : to gain custody and have the father jailed, indeed, to have a number of Hampstead residents, priests, teachers, police charged with serious crimes.

      This is serious despite the wretched hoaxteders pretending otherwise : innocent people’s liberty was put in jeopardy by a planned plot and a conspiracy to pervert justice.

      Despite the loon set like McNeil and McKenzie acting as though a court decision (accompanied by the injunction) is something that can be challenged (the appeal failed) and shouldn’t be taken seriously, I cannot see the IPCC questioning the conduct of the police during this investigation. The IPCC looks into matters where the police may have dealt with members of the public badly. One should read some of the cases detailed on their website.

      The police acted correctly. They dealt with everyone involved in the correct manner including the children given these were serious criminal accusations of murder (the eaten babies).

      In fact I do not think they would accept a complaint from Ella & Abe because of the very serious matter : they are basically on the run from police. It’s akin to an accused bank robber in Brazil complaining of his treatment by police after a court found him guilty. To even converse with him would bring the IPCC into disrepute.

      I believe Draper may have received a standard response from the IPCC (do not forget they would be plagued by nutters with spurious complaints) and Abe or someone has concocted the response.

      Liked by 1 person

      • “In fact I do not think they would accept a complaint from Ella and Abe because of the very serious matter….etc”
        I’m not sure. Aren’t they responding to a complaint from Ella’s solicitor, rather than her? Also, I understand that Ella is wanted for questioning (am I right?) – that doesn’t maker her a convicted criminal or Guilty of anything so wouldn’t she get treated like everyone else?

        Concocted response? I accept that’s a possibility.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Sometimes, you have to look for what ISN’T being said, or shown. Why did Abrella never publish the original response to their IPCC complaint, in full, the very one they are complaining about in the appeal – the one that is being scrutinized (although they may not realise that, as explained already, above)? Now THAT would be interesting. Particularly the bit the appeal letter refers to as the response by the writer or IO undermining the complaint. What does that really mean? See the last line here:

    My imagination tells me the person dealing with the original complaint did not respond point by point to Abrella’s points enough (can’t blame him or her, tbh, lots of work they may have realised it was just wasted effort, although, granted, that is their job.) They may have slipped out of the role demanded of them. I am sure that person has already had their wrist slapped over this, but I would like to commend them, regardless, *in my imaginary scenario*.

    Liked by 1 person

    • This is also ongoing case : arrests are being made (Neelu etc). Abraham Cristie must be on the police radar as a wanted person they would like to interview for extremely serious matters. Such altter : if real, could even be used by Neelu’s lawyers to aid her case.

      If the IPCC intervened at this stage it could cause chaos in an ongoing investigation and would be like a slap in the face for coppers doing their job. The IPCC would have lawyers who would go over every letter that went out with a fine tooth comb. I believe at this stage they would warn against any serious response apart from a form letter.

      And that’s quite apart from the fact tabloids would have seized upon this letter.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Also check out the IPCC reports. The majority of cases are from at least a year ago. Are you telling me Abella jumped the queue?

        This letter is for Abella’s deluded supporters to try and keep the fire alive.


      • It’s possible you’re right of course. But what the IPCC is commenting on is a closed case and I can’t see any reason for them not to deal with something that is closed.

        Personally I think the police did what they needed to do and were right to close the case when they did, but I’m not in law enforcement and I’m not a lawyer so it’s up to them to sort it out.

        What really irritates me is that if a criminal investigation was re-done (which is what the conspiriloons want) we all know the outcome would be the same (because there is no effing cult) and meanwhile thousands of pounds of taxpayers money would be wasted.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Actually, I think the outcome of a new investigation would be different, but not in the way that Abrella claim to imagine.

          I think a new investigation would point the police in a new direction, having nothing whatsoever to do with baby-eating cults, and a great deal to do with a child-abusing couple, Abe and Ella. In fact, if I were Abe (heaven forbid), I’d be very very thankful right now that the investigation stopped where it did.


      • God knows Abe/Drifloud has tried to interest the tabloids–he’s constantly blasting the IPCC letter and other stuff to them via Twitter. Strangely, even the basest of the tabs seem uninterested. Guess they’re all part of the cover-up too. 😉


  4. Personally, I am really looking forward to an exhaustive reply to all of Ella’s points. I think this will all backfire on them. I doubt they will publish the response when it comes, in full. There are things that have not been revealed yet by the police and courts. This has been a necessity, given the confidential nature of police enquiries and of the family court system. This confidentiality has helped Abrella’s campaign as they have presented material very selectively in their own favour. That would be similar to a court prosecution where only the prosecution get to put their case, and the defendant is completely disabled and gagged from response. In this case the father has, as someone put it, ‘remained in dignified silence’, as he complies with the law. It must be a difficult position to be in.

    Although the judgement was published, it was only partial and much would have been left out, for many reasons, mainly for the protection of vulnerable people and other ethical dimensions that could not be discussed.

    But from the information we do have, I could answer many of Ella’s queries right now.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. I believe it is likely genuine because if Abraham was going to make a fraudulent claim, I imagine it would suggest a total re-investigation of the allegations. Instead, it is just asking for a satisfactory report to cover the complaints.

    The letter responds to 5 points. Points 2-5 are serious points, which would result in disciplinary action against police officers (not a re-investigation of the allegations). In response to points 2-5 the IPCC stated “It would be inappropriate for me to comment on this aspect until the re-investigation is complete”.

    The IPCC only upheld point 1: “If the findings need to be reconsidered, either by us or the police”. So Abraham complained to the police and the IO investigated the complaint and wrote a report. Abraham was not satisfied with the response and complained to the IPCC. They then consider if it was satisfactory, or needs to re-investigated.

    The IPCC go on to say that “It is my opinion that the investigation report in this matter is inadequate”. They then go on to say what I described before, that the investigation report was only 5 pages long and over half that was giving background.

    Therefore, the IO must have tried to describe the investigation in just a couple of pages. As someone above pointed out, the new ‘investigation’ is just the IPCC asking the IO to give a more detailed report by investigating what their officers did, and why. Which will include interviewing the officers. The IPCC could have chose to carry out that investigation themselves, but appear to be allowing the police to give a second response. It is not a re-investigation of the allegations.

    What Abraham may not fully appreciate, is that a more detailed report will also include more details about him, and why his behaviour had bearing on the investigation of the allegations. The IPCC are possibly not aware of Abraham’s abuse of the children.

    The first part would appear to be a standard IPCC letter.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yes, this brings up something that some of us have felt for some time: that Abe probably doesn’t realise that he’s poking a stick into a hornets’ nest here.


  6. Pingback: Let’s clear up that IPCC ruling | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

Comments are closed.