Dear Dave: We told you so.

Something about the Hampstead hoax seems to have really got under Ed Opperman’s hide: he’s done yet another interview on the topic, this time with the person who introduced him to Abe and Ella, David Shurter. 

It starts off a bit rambly, with Shurter going into long and rather ponderous detail about ‘Satanic ritual abuse’ and the varieties thereof, but things heat up just after 27:00…

Shurter says:
“There’s a website out there that’s against the Hampstead case. It’s called Hoaxtead and I go there a lot. I read what they have to say and what I’ve realised is that they’re trying to do the same thing in Hampstead that they did with McMartin. They’re trying to hold the mother and her boyfriend accountable. Ella and Abe – they’re trying to hold her [sic] accountable…

…However, I have come to the conclusion, as far as Hampstead goes, that nothing is what it seems. The thing that bothered me…if you watch those videos and you listen to what’s being said, Abe, who is the boyfriend who’s only involved with this family for about 3 months at the very beginning, when these tapes got made, he’s leading them and asking them questions. How would he be so keyed in?…How would someone who has no conception of what’s going on know what to ask? Because he leads those kids. They’re answering his questions…I don’t trust Abe. I don’t. He screws anybody that could help them…You’ve just experienced that, Ed. You just experienced it. Anyone who comes forward that could help them, he isolates and drives away.

And this case right now, as it stands, is not about the children; it’s about the mother and her boyfriend…Abe, by his own admission, has been in and out of prison all of his life, so he thinks he’s an expert on this. He’s been involved for a year and a half and he thinks he’s an expert….They’re changing course mid-stream. Now it’s not about Luciferianism…now it’s not about Satanism; now it’s about MK Ultra…It’s gonna ruin their credibility…[They’re very difficult to deal with in] every possible way. It’s not about the kids for them. What they wanna talk about is it’s okay to feed kids cannabis and they’re on this whole cannabis thing about how it’s okay. And before I got it [sic] my first interview with them, we had an hour and 20 minute argument, because I told them I am not going on the air and you [sic] telling everyone it’s okay to feed kids cannabis…and it became a huge argument.”

How long will it be before Abrella write him off as a disinfo agent? Start your stopwatches!


p.s. Turns out we were wrong. Abe had already decided Shurter (and someone named Doug Miller) was CIA before we hit publish on the above:

Abe-re Shurter, Opperman, Miller



57 thoughts on “Dear Dave: We told you so.

  1. Dave’s doing the Ed thing of referring to people who refuse to agree with him as “trolls”. And this is someone who speaks so passionately against Abe and Ella undermining their own credibility. Dave would benefit from practising what he preaches, methinks.

    Liked by 1 person

    • it’s what they do : they heap insults on anyone & everyone who dares to question their unproved malicious & false allegations (just look at the shit heaped on poor RD by ALL of them including Mizz Disneyland) – accusations that have been disproved in the UK courts and when called to account they scream “trolls”.

      They are nasty, they are deluded and they are vicious. And while some of us may be less than polite and send the occasional insult, by God it feels good to not allow them to voice their hideous lies unquestioned.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Well said. And the most important thing to remember is that, despite the hoaxers’ disingenuous claims to the contrary, not one of us has ever issued one threat of violence and we should be proud of that. And when asked to provide a link or screenshot – or even a quote – to support their allegations that we have issued death threats, not one hoaxer has ever been able to deliver.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. At ca 27.30 David Shurter points out that if you listen to Abe asking the children questions on the video, he seems to DIRECT and know exactly what to ask, almost as if he had been advised how to put his ‘evidence bundle’ together, as it has been called.

    Now, Abe tells us in the Ed interview that he not only consulted his brother in law Jean Clement, who advised him he would need evidence, when Abe tried to ‘justify himself’ (Judgement, para 30), but also a SOLICITOR.

    Who was that solicitor? What kind of questions did Abraham ask him? Did the solicitor REALLY advise him to question the children? Abe admits in other interviews that ‘it became acrimonious’, ‘I badgered them.

    Or would a solicitor suggest they stop asking questions immediately as they are not competent/there is a danger of contamination by person who is related/invested/ and strongly suggest they return immediately to UK given the severity of allegations/get medical assessment in Morocco immediately to ascertain any damage/infection etc?

    It would be very interesting to get a statement from the solicitor. Perhaps the police can look into this as part of their ongoing investigations, if they can get around the confidentiality issues.

    If Abe is suggesting that the solicitor advised questioning, and getting evidence together by directed writing and drawings by the children, and filming, I smell yet another rat. Have you ever smelled a dead mouse?

    There is extensive guidance on how to interview vulnerable child witnesses to sexual assaults/considerations re giving evidence for court hearings:

    This is just a small extract from the long document. Consider all the other guidance that needs to also be followed in such cases eg mandatory social services referrals, strategy meetings etc, (this is all findable online).

    One of the most important aspects of interviewing a child (special measures always apply to children) is the COMPETENCE AND specialist TRAINING, AND APPRAISAL of the interviewer. I believe a specialist social worker was brought in to the first police interview? Abe would have been excluded from questioning on such grounds alone, let alone the fact that he could have had an agenda, ie conflict of interest, which we know he did, as he saw it as his DUTY to help Ella after she complained about the children’s father. In other words neither of these adults – Abe and Ella – were safe to question the children. Nothing the children said in those videos could ever be admissible evidence in a court of law.

    From that document:
    2. Planning and preparation
    The Importance of Planning
    2.1 The purpose of an investigative interview is to ascertain the witness’s
    account of the alleged event(s) and any other information that would
    assist the investigation. A well-conducted interview will only occur if
    appropriate planning has taken place. The importance of planning cannot
    be overstated. The success of an interview and, thus, an investigation
    could hinge on it. Even if the circumstances necessitate an early interview,
    an appropriate planning session that takes account of all the information
    available about the witness at the time and identifies the key issues and
    objectives is required. Time spent anticipating and covering issues early
    in the criminal investigation will be rewarded with an improved interview
    later on. It is important that, as far as possible, the case is thoroughly
    reviewed before an interview is embarked upon to ensure that all issues are
    covered and key questions asked, since the opportunity to do this will in
    most cases be lost once the interview(s) have been concluded.
    2.2 In some cases, it might be advisable for there to be a discussion with the
    Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in accordance with the guidance set out
    in Early Special Measures Discussions between the Police and the Crown
    Prosecution Service (Office for Criminal Justice Reform 2009). Where
    such a discussion takes place, there should be a decision about the form
    in which the statement is to be taken (video-recorded or written). Such
    decisions must take account of the witness’s expressed preferences and, if
    appropriate, those of their carers.
    2.3 In some cases it may useful to obtain the assistance of an interview
    adviser to develop a witness interview strategy (see National Investigative
    Interviewing Strategy, Association of Chief Police Officers 2009).
    Initial Contact with Victims and Witnesses
    2.4 The need to consider a video-recorded interview will not always be
    immediately apparent, either to the first police officer who has contact
    with the witness or to other professionals involved prior to the police being
    informed. Even where it is apparent, the need to take immediate action in
    terms of securing medical attention and making initial decisions about the
    criminal investigation plan might be such that some initial questioning is
    Planning and preparation Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings
    2.5 Any initial questioning should be intended to elicit a brief account of what
    is alleged to have taken place; a more detailed account should not be
    pursued at this stage but should be left until the formal interview takes
    place. Such a brief account should include where and when the alleged
    incident took place and who was involved or otherwise present. This is
    because this information is likely to influence decisions made in respect of
    the following aspects of the criminal investigation plan:
    • Forensic and medical examination of the victim;
    • Scene of crime examination;
    • Interviewing of other witnesses;
    • Arrest of alleged offender(s); and
    • Witness support.
    2.6 In these circumstances, any early discussions with the witness should, as
    far as possible, adhere to the following basic principles:
    a) Listen to the witness.
    b) Do not stop a witness who is freely recalling significant events.
    c) Where it is necessary to ask questions, they should, as far as possible in
    the circumstances, be open-ended or specific-closed rather than forcedchoice,
    leading or multiple.
    d) Ask no more questions than are necessary in the circumstances to take
    immediate action.
    e) Make a comprehensive note of the discussion, taking care to record
    the timing, setting and people present as well as what was said by the
    witness and anybody else present (particularly the actual questions
    asked of the witness).
    f) Make a note of the demeanour of the witness and anything else that
    might be relevant to any subsequent formal interview or the wider
    g) Fully record any comments made by the witness or events that might
    be relevant to the legal process up to the time of the interview….

    It goes on for another 240 pages. You could say a lot of thought and experience has gone into it. It is important to get this stuff right.

    David Shurter makes some comments about the ‘fluidity’ of the children’s testimony, he says that children could not know such sexual detail. They definitely have been exposed to sexual knowledge, we know that. But by who? Is it possible that this material was suggested by Abe and then reflected back by the children? We know for example that Abe introduced the idea of the plastic willies or dildoes. What else did he say?

    Both David and Ed misquote and misrepresent the judgement re the medical evidence in their interview. It would be good if they looked into this some more.

    If I can offer my personal sock opinion here: It is not out of a lack concern for welfare of the children (and all the others that have been affected, many other children and adults than the ones generally considered!) that other aspects or people involved in this saga are discussed on these pages. One does not exclude the other.

    Liked by 2 people

    • “At ca 27.30 David Shurter points out that if you listen to Abe asking the children questions on the video, he seems to DIRECT and know exactly what to ask….”

      He then later says that children could not possibly know what they said without experiencing it. Come on Dave, they have either been coached or they haven’t, which is it?


    • A nice example of what a loon Shurter is. Ross E.Cheit rather than confirming Shitter’s Satanic claims has written about how people have been taken in by it. He does not deny large scale child abuse rather points out that people like Shurter inflame these cult hysterics and cause far more trouble in the long run.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I’ve read a bit of his writing, but not his book. He certainly cautions against calling everything a witch hunt or panic and reminds people that children often don’t disclose when they have been abused. He also doesn’t seem convinced of the existence of “satanic abuse”.

        There’s a particularly awful case referred to on his blog where the abuser taped the evidence of his crimes, yet almost all of those 100+ young victims didn’t tell anyone.

        Liked by 1 person

        • I agree that it’s very wrong to label everything a witch-hunt. Children are sexually abused at a much higher rate than was suspected even 30 years ago; and many of them will not tell anyone until they’re long past childhood.

          To me, this is the best possible reason to keep pursuing this hoax and running it into the ground. As long as hoaxes are allowed to persist, real victims will continue to be disbelieved, or will be afraid to disclose for fear of being ridiculed, and won’t receive the care they need.


    • And certainly from someone who claims two convicted pedophiles were set up despite the overwhelming evidence against them. Those who toss around terms like “the paedophile protection squad” remind my of the court judgment where the judge pointed out that many of those millions who watched the kid’s videos would no doubt be paedos.

      It would be interesting to know what a shrink would make of Shurter’s friendship with these two obvious predatory fiends and his weird claim to have been “cured” of his homosexuality.

      Liked by 1 person

    • David Shurter is deranged. He has a long history of being banned from various discussion forums (Craigslist, Amazon, Facebook groups, etc) for making gratuitous, unsubstantiated accusations of pedophilia against whoever happens to disagree with him.

      As Sam mentioned, in his book he actually defends two convicted child molesters and refers to them as his friends, while dismissing the child victims as “hustlers”. He is misinformed, often quite severely, on just about every topic he speaks or writes about. Pointing out his hypocrisy or his numerous factual errors is an invitation to a full-blown Shurter-style tantrum. His “advocacy” appears, in every respect, to be an angry, desperate demand for status and attention.

      He should not be considered a credible source on any subject, including his own history.

      A brief review of his book:

      This is a very telling exchange between Shurter and a family member who credibly disputes his claims. A lot of the posts have since been deleted by Amazon but I can provide archives (beyond the single page below) upon request.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Thank you, Curator. We must confess that our interest in Shurter is limited, but it’s useful to know that our initial assessment of his credibility was on the mark.


      • From a YouTube comment by Sam:

        “David Shurter – a man who claims his two very close friends who were convicted for abusing young teenage boys are innocent, despite overwhelming testimony from their victims, puts Shurter as a paid-up member of his so-called paedophile protection squad.”

        Liked by 1 person

  3. What do I get for making it to the end of this interview? I even held out through Dave’s Christian fundamentalist routine and didn’t even bang my head against the wall during his rants about how the Bible is never wrong and how he was “cured” of his homosexuality.


    • You get our profound admiration and a hearty handshake. 🙂
      Also: he was ‘cured’ of his homosexuality? One wonders how that was achieved. Not via…(dun-dun-DUN) MK Ultra techniques, we hope!


  4. Ed is struggling to understand how people knew about his interview so soon. Er…because he’s under-estimated the sheer number of people who are pxxxxxd off by this and are on the lookout every day for the new crap, in an effort to report it and get it taken down. Really Ed….it only takes a few seconds to type ‘Hampstead and SRA’ and there are a few hundred really pxxxxxd of members of the public who do this. Honest! The numbers are up there!

    Liked by 1 person

  5. The other Ed Opperman report video that was on code 2222’s channel has now also gone. He put it to unlisted today, and drifloud was still tweeting the links a few hours ago. To code’s channel, not Ed’s. After that sincere apology, too. Or was it after he called him a disinfo agent? It’s so hard to keep up with Abe. He changes like the wind. One day satanism, next day something else. What will it be after MKUltra? Oh, NWO. And then…well, it will have to be aliens, the cosmos, the universe. Everyone is against Abe. Poor Abe.

    Does this describe Abe?

    Paranoid personality disorder

    People with paranoid personality disorder (PPD) have long-term, widespread and unwarranted suspicions that other people are hostile, threatening or demeaning.

    They suspect strangers, and even people they know, of planning to harm or exploit them when there is no good evidence to support this belief… They do not fit in….Interactions with others are characterized by wariness and not infrequently by hostility. If they marry or become otherwise attached to someone, the relationship is often characterized by pathological jealousy and attempts to control their partner….People suffering from PPD are very difficult to deal with…. They can be confrontational, aggressive and disputatious. It is not unusual for them to sue people they feel have wronged them. In addition, patients with this disorder are known for their tendency to become violent.

    Read more:

    Liked by 1 person

    • I think Ed may be fairly new to all this and believes he’s building himself a following like Alex Jones. He’s jumping onto conspiracies long after others and his claim that he is being syndicated is actually through an LA company where you pay for them to broadcast you. It’s how cable TV began and many big stars today like Ellen or David Letterman all started on Cable TV and paid for their own shows.

      He seems very keen on advertising but has only 4 so far. And as Rush Limburgh is finding, promoting conspiracies and unfounded fibs can backfire badly with dozens of advertisers fleeing and numerous local outlets dropping his syndicated show.

      But what a crowded field Ed is entering with a limited audience. Perhaps he really thought Abella was going to be a nice scoop and that’s why he’s reacted badly. In fact his interview being published on Youtube wouldn’t affect him in the slightest so I think he’s be well pissed off as he thinks he’s been scooped. If only he knew the same audience of loonies will really lap up every new mention of Abella.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Yes, excellent points all round, Sam. I don’t know how long Ed’s been at this? But I confess I was very surprised at his reaction to ‘trolls’–which seemed to comprise anyone who disagreed with him. Most conspiracy broadcasters welcome this, as it’s all part of building a larger audience.


  6. In some places, I.e my local pub Abe would no doubt be diagnosed as a common w@bled, which I have to agree with as a professional diagnosis of his behavior.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. What a bunch of weirdos and crackpots (dangerous ones). All caught up in their own little world where they really do believe they are leading some crusade. And the influence of right-wing US fundamentalist Christians runs through all of this. It’s invaded the UK and Europe and so many countries.

    This is a whole new world to me: so-called radio broadcasters who apparently think they are actually part of the real media with listeners ( possibly more insane than them) who along with their nutty radio stars believe they are changing the world.

    Isn’t it odd to think that before the internet, these people were still out there..100s of thousands of loonies but we never really knew. We all met some nutters along the way but now they are organized and have linked up with each other. We would read about terrible crimes that took place and thought many of these criminals are deranged but never really understood there were so many of them.

    I tell you, it sorts of scares the hell out of me that some of them may end up in jobs where they can actually cause chaos. ( I’m thinking BronnyNZ here who may or may not have been a patient / counselor in psychiatric entity).

    Liked by 1 person

  8. @sam I agree. It is worrying .

    Some interesting observations here:

    …there’s lots of anecdotal evidence to suggest that belief in conspiracies has remained fairly stable for the last half-century or so. What has changed, however, is the speed with which new theories are formed. “It’s a symptom of a much more integrated world,” he says. The internet speeds everything up, allowing conspiracy-minded individuals to connect and formulate their ideas. In contrast, it took months for theories about Pearl Harbor to develop…

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Pingback: After My Interview with Ed Opperman on the Hampstead Case in the UK |

  10. I don’t know the details of the McMartin case, but I do know that every case should be taken on it’s own merits.
    In this case we have a mother who didn’t want the father to have any contact at all. That shows no real emotion at any time towards her children, and allowed her new boyfriend of just 3-4 months, to beat up her kids. A mother willing to blame the boyfriends violence on other people.

    This case has a man with a history of violence to children. That man goes on holiday with the children, and those children, who have never mentioned sexual abuse previously, return with multiple injuries and telling tales of babies being eaten at McDonalds, Starbucks and Pizza Express.

    A man who has changed the narrative through Satanism, freemasons, Talmudic jews, illuminati, NWO, MK Ultra, COINTEL PRO and now state sponsored trauma based mind control.

    A man who makes crazy claims about hemp reversing mind control; being a substitute for blood transfusions and creating rainbow children who we can follow into the tropical paradise garden. A man with his head so far up his own arse that if anyone questions him or disagrees with him, they are accused of being part of the cult.

    Yet still people wonder why the children have multiple injuries and their heads filled with fantasy and bullshit.

    At least Shurter and Opperman have the courage to criticise Abe and Ella. Where as Guidance 2222 is their little lap dog. Opperman asked Guidance to remove the videos. Guidance replied saying that he would not do so because child sex abuse is more important than copyright over YT videos. Strange then that Abraham can ask him to remove the videos. Shouldn’t Guidance give Abraham the same reply?

    Liked by 2 people

Comments are closed.