Drifloud’s drivel: What’s he really saying?

Sometimes the very best insights come from the simplest of questions.

This morning, regular reader Sassy showed a screenshot of one of Drifloud/Abe’s many seemingly incomprehensible Twitter tweets, with the comment, “I need a translator!”

Another commenter sent us this response:

Sassy: You have to understand that the above document—the one that Abe has so heavily promoted on his blog and tweets, under his handle Drifloud, was written—so called forensically ‘examined’—by an American who calls himself ‘Arthur Kirkland’.

Back when Abrella had their ill-fated blog, Arthur Kirkland thought it appropriate to put up links to pictures of a very, very big (in every sense of the word) collection of dildos surrounding a computer on a large sprawling desk. The desk needed to be huge to accommodate the plethora of gadgets. Who knows how long it took to put that lot together? I suggest it was his own computer (and dildo collection), as within that picture you see a photograph of a man with a dildo-motorbike-helmet creation upon his head. [We’re refraining from publishing this or any of the other dildo photos, as this is a G-rated blog.]

Arthur Kirkland’s obsession was with the dildo hat attributed to RD by Abrella. I really feel sorry for RD for the number of insults he has had to tolerate, including this one. Abe also has an obsession with the dildo hat, btw. Make of that what you will.

Of note, Arthur Kirkland also published a photo displayed within the monitor on the dildo collection picture, separately. This photo does not come up in a reverse image search, which is why I am suspicious, if not convinced, that the photo (and hence the dildo collection) was possibly his very own. Either way, it was pretty distasteful stuff.

The poster of this material, Arthur Kirkland, was a one-time contributor to the CW toilet blog, HampsteadResearch, this from his own admissions within comments. He was very proud of his creation, this so-called ‘forensic analysis’, and asked Abe to reproduce it in better quality format on the blog. Abe obliged. I have screenshots to show all the photos, and comments.

This ‘Arthur Kirkland’ chap is quite a disturbed man. That he is a man is an assumption, I admit that, but I am probably right. Suffice it to say the person has an unhealthy obsession with dildos, which is possibly why he was drawn to this case. His level of discourse amounted in the main to prattish outbursts about dildos, so he became known amongst other commenters on Abrella’s blog as ‘Dildo Prat’.

You asked for help to translate what he has written. I think it’s worth spending a bit of time on this, since it has been widely used as ‘proof’ that the case is some kind of cover-up.

So let’s start from the top, let’s do a little analysis of the analysis:

First, the top right-hand corner comment of your photo, which reads, “Hey look, here is RD’s address, on 08/09/2014 !!! Why didn’t the police go arrest him like they said they were going to do once they got his address? (g.p.s. anyone? hello, can you hear me now?)”

Please see the following, which answers his RED FLAG question/demand, contained conveniently within the same CRIS report, here, see the dates:

The address the police were given turns out to have been an ‘old address and new occupants reside’.

In other words, the police could not find him yet, so could not arrest him at that point. D’oh.

And why arrest at all? I think it was Pookster who pointed out that it’s not sensible for the police to arrest someone if they will come in voluntarily, and the maximum time to hold them and do further investigations while in custody, should they want/need to, can then be preserved. Ella would probably have found that out, had she been reasonable and behaved like the rest of the population.

Next, let’s consider the ‘ SPECIAL NOTE’ by Dildo Prat, where he accuses the police of corruption and cover-up, due to an email that RD wrote to Ella’s solicitor.

According to Ella Draper, as she recently stated on an interview on 09/07/15, she was informed by her solicitor on 08/09/14 that ricky dearman had contacted him regarding the fact that the children were escorted to the police station on 05/09/2014. This is confirmation that the police was tipped off of the police investigation PRIOR to the police drive around with the kids. this means that the police or the social services disclosed this info either directly to him (and both were accused of the alleged crimes). this is direct proof that the police compromised the investigation from the very start. this is a most serious realization and wreaks of cover up. [all sic]

Is RD really so stupid that he would tell the other side, “Pssst, guess what, the cult members told me blah blah blah”, if that is what happened? Or is calling the solicitor to ask what happened the kind of thing any father would do, if he did not know the full story yet? Like, “Can you tell me what the f*ck is going on with my children, since she won’t talk to me, I have to ask you?”

Who knows where that info came from? It could have been a number of sources. We know already that a friend of Abrella’s who had been given the videos (perhaps also the details of people named, the telephone numbers, addresses, etc. contained in Ella’s ‘witness statement’) called one of those named people up, and that person might have contacted others on the list.

Was RD on that list? I believe so. The information about the children being accompanied to the police station could have also come from this source, since they were Abrella’s friend/’snitch’ (their probable name, not mine), who knew the intimate details of what was going on around that very time:

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….
https://hoaxteadresearch.wordpress.com/2015/12/18/abedriffy-admits-the-accused-did-come-forward/

Is any further analysis of the analysis needed?