Abe/Drifloud’s ‘proof’ goes ‘poof’

Lately we’ve been hearing bellowing and pawing at the ground from Abe/Drifloud (echoed by his faithful lapdog Jim McMenamin) that they have PROOF! PROOF, do you hear us? that RD’s children were lying when they told the police that Abe, and not their father, had abused them.

This ‘proof’, Abe/Drifloud alleges, comes in the form of notes made by the foster carer who looked after the children when they were first removed from Ella’s care (because she could not protect them from Abe).

Here’s a screenshot from Abrella’s late and very unlamented blog, alleging the same thing:

Abe-Drifloud-foster carer-2016-01-12

The carer’s notes, Abe/Drippy alleges, were given to the police on 30th September, 2014, nearly two weeks after the children retracted the story they’d originally told the police, and said that Abe and their mother had forced them to say it all.

In fact, they made this date discrepancy the basis of part of their legal objection to the outcome of the fact-finding hearing:

Abrella-carers-2016-01-12But here’s the funny thing: in fact, those notes from the carer were actually received before the retractions:

Abrella-foster carer-3-2016-01-09We find this confusion, well, confusing. The whole thing looks pretty straightforward to us. So why would Drippy Abe think he could get away with fudging the dates, when they’re right there in the police and court documents that Sabine so helpfully (and illegally) posted?

One possibility, of course, is that he and Ella assumed that none of their supporters would check their claims. Silly, silly people.

(On a side note, one of the louder and more obnoxious commenters on Abrella’s ex-blog was very firm in his assertion that the foster carer’s notes would never have been given to Ella as part of her court bundle; on this basis, he alleged that they must be counterfeit. We consulted a legal expert, who assured us that in fact, the carer’s notes would absolutely be a part of the bundle. So much for The Prat’s assertions.)

So the carer’s notes themselves aren’t counterfeit…but the allegation that they were made in the period after the retraction interviews is just so much smoke and mirrors.

smoke and mirrors







26 thoughts on “Abe/Drifloud’s ‘proof’ goes ‘poof’

  1. One of the things I’ve always found sad is just how hungry the children were when in Ella and Abe’s care. Even the foster carer has mentioned how hungry they were. They were also complaining about being hungry when at School.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. It would be a human rights abuse of the children if the authorities ever allowed access of Abraham Christie and Ella Draper to the two children, who suffered serious physical, emotional abuse and neglect at their hands.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Ella hasn’t a hope in hell of seeing those children again, unless they look for her, if they ever do.

    I wonder if she sees the older boy.

    I bet she doesn’t.

    Liked by 1 person

      • Hard to say. Children are often remarkably forgiving of even the worst parents, in part because they’re the only ones they’ve got. However, many reach a certain age and realise that it’s healthier to cut all ties.


    • I could be wrong, but if the children want to see her, that could, no matter what, take precedence, but it would rightly be highly supervised, and ought to be and she would have to prove herself, and jump through some hoops, She would though have to be rid of Abe for that to ever be possible. They do let even violent parents see their children, and others with serious problems, if they work on issues and show that they have, for a given period. .

      Liked by 1 person

        • Thing is they clearly stated that not only didn’t they want to live with her, but didn’t, ever !
          and the reason given, was that she couldn’t be trusted to get rid of abe, and they hated him and called him evil….. The way it was said was absolutely believable, and quite shocking, it takes alot for a child to say they do not want to ever see their parent, but even so, if they change their minds, and the foster carers or father allow that to be possible, for their sakes, i think there could be a chance, for her, it’s only that i see no sign of Ella doing the right things, that makes it seem impossible, as things are.
          They are young, and may pine for her, if they are, that will be to no avail, sadly, Just the thought of that, is putting them to still further abuse.

          There is no sign that she has, but if she sent the right sort of card or letter, to the children, by way of the local authority, they might pass it on, as long as she is putting their needs first, and just sending them some regret and love, and well wishes, and kept light.

          It would also be prudent to write the la and ask for a way to somehow work on resolution, with the promise of change etc, again, hardly likely, and very late, but a mother putting her children first, would do whatever it took ? I know some of them are basteads, and spiteful, cold, but not all are.

          The approaches encouraged by alot of the advisors, is too inflammatory and destructive, combatative, that though can work, if your rights are being ignored, and you know how to take a stand, effectively, and are in the right. There’s a world of difference, though,


  4. How can the solicitor suggest that the local authority have no powers to suspend contact: It looks like they have every reason, and have been following the law very well.

    This extract from the LA postion statement written in Feb 15:

    This line from the extract in the post above was written by Ella’s solicitor in Sept 15, after the fact finding and appeal hearing, which was lost:

    ‘They have refused our client contact with the children without any authority from the Court….’

    Pretty sure all points were covered in court, lawfully, then.

    Weird solicitor.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Plenty of dunderhead solicitors around but it seems they are attracted to nutters like Abella- like attracts like etc. Theirs seems to be not only ignorant of law but actively working against them. Not that it made any difference in the end.

      So hope that career criminal Abraham Cristie is nabbed one day and put on trial,

      Liked by 1 person

      • I agree, Sam–as in any profession, statistically speaking, some lawyers had to graduate at the bottom of the class. This one seems to suffer from a strange ailment in which he believes whatever his wacko clients tell him. Sad.


  5. What planet are Ella Draper/Gareeva’s ‘legal team’ on?

    ….the proposed Appellant submits this is why they were not called to give evidence at the fact finding hearing as they may repeat the allegations again.


    ‘not called’

    Ella was the 1st respondent?

    Ella did a runner because she was scared she would perjure herself in the high court, further than she already had at the police station. We already know Abraham Christie could not be served with witness summons despite many attempts before he too left the country.

    Liked by 2 people

    • I think the two of them should heave huge sighs of relief that they weren’t called upon to give evidence, as they would either have perjured themselves, or wound up facing charges. Some people just don’t know when they have it good.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. This is from the coverup.com blog article showing one of the extacts that it says were posted from the ‘fostercarers statement’. Abe specifically writes: NOTES MADE…ON 30th SEPTEMBER.

    The event that is being described here could only have be the same event as the one in the medical of 16.09, as it is very specific. It was already recorded in the medical, on 16.09.2014. So it was not a ‘continued repetition’ after the retraction which happened on the 17.09.2014.

    Little wonder when the children came across this repurposed item in the shops not long after the acid trip to Morocco they were now curious about it, enough to remark upon it. They could have been referring to ‘the vaseline that [Abe said] was used on our bottoms’. The judgement suggests this could be the case: The concept of the vaseline being used was first suggested by Abraham: Sturge: He was clear that
    Abraham had used the Vaseline word first…Q:’ He (Abraham) forced me to say
    my Dad puts Vaseline on my willy – plastic and normal ones.” Q added, as if puzzled,
    that Vaseline is used to rub on your hands when they are sore.

    From the judgement:

    144. Dr Sturge assessed the children on 5 November 2014. P related that Mr Christie
    would tell her that “for lying she would go to prison for 20 years and never see her
    grandparents or Mum again.” P commented, “Abraham loved my Mum so much. He
    even blamed her for being in the gang.” He had kept on asking her, “Any other
    people.” He had threatened her with the spoon and poked her so hard in the chin with
    it that she had a big mark. When Abraham had asked her about plastic willies in her
    bottom, she had denied this. He had said, “How come Q told me.” The Vaseline had
    been, said P, Q’s idea. He knew one of her friends used it (for her lips). P said, “Thing
    is, Abraham came up with stuff we didn’t know and came up with ideas too.”
    Abraham was always saying Q was a good boy for telling him things and that she was
    lying and would go to jail.

    148. Dr Sturge asked Q directly about Vaseline. He said, “He (Abraham) forced me to say
    my Dad puts Vaseline on my willy – plastic and normal ones.” Q added, as if puzzled,
    that Vaseline is used to rub on your hands when they are sore. He was clear that
    Abraham had used the Vaseline word first. Asked about seeing willies, Q said he and
    a friend at school had shown each other their willies in the toilet.

    BTW I am not sure that the screenshots Abraham put up on his blog are genuine at all. He could have forged some parts and added others to it. Who can say that is the original foster carers statement at all?

    Why did Abe not just publish the entire thing? It would have to have some kind of official verification to be included in the evidence bundle?

    Liked by 2 people

  7. That problem with the dates was pointed out to them on their blog. It is clear then that Abraham is counting on his supporters being too lazy or stupid to check his claims out. That or they wouldn’t care if it’s untrue. Abraham would appear to be right.

    Abraham and Ella have tried to claim that the retractions were forced during the period the children lived in foster care. Ella has recently suggested that the injuries to the children could have happened while in foster care, a truly moronic and desperate claim, easily shown to be a lie.
    It therefore begs the question, if the foster carer was being employed to force retractions, convince the children that they were never abused, and the foster carer was working on the side of the cult, why would they give a note of the children talking about the cult to Dr Hodes. It doesn’t make sense. Surely the foster carer would write that the children were making disclosures about Abraham, and saying that the cult was a lie.

    Instead, that writing demonstrates that the foster carer was taking objective notes and truly cared about the children and their welfare. Due to the caring nature of the foster carer, the children felt safe enough to eventually open up about Abraham’s abuse, and ask the police if they could stay with the foster carer.

    Yet crappy parents like Ella and Abraham are always trying to give foster carers a bad name.

    Liked by 2 people

      • Definitely over-emphasised, though they’re mentioned in the official medical report as well. I suspect Abrella simply wanted to point out, in a rather heavy-handed manner, that those words were used.


    • Yes, if the carer were being used to force the children to retract their stories, it hardly seems plausible that she’d also report evidence that seemed to support the original stories. But that’s Abrella logic for you.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. Pingback: Has Ella’s leave to appeal gone kaput? | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

Comments are closed.