Sabine attempts to be cunning, fails horribly

In a two-page document released under the aegis of the Association of McKenzie Friends, a mysterious someone has issued a strangely distorted version of Hoaxtead and Sabine’s role in it.

The document, titled How Alleged Abusers become Accusers of ‘Witness Intimidation’: Evidence of Cover-Ups of Satanist Ritual Abuse of Children in Hampstead’ is written in the third person, presumably to disguise the identity of its author. It’s a thin disguise, awkwardly worn and easily torn away:

As we read this steaming pile of dog droppings fascinating exposé, a few thoughts occurred:

• While Barnet police did take evidence from RD’s children in the form of video interviews, the drawings of intimate tattoos/birthmarks can hardly be considered ‘evidence’. For one thing, the drawings, allegedly produced by the children, can be seen to have been coached, or at very least assisted, by an adult with a rather masculine-looking hand.
• And here’s a basic rule of police evidence: producing a drawing and claiming it was done by two children does not make that drawing ‘evidence’. If the children had each separately drawn those tattoo/birthmark pictures in the presence of police officers, and in the absence of anyone who might potentially coach them, the drawings might be worth something. As it is, they’re just pieces of paper with marks on them. Meaningless as evidence.
• Isn’t it funny that the allegations of abuse just so happened to “exactly correspond to widespread practices in the UK reported to the Children’s Commissioner in January 2012”? We’ve already discussed that report here a couple of times, and noted that a) it’s not an actual study, but is basically a bunch of supposition and fantasy, fed by evangelical Christian beliefs, and b) it wasn’t in any way sponsored by the Children’s Commissioner. Rather, it was just one of many pieces of written material from a variety of sources, written in response to a general call for papers. To suggest otherwise is to grossly misrepresent the nature of the paper.
• None of the alleged perpetrators were examined, because by the time the children had failed to identify any locations where alleged abuse had taken place, retracted their original statements, and declared that their actual abusers were in fact their mother and her boyfriend, whatever case Abrella had been trying to build quickly disintegrated.

Ah, the vaunted IPCC report. Let’s have a closer look at this report, which the Hoaxtead pushers insist vindicates their delusional beliefs:

We admit, this report is somewhat confusing, as it states that the IPCC has agreed to uphold Ella Draper’s appeal. However, it also very clearly states, “It is not within my role to review or assess the original criminal allegation and the IPCC is not able to make any comment as to the thoroughness of the criminal investigation”.

So…the best the Hoaxteaders can say about this is that it confirms that the IPCC believes that during the investigation, reporting procedures might have been less than perfect. It specifically does not claim that the police failed to investigate, that they stinted in any way on their investigation, or that their final conclusion was less than valid.

In other words, it has absolutely no impact on the final outcome of the case, which is still ‘No Crime Committed’.

Now, back to Sabine’s…er, we mean the completely anonymous report on the Association of McKenzie Friends’ site:

Let’s assume that by ‘THE DEFENDANT’, Sabine means, well, Sabine. We have to admit that coffee came out our noses when we read the bit about her being an innocent bystander.

And we’re fascinated to find that she claims to have been helping Ella “before a gruelling High Court Fact Finding Hearing in March 2015 as a McKenzie Friend”. Didn’t Sabine hot-foot it to Germany in mid-February, specifically to avoid criminal charges? Oh, but perhaps she assisted Ella psychically, sending her comforting messages via Roger the 8′ Butterfly. Yes, we feel sure that must be it.

And now we come to the Trials of Sabine, as told by a completely anonymous person who is totally not Sabine at all, but someone quite different:

• Threatened with Unspecified Prosecution by the London Borough of Barnet (10 February 2015); (If by ‘Unspecified Prosecution’ Sabine means ‘I didn’t stick around long enough to find out’.)
• Threatened with Imprisonment, Fines, and having her Assets Seized by the High Court Family Division (11 February 2015); (Note to Sabine: this is what happens when you ignore High Court injunctions. They don’t take kindly to it. Just a thought.)
  • Forced to flee UK Jurisdiction to nephew’s flat in Berlin (Not forced. Chose to run like a cornered rat. Also: our condolences to Sabine’s nephew.)
  • Financially punished by long standing pension credit withheld because of Residency status being revoked; (See previous re “chose to run”.)
• Been subjected to gross on-line harassment by the father as publisher of Hoaxtead Research; (HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Cool story, Sabine. Glad you like our stuff, though.)
• Arrested and questioned (04 August 2015) while her flat was searched and goods seized; (Yes, because she had warrants outstanding against her. This is what police do to people who have warrants outstanding. Hey, we thought Sabine was some kind of lay legal advisor? How does she not know this?)
  • Released on unusually harsh Police Bail Conditions but without Charge; (Define ‘unusually harsh’. Unusual how? Oh, you mean that thing about not being allowed to publish more dreck online about Hoaxtead? That’s not unusual; it’s just plain common sense.)
• Had a brick through her door (03 October 2015) and been verbally assaulted at a bus stop (06 December 2015); (As we’ve said in the past, we do not in any way condone violence or vigilantism. However, we’d like to point out that the innocent people of Hampstead have endured an entire year’s worth of far worse harassment, much of it brought about by Sabine’s activities. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but we can understand the frustration behind whatever might have befallen Sabine.)
• Arrested and questioned (21 December 2015), while her flat was searched and goods seized; (By ‘goods’ we assume ‘computers and mobile phones’. This means the police are looking for concrete evidence that Sabine is indeed the author of her various bail-breaching blog posts. Carry on, lads and lassies!)
• Arrested at home in the middle of the night (11 January 2016) by PC Betsey Davey, with her flat being searched again and goods seized; (Poor PC Betsey Davey: she’s also been in charge of many of Neelu’s various arrests. The woman must have the patience of a saint.)
  • Held in cold police cell for hours, without a coat or a blanket; (All together now: “Awwwwwww…”)
  • Questioned again without her solicitor; (If we were her solicitor we’d be blocking Sabine’s calls by now, just saying.)
  • Charged with ‘Witness Intimidation’ to appear on 08 February 2015, relating to a blog post she published on 10 April 2015 in support of another bystander and aunt of a victim of Satanic Ritual Abuse. (Aside from the fact that this statement would have had Sabine time-travelling to make her court date, we assume she’s referring to the blog post where she put up Neelu’s bail conditions and witness statements. As for Neelu being a ‘bystander’? Not quite:

Isn’t it lucky we saved this video of Neelu screaming after an elderly priest as he tries to flee in fear down the road? Yes, we thought so too.