Kristie Sue Costa: Truth and consequences

Last week we made a rather large and public mistake. In our eagerness to find the author of the despicable Dearman Does Hampstead, we published, then pulled, a post that had fallen very, very wide of the mark.

We were lucky, though: someone who knew the true identity of the DDH author wrote to put us straight:

.…I do believe however that her real name is Kris Costa. A good starting point for your research is perhaps a thorough examination of her husband’s ([redacted] Costa) FB page:

[link redacted]

You are correct in asserting that her ‘only known image’ is old. There is a more recent picture of her and her family taken around 2010 where she and [her husband] appear visibly older.

Her own FB page is [link redacted]
She uses a photo of her (now) teenage daughter H* as her profile picture.

We still don’t know the identity of our informant, but we’d like to thank them; their information was right on the money.

Following last week’s blunder we were feeling ultra-cautious, so our team took the time to thoroughly research the Kris Costa in question. We have gathered quite an extensive file on her now, with information dating back many years:

  • We have several pictures of Kris, her husband, and her family.
  • We know the names and addresses of her extended family members.
  • We know her address, her social media history and several of her alternate online identities.

Flushing Kris out of hiding

During the course of our research, something very interesting happened.

In real life, Kris is known as ‘Kristie Sue’.

When our friend Gabriella Barney called Kris DaCosta by that name on the DDH Facebook page, there was a sudden scuffling behind the scenes, and then…

Kris DaCosta facebook 2016-06-17 .png…suddenly, Kris DaCosta’s personal Blue Wiggy Facebook page was no more.

Then, we noticed that the foul post that had started it all—the DDH blog post featuring pictures of RD’s mother and elderly, frail grandmother—had suddenly vanished: DDH post gone 2016-06-18How strange!

Last we heard, Kris was archly informing Gabriella that she wasn’t actually accusing these two innocent older ladies of anything, she just happened to be talking about ‘inter-generational Satanic abuse’ and then somehow her hand slipped, and she put up RD’s family’s Facebook holiday pictures. Whoops!

And yet now, the post is toast (so to speak).

Most surprising of all, though, is the post that popped up shortly afterward on the DDH Facebook page:

Kristie S Costa confession 2016-06-18

While Kristie Sue Costa chose to leave the faces of her husband and children visible in her post, we’ve blacked them out. We don’t believe that her family ought to suffer for Kristie’s misdeeds.

Holy pre-emptive strike, Batman!

Turns out that Kristie Sue realised we had the goods on her, and decided to take the initiative and put up a photo of herself and her family near their home on the U.S. east coast.

Why? It’s called seizing the initiative, taking the bull by the horns…or trying to get ahead of the coming shit-storm. Let’s put it this way: over the past week we’ve gathered a lot of information. She knows it, and she would dearly love to make a squeaky-clean first impression, before we publish what we have.

The problem is, we already know who and what she is.

What’s that the Bible says?

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Matthew 7:16-20

We’re pretty sure Kristie Sue knows exactly what we’re talking about here.

Reading her ‘confession’, one might be tempted to think that perhaps she has a few shreds of moral decency left. She claims to have been so profoundly moved by RD’s children’s videos that she was compelled to pitch in and help. She even throws in a reference to her own presumed sexual abuse (though of course one never knows—could be a false flag…).

And yet, this is the woman who thinks it’s perfectly acceptable, on the say-so of no less an authority than Sabine McNeill, to defame, harass, and spread the foulest possible lies and misinformation about an innocent man whom she’s never met.

She’s violated his children’s privacy, and exposed them to online paedophiles, by publishing their pictures all over the internet, in direct contravention of a court order; and she has used her blog and Facebook page to disseminate sickening details of sexual abuse that those same children state never, ever happened.

She has accused RD and anyone who supports him of making and downloading child sex abuse images (aka child porn), of raping and murdering and eating children, of engaging in human trafficking.

She happily supports people who have illegally defamed, harassed, and terrorised over 100 innocent children, parents, teachers, clergy, and businesses in Hampstead. She has stood by while these innocents were harassed and vilified, their children targetted by paedophiles, their reputations damaged by false allegations.

And through it all, she has tried to claim the moral high ground. She actually says she’s proud of what she’s done.

She claims she did it all “for the children”—the same children who, as soon as they felt safe from their mother and her abusive boyfriend, were relieved to tell police that they’d been forced to invent all the lies they’d told about the ‘cult’ in Hampstead.

We know that not all fundamentalist Christians are as smug and complacent as Kristie Sue, but given all that we have found out about her, her attitude doesn’t really surprise us.

So, now what?

Well, one of our first stops once we had Kristie Sue Costa’s full address and confirmation of U.S. citizenship was to begin researching legal options.

Kristie Sue’s actions are, beyond a doubt, illegal here in the UK. Since she started DDH in May 2015, she has been wilfully violating a court order that was handed down by Mrs Justice Pauffley in February 2015. However, because Kristie Sue has been bravely publishing her repulsive blog from the United States, she is not currently reachable by UK harassment laws.

However, it turns out that while transnational defamation lawsuits are more complex to pursue than lawsuits between two parties in the same country, they are certainly do-able. We’ve been assured by those who know about such things that this sort of thing can involve hiring specialist law firms with international experience, but it’s no longer considered a black hole into which the plaintiff tosses hard-earned cash.

For instance, just last year a Canadian lawyer was able to successfully sue the hitherto untouchable David Icke for defamation. (Icke, as we know, is a UK citizen, and had boasted for many years that his insane conspiracy theories must be true, since he’d never been successfully sued. So much for that.)

The question then arises: who would be a party to such a lawsuit, if one were undertaken, against Kristie Sue Costa? And would a lawsuit prove worthwhile?

If there’s one thing we’ve learned from our long-time commenter Sam, it’s that the first question a lawyer will ask when undertaking a lawsuit is, “Does this person own a house?”

The answer in this case is yes. Yes, Kristie Sue Costa and her husband do own a house and land. (See, Sam? We were listening!)

With that in mind, our next step will be to consult with anyone who, to our knowledge, might wish to be included in such a suit. We’ll keep you informed as this case progresses.

And of course we’ll be happy to assist by contributing all the information at our disposal. Lawsuit

102 thoughts on “Kristie Sue Costa: Truth and consequences

    • Thanks, K9. I agree: those children have suffered enough from this, and it’s not going away as long as these people are allowed to keep splashing lies about them across the internet.

      Liked by 2 people

      • The two individuals who have suffered most from this hoax are the RD children, and this horror will have an enormous impact on them once they become aware what has been put onto the internet about them. Even if nobody else takes legal action I think there is a duty on the part of people caring for the children that they are championed in the courts for substantial financial damages.

        Liked by 4 people

        • You’re right. They were used as pawns in an evil game, and even if they are able to forget much of what happened to them, the internet won’t. This is a story that could haunt them for the rest of their lives, and for that they deserve recompense.

          Liked by 3 people

  1. EC, you are officially my hero! And so is the person behind the anonymous tip-off 🙂

    To smugly borrow Kristie Sue’s own phrase, “This is big.” And it really is. This is a major scalp, I think it’s fair to say, at least as big as the Charlotte closures. A sizeable chunk of the myths about this case and about RD (and about me!) originated on this creepy woman’s pathetic blog.

    3 cheers for that nice Mr. Coyote and the intrepid Hoaxtead Research team…

    Liked by 5 people

    • Thanks, Spiny! I think most of the credit goes to our anonymous friend, as well as the stellar efforts of our behind-the-scenes team. I just write stuff down.🙂

      I agree that this is on a par with ‘outing’ Charlotte Alton Ward, and I sincerely hope it has a similar outcome. Identifying the wrong-doer helped ensure the demise of their blogs, and these days no one wants to know Charlotte.

      Liked by 3 people

  2. Sooo, who’s laughing now, Kristie Sue?

    “Thank you for the pain
    It made me raise my game”

    Couldn’t have put it better myself, Jessie :)

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Is there any chance when Kristie Sue is sorted out, or possibly simultaneously, that you could also pursue Angela, Belinda, Sabine, Neelu, Jake, Rupert and anyone else spreading stories without any firm evidence?

    Belinda is a slippery eel, as we all know.

    Sabine claims she hasn’t a pot to pee in, but I’m not so sure.

    An ahem intelligent, without husband, woman like her, would probably have acquired some property, although maybe not in England.

    Angela has her nice ex-Council house and she did take the deeds of it, to the Ben Fellows hearing last January 2015, so she’s quite willing to off load it. I mean he did skip bail to Lanzarote. Is he another of Angela’s young men?

    Surely Neelu owns property.

    Rupert no doubt has money in some trust fund for him, though perhaps he has spent it all on wine, women and song.

    Jake, has probably got one of those “hippy” mobile homes…

    Liked by 2 people

    • Even if one of these or many, were found unable to pay damages or court costs, they can be bankrupted. They may scoff at that but becoming a bankrupt screws up your ability to travel for a few years and certainly f*cks your ability to get credit in any form. The simplest things like getting electricity connected could require a large upfront bond and so on.

      Each one of them can be included as co-defendants in a court pursuit which in itself causes intense distrust between each other and huge, huge problems : ie can we trust each other?..will one defendant admit guilt at the first court appearance and stuff the other’s defense…who will pay the lawyer etc etc.

      The Hoaxers are incredibly vulnerable to the law. My tactic would be to include all of them in a lawsuit and hound them until they are a busted flush.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Thanks, Sam. Watching certain other cases that have been joined has made me appreciate the value of this strategy in dividing and creating distrust between co-defendants.

        I don’t get to decide whether a lawsuit goes ahead, but this strategy would certainly have my vote.

        Like

      • Yes Mr. Coyote does an excellent job.

        I don’t know how he manages it, he seems really organised.

        Just thought if you’re going for 1 Perp, might as well go for a few more especially the ones in England and Ireland. Stop them handing out leaflets etc. Also think they might have more of an audience.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Thanks, Zzzzzzz (hope I spelled that right!). I agree, it would be ideal if we could launch lawsuits against several of these people at once. However, we chose the DDH author in particular because of the deliberate nature of her abuse, and the fact that she isn’t reachable via the criminal justice system.

          The main problem with multiple lawsuits is cost. They’re horrendously expensive, and can go on for years. As Sam points out, it certainly be more cost-effective to launch a suit against a group of people, but it’s something that will take a fair of planning and fundraising beforehand. Right now we’re relying on the police and court system to deal with several of them, but who knows where this thing could go?

          Liked by 1 person

  4. I say, well done, chaps! Bravo and hurrah to all those spiffing personages at “HoaxRes”. Tally ho!

    Liked by 1 person

  5. My own experience is this : most certainly my lawyer’s first question when stating I wish to pursue someone legally in a civil matter is “do they own a house” (OK he’s also a family friend). This is not meant in a cold callous way but it’s to establish that you are not dealing with a “man / woman of straw” and about to throw away your own precious funds in pursuit of a rogue who has already cost you dearly (sadly no discount for family friends-someone has to pay for all the office staff).

    My lawyer has also become quite successful with pursuing international rogues especially in the USA but apparently this has become more common over the past 2 decades. Numerous local law firms now partner with international law firms.

    There are numerous reasons you can sue in the USA: harassment and certainly defamation which ‘Hampstead Does Dearman” is guilty of. In a sense defamation is actually a less complex matter to pursue in the US than the UK where it’s common but ruinously expensive and complicated.

    Free Speech in the USA does not mean you have the freedom to defame.
    Tactics used by lawyers in the US in such matters include getting a pre-trial court imposed lien on the defendant’s house or assets to prevent them disposing of assets and requesting a judge to demand a defendant guarantee court costs should they lose, via an escrow account if it appears they may try and fight an unwinnable case in an attempt to drive up costs they will be unable to pay ie: trying to frustrate the court process.

    As for this ghastly website and the author’s claims about her tears about watching the videos and insuring these child victims are abused even further : one of the oddest aspects that should have rung alarm bells with anyone who has ever dealt with a real child sexual abuse victim is this : the 2 kids do not seem at all traumatized rather they are very excitable in a childish way as they describe events that we now know were taught to them- kids who have been taken advantage of by the dreadful Abraham Christie and happily repeat a script in the way children will always be pleased they have pleased an adult.

    ## The child victims also have a legal case against all these rogues which their father could pursue. One thing I have pondered on a lot is when these kids get to be young adults I feel a lot of Hoaxers are in for a torrid time when the real victims comprehend what has been done to them.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Ghost Of Sam.

      Apart from the well over the top tale,

      the lack of trauma in the 2 Children, confirms to me that no sexual abuse in the manner described has taken place. Thanks for mentioning that in your comments.

      In addition, the girl has been confirmed as being a virgin.

      As if she would be if the wild story had any credibility!

      No wonder the Judge dismissed the case.

      Jeez these people are bonkers and that includes you Angela as we all know you’re reading this blog …

      Running off to Lanzarote is not going to solve your problems when you’re included in the class action.

      If I was you, i’d delete all your you tube videos, though I expect the people on here will already have them all copied.

      Serves you right, saying all this is true without any evidence.

      Vile woman you are.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I watched all the videos- I shouldn’t have but I did. The sheer relief the girl shows when she admits it is not true is obvious and good on her. She is star in my mind and I detect she is probably very intelligent and she appears to feel deeply for the welfare for her brother. I’m so pleased they have each other as support.

        Liked by 3 people

        • I also went through the videos over a year ago as part of a review of everything on this case in order to fight the Satan Hunters, I was impressed with the inner strength of the girl, who put up a great resistance to Abraham Christie and Ella Draper, but also the was the first to dump the hoax claims when she felt safe to do so.

          Liked by 1 person

  6. Unadulterated congratulations Coyote! Tip of the Raccoon tail to you, that is a remarkable result. IF you do go ahead with legal action, I shall certainly help you fund-raise – Ms Raccoon has a sterling record of doing so successfully, just let me know when.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Remarkable work EC and crew.Tenacity at is very best.
      I suspect there may some convenient shifting of assets by those aware the table is rapidly turning in their direction.
      Agree with Sam that the children and their representatives have one hell of a case against a number of individuals.
      Truth will out.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Really well done. I think for too long there has been an attitude of defeat from the very beginning about how these ‘keyboard warriors’ should be tackled – o there’s nothing we can do, o its online, just ignore it – but the terrible recent events of the Orlando shooting and the murder of Jo Cox are clear examples of why we have to at least try to deal with those who spread lies and hate.

    If we don’t then we are allowing them to set the agenda, to create and maintain an environment where lies and hate become the standard currency and the vulnerable and/or mentally ill are given encouragement to act out their own fears and inadequacies. (usually indirect encouragement but in some horrible examples quite explicitly direct).

    I will shortly be taking my own action against someone I think is also part of this – I appreciate my own experiences don’t come close to what Ricky Dearman and his children have suffered. But I am clear that it is part and parcel of the same type of behaviour, it is corrosive to any kind of public debate about the things that matter and it is important to take a stand.

    It is always better to light a candle than curse the darkness.

    Liked by 3 people

  8. Kristie Sue may be desperately deleting incriminating posts in order to cover her tracks. But she should be aware that we have literally hundreds of damning screenshots of her revolting antics. Too little too late, Kristie luv.

    As for that vile, shameful article in which she launches a merciless attack on two innocent, vulnerable, elderly ladies, she may have deleted it from her shitty blog but she forgot to get rid of the “smoking gun” on Twitter:

    Oops!

    On top of which, that that nice Mr. Coyote already covered it here, complete with choice quotes and screenshots:

    https://hoaxteadresearch.wordpress.com/2016/06/04/witch-hunter-targets-elderly-mother-grandmother

    D’oh!

    Liked by 2 people

  9. I have a fighting fund too. I’m posting under a pseudonym, obviously! However, if I popped my head above the parapet I’m sure the abuse would start and affect me in real life.

    I am also willing to contribute a not large but not insignificant amount to a lawyer for legal fees for someone if they want to start off something. You know how to get in touch EC!

    I think she’s deleting stuff because she knows it’s disgusting. She is also very stupid to think that a London school shuts for baby killing and eats babies for school dinners and loads of the children are abused and have tattoos. There’s a reason not one single corroborative witness has come forward. It’s a pile of shit and lies forced into the two children. Only people with a conspiratorial mindset at the extremes of political and religious belief are backing this pretty much. There’s a reason for this.

    Liked by 4 people

    • I would contribute to a fighting fund. I would also think those of my own religion would get behind this. The Satanic Temple have a major personal interest via their Greyfaction in fighting SRA, they are experts in crowdfunding campaigns, in marketing and in running legal actions.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. It’s also a really interesting discussion about crowdfunding for legal action – I had a vague alarm bell going off that this wouldn’t be possible, but it seems I am behind the times! https://next.ft.com/content/89df9038-3e80-11e5-9abe-5b335da3a90e.

    I think my worries stemmed from this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champerty_and_maintenance but as I can’t see that anyone would be funding legal action to make money, hopefully this is not relevant.

    The risk is that the crowd funders get stuck with costs, but I can’t see that is a realistic possibility here as their behaviour is so egregiously awful that any action against them for harrassment/defamation must be a shoe-in.

    So if its all legal and over board, then let me know how I can make a donation!

    Liked by 1 person

  11. So the vile woman is at last revealed.
    Kristie Sue you’re a nasty piece of work. You felt it was okay to post pictures of RD and his family when you were anonymous but now don’t want the post showing because people know who you are, this tells everyone you knew you were in the wrong. You deserve anything which may be coming to you in the form of a Lawsuit.
    Well done to everyone involved in identifying her.

    Liked by 3 people

  12. FFS. I just had a quick look at the Dearman Does Hampstead twitter feed (because otherwise I have to tidy my desk) and the children’s names are repeated over, and over and over.

    I hope part of what follows identifying this woman is that you alert the High Court?/twitter whoever, to her breach of injunction and continued naming of two vulnerable children who must not be identified.

    I appreciate the cat is out of the bag on this one, but such flagrant contempt of the rule of law AND the welfare of children must not go unnoticed.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Has only 30 followers and the vast majority look barking mad. Also one who claims he is a “CSA journalist” who has authored a book which cannot be found anywhere and with over 5000 followers but alas, a check of those followers shows the vast majority are bought twitter followers from India. Tragic really.

      Liked by 1 person

  13. Need I mention the recent case of Gawker and Hulk Hogan and $140M award?. Of course Gawker are appealing but I guarantee their legal costs are already horrendous. Big difference with the Hampstead matter- it’s a slam dunk as a UK court has made a judgement and the Hoaxers are not only in contempt of court but have plastered the net with defamation’s.

    I’d be very surprised if there weren’t dozens of US lawyers who would take on the matter without payment up front if the defendant has money.

    Liked by 2 people

  14. I think this could be a really fascinating case for so many reasons – the boundaries of freedom of speech on the internet, the necessity to involve many jurisdictions in policing it – I think its long overdue. The speed at which the internet has become a fixture in our lives has meant that we have just got swept along without thinking how to deal with this kind of thing.

    I think its time for some kind of international court. Jurisdiction just becomes a nonsense when anyone anywhere can publish something to be instantly read by millions, anywhere else.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Thanks so much, Sarah. The only answer to this sort of nonsense is to stand up to it. I suspect the reason this blog and the community around it is so vilified by the other side is that they’ve never faced a clear, open, determined opposition before. It must come as a bit of a shock, but they should get used to it. We’re not going anywhere.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. Check out the DDH Facebook page, guys. This post has sent that fruitloop Sonja van Gelder into rant overdrive! It’s a veritable cliché frenzy. “Blah blah distinguishing marks blah blah no proper investigation blah blah IPCC blah blah forced retractions blah blah no evidence on Hoaxtead just character assassinations blah blah you’re all Ricky’s socks blah blah.” Yawn :/

    Liked by 2 people

    • “…no evidence on Hoaxtead just character assassination…”

      Haha, no hypocrisy there, then, Sonja! LMAO! 😄

      Liked by 1 person

    • @Sonja van Gelder (because I know you’re reading this, whether you admit it or not):

      Er…nope. We’ve spent a year and a half researching this case. Most of us here have more knowledge about it in our little fingers than you appear to have in your whole body. You can read a whole host of evidence on this rather brilliant blog, which has 1,580 posts at time of writing, along with thousands upon thousands of often very informative comments and thousands of useful links too, handy for if you ever feel like getting off your arse and checking your facts.

      There are medical reports, police reports, the children’s own admissions, Abe’s confessions, court reports, press articles… and a number of us have also made videos about it on various channels. Perhaps you could be more specific about what you mean by “research”.

      Alternatively, you could try to get your head around some basic principles of ethics and law, if you can: you’ve made the accusations. Ergo, the burden of proof lies with you (both legally and ethically). It’s commonly known as “innocent until proven guilty” and it’s been rather fashionable in civilised nations since the end of the middle ages.

      Yet even though I was under no obligation to provide you with any proof, I have. Lots of it. So now it’s your turn, so please enlighten us. What is your proof to support the extremely serious (and let’s face it – logistically impossible) allegations you have made publicly about several members of the Hampstead community? if you’re not too busy supporting Chris Everard’s relentless campaign to rid the World of Jews, that is.

      Liked by 3 people

      • This whole thinking everyone is RD thing is beyond a joke now. Seriously, is there anyone left whom they don’t believe to be RD? They’ll be accusing themselves next. In fact, maybe the dumb twats are already looking in the mirror and call themselves Ricky, haha! They clearly have some sort of sexual fixation for the guy. Mind you, I hope they continue to believe we’re all one person, as it means our real identities remain safe while they flail blindly around like a beached dolphin.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Sonja Vangelder is a prolific poster on our offender’s Facebook page. I think she must think if she posts 20 times that it will somehow prove her case but it looks more like a morbid fixation to me. There must be a fine line between these Hoaxers- so many so desperately want 100s of children to have been raped, murdered and eaten that you have to really wonder if it’s actually a fantasy of theirs.

        A bit like Rupert Q who announced he would like to ‘rape a child’ just to see what it was like. I cannot think of any sane persons who would express similar ideals. It’s so much like a Freudian Slip ( Sigmund not Clement) that authorities should be warned.

        As for ‘the appalling Ricky Does Hampstead website (whatever it’s called), I reckon the FBI may take an interest. The FBI have a very professional dedicated unit that records and tracks potential child abusers. And they are intelligent and sane and understand very well that true sociopath potential abusers can often appear to be the very ones who proclaim that they are fighting child abuse.

        Liked by 3 people

        • Well said Sam. There is a body of opinion that particularly notes the source of such allegations as the imagination of the individual presenting them. – As you suggest of Quaintance; what reasonably-adjusted mind could even generate such a though let alone express it? – Even as (such as he claims) humour? – Many credible people (including some in authority) now feel comfortable in expressing the considered opinion that Rupert Quaintance is a Paedophile and an immediate risk to children. – How proud his Mother and Father must be as the reputation he has attached to the family name.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Indeed Joe.Rupert is “spoil brat personified”.His diatribes portray a kind of devine cosmic entitlement to be gratified however that may take his fancy,he flips out when a perceived obstacle lies in his path.Even Angie has triggered his inner monster,bless.

            Mummy and daddy wont always be around to clean up his do do`s.

            Hard lessons ahead for this egregious little oik.

            Liked by 1 person

      • Sonja’s still banging on like a butt-hurt chimp over on Facebook. She appears to be having trouble with the concept of basing opinions on facts and logic and is pretending that all we do here is throw insults, as if the thousands of documents, links and facts don’t exist. She’s in denial and I think that’s yet another sign that we’re winning.

        As for the ‘character assassination’ allegations – from someone who’s spent a year and a half defaming innocent people on the internet for kicks – I’d like to nominate her for the Hypocrite of the Week award. Do I hear a ‘seconded’?

        Liked by 3 people

  17. Wow what a great post to read with the first cuppa of the day. Brilliant result indeed. By deleteing posts it only proves that she knew she was in the wrong all the time, silly woman. I hope she realises her actions are going to cost her now and she will live to regret what she has done for a long time.

    Liked by 4 people

    • I agree on both points, AF. She’s well aware of what she’s done, and scrambling to cover her rear end. I wonder whether her husband is aware of the danger she’s placed them in?

      Liked by 1 person

        • Yes, that’s what I meant, should have clarified. This is the problem with trying to respond to comments via smartphone.

          When I refer to Kristie Sue Costa having placed her family in danger, of course I mean the danger of losing their home and land, as well as any savings they might have been fortunate enough to accrue. This is what happens to people who lose lawsuits, which Costa most certainly would.

          Liked by 1 person

  18. Fascinating but true: currently there are 66 comments on the Dearman Does Hampstead Facebook post in which Kristie Sue Costa outs herself. One of the commenters is our own Gabriella Barney; the rest consist of the perpetually effervescent Sonja Van Gelder, Helen McMenamin, and someone named Laura Huggins.

    So…a total of 3 supporters have come out to fly the flag for Kristie Sue. Wow. I’m feeling a bit sad for her. (Not really.)

    Liked by 2 people

  19. Brilliant result, well done! Funny how so many of the most rabid hoaxsters, like Bronny and Charlotte, are millions of miles from Hampstead and have probably never set foot in the place. Daresay they fondly imagine cobbled streets and shadowy figures in back alleys like some mash up of Dickens and film noire. Plus the distance and the anonymity of the internet makes them feel invincible. Maybe taking Costa down will have a domino effect and some of the others will back off. I will certainly contribute to any fighting fund, just say the word.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Well said, Anna. And to be honest, I think they’d even struggle to find Hampstead on a map. Case in point: Jake Clarke – who actually lives in the London area – thought Blackfriars Court was in Manchester! So what chance these blabbermouthed twunts from other hemispheres would have is anybody’s guess.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Nicely said, Anna. I do think they feel invincible because they’re in different countries: after all, they might reassure themselves, nothing really happened to Charlotte Alton Ward (other than online humiliation), so what’s the worst that could happen to us?

      They’re not thinking about the fact that we’ve had some time to give our reactions a deal of thought, and have determined that while we cannot call down the force of the criminal justice system on them, it’s definitely possible to use alternative means. We’re stronger, smarter, and even more determined now than we have been in the past to ensure that wrong-doers pay for their actions.

      Like

  20. Still can’t get my head around this: so, someone who ‘cares about the welfare of children’…is putting the welfare of children at risk, breaking the law and feels proud. Computer says ‘no’! I had assumed this content was coming from someone close to the mother/boyfriend as it is so targeted at the father.

    So, a ‘big up’ for EC and the Hoaxtead crew in outing another seriously warped and twisted person – against whom action can now be taken and which I am happy to support or help in any way. It would be good to hear the legal strategy of a specialist law firm on how this could be taken forward. What incenses me (perhaps to phillimoresarah point re: sense of defeat) is the lack of action taken by the courts in enforcing and taking action against those in contempt. Perhaps a challenge here is required.

    I don’t know if it helps but here’s a list of potential breaches of UK and international laws by the hoaxers, there are probably more:

    • Contempt of court;
    • Sexual Offences Act 1992;
    • Prevention of Harassment Act;
    • Malicious Communications;
    • Protection of Children Act;
    • EU online child protection directives;
    • Children’s online privacy protection;
    • Data Protection Act;
    • EU Data Protection Directives;
    • Federal Data Protection Regulations;
    • Federal Communications Decency Act;
    • Criminal Justice Act;
    • Computer Misuse Act;
    • Communications Act;
    • Convention on Human Rights (Article 8)
    • Libel/slander and defamation of character.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Nice list. May I add witness intimidation, incitement to violence, breach of the peace, breach of PACE, harassment, threatening behaviour, race hate speech (contrary to the Race & Religious Hatred Act, 2006), failure to comply with a High Court injunction, charity fraud, aiding a fugitive and perverting the course of justice?

      Liked by 3 people

    • Thanks, TN! This has been my feeling all along.

      Even if I thought those children were being abused in the ways Abe and Ella described, I would never in a million years have disclosed their identities, let along images or videos of their alleged confessions. The fact that their mother did this is just so far beyond my ken…what parent would even consider putting their own children, as well as the children of others, at risk?

      Even if Abe had not abused RD’s children, the release of that material would have been enough to ensure that Ella had her children removed from her care.

      Liked by 1 person

  21. Excellent work, she is a truly horrible individual. It’s incredible that she has her own children yet doesn’t see the damage she causes to P and Q, by plastering their images onto the internet. She has been one of the worst for spreading pure lies and wild speculation. She deserves all the exposure she gets, I have no sympathy for her. Though i think it was right to blank out the faces of her children. It’s just a shame that she couldn’t have that level of decency.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Someone explain to me why you’d think there was a bunch of Satanists murdering children and when said Satanists find out who you are, you post pictures of your own children?

      I don’t think ‘risk assessment’ is her strong point. Mind you, logic isn’t either so there you go.

      Liked by 2 people

      • LOL! I think this points to an issue we raised a couple of weeks ago: if these people truly believed that a ‘Satanic cult’ was raping, murdering, and eating babies and children, would they not go to greater lengths to keep themselves out of harm’s way? As it is, it’s pretty clear that they have no real belief; they’re playing a sick, disgusting game of make-believe.

        Liked by 1 person

        • El Coyote said: “As it is, it’s pretty clear that they have no real belief; they’re playing a sick, disgusting game of make-believe”.

          Correct!
          And this has always been the case, of course. Most of the self-professed satanic abuse cult “experts”, and supposed victims who became professional celebrity victims in the mass media, in the 1980’s and early 1990’s, were not True Believers themselves.

          So what is the point of their “sick, disgusting game of make-believe”?
          Primarily, to sow the seeds of and encourage the spread of, genuine belief amongst the great masses of “the public” as well as in the minds of key policymakers within certain professions/ government ministries or agencies of particular interest to them.

          And what is the point of this SRA belief evangelism? [and “government protected VIP pedophile ring” belief evangelism as well] ?
          To incite popular distrust in, and irrational hatred for, certain public institutions and the people who have & are currently running them, to the point where public belief that these institutions are hopelessly corrupted and cannot be “fixed” leads to them being shut down and replaced by populist versions – populist versions that people can trust because they are controlled and run by the very “whistleblowers” that exposed the hopeless corruption of the institutions they have replaced, versions controlled and run by the likes of Belinda McKenzie, Sabine McNeil and their loser crackpot followers. Such a strategy would be the only means through which these hopelessly unqualified, chronically irresponsible nobodies could ever hope to experience and wield genuine POWER in our society.

          And a similar strategy WAS somewhat successful for certain individuals, in the past. For example, based on being the only publicly professed person with “expertise” on the subject of satanic abuse cult crime in their area, self-professed SRA victim Joan Christiansen was allowed to advise and even direct some child sexual abuse investigations carried out by child protection social workers and police agencies in the Los Angeles area, way back in the early-mid 1980’s.

          Like

        • I think that most of these people believe that, deep down. They will also, if sufficiently prodded, admit that there’s no such thing as Father Christmas or the Easter Bunny. Most of them, that is. Of course, I exclude Jake Clarke.

          Liked by 1 person

    • Actually, I have to admit that I found some of her dot-joining pretty hilarious. I can’t think of a single instance in which she got anything right, and her attempts at deductive reasoning were comedy gold.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Something that always bugged me (in an OCD kinda way): the sequel to ‘I Know What You Did Last Summer’ was set a year later and called ‘I Still Know What You Did Last Summer’. Bear with me here but shouldn’t it have been called ‘I Still Know What You Did The Summer Before Last’?

      Liked by 2 people

    • There are still harassment and vigilante opportunities in Salem. That’s not far for her to go. I’ll lend her a broomstick to get there.

      Liked by 1 person

  22. UK Callum: yes you may and thank you…
    Here is the more comprehensive list of potential violations:

    • Contempt of court/failure to comply with a court injunction;
    • Public Justice Offences (Witness intimidation/perverting course of justice, aiding fugitive);
    • Police and Criminal Evidence Act;
    • Racial and Religious Hatred Act;
    • Terrorism Act/incitement to violence;
    • Outraging Public Decency;
    • Fraud Act (Charity Fraud)
    • Criminal Justice and Public Order Act;
    • Sexual Offences Act 1992;
    • Prevention of Harassment Act;
    • Malicious Communications;
    • Protection of Children Act;
    • EU online child protection directives;
    • Children’s online privacy protection;
    • Data Protection Act;
    • EU Data Protection Directives;
    • Federal Data Protection Regulations;
    • Federal Communications Decency Act;
    • Criminal Justice Act;
    • Computer Misuse Act;
    • Communications Act;
    • Convention on Human Rights (Article 8)
    • Libel/slander and defamation of character.

    Liked by 2 people

  23. Pingback: Lawsuit idea gets overwhelming support | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

Comments are closed.