IPCC Report: What DID police do wrong?

Over the past couple of weeks we’ve been discussing the report issued by the IPCC in response to complaints laid by Ella Draper and Abraham Christie concerning the investigation into allegations of a cult paedophile ring in Hampstead.

For the most part, the IPCC response to the investigation was to dismiss 19 out of the 21 complaints, much to Abe and Ella’s chagrin. However, 2 heads of complaint were upheld, and we think it’s important to understand what they were, and how they might have potentially affected the police investigation.

The fact is, the investigation was not flawless. While many of the points raised by Hoaxtead pushers in the year and a half have shown either a complete lack of understanding of proper police procedure or a deliberate distortion of the truth, in 2 instances the the IPCC agreed with Ella and Abe that the police could have done better.

IPCC 11&12 upheld 2016-07-03

Point 11: Mr Dearman was interviewed about 1 specific allegation but not the full allegations of satanic abuse.

In Ella’s first complaint to the IPCC, dated 15 May 2015, her solicitor writes:

25. It is certain from the above entry at paragraph 24 that Mr Dearman would only be questioned about one specific allegation of sexual abuse at Finchley swimming pool but there is no reasoning given for this strange ‘pick and choose allegations’ approach. Our client suggests that this is because the idea of having so many people in one go in the disabled toilets at the swimming pool abusing the children was perhaps unlikely given the size of the toilet (this is to not to say something did not allegedly happen). Therefore it is submitted that Mr Dearman was questioned about this only in order to make it look like some genuine action into the allegations was being taken when in actual fact noting [sic] effective was being done.


In other words, Ella believes that the police only questioned RD about the Finchley swimming pool allegations because it would be relatively easy for him to refute those claims, whilst ignoring the presumably more serious claims of group cult abuse.

First, let’s remember that RD came voluntarily to the police station for an interview on 15th September, having heard via social services that the police wished to contact him.

By that date, the police had already discovered very serious flaws in the children’s allegations, which cast doubt upon the entire case. On 11th September, the children had been taken into Police Protection. Abe and Ella’s story had begun to crumble under investigation.

Because there were serious doubts about the truth of the allegations, DS Fernandez decided to focus on one allegation alone—the easiest question for RD to answer.

Had the investigation gone differently, and the children’s allegations been borne out by evidence, it would have made sense to interview RD in stages, progressing from less serious to more serious allegations, with each stage building on evidence from the last.

DCI Fleming notes in the IPCC report that in light of the serious flaws in the initial allegations, followed by the children’s retractions, DS Fernandez took the correct action in not pursuing further interviews with RD. However, she states that this rationale should have been stated either in the crime report or in the decisions log page of CRIS.

In other words, this head of complaint was upheld because DS Fernandez should have either put all allegations to RD, or ensured that he ‘showed his work’ in the case paperwork.

Point 12: The evidence and specifically that from Dr Hoades [sic] should have triggered arrest and seizure of computers/phones etc.

Ella and Abe and their gang of Hoaxtead pushers have long relied on Dr Hodes’ findings to justify their howling for RD’s head on a platter. However, the IPCC report reveals that Dr Hodes’ full written report was not made available to police until January 2015—4 months after she examined the children (twice).

As DCI Fleming points out,

DS Fernandez contacted EDT (Social Services out of hours) to obtain the outcome from the first CP medical on the 12th Sept. EDT could not assist as there was no update on the children’s files. He spoke to a Social worker involved in the case who provided a verbal report and he was informed that the medical was inconclusive in that the injury was not consistent with sexual assault. She did provide potential medical reasons for the injuries. Dr Hoades [sic] written report was not received by police until 8th January 2015. Later that day he liaised directly with Dr Hoades who reported the following:

  • She was alarmed at the accounts from the children which she believed to be true and these were reflected in her first medical conclusions.
  • [The boy] had 1 scar in the area of his anus which could have been the result of passing waste.
  • The female child had 3 scars around her anus and a degree of laxivity.
  • There was no damage to her vaginal area.
  • Both children claimed a degree of loss of hearing on the left side.
  • The male child had a perforated ear drum may have been caused by Abraham Christie.

Dr Hoades conducted a second CP medical with an opportunity to photograph injuries—completed on 16th September 2014. The photographs were not passed to Police.

So as far as the police were aware at the time they interviewed RD on 15th September, the medical evidence was inconclusive. At the same time, concerns were growing that the children’s allegations were not being borne out by evidence:

As well, the inconsistencies between the children’s stories, as well as the extreme nature of the allegations, all combined to cast doubts on the validity of the case.

DI Cannon defended the choice to interview RD under caution rather than under arrest due to the above factors, as well as the fact that RD voluntarily came to the police station to be interviewed. As well, he was clear and open in his responses, and offered to surrender his laptop for examination.

However, DCI Fleming states in the IPCC report that police best practices dictate that the computer should have been seized: IPCC Point 12 2016-07-03In the end, RD’s computer turned out to have had no real bearing on the case, but had things gone differently, it could have been an important piece of evidence.

Ultimately, Points 11 and 12 were upheld, but neither were vital to the investigation in the end. Point 11 was a matter of adhering to proper reporting practices, while Point 12 involved seizure of a computer ‘just in case’.

Hardly the smoking gun(s) that the Hoaxtead pushers so desperately wanted the IPCC report to reveal. smoking-gun-barrel

30 thoughts on “IPCC Report: What DID police do wrong?

  1. There would be no pleasing these Hoaxers. They make outrageous claims that police were nobbled or Dr Hoades was ‘lent on’, the judge is in the Cult and so on. Like APD who seems to search the internet for tales of convicted peedofiles and relentlessly posts them she almost schizophrenic like accepts police do act upon allegations even when the convicted may be rich and powerful, but at the same time claims society is controlled by a cult of peedofiles who are blackmailed by God only knows who and the pedos are let off the hook.

    They show society hasn’t changed an awful lot in 100s of years. The hoaxers would have been first out of the starting blocks when a claim was made the old lady down the road with the black cat was a witch. They would have been gathering sticks for the bonfire & ensured pussy went up with her in flames as well. And if someone dared say “I think we made a mistake, she was only offering tea & sympathy because of my illnesses” he would be next for the bonfire.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I wish APD etc. would back up their claims with some evidence.

    Believing the children, Kristie Sue’s claim, just does not add up.

    The each child has said conflicting claims of what went on.

    APD does not want to lose face, neither do many of the others.

    Roll on for judgement day next week…

    Liked by 1 person

    • Not the slightest bit of difference to the outcome. Under caution he is warned his answers may be used in evidence. under arrest he could ask for a solicitor who would advise how to answer or simply say ‘no comment’

      Under caution is how many people are interviewed when claims are made against them and little evidence is provided such as the recent world famous pop star, the great British war hero and former Tory MP who all had actions dropped.

      If you lie to police you put yourself in a very difficult place. These Hoaxers just wanted the falsely accused humiliated in every way possible. Nasty things.

      Liked by 1 person

    • If I remember correctly he was under Caution plus 3. Therefore he could have a solicitor ,refuse to answer questions and could leave when he wanted. Though I guess the leave when he wanted thing is neither here nor there, because if the police felt they had enough against him, they could officially arrest him.

      Liked by 1 person

      • And as he contacted them first and turned up for an interview, the police could have themselves been sued for false arrest.
        The Hoaxers are just bloody ignorant and think the law is matter of them stamping their feet rather than a process that has developed over 100s of years.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Yes, I would find their tantrums amusing if they didn’t actually affect real people. They have no idea how either police procedure, or the law in general, work.


  3. Excellent analysis again. I understand the above-mentioned report has been appealed? What a waste of time and public money.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thanks. So far as I can tell, the latest appeal is just a reiteration of the old one, but with lots of red ink and more exclamation points. My guess is that the IPCC will find room for it in the circular file.


  4. Thinking this through then, RD actually DID provide his phone(s) to the police immediately, but his laptop was provided later. Nothing that incriminates him was found. Although there could always be someone saying he deleted stuff, despite people having no more idea than me the level of expertise the person had who examined his devices. Are deleted things, really deleted?

    The police should have got his computer, which he voluntarily handed up, straight away. They got his phones straight away.

    On the other hand, on Abraham Christie’s phone…………

    Liked by 1 person

    • Unless you use a secure wiping method such as Eraser (Heidi Computers) then your data is forensically recoverable. If you do use it then the forensic team would know that you have done because of the pattern used to overwrite the “free” space.

      Of course the above scenario assumes that like RD you have allowed access to your PC. If you used whole disk encryption from VeraCrypt with a strong passphrase then nobody is reading that data anytime soon. 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

      • But then if you have a drive wiper like Heidi on your comp like Rolf Harris did the cops say you have something to hide.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Generally things aren’t completely deleted until they are overwritten. I have heard that real criminals keep a bucket of water standing by so that they can completely destroy their hard drives if the knock eventually comes.

      Liked by 1 person

        • Not all that clever. By their very nature HDs are sealed, even if you destroy the drive electronics it’s sometimes possible to replace them and recover the drive relatively easily. – The guys who do this for real will just remove the physical platters and read them via a custom rig if they have to!

          Let’s recall that this is how Malcolm Konrad Ogilvy was caught out – he handed his phone to the police, their techs didn’t even break sweat recovering the ‘erased’ recordings from it.

          Liked by 1 person

  5. This whole story could have turned out differently if the police had got hold of Abraham’s phone,


  6. Just for gits and shiggles….. Q… passed me this links this morning:


    Oddly, since he doesn’t really use Linkedin (I don’t use it at all myself) Angie’s profile came up as a ‘suggestion’ from them when he looked at his account this morning! – He’s had ONE anonymous profile view in 90 days apparently. Are there dots? Should we join them? I don’t think I’ve seen ANY online comment from Q… on Dizzy-Powder???? Why’s she poking around?

    Her profile’s a laugh though and maybe some of her ‘associates’ will be worth digging in to? Nobody here can be arsed! We’re at full pelt prepping for the main festival in August!

    Liked by 1 person

    • That’s very strange. Can’t think what she’d want with him, but I do know that LinkedIn tells me of all sorts of people they think I should be connected to. So far, they’ve been wrong.


      • It’s an odd one…….. Presumably Linkedin uses some sort of algorythm to make its suggestions, and I can see why if you actually use it would throw up certain random suggestions. But he doesn’t; and his recommendations are then pretty-much empty. You see, following the carry on with stephen lyall, he dumped his account (a few of us did actually – pissed off at the anonymous viewers thing and so many creeps like Lyall dotting around) Q… opened another one eventually as a placeholder to stave off identity theft – which has happened in the past…. But there is just 1 connection on it and little or no traffic, you’d really have to go out of your way to find it. – I’ve even been asked not to give out a link.

        I wonder if she’s worried about someone actually remembering her ‘acting days’ up the North end Road?

        Liked by 1 person

          • ‘Tara’ made the same mistake; Q.. Has a folder full of material she sent him about three years ago trying to get him to take up the story; till she realised she might as well be faxing it to the nearest cop shop! I’ve found three people who link both APD and Neelu to the fringes of that ‘crowd’… Two have said APD was sometimes mistaken for Judy Sweeney and would milk it; and right enough, there are photos of her from the time where the likeness can be seen.

            Liked by 1 person

      • “I am a published journalist, poet, short-story writer and comedienne.”

        Shurely shome mishtake? – surely she means tall-story writer? As for Comedienne? Poet? When did she add this to the list of fantasies? Where are all these ‘publications’ of her works?

        Liked by 1 person

        • Hint to Angie: real journalists don’t have to specify that they are ‘published’. As for the rest…she does seem to have a very rich and rewarding fantasy life.


  7. Exactly, by the time they interviewed RD, all their attempts to support the allegations were pointing in the opposite direction. And therefore focussed on a more plausible scenario of something maybe happening at the swimming.

    I agree that the officer should have taken it immediately, rather than be willing to wait. Though from reading the police interview transcript, I get the impression RD was trying to show the officer pictures from his phone. So he wasn’t shy in letting them see his mobile.

    Admitting things weren’t perfect shows honesty from the police. Also, if the police were part of the cult they could have faked a computer seizure and said that they did take it immediately and nothing was found. So that again suggests it was just an honest oversight and that the police are not part of a conspiracy.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yes, you’re right: if they really were part of a conspiracy they’d have simply checked off the ‘seized RD’s computer, examined it, found nothing’ box, and moved on. Let’s see if we can explain that to the Hoaxtead mob, though. 😉


  8. I note with interest that Angie’s posted a story from the Sun to her FB page in order to accuse yet another celebrity of child abuse. Sooo, the Sun is a valid source now, then? Hmmm, funny how it was accused of being “part of the cult” and dismissed as a source by Angie et al when it reported on the Hampstead SRA hoax! Selective sourcing again, methinks.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I like your term ‘selective sourcing’. It’s true: the police are all bent…until they arrest a paedophile. The mainstream media are Illuminati tools…until they publish something the Hoaxtead mob like. Amazing how that works.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. The only “Cult” that exists is the thousands of Internet trolls who are watching every single day the videos of these two real victims (the children) ,using these children as their “main point” to come on line write pointless blogs, make a web tv appearances, Skype conferences, so to promote their sick and vile ego, An ego which related to pedophilia and child abuse in general. Because their case is not about something happened in Hamstead, but about their dreams of Children being abused by satanist. Every day they dream that ” a satanist” abuse a child. And they want their dream to stay alive. after all they know where to go and see these two children talking on camera.
    Well Done Abraham. you started a Cult that true satans like yourself will call decent people evil over the internet, and by doing so they will attract more followers.

    This Cult needs more children. So isn’t about time to stop this ?
    Sabine McNeil, Belinda Mackenzie,Neelu Berry Abraham Christie, Ella Drapper are the true satans promoting vile child abuse.


    • I think it is quite clear that these hoaxes are more often than not based on the perverted fantasies of those who promote them. “Every day they dream that ” a satanist” abuse a child. And they want their dream to stay alive.” – Exactly! OR at least, every day they dream of a child being abused in one way or another…..

      As far as I can see introducing the ‘Satanist’/ritual element is (a) part of their own fantasy (b) an infantilising element – i.e. use of ‘monsters and ‘bogie men’ and (c) a means of conflating their own perverted imagining with broadly-acceptable/respected religious belief. – Classic “D&P” (deflection and projection) in a sense; they’re ‘projecting’ their own ‘demons’ onto some externalised group.

      A secondary aspect of this is that (from what I can gather) child abusers tend to live quite mundane, sordid, grubby-little failed lives; this insight comes to me via Police Officers and others who have had the misfortune to find themselves legitimately investigating real cases of child abuse. – Given that those creating these fantasies are also (at least latent) child abusers, it strikes me that they are also indulging in a (rather pitiful) form of ‘glamorisation’ of what they themselves are about.


Comments are closed.