Hoaxtead erupts into giant bun fight

Hoaxtead watchers have had their hands full this past week, trying to keep track of the inevitable implosion of the hoax, as its promoters and followers launch blistering online attacks against one another. We’ve watched as Angela was attacked from within her own ranks—first by the mysterious Sophia Green, and then by former friends like Jim “The Waffler” McMenamin, Maria MacMahon, and Kristie Sue Costa.

In fact, Kristie Sue has already thrown down the gauntlet in the form of a Facebook post in which she denounces Angie, while putting herself forward as defender of the One True Faith. It seems unlikely she’ll get too far with that, though, as she lacks a critical ingredient: she has not had the blessing of Cardinal Sabine McNeill; nor has she kissed the ring of Pope Belinda McKenzie.

Like her fellow American Rupert, poor Kristie Sue just doesn’t grasp the subtleties, does she? She thinks she can operate as an Abe & Ella Fundamentalist, failing to recognise that while those two child abusers might have been the nominal leaders of the Hoaxtead cult at the start, they’ve long since been declared redundant.

Meanwhile, Angie has been trying to retaliate as best she can. In a desperate attempt to attack her perceived enemies as well as lure her audience back, Angie tried to claim that she and Rupert had seen incontrovertible evidence that Ella Draper had been involved in making child sexual abuse videos. Of course, this has backfired on her, lending ammunition to the Kristie Sue Costa faction who claim Angela is either a direct traitor, or at least a liability to their cause.

Angie has tried to strike back at her former bestie Jockney Rebel, using her real name publicly (though she also did this in a series of videos last December, so we’re not sure why JR is so distressed now).

Then Angela made a rather large production of allegedly turning up at the non-existent rally against child abuse in London Saturday last; we can attest that if she did indeed show up, no one saw her there, and she certainly spent no time with the two lonely Hoaxtead loyalists who did put in an appearance.

Angie’s been no slouch in the “throwing people under the bus” category either—after all, it’s one of her specialities.

In a post about Neelu’s arrest on her Facebook page, Angie posted details of Rupert’s bail conditions:


While this could have been taken as a simple, innocent comment, it’s important to realise that by the time she posted it on Friday evening, Rupert had already broken his conditions by posting on Twitter:

Posted on Twitter, 15 September 2016

Posted on Twitter, 15 September 2016

Funny that Angela would point out that Rupert was already in violation of his bail…it’s almost as though she knew he’d already turned on her.

Meanwhile, Rupert’s false bravado collapsed entirely when he was introduced to Mr Plod. He immediately started back-pedalling as fast as his little stick legs could go, and in the process repudiated the hoax promoters who’ve been treating him as their darling…at least until now:


Interesting that he claims he “can’t let the constituency here know [that he has suddenly switched sides], or they’ll fuck [him] up”. We did wonder, when we noticed that Belinda had contributed a generous sum to Rupert’s GoFundMe, how well she would take his defection. Let’s just say that Rupert should hope her thugs don’t catch up with him before it’s his turn to go before the beak.


Interesting that he now claims he “feel[s] bad for [RD]” and that he “never made any declarative statements about anyone. Not [RD] or anything.”

Really? Because we’re pretty sure we’ve heard him make some very strong statements about RD and the families of Hampstead. We won’t get into details; we’ll leave that to the CPS. But yeah…Rupert is definitely on record as having said some very nasty things.


Well gosh, Rupert, why didn’t you just tell us you were on our side all along? You could have saved us all so much time and trouble!

Except that Rupert has never been on anyone’s side but his own. He was happy to accept substantial sums of money from Angie, and then turn around and slag her in private conversation:


Whatever we think of Rupert (and that would be concisely summed up as “not much”), we have to say that Angela’s choice of ‘videographer’ has really been a boon to those of us who’d like to see this hoax end. His obnoxious, arrogant approach managed to alienate a huge swathe of Angie’s supporters, and we really think he’s played a huge role in the downfall of Hoaxtead.

We cannot quite bring ourselves to thank him, but we can appreciate the effect he’s had.

We think this oldie-but-goodie from the Hoaxtenders vault is not inappropriate:

Scarlet Scoop's Guide To Infighting

112 thoughts on “Hoaxtead erupts into giant bun fight

  1. “…political prisoner though out on bail…”

    LOL! Kim Jong-Un, Robert Mugabe, José dos Santos …eat your hearts out! That’s how we do it in OUR ultra-oppressive dictatorship 😀

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Lest we forget…. saw Araya Soma today, she has the thousand yard stare of the permanently brain damaged. She’s been banned from facebook for a month for posting a seriously disturbing image of a male child’s genitals for which she was reported and, unusually, banned. Needless to say, I have the screenshots.

    Liked by 2 people

      • She’s an empty vessel, all humanity departed a long time ago. That’s why her facebook feed is full of other people’s ideas, thoughts, craziness and hatred. She actually thinks that being a vegan means that she’s a kind caring person. But she’s a bitter, racist, hate-filled, delusional ageing stripper with no life, no kids, no family, no relationship and no money. But in her mind she’s a superhero………..

        Liked by 2 people

    • Just a note to all our readers about the indecent image of a child that Araya Soma posted recently: images such as that are not only offensive, but highly illegal.

      If you see something of this sort, don’t screenshot it: instead, immediately report it to the police.

      While it might seem as though you are collecting evidence, in fact having such an image on your computer is illegal. The best people to handle it are your local police, who will tell you how to proceed.

      Liked by 4 people

    • I hadn’t watched that all the way through before.

      Now I really despise him because of his horrible & gratuitous insults to that nurse.
      He’s a Cad & a Bounder as they used to say and just ignorant, fucking rude and ill-mannered.

      As for they: “lock people up who are trying to fight pedophiles”..Jesus H.Christ, the man’s a joke and contradicts himself sentence after sentence- the nurse is “insane’ and is in there ‘in charge of other insane people” and is where she belongs but of course a minute before he was basically stating people were being locked up for nothing.

      And you frigging creep Quaintance :
      it’s a Mental Health Clinic where doctors and nurses do their best to help people going through difficult times and who have a mental health illness which is no different to having a physical illness and doctors have spent years trying to remove stigmas like ‘insane’ from this sort of illness.

      People are not there because they are “insane”..they are there because they are ill and it’s a specialist clinic that tries to help them through their problems.

      I so hope someone will go to the Court on the day this mob and this arrogant POS appears. And his back-peddling won’t convince anyone if they break the law. Magistrates see it all the time : “sorry Guvner I mugged that old lady for her pension because I had a terrible childhood and was hungry and I was really trying to root out other muggers”.

      Ultimately, Rupert Wilson Quaintance 1V is just a Great Big Coward who was full of tough talk but when the going got tough he ran away with his tail between his legs.

      ## and I have a sneaky feeling he was allowed into the country knowing he was conspiring with these loons to breach several court orders and they could all be nabbed for formulating a conspiracy to breach the same.. But the coppers wouldn’t do that, would they??

      Liked by 3 people

    • If Angie knew anything (you know like ..investigated subjects like a journalist does) she would know there are as many different sects of Jewish beliefs that often contradict each other.
      Such as the huge New York Hasidic Jewish sect who do not believe Israel should even exist for a number of reasons. Or that roughly half of Israelis believe Palestine should exist as a separate country and so on.
      Just like the Arab nations follow many different sects of Islam with the majority being peaceful to the small number of murderous fanatics in ISIL and the millions of Arabs who are Christians.

      And then of course in Christianity there are a 1000 variations from those who genuinely try to live their lives as Jesus advised to the Far Right Wing fundamentalist Christians in the USA who wield so much power over politicians and often urge murderous invasions of other countries.

      But no she, like everything, skims the surface of any subject seeking out proof of Satanism whilst claiming- she really does !- to be an Evangelist. She’s also fond of posting comments from Alan Alanson whose vile worship of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis make Araya Soma look tame by comparison.

      # Love how Alanson & ilk regularly attack Mark Zuckerberg as a Satanist who is using to Facebook as part of their Satanic plot and posts those attacks..on Facebook.

      However I think her latest post may be a direct reference to one Rupert Quaintance and the collapse of a budding love affair :
      “Why Most Narcissists Devalue And Discard Their Partners”

      Up to you to work out which was the narcissist in that affair.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Yikes! I hope Rupert and Angela were never sexual partners.

        My analysis of Rupert’s comments about Angela allegedly coming on/making a pass at him, suggests to me, that she is a sexual predator. In my mind this is the type of person that SHOULD NOT be an Anti-Child Abuse Campaigner or similar, which Angela claims to be. A sexual predator of an adult or a sexual predator of a Child is a bit too close to comfort, both are abusers.

        What a horrible woman you are Angela.

        How old is the married man you have allegedly been having an affair with?
        I hope he is nearer your age, not that I approve of you doing that to another woman, but at least you are allegedly single. Who knows with you though.

        I certainly feel sorry for Rupert with you having made advances at him.
        He’s never going to be able to wipe that from his memory.

        Liked by 3 people

        • Rupert should have taken notice of the tale about the Upstanding Citizens of Oldcastle who went to the local hotel and warned a chap who was about to have an assignation with Lampshade Lil and hightailed outa town in a cloud of dust.

          Liked by 2 people

  3. No indeed … so, does this mean Belinda was scammed then? Then again, who knows whether she actually donated or was just – how did someone put it before ‘salting the plate’. Oh, it’s all too much, I think I am losing the plot! I can believe, but not sympathise, that Rupert would be frightened of being turned on by the vicious hoax mob. That said, his behaviour is very questionable and creepy and he must have known what he was doing was beyond ugly. So I say he deserves all that he gets and more..with knobs on.

    Liked by 2 people

    • He went in with his eyes wide open full. I’m beginning to think his arrest must be a little more than a visa problem.

      “Flea ridden cells”?. Surely health & safety would demand otherwise as those fleas wouldn’t confine themselves to prisoners but be all over the cops as well.
      Perhaps poor Neelu got put into a cell that had been occupied by the Culpepper resident who had worn that crazy Raccoon hat he’s fond off during his interview with Dixon of Dock Green.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Angela talking bs as usual.

        It’s to be expected.

        There won’t have been a single flea in the cell Rupert was put in.

        Where’s the soft furnishings in a cell for them to stay alive in for starters?

        Might have been a bit grimy, but fleas? Nah!

        If there had been, Rupert could have made friends with them like he charmed the garden snail.

        He certainly preferred that to Angela, hahaha!

        Liked by 1 person

    • I think maybe Belinda is making a few payments to people on the understanding: “you have never heard of me”.
      Remember the famous court room corridor arrest of Sabine when Belinda grabbed a broom and pretended to be a cleaner saying “nothing to do with me..never seen this lot ever before in my life”

      Liked by 2 people

    • Agreed. He was bragging about how he was basically untouchable right up to the point when he was arrested, after which he went howling off like a scalded hound. Tough luck, say I.

      Liked by 2 people

        • Cowering Roopies bark muffled in pussy power retreat shocker.

          We all suspected Ruperts peacock strutting machismo was all bravado and a joy to watch the wheels expose him so publicly for the fraudulent empty shell he is.

          A fair chance he will revert to Captain Arsehole mode the moment he is back suckling upon mummies breast.

          A study in maternal dependency gone wrong.

          Liked by 2 people

    • I think that’s the first time I’ve ever heard Neelu sounding normal and rational. And Jake is pretty clear about not really wanting people there…what were Angie and Rupert thinking? (Rhetorical question, it’s okay, I know they were just trying to turn their visit into footage for Rupert’s ‘documentary’, not actually help Jake in any way.)


    • What do these people think they are going to achieve? do they think if they moan enough ella will get the children? the case I over, finished, they should be telling ella and Christie to turn themselves in and let a jury decide their fate.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Yes, I’d like to know what they think will happen? Will the courts say, “Oh, well, a bunch of nutters think we got it wrong, so what the hell, guess we’d better just hand those two children back to their mum and the guy who beat and abused them”. It might come as a surprise to the Hoaxtead mob that courts don’t reverse their opinions because some loonies decided to launch an internet campaign and sign a petition.

        Liked by 1 person

      • They think the population is going to ‘wake up’ i.e. see everything like they do, and then they’re going to storm either the bastille or the post office (not sure which) and all will be well. Only it won’t, because Neelu will be Queen!


  4. I’m starting to think that Kristie Sue Costa isn’t the brightest spark in the firework. No wonder she got sucked in by this proven hoax if she’s as stupid as she appears.

    Liked by 1 person

    • They are all just fanatics.
      Ms Green’s claims about the children’s “highly detailed testimonies” are the very thing that demonstrate coaching along with fact they were filmed at different times by an already convicted child abuser Abraham Christie who has a prejudicial reason to accuse people of non-existent crimes.

      I don’t think these people have ever in their lives encountered a real victim who can rarely remember details let alone recite them in such an excited manner.

      That’s apart from the fact children lie all the time…but they don’t really lie as we perceive lies: what they often do is relate things that have been told to them, and being the inexperienced innocents they are, if a controlling adult tells them the Moon is made of cheese or the earth is flat they will happily tell their school pals this is fact.

      To put it simply-it’s why they believe in Santa Claus. They say things that genuinely believe are true if an adult tells them to.

      It makes what has been done to them by Abe & Ella far more sinister and evil and as for being “examined in a fair court” , what the hell does she think happened?.

      Family court is not a “Secret Court” and no amount of claiming it is will make it so. It is a court where certain facts cannot be published in the media for obvious reasons that children have a right not to be identified just because their parents are making a hash of their parenting responsibilities.

      Sophie Green is just another who goes out of her way to promote and encourage people to view these videos and expose the children’s names and images. She is in effect just another child abuser, not sexual but one who promotes mental cruelty to these kids.

      And Sophie- you don’t get to go back to court numerous times until you get the verdict you want. The case was settled and an appeal was rejected.

      The only court cases that need to happen now are the Hampstead Four (Neelu, Sabine, Rupert etc) and a criminal case against Ella Draper and Abraham Christie and I have a feeling they will face a British court in good time.

      You are just another clown jockeying for first place among the Satan Hunters.


      • Surely they understand that opinions are not evidence and a fair trial must rely on evidence, not opinion.
        I do wonder how many children they know that have been assaulted for weeks on end for the purpose of getting them to lie.
        Since when does a fair trial consist of a blog called “Dearman does Hampstead”?

        They don’t want a fair trial and they don’t believe the children, because according to the children it was all down to Abraham Christie, while their mother facilitated the abuse. All they have is their opinion, which is subjective and unfair.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Good to know this Sophie Green reads Hoaxtead,

        Ms Green If you have any proof or evidence something has happened in Hampstead take it to the police.

        Ranting and raving about the case and claiming you believe the children means absolutely nothing.
        Nothing will be re-opened as the matter has been dealt within the British justice system and the matter has been legally settled.

        Your claim innocent people should have nothing to worry about is only correct in that the numerous false accusations flung about by slime balls like you have been found to be hogwash. They have no need put themselves forwards for another debilitating process or should they, or anyone, be ever put through the terrible false accusations that hysterical Satan hunters like you have promoted that include them receiving death threats and having to move out of their homes.

        And if you had any guts you would use your real name and identify yourself if you are so sure you can prove something. Until then you are just another fanatic obsessed by child abuse who continues to defame and falsely accuse numerous people who have been through enough already.

        You have a real hide complaining about Angela Power-Disney (who does actually identify herself) as the only difference between you and her is that she wears a silly purple lampshade hat.

        In every other respect- you are her equal in spreading misinformation, lies and vile libels and attempting to destroy people’s lives.

        Liked by 1 person

    • You are the mistress of understatement, LR. Kris is anything but smart: just think of the ‘brilliant’ conclusions she drew (and has continued to bang on about) concerning who started this blog! SMH


  5. Rupert’s bail conditions include him NOT going online?

    Yet he was online almost immediately after his arrest as ‘Fly On The Wall’. Certain interested (mainly in suing the arse off him and his mother) parties have been monitoring his social media pages. He has been quite active apparently. – In breach of his Bail conditions.

    Surely high time he was back in clink?

    Liked by 2 people

    • Surely in these high tech days of sat navs and stuff the powers that be should be well placed to devise a better system for preventing idiots like Rupert from going online.

      An extremely large hat filled with cats vomit should be attached to his head and an electronic tag receiver attached.Anyone who spots Rupert online should be abe to activate a fluid release valve until recipient duly averted from said activity.

      Modern day market square stocks tailored to the individual, gauranteed reduction in repeat offending and cost effective in these austere times.No brainer.

      Liked by 2 people

      • That’s one option, but I’d make the point to the Met, why bother imposing bail conditions if you people have no intention of enforcing them?

        Rupert is, quite clearly, laughing up his sleeve at the Police and public alike. – He was doing so on the night of his release, and continues to do so now. Obviously, once he returns to the U.S. he will start up his nonsense again – which is why people intend to sue the Quaintances. But why are the Police failing those people now?

        Liked by 1 person

        • Are we sure one of his bail conditions was to not go on the net? Isn’t this info coming from another Hoaxer? We aren’t really sure why Rupert was arrested yet. I know from experience with friends on bail that police often overlook inadvertent breaches of bail and rather just give them a stern lecture but serious or deliberate breaches can get you re-arrested.
          Whatever happens, breaching bail doesn’t go down well once you are in front of the Beak.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Yes, I think it’s important to remember that we are not privy to Rupert’s bail conditions, other than what Angela says. And if Rupert has been charged, we are now in the same position that we were in when Sabine and Neelu were charged with witness intimidation last winter: we cannot, as a blog, discuss those charges until they have been tried in court.


          • I think the Police would best serve the public interest if they were to confirm that particular bail condition. That way any breaches can be highlighted. – In any case, the Quaintances now have the prospect of lawsuits hanging over them. And Rupert was ‘advised’ to have all his social media shut down before 00:00 GMT this morning. That seems not to have happened. Tsk tsk.

            Liked by 1 person

      • I hope we are reaching the point where people realise that what you put on line in the public domain may have real repercussions. It has an effect on the victims of the libel, it needs to have some effect on the people who post it.

        It would be good if the great media platforms were given the same liabilities as their print equivalents. They surely make enough money to employ some real human beings, rather than computer algorithms, to police their content. YouTube are very keen to detect copyright violations which allow them to paste ad’s all over a video (by detecting a snatch of music on a stereo in the back ground) but not particularly geared up for removing content that violates court orders.

        I do worry that an end to internet “freedom” might inhibit proper citizen journalism, but anyone with material that exposes a real story is probably best advised contact a real journalist.

        Liked by 3 people

        • I feel that day may come. As mentioned before I have a very good friend who won a case for libel against Google in South Australia (which still has law of criminal libel on the books and it’s a pity other countries don’t) for refusing to remove links to defanations about her.

          Google is appealing but her barrister believe Google will lose the appeal. She tells me many platforms, Facebook, Twitter etc have had legal reps in the court watching the case closely fearing ramifications for them worldwide.

          While I know much more about the case than has been published and she’s asked me not to repeat too much as she is writing a book about it, it’s certainly one worth watching and you can read some of it in the media reports.

          # she had to conduct the last few weeks of the case herself having exhausted her funds (with the help of a solicitor) and faced a barrage of Google barristers but now expert legal help has jumped on board to help her.


          Google ordered to pay Dr Janice Duffy $100,000 plus interest in defamation case

          Liked by 2 people

          • From a works ‘commercial’ account we’ve been able to verify that his personal Facebook page is live. Was ‘Hi it’s Rupert’ what he deleted for the benefit of a sleeping policeman? Anyhow, it needs to go as do his YouTube and Twitter accounts. Don’t forget Rupy, Mommy and Popsie’s house is the main asset; and she’s liable in any civil action along with yourself. You can make it all go away now or spend the next decade in litigation with deep-frozen assets. Hubris? Remind me, where did that get you with your promise to ‘box the Police’s ears’? – Went well that, did it?

            Liked by 2 people

    • I wonder if we are at a second turning point? The first was in the 1980s when the scale of CSA was first revealed and victims became more widely believed. Is the MSM now going to accept that some adult “survivors” are not what they seem and caution has to be exercised in relation believing their claims.

      Liked by 2 people

      • I am not sure how strictly true it is but a friend told me that in Germany they have a policy wherby someone proven to have made a false allgation are likely to receive a sentence comparable to that which the accused may have received had they been proven guilty.

        Given many false accusers tend to get effectively a slap on the wrist it is not overly surprising some lowlifes(the Angies of this world) see such activity as a means of seeking payouts via media attention,compo etc.


  6. A couple more gems fall from the MK Devils digital foundery:
    Melani Vermay Mel Ve CCN Is Equally Resposible For Jake Clarkes Disposition As All The Hoaxers Are

    Angela Power Disney Interviews CRACKPOT ‘Pope’ Robert Fraize June 2015 Happenstance Radio

    Liked by 1 person

    • @CIA – interesting, although I note none of the allegations in that article have criminal convictions to validate them. And nothing in it is of relevance to evidence that “Nick” couldn’t have identified Janner without the intervention of an Exaro employee.


  7. On Monday 26 September I understand Sabine McNeill will be in Crown Court. I do not think a trial by Jury is required, so this could be a fast outcome on the day before judge(s).


    • Unless she tries to string it out and then complains about that!

      Hopefully the Judge gives her some kind of punishment she actually pays attention to and doesn’t breach again.

      Liked by 1 person

    • My understanding is that the upcoming court date will only be a preliminary hearing to set dates for trial, unless Sabine changes her plea to guilty. As with all court cases, we’re refraining from speculating on outcomes.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. Pingback: As the Hoax Churns: More hoaxer in-fighting | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

Comments are closed.