Hoaxtead: Back to basics

The other day on Twitter, we bumped into one of those denizens of the bottom of the tank whose questions revealed that he was far more interested in picking a fight than in actually debating answers.

This isn’t particularly unusual, but it made us think: how long has it been since we reviewed the basics of the Hampstead SRA hoax, in a way that even the most ignorant of the ignorami could understand?

We’re thinking of creating a kind of Frequently Asked Questions page, to which we could refer anyone who still believes that there’s a sinister group of cult members living in a North London community and engaging in Baby Barbeque Nights on a regular basis.

Such a page won’t convince the die-hard religious nutters like Kristie Sue Costa or APD; nor will they dissuade the conspiritainment enthusiasts who’ve been doing their best to turn this thing into a viral online phenomenon, the better to line their own pockets, my dears.

But it might prove useful for those who are new to the case and not yet fully persuaded in one direction or another.

We thought we’d start off today with a few questions and answers, and then ask you, our readers, for suggestions: are there questions that you think should be covered in a Hoaxtead FAQ?

Please feel free to jump in!

Some common Hoaxtead mob claims answered

1. Why didn’t the police perform a full investigation on the claims made by RD’s children?

They did perform a full investigation. In fact, that investigation was thoroughly reviewed by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), which reported back to Ella Draper’s solicitor on 1st April, 2016. Aside from two minor procedural errors, the IPCC concluded that the police investigation had been conducted in a fair and appropriate manner, and that its officers had behaved professionally.

2. Why were the recordings made at the home of Jean-Clement Yaohirou ignored by police?

They weren’t ignored. In fact, parts of the so-called ‘Jean-Clement recordings’ were cited in paragraphs 78 through 96 in Mrs Justice Pauffley’s 19 March 2015 judgement at the conclusion of her fact-finding investigation in the High Court, Family Division, and formed an important part of the evidence that Abraham Christie coached the children:

78. The 4 September audio recording made by Jean Clement Yaohirou on his mobile ‘phone is a key component of the material relevant to this inquiry. It provides an invaluable record of the interaction between Mr Christie and the children, the various prompts and instructions given by him to the children and, later, an insight into the mother’s attitude towards the children’s relationship with their father.

79. At the very beginning, Mr Christie instructs the children, “Don’t tell Jean Clement any lies … Do you hear me?” He continues, “Otherwise we’ll have to lock you up in the jail. Have you got room to lock her up tonight Jean Clement? Have you got room, yes or no?” Mr Christie then laughs and says, “So tell him what you said. You deserve to be locked up for killing the baby. Listen did you kill any babies?” …

95. Towards the end of the recording there is a passage when the children and Mr Christie are all shouting, excitedly, “Kill, kill, kill.” Mr Christie urges the children to “Say it…Say it how they say it.” A. “Kill, kill, kill.” …. Mr Christie, “What’s the word that you say?” A. “Kill.” Mr Christie, “Say it more for me. I want to hear it…. I like the sound of it. Can you say it together, say it, let’s all say it together.” There is then repeated chanting of the word “Kill” and a little later of the phrase, “Kill the baby.” Once more Mr Christie urges the children on saying, “Let’s say it together. Let’s say it together. Kill the baby.” And they do.

3. What about the series of videos made on the way home from Morocco? Why were they not used as evidence by the police?

Video accounts on their own may not be used as evidence in court, because it is all too easy for an unscrupulous dealer to coach or coerce the person being filmed.

This is true in any case, not just this one. However, the videos made en route from Morocco, as well as those made on the night of 4 September 2014 at Jean-Clement’s house were seized by police to be used as corroborative evidence. This is documented in the IPCC report.

4. Why were none of the suspects interviewed? And why were they not examined for evidence of scars, birthmarks, or tattoos?

Basically, no one was interviewed because the case collapsed before it reached that stage of investigation.

Very early in the police investigation it became clear that there were serious inconsistencies in what the children were saying in their ABE interviews. For example, although the children both stated that they had been to their father’s house many times and could identify it, when the police took them on a drive-round neither of them were able to point out the correct house. The little boy did point out one house, but when police checked it out, it was clear that it had been vacant for some time, and that none of the features named by the children—secret rooms and passages, etc.—were present.

The children described the church where abuse was alleged to have taken place, and described drawers where the skulls were stored. When the police investigated the church with no prior warning, they discovered that the drawers in question were actually vestry drawers, and far too shallow to accommodate skulls, baby or otherwise. Because none of the information given proved to be true, there was no reason to attempt to interview employees at the church.

The IPCC report states that while Dr Hodes did two forensic examinations of the children (an unusual action, since she’d found nothing of significance on her first exam), the police did not receive this report until 8 January 2015. In any event, her findings were inconclusive, and could have been caused by a number of things.

Finally, and most important, both children retracted their allegations during their third interviews. They stated that they had been forced to lie. This meant that the police investigation was over: there was no longer an active case, since all allegations had been withdrawn.

Since the allegations were retracted and the case was concluded, it would have been unlawful to haul those named by the children into the police station for interviews under caution.

The IPCC report states:

Clearly at the start of this investigation, any person could be identified as potentially someone who may need to be spoken to, interviewed or arrested. As with any investigation it remains fluid and decisions will change during an investigation according to what the evidence or information is at any given time.

It seems clear that the more this matter was investigated, the clearer it became that it would not be necessary to interview those who at first may have been identified for such purposes.

The inconsistencies, lack of corroborating evidence, and withdrawal of allegations meant that the case collapsed completely in its very early stages. Thus, no one was required to be interviewed or to “show their tattoos”.

5. Wasn’t RD tipped off by police prior to being interviewed? That would have given him time to destroy any evidence.

The police were unable to find RD at first, so it’s unlikely they could have tipped him off.

In their first police interviews, the children identified several addresses in London as being linked to their father. Officers were sent out to investigate these addresses, but found nothing. However, both children said they would be able to identify their father’s house if they saw it.

The police took them out in separate unmarked police cars, and drove around Islington for some time. The little girl was unable to identify any house as belonging to her father; the little boy pointed to one house. A team of officers investigated, but discovered that the house was vacant; a neighbour confirmed that it had been vacant for some time. The police officers reported that they could see through the front window to the rear of the property. There were no secret rooms.

On 15 September 2014, RD contacted the police himself, as he had heard from a social worker that they were looking for him. He came to the police station voluntarily to be interviewed.

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that RD was in touch with the police prior to 15 September. Keep in mind that he came to the police station after the case had collapsed due to the children’s retractions. However, the police felt it would be prudent to interview him to obtain an account from him.

That’s it for today—we’ll add to this list periodically, and will create a permanent page to store the questions we’ve answered. Again, please don’t hesitate to suggest questions that should be answered or issues that should be clarified.

102 thoughts on “Hoaxtead: Back to basics

  1. Pingback: Hoaxtead: Back to basics | ShevaBurton. Cross of Change Blog

  2. Speaking as a member of the ignoramus community, may I just say I found this article very helpful and informative. Thanks, EC. Here’s hoping that some of my fellow ignorami get the answers they crave too. Angela, Neelu, Kristie et al – I’m looking at you.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Awesome work as per usual, Mr. Coyote 🙂

    One question I’ve asked a hundred times to various members of the Hoaxtead Ignorami™ – and which not one of them has ever been able to answer – is how is it possible for an entire school to shut down once a week for a mass orgy and baby-eating session without once ever being caught or reported? Seriously, can’t just one of these freaks please take the time to talk me through the logistics of that one?

    Liked by 2 people

    • @SN – nice delusion confronting question for the Hoaxtead Ignorami™
      So, they just ignore the question or have any attempted to answer it?
      I think the standard, generic SRA-MC rationalizations employed to bypass such questions would be either;
      – no one believes in or cares about CSA except Survivors and their advocates, so the rest of the community would just ignore the closure, or
      – EVERYONE is in the Cult, especially anyone in the community with responsibility to ‘catch’ or ‘report’ odd things like full day closure.

      The second one seems more likely to represent what H. I. might really believe or profess to believe, because the most fundamental storylines/myths/legends upon which SRA is built are;
      – “Rosemary’s Baby” premise, everyone is a satanic cultist except their victims.
      – the widespread but totally false belief that the Manson Family was a satanic cult, and in fact somehow THE archetypal modern satanic cult.

      Liked by 2 people

      • “So, they just ignore the question or have any attempted to answer it?”

        To be honest, I usually just get abuse in response. But yeah, many just ignore it. None has ever attempted to answer the question, as far as I recall.

        Liked by 2 people

      • And lest we forget that Christine, John ‘Butlincat’ Graham, Neelu, Saskia Whitfield et al vowed to case the school every Wednesday afternoon and catch them in the act. Funnily enough, they failed.

        Does anyone recall the video I mean (the one where the aforementioned fruitloops are creeping around the back of the church and Saskia says “Let’s pray”)? And if so, does anyone have the link? If it helps, I think the photo of Butlintwat on the perps poster is a still from that video.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Ha! BINGO…

          The conversation I was referring to starts at around 2:31, with Neelu making some hilariously unfeasible claims and Christine proposing to come back on Wednesday to catch the supposed 200+ baby-eaters in the act (and Butlinprat suggesting they film it all).

          Ray Shaw’s there too, probably to ensure that everyone puts aside their indifferences.

          Liked by 1 person

    • Recall Neelu says she witnessed a dozen baby carriages being wheeled into the church one Wednesday morning in preparation for lunch but she who is an expert with her IPhone filming (making Steadicam redundant) didn’t bother to film the event.
      Nor did she or any of the others bother to return on any Wednesday, rather they preferred to abuse innocent parishioners on a Sunday.
      But they excuse any and every fact. Such as APD recently pushing the fact the school in question being closed for renovations so they can fill in tunnels and get rid of secret rooms.

      After the infamous McMartin pre-school case in the USA where so many lives were destroyed but all found to be innocent in the end, the same sort of claims were made about tunnels and such.

      These Hoaxteaders are beginning to make me believe in Lucifer and if he is hovering about he has certainly captured their souls and set them about to do his dirty work in destroying as many innocents as they can.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Thanks, Justin…and we’re just getting started. We realised a while ago that while we talk a lot of ‘inside football’ here, there’s really no place on the blog where newcomers can get the full story.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Ignorance is bliss.

    This lot remind me of the video doing the rounds where various Donald Trump supporters are asked questions.
    The final one is a bloke who says Barack Obama was involved in the 9/11 World Trade Centre plot and when the interviewer points out Obama wasn’t in the White House at the time he responds:
    “that needs investigating as well”.

    Facts and evidence mean nothing to them. They think surfing the internet until they find a wacky site that affirms the jumbled mess in their heads is ‘evidence’.
    They can cherry-pick an IPCC report or laws and court results that are even favourable to them to prove their points and weave a huge quilt of conspiracies by joining imaginary dots and probably the most annoying thing about them is this ghastly bunch of creeps sit hunched over their PCs and call themselves “whistleblowers”.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Oh, look what I found!

    Strange, because Nutty Nina has repeatedly denied promoting or supporting the Hampstead hoax in any way, shape or form (and has been pretty abusive to anyone who’s suggested otherwise). Gotcha, you lying mare 😉

    Liked by 1 person

    • “I’ll make some more videos”..that sums up the total of their “evidence”. There must be in psychiatry, a condition that describes this weird desire to become a sort of ‘star’ of the Truther movement and an odd egotism whereby a person pontificating from their living room makes them believe they are attacking Dark Forces.

      And always- they do this on “Jew” Tube or Facebook whose owners (rather than being plain old fashioned Capitalist tax dodgers) they claim are part of the Freemason Satanic Cult.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Oh Nina please shut up with your crap, that’s all you ever talk is utter out and out rubbish. Please go back to the hole from whence you came.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Do Gentile babies taste different to Jewish ones?. Do African and Asian babies have a difference taste? What about those who mixed blood (probably most of us) ?
      Now Mr Streatham has confessed a desire to taste the flesh of humans (not unlike a certain Yank he thought he might rape a child to see what it is like) perhaps he can do a taste test and report back.

      Honestly, this insanity is about the same level as that Yankee dame in the South who thought the Muslims were coming for her pig.

      Liked by 1 person

    • You can always rely on Jason Streatham to come out with the biggest load of crap ever, and all in upper case letters as well.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Its an incredible mix of morons manipulated by people (seemingly of high intelligence) with serious personality disorders.

    John Graham falls into the moron box. As does Jason Streatham. However Mcneil and McKenzie fall into the later class. Fortunately blogs like this have gone a long way to discrediting all of them, which makes it significantly more difficult for them in the future.

    Slowly but surely they are being taken out of the damage equation and brought to Justice.

    Its interesting to note that McKenzie has gone VERY quiet after her recent problems and the Knight Foundation (UK) has disappeared into the mist.

    I understand from others that a similar fate is on its way to the queen of scams, (dogger) Angela Power-Disney.

    Liked by 1 person

    • “I understand from others that a similar fate is on its way to the queen of scams, (dogger) Angela Power-Disney.”

      Ooh, do tell, JW! 😮

      PS: “mix of morons manipulated” <<< Nice alliteration!

      Liked by 1 person

    • That about sums it up. In the end it’s about money (nearly always is) with the cunning & crafty manipulating the gormless.
      I do hope the Irish harridan gets her collar felt at some stage. Doubt it would be the first time.

      Liked by 1 person

    • McKenzie’s long-since been in the ‘business’ of cashing in on these scams. She gathers them, cultivates them and then milks them for all they’re worth. It really is a business for her, and if she’s being shut down, it cannot happen quickly enough.

      Liked by 1 person

    • I just can’t understand how these morons accept a blatant lie just because it’s published on a lunatic “truther” website (they should call them the Liar Movement). Kardashian said no such thing but for the “Young Journalist of The Year” evidence, fact and truth never collide with their addled brains.

      I think she was voted for Hackette of The Year by the patrons at the old West End drinking club Jonathans just off Charing Cross Road where assorted crims, shop lifters, working ladies and rent boys assembled for afternoon drinking sessions and to exchange stolen goods. A favourite of creepy Christopher Fay and Andrea Davison (when she wasn’t being an “MI5 spy” , her bosses turning a blind eye to her extensive criminal record even though their charter forbids ex-cons being employed). I can see Angie sitting up there boring the drinkers witless claiming to be a journalist (everyone had a cover story) while going green with envy at Davison’s obvious success as a forger.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Question squillion: Why didn’t the police examine the father’s computers for evidence of “snuff movies”
    A: the police were in fact criticised by the IPCC for allowing the father to bring his laptop in himself later. His mobile(s) was seized there and then. The police haven’t reported to conspiranoids the exact contents of these devices, but there was nothing justifying arrest or reopening the investigation.

    (I’m not giving forensic tips to people, but reformatting your hard drive to erase all trace of stuff is pretty obvious, and very suspicious)

    Liked by 1 person

    • Not necessarily suspicious as if like me you are using older equipment (and waiting for some new stuff), after a few months my 2 laptops become so loaded down with spyware etc and become so slow I regularly wipe them clean, re-format and load Win 10 which takes little time and voila, once again they are zippy and fast (one I’ve also loaded with Linux which is so much faster.)

      But indeed when Rolf Harris was arrested the police made much of the fact he had a program that wiped files clean. It proved nothing but added to the overall suspicion.

      But for someone who the ghastly APD accuses of being in a grand plot that involves the Russian Mafia and the Freemason Rothschild Cult powers that run the UK and also distribute indecent material you would think those they accused would have the most sophisticated equipment possible and not rely on some father’s lone laptop.

      Liked by 1 person

      • …doing stuff to your computer AFTER being questioned by police and being asked for your devices would be more than a bit suspicious I would have thought! Fair enough if it’s a personal routine thing. Anyway, spyware? Where on earth is your computer taking you!

        Liked by 1 person

  8. Conspiranoid question eleventy one: Why did the police officer coach their child interview subjects and give secret triggering signals? A: They asked questions to get details that could then be verified outside the confines of an interview, or not. What, where, when, who sort of thing. The rest, get out more.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Tin foil hat question nine banana: What about the other special children? A: According to the most recent IPCC response, other children were in fact seen by police or social workers. The police found no information that could corroborate what the children said.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Loopy Lou’s stoned question: What about the secret rooms, why didn’t the police search for them? A : They did, they found rooms, but no secret rooms. The police even went to the top of the church tower in search of hidden rooms.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. I think it’s also worth emphasising the plain and simple fact that in Christie’s videos the children – particularly the little girl – showed signs of having been ‘knocked about’. i.e. injury.

    Tie this in with Christie’s long and often violent criminal past…. Then there is the matter of ‘non breaching’ paedophile ‘pornography’. – I have learned from reading about the Mitchell case that there is a market for textual pornography; ‘dirty stories’ about child abuse, it seems these are normally ‘books’ such as the one Mitchell wrote. But videos of two children telling such tales would be nothing short of a sort of ‘Jackanory’ for perverts. Judge Pauffley also seems to recognise and touch upon this in her comments….

    In other words, those original videos amount to actual child abuse in themselves. Child abuse made with possibly-commercial motives….. And by a known criminal and deviant. – With the additional worry of him clearly having physically hurt the children in the course of production.

    While I think you can roundly dismiss Disney’s claims of Ella having appeared in a child abuse video, there does seem to be some suggestion that she might have been involved in ‘MILF’ porn. And frankly, as a failed WAG with her looks fading fast, this might have been one of her few options. It may also (probably is IMHO) be possible to connect Christie quite firmly to the porn trade. – And this seems to be something, along with the cannabis connection, that pops up very VERY regularly in this type of case.

    So what do we actually have here? A violent drug-dealing porn pedlar who – evidently – beat two small children into taking part in ‘non breaching’ child pornography….. And his moll; a worn-out psychopathic old slapper making her last bid for fame and fortune and happy to throw her kids into the ring to do it.

    Nice people these ‘troofers’ get behind!

    Liked by 2 people

    • He strikes me as a pimp.
      I’ve only ever watched a bit of one video (thereby breaking the law) and I found it highly disturbing that someone could even film children talking like this.
      Christie is clearly a very sick individual and a creepy one at that. I put nothing past him and yes, I think the bit I watched the girl had what looked like the remainder of a black eye.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Exactly so Sam. Exactly so….. A cheap, nasty Pimp.

        As to the film, for me the purpose of this sort of thing first emerged from examining the Mitchell case. The notion of ‘non breaching’ pornography…. i.e. (usually written) stories seems to emerge from the likes of Nigel Oldfield and P.I.E. – The sort of thing Mitchell wrote seems to be ‘typical’, but he was also producing videos, for which there must be a market. – I’d say Christie had thoughts of a ‘new take’ by combining both ‘technologies’.

        Liked by 2 people

    • It also wouldn’t surprise me that Christie having abused these kids invented the entire episode to cover his own tracks,


      • Up to a point I agree….. We don’t know what the police know or exactly what it is they want him for. The involvement of McKenzie & Co however; that rather suggests to me that money is a major factor. He’d happily pimp Ella out to MILF movies I’m sure, openly selling child-abuse images? There are ‘safer’ ways (non breaching ‘porn) of accessing that market.


      • He certainly told porkies about the reason he hurt the children, that they were going to kill him. Sorry, but what sort of possible self defence is it to hurt children because they say something, even if he is telling the truth, which I don’t believe anyway.


  12. “Dominos” are falling? Oh dear, who can I call for pizza now?

    PS: hey Neelu, luv – Boris Johnson’s the home secretary (not William Hague), but please don’t let stupid things like facts hold you back!


  13. She lies. She just can’t help herself. It comes form a lifetime of lying. No government admitted anything about this scam merchant, no president apologized. Power-Disney is a pathological liar and just about every claim she makes can easily be proved to be a fabrication.

    Perhaps there needs to be a page on Angela Power-Disney’s lies. Would there be room? Probably an entire website could be devoted to the blatant lies of this Irish scammer. I bet the residents of Oldcastle can’t stand a bar of her but her skin is so thick she wouldn’t even know it.
    And she wonders why Upright Citizens spot a potential Power-Disney victim and go to his hotel to tell him to “flee, flee while you can” and he disappears in a cloud of dust.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Sorry, Sam – it was postponed to make way for the World banking collapse. And now that’s been postponed to allow Angie more beach time. Or something.


  14. Very strongly suspect not even she knows.It is all verbiage,mish mashery to form an impression that she is “something”.Far more sense can be heard from a random gaggle of frogs.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. About time this happened.
    This will be a significant test case and should expose Facebook & others for what they are : rapacious greedy corporate entities that don’t give stuff about individual rights and hypocrites because they claim the opposite with their “don’t do evil” claptrap. We all know how hard it is to get a response from Facebook or YouTube when informed material is either illegal of banned by a court, libelous or fabrications and bullying attacks upon innocent people.
    This is a growing movement.

    “Court case brought by 14-year-old revenge porn victim threatens to change Facebook”


    Liked by 1 person

    • Far more detail in this article.
      And some blatant lies from Facebook and Youtube about their “quick actions” as we have seen with the vile Cannabis Cures Cancer pages which I have reported numerous times.
      ## suggestion : if you do report a Facebook or Youtube page or video make sure you keep a copy of it.

      That is evidence.

      I’m forwarding all my requests to Facebook re the above website to the solicitor in this ‘revenge porn’ case. It shows that Facebook or Youtube do not take requests very seriously.
      I’ve also viewed all the offending pages about RD in every country possible via proxies and Facebook’s claim they remove content from being viewed in the UK is a lie.

      Again : this is evidence that can be used in court.

      “Facebook loses legal bid to prevent girl suing over naked picture on ‘shame page'”

      Liked by 2 people

  16. LOL 😀 You really couldn’t make this shit up…



    HEY, NEELU…William Hague is neither foreign secretary (Boris Johnson) nor home secretary (Amber Rudd). And as the Ghost of Sam pointed out, the article you’re citing is 4 years old. D’oh!


    • They’ve posted 15 year old articles before as if it is news hot off the press, so it’s actually an improvement.

      Liked by 1 person

  17. Never a dull moment over on the CON network…





    • What’s “Free” about it if you have to pay 200 Euros a month to broadcast what you have to say?


  18. ———- ——— ———- ———- ———- ———- ———- ———- ———- ———-

    ———- ———- ———- ———- ———- ———- ———- ———- ———- ———-

    ———- ———- ———- ———- ———- ———- ———- ———- ———- ———-

    ———- ———- ———- ———- ———- ———- ———- ———- ———- ———-


Comments are closed.