Hoaxtead FAQ: The mother and her boyfriend

In our continuing quest to build a series of ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ pages regarding the Hampstead SRA hoax, today we’re going to delve into the critical questions, “Who created this hoax, and what were they trying to accomplish?”

Those of us who’ve been following along for the past year and a half are all too well aware of some of the personalities behind the hoax. It’s clear to us that it was primarily carried out, if not wholly engineered, by the children’s mother, Ella Gareeva Draper, and her boyfriend of about four months, Abraham Christie.

We state this as though it were an article of faith, but a newcomer to the hoax might ask, “How do you know they did it?” It’s a question worth answering in some detail.

Here are some questions and answers to get us started:

1. How do you know the children were coached to tell a story of imaginary abuse?

We’ve discussed this in some detail on the FAQ page dedicated to the videos and how they were made. The short answer is that if you listen to the videos dispassionately, you can hear how the children are responding to the adults’ prompting. In certain places this becomes even more explicit, such as in the audio that was covertly recorded by Jean-Clement Yaohirou.

More important, we know the children were coerced into telling these stories by Abraham Christie, with Ella’s approval, since they admitted as much during their third police interviews.

In Mrs Justice Pauffley’s fact-finding judgement of 19 March 2015, she states:

140. DC Martin was asked to explain why the decision was made to interview the children again on 17 September. It is Ms Draper’s case that between 11 and 17 September the police and the children’s foster carers placed pressure upon them to change their story. DC Martin said that prior to collecting P and Q from the foster home he had not met either foster parent. DC Martin was accompanied by DC Carl Savage, who had not previously met the children. Neither of them had any conversation with the foster parents relating to the allegations. If anything of note had been said by anyone prior to the ABE interviews it would have been recorded.

141. The decision to have a third interview arose because “of the sheer amount of stuff” emerging from the second, said DC Martin, and for clarification. During the drive to the interviewing suite, according to DC Savage, the children had said something along the lines of ‘they had made up the allegations and it was all to do with the Mask of Zorro.

142. As emerges from the interviews themselves, both P and Q did indeed withdraw their claims, all of them. P said that Abraham had told them what to say. She had told him that E, one of her female friends, had touched her – Abraham had said, “No, it’s your Dad.” P said that “it was all made up,” everything about the school, the church, the swimming pool; none of it was true. Abraham, she said, “had hurt (her) and used bad words … ‘a stupid little cunt”. She was scared and worried. Her mother had not stopped Abraham “because she loves him so much.” P described him as “an idiot.” As for her father, P said he is “fine and good.”

143. Q’s interview was initially somewhat confused. He said, “Yeah there is still some of the babies killed … Not much (are there babies killed)…. I lied about it because he (Mr Christie) made me say it.” A little later, Q said, “None of it was real…. The plastic willies were not true.” Abraham had “slapped (his ear) as hard as he could.” Q said, “I hate Abraham” and he did not want to see him again. He described how his mother “would be really angry with (him).

The children were also examined by Dr Clare Sturge, a child and adolescent psychiatrist, whose findings were included in Mrs Justice Pauffley’s judgement. These shed further light on the question of whether Abe and Ella coerced the children into claiming their father and the entire school community had sexually abused them:

144. Dr Sturge assessed the children on 5 November 2014. P related that Mr Christie would tell her that “for lying she would go to prison for 20 years and never see her grandparents or Mum again.” P commented, “Abraham loved my Mum so much. He even blamed her for being in the gang.” He had kept on asking her, “Any other people.” He had threatened her with the spoon and poked her so hard in the chin with it that she had a big mark. When Abraham had asked her about plastic willies in her bottom, she had denied this. He had said, “How come Q told me.” The Vaseline had been, said P, Q’s idea. He knew one of her friends used it (for her lips). P said, “Thing is, Abraham came up with stuff we didn’t know and came up with ideas too.” Abraham was always saying Q was a good boy for telling him things and that she was lying and would go to jail.

145. Dr Sturge asked P what the word ‘paedophile’ means. P replied that Abraham had said her Dad is a paedophile and explained what it meant. P had only a minimal understanding of ‘the facts of life’ and sex was “inappropriate stuff like touching each other in the privates.” Dr Sturge asked P about living with her mother. She said, not at the moment – “I feel angry with her, letting Abraham do all that stuff to us.” She had one question of Dr Sturge, could she live with her foster mother until she is 14 or 15?

146. Q responded immediately to Dr Sturge’s question as to whether he knew why she was seeing him. He said, “cos Abraham said something I never did and he forced me to say it, he was really mean to us.” Abraham had accused him of touching his sister in the private parts which he “never, ever did.” And he forced them to say their Dad touches them. Abraham had also forced them to say they kill babies. Q said he had wanted Abraham to stop hitting him, “I was scared for him to hit me.” At that Q’s face creased up and he began to cry quietly. “He kept asking us questions again, and again and again.” His mother had started to believe him. Q said, “It upsetted me” and he became even more distressed.

147. Q described how Abraham had been asking them all day. He had even woken them up and hit them. The hitting was if they didn’t wake up and talk. Asked how his mother had reacted, Q said “she didn’t mind.” He was asked about living with his mother and replied that “if she still believes it, (he) wouldn’t want to live with her.” Later he described with great vehemence that he would never live with his Mum while Abraham was still in the British Isles. She would just phone him and he’d come to their house. Q also said, spontaneously, that he hates Abraham, describing him as “the worst person I’ve ever met.”

148. Dr Sturge asked Q directly about Vaseline. He said, “He (Abraham) forced me to say my Dad puts Vaseline on my willy – plastic and normal ones.” Q added, as if puzzled, that Vaseline is used to rub on your hands when they are sore. He was clear that Abraham had used the Vaseline word first. Asked about seeing willies, Q said he and a friend at school had shown each other their willies in the toilet.

149. Q was distressed again when talking about having to stand when cold water was poured on him – “(dressed) just in our pants – he thought we was lying – when I cried and said my Mum never touched us, he said, ‘If you’re crying you’re lying.'” By then, according to Dr Sturge, Q was crying in a very distressed way.

In addition to the children’s own testimony, it’s important to remember that at least some of the videos released by Abe and Ella were doctored to remove bits that might point to their guilt.

For example, in a post on this blog about a year ago, we discuss the discrepancy between two versions of the same video: in one version, the little boy says that Richie, from social services, comes to the school; in the other, he pauses briefly and then asks, “Is that right?” We would suggest that if the story were true, he would not need to check the details with Abe and Ella; and if Abe and Ella were innocent, they would not have edited that telling phrase out of the video.

2. I heard that the police forced the kids to make those retraction statements. Is that true?

No. In this blog post regarding the IPCC report into the police investigation, we spell out exactly why this is not true.

We know that those who believed in the hoax were deeply disappointed to discover that the children had retracted their statements, and in that situation it can be natural to seize on ‘faint hope’ clues to avoid facing the reality. But the police officer who did the interviews did not use secret hand signals, post-hypnotic suggestions, neuro-linguistic programming, or any other fantastical method to ‘force’ the children to retract their statements.

In fact, he says at the beginning of one of the interviews, “There’s something you wanted to tell me in the car, and I told you to wait until we got here, didn’t I?” This is because the children had begun to tell him they’d been lying in their first two interviews, but the police officer quite rightly wanted to wait until they were in the interview suite where this could be properly recorded and witnessed.

3. But why would Abe and Ella have done this? Ella already had custody of the children, so it cannot have been a ‘custody dispute’. What would motivate her to make up such terrible stories about her ex-partner?

Ella did have custody of the children. That has never been in question.

However, the father’s access to his children was never regular: despite nine court hearings over a six-year period, there were long stretches in which he was prevented from seeing the children. In May 2014, the month in which Ella met Abe, RD had contact with his children for the first time since October 2013.

We know that Ella’s relationship with RD had been very rocky: at one point she obtained a non-molestation order against him. Despite the ominous sound of such an order, it has nothing to do with ‘molestation’ in the criminal sense; it simply means an order to make no contact.

While we cannot speak to Ella’s state of mind when RD began to have renewed contact with the children, it seems likely that she was not happy about it, and as she had in the past, wanted to find a way to prevent it happening.

4. If the hoax was meant to target the father, why would Abe and Ella have included the “20 special children”, their parents, the teachers, and the clergy from Christ Church in the allegations?

We have addressed this issue in several previous posts. We, too, were curious about why the school, and in particular the headteacher, had been so viciously targetted. Here’s a snippet from a post we published in September 2015:

You might recall that Abe’s relationship with the school was rocky, to say the least. On one occasion, he flew into a rage when he discovered that P and Q had been eating “off-limits” food (they were known in the school for constantly being hungry, and for taking food from other children and from rubbish bins on occasion). Abe accused the school of “poisoning” the children, which unsurprisingly did not endear him to the staff there.

My source told me, “The children were already very much on the radar as being at risk. They openly discussed their fear of Abe. They also were constantly hungry and took other people’s food. All their classmates knew they hated Abe.” Apparently the school notified social services that the children were hungry and fearful of their mother’s boyfriend. “That’s why the headmistress and deputy were targeted so personally after they reported him.”

It seems clear that both Abe and Ella had had difficulties with the school community. They saw this as their big chance to get their own back.

4. I’ve heard that Abe and Ella tried to interfere with the police investigation. Is this true?

Yes. In fact, in the IPCC report from spring 2016, the police are very clear that Abe and Ella took the children for a late-night taxi drive round the neighbourhood where their father was alleged to live, to try and have them point out his house.

Here’s a snippet from a blog post from June 2016 that describes what happened:

If you’ve read Mrs Justice Pauffley’s judgement from 19 March, 2015, you’ll remember that Abe took the children out the night before the police drive-round.

He and Ella attempted to keep this secret from police at the time—most likely because they were fully aware that this would constitute evidence of coaching, and would give away their entire scheme. IPCC-drive round-2 2016-06-20We note that the IPCC official takes a rather more lenient view, suggesting that Abe and Ella might have believed they were being helpful.

However, if that were the case, would they not have told police about it without having to be confronted? Their secretiveness gives them away.IPCC-drive round-witness report 2016-06-20It appears that a ‘concerned member of the public’—presumably the taxi driver?—reported to police that Abe was discussing decapitation and forcing the girl to repeat the litany he’d drilled into her during the Morocco trip.

“You know she’s a baby killer,” he said to the driver. Then, talking to the girl, he said, “What do you do after you kill babies?” The girl replied, “I eat them”. “What do you do after you eat them?” “I drink their blood”. “What does your dad do to you?” “Sex”.

According to the witness, the little girl appeared distressed, and well she ought. Imagine being a child and having your mother’s boyfriend announce to perfect strangers that you are a ‘baby killer’, and then force you to repeat those grisly details…it really beggars belief.


We know there are many, many more reasons to believe that Abe and Ella fabricated this hoax; this list only scratches the surface. We’d like to hear from you. If you would like to add questions of your own, please do!

Abe & Ella-2016-02-28

113 thoughts on “Hoaxtead FAQ: The mother and her boyfriend

  1. If I thought a Satanic cannibal blood-drinking group of paedophiles had my kids I would be beating my head against the wall – it would drive me insane. If you listen to Ella’s interviews she doesn’t sound like she’s that bothered. It’s obvious that she knows it’s not true.
    She also left her older son behind when she left the country. Nobody would do that – you’d get him out of harm’s way.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. On the question of Abrella’s motivation for launching this scam, am I right in recalling that they also spied an opportunity to get back at various people who’d pissed them off or hurt their pride in various ways in the past? In other words, was this a chance to get revenge on any locals against whom they had personal grudges?

    Liked by 1 person

      • – As most regular readers will know, it’s my opinion that this little drama was ‘directed and produced’ by Belinda McKenzie. Can I just highlight here that this ‘revenge motive’ was also a feature of the Hollie Greig case? And that the ‘prototype’ for the scam was first floated by one of her minions, Malcolm Konrad Ogilvy. Other common threads include the cannabis connection…. MKO is a known (i.e. convicted) drug abuser. I don’t think the ‘non breaching (child) pornography’ aspect should be held in shadow either. This has now popped up in a couple of cases and seems to be a theme favoured by child abuse advocates.

        As I said yesterday, Hampstead is just one ‘gig’ for McKenzie Industries. I cannot imagine it will be the last. With this in mind, finding the ‘common threads’ in these cases might well be important. We often note how they facilitate child abuse; and that is THE main problem, that they’re (at best) facilitating child abuse. and it’s not unreasonable to entertain the notion they might actually be responsible for it on the ‘industrial’ level that it might exist and that part of the function of these hoaxes is to act as a smokescreen. – Pauffley noted the ‘pornographic’ potential of the Hampstead ‘disclosure’ videos. In the Mitchell case, who/where was the market for his material? From the Hollie Greig case there also emerge possible indications of how and by whom such material is distributed. – Too much commonality IMHO for it all to be coincidence.

        Liked by 2 people

          • Morocco and Portugal seem to be ‘centres’ Sheva. There are also parts of the former Eastern Bloc where it’s rife. – Hugh Mitchell for instance was a ‘frequent flyer’ to some of these places. He’d make the excuse he was having dental work done (his teeth were apparently visibly rotting in his head). I’m told many who knew him used to comment they must be bloody useless dentists, because over the course of 20 years his ‘problems’ never got better. We now know of course he was travelling abroad to abuse children and possibly to have the ‘pornography’ he was producing duplicated and distributed.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Morocco also happens to grow and export a lot of weed and Portugal has decriminalised all drugs if i recall correctly. So handy places to visit if you fancy a smoke while making child pornography.

            Liked by 2 people

          • That’s welcome news EC.

            The physical position of Portugal and Morocco is, I’m lead to believe, of importance too. There are apparently “lines of transit” between Morocco and Portugal, and from there to the South coast of England, mid Wales and Ireland, much of it via merchant traffic. – Material is still physically transported it seems…. Far easier and safer to lose or destroy an SD card that risk being traced online!

            I’m also told that a ‘red flag’ is people living out in these places beyond their legitimate means – the example I was given was of a lowly ship’s cook, involved as a courier, who had a huge farm out in the sun; something he could never have legitimately afforded. Rented though it may be, please explain how someone who has not been legitimately employed in decades can run two homes in different parts of Europe and travel regularly between them?

            Liked by 2 people

          • In response to Joe’s points about the transit routes of Morocco to Spain to Ireland.

            I hadn’t thought of Angela doing anything like that but I had thought she surely must be up to something dodgy with duty free fags.

            Like

          • LOL! Not sure what the first guy’s about. Another random with a webcam? That second video. Ogilvy and his brain dead crew of pig-shit-thick uneducated stoners and wasters who aren’t fit to shovel shit from the drains! Personally I wouldn’t have engaged with them, and just called over a Police Officer. But they illustrate well one of the points I’ve been making; idiots like this who can’t even conduct themselves with a sliver of dignity in public are working actively to discredit all grass-roots opposition to paedophiles…. They’re the boys crying “wolf”, that’s all.

            It’s not so much anguish Norm, just the observation that he seems to be the man who came up with the ‘framework’ of this particular idea. Last time I checked (which to be fair was months ago) he was still obsessing over the Hollie Greig Hoax too, and lashing out wildly, blowing smoke and generally trying to draw the ‘heat’ away from the truth of it. He also seems absolutely obsessed with paedophilia, not in the sense he’s actually trying to do something about it or is making a legitimate study of the subject or is even genuinely opposing it. Rather, he’s one of those guys who ‘collects clippings’ – which seems to give him some sort of perverted thrill… Sounding a bit like a broken record I know; but I think Pauffley really hit a nail when she hinted that some people find these sort of ‘stories’ titillating. And of course, there IS the McKenzie link and the whole drugs thing too.

            In many ways Ogilvy is one of life’s complete irrelevances – just a scheemie that never graduated from rolling about in his own pish. And he’ll never better himself. But the fact that he’s linking himself with these attempts at fraud and vying for position with this ‘industry’ creeps me out. I’m VERY convinced that all these people link-back to the illegal ‘porn’ industry, child abuse images etc. It’s a theme that keeps popping up time after time after time.

            Like

          • Yeah, that first guy is fucking weird and probably on something. I creased up watching him.

            The two ladies being verbally assaulted in the second video are Sylvia Major, who’s husband died during the Hollie hoax (and who continues to be slandered and harassed by Angela Power-Disney), and our very own Maggs Shaw O’Neill, with whom Ogilvy was utterly obsessed. He harassed her online for months and made a series of hateful, threatening videos about her (which are still on his Facebook page, last I checked). Because, you know – threatening innocent women over the internet is a great way to prove what a big man you are.

            Like

      • As far as I know Ogilvy is still trying to push his ‘set up’ story and the lie that his daughter’s Grandfather is a paedophile. – He’ll post any old shite promoting similar fairy stories as if they ‘somehow’ affirm his discredited tale or erase his dodgy past and worthless present. As for harassing women in the street…. Well again, it’s par for the course. Ogilvy is known to obsess about a few folk; often those who actually HAVE contributed to real-live perverts being put away where they belong. – They seem to really scare him for some reason. So perhaps the first guy, despite his strangely common keyboard-warriorness has a fair point?

        Like

  3. Excellent piece EC.The hoax has long since been blown out of the water and many self obsessed bandwagon jumpers publicly exposed for what they are.This blog alongside other materials will serve as a historical account and as a reminder that darkness is but an absence of light.

    Thankyou.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. Pingback: Hoaxtead FAQ: The mother and her boyfriend | ShevaBurton. Cross of Change Blog

  5. In a way we on here have become quite used to this whole matter but hearing the real details explained again it’s so difficult to imagine how any sane person could do this to children let alone a mother condone & participate in it. They are as guilty as each other in this dreadful child abuse case.

    Ella’s actions defy all credibility when it comes to how a mother would react after the loss of custody. 95% of mothers would fight tooth and nail to be near their children and the fact she fled with her criminal partner says much. Plenty of mums would prefer a stint in jail if it meant being back in the country where their children live with the opportunity to see them.

    The CCTV brings up an important matter : of all the countries in the world, no-where is so comprehensively covered with CCTV cameras than the UK and most especially London. For good or bad, they are incredibly useful in policing and have both freed suspects or helped to jail villains. Basically it’s impossible to go from one side of London to the other without your progress being filmed.

    And yet not one of these Hoaxers has EVER (particularly as they are so fond of their IPhones) bothered to return to various Hampstead locations and covertly film their claims of babies being transported or even people arriving (on a Wednesday ?) for their alleged feast and orgy. Rather they just make Youtube videos on their PCs making wild claims.

    Indeed the career criminal Abraham Christie could have filmed all these alleged things along with beating these children into submission, if there was skerrick of proof.

    Even Princess Ved from the planet BeBopaLulu who has become quite expert with her camera phone (she’s like a walking steadicam) made the ludicrous claim she saw baby carriages being wheeled into a church but for some inexplicable reason, failed to film the event or even go back the following week to do the same.

    No this is all about THEM- it’s a narcissist exercise to keep a hoax going as long as possible and facts inconveniently get in the way of them and their desire for the attention their sick minds and pathetic lives crave.

    Liked by 2 people

      • Yes, I don’t understand why those who believe in this thing weren’t out there actually filming, rather than sitting behind their computers speculating and second-guessing the police.

        I’m also amazed by how many people get their ideas for how a police investigation is run from watching reruns of American cop shows on TV.

        Like

    • It’s been so blatantly obvious for so long that this whole thing was a hoax that it beggars belief that there are still some people who believe it. I just hope they get the psychiatric help they so clearly need. Either that or a job.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Another important point be it in such simplicity, is if they truly believed any of this, would the physco couple , given it would be if true, the biggest story of its kind…would they not go to the school and church and secretly film?

      How easy would that be to do?

      It matters not, in whatever way, whichever way you look at how these sick evil monsters have created such a hoax, it is flawed in absolutely every single way, be it logically, etc.

      It’s even comical, it’s so absurd!

      Liked by 2 people

  6. Its incredible that the hoaxers latch onto anything that might give them the publicity that they crave.When challenged they latch onto other things to try to justify their actions and lies.

    Neelu is busy pushing stories of Peter Hofschroer. Lets not forget the fact that the man is a convicted sex offender who stated the following during his trial:

    (From Neelus facebook page)

    Neelu seems to have missed the point that Peter Hofschroer was charged with and found guilty of sex offences

    Peter Hofschroer said during his trial:

    “Sometimes I get things wrong, sometimes I tell a little white lie – I am a human being – but I am a man of integrity. My record is not unblemished, but it is cleaner than most,” he claimed at Teesside Crown Court.

    He is also a man associated with Sabine – she wrote on her victim unite blog:

    “Whistleblower Peter Hofschroer, whom I know personally, is to appear in York Crown Court on 27th July 2015, for the start of his Kangaroo Court ‘trial’. It is listed as likely to take a week.

    This is a most terrible stitch-up!”

    Its not a “stitch up” its simply a story invented by a devious person to cover and hide their own criminality.

    Below is Just Giving appeal for the convicted sex offender mentioned by Neelu (interesting who else supports him…)

    Liked by 2 people

    • “My record is not unblemished, but it is cleaner than most” Bollocks! – I’m quite happy to speculate the most normal people have no kind of criminal or other record of offences of any kind whatsoever. Even those ‘fined’ at some point in their lives for taking a library book back late will, I suspect, be in a minority.

      Most people will never have come into formal contact with the Police or courts for anything ever in their lives…. And this convicted sex offender says what?

      Liked by 1 person

      • I’m afraid I have to confess to some major criminality Joe: I was once caught driving at 34mph in a 30mph zone and I have also been fined on one occasion for failing to “pay and display”. I’m not sure if that makes me dirtier than a man who collected thousands of images of child sex abuse over a period of decades.

        Liked by 2 people

        • I once got caught parking for 21 minutes in a 20-minute-limit zone. And I once took a library book back a day late. I’m thoroughly ashamed of these past transgressions. Oh and there was those 17 people I murdered but hey, we were all young once.

          Liked by 1 person

      • Yes i also find that strange and shocking EC. It just doesn’t make any sense to me but there again most of what they say & do doesn’t make any sense to me.

        Liked by 1 person

      • It all goes to support Joe’s point above about these things being a smokescreen. Perhaps, if it’s within legal boundaries, it might be fruitful to do a list of all the people who the Hoaxsteaders, and other groups, have supported who’ve been found guilty of child abuse. It might serve as quite a good shock tactic, giving an overview of just how prevalent this pattern is and how many are implicated. It might even make some of the more gullible ‘followers’ think twice about supporting such ‘campaigns’..

        Liked by 2 people

          • Sorry (re. the above) to add to your workload, but you do such a brilliant job. I’m in total awe of your commitment to this and you’ve created a wonderful thing here (others included of course), it’s a substantial testament to the forces of calm, reasoned thinking, the importance of real evidence, and the restorative powers of occasionally taking the piss!

            Liked by 1 person

  7. Another common trend with the Hoaxers is an inability to understand the differences between “Police Bail” “Court Bail – pending trial” or release on licence.

    Peter Hofschroer is of course being released on licence following him spending the appropriate time for his sentence in prison – normally that time includes time credited for the time held on remand in prison (often held in prison as the risk of the person fleeing before being sentenced is too great, or the crime that they are accused of is so horrendous (and the evidence is overwhelming against them) that it is appropriate that they start their time in custody as soon as possible.

    Lets not forget that a person held on remand may actually enjoy better privileges and conditions in prison (during the time they are held on remand), rather than when they are sentenced. So the Court is actually being kind to them in many respects by holding them (remand) in custody prior to a probable custodial sentence.

    Peter Hofschroer will not be able to leave the Country (UK) without the consent of the Probation service until the end of the sentence or the expiry of an his 12 months of supervision following release from prison.

    Liked by 1 person

    • One of the odd things about Mr Hofschroer is that he seems to have looked even creepier when he was a young man – especially when he chose to be photographed apparently throttling a young boy.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. You have to ask yourselves:
    Who associates with convicted sex offenders?
    Who puts adults and children at risk by posting photographs and personal details?
    Who admits to drinking blood?
    Who sends curses to people?
    Who threatens to kick doors down?
    Who pisses on a church?
    Who threatens to kidnap children?
    Who says they’ve got evidence of a child being abused and filmed and still hasn’t been to the police?
    Who chases an old lady through the streets accusing her of Satanism and murder?
    Who is constantly asking for money?

    Answers on a postcard to be left in one of the tunnels under Hampstead Heath, if you can find the entrances. I couldn’t and I did have a look.

    Liked by 3 people

    • I heard a radio advert for a prize yesterday that was a free ticket to tour the extensive unused rail tunnels under Sydney. Most were abandoned rail projects from the 20s/30s and WW2 when they built enormous shelters fearing the Japanese might launch a Pearl Harbour type raid.

      Some have been used by a commercial mushroom farmer but all are abandoned now because they are damp, cockroach and rat infested. When they turn on the massive lights for these tours there is a noticeable dip in the electricity supplies to buildings above.

      But the ghastly Fiona Barnett claims they are used by the local satanic Cult who run the country- why they would choose to use these unwelcoming places rather than a warm mansion is anyone’s guess.

      Barnett says the tunnels run from one state capital to the next- built in a time when states squabbled over rail gauge size so that each state had frustratingly different sizes that meant changing trains at borders. The building of these massive tunnels that would have criss-crossed land the size of Russia apparently went unnoticed by the general populace.

      She has the ability to identify each new politician or celebrity who rises in the ranks such as the current PM as part of the Cult that abused her but oddly never identifies them when they are unknown.
      Needless to say adopted as a compatriot of Angela Power-Disney and promoted by her & Mel Ve.

      A father of a hapless war refugee who was a brilliant psychiatrist has sent me harrowing messages these vile creatures have sent her who accuse her deceased father of being a former Nazi who ran the local MK Ultra experiments. She is beside herself that her children, now 7-10 years old will eventually come across this stuff on the internet.

      Liked by 2 people

  9. Another question could ask whether there is any physical evidence of Abraham coercing the children. Which is of course proven by the medical exam. Which occurred before the retraction videos.

    The hoaxers often focus on the so called retraction interviews. However, Abraham’s coercion was already mentioned in the girls second interview. She tells the officer that Abraham would hit the children in order to get them to tell the “truth”. That can only mean that Abraham had been asking the children questions, and when they didn’t give an answer that suited Abraham, he hit them in order to get the “truth”. That right there is coercion.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. I used to do a lot of work in family courts and in all but one way this case is not at all unusual. It’s not uncommon for women to want to exclude former partners from their lives. Sometimes they have sound grounds for doing that, sometimes not. Most allow contact nonetheless in the interests of the children, some just flatly refuse it, but some either exaggerate or invent a reason for not allowing it. Add to that a new partner and you have one or two further drivers, firstly the desire to create an uncomplicated new family group without the ex. Secondly the new partner who wants to exclude a rival male. So you get stories of sexual or physical abuse and the more cautious other agencies are (courts, CAFCASS, etc) the more the stories are beefed up in response. Combine this with an element of mental instability and narcissism and you get increasingly serious allegations, and accusations against everyone who doesn’t accept them. That leads to allegations of conspiracies between police, courts, social services etc. The stories are usually an amalgam of what the two adults are interested in, so typically the mother is focused on the ex and the partner is more likely to be indulging his own concerns.
    A further cause of invented stories is to divert attention from the carers’ own abuse, for example to try to deflect responsibility for a child’s psychological problems by blaming the other parent.
    So I’m afraid it’s all very familiar. The difference with this case is mostly about technology; in times past parents like this were not able to spread their views in a way they can now, and from that we get the sequel, where the story was found and adopted by a bunch of unpleasant and delusional people for their own purposes and who developed it for their own purposes.
    Another thing about this case also typical, that none of the people involved in this hoax have spared a second’s thought for the children who have to bear the consequences, they are purely instruments in their enterprise.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thanks, SJ. You’ve really hit the nail square on the head here. We will be doing more FAQ pages, and one will address the issue of how and why the story was amplified via the online ‘troofer’ community. I’m going to add your comment to the FAQ page (you’ll see it in the bar at the top of the blog’s home page), as I think it’s important for people to realise that what Abe and Ella did was not really all that unusual as these things go.

      Liked by 1 person

    • It’s the methodology and organisation that sets this one apart….. There is a clear ‘prototype’ for the hoax,and there is a clear connection between the ‘prototype’ and the known serial-con artist who actively lead, promoted and managed the Hampstead hoax to a particular audience; as indeed they have lead other hoaxes and frauds in the past. Yes, the fabricated allegations, deflection and projection etc. are all quite typical. – But it’s no mere accident of technology or coincidence that this fraud, with all its similarities and connections to previous ‘projects’ run by the same parcel of rogues progressed as it did. – And I’m very confident in predicting that they will be emboldened now to carry on regardless, there being little or nothing by way of significant consequence to be faced by any of them or their footsoldiers.

      Expect Rupert (for instance) to be back baying at the moon very shortly. And, in a year’s time, McNeill to be as active as ever….. Never mind the the expense, distress and disruption caused to innocent people.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I can’t speak to the prototype as well as you can, Joe, but I can certainly see how this hoax was orchestrated, possibly as far back as May/June 2014 or earlier. I’ll post more on this for tomorrow, and I’ll be interested to hear your thoughts.

        Like

        • …..Just drill into Ogilvy’s back-story EC. He tried to pull basically the same stunt. The only difference is he wasn’t bright enough to realise that when you erase a ‘bad take’ the remnants of the old file remain. He was also daft enough to hand the actual phone to the police (he was trying to fit up his partner’s father IIRC) who had forensic technicians examine it and they caught him out. – He’s been claiming the usual ‘fit up’ crap ever since. And he does link directly to McKenzie and the Hollie hoax.

          Liked by 2 people

  11. Who recalls the video of Abraham stood outside the courts saying that ‘he wished they would jail him as his voive would be louder in there’? Quite how that would work i don’t know but if he was so keen to be taken in by the police why run abroad? The man is an out and out liar and the sooner he faces the music for what he has done then all the better.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I’ve been wondering what kind of grown man calls himself ‘Biggi’. Perhaps it’s a ‘bedroom’ name they used and then started using in public. I don’t like to think about it….

      Like

  12. Hi all

    I give you…drum roll, please…the updated perps poster…

    This has been updated to include:

    Andy Peacher (Freedom Talk Radio)
    Sonya van Gelder (aka Sonja Vangelder)
    Naima Dawn Feagin (aka Hope Moore / Hope Girl)
    Peter Klein (Tyranny News Network)
    Richie Allen
    Frances Inglis
    Tim Veater (Benjamin Timothy Theodore Veater)
    David Howard
    George Antoniou (George Greek Trucker)

    I’ve trimmed off a few lesser perps in order to fit all the new ones in but I’ve kept them on file. Please let me know if I’ve missed anyone important (I’d hate for any miscreants to feel left out, in case they cast a spell on me). And if anyone could direct me to a photo of George Antoniou or a clearer one of Tim Veater, it’d be much appreciated.

    I’ve changed the pics of Malcolm Konrad Ogilvy and Slurpy Mahmoudieh, as the previous ones weren’t very clear. And my God, does Ogilvy look creepy (Joe Kerr is right about this dickhead).

    And I won’t even ask when he last washed his hair.

    And don’t you just luuurve Andy Peacher’s stereotypical paedo look:

    No, me neither.

    Now if you’ll excuse me, I have a saucer of milk waiting. Onwards and upwards, folks! 🙂

    Liked by 2 people

      • Much appreciated, EC 🙂

        By the way, I’ve added three more to include George Antoniou, David Howard and Veater (and I’ve removed my last three ‘nobodies’ to make room). I’ve also put up a clearer picture of Slurpy Mahmoudieh.

        I’ve updated the comment above accordingly.

        Liked by 2 people

  13. Thanks for housekeeping the hall of shame wall chart.What an appalling collection of reprobates to behold.

    Why has there been such a furore about some passing fad where a few idiots dress up as insane clowns scaring folk when the barking mad brigade have already cornered the market and dont even require masks(especially Neelu).

    Enjoy milk SS.

    Liked by 2 people

We welcome comments!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s