Yesterday we learned that three YouTubers—”Echo Truths“, Lulu from the YouTube channel “itsgonnab alright“, and Kitty McCaffery from the channel of the same name—had released Part 1 of a video called “HAMPSTEAD – Two Sides to the Story”.
Our overall impression: it’s very clear that the women who made this video put a great deal of thought and care into it. They discuss the Hampstead case in some detail, questioning things that have been accepted as writ by many of their fellow truthers; and they take a factual, down-to-earth approach that’s refreshing and engaging. That said, it’s more than likely that they’ll receive a great deal of flak from their fellow truthers about their conclusions. As the video’s makers say, people don’t like being fooled, and as we saw in yesterday’s video from Plymouth Fury, reactions to news that children were not sexually abused can be surprisingly hostile.
While Echo Truths and Kitty are relative newcomers to the Hampstead SRA hoax, Lulu says she’s known about if for some time, but all three started off believing the hoax narrative: that a school and church in a North London suburb is home to a group of child-raping, baby-murdering Satanic paedophiles, and that two of this cult’s victims were “rescued” by their mother’s new boyfriend Abraham Christie, who was able to force them to tell the truth about the horrors they’d experienced.
They noted, however, that once they began reallly researching the hoax, the “amount of stuff (they) found out is incredible”. While they do state that they believe in the existence of Satanic ritual abuse, a statement with which we’d take issue, they do probe beyond the surface of Hoaxtead to look critically at the behaviour of Abe, Ella, and RD, in an attempt to determine which of the three is more likely to be lying.
One of their problems with the hoax, they say, is Ella: they describe her as cold, almost robotic, and “edited”. As ET points out, Ella does seem capable of smiling, but she shows absolutely no emotion when discussing her two children, who allegedly have been brutally abused, and then taken from her care. “No matter how factual you’re trying to be, there’s not one point in any of her statements where she looks like she’s coming close to breaking”, ET says. The others agree: Ella never tears up, her voice never breaks, and her words have a robotic quality to them that belie the situation she claims she’s in.
Interestingly, they point out that Ella seems much more relaxed in her more recent videos than she did in the first year or so after she and Abe fled to Spain to evade arrest. Her focus these days seems to be more on advertising their cannabis and nutritional businesses than on the fate of her children.
ET, Kitty, and Lulu reserve their harshest criticisms for Abraham Christie, though: they note his criminal history, his violence and abuse of his own children and his step-children, and his fascination with Crowley-esque mysticism. They note that he seems to have tailored his publicity campaign toward those on YouTube who “believe in this stuff, who know cover-ups happen”; when Pizzagate emerged in the wake of the US election, Abe was quick to modify his videos to include Pizzagate in the descriptions; and when the Audi commercial featuring a young actress who looked like RD’s daughter emerged, Ella used this as a hook to rehash the hoax.
Incidentally, Kitty was able to debunk this lie by doing some actual investigating, calling some agencies, and determining the real name of the actress in the advert. This forced Ella to admit that she’d been mistaken.
They make use of the Jean-Clement Yaohirou video to illustrate Abe’s coaching techniques, noting that at several points Abe either corrects the children or tells them to shut up; and then, of course, there’s the chilling “Kill, kill, kill, kill the baby, kill the baby, kill the baby” chant, with Abe telling the children he likes how that sounds.
Then there’s Abe’s effort at poetry, which you can find at 1:03:40. Horrorshow doesn’t even begin to describe it.
They bring up the issues of the tattoos—specifically, why the children never described their father’s tattoos, and why Ella never seemed to notice them on either of her partners—pointing out that Ella must have known RD would be brought in by the police, so if she claimed he had a tattoo, it’s likely the police could have demanded to see it as part of their evidence gathering.
And they point out Ella’s recent retraction of part of her story, noting that in addition to her statement to Nathan Stolpman of Lift the Veil, she mentioned it to Sofia Smallstorm during the podcast they made together a few weeks ago. As Kitty said, “She said it because she was distressed, so she just accidentally threw them in there”. “Well, that’s a pretty fucking big accident, isn’t it?” replied ET. Kitty responded, “Yeah, just ruin somebody’s life…and she threw her oldest son under the bus”. Couldn’t have said it better ourselves.
Responding to the inevitable question of how the children were able to remember all that information if they hadn’t actually experienced it, Lulu says, “Does anyone not remember history class in grade school? It’s not that hard”. Excellent point, and one we might borrow in future.
Speaking of borrowing…
Yes, some of the information used in this video was found either on this site, or on some of Barchon Mad’s excellent YouTube videos. We want to state very clearly that where our blog is concerned, borrowing is perfectly fine with us. This blog is not the property of a single person; it’s a collaborative endeavour, and one of its purposes is to provide a repository of factual information about the Hampstead SRA hoax.
Some have complained that our information wasn’t properly acknowledged, but we see it another way. First, we did hear our blog referenced a few times during the video; but even if it hadn’t been, we wouldn’t have been offended in the least. The information is provided here for anyone to use, and the more it’s used the happier we are.
Another factor, of course, is that when Hoaxtead believers hear our blog’s name mentioned, they have a tendency to shut off and refuse to listen to anyone who quotes us. It’s assumed (incorrectly) that this blog is run by your pick of RD, the CIA, MI5, MI6, GCHQ, Mossad, or the Lizard People from Outer Space. Hoaxtead believers seem to think that anything we say is toxic or self-serving. So if not mentioning our name too much is what it takes to get the truth out there, we’re good with that.
We know several of our commenters have had their issues with ET in the past. We don’t know how to phrase this delicately, so we’ll just put it out there: ET seems to believe in a lot of stuff we disagree with, and yes, we have found several of her videos (the ones claiming the Manchester bombing was a hoax, for example) offensive and downright cruel. That said, we feel it showed courage on her part to admit she’d been wrong about Hoaxtead; and we appreciated her efforts to keep the children’s names and images out of this video.
As well, there’ve been some epic troll wars waged in the comments sections of several of ET’s videos. ET states she’s received death threats; if those have come from anyone who frequents this blog, we’d very much like to see them, as that’s not behaviour we have ever condoned. Since the blog’s inception two years ago, one of our strongest principles has been that death threats are off-limits.
We were pleased, then, to see that all three participants in yesterday’s video expressed disgust with threats and violent trolling, no matter who it comes from. We agree. While emotions run high in this case—because we are discussing whether children have been horrendously abused—we’d far rather see people try to keep their epithets and accusations to themselves, and try to communicate across the divide. We know that doesn’t always work: some people just won’t play nice, and that’s a fact of life on the internet.
Here’s the thing: we might never be best friends. But we do believe that when we can share information and start to communicate across the divide, we all win. And more important, so do the children.