Part 2 of the Hampstead video: Some questions answered

Yesterday we discussed the first half of the video put together by three women—”Echo Truths“, Lulu from “itsgonnab alright“, and Kitty McCaffery—which is the first we’ve seen from “the other side” to expose the Hampstead SRA hoax for what it is. They released Part 2 of the video yesterday:

We should say, first, that we very much appreciate all the work that went into this. The hoax has a seemingly endless array of moving parts, and trying to summarise it all in a total of three hours of discussion is a herculean task. That said, we noted a few areas in this second part where information was either incomplete or incorrect, and in the spirit of collaboration we’d like to help clear up some of these points.

Question 5

In the video, the three women do their best to answer a series of questions which they’ve been asked by others concerned about the case. Question 5, paraphrased, was basically “Why would Abe and Ella have the children go into that much detail when it could so easily be debunked?”

We think the answer to this can be found in Ella’s words in the opening statement, provided on the first half of this video: “The case was never intended to reach the Crown Prosecution Service, much less the glaring light of public scrutiny.”

Consider this for a moment: in what known universe could Ella have thought that a case of unbelievably severe child sexual abuse like this would not reach the Crown Prosecution Service? (For our U.S. readers, the CPS is roughly similar to the district attorney’s office, in the sense that both are responsible for prosecuting cases on behalf of the state.)

This means she and Abe never thought the police would investigate the case. Why did she think this? It’s impossible to be 100% certain, but we have a few ideas.

The first is that the videos they made of the children on the way home from Morocco were intended to be used as bait to entice various UK alternative media types to support and publicise their story. In favour of this theory, Abraham had a public hissy fit at one point because two of the big names in the UK, Brian Gerrish and Bill Maloney, ignored his invitation to provide publicity for the case.

We say they “ignored” it, but it does now seem likely that Gerrish sent a man named Finnbarr Hagan to interview Abe, Ella, and the two children in early September 2014. While the video footage Finnbarr recorded seems to indicate that he was taken in by the story, for some reason Gerrish decided to give it a pass…until Sabine McNeill released the videos in February 2015. At that point, he got behind the hoax, along with almost every other truther in the UK, but that was more a matter of not being left behind.

Another possibility, which doesn’t exclude the first, is that Abe and Ella planned to use the videos, and the children, to accuse RD of being a paedophile cult leader, but in family court, not criminal court.

This seems like an odd choice, but keep in mind that Ella had already attempted to accuse RD of every other crime in the book in her attempts to block him from seeing the children. For five years, she and RD battled it out in family court, with judge after judge awarding RD visitation rights, and Ella ignoring court order after court order. It’s quite possible that the plan was to introduce the children’s videos in family court, as the “final solution” which would allow Ella to cut RD out of the children’s lives entirely.

In favour of this theory is the fact that about a month before Ella and Abe began living together, RD had applied yet again for access to the children, and it looked as though the court might decide in his favour. Ella has stated numerous times that she didn’t want this to happen, and Abe mentioned it as well, in the Jean-Clement video. Against this theory, of course, is the fact that it is batshit crazy: how could they have thought that claiming RD led a  gang of child-raping, baby-murdering cult members would not end up before the police? We don’t know the answer to that, but we do know that Abe and Ella are not the current reigning king and queen of rational decision-making. Plus: cannabis. Lots and lots of cannabis.

And finally, as Lulu points out in the video, Abe mentions to Jean-Clement that he and Ella were planning to take the children back to Morocco the following day. As we know, that didn’t happen, but only because Jean-Clement reported them to the police. However, their plans to return to Morocco both bear out Ella’s statement that the case was never meant to go before the CPS, and our hypothesis that Abe and Ella were planning to launch the hoax using the kids’ videos…from a venue where they’d be safe from the UK police.

A small but important misconception we’d like to correct is that Jean-Clement was a police officer. In fact, he was a “Special Constable” with the London Metropolitan police force (the “MET”). “Specials” are civilian volunteers who carry out duties such as responding to 999 calls, going on foot and vehicle patrols, doing talks in schools about safety and crime, doing house-to-house enquiries, and so forth.

Many people have made much of the fact that Abe took the children to see a police officer, but as Abe had a long history of being in conflict with the law, he would have been very aware of the fact that his brother-in-law was a “special”. It seems most likely that Abe took the kids to see Jean-Clement as a sort of “dress rehearsal”, to test their ability to repeat the allegations they’d been taught in front of an audience.

Question 6

In answer to this question, “Were the children put in separate foster care placements, and if so, why and how did they both retract their stories on the same day?”, we think it’s important to realise how the retractions began.

We don’t know whether the children were in separate placements at the time of the retraction, but even if they weren’t, the retractions began in the police car, when DC Martin and his colleague were picking the children up to bring them to the station for an interview.

In the IPCC report that was done on the investigation, DC Martin states, “The purpose of this meeting on this date was to continue detailing the children’s allegations of abuse. I was unaware that they was going to detail that they had fabricated these allegations after influence from Abraham Christie until they informed me on the journey to the interview suite and began to disclose that they had fabricated their account. Upon their initial disclosure of the fabrication of the offences I discouraged them from discussing it further until we reached the interview suite”.

What this means is that in the car on the way to the interview, if one of the children started to disclose, the other would have known that their sibling was about to tell all. While DC Martin doesn’t specify in his IPCC statement who initiated the discussion, given her eagerness to tell him that Abe tortured her and her brother, we would suspect that Child P was the first to talk about it. The fact that Child Q was a bit more reticent could mean that he hadn’t been aware of his sister’s intention to disclose until they were in the car together, and he hadn’t had time to emotionally prepare himself and face what he thought might happen if he admitted he’d been lying.

Question 9

This question, “Why were the children allowed to know so many details of the occult and how it operated?”, is actually dealt with in a post we did a few days ago. Here’s a quote from that post:

Jean-Clement Yaohirou’s audio recording of his discussions with Abe, Ella and the children, at his home in 2014, documents very clearly that Abe and Ella were the source of any ‘age inappropriate’ knowledge or understanding the children might appear to possess about anal sexual practices, orgiastic group sex, adult sexual abuse of children, child prostitution, CSA image and ‘snuff’ video distribution, paedophile rings, body art, satanism/ “satanic ritual abuse” /cults and cult practices, child murder/ sacrifice, or cannibalism.

Abe and Ella are both recorded therein, blatantly discussing such subjects in the frankest manner WITH the children, and also between each other and/or Jean-Clement, IN FRONT OF the children during the same conversations!

And these discussions are not confined to merely soliciting statements from the children about their alleged experiences relating to these subjects, or discussion of the children’s responses – they also include both Abe and Ella expounding on their own personal knowledge about these subjects, going far beyond simply clarifying or “fleshing out” a child’s statement and demonstrating that both of them, (Abe especially), believe they possessed a generic expertise in all of these subjects long before the children’s alleged ‘disclosures’. It is very obvious that the children’s disclosures didn’t teach Abe & Ella everything they know about these subjects that isn’t specific to their allegations about Christ Church, and that both of them had been discussing their own understanding about such things, with each other in front of the children AND directly with the children, for some time.

Perhaps just as important, everything these kids might appear to know about all of these topics is WRONG. They don’t appear to possess any knowledge, (or experience), of child prostitution, CSA image and ‘snuff’ video distribution, paedophile rings, body art, satanism/ “satanic ritual abuse” /cults and cult practices, child murder/ sacrifice, or cannibalism that would be corroborated by the valid & documented reality of these things, in Western Nation societies. Everything the kids “know” is clearly derived from the urban legends and conspiracy theorist mythologies about these subjects, accumulated over the last 40 years. In fact, their understanding of these things perfectly reflects obsessive conspiranoid Abe’s own understanding of them.

And of course, many of the persons who are exposed to the Hampstead Hoax videos or propaganda will have been exposed to the same urban legends and conspiracy theorist mythologies about these subjects, because the internet is saturated with re-tellings of them in a variety of guises. So they recognize something RD’s kids are alleged to have said, corresponding to their own ‘mature’ & ‘informed’ knowledge about it and are amazed – how these little kids possibly KNOW about these things, without having experiences them? They don’t understand that the real sources of what the children appear to know are Abe & Ella, and that Abe has been obsessed with all the same conspiranoid info that their own misinformed understanding of these subjects came from.

Also during Question 9, one of the women in the video notes that the police investigation was shut down rather quickly. We would argue that it was only shut down after

1. the police discovered that the children’s testimony was not accurate (i.e., no skulls in the church; the one house they claimed was RD’s was empty and did not match their description in any way), and
2. the children had retracted their original allegations.

For a full description of the police investigation, you can check out our links on the FAQ, above. In particular, the IPCC report goes into much more detail about exactly what was done and why.

We’re closing in on 2,000 words here, but we would urge anyone who has any questions at all to please let us know. We’ll do our best to either answer, or point you in the direction of resources that can help.