Ella’s record of domestic violence: Was she really an innocent victim?

/ 17/06/2017

One of the themes running through the Hampstead SRA hoax is the Good Mother trope put forth by many of the Hoaxtead mob. If you believe people like Kristie Sue Costa, you’ll have heard the claim that Ella Draper is a wonderful, loving mother and all-round beautiful human being who has been unfairly victimised by the Powers That Be, who have stolen her children from her and forced her into exile.

To back up this argument, Hoaxtead mobsters will often dredge up the allegation that RD was physically abusive towards Ella during their relationship.

They will note, with some glee, that Mrs Justice Pauffley’s judgement of 19 March 2015 states that “a non-molestation injunction order was made against the father” in 2010. Now, the term “non-molestation” tends to conjure up dodgy overtones, as though RD had been “molesting” poor defenceless Ella, perhaps in a sexual sense.

Of course it doesn’t mean that at all. According to the website ChildLawAdvice.org,

A Non-Molestation Order prevents the Respondent from using or threatening violence against you (and if applicable your child/children) or intimidating, harassing or pestering you. This is to ensure the health, safety and well-being of yourself (and if applicable your child/children).

While a non-molestation order doesn’t necessarily carry sexual connotations, it definitely doesn’t sound good. It still implies that RD was “using or threatening violence”, or “intimidating, harassing or pestering” poor beleaguered Ella.

In various interviews, she has played on this misperception, alleging that RD was frequently violent towards her and her older son. She has even alleged that RD attacked her mother. If Ella is to be believed, RD is a right bounder, a danger to women and children, and a frequent and unrepentant perpetrator of domestic violence.

The CRIMINT report

However, we recently came upon the CRIMINT report. This was part of the information-gathering the police performed at the beginning of the investigation into the children’s allegations. It’s standard for them to look up any and all information on file about those they’re investigating, to get all the facts in one place.

What they found paints a rather different picture from the Mild and Saintly Ella the Hoaxtead mobsters seem to worship:

We apologise for the teeny-tiny print, but if you squint and look sideways at your screen, you should be able to just make it out.

First, let’s have a look at Ella Draper’s interactions with the police, as of 2011. It seems that the police were called to her house on a number of occasions.

There was the time, for example, that she alleged that her eldest son had assaulted her…and he made a cross-allegation, claiming that in fact, Ella had assaulted him!

And at one point it seems that Ella did allege that she had been assaulted by RD. The police responded by cautioning him.

However, on that same visit, RD alleged that he had been assaulted by Ella…and the police cautioned her, as well.

Had this been a one-sided incident of woman-battering, it’s unlikely the police would have issued Ella with a caution. It seems that the officers who responded to the call sized up the situation and determined that both parties were at fault and required cautions.

In other words, there’s more than one side to Ella’s claim that RD was “abusive” towards her and her son. In addition, while Ella was suspected of common assault against her oldest child, there is no police record of RD ever having laid hands on him.

We do note that there are a number of calls listed “NCBD-DRAPER and DEARMAN”.

Frankly, we don’t know what the acronym “NCBD” stands for, but since it seems no one was charged or cautioned on any of those police visits, we’d hazard a guess that it stands for something like “no charges brought—domestic”. However, if anyone happens to have a better grasp of cop codes than we do, please feel free to correct us.

In saying all this, we’re not trying to exonerate or make excuses for RD. Clearly, if he and Ella were engaged in domestic violence so serious that it required a visit from the police, that’s not a good thing.

However, when we compare the CRIMINT report with what Ella has continued to allege about her relationship with RD, we find the contrast very interesting indeed.

Related posts

31 thoughts on “Ella’s record of domestic violence: Was she really an innocent victim?”

      • Abrella’s supporters have for ages been claiming that RD beat her so bad she feared for her life and called the police, we can see now that that was a lie, there is no mention of ABH apart from something from 1999 way before they met.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Yes, that’s a really good point about there being no ABH (assault causing bodily harm) listed between Ella and RD. Doesn’t quite match up with Ella’s version, does it?

          RD is listed as a “suspect” in an ABH case before he met Ella, but there is nothing about him being charged, let alone tried or convicted.

          Like

        • Not only that, but Ella claimed in an interview recently that RD even assaulted her mum once, and I am very sure she would have called the police for that. If you do a bit of cross-referencing of the ref no’s of both individuals in the crimint report, a lot becomes clear. And, without redaction it looks like Ella had problems with a person other than RD which would explain a lot about their family living relations. RD has totally been scapegoated, can the other side not see that when presented with such evidence. Since they are excellent researchers of the person they accuse, they will know where to look for this document to see what I am talking about. And then they will fall silent, still pointing the finger, still hurting people who they should now be apologising to.

          This nightmare could have, by the grace of god been them in the spotlight, with people willing to kill them for no other reason than that they were gullible, or excited at the material being offered to them. They were played by a couple of scheming people who had frightened children into pleasing their torturers in order to survive.

          I recently rewatched the police videos, and the girl describes the boy cowering in the corner of the room towered over by Abe, being hit with a spoon, while he cried and pleaded that it hurt. And where was Ella? Calmly lying on the bed, in the same room. She did not display any maternal protection towards the children.

          Liked by 2 people

    • Interesting..I’ve never actually watched that video although I’ve been aware of it and seen screen grabs from it and read so much by these vile rotten hoaxers about how Ricky “pretends” to cry.

      Yet he clearly tears up as evidenced by the lower eye lids which become quite red and his eyes do moisten.

      What this says to me is that those who accuse RD are devoid of some human emotions and empathy (but riddled with insanity) and are utterly clueless to a normal human reaction like crying which can take so many forms.

      A person can cry rivers such as the former Aussie PM Bob Hawke who could become quite emotional giving a speech and tear up, something I just discussed with my Chinese doctor who was a student in Oz during the Tienanmen Square dramas and as a consequence, Hawkie went on TV and cried as he described the terrible killings of protestors in the Square and said all Chinese students in Oz would be granted immediate residency which is how my doctor became a citizen.

      I myself have had sudden overwhelming bouts of a rising feeling to cry often at watching dreadful emotional events such as Grenfell and hearing from the victims but can suppress it as RD quite clearly does because he’s being interviewed and that is again a human reaction to feel a need to cry but also can struggle to keep that need in check under certain circumstances.

      One could give dozens of examples but clearly the main Hoaxers are completely devoid of this emotion – have we EVER seen Ella cry? – apart from Sabine who regularly tears up about HERSELF and her own predicament.

      Honestly, teams of psychiatrists, if they could get the 100s of Hoaxers into a clinic to study them they would be able to see among the lot of them the entire range of mental disorders possible.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Yes, Hoaxtead mobsters are all too eager to claim that RD was “faking emotion” in this video, but they fail to notice that Ella doesn’t bother to even fake it. She’s like a robot, except when she’s giggling in the background of some interviews where Abe takes the lead. The police noticed her strange lack of emotion and inappropriate laughing and joking when they were interviewing her during the criminal investigation, as well.

        GoS says, “Yet he clearly tears up as evidenced by the lower eye lids which become quite red and his eyes do moisten”.

        Yes, exactly. And I think you can hear him trying not to cry as he speaks. His voice takes on a choked quality, which I recognise from the few times I saw my own father overcome with emotion. He was a very stoic person, who’d been raised to think of crying as “sissy”, but every now and again he’d start to lose control. Just as RD did, he would blink back tears, but I’d see the rims of his eyes redden (not something one can control voluntarily, btw), and his voice would “thicken” briefly. His speech would grow halting, as though he feared breaking down if he tried to speak at a normal pace.

        It’s an unmistakable shift, and would be very hard to fake, IMO.

        Given that the men in RD’s family were coal miners (as was he, until he decided to strike out and try his hand at acting), it doesn’t surprise me that he’d have been raised to have the same response to outright tears that my dad had.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. I had never seen that video before – it is quite devastating, and I don’t think I will ever recover from watching it. I cannot imagine how Ricky and his children will ever put their lives back together again. Thee are so many parallels with the McCann case – how do you protect children from the vile, venomous, poison that has been written about them and their parents that will forever live on the Internet? There haas to be some sort of ‘wipe clean’ mechanism that the global giants of the cyber world must take responsibility for – they cannot simply hide behind the ‘free speech’ mantra.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Spot on.

      I’ve thought about what would happen if the company directors of You Tube and the others were subjected to the same kind of personal abuse. What would Susan Wojcicki (CEO of You Tube) do if it was her children and her reputation?

      You can bet your life she’d find a way to wipe all the crap about herself and her family off her platform at least. It can be done!

      Liked by 2 people

      • There are several ways this could be accomplished. One of the simplest would be to use a simple program to search YouTube (for example) for certain keywords, and present the results to YouTube for scrubbing. I think RD would have a very good legal case for insisting that YouTube do this, and it would make it very difficult for people to continue re-posting the same videos, if re-checks were performed regularly.

        Liked by 1 person

        • There must be plenty of very intelligent people working for Google and i have no doubt at all that they could come up with some code to crawl Youtube for the certain keywords and then flag the video up to be reviewed by somebody if not removed immediately.

          Liked by 1 person

    • There seems to be a never ending stream of self proclaimed Body Language experts on youtube, most of them using conformation bias and a lack of any kind of sympathy. They ignore things like context, editing and timescale. Bombard’s video was pretty good though https://youtu.be/4ckED_NN7C4
      The one voice of reason amongst the rest of the body language quacks covering RD.

      Despite the children being honest as to what happened as soon as they knew Abe could no longer bully, and physically and mental harm them, people seems to ignore that and have a grudge against the father.
      It shows how little fathers rights are respected when people will side with a child abusing neglectant mother over a father pushing for rights to see his own children. A lot of people projecting their own hatred of men onto the father. The children recanted, the father didn’t even have access to his children, therefore there is absolutely no reason to hold a grudge against a completely innocent man.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Thanks for posting the link, I really like this woman’s style. She says right at the beginning that she has made one about Ella too, but I can’t find it on patreon. But here is the one on RD:

        Liked by 2 people

    • @anna raccoon – hear, hear!

      Citizens of the European Union can have themselves (references to their names) removed from search engine results, under certain circumstances. Looks to me like RDs kids would qualify, (but perhaps an actual lawyer could provide a more informed opinion about that).
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/10827005/Google-must-delete-your-data-if-you-ask-EU-rules.html

      This would be just a partial, and imperfect, solution to unwarrated internet noteriety. It is controversial, for many reasons, but it is a not inconsiderable SOMETHING that a person can do. (Again, perhaps a lawyer might venture a qualified opinion as to whether the legal guardian of a minor could institute such a measure on their behalf, or not). Should citizens of North American nations be lobbying for a similar “right to be forgotten” ruling over here?

      Googlebot, google’s web crawling “spider”, seems phenomenally powerful & efficient with respect to gathering & analyzing basic information about any given webpage’s purpose and info content. It can’t remove problematic material or webpages from the ‘net, but it could probably be instructed to record every instance of a name or names that it encounters, throughout the seeming infinity of INTERNET, and very likely with some consideration to the context. Such a record could be a real boon to people who have been the victim of irrational poison pen, revenge porn or hoax campaigns, allowing them insight into the scope of their problem and the ability to identify the most harmful sites and target them for resolution through their host platforms. But would Google really do that for someone, ever, other than for one of its founders or executives?

      Liked by 1 person

      • I’ve been successful in having some vile blogs removed in Australia as search engines like Google have been deemed in the courts to be publishers therefore can be sued for defamation.

        But they make it a long and arduous task and it takes forever and then of course, a new website can pop up again and you start all over again. In the long run it does mean Google or website hosts can be sued for serious money for libel as each time a defamatory blog pops up it’s a new libel but as my pal who won against Google found, they will throw $millions at a losing case just to wear you down and fighting them basically becomes a full time job. And then they appeal once you win.

        I used to laugh at Google’s outrageous “do no evil” claptrap on their pages as I believe they are one of the most vile and rapacious entities on the planet who scrounge of other taxpayers by artificially basing themselves wherever they can avoid tax.

        So ghastly have these web entities become that when the EU ordered Apple to pay the Irish government 13 billion Euros in dodged tax, the Irish government screamed to high heaven and claimed they didn’t want the money. Today’s politicians can be absolutely sickening in the way they seem terrified or are bamboozled by these tax avoiding creatures.

        http://drjaniceduffy.com/

        Liked by 1 person

  4. On another note, watch this channel’s coverage (AnimalsThatSwim) of the London Fire, if you leave it on autoplay on the channel, it has a lot of very good local/news clips showing the many dimensions of this tragedy:


    Liked by 1 person

  6. Ermm Mr. Sharter? It’s not a will you need but an “honorary trust” as you don’t have a pot to piss in and can’t afford a Notary. Maybe you can find one like KSC’s “SOURsez” to Affirm a Forgery….Works til ya get caught!! LOL (not like u have anything to FILL the trust with..) No Friend’s to save your Dogs from the FIRE? Sad Very Sad.

    Like

    • Since David has solemnly sworn to return from the beyond to unleash havoc upon us mere mortals and our kitchen appliances he will need some spare cash on his reincarnation to undertake his darstardly deeds.

      Why doesnt he simply dig a hole in his garden to stash his nearly empty pi$$ pot and avoid needless will making expenditure.

      David will no doubt manage to cock things up somehow and come back as a frog or something anyway.Forewarned is forearmed.

      Like

Comments are closed.