FAQ update #3: How to navigate the FAQs

We’re on our third day of updating and refreshing the FAQ section of the blog, and to be honest we’re starting to get a bit cross-eyed. At one point it occurred to us that while there’s a metric tonne of information in them thar pages, it might be difficult for the average reader to find what they were looking for. (We worked this out while looking for a piece we knew we had seen…it’s got to be in here somewhere…WHERE IS IT DAMMIT?!)

So now, if you check out the main FAQ page, you’ll see something that looks like this:

What’s the real story?

Are you new to the Hampstead SRA hoax story? Have you wondered whether it could all possibly be true? Do you have questions about the children’s videos, the police investigation, the medical results? Do you wonder why RD’s children were able to recite so much detail, or whether they were coerced into retracting their statements?

We hope these FAQ pages will help answer those questions and more. If you have specific questions you’d like to see added here, please don’t hesitate to let us know!

Here’s a table of contents of the FAQ so far, listing the pages and the questions they contain. To find what you’re looking for, just click on the highlighted links.

How it all began

  1. How did the Hampstead SRA hoax begin?
  2. Who are Abe and Ella?
  3. How were the allegations developed?
  4. What were the allegations?
  5. What happened during the police investigation?

The hoax timeline

  • Prior to May 2014: Ricky and Ella’s history of family court battles
  • May 2014: Ricky applies to the courts for more contact with his children; Abe meets Ella
  • June 2014: Abe has a fight at the children’s school; Belinda McKenzie begins hinting at her “next big thing”
  • August 2014: Abe and Ella take the children to Morocco
  • 4 September 2014: Abe and Ella return to the UK and go straight to see Jean-Clement Yaohirou, who records Abe, Ella, and the children reciting details of their allegations
  • 5 September 2014: Jean-Clement hands the audio recording to a friend, who recognises the name of one of the parents accused of being in the cult. Jean-Clement’s friend gives the recording to the named parent, who contacts the police, either in person or via his lawyer.
  • 5 September 2014: Upon receiving word of this recording, Barnet police launch investigation
  • 8 September 2014: Finnbarr Hagan, an associate of Brian Gerrish, visits Abe and Ella, secretly films himself interviewing the children
  • 11 September 2014: Based on the children’s descriptions of Abe hurting them, the police take them into protective custody; Abe emails Gerrish with more details of “cult”
  • 14 November 2014: Sabine McNeill opens Dropbox file to store information she received from Ella; Charlotte Ward publishes e-book under pseudonym “Jacqui Farmer”
  • 10 December 2014: Ella fires, re-hires, then re-fires legal team. They turn over all evidence, including confidential police videos, to Ella.
  • 26 December 2014: Sabine blogs that this will be her “breakthrough case”
  • 2 January 2015: Belinda’s associate seen handing out flyers about the case outside Royal Courts of Justice
  • 13 January 2015: Mrs Justice Anna Pauffley becomes involved with care proceedings
  • 26 January 2015: Sabine writes Ella’s Position Statement threatening “high-level embarrassment” if the children are not returned. She also writes to then-Home Secretary Theresa May, presenting “our offer NOT to expose this scandal in exchange for returning the children.” Sabine BCC’s this email, which contains videos of the children’s original allegations, to Henry Curteis of The Tap Blog. He publishes them online.
  • 2 February 2015: Ella attempts to have the children write the judge saying they wish to come home. They refuse.
  • 9 February 2015: Ella publishes list of accused cult members on YouTube
  • 10 February 2015: Ella fails to attend court following injunctions against herself and Sabine
  • 12 February 2015: Police come to question Ella; she flees her house and leaves the country
  • 12 February 2015: Sabine flees the country to evade arrest
  • 17 February 2015: Abe joins Belinda outside Royal Courts of Justice to protest children being in care; court attempts to serve a witness summons on him, but fails. He later leaves the country to join Ella in Spain
  • 19 March 2015: Mrs Justice Pauffley reads judgement of her fact-finding hearing

The mother and her boyfriend

  1. How do you know the children were coached to tell a story of imaginary abuse?
  2. Is there any physical evidence to show that Abe forced the children to say what they did?
  3. I heard that the police forced the kids to make those retraction statements. Is that true?
  4. But why would Abe and Ella have done this? Ella already had custody of the children, so it can’t have been a ‘custody dispute’. What would motivate her to make up such terrible stories about her ex-partner?
  5. The abuse the children described was so detailed and horrific, I can’t believe it’s not true. Would a mother really allow her children to be forced to talk about this if it weren’t true?
  6. 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?
  7. I’ve heard that Abe and Ella tried to interfere with the police investigation. Is that true?
  8. The children and Ella both mention that Ella’s oldest son was in the cult. Yet Ella and Abe never talk about him, and seem uninterested in rescuing him. Why?
  9. Is it true that Ella had to take out a non-molestation order against RD? Doesn’t this prove he was violent toward her and her son?

Promoters of the hoax

  1. Aside from Abraham Christie and Ella Draper, who was involved in promoting the hoax?
  2. The videos of the children were released in February 2015. Is that when the hoax started?
  3. Why did Abe and Ella contact Brian Gerrish in September 2014? What did they hope to achieve?
  4. Who was Finnbarr, and why did he secretly record himself interviewing the children?
  5. But why would anyone bother creating a hoax like this? What would the motive be?
  6. If all this is true, why are none of the original Hampstead hoax promoters speaking to one another now?

The ‘cult’ tattoos

  1. The children claimed in the videos that all the members of the cult had tattoos on their privates. Why couldn’t those people just go to the police, have themselves examined, and clear things up once and for all? I know I would!
  2. Surely the children could not have made up all the demonic imagery they described—and drew! No child could know all that, unless they’d seen it with their own eyes.
  3. But the children drew those pictures! Don’t you believe the children?
  4. But all you’re saying is that you don’t believe the tattoos exist. How can you be so certain? After all, this cult has been around a very long time, and they are very, very good at covering up their activities.

The forensic evidence

  1. Why was no forensic search conducted on RD’s flat?
  2. Why didn’t the police get a warrant to search the church premises? If they’d done that, they might have found the drawers full of skulls that the children described, the secret tunnels, and the rooms where the secret rituals took place.
  3. What about the East Finchley swimming pool? The children never retracted their allegations about what happened there, so why wasn’t the pool searched?
  4. While we’re on the subject of evidence, can you explain to me how an entire school could shut down once a week so teachers and parents could rape children, kill babies, drink blood, and conduct mysterious rituals involving dancing with skulls, without ever getting caught or reported, and without leaving any trace of their activities?

The medical evidence

  1. I’ve heard that the medical examinations proved conclusively that both children were sexually abused.
  2. I’ve read Dr Hodes’ evidence, and I think it backs up the children’s allegations that they were abused multiple times per week by members of a Satanic cult.
  3. Why was Dr Hodes’ evidence not used during the investigation to trigger arrests and seizure of phones and computers from those alleged to have abused the children?

The police investigation

  1. Why didn’t the police perform a full investigation on the claims made by RD’s children?
  2. Why were the recordings made at the home of Jean-Clement Yaohirou ignored by police?
  3. What about the series of videos made on the way home from Morocco? Why were they not used as evidence by the police?
  4. Why did the police release copies of the videos where DC Steve Martin interviews the two children?
  5. Why were none of the suspects interviewed? And why were they not examined for evidence of scars, birthmarks, or tattoos?
  6. Was RD tipped off by police prior to being interviewed? That would have given him time to destroy any evidence.
  7. Why didn’t the police examine the father’s computers for evidence of ‘snuff movies’?
  8. Why didn’t the police interview the ’20 special children’ named by RD’s children as having been abused by the cult?

The IPCC report on the police investigation

This page contains links to the following posts:

  1. IPCC Reports: A guide for the dimwitted
  2. IPCC Report vindicates Hoaxtead police investigation
  3. IPCC Report offers a few surprises
  4. IPCC Report: Massive holes in Abe & Ella’s arguments
  5. IPCC Report: What about the tattoos?
  6. Children’s retractions were valid: IPCC report
  7. IPCC Report: Did police interview other victims?
  8. IPCC Report: What DID the police do wrong?
  9. Drifloud tries to trash IPCC report, scores own goal!

What about the videos?

  1. Let’s start with a synopsis of the videos themselves
  2. How could the children remember so much detail?
  3. ‘I heard those children. There’s no way they were lying’.
  4. ‘No child in the world could remember that much detail and recite it back from memory’.
  5. ‘So you’re accusing those children of lying? Children don’t lie about abuse’.
  6. Why did the police release copies of the videos where DC Steve Martin interviews the two children.
  7. Why and how did all the videos of the children being interviewed, whether by Abe and Ella, by the police, or by Abe at Jean-Clement Yaohirou’s house, get released onto the internet?
  8. Ella was interviewed by the police, so why didn’t she release videos of herself being interviewed? Was Abe interviewed?
  9. I heard that a forensic linguistic analysis was done on the videos in which the children retracted their original statements. This professional analysis stated that the police were forcing the children to lie, so those statements weren’t valid.
  10. I heard that there’s video evidence out there of Ella Draper participating in making child pornography. Is this true?

How we know it’s a hoax

  1. ‘I’ve heard the videos those children made. They sounded so genuine, they gave so many details, I can’t believe they were lying’.
  2. Is it true that Ella has now retracted part of her story? And if so, what does this mean?
  3. How do the tattoo allegations actually help to disprove the hoax?
  4. Why do the children never reveal any details of what the cult believes in?

The items listed in red are questions we’re still working on. We’ll be inserting them into the FAQ tomorrow…and then, unless anyone can think of anything else we can do to make the thing more useful, we. Will. Be. Done.

(mic drop)

65 thoughts on “FAQ update #3: How to navigate the FAQs

  1. Very good to read that timeline. To me there was clearly a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice involving many people but that is, one of the hardest crimes to prove.

    I wonder in respect of recent events where a person appeared in court on various charges, that if anyone who encouraged them to travel to the UK may have turned up to court to lend moral support, say even coming from Ireland?.
    No, thought not.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Yes, it does seem as though the original hoax perpetrators were engaged in conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. My hope is that one day they’ll be charged, but who knows?

      Liked by 2 people

      • Thank you: no wonder you feel a bit cross-eyed. The time line is great and totally agree that this was organised.
        If you feel it is appropriate you could add in a couple of things which are probably significant in this sorry saga. The Change.org petition as this was central to the launch of McNeill’s campaign; the release of the police ABE videos as this is extraordinary – not to mention worrying – for justice that such content is leaked on line. No action taken – so what’s to stop other dodgy solicitors doing the same!

        Liked by 2 people

        • Good suggestions. I’ll add the Change.org petition, but will need to do some digging to find out when the police ABE videos were released publicly. You’re right that this was a very worrying development. We know that they were given to Ella when she fired her legal team, but we don’t know (exactly) how they got online. If anyone has a better recollection of this, feel free to chime in!


          • Damn. Saw a comment screenshot where Sabine said she was gonna release them online. Don’t know which post where the comment is now. Can’t remember if Sabine’s comment was dated.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Found it! It was on “Irish Man Identified” post. That post doesn’t come up if you search for Finn Hagan I’ve noticed. Here you go:

            Liked by 1 person

    • It was Henry Curteis (from Tapnewswire) was who put the videos on YouTube initially. And it was Sabine who leaked them to him, if memory serves.

      And is this the Sabine smoking gun you’re looking for?:

      Liked by 1 person

      • Yes, Curteis definitely released the first round of videos, the ones made en route from Morocco to London. Those went online on The Tap Blog on 2 February 2015:


        The police ABE interview videos were released in late February/early March, and thanks to the clips you and JB have found, we have an approximate date for those as well, thanks!


        • When Abe leaves all these comments about emails they sent, I never look at them as “proof”. They could construct those comments, saying they were emails, any time after any event putting in any date they want.

          Liked by 1 person

          • It’s one of those things that falls under the heading of “interesting if true; interesting anyway”, I think.

            If Ella really did tell Sabine to stop sharing their stuff, this shows that the schism in their relationship began very early. If she didn’t tell her to stop, but decided to concoct an email after the fact to claim that she did, this indicates that she and Abe were aware that they would be held at least partially responsible for Sabine’s actions, since they gave her the videos in the first place and presumably encouraged her to share them as part of their publicity campaign.

            It all comes down to what the lawyers call “mens rea”, or “guilty mind”: the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Also, their anger at Charlotte Ward releasing the Jean-Clement tapes, before they had a chance to “edit” out what they didn’t want people to hear, was a great moment!

            Liked by 1 person

          • It was the second one I wanted you to see, Jake, as you’d asked about it. The Abe email comment was a just a bonus.

            Liked by 1 person

        • Why haven’t Curteis & O’Neill been questioned at the very least? And for that matter why are Facebook, Youtube etc allowed to freely flout this law and when will authorities & politicians do something about it?.
          If a publication like The Sun can be convicted for identifying an alleged victim they could not possibly survive if they did it on a routine basis.


          “Section 1 (2) of the 1992 Act states that when someone is accused of a sexual offence, nothing can be reported that may lead to the identification of the victim. So if a parent or a teacher is accused of a sexual offence, special care must be taken not report circumstances that would identify him or her.”

          Liked by 1 person

      • Great work and thank you for clearing that up. I am still puzzled though about the protocol for handling such deeply sensitive police information. For example, is it usual that it is handed over to solicitors, I’m guessing it’s pretty unusual for solicitors to hand over to clients. You’d think the police would want to stop this kind of thing in it’s tracks wouldn’t you.

        Liked by 1 person

        • I think it was probably quite inappropriate for the solicitors to hand the videos off to Ella. I know that in most instances where this kind of sensitive material is involved, people must come to view it at the police station, accompanied by an official. They don’t get to take it home with them! So I don’t know whether Ella’s former legal team should have faced some sort of sanction for doing what they did. (I have my opinions, but that and a couple of quid will buy you a cup of coffee.)

          Liked by 1 person

  2. Impressed with this! What a lot of work. Remind me to suggest to ‘M’ that EC gets a bonus.

    Timeline particularly interesting. All this certainly smacks of ‘plannng’ doesn’t it.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Could you put in a word for me as well?. Giving certain persons an extra biscuit hasn’t paid dividends yet. I could do with a new tea trolley as well. Some of the equipment at HQ is from the Cold War days,

      Liked by 2 people

  3. I will tell ‘M’ too.

    You really are leaving a legacy here, EC. And if RD’s children are ever recognised, and feel the need, they will know where to send whoever, forever: Hoaxtead Research!

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Great work EC. It should really help anybody that comes to this case and needs to know the facts of the whole saga.

    Liked by 2 people

    • I agree. Great job, EC. Although some people’s mindset will never be swayed, no matter what evidence you give them. They cling to the false belief the children were “threatened” to retract their allegations but can never produce any evidence of this, other than comments such as “You need to wake up, you just don’t know what these people are capable of” SMH

      Liked by 2 people

      • You’re right, it’s pointless trying to argue with those who are determined not to listen. However, I do hold out hope that for some people, the facts will eventually override their wish to believe in the hoax. I’ve seen a few have that “Paul on the road to Damascus” moment. 🙂

        Liked by 2 people

    • Thanks, AP! I hope it makes the thing a bit easier to navigate. There’s so much info here, it can be hard even for those of us familiar with the hoax to put a finger on specific things.


  5. WOW!

    Simply amazing. A great job of sifting, sorting and collating – and what a lot of work must have gone into that!
    THANK YOU! to EC and any other collaborators on this effort.

    Liked by 3 people

  6. Abe Christie left a comment on a video last week saying something like “So I gave the children a few licks, they put shit on my toothbrush”. I didn’t screenshot it at the time and cant remember where I saw it, does anyone else remember?


    • He says the same thing in the Alfred Lambremont Webre Interview.
      Shortly after 01:01:33

      Ella slips up badly earlier just after 00:20:15
      Ella says about Abraham “When he came into our family, umm, several months before it happened”, so it happened after Abe turned up, as we already know of course. Abe then goes onto talk about first meeting the children at a nutritional event.
      In another recording, the Ed Opperman interview, he mentions meeting them at a raw food event as well. He says they were invited, possibly by Belinda. First time he met the children he commented on the girls cynicism, probably as even at that age she knew Abe was full of Sh*t.
      “I introduced myself, and she cynically dismissed me”, well she had better foresight than her mother.
      Abe gained her friendship with “special food”, sounds like pedo talk to me.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Shouter’s violent outbursts still indicate that he may be planning some kind of terrorist act or murderous rampage.

      I’ve stopped watching his videos now. It’s the same inane ramblings every time, repeated ad nauseum.

      “Blah blah no one’s giving me any attention blah blah now they’re giving me too much attention blah blah Hoaxtead won’t post my videos blah blah those bastards at Hoaxtead keep posting my videos blah blah Hoaxtead are paedo-protecting child-murderers but I’ve not a scrap of evidence to back that up blah blah I’m a paedo-protecting child-murderer but it’s ok because I was only 19 at at the time blah blah everyone in the World is Doug Mesner and they’re all out to get me blah blah oh shit the rocks are talking to me and the lizard people are blasting me and I’m losing my hair blah blah KILL THE NON-BELIEVERS blah blah not fair not fair give me attention now waaaaaaaaaah.”

      I think that’s the general gist anyway.

      Liked by 3 people

      • One of the things I like to thank David Shurters daddy for – God – is for putting David on this planet. Thank you God. If ever I am feeling stupid, I just visit one of David’s videos, I then realise nobody is more retarded than David, I feel better for it. We need people like David to show us how lucky we all are to be so advanced on the evolutionary scale. Note that David has killed and raped plenty of babies in his time, and hid them in the walls of his bedroom, there is nobody more evil, degenerate and sadistic than David Shurter.

        Liked by 2 people

      • What I can’t get my head around is how utterly obsessed Shouter is with this blog. He’s clearly watching it 24/7 and the moment someone mentions him in some lighthearted comment in amongst 100 comments not remotely connected with him, he immediately puts up 10 Facebook posts about it and makes a video banging on about how obsessed we are with him (yawwwwwwn). It’s self-projecting attention-seeking bullshite. Admittedly, I used to find it quite amusing but I agree that it’s getting rather boring and repetitive now, so I’ve taken to watching paint dry instead, as it’s infinitely more interesting. Meanwhile, I hope that Dave will see this drop in audience numbers as an opportunity to work on his act.

        Liked by 1 person

      • He also frequently rants about how pissed off he is that we won’t give him our real names. Sorry, Dave – I kinda don’t want you to come to my house and shoot my wife and kids, so you’re gonna have to make do with a pseudonym for now. And don’t be offended if I also decline to furnish you with my address, phone number and breakdown of my daily routine. Cheers

        Liked by 2 people

Comments are closed.