Many thanks to one of our Twitter followers, who made a brilliant suggestion yesterday:
Ooh, a new way to listen to Ella’s so-called “birthday greeting” to her youngest child? We just had to try it out! (Yes, we really are that easily amused.)
Here’s what we found:
Hi, I’m Allah believer, the mother of A***** and G******, who have been illegally and unlawfully removed from Ikea on line 11 2014….
Good heavens, those Ikea security people are brutes, we tell you!
And did they remove him because Ella is an Allah believer? That’s grounds for a human rights lawsuit right there!
It been almost three years since we haven’t seen our children.
Momentary pause while we attempt to work out the double negatives there…all right, got it. Carry on!
A**** and gable were essentially jailed and kept in Havana card for all this time.
Okay, we don’t know where or what Havana card is, but it sounds grim. This is looking worse and worse for Ikea’s over-enthusiastic security guards.
The garnet social services are overview to learn to return children back to me, and I built the public to put the pressure…on British authorities on one social services to return A**** and G****** back to me immediately. …
Hang on, Ella built the public to do all that? So why does she need our help, then?
…Unpublishing the email addresses of the Cookie People in the bonnet social services…
The Cookie People? Did she say the Cookie People?
We don’t know who they are, but they sound awesome! We will totally unpublish their email addresses. Heck, we’ll do whatever they like!
Come to us, Cookie People! Do you happen to have any jammy dodgers on you? We’re very fond of them, you know.
While we’re on the topic of Ella’s latest ghastly bit of theatrics, we noticed that Kristie Sue’s favourite fart-sniffer, Prey on the Children, was snuffling about, trying to ask what she obviously thought were probing questions. As if.
Here are her questions, with our answers:
1. Why has (sic) none of the named people has (sic) come forward to prove they don’t have these identifying marks?
Because the case collapsed early, when the children were removed from their abusers Abe and Ella, and felt safe enough to disclose that they’d been forced to lie. The police cannot demand that people reveal evidence unless they’ve been formally charged. No charges could be laid, because the children retracted their statements. Simples.
2. Why was there only one suspect who could leave after having a nice chat with the police? The children named dozens of people who allegedly murder, sodomize and rape children, kick them in their privates, hit them and commit countless other crimes.
See previous answer.
The children confessed in their third set of ABE police interviews that Abe was actually the one who had kicked them (hard) in the privates while wearing heavy boots; he hit them so hard that he damaged their hearing and ruptured the little boy’s eardrum; he beat them with spoons that he heated on the stove; he threatened to bury them alive in the desert and leave them there if they did not comply with his and Ella’s demands that they incriminate their father and others.
3. Given the fact, the detailed testimonies are about a cult who (sic) allegedly murders and rapes children and threatens anyone who speaks out with death, HOW could the “retractions” alone end the investigations by the police?
The retractions alone did not end the investigation. The retractions plus a complete and utter lack of any physical evidence, plus the fact that none of the children’s allegations about the church, their father’s house, or their teacher’s house checked out ended the investigation. This despite Abe and Ella attempting to coach the children by taking them on a drive-round before the police did—and the fact that a taxi driver reported Abe for abusing the little girl verbally during that drive-round.
4. If this was about custody or access to the children, why would the mother include all these details about tattoos, birthmarks and piercings that could be dismissed easily, if non existent by at least one of these dozens of people. Either the children have seen all these people naked to describe their privates like that, or it’s made up, which would be easy to prove. Which hasn’t happened in almost 2.5 years, although “the innocent people of Hampstead suffer so much”.
Ella and Abe included all those details because, as Ella admitted, this case was never intended to go before the CPS. She states that quite clearly on her “witness statement” video which has been seen by thousands. It was intended to be publicised by various troofers such as UK Column and Bill Maloney…except that once they met Abe and figured out what a shambles it was, they passed on it and turned the information Abe sent them over to the police.
5. If the mothers new boyfriend was the abuser here and had forced the children into these allegations, why were there two non molestation orders against the biological father made in 2010 after he turned violent against the mother and the little girl?
He was issued with a non-molestation order, which anyone can request about anyone else. If you look at the actual police record (which we have) you will see that Ella was cautioned by police both times she called them to intervene—once for a fight with her own eldest son, and once for a fight with the two youngest children’s father. Hardly a ringing endorsement for the “poor abused Ella” argument.
6. Why did the father have major psychological issues and was treated in the Tavistock institute, as well as the children? That was from 2010 until 2013, a long time before Abraham even entered their lives.
Where in the name of all that’s holy did you hear this complete load of bollocks??? In fact, I think if you read that actual documentation, you will learn that Ella was the one who attended parenting classes at the Tavistock, because she had been reported for child neglect, and because her parenting skills required help. She admits as much in one of her “position statements” for the court. Do your homework, and stop making shit up.
7. Why do Hoaxtead Research and their trolls (sic) here on yt do not get tired (sic) to mention (sic) the fact the children were given raw hemp, but “forget” to mention they were forced to take white powder by Dearman, among (sic) alcohol and tablets?
We don’t care that the children were fed “raw hemp”; we care that traces of the active ingredient of cannabis, THC, was found in the children’s hair samples. Strangely, no other drugs were found in their hair samples, which means it’s extremely unlikely that the “cocaine” story was true.
8.The “retractions” lack details and contradict each other. One of the children says a class teacher (who plays an important part in this) is best friends with the father and that they are even living together(!) The other one says the father and the class teacher don’t know each other at all, not even their names. How can this be explained, without admitting at least one of the children can not have spoken the truth in the retractions?
The children retracted their statements separately, and the little girl was clearly more keen to unburden herself than the little boy was. He was younger and more impressionable—Abe and Ella have both stated that the little girl was tougher and had to be tortured more brutally in order to force her to lie on their behalf. It’s hardly surprising that the younger, more malleable child would cling to the story, without his sister to back him up.
And now, since turnabout is fair play, here are a couple of questions for you:
1. Why did Ella tell interviewer Nathan Stolpman of Lift the Veil that she’d “made a mistake” including Mr Draper, his new wife, and Ella’s eldest son in the list of people she accused of being in the cult? You do realise that she has now proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that her two youngest children were lying in the videos—all the videos, as they mention in several places that their eldest brother had been in the cult and had sexually assaulted them.
2. Do you think it’s strange that while the children could talk about people “doing sex” to them, the little girl didn’t seem to know what sex was, and at first described it as “being hit between the legs with a stick”? Or that despite claims that the cult “did sex” to both front and back privates, the little girl’s hymen was intact?
3. Do you find it odd that while the children spoke about sex in the videos, they had no idea what the name of the cult was, the name of the deity or being they allegedly worshipped, what prayers or rituals they followed, or what they actually believed in? Despite the fact that the cult was allegedly multigenerational, their father was the alleged “boss”, and they were presumably being groomed for leadership?
4. Do you think it’s just a little bit incredible that Ella could have children with two people who were ostensibly “higher-ups” in the cult, and fail to notice that they both had genital tattoos of monsters and/or devils? (Granted, she did decide, two years after the fact, that one of those people wasn’t actually in the cult at all…see question 1.)
5. Do you think it’s possible that Ella removed Mr Draper and her eldest son from her list of cult members because she hoped he might reinstate her support payments, which he suspended a year ago?
6. If you were Mr Draper, would you pay a woman who had accused you, your wife, and your son of being in a paedophile death cult? Even if she decided, two years later, to say whoops, sorry about that, didn’t really mean it?
No, neither would we.