Since the beginning of the Hampstead SRA hoax, those who believe the lies of Ella Draper and Abraham Christie have also fallen for the story that the reason they “had to release” the children’s videos is that they had been the victim of a cover-up by Barnet police. Here’s how we know that’s a lie: while the case was still under active investigation by the CAIT at Barnet, Ella and Abe attempted to reach out to high-profile troofer broadcaster Brian Gerrish and film-maker Bill Maloney, in an attempt to monetise the story they’d concocted.
According to Abe (commenting as Ella on a YouTube video over a year ago), one of his greatest frustrations was that Gerrish had dropped the ball:
On or around the 16th of September 2014 Steve Martin received an email that had “found it’s (sic) way to S.O.E.C.A. (Sexual Offences, Exploitation and Child Abuse) via D.P.S. (Directorate of Professional Standards)” The sender explains that having read the contents of said email it appeared “IDENTICAL to a current investigation of yours 2419891/14 concerning allegations of sexual and ritual abuse at Christchurch Primary School.”
“The email appears to be one in (sic) the same sent by the MOTHER TO THE INFORMANT and the contents appear on your CRIS.”
BRIAN GERRISH of UK Column was the ONLY person to have received that email/file from the mother on the 11th of September 2014 .
But ,but Brian couldn’t be the informant , he sent the email to Bill Maloney on 15-09-14 who sent it to Nathan ‘NumNuts’ Wedger who sent it to P.C. Paul Armstrong, who in turn sent it to Anna Bewley at D.P.S. H.Q. saying that he’d received a disturbing email which includes serious allegations of wrongdoing by MPS officers … Then via two internal D.P.S. emails from Anne and PC Craig Langley the email “found it’s (sic) way” to DC Victoria BARNES SC&036 -SOECA LIT
29th Floor (East Block), Empress State Building, and thence back to Steve Martin , who had the original email from the original INFORMANT, which as Vicky noted was already in Steve’s CRIS report.
Q. Name original informant, AAND (sic) subsequent informants used to distract from original informant.
For a bonus prize explain why Brian never said a word about the case till MSM’s attempted hatchet job on the Whistleblowers, ella & abe and WHY BILL MALONEY HAS SAID F-CK ALL. nemesis )+( nerd
At first glance,this read to us like Abe’s usual gibberish.
However, we now think it’s an important indicator of what was happening behind the scenes, early on in the hoax.
Apparently no one could work up the enthusiasm to answer Abe’s “quiz”, so in the comments section of another video he supplied the name of the “original informant” himself:
Bill Maloney in an interview with Lou Collins .(connected to Danielle la Verite)speaks out about the tattoo on Leon Brittan’s pubenda (sic!) that a victim (Andrew) of Leon Brittan described and drew during an interview with a newspaer (sic) almost 2 years ago , so when Maloney and Gerrish received Ella’s email describing the Tattoos and distinguishing marks on the cult members (sic) pubenda (even more sic) they were well aware of this corroborating the testimony of Leon Brittan’s victim. Why then have neither of them said anything apart from the few times that Gerrish mentions the case on UK Column when the MSM had attempted a hatchet job on Abe and Ella, and he had to say something ? Now it’s clear why the info re Tattoos was buried buy (sic) Maloney, Gerrish AND the police and exposes Maloney and Gerrish as Shills ! Quite apart from the fact that Maloney passed the email onto a Nathan “NUMNUTS”Wedger a known police informant ; and the email eventually “found it’s (sic) way” to investigating/cover up Freemason, DS Steve Martin. mmmmmm…
Stripped of all subtlety, this tells us that when they were concocting the hoax, Abe and Ella were aware that the alleged victim in a high-profile case had claimed to have seen “identifying tattoos” on the genital area of his purported abuser.
Knowing this, Abe and Ella felt that their hoax would be more convincing to the troofers they were trying to court if they could show that the alleged cult members had similar tattoos. This is why they had the children draw the monster/demon tattoos, and why they have continued to focus on the supposed tattoos as “proof” that their case was real.
Where does Finnbarr fit in?
We know that Finnbarr Hagan was sent by Brian Gerrish to scope out the situation and decide whether it was worth pursuing. He visited Abe, Ella, and the children in Hampstead on 8 September, 2014, interviewing the children seemingly without Abe and Ella’s knowledge; when he heard the adults approaching he shoved his phone, still recording, into his pocket. This is how we know about the conversation he, Ella, and Abe had in which Abe admitted that he was worried because DC Martin was in charge of the case.
We also know that on 11 September, Ella and Abe emailed Brian Gerrish with a “laundry list” version of the story they were pushing. As Abe says in the first comment above, “BRIAN GERRISH of UK Column was the ONLY person to have received that email/file from the mother on the 11th of September 2014”.
It seems that perhaps Gerrish was less impressed with Finnbarr’s report and Ella’s email than Abe and Ella expected him to be; he decided to take a pass on the story.
How did Abe and Ella know where the email went?
Abe and Ella are very specific about the path the email took after it left Gerrish’s hands. According to them, it went something like this:
Brian Gerrish –> Bill Maloney –> Nathan Wedger –> PC Paul Armstrong –> Anna Bewley (DPS)/PC Craig Langley –> DC Victoria Barnes (SOECA) –> DC Steve Martin
We suspect that the reason Abe and Ella are able to be so unusually precise about the email path is that it was included in the court bundle that Ella’s solicitors gave her after she’d sacked them. We cannot prove this, but it seems to be the most logical explanation for the time being.
It also makes sense that Gerrish and Maloney would be cautious about accepting a case like this, which appeared to involve multiple very serious crimes. Whatever their other failings, they aren’t stupid: they would know that broadcasting this material while it was still effectively sub judice would land them in serious legal hot water. They did the only sensible thing, which was to turn the email over to the police.
How does this prove there was no cover-up?
According to the accepted doctrine of the Hampstead hoax, the videos were released as a last resort, when it seemed that the only way Ella would get her children back was via the “court of public opinion”, as Sabine is wont to say. We know that when Sabine released them in early 2015, it was with the express intention of putting pressure on the courts. She has said as much, several times.
However, the fact that Abe and Ella were attempting to hawk the children’s story round to Gerrish and Maloney (who coincidentally are both friends with Belinda) while the case was in progress looks much more like a pre-planned, carefully executed hoax.
At the point when Finnbarr came to call, the children had been through one ABE police interview, during which they’d performed their parts well. They would have another interview on 11 September, following which they would be taken into protective custody due to the allegations they made concerning Abe hurting them. And on 17 September the whole thing would go completely pear-shaped, with the children retracting their statements…but Abe and Ella had no inkling that any of this was about to happen.
For some time now, we’ve been working on the assumption that Belinda, Sabine, Abe, and Ella planned the hoax from the outset**. The timing of Finnbarr’s visit and the fateful email—and Abe’s utter rage at being rejected and ultimately betrayed by both Gerrish and Maloney—bears out this theory. It might also go toward explaining why Abe and Ella ultimately felt betrayed by Belinda, who had failed to deliver on her promise to ensure that the story got a positive reception from her troofer contacts.
**During Sabine McNeill’s 2018 trial, it was revealed that we were mistaken. Our assumption that Belinda and Sabine had been involved from the outset was incorrect; it seems that they only became involved in November 2014.