****** * ********** trial update: Day 3

First, a word of explanation about the odd title of today’s court report. It seems that the Crown Court at Southwark is now listing this case as a series of asterisks, due to the Court Order made under s45a, Youth and Criminal Justice Act 1999, which we mentioned on Monday. We are following their lead, and will be changing the titles of the previous posts as well.

Court very nearly started on time today, with legal teams on both sides turning up only about 10 minutes late…but then it turned out that they needed just a bit more time to ensure that their evidence was in order, and so there was a brief adjournment, with court resuming at 10:47 a.m.

Admissions

Once the jury was seated, the admissions were read into the record. Admissions constitute a series of facts which both prosecutor and defence agree are accurate.

In brief, the admissions consisted of joint acceptance that in 2014 two children made false allegations of SRA against various people including their father, their teachers, children and parents in their school, social workers, and police officers. Both sides agreed to the facts of the police investigation, the children being taken into protective custody, and the fact-finding hearing which led to the 19 March 2015 judgment by Mrs Justice Pauffley. It was agreed that a massive amount of information was released onto the internet, in contravention of a court order intended to protect the children in the case.

It was further agreed that the defendant was arrested in Erith, at which time his MacBook computer and external hard drive were examined by police. A GoFundMe account was discovered, which at the time contained $5,072 in contributions. In addition, a Skype conversation between Sabine McNeill and the defendant was discovered, containing a link to the website http://www.hampsteadchristchurch.com. This site contained a link which contained the names of the five witnesses in this trial, as well as a reference to one of the witnesses being “constantly on the move”. The hard drive contained an Excel spreadsheet last updated on 30 July 2016, containing the names of all five witnesses.

It was further agreed that the original version of the defendant’s first YouTube broadcast about Hampstead, in which he discussed kicking down doors and taking blood samples, was broadcast in February 2015, and that it was reposted at least once since then under a different URL.

Witness: Steve Martin

DC Steve Martin, a member of the CAIT (Child Abuse Investigation Team) took the witness stand, noting that his involvement in the Hampstead hoax went back to its genesis in 2014, and that he had continued to be involved with the accused and exonerated families. On the stand, he was questioned about three particular pieces of evidence: the original YouTube video; the defendant’s show on American Freedom Radio in which he stated that he “didn’t want to kill them, only to beat them up real good”; and the defendant’s Facebook post containing a selfie of himself outside Christ Church Primary School, which was posted on 5 September 2016.

DC Martin played the original video, in which the defendant was heard to say, “If nobody else wants to do it, I’ll do it”, stating that he would be willing to go to Hampstead, kick down doors, and take blood samples from the accused.

Next, DC Martin played the American Freedom Radio audio clip from approximately 1 hour and 2 minutes. In this clip, the defendant stated that he had seen a video of the two children at the centre of the Hampstead hoax, that he had made a response video, and that he had been trolled for it. He stated he wanted to get the names of those who had allegedly abused the children, and that he would get those people to tell the truth. During this show he stated, “I want to go the violent route. I don’t want to kill them, just beat them up real good”.

On the defendant’s public Facebook page, which had at that time approximately 5,000 friends and 7,000 followers, he posted on 5 September a photograph of himself in front of the school, with the comment, “This is what I look like at a moment of acute defiance”. Under the photo, a friend of the defendant commented, “Is there a biscuit in your pocket?” to which the defendant replied, “Knife?” The friend said, “Biscuit knife”, to which the defendant replied, “Sharp ham”.

DC Martin stated that on the defendant’s computer, a link to the HampsteadChristChurch.com site had been found, accessed via a link sent by Sabine McNeill on Skype. While the list containing the names of the five witnesses was not on the homepage of that site, someone using the defendant’s computer had visited the site on numerous occasions, either by searching on a search engine or via Facebook link.

On the hard drive recovered from the defendant’s room, a file was found marked AB, containing an Excel spreadsheet named “Cult details” and dated 16 April 2016. DC Martin showed this spreadsheet to the court onscreen. The spreadsheet contained the headings “Count” and “Parents and Children”, and contained personal details regarding numerous people.

When the defendant was arrested on 13 September 2016, said DC Martin, he was interviewed at Bethnal Green police station. At that time, his solicitor advised him not to comment. However, on the date of his bail return, he indicated to DC Martin that he wished to make a statement. He was interviewed without a solicitor, though he was reminded that should he wish to stop the interview at any time and bring in a solicitor, he could do so.

DC Martin and prosecutor Martyn Bowyer read aloud from the transcript of that interview, with DC Martin playing himself and Mr Bowyer taking the part of the defendant. During this interview, the defendant stated that he had become disillusioned with the people who had wanted him to come to the UK. “I hung out with those people, and I’d be happy to let you know more about them”, he said. Later, he noted that “the dumbest thing I did was to go to Angela Power-Disney”.

He noted that a person called “Kevin Justice” also annoyed him. “He seems to puff up, maybe to assert himself physically”, he said, adding that possibly this was because this person could tell that “I wasn’t really into what they were doing”. He stated that in respect of the “journalistic investigation” he had planned to do, “I found absolutely nothing” to incriminate any of the accused in the Hampstead case.

“When I got here I should have gone to the police and said, ‘I was funded by people I don’t like’,” he said, adding, “I was just going through the motions”. The defendant said he realised he had been wrong, and that since that realisation he had “just been trying to weasel out”.

The defendant also said he was being harassed online. He said he had gone to the church: “I was only going there to take pictures,” he said. “I was only there to show up the people who said I couldn’t”. He stated that he had not spoken to anyone while he was at the church and school.

In explanation of the conversation about the biscuit and knife under the Facebook post, the defendant said that this had arisen from a private joke between himself and his friend. This joke had originated when his friend had thrown a ham sandwich in a tinfoil wrapper at his head, which the defendant had found very funny.

The defendant said he was “aware of the collateral damage” from his activities, and noted that while he was “not asking for pity”, he had “never been taken this seriously before”. Asked whether he understood why people were scared, he said he did. “I was being a jerk online and things got out of control”, he said.

Witness: Defendant

In the afternoon, the defendant took the stand and was questioned by Mr Tom Stevens for the defence.

The defendant stated that prior to his involvement in the the events leading up to this case, he had been an hotelier in his hometown in the United States. Asked about his stint on American Freedom Radio, he said he had been broadcasting there for about a year before he made the post referring to “beating them up real good”. He admitted that he had been in conflict with the law on one previous occasion, involving a “tiny amount” of cannabis and a pipe. This occurred in 2001.

Asked about the circumstances under which he’d posted the YouTube video on 16 February 2015, he stated that he’d been made aware of the Hampstead children’s story, and that it seemed to meet the criteria for a video, due to its provocative nature. He made the video right after watching a video of the two children making their allegations, and had edited it and uploaded it an hour or two later.

Referring to the video of the children, the defendant said, “The content made me angry….Some pretty bad things were talked about. I had a sort of gutteral anger”. The reference to “kicking down doors” of churches and schools was a direct response to the video he’d seen, he said, adding, “It was hyperbolic, a figure of speech….I didn’t think it would happen”. He also said that the expression “kicking down doors” is common in America, and doesn’t imply any intention to actually do it.

“It was how I felt at the time,” he said, “I didn’t anticipate it would take on a life of its own”. Asked whether he had any intention that the accused in the case should see the video, the defendant said it had been intended for “his audience”.

Referring to the American Freedom Radio broadcast, the defendant said he had made it whilst he was in Holland. He said the people at home had wanted an update from him, and that he had also been experiencing considerable harassment online. Mr Stevens noted, “This is what you meant in your (police) interview—you’d had a negative response to your (earlier YouTube) video, and you were on the receiving end of people saying negative things about you”. The defendant agreed, stating he’d been “intimidated for about a year”, which had affected him. “I was very tense, and I was trying to maintain myself at work”.

The defendant stated that before leaving for the UK, he had received “threats about when and where people were going to meet me”.

Asked why he had made threats on the American Freedom Radio broadcast, the defendant said that this had been a response to the people who had been trying to dox and threaten him.

“Was that directed at the parents?” Mr Stevens asked.

“No,” said the defendant. “I was trying to express my frustration. I don’t know why I thought that would straighten things out. I had no intention to beat anyone up”.

Asked who would usually listen to his American Freedom Radio broadcasts, the defendant said, “Conspiracy theory buffs”. Mr Stevens asked whether the defendant had any idea that the people named in this case were listening to his broadcast. “No, only my family and the harassers”, the defendant said.

Mr Stevens asked who the main harasser was.

The defendant stated, “[The father in the Hampstead case]”.

He noted that he wanted out of his current city when he left the USA, due in part to the loss of his job and in part to the evolving political situation there. “It was an opportunity to travel”, he said. “That doesn’t happen much”. He said the first place he wanted to visit was the UK, but that he had interviewed Kevin Galalae who was going to Italy, and decided to accompany him there, to assist him whilst he was on his hunger strike in front of the Vatican.

Asked about the source of funding for his travel, the defendant said, “It was mostly from me. I sold everything”; the GoFundMe site was meant to supplement the money he was already putting into the trip. In a Skype comment, he stated, “I’m going to the UK to fight pedos. Please share”, which he characterised as a “brief way to say that it was going to be an investigation”. This message was sent to multiple people. The defendant claimed he was being sarcastic in characterising his trip this way: “It wasn’t meant to be taken literally”.

Mr Stevens asked the defendant about the £1,000 donation from Angela Power-Disney. The defendant replied, “She is…I guess you can call her an activist”. He guessed that she had contacted him because of the YouTube video he’d made about Hampstead.

Judge Griffith asked the defendant whether Angela had been actively interested in Hampstead. “Adamantly”, the defendant said. “She didn’t accept the outcome”.

The defendant said that the more he and Angela had talked, the more she had tried to take over and influence him, scheduling his itinerary and planning what he could do. “I never said yes, she just donated”, he said.

When his plane landed in the UK, he was “petrified”, due to the people trolling him online.

“Why did you come, then?” asked his barrister.

“Because I said I would, and I was at the point of no return”, the defendant said. However, he quickly realised that much of what he’d said when he was at home would not be attainable in reality. “I wanted to prove I’d looked into it, and then get out”.

The defendant travelled to the Canary Islands at Angela’s invitation, but he cut that trip short. “She was not a nice person”, he said. “I thought it would be best to put some miles between me and her”.

Once in the UK, the defendant said that at some point he went to Hampstead, for two reasons: “to prove it does exist, and because a lot of things were being said about me being a scam artist, and I wanted to be absolved from those accusations”. He said he had been told that he would be killed if he went to Hampstead. “The trolls reached a fever pitch, and I felt trapped”, he said. “My defiance was against people speaking badly about me”.

Mr Stevens asked whether he was referring to anyone mentioned in the indictment for this trial, and the defendant said he was not. He said he had no plans to meet anyone in Hampstead, and said he would have turned around and left if he’d seen anyone near the school. He said he was not aware that the day he posted the Facebook post was the first day of school.

“My motivation was that I was getting taunted, and I reacted to that”, the defendant said. “I didn’t want to release the picture but I didn’t want to be called a chicken”.

“Who did you think would view it?” Mr Stevens asked.

“I wanted my family and the people who were taunting me to see it”, the defendant said. He also said that he didn’t think anyone would interpret the “banter” about carrying a knife as a threat. “I just didn’t want to bend to the people who were harassing me”.

Asked about the Excel spreadsheet found on his hard drive, the defendant said he didn’t know how it had got to him, but that he understood that the author of the sheet was the mother of P and Q. He stated that he was not familiar with any of the names on the sheet, except one.

He stated that he had no memory of checking out the HampsteadChristChurch.com site, adding that he knew it contained a list of the accused in the case, but not what that meant.

The defendant said that when he heard the witnesses testifying in court yesterday, he found it very painful. “I had a panic attack”, he said, adding that he’d found it very upsetting.

Cross-examination of defendant

Noting that the defendant had stated that the abuse he experienced online had affected his life negatively, Mr Bowyer asked, “Before you even left (the USA), you realised the serious, devastating effects of posts online”. The defendant disagreed that this was true.

Asked about why he had published the video about Hampstead, when his usual video fare consisted of more lighthearted material, the defendant said, “Sometimes I don’t make a distinction (between lighthearted stuff and paedophilia”. Mr Bowyer asked, “Don’t you think you ought to?”

“Now, yes”, the defendant replied.

Mr Bowyer asked whether the defendant was aware that the case about which he’d made the video was in court, or whether he knew how the material he’d included in the video came to be online.

“No,” said the defendant. However, he added, “there were so many outlets doing it. It was on LiveLeak, and I thought that was a tacit green light”.

Mr Bowyer suggested that the defendant was not an “investigative journalist”, and said his degree of journalistic integrity would not match that of any actual news outlet. “No, it’s the internet”, the defendant said. “We are still discovering how it affects people”.

“To the extent that you were fearful, can you see how (your behaviour) could have affected the witnesses?” Mr Bowyer asked.

The defendant responded that this had been unintentional. “I’ve never gone over the edge like that”, he said. “I didn’t know I had, at the time”.

Mr Bowyer asked why those who the defendant claimed were harassing him had been angry with him. “It was just character assassination”, the defendant replied, adding that it “made him furious”.

“Did it cross your mind that you should leave it alone?” Mr Bowyer asked.

“Even bad press is good press”, the defendant responded, adding that he had been “angry and excited”. “There’s a saying that if you hit a nerve you must be doing the right thing”, he said.

Mr Bowyer asked whether the defendant thought any of the people named in this case had been among those harassing him. The defendant said he thought this was possible, but that it was more likely that others were doing it.

Mr Bowyer noted that having attracted a degree of attention, the defendant had begun to attract “activists” such as Angela Power-Disney and Sabine McNeill, who wanted him to campaign on their behalf. “Not specifically”, responded the defendant.

The defendant agreed that Angela disagreed “extremely” with the High Court judgment on the Hampstead case.

“Do you remember when she tried to supply you with the names of the accused?” Mr Bowyer asked. The defendant said his memory of this was hazy.

“Someone sent you an Excel sheet. Was it her?”

“Maybe, I can’t remember”.

Asked why he continued to engage with Angela, the defendant said, “She got really nasty when I started to question where she got her information”.

“If you’d been given information about how to track [the father in the case] down, would you have taken it?”

“No”.

“We know his name appears on your computer, and we know you accessed a site with information as to where [the father] was alleged to be”, Mr Bowyer said.

“Yes, I might have, and put it in the file”, said the defendant.

“Did you have any reason to believe he might be in America?”

“I heard he might be in San Francisco or Los Angeles”, said the defendant.

At this point, the proceedings were adjourned for the day. The case will resume tomorrow morning at (dare we say it?) 10:00 sharp.


As we have been saying, it’s extremely important that no one on this blog speculate on the outcome of this trial in any way. In addition, it’s now equally important that the defendant not be named here, lest we find ourselves in contempt of court. Thank you all very much for your cooperation.

Advertisements

156 thoughts on “****** * ********** trial update: Day 3

  1. Thanks for the update, EC. Just about to read it now.

    One thing I can say is that it’s really pissed Angela off, which is most satisfying in light of her utterly disgraceful bullying, slander and privacy invasion against an innocent social worker. So double thank you, Your Howlness 🙂

    Liked by 4 people

  2. Stressing that I reference more general matters rather than the case itself; it’s always a source of great bemusement to me that those who routinely issue threats against others so often feel ‘threatened’ by the prospect of arrest and/or detention. Similarly that so many self-styled ‘investigative journalists’ adopt that pretence without a jot of training or awareness of what the job entails or the rules that genuine professionals must observe.

    Incidentally, the s45a order is there to protect the children… As anyone who actually has studied media law (i.e actually Is a journalist or media professional – unlike Angie or her kind) ‘jigsaw identification’ is a concern. So, one imagines, is the public gallery filling up with baying lunatics.

    Liked by 2 people

    • “jigsaw identification’- havent heard it called that before but thats exactly what happened a while back in a fairly local(ish) case to me- where both the victim and the accused werent allowed to be named- the victim (for obvious reasons such as her age etc) but the accused name was withheld as well because he was a relative- hence identifying him would make it trivially easy to identify her

      Liked by 2 people

      • Just google the phrase. It’s a ‘key concept’ in relation to what you can and cannot report and specifically taught in most of the basic media law units… For example what’s wrong with the following sentence (apart from the spelling and grammar!)…

        “Goodwin Grope of 43 Poshnbex Avenue, Binworthy was today sentenced to twelve years in prison for the sexual assault of his fifteen-year old neighbour”

        Given that victims of sexual assault always have anonymity – and that’s compounded by the fact his victim was a minor; how many fifteen year olds might live in Poshnbex Avenue Binworthy? – This is an example of where you probably couldn’t name the offender (and a judge might make a specific order to that effect) because it makes it very easy for the victim to be identified and their rights breached. If you dig around you’ll find examples where judges have made such orders and been accused by loonies of protecting the offender; when in fact it’s done for the victim’s sake. …For similar reasons you cannot name schools, workplaces, clubs etc.

        Liked by 1 person

          • …Has that actually been handed down in a specific order? Or is it just that the court has taken his name off the public roll?

            Like

          • Both. The order itself says that no one may be named whose identity might allow identification, directly or indirectly, of any child mentioned in this case. And the court has anonymised his name online.

            Liked by 1 person

          • I think the Mail will argue that the order applies to the parents of children and the teachers; if you you know their names you know who their kids are… It’s not unknown in cases that might attract attention for the defendant to be anonymised like this; that way they can ‘filter’ enquiries as to which court when at the front bar. – But from the blog’s point of view there’s certainly no harm in being cautious; the Mail have lawyers to hand to argue their corner!

            Liked by 2 people

  3. When declaring yourself intellectually superior to Noam Chomsky just isn’t enough…

    …what’s needed is an angry, shouty video rant about how “stupid” Chomsky is a “creep”…..

    By the way, her anger about Mr. Chomsky stems from his ‘failure’ to believe in her 9/11 conspiracy theories!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Oh, that’s interesting, as I’ve been checking to see if they covered it in the Ham & High but they haven’t and yet it’s made it into a national tabloid paper!

      How come the Mail are naming the defendant, btw?! (Not that the Mail are known for their integrity.)

      Liked by 1 person

        • I’d imagine the court have adopted this ‘technique’ to minimise what any ‘disruptive’ types might easily find out and make the life of those who steward the precincts easier. There is no ‘harm’ in not naming the defendant here as far as I can see, but equally well I don’t imagine there is actually a bar on naming him.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Well, it’s all a bit puzzling to be honest. Yesterday his name was published in full on the court schedule, but by last night it had changed to the all-asterisk format. It remained that way today, and when our reporter asked the reply was that it might be better to anonymise the defendant’s name too. I tend to think it’s excessive, but unlike an accredited journalistic site we rely upon the goodwill of the court officials who allow us to take notes in court (subject to the judge’s approval), so felt it best to go the extra mile.

            Liked by 3 people

          • screenshot
            This is what I’m going by, Ethel. Honestly, as I say I find it a bit confusing as I’ve never known of a public trial that anonymised the name of the defendant, but I’m not an expert in court reporting either, so I’m proceeding with (perhaps too much) caution.

            Liked by 1 person

          • The extra mile is well worth travelling. Whatever the outcome I’d expect the blog to come under attack from the lunatic fringe after the trial; no point in enabling them to any degree.

            Liked by 3 people

          • Another possibility is that the police have intelligence that some sort of disruption might be being planned by certain parties. The conversation here may be contained and the management anxious to ensure fair pay; but that won’t necessarily be the case in the darker corners of electric looneyland.

            Liked by 2 people

  4. Excellent reporting, thank you. Won’t comment on the case except to say that if I were APD I would be expecting a knock on the door sometime soon. Please delete if inappropriate.

    Liked by 3 people

  5. One has to wonder why Angel Powered Dizzy has only copied day 1 to her FB page but not the subsequent reports, would it be perchance because she has been mentioned both days……not in the best light either if I may be so bold as to say!

    Great reporting by your reporter, this is what I would call true professionalism instead of the raving lunatics reporting the rubbish they constantly copy & paste!

    Liked by 3 people

    • Sorry mate but that’s incorrect – she has covered each day. I’ve been saving the screenshots – along with those of comments she’s posted elsewhere – and if it’s deemed appropriate, I’ll happily post these after the trial.

      Incidentally, I’d like to reiterate that she didn’t even know about the trial at all until I PMed her on the morning of day one and she posted a comment about it within a few minutes.

      Liked by 1 person

      • No worries,, I had only looked at her FB page & was surprised she wasn’t posting it all there, but I see now she is twisting things again on there to make herself look super important. 😏 Thank you for letting me know. 🙂

        Liked by 2 people

          • My apologies for misleading anyone, I myself can only see Day 1. Mind you, that could be due to my old eyes. Thank you for the clarification.

            Like

          • MRG, if you’d like to see them all, PM me on Farcebook and I’ll send you the links/screenshots 🙂

            I can’t post them here, out of due deference to legal restrictions.

            Like

          • Angela Power Disney is a shepherd who whilst she is at liberty to do the things she is doing, will bring more sheep into her designs to inflict suffering on the people of Hampstead. Jake Clarke and RQ are sheep she manipulated, used, and had destroyed. The old saying, slay the shepherd, the sheep will scatter. Disney must be a top target to take down.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Regretfully I must disagree SV… Jake Clarke, I will concede, may well lack capacity – but he is exceptional in that respect. And otherwise, all of the people who involve themselves in these frauds are the unmitigated authors of their own misfortune.

            Liked by 2 people

  6. Slightly off-topic, but I’ve just been reminded of a case back in 2001 where one Christopher Loosemore (then 17) and another boy of 14 wandered into the Liberty Bank in Middletown (Portland) and handed a teller a note claiming they had a gun and demanding $30,000…

    The police quickly caught up with the almost-appropriately named Loosemore hiding in the apartment of a girl he was apparently trying to impress with his ‘hard man’ act. There was some digging done at the time, and it seems poor Christopher was ‘one of those sad kids’ nobody took seriously, always a looser, unemployable, tried to paint pictures of himself living the life of a tough guy when the reality was he played the role of big fish to a gang of children that had the measure of him. He felt ‘egged on’ to do the robbery – couldn’t pull out for fear of losing face etc. – Oddly enough, none of that provided him with any basis for a defence; he still robbed a bank and went down for it.

    With precedent like that in mind, and there’s lots of it, some people (many associates of Belinda McKenzie for instance) might find that stuff like ‘peer pressure’, ‘trying to impress people’, trying to ‘keep face’, making up shit about trillion pound liens, claiming you were ‘obliged’ to commit a crime because you couldn’t obtain lawful remedy (as claimed by Caul Grant) in relation to some other crime etc… It’s all just complete and utter bullshit.

    I also find myself reflecting upon the prosecution of Robert Green. – Did he or did he not frighten the living daylights out of an ordinary Aberdeen tiler and his neighbours and thereby breach the peace? The prosecution proved he did just exactly that, and despite Green’s best efforts to deflect the court’s attention onto other matters, the clown talked his own way into jail. – Was it Einstein who said, doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result is a sign of madness? I can’t help thinking the head of McKenzie Industries didn’t get that memo.

    Liked by 3 people

    • The rule is know your shit. The noob journalist takes a few hours to learn the rules of the game, and longer how to write like a journalist. Noob lawyers who desire to assist the unfortunate need to know the rules of court, law and procedure, and how to apply that information to any situation to leverage the advantage for their client. The track record of Belinda McKenzie, Angela Power Disney and their like is dire: clients lost 100% custody of their kids; went to jail; got sectioned; suffered unnecessary legal bills. Appeal to the public mob has its use, but has no impact upon convincing police, judge and jury to venture too far from procedure and law; the mob is useful to soften or harden judgements, rather than influence law; the outraged mob can emotionally influence a judge to harden a judgement, and the sympathetic mob, soften the judgement. At the least, a wise and knowledgeable representative of a client can win some ground for them, even in the most challenging of circumstances; the law seeks to be fair, often offering concessions to make it look it is fair.

      Liked by 2 people

  7. How long before we get an angry video rant about all this from Mad Moo, I wonder. The Daily Mail article will annoy her further, of course. Ditto APD.

    Like

    • I’m not so sure APD will actually be annoyed.

      She thinks she is UNTOUCHABLE. Mmm…

      I reckon she’ll be loving it but she doesn’t really know ALL that has been said in Court, only what is reported here and that piece in the Daily Mail.

      Journalist my arse!

      Liked by 2 people

          • Problem is she gets off on this shit. The fact she was named as a player in a crown court trial to do with Hampstead will go to her head, especially as she has got off scot free and let another sucker take the shit. She’ll dine out (metaphorically) on this for months

            Liked by 2 people

          • She was ‘named’ yes; but consider by whom and in what context. Clearly she wasn’t considered of sufficient relevance to actually be called. One day, I’m sure, she will feel the cuffs on her wrists.

            Like

    • Had forgotten all about Mad Manna. Communism failed did it? Must be my imagination that Russia & China are now 2 of the most powerful nations on earth.

      Like

    • Yes angie we know you like to sprout “A LOAD OF B+++”+CKS”

      Nice of you to admit it for once though
      (have you checked out the extradition treaties of your list of hideouts recently, you might be in for a shock)

      LOL

      Liked by 2 people

      • Let her walk around with her head up her arse.

        I’m hoping that what that VILE lump Caul Grant spouts about KARMA comes to fruition.

        And from my knowledge APD is definitely not the only one treading on thin ice.

        This all could get very, very interesting.

        Got to also say that Belinda looked a lot more healthy Wednesday.

        Like

        • The good news for Angie is that she hasnt got very far to fall having already descended deep into the sub basement of the human condition.She wont have to suffer the bitter wranglings of remorse either given the total absence of anything resembling genuine conscience.But that is her lot,her sparse and shallow allocation.

          Still,she can be worried,be very,very worried as the past revisits its genesis.Tap,Tap,Tap. MU HA HA HA HA

          Over to you Vincent:

          Like

          • Hmm vid not playing here.

            For the record ,Vincent Price reading of Edgar Allan Poes poem “The Raven”.

            Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary,
            Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore—
            While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
            As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door.
            “’Tis some visitor,” I muttered, “tapping at my chamber door—
            Only this and nothing more.”

            Etc,etc

            Liked by 1 person

          • Wasnt able to find a copy, but WHEN (and not if) angie goes down in flames, I would love the classic Vincent Price laughter from Thriller…
            Love his work, but jeez that laugh just sends shivers down your spine…

            Like

    • Now, that’s one of the screenshots I declined to post, out of deference to the legal restrictions/contempt rules. Are we sure that this one is ok to have up?

      I’ve so far archived 15 screenshots of Angela and Bellender’s posts/comments about the trial, which I’ll be happy to share after the trial is over (possibly with some sensitive parts blanked out).

      Liked by 1 person

      • They’ve been at it since day one, and not just on the most obvious platforms either Ethel. Their ‘plan’ will be to draw others into commenting (i.e. directly debunking them) and by that means try and either scupper the case or lay the groundwork for later vacuous ‘appeals’ and/or fundraising. I think the authorities are keeping a weather eye on them though.

        Liked by 1 person

    • I’m not sure if Angie, and her associates, fully appreciate their immense irrelevance to the matters in hand.

      Turning first to her vacuous comments. Facts have been agreed, admitted and entered into the record; what does Angie fail to understand about this? Equally well Angie (I know you do read this) the S45a order now gives all the children involved in the Hampstead Hoax lifelong anonymity… And that effectively extends to the parents and teachers too as talking about them would lead to the ‘jigsaw identification’ scenario I mentioned earlier…

      These are both things you would realise if you had even basic training as a journalist. What’s “bollocks” is your claim to that professional title as you clearly know fuck-all about the job!

      Likewise, isn’t it interesting that Angie isn’t in court? Not as a witness nor as observer? – One imagines she wouldn’t be welcome as the latter; and is clearly of no relevance to the case. It’s fairly obvious she’s finding the lack of attention frustrating.

      Yet again I’ll stress that the following observations relate to matters in general and NOT the case in question…

      Courts operate with a laser-like focus on the matters in hand… Did individual ‘A’ commit act ‘B’ contrary to statute ‘C’. – That’s it! that’s all they are really interested in. The Robert Green case I referenced elsewhere is a good example of this at work. – Did Green’s actions frighten and alarm people and by that means breach the peace? The proof of that was easily provided and yet, for all his days of rambling, Green provided not one scrap of evidence to counter that proof.

      You see that’s the thing with courts, they will often tolerate irrelevant testimony – particularly in criminal trials – in the hope that relevant matters will emerge; but there is no loss of focus… No inability to boil away the waste in order to distil the truth.

      In Green’s case it’s reasonable to suggest that, by alarming and giving rise to fear among the population of a certain Aberdeen district, he hoped to raise a rabble and gain aggrandisement for himself. But of course, ‘right thinking people’ don’t generally take to the streets pitchforks at the ready! And it was proven in court that Green knew or ought to have known that his actions would cause fear and alarm and proved that they did!

      By this means the ‘mens rea’ (guilty thought) and ‘actus reus’ (guilty act) are established as fact and it is proved beyond any reasonable doubt that a crime was committed. In Green’s case the ‘actus reus’ was established by something as simple as an Aberdonian Tiler giving testimony that he was made alarmed and made to feel fear for the safety of his grandchild. – All of Green’s superfluous waffle didn’t defeat that.

      Let me turn now to a different example…

      This fearsome weapon is made of chocolate. It’s quite amusing I think… Jolly japes.

      But suppose, as a prank, you walked into a bank with it, brandished it around, walked up to a teller and demanded money. – What do you, as a reasonable person, think would happen? Viewed from twenty feet away by a member of the public who is not ‘in on the joke’ what would be made of it? – Particularly if they didn’t know you from Adam.

      Does anyone seriously think they wouldn’t be charged with attempted armed robbery? Or that a Police Officer wouldn’t be justified in tazering them to the ground?

      Would it be a defence to claim in court that you only indulged in this prank because your mates ‘egged you on’ to do so? – Maybe it would if you were nine or had an IQ south of about 70. But suppose you were a grown woman of 40 who laid claim (even if vacuous) to a degree-level education and a professional background? – “Big boys said I should do it, then they were horrible to me and ran away”.

      But! That innocent bank-teller still nearly had a heart attack, was terrified and now lives with PTSD! – who knew that could happen? …Well, anybody with enough sense in their heads to be walking about the streets on their own should. Ignorance is not a defence, nor is stupidity (no matter what Belinda says).

      So – What’s your next idiotic fairy story Angie?

      Liked by 3 people

    • Angie showing us all that she cannot read or deliberately taking things out of context. The blog post clearly stated that the joint acceptance of the SRA claims being false Referred to a point the prosecution and defence BOTH agreed on. Is angie claiming that is incorrect and disputing that FACT.

      Like

  8. Some good news…
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-couple-cleared-of-satanic-abuse-claims-to-get-3-4-million/

    “Texas will pay $3.4 million to a couple who were wrongfully imprisoned for more than two decades on prosecutors’ claims that they sexually abused children as part of satanic rituals at a day care they operated.
    Dan and Fran Keller learned Tuesday that they’ll receive the payment from a state fund for the wrongly convicted, the Austin American-Statesman reported.
    A judge in June approved a request from Travis County District Attorney Margaret Moore for a declaration of innocence for the Kellers”.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Trigger Warning

      Sounds oddly familiar…..

      Be interesting to see what this ‘therapist’ has to say for themselves these days- do they have even a twinge of remorse for what they have put innocent people through??
      (and although I’m not a big fan of the US habit of suing people- in this case I actually think the compensation being awarded is actually far less than they should be getting considering the time they spent in jail and the loss of both income and a good proportion of their lives), and of course even now there will be far too many wackjobs like APD and her ilk still willing to ‘beLIEve the children’ and making any possible return to normality for the Kellars extremely unlikely

      😦

      from Wikipedia
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oak_Hill_satanic_ritual_abuse_trial

      “In the summer of 1991, the therapist of a three-year-old child being treated for behavioural problems due to her parents’ divorce alleged that the Kellers had sexually abused her. The child’s mother contacted the police, who alerted the case’s eventual prosecuting attorney, who contacted a friend whose child was also enrolled in the day care and being treated by the same therapist. During the time leading up to the trial, two other children from the day care offered similar accusations. According to the children, the couple served blood-laced Kool-Aid and forced them to have videotaped sex with adults and other children. The Kellers, they said, sometimes wore white robes and lit candles before hurting them. The children also accused the Kellers of forcing them to watch or participate in the killing and dismemberment of cats, dogs and a crying baby. Bodies were unearthed in cemeteries and new holes dug to hide freshly killed animals and, once, an adult passer-by who was shot and dismembered with a chain saw. The children recalled several plane trips, including one to Mexico, where they were sexually abused by soldiers before returning to Austin in time to meet their parents at the day care.”

      Liked by 1 person

      • The memories these therapists come up with show who the real perverts are. What a sicko to introduce those ludicrous claims of murder, mutilation, sex tapes and the rest to the minds of very young children. What a minute, sounds like child grooming Abraham Christie did exactly the same in his sexually perverse month long torture sessions to two children he had only met months earlier.

        To think Angie downplays Abe’s role to that of a patsy! Only a dirty paedophile supporter would claim Abe is innocent when all the medical evidence, the childrens own words and rest of the details all name Abe as a bully and child abuser.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Abe Christie has a very long criminal history… I’ve often wondered if there is some old association between him and APD from her ‘London days’? For there seems to be some credible evidence she was part of a particular ‘set’ back then.

          Like

  9. Another new scam brewing for Hopeless Girl? (And Teflon, or whatever the fuck his name is.)

    Like

  10. More phone harassment by ‘Neelu of the Chaudhari clan’, including some extremely serious slander against the SRA’s CEO (“He is an illegal slave trader of humans”) 😦

    Like

    • That poor woman went off to make a cup of tea when Neelu launched into her Treason Tirade.
      Seeing Neelu is suing them for fraud and operating with counterfeit currency they should respond “well send us you lien and we’ll pay you compensation with counterfeit currency”.

      Poor Ved just doesn’t have the panache with these phone calls as the Late Great Irish Comedian Patrick “Talmudic Law” Cullinane. His would rise in tempo to a brilliant finish with a cutting and thigh slapping punch line like “you can stick your ambulance up your arse”.
      You can’t beat the old comedians.

      Liked by 2 people

  11. I thought all slave trading was illigal, but where does she get her evidence from, who has she been talking to. I bet she’s been making it up, and what is her obsession with treason, does she really know what it means, or was it just a big word she learnt from some pne else from planet Zong.

    Liked by 3 people

    • I don’t think she has much of a grasp, she tried to prosecute the queen for treason a few years ago. Though she had thought that through a bit and had a reason why Mrs Mountbatten-Windsor is NOT the queen, viz. the stone of Scone is false (it’s a Welsh cake or something) and so the coronoation DIDN’T COUNT.

      Narcissistic conspiracy theorists like treason though; they believe that anything which doesn’t go their way is driven by a huge conspiracy and the whole machinery of state is against them in some monstrous plot which is contrary the true interests of the people (identical to their interests of course) and thus must be treason. Also there is a freeman on the land import from the US – in the US officials swear to uphold the constitution so the argument is that by finding against the fotler the judge is in breach of his oath, not complying with the constitution and thus treasonous. This is then imported into the UK without any thought that oaths here are completely different. Roger Hayes’ mob of supporters tried to arrest the judge for treason for example as they said he was not acting under his oath.

      Like

  12. Case is now under way with witness 5 continuing to give their evidence as per
    http://xhibit.justice.gov.uk/southwark.htm

    Also, discovered a Satanist who ate a yellow jelly baby. #jellybabygate

    So you are feeling Satanic, its xmas, and you got some jelly babies to lawfully and without prejudice shove things up the arse, decorate and eat. Here is a nice idea to decorate your home, especially if you got a Satan Hunter visiting.

    #jellybabygate

    Like

      • When I met her she started telling me some tale about how her car had been sabotaged and she crashed it off the Freeway in USA!

        Blamed it on something sinister, I can’t remember off hand who or what it was allegedly all about.

        I thought it was a really tall tale and I didn’t warm to her.

        Dressed up to the 9’s in Red with one of her trademark hats. Looked like she was off to a wedding.

        Everyone else was dressed very casual.

        She stood out like a sore thumb with her great nephew in tow, poor lad.

        He seemed bemused.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Dr Danish-Quack! Totally unqualified for his VOLUNTARY (unpaid, because he’s not qualified to assess or treat actual trauma victims) interference in family court cases. His hero is…Colin Ross, naturally!
      He believes in “aura reading” and “psychic abilities”.

      Like

      • More importantly, anyone who professes to belief that deliberately abusing children, in any way, can have a CONSTRUCTIVE impact on their development, (i.e., the creation of multiple “selves” with specialized skills & abilities), is not just a quack…they are an EVIL quack.

        Deliberate, repeated abuse of a child can only have a DESTRUCTIVE impact on their development. We’ve discussed this in detail here before.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Another one at it promoting tabloid nonsense and whatever they can no matter how pathetic. Old Mad Moo certainly spend a lot of time deflecting attention away from those involved in the Newcastle Case.

          Like

  13. Lol, anyone in need of a laugh. Abraham’s friend, commenting about Flat Earth on 3 of her alias’s.

    and just a reminder to the Hoax promoters, whose side again was it that was meant to be into Satanic drug parties? Lol. Surely Evidence one of Abraham’s friends is into weird shit by their standards. Imagine if she had been a friend of RD’s? They would be naming her as the Satanic Queen.

    Liked by 1 person

    • btw I am not saying dressing up like that is remotely Satanic or wrong in anyway, just an example of how the Hoaxers would react if they had found something like that about one of the innocent people accused in the Hampers Hoax. They would run with those images for years. Personally I think it looks quite cool for a party.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Seems she’s a ‘one trick’ model now well past her sell-by date. The look would indeed be quite cute for a Halloween party or the like I suppose; if only the person sporting it didn’t stink like a rotten manure midden and wasn’t completely off their fucking rocker!

        Like

    • Does she understand something rotating slowly does not create a blur? Filming the moon over a few days a month etc then speeding up footage much like how we can look at a plant growing and it does not show as blurred. Time and motion?

      Like

  14. I have also just been educated as to what exactly a “biscuit knife” is… Apparently it’s a small knuckle-duster type device with a sharp serrated edge parallel with the handle. – I’m told it’s favoured in some circles because it creates a particularly nasty wound which is difficult to stitch and consequently leaves a horrific scar. – Hardly the stuff of genteel conversation inspired by the W.I.

    Like

    • Or, apparently, in American parlance, this…

      I’m told it ‘works better’ when disguised as a money clip or hidden in one’s shorts!

      Like

        • My source on this side of the pond works in A&E – Apparently the knuckle-duster type device can be had from the shadier market stalls and has various names. The American ‘version’ however seems to be marketed under just exactly that label. I stress of course that I’m simply trying to understand the general colloquial meaning of these things. – Quite interesting.

          Like

          • I remember years ago I had a lock knife for playing out in the woods as a kid, my friends all had army knives and even machetes. Today none of those would be legal, let alone being a 13 year old wearing army fatigues and running round the countryside carrying them. Lock knives are illegal to carry in public in the UK.
            “Lock knives
            Lock knives are not classed as folding knives and are illegal to carry in public without good reason. Lock knives:

            have blades that can be locked and refolded only by pressing a button
            can include multi-tool knives – tools that also contain other devices such as a screwdriver or can opener”
            https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives

            Like

          • Ah! Blue remembered hills…

            I have a fishing knife; but it’s kept in a locked part of the tackle box at all times. Apart from specific sports, carrying a knife, even a penknife was always ‘frowned upon’ as something only ‘certain types’ indulged in.

            Like

          • The problem with interpretating slang and code words, is that they have different meanings to different groups of people, depending on their circles etc.
            Take the Wikileaks emails of John Podesta for example. Due to 4Chan’s history of using Cheese Pizza as code for Child Porn, a troll took that information and used various other terms to send people looking through 10 years worth of emails for supposed “code words”. TThe term Cheese Pizza itself, I do not believe was even referenced in those emails. It didn’t seem to matter how unlikely that a group of middle aged, so called elites, would even be aware of internet paedophile slang let alone be using it in emails.

            Earlier I was catching up on the George Webb and Jason Goodman comedy saga, and came across an article on a site about the dirty bomb threat causing a port to be closed down.
            http://www.billwarnerpi.com/2017/08/false-claims-by-george-webb-and-jason.html

            Another article on that site was about an FBI most wanted man who had supposedly being sighted. The man was wanted for the honour killing of his two daughters. After the act he had apparently called one of his brothers and asked to meet up for “Coffee” which according to the site had been their code word for Trouble/Help.

            “Yaser Said told daughters Aminia, 18, and Sarah, 17, he was taking them to get something to eat before he shot and killed them on January 1st, 2008. On January 2nd, 2008, a warrant was issued for the arrest of Yaser Abdel Said, in Dallas County, Dallas, Texas, on charges of Capital Murder-Multiple. On August 21, 2008, a federal Unlawful Flight to Avoid Prosecution warrant was issued by the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, Texas. Uncovered cellphone records showed Yaser Said making multiple calls to family members (his brothers) immediately before and after his daughters’ deaths. Then he disappeared.”

            “Yaser Abdel Said called his brother Mohsen Said on his cell phone after the murders of Amina and Sarah Said to meet for coffee (‘coffee’ meant trouble, need help)”

            https://pibillwarner.wordpress.com/2016/11/14/has-fbi-top-10-most-wanted-yaser-abdel-said-been-located-in-cairo-egypt-his-kidnapped-niece-and-nephew-are-there/

            Just two examples of code words meaning different things to different groups.

            Like

          • Those are very fair points… But there is, I think, a difference between ‘code words’ which may or may not mean something and a live vernacular. Something similar is true when a conversation is clearly moved into a particular – actually very specific – frame of reference.

            Like

    • But Alex Jones says he was beating up guys that weighed hundreds of pounds more than him and was really good looking, thats why the Satanists tried to recruit him. He also says in certain areas of America you cannot throw a stick without hitting a group of devil worshippers.
      Clown Shoes

      Like

    • What a pathetic sack of sh*t.
      F*ck off, Alex!
      Har-dee-har-har!

      (That was actually very heartening! Nobody wants to talk to him, and everyone knows he’s a heartless child-hating racist windbag. Hooray!)

      Like

  15. Pingback: Christine Ann Sands and Neelu Berry launch DMCA attack on Hoaxtead Research | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

  16. Pingback: Rupert’s friend blames ‘trashy UK rednecks’ for ‘vindictive, small-minded’ prosecution | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

We welcome comments! Please note: this is a Shurter-free zone. Offending posts will be deleted.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s