Yesterday we reported that Operation Conifer, the Wiltshire Police investigation into allegations of sexual abuse against former prime minister Edward Heath, had received information from known conspiracy theorist Robert Green, late of the Hollie Greig hoax; Mr Green obtained this “information” from Dr Joan Coleman, a co-founder of the RAINS (Ritual Abuse Information Network & Support) network. We noted that Mr Green’s sometime partner in crime, Belinda McKenzie, has suddenly resurrected their friendship, and we speculated that she might be attempting to switch from promoting the Hampstead SRA hoax to promoting allegations of “Satanic ritual abuse” against the conveniently deceased Mr Heath.
Barrister Matthew Scott has written an insightful piece for The Telegraph on the recently released Operation Conifer police report; it’s behind a paywall but may be read for free if one registers on the site.
Mr Scott notes that the report
fails to make any sort of case against the former prime minister, but equally fails to lift the miasma of suspicion that will probably now surround him for all time….
Those who already believed that Heath was a villain will claim that the Report lends them support. Those who were sceptical will point to the fact that the vast majority of allegations have been judged so weak that they could be dismissed without even troubling to ask Heath about them had he still been alive.
As well, Wiltshire Chief Constable Mike Veale has stated, “The report does not draw any conclusions as to the likely guilt or innocence of Sir Edward Heath. I am satisfied there are compelling and obvious reasons to investigate allegations made against Sir Edward Heath”.
This, of course, is music to Belinda’s ears.
This is exactly the sort of thing she and her gang of vultures thrive upon: in fact, it’s far more promising than the Hampstead SRA hoax, which was declared as such early on by Mrs Justice Anna Pauffley. It took time, energy, and a great deal of loud proclaiming to keep the hoax alive, once its death knell had been rung. To be sure, we know a core group of hoaxers, numbering perhaps 50, threw themselves into the task with gusto, but still.
The Heath allegations are a different proposition altogether.
Given the way in which the Wiltshire Police handled Operation Conifer—describing complainants as “victims” and allegations as “disclosures” before any claims had been proven in court, for example—Belinda must be salivating at the heady prospect of a victim who cannot fight back, a police investigation whose conclusions may best be described as “dithering” and “equivocal”, and a ready-made stable of supporters ready to do her bidding.
Better yet, while no allegations of Satanic ritual abuse made it onto the hypothetical list of allegations…excuse us, “disclosures”, for which Mr Veale would have considered interviewing Mr Heath under caution (had he not been pushing up daisies), hints that SRA played an accepted role during Operation Conifer may be found.
For example, Matthew Scott points out that the report makes much of an “Independent Scrutiny Panel” consisting of “a QC from Matrix Chambers, a surgeon, a ‘Wiltshire resident’ and a psychologist”. All well and good, except that the psychologist has been identified as
Elly Hanson…a specialist in Dissociative Identity Disorder, a controversial condition which (if it exists at all) is often said to be particularly associated with ritual or Satanic sexual abuse. She spoke at the opening of something called the Wall of Silence Exhibition in Bristol in January 2016. The exhibition was closely associated with, indeed was partly the idea of, a “survivor” of sexual abuse who had himself made an allegation against Sir Edward. Earlier this year she also attracted controversy when it was revealed that she had accepted payment of just over £2,000 for advising the Wiltshire Police about two of the Heath complainants in the Conifer inquiry, although she has dismissed the suggestion that this created any conflict of interest.
So…no SRA, except for hearsay information gleaned from an SRA campaigner, who received it from another long-time SRA campaigner; and a psychologist whose field of specialisation is “Dissociative Identity Disorder”, a spurious disorder presumed to originate in…SRA.
Seven out of 40?
The Operation Conifer Report concludes that if he were alive, Mr Heath would have been interviewed under caution in relation to seven of the original 40 complainants.
Hoaxtead Research commenter Justin Sanity has observed that none of the seven seems to bear any of the hallmarks of SRA:
From the BBC News website:
“The seven victim disclosures for which Sir Edward would have been interviewed under caution:
1961, London: Sir Edward allegedly raped and indecently assaulted boy, 11, during a paid sexual encounter in private in a dwelling”.
A paid sexual encounter, in private…
There’s nothing intrinsically “satanic” about paying a child for sex, not even if the perpetrator “john” subsequently forces the child into sexual acts against their will (rape). If the rape & assault occurred in private, i.e., there was no one else present, I think we can rule out any kind of ceremonial ritual going on in that room at that time. There’s no possibility of SRA here, and there would appear to be no cult, or gang, or pedophile ring involved.
“1962, Kent: Sir Edward allegedly indecently assaulted a ten year-old-boy during a chance encounter in a public place”
A chance encounter, in a public place. Rituals require planning, they can’t take place “by chance”, and it’s extremely unlikely that a satanic abuse cult would be meeting in a public place – with all the robes and candles burning and chanting and screaming of victims. There’s no SRA here, and a chance encounter precludes cult, gang or pedophile ring involvement.
“1964, Sussex and London: Sir Edward allegedly indecently assaulted a 15-year-old boy in three paid sexual encounters”
Paid sexual encounters again. Can anyone find references to a satanic abuse cult known to have hired rent-boys off the street to be the victims in their ritual abuse, torture & sacrifice? Three different encounters, certainly precludes the boy being sacrificed at encounters 1 or 2, eh? No SRA here, no suggestion of a pedophile ring being involved in these encounters either.
“1967, Guernsey: Sir Edward allegedly indecently assaulted a 15-year-old boy in a public building”
In a public building, again…
“1976, Jersey: Sir Edward allegedly indecently assaulted, over clothing, an adult male at a public event”
I thought SRA cults used child victims exclusively? No SRA here.
“1992, Wiltshire: Sir Edward allegedly assaulted an adult male after consent was withdrawn in a hotel”
So, after the man said – “no thanks” – Sir Edward’s SRA cult popped out of the cupboard they were all hiding in and subjected the man to ritual sex and torture…out of spite? No SRA here.
“Between 1990-1992, Wiltshire: Sir Edward allegedly indecently assaulted a male, aged between 12 and 14 years, in private gardens”
Repeatedly assaulted this boy over several years. Again, isn’t the modus operandi for SRA cults supposed to be on-off disposable victims? Or was this boy supposed to be Heath’s son, and being subjected to mind-control inducement sexual assaults, because he was a member of the intergenerational Health family SRA cult? Except…Heath didn’t have a wife & children, did he? No SRA here, no gangs, no cults, no pedophile rings.
This makes so much sense, we’re 100% certain that Belinda and Mr Green will reject it completely, in favour of a full-scale campaign to “prove” that Mr Heath did in fact indulge in Satanic rites involving children. In fact, they’re probably in Belinda’s living room right now, drawing up the posters and t-shirt designs. Stay tuned.