Equivocal, mushy Operation Conifer report hits the spot for Belinda McKenzie

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.

36 thoughts on “Equivocal, mushy Operation Conifer report hits the spot for Belinda McKenzie

  1. Being interviewed “under caution” is not really a big deal even if Heath had been alive. For example my neighbour may tell police I murdered an old lady and buried her body in the woods and they are really compelled to investigate. The “under caution” bit means if I say “OK Guv it’s a fair cop I did in the old biddie because she kept moaning about the Satanist orgies I have” they will then formally arrest me.

    I think Veale has made the most extraordinary mistake here and it goes to his credibility : why on earth did he include on his “independent panel” a woman with such a dodgy history when there are literally 1000s of professionals to choose from?. Indeed I would question why the other panel members even co-operated in such a panel which leaves it open to so much criticism. Yet again the UK police have caved in and pandered to fruit loops who have an agenda. Will Veale eventually get the chop?..ha ha geddit? (editor: your’e fired)

    Liked by 2 people

    • No, “under caution” sounds almost as if charges were about to be laid, but as you say it’s really no such thing.

      I think Veale has done himself in, professionally; he has basically shown that he learned nothing from the Operation Midland fiasco, and has made himself and his force look very silly. Granted, I’m sure Belinda and her gang will be singing his praises, and will leap to his defence when the inevitable criticisms arise. However, with friends like those, one needn’t search too far for enemies.


    • I don’t know why it repeated my post as I only posted it once so calm down. Coyote can you please delete this second post please. Thank you.


  2. I just can’t come to grips with why an Independent Scrutiny Panel would include someone who’s got controversial beliefs. Surely you have to get people who are open-minded and neutral.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. Well who ever he had on the panel or who he didn’t have on the panel, all the usual people like Robert Belinda David Icke and Sonia Poulton will dine out on this for months, but notice, no Ben Fellows or Bill Maloney or that dirty old man Chris Fay. But most of them are digging out all these old videos that are only in part so it doesn’t give a full picture, also when you dig a bit and research some of these people who interviewed in these videos, another load of crap.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. Did any of them ever hear of this wonderful word I wonder:

    the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
    “the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination”
    synonyms: proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, authentication, attestation, documentation;

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ah, yes. Evidence. Evidence sufficient to secure a conviction through our Criminal and Civil justice systems.
      It’s a problem, for SRA claimants & believers, and has been a problem for them since the first attempts by adult survivor claimants to sue their parents for childhood abuse supposedly committed in the context of a world-wide satanic abuse cult conspiracy that their caregivers very provably had no involvement in. It is a problem, because such evidence does not exist, because it cannot exist, because their SRA abuse narratives are fantasies.

      As thick-headed as some True Believers can be, others may yet be capable of rational analysis (when they wish to be). Clever folk like Sara Scott, for example, bright enough to conclude – circa 2000 – that SRA claimants and their supporters just would not be able to generate the plausible excuses and believably falsified “documentation” necessary to “prove” that claimant SRA narratives are reality.
      So they stopped trying to do that. Pretty much, entirely.

      But they still had a solution, they believed, and they began wide-spread implementation of their new “plan of action” with the publication of Sara Scott’s “The Politics And Experience Of Ritual Abuse” in 2001.
      Rather than wasting their time on pointless efforts to generate plausible “evidence”, or continue inventing excuses for the provable falsehoods in their narratives, they would simply refuse to apply any form of rational analysis to their narratives.

      From then on, they presented their SRA narratives as though they were self-evidently factual & true, as though they were PROVEN BY THE TELLING and therefore, pre-emptively, ‘established’ to be reality. And, they would all discuss these SRA narratives in precisely this manner – as matters of unquestionable fact and truth, from which the “hidden truths” about SRA abuse cults, their victims, and their crimes could be reliably distilled.
      Since that time, some have also been working on ways to get around the demand for REAL evidence in our court systems. For example, Hal Pepinsky’s championing of “reparative” or “restorative” justice – conducted through quasi-judicial truth & reconciliation tribunals empowered to offer accused persons some alternative to “going to prison”, in exchange for their willingness to endorse their accuser’s narrative as wholly and completely “the truth” and publicly “confess” their alleged crimes.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Good response.
        And also the theme that everything under the Sun claimed by these fantasists is covered up so it’s a great excuse for the total absence of evidence.

        I’ve seen this in so many comments in newspapers following articles about the release of the Heath report. The so-called “establishment’ has covered up or is continuing to cover-up and I thought the fact Chief Constable Veale has also announced there should be an inquiry into allegations of the great cover-up a particularly disingenuous claim at this time as it sort of nullifies his statement that guilt should not be assumed about Heath.

        The extraordinary sensations that surround the touchy subject of child abuse seem to attract amazingly hysterical people who I do not believe deep down actually give a flying fig about children. Sexual assault, terrible as it is, is the least form of child abuse at roughly 17% of all cases and even then over 90% of that occurs within the family.
        While that should never be ignored it means the vast majority of abused children via neglect, mental cruelty etc often far more damaging than say a one-off sexual assault are never given a thought and can become so damaged they have a terrible time functioning as an adult whereas a sexually abused child will rightly readily receive the attention of therapists ( genuine ones as opposed to the fruit bat brigade)

        See how Bellend McKenzie has not only aided real child abusers like the Musas, she has helped create her own number of genuine victims in Hampstead. And we can never forget the very sad Carol Myers / Felstead case.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Speaking of McKenzie et al and their aiding and abetting of real child abusers, one of their big complaints about social services is that they dare to remove children from parents who pose a significant risk of future emotional harm.

          I’ve heard Belinda and Sabine discuss this quite contemptuously, as if the social services people are making up excuses to whisk in and “snatch” children from loving parents…but to me, emotional harm does not seem like a trivial problem for a child.


        • @ytracy – yes, good example.

          I forgot to mention the other change in strategy, effected alongside the refusal to acknowledge or respond to critical analysis of SRA abuse narratives – that being, deflection. Australian quasi-academic Michael Salter is a master of Deflection. I’ll give you an example of how it works, and you all will immediately understand what I’m talking about because you will have seen this, over & over. But I can’t put words in Mr Salter’s mouth, so I’m going to have my discussion with “NOT Michael Salter”, instead.

          Welcome, NOT Michael Salter! Today I’m inviting you to discuss this SRA claimant narrative, by a man who claims that he was abused in secret satanic pedophile colonies on Mars. Could you please give us your evaluation about the likely truthfulness of this claim?

          NOT Michael Salter:
          Ralph Underwager did an interview with Paidika, the pro-pedophile journal. He said that pedophiles could claim God wants them to have such relationships.

          I’m sorry? Come again? Perhaps you didn’t understand the question. I’ll pose it again – is it plausible that someone could have been sexually abused in childhood by secret satanic pedophile colonies on Mars?

          NOT Michael Salter:
          My research shows that sex crimes skeptics are perpetrators. They cast doubt on victim’s narratives to cover up their own crimes.

          ?? I fail to see the relevance…

          NOT Michael Salter:
          The founder of FMSF was accused of child sex abuse by her own daughter…”false memory syndrome” is a lie promoted by perpetrators to discredit victims.

          Really, NOT Michael Salter, I must ask you to stay on topic please? Pedophile colonies on Mars? Fact or fantasy?

          NOT Michael Salter:
          YOU’RE A PEDOPHILE!!

          Yea, well f*ck you too buddy!

          Liked by 1 person

      • Is it fair to say that they shifted the issue from an evidence-based approach to a morality-based one? Now, rather than having to provide evidence that something DID happen, they can turn it into an allegedly moral position: “If you don’t believe this, you stand with the paedophiles/oppressors/Establishment/whatever”?


        • @coyote – BINGO!
          You win the kewpie doll, with that summation 🙂
          That’s the intention…unfortunately, certain persistent pricks (like me) refuse to allow them to do this unchallenged and keep calling them out on it, as best we can.

          Liked by 1 person

          • “Certain persistent pricks (like me) refuse to allow them to do this unchallenged and keep calling them out on it, as best we can”.

            I should certainly hope so! 🙂


  5. Notice whenever one of them uses the word `evidence’ it is always accompanied by `lawful’ or `truthful’

    In whackoland this then means the exact opposite- lawful evidence is `illegal stuff I have done myself’ and `truthful evidence’ is `some old crap I just made up on the spot’

    Neelu and mad moo are both prime examples of these usages

    Liked by 3 people

        • Rupert is long done with her, why does she have to keep sticking her big nose in and it is big?

          If she really cared she would have supported him in Court.

          She is such a fake.

          I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t like all this nonsense.

          He can’t stand the woman.

          If it wasn’t for her he wouldn’t be in Wandsworth now!

          Liked by 3 people

        • A particularly evil and vindictive woman showing classic signs of a sociopath.
          Quaintance was correctly jailed for threatening other people, not RD. Power-Disney has basically stuffed this guy’s foreseeable future and now seeks to re-write her role and the history of that endevour.

          Liked by 2 people

        • Seriously- has APD lost her few remaining marbles?
          That is so far removed from the actual facts, its not just fantasy, its alt fantasy

          I seriously think she needs to be taken into custody for her role to date, or sectioned, she’s zoomed straight past delusional and gone to plaid
          And yet she continues to get away with it

          If there is a conspiracy, its that she has something on someone in high up in the police, because she should have been charged long before this, just look at the trail of devastation she has left in her wake, multiple people sectioned and jailed, total contempt of court rulings, slandering innocent peoples good names and yet she slips away again and again with not a single thing against her.

          Why and how???????

          Liked by 2 people

  6. One Important Aspect : why was Veale even responding personally to Robert Green, a fantasist and mischief maker who has caused so much grief for innocent people and correctly jailed for doing so?

    Why did he do this knowing that his response would surely be used by these fantasists to prop up their claims?

    The prudent thing would have been for a very minor officer to respond to Green if a formal acknowledgement was needed. It suggests that Veale is giving credence to Green.
    I believe he will rue the day he did so.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Why does Veale give credence to Green? Why does the European Parliament give credence to the Association of McKenzie Friends? Why does some gov digital task force give credence to McNeill. Do these organisations not do background checks?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Excellent questions all. My guess is that it’s some combination of lack of fact-checking, gullibility, and personal inclination. It’s discouraging to think that these people are allowed access to any individuals or organisations of influence.


    • It’s finished now and the recording is up.

      Bizarrely, she and APD are both claiming that Morris’s first live feed (the one in the car) was taken down by the powers that be:

      Trouble is, the bloody thing is still up, on the same bloody page as the new one, the page on which the above claim was posted! D’oh! 😀

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Pingback: Hoaxtead mobsters jump aboard Project Conifer bandwagon | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

Comments are closed.