Torture and the Hampstead SRA hoax: Myths, busted

One of the most startling features of the Hampstead Satanic ritual abuse hoax is the fact that two children were subjected to “relentless emotional and psychological pressure as well as significant physical abuse” by Abraham Christie, their mother’s new boyfriend, in order to extract “confessions” that they had been victims of, and had participated in, horrific sexual abuse, murder, and cannibalism.

Even before the children retracted their claims, they were very clear that Abraham had hurt them.

In an early police interview, the little girl tried to soften her accusation against Abe by claiming he hadn’t really hurt her, but she said her brother suffered a great deal; and she pointed out that Abe had “pressed a spoon” into her chin so hard that it had cut the skin. The healing cut—or more accurately a burn, from a spoon which had been pre-heated—is quite visible in the videos Abe and Ella took en route from Morocco to London; in addition, the little girl had a large partially healed bruise on her forehead, which she also attributed to Abe.

Once the children had retracted their allegations about the so-called cult, it became clear that Abe had done much more than hit the children with spoons and pour water over them while they knelt before him in their underwear. He had also kicked them hard, while wearing heavy boots; he’d punched the little boy so hard on the side of the head that his eardrum had been perforated; he’d threatened the little girl with being buried alive in the Moroccan desert; he’d woken both children up in the middle of the night for prolonged questioning; and he and Ella had routinely deprived them of food, insisting that they eat a raw vegan diet which made their stomachs ache. And all the while, according to the children, their mother stood by and allowed a virtual stranger to hurt them.

We don’t think Mrs Justice Pauffley was incorrect to characterise this treatment as torture.

Does torture really bring out the truth?

Of course, those who wish to believe that a Satanic death cult is running amok in North London will claim that Abraham had to do this, in order to extract the “truth” from the children. Hoaxtead mobsters would argue that compared with the alleged sexual abuse the children were describing, a few punches or kicks or “spoon licks” were really a small price to pay.

The argument seems to be that torture is justified, if it helps to bring out the truth.

However, experts in the field of torture for military and strategic purposes are much less certain that “the truth” can be extracted, even from battle-hardened soldiers, through the use of torture.

In fact, the ideas that “everybody talks sooner or later under torture” or that “people will say anything under torture” have been thoroughly debunked by Reed College political science professor Darius Rejali, who has studied the use of torture extensively.

He states that the problem with torture as a means of gathering accurate information is that while those with real information will lie, whether they’re being tortured or not, those who know nothing will fabricate what they believe their torturers wish to hear—they will quite literally say anything to stop the torture:

In fact, the problem of torture does not stem from the prisoner who has information; it stems from the prisoner who doesn’t. Such a person is also likely to lie, to say anything, often convincingly. The torture of the informed may generate no more lies than normal interrogation, but the torture of the ignorant and innocent overwhelms investigators with misleading information.

Can we tell whether they’re lying?

Ah, say the Hoaxtead mob, but we can tell that the children were not lying in those videos. We know what lying looks like, and this isn’t it.

Not so fast, says Prof Rejali:

Not so — and we know quite a bit about this. For about 40 years, psychologists have been testing police officers as well as normal people to see whether they can spot lies, and the results aren’t encouraging. Ordinary folk have an accuracy rate of about 57 percent, which is pretty poor considering that 50 percent is the flip of a coin. Likewise, the cops’ accuracy rates fall between 45 percent and 65 percent — that is, sometimes less accurate than a coin toss.

Why does this matter? Because even if torturers break a person, they have to recognize it, and most of the time they can’t. Torturers assume too much and reject what doesn’t fit their assumptions.

So while Abe and Ella managed to convince their salivating acolytes that they had actually managed to drag the truth out of the children, and it confirmed everything Abraham believed about the existence and behaviour of “Satanic death cults”, in fact they were only subjecting two children to agonising brutality, until the children “broke” and said what they thought their torturers wanted to hear.

Once they were assured that they would not have to see Abraham again, the children felt able to talk about what had really happened. By the time they were seen by the psychologist, Dr Sturge, they felt able to express their distress over what Abraham and Ella had done to them. The judgment states:

Dr Sturge assessed the children on 5 November 2014. P related that Mr Christie would tell her that “for lying she would go to prison for 20 years and never see her grandparents or Mum again.” P commented, “Abraham loved my Mum so much. He even blamed her for being in the gang.” He had kept on asking her, “Any other people.” He had threatened her with the spoon and poked her so hard in the chin with it that she had a big mark. When Abraham had asked her about plastic willies in her bottom, she had denied this. He had said, “How come Q told me.” The Vaseline had been, said P, Q’s idea. He knew one of her friends used it (for her lips). P said, “Thing is, Abraham came up with stuff we didn’t know and came up with ideas too.” Abraham was always saying Q was a good boy for telling him things and that she was lying and would go to jail.

Dr Sturge asked P what the word ‘paedophile’ means. P replied that Abraham had said her Dad is a paedophile and explained what it meant. P had only a minimal understanding of ‘the facts of life’ and sex was “inappropriate stuff like touching each other in the privates.” Dr Sturge asked P about living with her mother. She said, not at the moment – “I feel angry with her, letting Abraham do all that stuff to us.” She had one question of Dr Sturge, could she live with her foster mother until she is 14 or 15?

Q responded immediately to Dr Sturge’s question as to whether he knew why she was seeing him. He said, “cos Abraham said something I never did and he forced me to say it, he was really mean to us.” Abraham had accused him of touching his sister in the private parts which he “never, ever did.” And he forced them to say their Dad touches them. Abraham had also forced them to say they kill babies. Q said he had wanted Abraham to stop hitting him, “I was scared for him to hit me.” At that Q’s face creased up and he began to cry quietly. “He kept asking us questions again, and again and again.” His mother had started to believe him. Q said, “It upsetted me” and he became even more distressed.

Q described how Abraham had been asking them all day. He had even woken them up and hit them. The hitting was if they didn’t wake up and talk. Asked how his mother had reacted, Q said “she didn’t mind.” He was asked about living with his mother and replied that “if she still believes it, (he) wouldn’t want to live with her.” Later he described with great vehemence that he would never live with his Mum while Abraham was still in the British Isles. She would just phone him and he’d come to their house. Q also said, spontaneously, that he hates Abraham, describing him as “the worst person I’ve ever met.”

Dr Sturge asked Q directly about Vaseline. He said, “He (Abraham) forced me to say my Dad puts Vaseline on my willy – plastic and normal ones.” Q added, as if puzzled, that Vaseline is used to rub on your hands when they are sore. He was clear that Abraham had used the Vaseline word first. Asked about seeing willies, Q said he and a friend at school had shown each other their willies in the toilet.

Q was distressed again when talking about having to stand when cold water was poured on him – “(dressed) just in our pants – he thought we was lying – when I cried and said my Mum never touched us, he said, ‘If you’re crying you’re lying.'” By then, according to Dr Sturge, Q was crying in a very distressed way.

We have no doubt that if the children hadn’t been removed from Ella and Abe’s care when they were, the torture would have continued, and the children might have eventually come to believe the lies they’d been forced to tell. As it happened, they were rescued by the police, who were able to identify what had been happening to them. The children were clearly relieved to be out of reach of their mother and her boyfriend—to the point where they felt able to say that Abe was “the worst person I’ve ever met”, and to ask that they not be made to return to their mother’s care while Abe was in the picture.

Once they were free of the torture they’d endured, both children understood that they no longer needed to lie, and that they were safe at last. Ultimately, all Abe and Ella’s “techniques” to elicit the “truth” from the children failed—just as one would expect, given what we know about the efficacy of torture to reveal the truth.

56 thoughts on “Torture and the Hampstead SRA hoax: Myths, busted

  1. Excellent post, EC. The people who still cling on to the hoax are completely deluded.

    The girl also said that Abraham had kicked her “front privates”.
    Abraham is nothing but a child abuser and Ella was complicit. The fact they are still free to leave their lies all over the internet angers me to this day.

    Liked by 4 people

  2. Thanks for this post, EC. The psychologist’s interview is so revealing. Why it deosn’t deter psycho-enablers like Mad Moo and Crusty Poop from supporting the children’s abusers and banging on about their “loving mother” is anybody’s guess.

    By the way, for any newcomers or for anyone who feels they need a refresher, there is more about this on the blog’s FAQ section (courtesy of that nice Mr. Coyote):

    Liked by 5 people

  3. Top objective analysis as ever EC.Thankfully the childen have been given a chance to heal and we can only hope the very best for them and all assisting them find stability.

    The aforementioned “salivating acolytes” of Abe and Ella have already gathered and duly issued their considered response through their new PR spokesperson.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Abraham will have caused immeasurable psychological damage to the brother and sister.

    I’ve seen it before and no where near this scale.

    I bet his own children have similar tales of abuse from him to tell and any other children he has had contact with.

    He’s a psychopath.

    Liked by 2 people

    • There was something about Belinda, standing outside the court at the time, saying there was no harm in hitting a child on the head with a spoon if they didn’t do what they were told. She said it on one of her videos at the time.

      Liked by 2 people

        • Ok Belinda. Explain the little boy’s perforated eardrum which had fresh blood in it, so had to have been a recent injury inflicted by someone the boy had had recent contact with, so was not his father. eh?

          “Once or twice he chastised them.”
          I’d like to know what right this man had to chastise these kids and why their mother let him do it. He’d apparently known this family for four months and yet felt free to ‘chastise’ the children. That in itself is a massive red flag re inappropriate behaviour. Belinda is an educated woman. Why can’t she see this?

          Liked by 4 people

          • If I had a parent who deprived me of sleep and made me say things that wearn’t true and perforated my ear drum, I’d do more than put poo on his tooth brush

            Liked by 1 person

          • The fact they did that speaks volumes about how the children felt about his abuse towards them.

            Rummaging in bins at school for leftovers due to their vegan diet their mother and Abe forced upon them and suffering beatings from Abe, I’m so glad they were removed from that pair’s care.

            Liked by 2 people

  5. Another ‘Hashtag hmmm’ moment for Angie?

    By the way, kudos to anyone who can make sense of that second sentence.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Many of Angie’s “friends” are bought for ones which is odd as I can’t see her paying for anything. Perhaps she found a really cheap “friends” provider in India but like most of her claims and profile, she’s just a fake.

      Liked by 2 people

    • I think it means she gained some new followers and the same number of old ones got deleted.

      She probably forgot she did it herself to accept the new followers.

      Liked by 3 people

  6. I suggest that the hoaxers who insist upon perpetuating this hoax get a new hobby, eg:
    Victorian Button Stringing

    charm string or memory string was a 19th century pastime which consisted of collecting buttons & other small mementos & stringing them together.
    Young women of the 1860s-1900s would have parties in which they would exchange buttons & stories associated with them,  Rules dictated that buttons couldn’t be purchased for the collection & had to be gifts from other collectors, suitors, friends or family. The gift of a button was considered lucky & the stringing of the buttons on a string enhanced good luck. 

    Strings were often left in view of visitors in order to encourage donations as well as conversation starter by serving as a memento & reminder of past events. The string became a physical reminder of the button owner & times associated with that person. 
    Ah wait though, they would probably accuse everyone taking part of some conspiracy!


  7. I have a challenge for anyone who thinks that Abraham merely “tapped” the children with a spoon, and that it was nothing really.

    Take a normal spoon—a cutlery spoon, as Child P said—and tap yourself on the chin with it. Tap harder.

    Does it break the skin? No? Then try “digging it in” as Child P described.

    Has it broken the skin yet? Probably not. Try using the edge of the spoon. Broken skin yet? No?

    How hard would you have to push to break the skin and cause a lesion like the one Child P had? Would it help if you heated the spoon on the stove?

    Now take the same spoon and whack yourself on the forehead with it. Do it hard enough to create a bruise about 3” in diameter. Let us know how hard you had to strike, and how often, in order to achieve this.

    Take your time. We can wait.

    Liked by 2 people

    • I always suspected due to the spoon being heated it left a scorch mark on her chin, the shape of the tip of the spoon, as he dug it in, that’s what I think I see anyway…

      Liked by 2 people

      • Yes, anyone who cares to try cutting into skin in that way will find there’s really only one way to do it, if all they’re using is a spoon. I feel sick when I think of what those kids endured in the name of the SRA fairytale.


  8. By the way, Angela thinks it’s ok to post a photo of an old man snogging a scantily clad 13-year-old girl on her FB page. Yup.

    I’ve reported it but I dare say that photos of scantily clad 13-year-old girls being sexually assaulted don’t breach Farcebook’s community guidelines. Grrrr.

    Liked by 4 people

  9. My My, the Gerbil’s motivations behind hoax have become fairly clear. What are “Sea Monkey” depressants? Looks like she is bitter for being deemed unfit


  10. Why has Len Posner waited FIVE yrs to file suit?


    • It’s good to see their intellect cone to light. Thekight will always meet the hoaxers. They’re the highest vibrational plants. Hope this helps.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Oh dear,it would appear the last synapses within the looney tune collective have finally given up the ghost,most likely out of sheer tedium.

      To be fair KSC`s endevours have not been an entire waste of time after all her efforts have been an absolute inspiration to idiots everywhere.

      Liked by 2 people

  11. A Wrongful Death case was filed by 2 S.H. parents, one being, Scarlett Lewis.
    Honr should tweet that one! What was “foreseeable” at S.H. I wonder? Looks like somebody finally read the 7,000 page “Final Report”!


  12. Leave it to Crusted Poop to cite That disinfo agent’s CRAP in ALL dimensions. Another AFP dickhead like Alex Jones and Rupert! She should have been sued on Day One like ALL the Others! Where did that proposed Victim’s Right’s Amendment disappear to, sponsored by Feinstein and Kyl in ’96? That legislation could have handled these Twats! Time to propose it again.

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.