CRIS report highlights troofer lies about Ella Draper

The other day, as we were researching our story about ex-DC Jonathan Wedger’s role in exposing the true nature of the Hampstead SRA hoax during the 2014 police investigation, we had occasion to re-read the police CRIS report. This report provided a day-by-day summary of police actions as they progressed the investigation, and we noticed several details this time, the significance of which we hadn’t fully grasped before.

We should note that in general, this sort of confidential police report would not have been released into the public domain. However, when Ella sacked her second set of solicitors in December 2014, they very unwisely handed her the court bundle which included the CRIS report as well as the police ABE interviews with the children. She and Abe began releasing confidential information online as part of their campaign to stir up the feelings of the UK truther community, in hopes that this would somehow drive public opinion toward having the children returned to Ella. The CRIS report was part of that bundle, and is now widely available.

Police notice Ella’s odd behaviour in Jean-Clement recording

When Jean-Clement Yaohirou brought his recordings to the police, the first thing the officers noted upon listening to them was that both the children’s and Ella’s emotional states seemed “off”, considering that she was reporting that her two youngest children had been subjected to the most brutal and horrifying sexual abuse.

The officer notes, “Upon listening to recording the children seem very relaxed and mother does not seem overly concerned, joking and laughing about it”.

Keep in mind that while Ella knew that Jean-Clement was making this recording, she was not aware at the time that it would be brought to the attention of police, so she was in a more relaxed and natural state.

Ella’s behaviour seems to have started alarm bells ringing early, as the officer then points out that “father has made allegations against the mother in the past”, which could point to the current allegations being malicious in nature. [Ya think?—Ed.]

Note that “father made allegations against the mother”, not the other way round: to hear Ella’s version of the story, she was the one who’d made allegations against RD. However, we know from the subsequent family court case that RD had been forced to obtain several court orders in respect of his access to the children. Ella had managed to ignore or breach all of these orders, a fact which is noted in the judgment from the fact-finding hearing.

“Ella and Abe went straight to the police….”

According to troofers such as Kris Costa and Deborah Mahmoudieh, Ella was so concerned with the information her children had revealed that she took them straight away to the police.

However, the CRIS report states, “The family showed concerns about speaking to Police and eventually allowed the officers entry”.

This does not sound like a family desperately reaching out to police for help. It sounds like a family who would really rather not have spoken to police, and instead took their concerns to Abe’s brother-in-law, a Special Constable, who realised that this needed to be brought to police attention.

The children were known to social services

Another thing the Hoaxtead mob refuse to admit is that RD’s children were known to social services, and were on a “Children in Need” (CIN) plan:“They showed improvement until the last couple of months when there has been a down turn in their behaviour. According to Social Services there has been no contact between the children and their father since July 2014”. In other words, they’d been doing better, but once Abraham moved into the children’s lives, their behaviour began to deteriorate.

Later in the CRIS report, the police elaborate on the CIN:

In 2013, the children were referred to social services because of “concerns over the children being left on their own as being heard crying. At the time Ella did not appear to have a partner”. In addition, “there were concerns over the children not having enough food as they were seen to steal food from other children and from the school bins”.

So it looks as though perhaps Ella was not the “perfect mother” she’s made herself out to be: she left her children on their own, crying, and allowed them to go to school hungry.

Ella was referred to Tavistock…

According to the CRIS report, Ella and the children received several referrals to the Tavistock Institute and CAMHS, which she failed to attend. This is hardly the behaviour of a conscientious parent, concerned about the psychological well-being of her children:And to bear this out, we see here that Dr Hodes (whose opinion on the significance of the controversial “signs and wonders” of RAD have been central to the Hoaxtead mob’s conviction that the children were sexually brutalised) was the person who recommended that the children be taken into protective custody. Dr Hodes stated that the children would be at risk if they were left with Ella and Abraham, and said that “Ella has not appeared to protect her children”.

The picture painted in the CRIS report is not one of a caring, loving mother, desperate to ensure the safety and well-being of her children. Rather, it shows a woman whose neglect of her children caused social services to intervene on several occasions. It shows a woman who couldn’t be arsed to attend therapeutic sessions at the Tavistock and CAMHS, which could have helped her cope more effectively with her children. And it shows that neither Abe nor Ella was really keen to involve the police, even though they claimed that the children were allegedly being abused in the most horrific manner possible.

In short, the CRIS report is a scathing indictment of an uncaring mother, more interested in using her children as weapons against her ex-partner than in ensuring the mental and physical well-being of her young children.