Young Journalist of the Year strikes again

Yesterday we reviewed Angela Power-Disney’s recent video, in which she announced that “a long-time campaigner” had been arrested and (we think) had accepted a police caution relating to online harassment. It was ever so difficult to work out the identity of said campaigner (*coughDeborahMahmoudiehcough*) even though in her usual style, Angela managed to both mangle and elaborate on the story.

We promised you that we’d go over the four “appendices” to Sunday’s video, in which she “interviews” a person named Andries “Joe” Van Tonder, a South African gentleman who now lives in Ireland. We say “interviews” because she doesn’t so much ask questions and respond to the answers as ask questions and then attempt to talk over anything she happens to disagree with.

According to Angie, Joe is a “world-renowned expert on parental alienation” and “someone on a board of five, consulted by Scotland Yard on the Hampstead case”. And Angie’s interview with Joe is a textbook case in how not to conduct an interview. She talks over him. She interrupts. She contradicts him. And ultimately it turns out that…well, we’ll let you find out for yourselves.

The first video

The first video of four consists primarily of Angela and Joe debating religion—who or what is a “higher power”, can it be a pet rock, that sort of thing. No, seriously, they talked about pet rocks.

At one point the conversation managed to diverge into something slightly interesting, when Joe stated that children’s “disclosures [of abuse] made in the course of a toxic separation can never be trusted”. This is a point we’ve made, but of course we’re not “world-renowned experts on parental alienation”, so our statements don’t carry nearly as much gravitas as Joe’s. Oh, he also noted that “disclosures made by neighbours are 60% trustworthy”, unless of course it is a “bad neighbourhood”, in which case the Trustworthy Factor plummets. And a disclosure “made by a child that is completely isolated from influence is 97%” trustworthy. Good to know.

This was pretty much the sum total of anything even remotely relevant, so we cannot really recommend Angie’s Appendix, Vol. 1. Two thumbs down.

The second video

What Video 1 lacked in dramatic flair, Video 2 makes up, in spades.

Angela begins with a recap (apparently) of her prior conversation with Joe:

Joe as I understand it was consulted by Scotland Yard in his capacity as probably the foremost renowned international expert on parental alienation. The angle Scotland Yard were coming at the case was that the mother was complicit and the mother was framing the father.

Nice intro. She follows up with the story which she dreamt up last year, and which she’s been putting about ever since, as though it were the truth:

My perspective after about two years of research into the case was yes, the mother was complicit, but they both were, and they were jockeying for victory in a double-jeopardy double-cross where he had apparently short-changed her £240,000 in drugs, child porn, snuff movie, and distribution monies via a Russian drug cartel in London, where child porn, snuff movies, and a paedophile ring were operating.

And my understanding from intel I received from somebody a year ago was that the mother had also been complicit but the father had got greedy and he had double-crossed the Russian mafia; he had also double-crossed his wife, [Wife? What wife?—Ed.] and her plan was to expose the paedophile ring, and put it all on his doorstep and the paedophile ring participants’, and then escape. Her plan was to escape. And it also was to get the children to safety in Russia, and simply throw the father and the paedophile ring under the bus.

It backfired, she didn’t manage to get the children out. Sadly, she abandoned the children. She got away, and uh, so basically we have both parents complicit. The father is currently hailed as innocent, and a victim, and allegedly has full custody of the children again. The mother is somewhere in Spain or Morocco, and there’s not even an Interpol search warrant for her. So it’s a big mess.

You know what’s a big mess, Angie? This ridiculous story, which you appear to have pulled fully formed from the dank recesses of your nether regions. Also, what in hell is a “double-jeopardy double-cross”? Anyone?

Eventually though, Angela realises that she should at least mention her “foremost renowned international expert”:

So my understanding of what Joe told me is that he was consulted in his capacity as an international parental alienation expert to evaluate the videos. He noticed some very crucial evidence, such as fingernail lengths varied to such an extent that it gave the lie to their disclosing during a three-week period. There was a month in Morocco where the children originally disclosed and then about…mmm…not very long at all in London. so we ‘re talking maximum five weeks, but Joe says the fingernails reveal that it was more like about three months. [Is he saying no one cut those kids’ nails for three whole months?!—Ed.]

Also allegedly there is intel from Joe that the children were featuring in child porn whilst in custody of the mother and her new boyfriend—and this is based on marks on a t-shirt, their clothing—at the same time that they were producing the disclosure videos, allegedly away from the paedophile ring. Footage showed up on the dark web featuring children with exactly the same clothing, with the exact same mark on the same t-shirt, at the same time, so this indicates that someone filmed and disseminated abuse.

The other thing referred to was the mother’s involvement with a group called Gloria’s Children—a support group of mothers who’ve had children stolen after reporting abuse from partners.

Angela then delves into her decision to split off from Belinda McKenzie, as we mentioned yesterday. Apparently she’s finally worked out what we’ve been saying for three years: the Association of McKenzie Friends has links to some extremely dodgy people. Hello, world!

Oh, and then she talks about being stalked by demonic orbs in Belinda’s back garden. Yup.

I’ve had amazing footage sent to me of demonic activity at Belinda’s home. I’ve had footage not just of orb activity, but…I think I get hacked and I have footage removed but it’s possible I could still find it…I have footage of this little green light going into the studio garden apartment which I stayed in for five days, coming in for surveillance purposes, encountering somebody there and realizing they were filming, and withdrawing. I don’t think that was the same as demonic orb activity, I think that was a surveillance drone, and when MI6 or MI5 realized they’d been spotted, they hopped out of there.

You heard it here first, folks.

Finally, Angela finishes telling us what Joe told her:

He was contacted by Scotland Yard, he was furnished with video disclosures, he was consulted in his capacity as an internationally renowned parental alienation expert, he confirmed that there were anomalies, as in the children’s fingernail differences, and the appearance on child porn sites of the children in the same clothes as when they were apparently allegedly disclosing.

But my understanding from Joe is that he had analysed the videos in the first instance, and then put some rather pointed questions to Scotland Yard, because Joe is very very skilled in the legal field and just has that ability for discernment, and he put some very relevant questions to Scotland Yard, and received answers that were unsatisfactory to him. His radar kicked in, he said that’s bullshit, but still in his commitment to serve, Joe then referred on the case, he called in, he recommended, he passed on to three other experts in the field, one of whom was based in America, and was allegedly flown over from America to continue the investigation.

And then she allows the Great Man to speak for himself. Well, sort of:

Joe: Let me just uh…this whole thing has had a long road, very few people know it. Draper and uh….what’s his name? Ella Draper and Ricky Dearman met each other in about 2003; the second thing is they broke up around 2006. For six years after that, there was no contact between the father and children…

Angie: [interrupts] That’s not accurate.

Joe: That is as far as I remember, and there was sporadic contact but no official contact, although there was court-ordered contact, Ella Draper prevented Ricky from, uh….

Angie: [talks over Joe] Well she frustrated it, yeah, I accept that. But he had contact. I think it was around 2010 he voluntarily relinquished contact and went to America.

Joe: He was completely broke and couldn’t handle all the costs any more. as far as I can remember and understand…

Angie: [interrupts] Okay, okay, carry on…

The two of them go on in this vein for some time, with Joe attempting to recall the basic features of the case (such as people’s names), and Angela interrupting and contradicting him every time she doesn’t like what he’s saying.

Joe admits:

I have deleted all my notes, I can now talk from the little bit of memory I have which is very little, so forgive me if I can’t remember things properly.

It was also in 2014, November, when Ella’s legal team told her, ‘We can see through everything’. As a matter of fact they used the modified American Prosecutors’ Research Institute’s questioning, with modifications done by us to add more things. After completing that questioning, the legal team resigned, saying that Ella was lying. This caused trouble, it caused claims against the legal team.

Is Joe trying to claim here that he had some input into Ella’s questioning in 2014?

After Angela and Joe debate exactly when the videos of the children were released online, Joe makes a strange claim: he states that in September 2014, during the police investigation, the police collated all the children’s evidence, and then they took the children and travelled to different places, “and no way could it be through luck—for example, let’s say drawers—the placement of drawers, and the children could remember them perfectly, those drawers didn’t exist”. However, he says, it came out two years later that Abe had once served as a server (altar boy?) at the church, and at that time the drawers were exactly as the children had described them 20 years later.

The third video

The second video having ended abruptly, the third picks up with Joe explaining to Angela that experts had taken samples of the concrete in the area where the tunnels between the church and the school were alleged to have been located. He states unequivocally that since the concrete was at least 200 years old, anyone trying to fake filling in the tunnels “would have had to have access to equipment to make cement and concrete the equivalent of 200 years ago which is basically impossible”.

As with much of this interview, the origins of this information is not made clear, and so it’s very difficult to know whether to give it any credence.

The third video ends after about six minutes, as Angela requests a toilet break.

The fourth video

Like the third, the fourth video is mercifully short, and consists mostly of Angela trying to browbeat Joe into giving her the names of his colleagues. Joe, understandably, is less than enthusiastic:

Angie: I have three more questions Can you remember the questions you asked, to which you got bullshit answers which made you pass the case along?

Joe: I can’t remember, I haven’t got much…

Angie: Do you remember to whom you asked these questions, you told me you interviewed some people who came forward, apparently allegedly corroborating it and there were holes in these multiple testimonies which to me is classic disinfo.

Joe: Was it, uh, uh, uh, I have witnesses witness this, this, this, and this?

Angie: Yes

Joe: But then the date….

Angie: …don’t add up, I hear you. The waters were muddied almost instantly after. But you don’t remember who gave…you smelled a rat, it sounds to me like you started to analyse and investigate and then something told you, mmmm, there’s some bullshit….

Joe: I am an expert in rhetoric…

Angie: Yeah, me too.

Joe: Rhetoric, now, to influence Angela…

Angie: You did, you did, you did…

Joe: Omitting one word and adding one word—I didn’t lie to you at all.

Angie: I get that point, I’ll put that on record—adding emotional content…

Joe: You can perhaps make a decent video, make a video first, about a person you trusted, and he did this and this and this, and you’ve got video evidence of it, of taking a brand new toilet paper roll…

Angie: Your expertise is in the 20% of cases in which it’s a lie—the question is where do the bullshit answers…after giving the preliminary report, you asked questions to which you did not get satisfactory answers.

Joe: What was given to me originally, and what I was presented by not only the authorities, but also by so-called witnesses…

Angie: Something didn’t add up. So you asked for clarification and it was not satisfactory. So then you recommended and passed it on to three other experts.

Joe: Yeah.

Angie: Are you at liberty to give me their names?

Joe: Uuuuuuhm, I’m…uh, preferably not….

Angie: Will you do it for me off the record? Because I’d like to meet them…

Joe: Uhhh, off, um…

Angie: Will you try to facilitate for me to talk to them?

Joe: Preferably not, I’ll tell you why. Because these people are permanently in court, they work with…

Angie: So they’re ongoing international experts…

Joe: Yes.

Angie: But you said to me…

Joe: One of their names has just been published [unintelligible] which there will be a big conference in London where she will be speaking.

Angie: Right, so my question to you…[interrupts]…we’ll finish now, because I’m so grateful. My request to you is that off the record, you facilitate connecting me with those people.

Joe: No.

Angie: Okay, thank you so much.

Joe: Okay, so basically, uh, I can give you other examples of playing with words.

Angie: No no, I completely concede that, you just showed me, you demonstrated that to me. I honour the field you work in. It’s different to the field I work in. But I understood at some point that you tried to facilitate a meeting with those experts with another campaigner. So just to ask you again off the record. Please. Thank you.

The end.

So what, if anything, does this add to the discussion surrounding the Hampstead SRA hoax? Your answers on a postcard, please.