UK Column reporting of Hampstead hoax was bent from the start

Yesterday we discussed Brian Gerrish’s early involvement in the Hampstead SRA hoax. As we noted, Gerrish’s story has shifted slightly over time: in March 2015 when he first began reporting the story, he claimed to have interviewed Abraham Christie and Ella Draper, but about a week ago on his UK Column broadcast, he admitted that he had interviewed Child Q, though not Child P.

Looking at that first UK Column report about Hampstead, the falsehoods, inventions, and half-truths are truly striking. How lucky for us, then, that part way through the report Gerrish put up this convenient check-list, summarising his alternative version of reality:

Reading this, it’s hard to believe he’s talking about the same case. Let’s go through the lies one at a time:

1. Social Services take children within 24 hours

“Within 24 hours” of what? Within 24 hours of Abe, Ella, and the children returning to the UK? Within 24 hours of Jean-Clement Yaohirou reporting the case to police? Within 24 hours of police beginning their investigation?

While it’s true that the children were taken into care following a police ABE interview in which Child P stated that Abraham had physically abused both her and her brother, this occurred on 11 September 2014, a full week after the police had been notified of the case.

Why does Gerrish want his audience to believe that social services intervened and “took” the children before their allegations could be investigated?

2. MET Satanic Abuse Unit take no action

What “MET Satanic Abuse Unit”? While the Met does have a Sexual Offence Exploitation and Child Abuse Command, no credible evidence exists that a “Satanic Abuse Unit” exists. Officers from the Child Abuse Investigation Team (CAIT) became involved early in the case, conducting interviews with the children and making investigations of named venues, etc.

Why does Gerrish want his audience to think that there is a “Satanic Abuse Unit” which was not deployed to help the children?

3. MET police who try to help threatened by police

This is a complete fabrication. In three years of investigating this hoax from every conceivable angle, we have found nothing even hinting that police trying to help were “threatened by police”.

We are aware of ex-Met Detective John Wedger’s role in forwarding a critical email from Gerrish to his former colleagues at the Met. Mr Wedger does claim that as a whistleblower, he was subjected to various threats from his superiors, but as he had nothing to do with the Hampstead case, this is irrelevant.

Why does Gerrish want his audience to believe that certain “good cops” were foiled by “bad cops” in this case?

4. MET police try to break into home of mother and are stopped by Barrister present

This refers to the police attempt to speak to Ella on 12 February 2015 about the illegal release of the videos online. The police did not “attempt to break into” Ella’s home; they attempted to interview her.

According to evidence given during the fact-finding hearing,

On 12 February, police  officers attended at Ms Draper’s address. Her car was on the driveway. A gentleman spoke with the police through the letter box and indicated that he was the mother’s lawyer. The police explained they were there to discuss possible offences committed under s.4 of the Harassment Act 1997. They were denied entry to the property. Whilst the police were waiting for the means to secure a forced entry, three people climbed out of a first floor window, ran along the roof line of three or four houses and climbed down onto some nearby garages where they disappeared from sight.

Why does Gerrish want his audience to believe that the police might have been behaving illegally in attempting to “break into” Ella’s home? And why does he conveniently forget that Ella and Abe were fleeing possible arrest?

5. Police leak interview with children in which youngsters ‘retract’ their statements

The police did not leak the interview videos. Those appeared online courtesy of Ella, who had received them from her solicitors when she sacked them for the second time in 24 hours. They turned over her court bundle, which included the police videos; these made their way onto the internet in late February/early March 2015.

Why does Gerrish want his audience to believe that the police were attempting to stitch up Ella and Abe?

6. Physical examinations prove abuse

The physical examinations proved that the children had been physically abused a short time previously, as bruises, healing cuts and contusions, a ruptured ear drum, burns, and other signs of physical abuse were found.

As for evidence of sexual abuse, Dr Hodes’ findings of boiled down reflex anal dilatation, found in one child, and only in the knee-chest position. When Dr Hodes’ work was questioned in cross-examination, she concurred that the RAD could have been caused by Ella’s having given the children enemas.

Why does Gerrish want his audience to believe that the allegations of sexual abuse were borne out in the medical evidence?

7. Russian grandparents sidelined from caring for the children

Finally, a semi-truth! The “Russian grandparents” are Ella’s mother and father. Belinda and Sabine attempted to have the court consider them as guardians of the children, but they were refused. The grandparents live in Russia, and it would not have been feasible for them to remove the children from the country while the case was ongoing. In addition, given Ella and Abraham’s flouting of the law and family courts, there would have been a real danger of their removing the children from Ella’s parents’ care and fleeing abroad.

However, we should note that while they were giving evidence at the fact-finding hearing, the grandparents stated that they considered the allegations of cult abuse to be “total nonsense and fantasies”.

Why does Gerrish want his audience to believe that the courts turned down a sensible option, when in fact it was completely unfeasible?

8. Family courts remain secret

Cases in family court are of an intensely personal nature, as they deal with issues which families may not want publicised. In this sense, family courts may be characterised as “private”. Certainly when children are involved, one can see the importance of keeping names private.

However, the “secret courts”—a term which resonates with things like “authoritarian regimes”—are a huge bugaboo of segments of the conspiracy community in the UK, where some believe that such secrecy offers the police and judiciary an opportunity to run rough-shod over people’s rights.

Sir James Munby, president of the High Court’s Family Division, where the fact-finding hearing and later appeals were conducted, “is determined to rebut accusations that the family division operates a form of secret justice, and is in the process of introducing greater transparency. He has said: ‘We need both more people going into the family courts and more information coming out’,” according to a 2017 Guardian article.

Why does Gerrish want his audience to believe that the court system is secretive and not acting in the best interests of families?

9. Mainstream media totally silent

Of course it was, you knobhead. The mainstream media, unlike the conspiranoid “alt media”, pays attentions to things like court reporting restrictions and the illegality of publishing videos in which young children describe lurid scenes of sexual abuse. The mainstream media has at least some modicum of decency.

Why does Gerrish want his audience to believe that only UK Column would tell them the truth about this case…even after demonstrating conclusively that they would do nothing of the sort?

Lies and the Spreading of Fake Information