Angela attempts to quash truth-telling interviewee

In complete defiance of both logic and the most basic sense of self-preservation, since her Gardaí raid and interview a week and a half ago which left her without her tech and ended in a three-hour interview under caution, Angela Power-Disney is now doing everything she can to ensure that charges are laid against her.

Most recent case in point: the re-release (or more accurately, the reversion from “private” to “public” of a number of videos in which she (guess what!) harasses RD and others in Hampstead. We cannot think why she is doing this, unless it’s to ensure that the DPP has plenty with which to charge her when the time comes.

However, will we pass up an opportunity to show our gal in action? We most certainly will not.

Longer-time readers will recall this interview from February 2018, but given what we now know about the constitution of the “Original Dirty 30” who initiated the Hampstead SRA hoax, we found it useful to re-cover some of this old ground.

This is an “interview”…well, you can’t really call it that. More of an “ask a question and then drown the person out in contradictions if you don’t like the answer they give”, really. The unlucky victim is a person local to Angela, who she believed might have some “intel” which corroborated her own delusions beliefs about the Hampstead hoax. Let’s listen in:

Angela: I’m going to recap for you what I understood from our last visit, I’m going to write down corrections and clarifications. So just for anybody not familiar, I’ve worked for three years now on the Hampstead case. And I’ve worked from the perspective of a survivor, and somebody with a very high level of discernment for disclosures by children. I flagged before I ever met Joe that I had concerns about approximately 20% of the content of the disclosure videos, of which I’ve seen about 35, and still have, or maybe not. But I had radar going off that 80% of what these children were disclosing was true.

Woah! Hold on, there were 35 videos? News to us, but do go on.

Joe is a world-renowned expert on parental alienation. He’s also done research projects on things like piranha parenting, Project Violent Mouse, and so on and so forth. And we’ve come together in an unlikely way, and what I want to recap is what I understand from my last 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.

That’s one way to put it. Another would be “Ella and Abe conspired with a group of UK- and Ireland-based conspiranoids to create a hoax which would destroy the life of Ella’s ex-partner, deprive him of access to his children, and settle a few scores with people in Hampstead”.

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, yeah, Russian drug cartel in London, child porn, snuff movies, and a paedophile ring operating.

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, 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.

Her plan also was to get the children to safety in Russia, and basically 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 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.

Oh, did we not warn you? Angela’s idea of conducting an interview is to natter on for half the video, and then finally, maybe, let her victim…er, interviewee get a few words in edgewise.

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. On his evaluation of the videos, he noted some very crucial evidence, one of which was the fingernail length of the children varied to such an extent that it gave a lie to the narrative that the testimonies were taken over a three-week period.

There was a month in Morocco, where the children originally disclosed, allegedly, and then about, hmm, not very long at all in London. So we’re talking maximum five-week disclosure period, but according to Joe’s analysis, the fingernail growth of the children indicates that it took place more likely about three months.

Also, there’s evidence allegedly,. and this is just intel I’ve taken from Joe, that the children were featuring in child pornography whilst in the custody of the mother and her new boyfriend, and this is based on the t-shirt, and marks on the t-shirt, the dress, the clothing the children were wearing, at the same time as they were producing disclosure videos, allegedly in safety, away from the paedophile ring.

Angela. “Child porn” or “child pornography” sounds like something in which children might participate willingly and with consent. Children cannot give consent to their own abuse. These days we don’t say “child porn” any longer; it’s “commercial child sex abuse” or “child sex abuse videos”. One might think that an alleged survivor might be aware of this.

Footage also showed up on the dark web of child pornography featuring the children in the exact same clothing with the exact same mark on the exact same t-shirt at the same time. So this indicates that some form of not only abuse, but filmed and disseminated abuse was taking place whilst the children were in the sole custody of the mother and her boyfriend.

The other thing that was referred to was the mother’s involvement with a group called Glorias’ Children, which I’ve since started to investigate, and it’s been suggested to me that this is a support group of mothers who’ve had their children stolen from them by the state, after they’ve reported paedophilia by their partners. And the Gloria could possibly be Gloria Musa, the case of I think it was an African lady, couple, who had six or seven children taken from them in the UK. And with which the McKenzie Friends were heavily involved.

Yes, because there’s only one mum in the world called Gloria. Brilliant deduction there.

Just personally, I am distancing, severing ties wth the McKenzie Friends, having been contacted by children’ home survivors and having been shown evidence that the MKF…there are too many paedophiles around them for me to write it off as targeting, and there’s Roger…I’m not sure on the names, I’ve got them in my notes, Gleaver, there’s Terence Ewing, there are major paedophiles around the MKF.

There’s also the fact that John Hemming  one of the major sponsors was accused of abuse by Esther Baker. I haven’t heard her testimony about Hemming, but I have seen the Australian 60 minutes documentary, Lords Spies and something else, superb documentary, and I find Esther Baker’s testimony in that regard absolutely credible, and not just that I can corroborate, because I believe one of my abusers in a military paedophile ring was Lord Bramall, whom Esther also cited.

Again, brilliant journalistic work there. Because Angie found an Australian documentary, the name of which she cannot recall, “superb” (i.e. it echoed her own twisted beliefs), Esther Baker’s allegations must also be true. Oh, and it’s “Gleaves”, you ninny.

So there’s that, and I have to say that in my work, I was saying to Joe that I have a radar of discernment when listening to the testimony of children or old people. And the next level of discernment I would claim would be children’s home survivors from the 60s, 70s, 80s, in the UK especially, I’ve done my work. So my feeling, sadly now, is that Belinda McKenzie is showing up more like an Esther Rantzen gatekeeper. And that rightly or wrongly, I think that Peter Hofschröer—I know that whistle-blowers can be framed, but 38,000 child porn images on his technology since 1998. that doesn’t come across to me like a frame-up.

And similarly, Norman Scarth, when I expressed to him on an email link group that I could not throw my weight behind Peter Hofschröer given the history and volume of child pornography on his computers, Norman tried to make a case to me that that had nothing to do with his mother, and the veracity of other areas of his defence, and sorry, I believe he’s been ripped off with family inheritances and so on and so forth, but you will never find me throwing my weight behind somebody who has a child pornography problem, So I also was contacted by a survivor who went and stayed with Norman Scarth, y’know, in his capacity as a MKF, to be given assistance, and was brutally abused. To the point where he still has physical injuries and is in fear and is in hiding, really.

So we’ve got Norman Scarth, we’ve got Peter Hofschröer, we’ve got Terence Ewing, we’ve got by association Roger Gleave or whatever his name is, there are too many paedophiles around the McKenzie Friends for me to associate myself further, and I’m sorry to those who’ve been horrified at me defending them. And I’m always open to being wrong, but I’m just saying this is a bridge too far, and a very gracious children’s home survivor/victim went through it with me.

I contacted him and said why have you removed me from such and such group, and he said because of your association with the McKenzie Friends, and I said can you tell me more, and he did. So I really honour that kind of thing where if somebody’s got a problem with you, come to me! This is what I say. Because of fake news and character assassination and smearing and so on, if you hear something, please, just put it on the table, I’m completely open. And this is what happened, and I conceded that my loyalty had been misplaced. In my opinion. I still might be wrong.

Sadly I’ve also held out [redacted due to case being sub judice]. She’s been arrested eight times, she’s on bail, she’s gagged, like Robert Green you know, she’s lifetime gagged, and she’s 73, she’s disabled, she’s traumatized and so on. But why was it bleached from the records that Terence Ewing had been a McKenzie Friend, why did Belinda tell me that she wasn’t the founder of McKenzie Friends, it was another man whose name just coincidentally was McKenzie, and blah blah blah, you know, why…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 have…I think I get hacked and I get footage removed, but it’s possible I could still find it.

No, no, don’t bother on our account. Really.

But I have footage of a little green light going into a 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. Now, I don’t think that was the same as demonic orb activity, I think that was actually a drone. I think that was a surveillance drone. And I think when MI6 or MI5 or whoever it might have been realised they were being filmed, they hotfooted it out of there.

I know there are tunnels under Belinda’s home, I know I’ve looked into the Iran thing and I’m horrified at that whole angle of things. I’m not interested in throwing Belinda under the bus, she may have some genuine….I’m just, I’m sorry, mene mene tekel upharsin, weighed in the scales and found wanting. I can no longer stand behind Belinda…. And John Hemming and Norman Scarth and Peter Hofschröer and so on and so forth.

So I’m just trying to think if there’s anything else that Joe told me, which I have not relayed or which….

Oh, right, wasn’t she supposed to be interviewing someone here?

The one thing was the fingernails, the other thing, oh, Gloria’s children, which may or may not be the Musa case, which I can look into further, but that could be not some malicious father-framing y’know witch thing, it might be genuinely the likes of Vicky Haigh, Anna (sic) Greig, and so I completely believe Hollie Greig as well. I completely believe the sincerity of Robert Green as well. I’m not saying I’m an expert, I am quite qualified in a lot of areas, but what I’m encouraging people to do is use your own discretion.

The other understanding I have from my last meeting with Joe was that 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 fingernail differences and the appearance on child pornography sites of the children in the same clothes as apparently when they were allegedly disclosing.

But my understanding from Joe is that he 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. I wouldn’t call it at that stage smelling a rat, but his radar kicked in and said no no, that’s bullshit, I don’t accept those answers they’re not what I was asking, they’re not satisfactory. So 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 based in America and allegedly flown over from America to continue the investigation. Is there anything I’ve left out?

Hold onto your hats, Angela is actually going to let her interviewee speak:

Joe: That’s basically that.

Angela: Right

Joe: The thing is, I’m going to try to pick my brain as far as I remember. This whole thing has got a long run, and very few people know it. Okay. As far as I remember, Draper and…what’s the name?

Angela: Christie

Joe: Uh?

Angela: The boyfriend is Abraham Christie.

Joe: No, uh…

Angela: The father is RD.

Joe: Yeah. Okay. Ella and RD met each other about 2002, 2003. Now they had a relationship. Second thing is, they broke up around three years later, around 2006 they broke up. Six years after that, no contact between father and the children.

Angela: No, that’s not accurate.

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

Angela: Oh, she frustrated it, yeah, I accept that.

Joe: Okay.

Angela: But he had contact, he didn’t really…around I think it was 2010 he voluntarily relinquished contact and went to America.

Joe: Because he…

Angela: She had frustrated contact.

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

Angela: Okay, okay, carry on.

Joe: But in the process it became clear that he is going to win. It became clear from court documents, evidence, etc., that with the development worldwide in recognising pathogenic parenting, it was clear that at the end, the children will go to him. And so at that stage, Ella started a campaign of indoctrinating the children, with initial abuse allegations that apparently happened during a short contact, a contact that was a few minutes long, but the abuse, according to the evidence, would have needed at least a few hours. So that was the first. Then she realised she made a mistake. Then I think it was around 2014, February, March, April, May 2014. Around then, Ricky had contact with the children for the first since October 2013.

Oh dear. This might not have been the story Angela wished to hear.

Angela: Yeah, he took a year off, he went to America.

Joe: Yeah, I can’t remember very well. After a period of involvement by the London Borough of Camden, they started assisting, so he had a little bit of contact again.

Angela: Once every two weeks for eight hours on a Saturday.

Joe: Now it was at about that stage when Ella Draper met…what was the name?

Angela: Abraham Christie, yeah…May 2014 she met him.

Joe: Yes, Mr Christie. Around that time. In June 2014, there was evidence that things started going very ugly, very ugly. Now Mr Christie, as far as I remember, has family members that are members of the British police.

Angela: Yeah, he has a brother-in-law who’s a special constable. Jean-Clement Yaohirou.

Joe. Now that is as far as I roughly remember. And I think it was also in that time, June, July, August, September…

Angela: August they spent in Morocco. [talks over Joe] 2014. August, they went for a month.

Joe: But he then contacted his family member to say…

Angela: On return he went to Jean-Clement.

J: Okay. Yeah, they were in Gibraltar and Morocco as far as I remember. I cannot…you see, I have deleted all my notes and files. I have to talk about from the little bit of memory that I have. Which is very little. Okay, so sorry, please forgive me if I can’t remember things properly any more. So then, it was also in 2014, yes, November 2014, November 2014, Ella Draper’s legal team told her, “We can see through everything”. As a matter of fact, they used the modified American Prosecutors Research Institute’s questionnaire. The modifications was done by us to add more things. And after doing that, after completing that questionnaire, the legal team decided…

A: Resigned.

J: …we’re gone. Because this woman is lying. That caused quite a bit of trouble, there was apparently attempts against…er, claims against the legal team and blah blah blah blah blah. But that is far as I remember in 2014.

A: Okay, just for factual purposes to ground this, can you remember when you were contacted by Scotland Yard…

J: I can’t remember the dates any more. That was in ’16, I think, yeah.

A: 2016.

Does Angela, brilliant journalist that she is, stop to investigate this very interesting piece of information? She does not.

So we’ll do it for her. We would very much like to know why the police would be asking an expert in parental alienation to consult on this case a year after the fact-finding judgment was released, and two years after the police investigation had been concluded.

Was a new investigation undertaken? Were the police looking at the case with a view to laying charges against Abe and Ella? What, exactly was going on?

Joe: (A interrupts, J stops her) Now in 2015, it was around 2014, 2015, when the first videos and allegations surfaced. And it was done in a subtle way, so that it was a limited audience, a limited audience of so-called experts so-called trustworthy people, and so…

Angela: I’ll give you the information I have on that. In August the children disclosed, August 2014. In September assistance was sought with Jean-Clement, a legal team, Brian Gerrish, Bill Maloney…and then in November [the videos] were released in Russia (J tries to interrupt) Let me just say this, Joe, before I…let me just finish this. The first release was in Russia which is interesting, because Ella is Russian. The second release was on the dark web, which was discovered by a Welsh campaigner, researching for other purposes on a different case he was working on. He came across some of the children’s disclosure videos on the dark web, and he released them. The third disclosure was an accidental, quote-unquote, cc copy to Theresa May which resulted in them being released in February 2015. So there were three levels of release, from November, December, February. of 2015.

J0e: Yeah, no. Hang on, ah-ah-ah-ah. It wasn’t December, it was earlier.

Angela: (loudly) February 2015 was when they went viral, that’s when 80 million people saw them. But they had previously been released in November 2014…

Joe: No, before that.

Angela: Really!

Joe: Yes.

Angela: They were only disclosed in August 2014. So what is the earliest they…

Joe: August 2014…

Angela: ….were the disclosures in Morocco.

Joe: Ah, it’s around there that…August 2014…I think it is August 2014.

Angela: And the disclosures to Jean-Clement were September 2014. And he passed them straight to Scotland Yard.

Joe: Yeah, yeah, he passed them to Scotland Yard, and he was very worried.

Angela: Yes he was. And also at the same time, Araya, who was an ex-girlfriend of Abraham Christie and a new best friend of Ella, she tried to take them to Brenda McNamara, who’s been campaigning since the 60s, and she tried to get them to Bill Maloney, and Jon Wedger was involved at some point, and Brian Gerrish, and they also felt like something’s not right here, and they found themselves on the way to the police. So it started to be disclosed and disseminated from September 2014.

Joe: In September ’14, as far as I remember, was the first investigation that started.

Angela: Yeah, it lasted five days.

Joe: I can’t remember how long it was, but it was very cleverly done, the investigation. What the children said, “and the priest, he went and put things in the drawer, and blah blah blah”, and [the police] took a piece of paper and said, “Okay now, draw what you could see”, and all that evidence was collected and put ready. Then, they took police, independent people, and the kids, and they travelled to the different places. And NO WAY could it be possible that said evidence was, could be true. Like for instance, let’s say “drawer”. There was placement of drawers. And the children could remember it perfectly. But then it turned out the drawers didn’t exist. But what came out two years later was quite interesting. Where the boyfriend served as a server, the drawers were exactly the same.

Angela: In a restaurant?

Joe: No, in a rectory. So he did see and he actually explained to the children…

Angela: The boy was an altar boy…? You mean in his childhood?

Joe: Something like that. I confirmed that…

Joe is going seriously off-script here. The last thing that Angela wants to hear is that the drawers in the alleged “Satanic” church were a product of Abraham Christie’s youth as an altar boy. So in typical Angie fashion…

Angela: Okay, let me just tell you the intelligence I have regarding that. And I have some really good intelligence and the people I got it from have had death threats and chaos since they disclosed this. One is that the…and this is documented…even as the children came in to give their video testimonies, the police, those that were involved, were alerted. Now the people are on record saying, “Yeah, they’re here being interviewed right now”. Many of the alleged abusers including the headmistress of the school and maybe even the priest and so on, they were called into a strategy meeting by social services, social services took the children, then they had an emergency care meeting with those involved and they included alleged abusers. Also, the search of the church sacristy and the description the children had given did not take place between when the information came out that oh my God these children have disclosed, they’ve gone to the police…

Joe: It was exactly seven days.

Angela: [who had previously insisted that it was five days] Okay, good. In that seven days, I have testimony, video testimony from a local resident who filmed, he went down to the school, he’s a documentary maker, he’s made films for BBC, News Night, he’s a well-renowned, very successful filmmaker.He went down to the school and he filmed them blocking up tunnels from the school to the church, he filmed them cleaning up in that few days between wen they knew that the gig was up and when they got checked. 

By the end of this, Angela is literally shouting Joe down, as he tries to interrupt her with, you know, facts.

Joe: He published said things in ’15-’16. And then, architectural experts went to see. And they could not find, they even went as far as taking samples of (robolt?) that invaded into the walls, that was apparently changed. And when they took, they took samples around the (robolts), they felt that that cement or concrete used around the (robolts) is at least 200 years old. So that means that if the evidence of stuff being buried or bolting and things like that, they must have access to equipment etc. to make cement and concrete equivalent of 200 years ago, which is basically impossible.

And in her usual fashion, Angela reverts to the old “false equivalence” tactic, dredging up old, debunked myths about the McMartin Preschool case:

Angela: I hear you, but I just want to refer to the McMartin case I think it was in America, where the children described tunnels and being taken from preschools into the tunnels and then onto airplanes and then flown to wherever, the Presidio or Washington or wherever, and it was completely discredited that this was false memory syndrome, that these were implanted memories in the children, and then after it was all the case collapsed, then the school was sold off, and there was demolition. And a bent FBI officer, Ted Gunderson went in and he said look, I want to buy this site off you, or I want to buy the rights to excavate before you build your multi-storey carpark or whatever you’ve got planned. And the tunnels were found exactly as the children described it. Exactly.

Joe: About tunnels as described, in the area under the church…

Angela: I know there are.

Joe: They are hundreds of years old, There is tunnels in Dublin…

Angela: I know, I know, like a village. Like a city.

Joe: Okay, now, but basically the tunnels story is there, but to make a concrete of 200 years old…

Angela: (interrupts) yeah, yeah, I understand. So let’s set that to one side, let’s set that to one side.

Again, confronted with unpleasant things like “facts” and “evidence” Angela changes the subject.

Joe: Another thing, the High Court got involved, blah blah blah …

A: They did a 12-day fact-finding mission, they were not informed about the Jean-Clement recordings, which were stored in Chingford, in Essex. [And yet the Jean-Clement recordings were quoted extensively in the judgment. Amazing, no?—Ed.] Anna Pauffley, according to her, she’s since retired, very young for a judge to retire, Anna Pauffley said she was not informed of the Jean-Clement recording, which happened to be stored in Chingford. Also she called anybody that even entertained the possibility that these children’s disclosures were true, either partially or fully, were evil and perverted or something like that. She…it was a whitewash. None of the alleged abusers were asked to present, none of them…this is the other thing I want to make clear. From my research, none of the alleged abusers were formally arrested, interviewed under caution, nor had their technology confiscated. Your intelligence—this is where I’m glad you reminded me—your intelligence is that they had some random, here a laptop, there a phone, a PC, technology confiscated. I’m asking you do you have any evidence for that, or is this just the say-so…

Joe: Everything I had, I had official copies of, official documents, as well as copies of evidence of so-called witnesses. Where the big problem came out, the main problem, and I don’t think you know about this…I just think of the date…I know it was in 2015? In January 2015 I think there was a….

Angela: Shall we go outside for a cigarette?

Stunning. Just stunning.

Joe: (stutters) There was a period of … yes. In February! (they walk outside) In February of 2015…

Angela: Which is when it went viral…

Joe: The videos and everything…

Angela: They went viral.

Joe: …was discovered.

Angela: When leaked or whatever, accidentally leaked, yeah, they went viral.

Joe: And some of them was not even complete yet. You know, editing and so on.

Angela: It never was properly edited.

Joe: Now when it was…I think it was one of RD’s friends that highlighted that. Then Ella decided that they…

Angela: Highlighted what, that they weren’t properly edited?

Joe: Yeah. I know that Ella refused to appear in court, she was summonsed to appear in court, and things like that…

Angela: She fled the country, pretty soon.

Joe: Yeah. And that is when the whole thing came to a point…there’s not much changed since then.

Angela: I just need to go to the bathroom.

This signals the end of the second video.

Joe: Two words can change the complete…

Angela: They do, and when you’re talking about the public at large, the public emotionally. But when you’re talking to, and I’m not, I completely concede the point you made. But when you’re talking to a survivor with expertise in discernment and disclosures and so on and so forth, and face to face and with personal experience of you, then you’re not taking into account the next level, which is where I say the person I know would not do what I’m thinking. So there’s my thinking and then there’s my heart. So my thinking says, “Oh my God, that’s torture, that’s terrible”, my heart says, “No, that’s not true, this is not the person you know”. So there is another level, so…

Joe: (sounds upset) I didn’t lie to you! If I lied to you…

A: No, I understand, I hear your point totally, and I think that’s…

Joe: I told you the absolute truth…

Angela:(talking over him) …mass propaganda, I believe you. That’s Tavistock. That’s Tavistock. That’s Tavistock. But here’s the thing I want to drill down on now, just to close this because it’s so uncomfortable and so unpleasant, right, three more questions, right? 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….

Angela: Okay. 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: I have witnesses, witnesses….

Angela: Yeah, blah blah.

Joe: But then the date…

Angela: …doesn’t add up, yeah, yeah, so the waters were muddied instantly, almost instantly afterwards, so you don’t remember who gave you…you smelled a rat, it sounds to me like you started to analyse and investigate, and then something told you, mmm, this doesn’t smell right to me…

Joe: You see, I am an expert in rhetoric. I use rhetoric to influence now, Angela, and I actually did.

Angela: You did, you did, you did, you did…

Joe: I use rhetoric, changing just, omitting one word in the kitchen, and adding one word, toilet.

Angela: Yeah, you made your…

Joe: I didn’t lie to you! I never lied to you at all!

Angela: No, you didn’t. I get that point, and I maybe should put that on record, where the way information is presented in such a way that one adds emotional content that was not there, and then responds from that emotional…

Joe: You know what, I’ve got an idea for you. I’ve got a good idea for you. You can perhaps make a decent video. Make the video first about the person you trusted and you found out that he did this, this, and this. You tell the people, and you’ve got video evidence of him doing it, and then you put the video up of taking a brand new toilet paper roll…

Angela: No, no, it’s a good demonstration, but again, it comes back to that your expertise is the up to 20% of cases where it’s a lie, and my field of operation is up to 80% of where it’s the truth. So I completely get your expertise in the field in which you operate. The question I ask is where did the bullshit answers…because my understanding before was that you said you question after getting the videos and doing your analysis, and giving a preliminary report, you asked some pertinent questions to which you did not get satisfactory answers.

Joe: But why it’s not satisfactory what was given to me originally, and what I was presented by, not only by authority, but…

Angela: …but by witnesses.

Joe: By so-called witnesses.

Angela: 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. Are you at liberty to give me their names?

Joe: Ahhhh…preferably not.

Angela: Off the record?

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

Angela: So they’re ongoing international experts.

Joe: Yes. you can try this, that one of the names has just been published that there will be a big conference in London where she will be speaking.

Angela: Okay. So my requests to you…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.

Angela: Thank you so much.

Joe: So basically I can give you examples of playing with words…

Angela: 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 other experts with another campaigner. So I just ask you again, off the record. Please.

Joe: No.

Angela: Thank you.

Phew. That was hard slogging, but worth it to hear poor Joe tell Angela, in essence, to do one.

Again, we don’t know why she has re-posted these videos, which do her no favours in any direction: not only does her own massive narcissism shine through, but it’s very clear that Joe does not believe in the hoax, and was not willing to be brow-beaten into saying what Angela wanted him to. And good for him, say we.