Sabine McNeill on trial: Day 8

We are pleased to report that after the shenanigans on Tuesday and Wednesday, Day 8 of Sabine McNeill’s trial on 17 counts of violating a restraining order and four counts of stalking was quiet and business-like. Oh, and it started more or less on time, as well! 

Witness 2, continued

Witness 2 from yesterday continued their testimony.

In response to questions from Miranda Moore QC, prosecuting, they noted that Sabine’s various social media sites appeared to be linked in such a way that web traffic from, for example, her Twitter feed would lead to posts on other blogs, which often contained links which led back to her Whistleblower Kids site. From that site, the witness said, it was possible to freely access Sabine’s Google Drive, where one could peruse files and documents naming the “20 special children” and “named abusers”. 

Referring to Sabine’s Twitter page, the witness confirmed that on 2 December 2015 Sabine had posted a link to, where she had posted the original home-made videos of P and Q making their allegations. 

The witness confirmed that a Twitter link posted on 18 February 2017 led to a Tumblr blog page belonging to Sabine, which in turn led to the videos mentioned above. 

Asked about their knowledge of the restraining order issued against Sabine on 18 July 2016, the witness said they became aware of the terms of the order because Sabine had posted it on her Google Drive. 

“How easy was it to view what was on her Google Drive?” asked Moore. 

“Very,” the witness responded. 

“Were there any documents you could not access on the Drive?”


“And did you report the presence of the restraining order to the police?”

“Yes, I did”. 

Describing some of Sabine’s Tweets, the witness said that while they would contain descriptions of posts which had nothing to do with the Hampstead situation—a post about a Russian woman named Anastasia, for example—they would nevertheless end up back on the Whistleblower Kids site, which was set up to disseminate information about the alleged cult in Hampstead. 

“This had nothing to do with the children”, the witness said, “but it had a link to Whistleblower Kids, and it still led to the same links to her Google Drive”. 

Another example of this was a link from Sabine’s Twitter which led to her Tumblr blog, which in turn contained a link to her National Inquiry into Organised, Orchestrated & Historic Child Sexual Abuse blog. This blog post contained a link which led back to the Whistleblower Kids blog. 

On 15 November 2017, the witness confirmed, Sabine’s Google Drive contained documents detailing her own court appearance, and details of the case she now faces. These documents included the actual charge sheets, and a link to what Sabine called “a video I never, ever published, but I happen to know who did”. The documents also contained references to stalking various Hampstead parents, and contained the names of the witness and their child, among others.

The witness described other links which they had submitted in evidence, including a YouTube video interview conducted with Neelu Berry in which Sabine discussed the key points of the case with Neelu. 

Video: Sabine and Alfred Lambremont Webre

The jury heard the first seven minutes of Sabine’s YouTube video interview with Alfred Lambremont Webre, in which Sabine stated that on Wednesday of that week she had decided to leave London and go to Germany.

“The local authority has taken [Ella’s] children into care and is planning a prosecution against me”, she said. “My ‘crime’ is that I published the videos of P and Q”. 

“The authorities are concerned because you ruined their cover-up”, Webre said. 

Agreeing that this was an excellent way to describe the situation, Sabine said she had made an ultimatum to the LA: “Either you return the children or we expose”. She said she wrote an email containing the home-made videos of P and Q to then-Home Secretary Theresa May, and advised another blogger of this; he published the link.

Sabine told Webre that the release of this letter and the videos was inadvertent and unplanned. 

Moore asked the witness to describe the impact of the Hampstead hoax on their health. The witness said that after it had started, they had lost 10% of their body weight, and that they had had bleeding when going to the toilet. 

“I was afraid I had bowel cancer”, they said. “But it’s because I wasn’t eating, I wasn’t sleeping. I was living on cigarettes and coffee”. 

They said they had moved away from the area, and had begun to check outside their door every time their child wanted to to outside. They had tried to conceal the issue from their child, but said that some information did trickle down from their child’s friends at school. 

Witness 2, cross-examination

In cross-examination, Tana Adkin QC asked about the witness’s first knowledge of the information about them online. Specifically, she asked whether Aangirfan is a blog. The witness said they were not certain how it would be categorised, but that it probably is a blog. 

Adkin asked whether the videos of P and Q is where it all began. The witness said, “That’s what I saw first”. 

Asking about the class contact list, Adkin asked, “You first saw it on Pastebin?” 

“It was all over the internet”, the witness responded. 

Adkin asked about the witness’s comment from yesterday, in which they said that the plan regarding the bloody Barbie dolls was removed from the petition following a commenter’s stating that it was “criminal”. 

“At first when I saw the link, I sent the link to the police”, the witness said. “After, they asked me about it, and I went back and it had changed. I thought that this was in relation to the ‘criminal’ comment”. 

Adkin asked the witness whether, in the video with Neelu and Sabine, Sabine had actually used the word “kidnap” in relation to the named children. The witness responded that they had been concerned about the “wide description”, and said that they would have to review the video as they could not say exactly who had said it.

Adkin noted that yesterday the witness had said that they had stopped checking for evidence online following Sabine’s remand in custody last March. The witness clarified that they had said they had stopped checking Twitter. However, they said, they had continued checking the Whistleblower Kids site to clarify the evidence they had collected for police. 

Adkin asked the witness whether, when they visited the Whistleblower Kids blog, they looked for links in the sidebar. 

“No, I look at the top”, the witness said, describing how they could hover their cursor over the “About” page on the top banner, and could then see the links to documents on Sabine’s Google Drive. 

Adkin asked, “When Whistleblower Kids was accessible, could you get there by Googling ‘Sabine McNeill’ and ‘whistle-blower kids’?” The witness said that they could. 

Witness 3

The second witness of the day was Ms Stevens, who formerly worked for the Churches’ Child Protection Advisory Service (CCPAS). She described this as an independent Christian charity that provides help with safeguarding children, and helps adults who have been affected by child abuse. 

CCPAS runs a helpline service, Stevens said. 

“Is the service easily accessible?” Moore asked. 

Stevens said it is, noting that many other organisations display the CCPAS helpline number on their own sites. 

She said that last spring a male had called the helpline while she was on duty. 

“He called to see if we could help someone in distress”, she said. Stevens told the man that they could, and that the lady was free to contact the helpline. However the man called back later, and asked Stevens whether she could call the lady, who was having trouble getting through to the CCPAS line. 

Moore asked whether it was normal for their helpline to be difficult to access. Stevens said that on the contrary, the organisation has three phone lines, and it had not been busy the night she received the call.

She said the man had provided a phone number and had asked Stevens to call it. She did, and spoke to a woman she identified today as Sabine McNeill. 

Moore asked whether Stevens kept a record of the call. Stevens said she had. 

Stevens said she had written to Annette Gordon, safeguarding officer at the Diocese of London. In it, she said she had received a call from Sabine, who was happy for Stevens to share this information with her. Sabine had told Stevens that in her role working with families, she had come across a couple of children who spoke of abuse, and named the perpetrators. She named certain people and said that Christ Church Hampstead had been involved. She also noted that she had been to Church House during the Church of England Synod.

Stevens told Gordon that she had told Sabine that there were people available to discuss this at the Diocese; by this, she meant Gordon and her colleague Margaret. Stevens said she had given Sabine this information, but Sabine had said she couldn’t email them. However, she was happy to have them contact her. 

This concluded her conversation with Sabine, Stevens said. She said that Gordon had called her back and said that it was her job to contact the police. 

In cross-examination, Adkin asked Stevens whether the CCPAS helpline is private. Stevens confirmed that it is a confidential service. However, she said, “If a named person represents a risk, then we cannot guarantee confidentiality”.

“When you discovered what Sabine wanted, did you say you would pass it on?” Adkin asked. 

“She said she would consent for me to pass it on to Annette”, Stevens said. 

Asked whether the man who had called was named Julian Whiting, Stevens said that was correct. 

Witness 4

Following an adjournment for lunch, Witness 4 was sworn in.

Moore asked whether the 11-page “Mass Child Sex Abuse” document had contained the witness’s address, email, phone number, nanny’s name, and child’s name. The witness said this was correct. 

The witness said that they had not known Ella Draper, though they had been aware that P was in their son’s class at school. They said they had never had any interaction with RD, nor with Abraham Christie. 

Asked how their details had made their way into the 11-page document, the witness said that they recognised the list of accused parents in that document, as it was identical to the class list which had been issued the previous year by the class rep. They said they recognised the list because it contained an error, listing the witness’s old childcare provider rather than their current one. 

Asked whether they were aware that P and Q had not returned to Christ Church Primary School for the 2014–2015 school year, the witness said they had not really noticed, though they had heard something from their child about a child who didn’t come back after the holidays. 

Like three other witnesses, this one said they had received an email from the head of the school on 5 February 2015. The email said something like “unpleasant allegations” had been made, and had been investigated by police. However, the email contained no details of what those allegations were. 

The witness said they had been at work when they received the email, but had looked online briefly, and seen the videos of P and Q. However, because they were at work they could not listen to them right then; nor could they spend much time looking. 

Later, they said, they had seen the “horrendous narrative” involving killing babies, cooking them at McDonald’s, and eating them. They found this extremely disturbing, and on further investigation found that wide-ranging allegations had been made. 

“I think I found the full allegations that evening”, the witness said. They had seen the 11-page document. Moore showed the witness a screenshot of the front page of the document, asking whether it had been laid out like this. The witness said they weren’t sure, but the content appeared similar. 

They described their shock on seeing this material, and said their first reaction was to call their spouse. Then they called the school, the police, and Camden Council, in an effort to find out what was happening. 

“As the volume of material became evident, it was deeply concerning”, the witness said. “It got bigger and bigger, and just became overwhelming”. 

The witness said they attended Christ Church Hampstead at that time, and that they had been present during the demonstrations outside the church. 

They described finding the petition, and its “Hampstead horror plan” to send dolls covered in red nail polish to various people, with tags linking to the Whistleblower Kids site. Describing this as an example of the odd, bizarre nature of the hoax, the witness said they had felt rather sick when they discovered the plan. 

At around this time, they said, they became aware of the Whistleblower Kids site. They became aware of Sabine McNeill within the first day or two after receiving the school email. 

“I was deeply concerned”, the witness said. “It felt organised to me, and it seemed frightening”. 

Looking at a screenshot of Angela Power-Disney’s 2016 video “Strategising with Sabine”, the witness recalled that there was a point in that video in which Sabine talked about “saving” the children other than P and Q. 

“This was one of the pieces which gave me the greatest fear for my child’s safety”, the witness said, adding that they had heard Sabine talking about hiring a private investigator to help find the children.

“They were talking about my child”, the witness said. “This was very devastating and worrying”. They also noted that Sabine had said that the children of those named in the 11-page document had been adopted for the purpose of abuse. “I found this offensive, and a lie”. 

Looking at the video titled “Mel Ve investigates the Hampstead Whistleblower KIds”, in which Mel Ve interviewed Sabine, Sabine described Ella Draper phoning her and sending her the 11-page document. She described the videos on her Google Drive.

The witness talked about a screenshot which they had sent to the police. It showed a video urging people to share and donate to GoFundMe in order to bring Rupert Quaintance to the UK. 

The witness came across a video by Angela Power-Disney in which she was interviewing Quaintance. The witness said they found Quaintance bullying and aggressive, and said they were appalled that he would be coming to Hampstead, where he talked about doing things like kicking in doors, taking blood, and having sex with children. 

“At first I didn’t know if it was just bravado”, the witness said. “When I realised he was coming, I was afraid”. 

On the GoFundMe page, Sabine had donated US$20, and had left the comment, “I truly look forward to your London activities”. 

Moore asked the witness about a screenshot of Ella’s “witness statement” which was available from Sabine’s Dropbox, dated 14 November 2014. “Did you have to enter a password to see that document?”

The witness said, “It was freely available to access via a number of links. There were no restrictions”. 

“When you wrote your witness statement (dated 25 January 2017) was the Dropbox containing this document still active and available?” Moore asked. 

The witness said it was. 

The witness verified that they had provided police with a document from dated 26 December 2014, which they had become aware of after the allegations had been made in February 2015. 

from Hoaxtead Research archives

The post stated in part, “Do contact me if you want to help with exposure, exposure, exposure in North London”. 

Another screenshot which the witness had sent in their witness statement had been posted on 2 January 2015, and contained a link to a petition called “Return the Whistleblower Kids to their Russian Mother”. 

The witness said that they realised that this thing was not just going to blow over, and said they’d realised that it had taken some groundwork to prepare. 

Referring to another post from Sabine dated 2 February 2015, the witness noted that it read in part, “The mother has made it clear that exposure is the only way forward”. 

The witness described excerpts from an ebook which Sabine had written, in which she stated in part, 

What took place thanks to making one link available via my email to the Home Secretary was nothing short of a miracle.
I recorded some of it on 
Social Media: Blogs, Videos, Interviews, Articles, Forum Discussions, Twitter
After Google deleted my videos, I eventually put together

 And last but not least, The TAP NewsWire who broke the news with my email to the Home Secretary, and Aangirfan who always finds the most miraculous links and connections and branded the case the ‘Hampstead Scandal‘.

Since YouTube deleted all those testimony videos, and keeps doing so, to its unending shame, I have now collated them all on, and in time I will organise them into albums, rather than have one long string of them.

The witness described Sabine’s video of herself speaking at an EU meeting, titled “My Nine Minutes”. This was a formal presentation at the EU Commission, concerning some content linked to slides Sabine put up on 

“I was concerned that she was at an official meeting, presenting something which I knew to be untrue”, the witness said. 

Asked about the impact of the hoax on their professional life, the witness said that their ability to work had been affected. Emails had been directed to their staff, attacks had been made on their company’s website, emails had been sent to their industry about them, and their ability to interact with their clients had been impaired. 

“As a result, business has declined”, the witness said. “At present, we have no live clients”. 

Their personal life, too, has suffered. “My child is my biggest priority”, the witness said. “I’m very afraid that somebody might try to abduct [them]”. 

They described being fearful : “We had to change the way we operated as a family. We moved twice; we felt we were not safe in the community, and we were afraid of people coming to the house”. They said that one day a drone had appeared over the school playground. This and other incidents made them more fearful.

They said they had become very anxious and found it hard to sleep, that they were always looking online and working out exit plans “just in case”. Describing it as a “life-changing situation”, they said they had to monitor their child constantly.

On cross-examination, Adkin asked the witness whether they had attended the meeting with the other parents, as some of the other witnesses had done. The witness said they had not. However, they had attended a meeting at the school. 

Adkin asked when the phone calls had started; the witness said this had been within the first week after they were originally contacted. They were anonymous calls, and that they had reported them to police. One such call ended with the words, “Expect us”, which the witness took to mean that the caller was somehow related to the online group “Anonymous”. 

Adkin asked whether the caller had specified that they were with Anonymous, and the witness explained that no, it was just the use of that phrase, which is associated with Anonymous, had made them think that the caller might be part of that group. 

Asked about emails, the witness said these had started a bit later. They included long abusive rants from someone calling themselves Drifloud; offensive emails suggesting that the witness get together with the sender for certain sexual activities; and emails sent to the witness’s staff. 

“They came in bursts”, the witness said. Some came from a blog called Hampstead Research, run by a woman using the name Jacqui Farmer, who was an associate of Sabine’s. 

Adkin asked the witness how they knew that Farmer was an associate of Sabine’s; the witness said that they commented on one another’s material. 

On re-examination, Mr Stott asked the witness which country Angela Power-Disney currently resides in. The witness said she is in Ireland. 

Regarding Jacqui Farmer, Stott said that Farmer and Sabine not only commented on one another’s posts, but that they had linked to one another’s material online. 

HHJ Sally Cahill QC asked the witness whether they had known the other witnesses prior to these events. The witness said there had not been much interaction between them, and that they had really only gone to the school on Fridays for pick-ups . While they had been aware of the other witnesses, they had not known them well. 

“As we went through this, we got to know one another”, they said. 

Witness 5

Michael Scott took the witness box, stating that he is a computer forensic analyst with 20+ years’ experience. 

He described his business as a consulting specialist in forensic computer services to legal and law enforcement clients and stated that he worked on computers provided by police, but looked for evidence for both sides in legal situations. He said he puts forth evidence which might be useful to either party. 

Moore asked whether Scott was asked to look at several computers, Facebook, Twitter, a Google Drive, websites in part, to see how they worked in conjunction with one another”. Scott said this was the case. 

“Did you understand that the computer or image of the computer came from Sabine McNeill?” Moore asked. Scott said he had. 

He explained that in his work, an “image” is an exact copy of a computer at that moment in time, so that people can look at this and, using the same technique he uses, get the same results.

Moore said that Scott had been asked to look into Sabine’s Whistleblower Kids site in March 2018. “By the time you got to the Whistleblower Kids site, was it there?”

Scott said it was not online, as the blog’s hosting fees had not been paid. 

Scott described the internet archive’s Wayback Machine as a way of looking at sites as they were at a specific time, and at various times over the years. 

For example, he could see from the Wayback Machine that the Whistleblower Kids site had last been online in February 2018—this was the last time the Wayback Machine had sent bots to crawl the site. 

Describing how he navigated from the Wayback Machine’s version of the blog to the 77-page police report, Scott said he had put in some keywords to look for material which might be of use. “We took it to the Google Drive account. Because this was the Wayback Machine, the link didn’t automatically go to the Google Drive account, though”. Even though the link was active, he said, clicking on it from the Wayback Machine version of the blog would not bring up the Google Drive. 

“It would be live, but you couldn’t get at it”, he said. “All the links on the Wayback Machine are slightly changed. They have some Wayback Machine code, but if you utilise the link without the code, you can get to the right place”. 

Because the site was down by the time Scott looked at it, the Wayback Machine was the only route available to look at it. 

Moore asked, “When you did (take the extra code out of the link), you got into the Google Drive, where you found a large number of folders and documents. You did not need a password to access this. Were you asked to identify any folders uploaded after 18 July 2018?”

Scott said there were 16 subfolders and 119 files contained within them. He was tasked with looking for anything created, uploaded, or edited after 18 July 2016, the date of the restraining order. 

“And did you discover any?” Moore asked. Scott said he had. 

He said 19 files had been added to the Drive after the date. Files 1–15 had been uploaded on 23 July 2016. 

He said that all these files had been videos of P and Q. On 8 October 2016, Scott said a file had been uploaded called “Cult details”. In the document, Sabine explained that she had reformatted it to make the parents’ and children’s names more easily seen. 

A file containing Ham & High articles had been uploaded on 5 May 2017, and had been modified a minute later. Scott said this could reflect that the file had been downloaded and then very quickly modified, or this could simply reflect the amount of time taken to download. 

He described what a “metadata author” is: “You can have data carried in the document itself. When we look inside a file we notice that the metadata indicates the author of that file”. Whether this reflects the computer from which the file was uploaded, or the owner of the software used, “all that can be said is that the author of the file is ‘Sabine’ or ‘Sabine McNeill'”

As it was now past 4:00 p.m., Judge Cahill adjourned for the day, and asked Mr Scott to return tomorrow morning to finish giving evidence. 

67 thoughts on “Sabine McNeill on trial: Day 8

  1. Restraining order, restraining order
    She took out a restraining order on me
    And I sang as I sat there
    Watching how the bunny boiled
    Who’ll place a restraining order on me?

    Liked by 3 people

  2. You must have taken extensive notes today! Thank you. What an excellent post on the events of today in Court.
    These posts really do show people just how this hoax has affected the witnesses. Do the hoaxers care? Do they heck!

    For instance, Angela is still all over social media being interviewed by every idiot who will have her.
    Watching her spewing her venom and lies at every given opportunity makes me so angry. 😡

    Liked by 3 people

  3. I am glad the Satan Hunters have been tamed for now, I had half-expected an attempted abduction of EC.

    We all now see clearly what false SRA allegations do to innocent people when they are made against them.

    Hoaxtead is the principle source of reporting on this case, and the quality of reporting is excellent. Well done.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Firstly, great detailed, accurate reporting EC
      Well done!

      This is a massive piece of work and you should be commended for this
      The MSM could learn a thing or two from your measured, non-sensational tone.

      Secondly it is absolutely heartbreaking hearing from victims of the hoax regarding the traumas and horrors they and their children have and to endure as a result of the hoaxers. I would like to express myself more fully about this but will have to wait until the case is over.

      Thirdly, in the above video Mr Devine appears to be enjoying smoking cannabis while in the presence of children. I am horrified by this. If he wants to smoke cannabis away from children I couldn’t care less but smoking any kind of drug, including tobacco, around children is harmful to them and speaks volumes about Devine’s lack of concern for the welfare of children. Disgusting behaviour.

      Liked by 4 people

  4. I have a genuine question; where is the involvement of Brian Rothery and Darren Chesters in all this? They are the ones who put me in contact with Sabine and Belinda and within days I realised they were all nutters; but they posted false info about me..anyone else know about this? (I believe Brian Rothery was posting Sabine’s videos for her)


  5. Excellent reporting EC. God Bless your note taking skills. I used to do shorthand back in the day & loved it but have forgotten more than I ever learned at this stage so fair play to you for taking such brilliant notes. More disturbing testimony from witnesses. They certainly have had a very challenging few years. I do feel for them.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thanks, Lucca–I think we all feel for them. It must have been incredibly stressful, and judging from the activities around the court this past week, it hasn’t stopped.


      • There’s nothing junk about sainsbury’s fishfingers and happy shopper oven chips. the queen eats that stuff when she’s at home and doesn’t need to eat foreign muck with visiting dignitories and ambassadors munching Ferrari roshay by the platterload.

        Liked by 1 person

    • @Grobnob

      Look here, mate – I have an extremely serious question for you and I want you to think carefully before you answer…

      Were they mushy peas or garden peas?

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Some important points being made in this case in respect of the witness who says business has declined is a prime example of how destructive Internet campaigns can be and of how victims can have little recourse which is so unfair.

    Fortunately I’m now too old to care about business but I have a much younger friend who has been the victim of an internet campaign – although not nearly as insidious as the Hampstead case- in which their business gradually declined and vanished after dedicated online abuse even though others knew it to be false.

    But the problem was: others who worked with them found that even defending the innocent person became time consuming and risked drawing them into the matter and consuming their valuable time quite apart from the fact they may also become a target.

    There is also a human element: perhaps you really did do something to warrant these attacks even if they are unfair.

    With the state of the world today – we are all so easily replaceable in business or a job with 100s ( even robot machines) waiting to take your place- people can decide to just cut links even though they know it’s unfair.

    The vast majority of those who conduct these campaigns or help kick them along really are “basement dwellers”, on the dole, unemployed and so on or people attempting to make a living from the net no matter how they do it (Thomas Dunn).

    Recall the Australian TV personality Charlotte Dawson who killed herself in 2014. She became the victim of a quite nasty “viral” twitter campaign. She decided, with the help of a tabloid TV show, to confront her “trolls” against advice from experts.
    She found them to be basically as I describe but actually began to feel a bit sorry for them. She had obvious mental health problems but meeting her little band of trolls just increased her depression as she spoke of how such “insignificant” individuals who had never met her, knew little about her but decided to target her,could affect her life so deeply.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Yes, I agree. I think expecting empathy from any of the people who’ve promoted the hoax is like expecting blood from a stone. I don’t know why this is, but it’s something I’ve noticed a great deal while sitting in the halls. Their “theories” seem to mean much more to them than the lives of others.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Not having a single live client when you have staff to pay does not sound good. Similarly, thinking you have bowel cancer because you are passing blood is scary. It is awful to be accused of something that is not true. having your whole world torn apart and made unsafe by people attacking you is a major trauma. Online attacks have major impact on individuals because of the reach of the internet.

    The doxxing was done by Jaqui Farmer, iirc, btw how come’s no one knows/is mentioning her real identity?
    Charlotte Ward also has a lot to answer for.

    Liked by 3 people

  8. Excellent reporting EC, once again.
    It is extremely important for everyone to hear how much this hoax and its peddlers have done to damage the lives of real people. Your reporting of this trial means that this is properly recorded as public record for anyone to see. Thank you for taking the time an effort to do it so well.
    Even with this reporting, showing in detail the misery caused, still some of these people like APD, Paterson and Thomas Dunn purposely continue to twist things around and even revel in putting out misinformation. I can only conclude that they are much less mad and very much more bad.
    Paterson stated yesterday many times that the witnesses in court had testified that they had been under threat/attack from Hoaxtead Research for years!! This is then taken as fact by idiots like Sean MacGuire and others who do not even bother to read anything.
    They just go for mantra repetitions. “MK Ultra” “its the jews” etc
    Slightly off topic of the trial but It reminds me of all this 788-790 Finchley Road shit and the secret New World Order cabal plan to take over the world and how one just has to google Gordon Bowden etc to find out, as EddieisOK also says.
    It is just lapped up as some revealed truth. No one asks to see any evidence.

    It is just one pack of grifters/scammers being followed by an even bigger pack of people who want to believe for whatever reason.
    if Gordon Bowden’s evidence is so damning that it would take down governments all over the world, what is stopping him just putting it out there for anyone to see?

    Please continue with your work EC, I really appreciate it a lot.

    PS On a less important point. Is it only me that finds it weird that Angela say “ongoingly” all the time.

    Liked by 3 people

  9. Angela is really out of the loop on a reality level. A source has informed me that a local pedophile not far from her, a real one, was given a suspended sentence in early November. It shows that she does not care as long as she has an internet presence stating outrageous claims, the more outrageous the better for her to attract an audience for her over inflated ego.

    Thank God for the ‘Mr/Ms. Scott’s’ of this world. Angela’s claims of her forensics team/helpers/volunteers/whatever, make her a right laughing stock lol!

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Angela’s latest slanderous claim is “a supporter of the prosecution, part of Hoaxtead Research, violently assaulted a pensioner supporting Sabine, knocking him to the ground & causing cuts, black eyes etc in full view of CCTV.
    Security guards chased the Hoaxtead assailant as he fled the scene, and police are expected to prosecute.”[sic]

    Where does she come up with it, what a vicious person she is. I’m glad there are CCTV cameras there that will refute her vicious lies!

    Liked by 2 people

  11. As luck would have it, I had a spare 30 minutes which coincided with an adjournment so I got to have a chat with EC. Sterling work. Much appreciated. 👍

    Top tip. If you want to pop by, the Thames Clipper to London Bridge City Pier is very convenient. 😊

    Liked by 3 people

  12. EC, I am sending to you a hammer and a wooden stake. When the moment comes, strike hard and true to the heart of the Hampstead Vampire Hoax, or it will regenerate whole again.

    The video below advises not to hunt vampires such as Angela Power Disney alone, your bottom will love you for it.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Mr Paterson has a Chaturbate bookmark on his desktop. It is exactly the sort of service the name suggests.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. This is a lot of effort EC. Not just going to court, but also the note taking and not least the write up. I really appreciate it.

    Liked by 2 people

  15. Tinned. garden peas are a con. they are actually field peas and not grown in gardens 99percent of the time. trading standards are very lax over it.


    • Veg farmers have been known to grow carrots and peas in the same field.
      Should a certain follically challenged,biscuit weilding Virginian ever get wind of this it could cause him a major existential crisis to add to his collection.


      • That wielder of the biscuit???

        Didn’t we already witness his “major existential crisis ” when he aired a couple of minutes of outrageous stupefication (ours) enroute from VA to CA ….he was planning on being a hollywood hit….hehehe

        I reckon his Ma ‘n’ Pa said “Go Git Sonny-boy – we aint’s got’s no never-mind ’bout you nos mores”

        Liked by 1 person

  16. You are a brilliant woman EC!

    I was laughing my head off at the big schnozzes varying pejorative descriptions of you during his Sean Maguire ‘Out of the bag’ pile of poo interview….what an angry little man – jaysus!

    I agree with all who’ve commended you on your reporting of this ongoing trial….for me, as a current student of journalism, you are affording me a masterclass in the how-tos department, lucky me!

    I’m on the edge of my seat every day…so much has happened in the course of the last week and a half. I’m really intrigued as to how lawyers for the defense will continue to defend the indefensible.

    Also, I’ve been mulling over things – APD’s behaviour?

    I have previously posted a link to information about Ireland’s Defamation Act (2009) but I’ve since discovered an easier to read review of it:

    And I want to draw readers’ attention to a few remedies available to those who continue to be maligned by APD….she’s definitely guilty of severe harassment of certain individuals which is a criminal offence….my sincere hope is that she ‘goes down’ for that crime regardless.

    Anyways, apparently, in Irish law, defamation of character is assumed, there is no need for the plaintiff to prove so by claiming loss of reputation or loss of earnings as a result….it will be accepted they have been harmed in the minds of right-thinking people.

    A remedy available to victims of APD is The Prohibitory Order. according to the link above that is:

    “Orders prohibiting the publication (or further publication) of a defamatory statement and summary disposal of actions can also now be applied for”

    I’m thinking it could be useful for APD’s victims to seek such an order to prove they’ve exercised all options available in Irish law…towards seeking a Prohibitory Order, you are basically requesting APD shuts her mouth and never dares to mention your name again…applying for such an order will not affect a complaint to Gardai that you have been harassed, nor will it prevent you from suing her for all she is worth in recompense for ruining your good name.

    Liked by 3 people

      • I’m thinking I can ask my tutor how to proceed with such a complaint i.e looking for a prohibitory order. It could be a matter of not needing a solicitor’s assistance…it could be cost-free and merely as simple as making a statement to a court clerk…similar to asking for a barring order in the case of domestic violence? Which is actually difficult, you, if the victim, need to prove to their satisfaction you are not a drama queen who doesn’t think twice about wasting the court’s time.

        I’ll ask her advice.


  17. Pingback: Sabine McNeill on trial: Day 12 | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

Comments are closed.