As we mentioned yesterday, the issue of Sabine’s having been invited to present her story of the Hampstead SRA hoax to the Truth Project of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) is a puzzling one.
While the Inquiry rejected her application for Core Participant status in the Westminster strand of its investigation, we learned recently that in November 2016, Sabine had boasted of having been invited to speak to the Truth Project’s Cardiff hearing, and that in true Sabine fashion she had prepared a lengthy document to present there.
However, looking at the IICSA website, we note that it states, “Those who wish to take part [in the Truth Project] can attend a private session at one of our offices across England or Wales to share their experience with a member of the Inquiry”.
It does not sound as though an invitation was necessary—any potential participant, Sabine included, could simply contact the Inquiry and find a willing ear. So why would she have claimed that she was “invited”? Something seems askew here.
We don’t know who might have “invited” Sabine to participate, but something about this alleged “invitation” reminded us of evidence we’d heard during Sabine’s 2018 trial.
On 5 December, during the second day of her testimony, Sabine told her defence barrister, Tana Adkin QC, about how she had come to attend the Church of England General Synod:
Turning to the events at the Church of England Synod in February 2018, Adkin asked Sabine how she had gone there.
“I had a phone call from Chris Alexander”, she said.
“Was this the same person who notified you of the Interpol alert?” Adkin asked. Sabine confirmed that it was. [More on this in a bit—Ed.]
“I don’t remember the trigger for the phone call”, she said, “but we started to discuss the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), and he told me that he had core participant status. I had registered this case with the IICSA as #47, although I had always asked them not to share the details with the police”.
Sabine said she had registered the Hampstead case in the early days of the IICSA, during the tenure of Dame Lowell Goddard, and that she wanted to know whether they had a policy for whistle-blowers such as herself. She said that although she had had email contact with Dame Goddard, she had been unable to determine her status vis à vis the Inquiry.
When Alexander called her, Sabine said he told her that two lawyers at Synod might be able to help her: David Greenwood and Richard Scorer. This is why Sabine had attended Synod.
This snippet of testimony raises even more questions:
- Who is Chris Alexander, and what did he have to do with an Interpol alert?
- What did Sabine mean when she said she had “registered the case as #47”? So far as we’re aware, there is no process available for a member of the public to “register a case” with the IICSA.
- Given that we know Sabine spoke to the Truth Project in November 2016, after the tenure of Dame Lowell Goddard, why is she claiming she “registered the case” earlier?
- Was Sabine really unaware of her status vis à vis the Inquiry?
- If she was unaware, why would she need the assistance of two solicitors? Why not just call the Inquiry to confirm her status?
To answer the last two questions first, it seems quite likely that Sabine was fully aware of her status, which had been emailed to her on 1 February 2018.
Although her bail conditions forbade her internet access at that time, it is highly unlikely that she didn’t know that she’d been rejected by the Inquiry—in fact, she told DC Steve Martin, who interviewed her following her arrest for leafleting at Synod, that she had gone there to see whether she could obtain CP status at the Inquiry. This implies that she knew she had not obtained the coveted status.
Chris Alexander is a sometime-friend of Sabine’s friend Maurice Kirk, and as we heard at Sabine’s trial, he also goes by the names Chris H. and Christopher E. (Why so many names? Patience, Grasshopper. We’re getting to that.)
Sabine testified that Alexander/E./H. had contacted her in early 2015 while she was on the run from the law in Germany, to tell her that an Interpol warrant had been issued for her arrest. She said he offered to fly her to the Philippines at that time, an offer she’d refused.
Back to Sabine’s testimony regarding her attendance at Synod:
Sabine said the problem was that she did not know what the demonstration would be about, so she sought out Alexander, who had said he would be involved in facilitating it. However, she was unable to find him.
“Did you know anything about him?” Adkin asked.
Sabine said that after the event she had asked Maurice Kirk about Alexander. Kirk had told her not to get involved with him.
This implies that Sabine had no idea who Alexander was. However, we know this is untrue, as in November 2016 we reported the following:
(I)n Regina v Maurice John Kirk, 7 January 2014, before His Honour Judge Bidder QC, it is revealed that Kirk offered up as his bail address “28 Sheath Street, Daventry, Northamptonshire”.
When a local police officer went to find out whether this would be a suitable bail address, he discovered that it was occupied by one Christopher Alexander, who was known to his neighbours as a convicted sex offender.
Unsurprisingly, the court found that this was not a suitable bail address.
Looking further into this curious choice, we discover that “the address was sent to the court by a Ms McNeil (sic)”, via email.
In other words, Sabine could hardly have failed to be aware of Alexander’s existence, as she had arranged for Kirk to stay at his house. Kirk has mentioned him frequently on his blog, too. Is it likely Kirk would have failed to mention him to Sabine?
As well, it’s unlikely that Sabine was unaware that Alexander had been convicted in 2008 of sexually assaulting a young boy, particularly as the police had rejected her choice of bail address for that reason.
During her trial, Sabine testified that not only had Alexander practically invited her to attend Synod, but he contacted her shortly afterward:
She said she had received another call from Alexander after Synod, but this time he told her undercover police had discovered her presence at the event, and that “they’ve got you” for distributing leaflets there. He told her, “We must make a plan”, but then hung up suddenly. She kept texting him, but he did not respond.
The next day, Sabine was required to attend the police station, where she gave an interview. She was arrested the following Sunday. …
“At this time, were you aware that the allegations had come from someone called Chris H., also known as Christopher E.?” Adkin asked.
Sabine said she had not known that Chris H. was the same person as Chris Alexander.
True confessions time: we didn’t know that H., Alexander, and E. were the same person either. EC nearly dropped her pen in surprise when this was revealed during the trial.
You see, on 12 February 2018, two days after the General Synod had concluded, this blog received an email from one Chris H., informing us that Sabine had been present at Synod, and that she had been seen handing out leaflets there concerning the Hampstead SRA case.
H./Alexander/E. shared details of Sabine and Jake Clarke’s attendance at the event (but didn’t mention that he had told Sabine about it in the first place). We passed this information to the police, as it sounded to us like a clear violation of the 2016 restraining order put in place by HHJ Worsley. (It was, according to Sabine’s jury.)
We’re mentioning this now because this experience, and the details we learned during Sabine’s trial, have led us to wonder about Sabine’s alleged “invitation” to discuss the Hampstead SRA hoax with the IICSA’s Truth Project.
We know that she and Alexander/etc. just happened to discuss his core participant status at the IICSA during their 2018 phone call prior to her attendance at Synod—and that she claimed to have already “registered the case” with the Inquiry. Could this be a reference to her having spoken to the Truth Project?
We also know that Sabine was at very least aware of Alexander/E., and likely in direct contact with him, as long ago as January 2014.
To hear Sabine tell it, Alexander had practically invited her to attend Synod, by telling her that lawyers would be there who could help her.
Is it within the bounds of possibility that in her estimation, he might also have “invited” her to speak to the Truth Project? (And by “invited” we mean “mentioned it and given her the idea of contacting them”.)
Just a thought.