Trouble in Archer-land

It’s premature to claim that Jeanette Archer’s attempted SRA cash-grab has completely collapsed, but I think it’s fair to say there’ve been multiple signs that it’s not at all well.

For starters, Archer’s GoFundMe campaign seems to have topped out at £1,765 about three weeks ago. Granted, this amount surpassed the original target of £1,500, but what red-blooded grifter would not accept further donations, should they just happen to land in one’s lap?

It’s probably mere coincidence that the campaign screeched to a halt shortly after several people lodged concerns with GoFundMe about the ethics and legality of Archer’s cash drive.

Not that GoFundMe troubles itself greatly with ethical issues…but terms of service violations? That’s a whole other kettle of fish. And we’ve seen correspondence from the crowd-funding platform to some of those who launched complaints, expressing grave concerns about the Archer campaign’s possible TOS violations.

Nonetheless, Archer is now claiming [see video, below] that GoFundMe has told her they absolutely adore her and think she’s a marvellous person, and here, have as much money as you like, Jeanette. Now go save those children!

Bets on which version is correct?

And then there’s the Shaun Attwood situation: the video interview he conducted with Archer a year ago, which arguably launched her into the UK troofer limelight, was quietly removed from YouTube on or about 2 June.

Archer has claimed that Attwood was told to remove all videos containing SRA, or risk losing his channel, but if that was the case, he seems to have missed a few…

The Real Troll Exposure blog offers another, more plausible explanation than “YouTube crackdown on SRA”:

Elsewhere, in a video on Chancer’s channel, podcaster and ex-drug dealer Shaun Attwood appears to have admitted to being interviewed under caution regarding an interview with a, as yet publicly unnamed, female guest and that the CPS are pursuing the case “aggressively”.

We know the identity of the female, the video in question and the very valid reasons for the police interest and the source of the referral to the Metropolitan Police to investigate [clue: it wasn’t simply a crime report] but cannot yet publicly reveal the details for legal reasons.

I’m sure the Big Reveal will be fascinating.

Oh, and did I mention that while plans appear to be moving ahead for Archer’s triumphant London march on 26 June, two of the three invited SRA speakers—Samantha Baldwin and Vicky Ash—have announced their regrets:

Whoops. Wonder what their “personal issues” were? They must have been quite pressing, to miss such an important event.

More important, I wonder why Archer has not seen fit to make any sort of announcement to her followers, who will be attending the London event in the full expectation of a quadruple bill, only to find…Archer and Sam Browne, who will no doubt be hawking her snake oil.

It took a little while [two weeks, but who’s counting?—Ed.] but a couple of days ago, Jeanette Archer and her supporters finally reacted to this blog’s claim that her paternal grandfather had been dead for years prior to the time he was supposed to have subjected her to Satanic ritual abuse.

Archer’s sooper-seekrit Telegram group was abuzz for several days, with anxious members questioning one another—and Dear Leader—about the veracity of the claims:

Asked whether the family tree we produced had her parents’ names correct, Archer admits that yes, we did…but somehow the paternal grandparents’ names were incorrect. Hmm.

Finally, Archer admits that “the sisters’ names are correct”, but that somehow these names were obtained through “other dark means”.

Like what, we asked Satan and he texted us the info?

Curiously, we deliberately omitted any mention of Archer’s sister’s names (and we even left her youngest sister off altogether), as it seems to us that her family has probably suffered more than enough from Archer’s false allegations. So it’s hard to say how she divined which names we found. [Wasn’t she a fortune teller at one time? Maybe the cards finally revealed all?—Ed.]

However, a few days after these exchanges, Archer finally roused herself, donned a white robe (well, okay, it was a bathrobe) and went to sit in her car, where she created the following video:

Her rebuttal, however, raises more questions than it answers.

Contrary to her assertion on Telegram that we had got her parents’ and sisters’ names correct, Archer now says, “They got the names completely wrong….We did have the best laugh ever over this one, because <giggle> they paid for this shit…they’ve paid money, they’ve spent God knows how long…”

Well, not quite. Several of us are hobby-level genealogists. Working independently, we each built separate trees, then compared notes when we were done. I don’t know about anybody else, but I’ve been doing genealogy for about 20 years now—and it’s really not an expensive hobby. Time-consuming? Sure. Frustrating? Sometimes. But also fascinating and rewarding…seriously, don’t get me started.

Archer states that her sister Catherine (yes, the one she claimed was murdered by the Satanists) was registered as a “miscarriage”, adding, “And my mum has the paperwork to show that”. (Oddly, I’ve never come across any record of a miscarriage—nor even a still-birth—in all my years of research. If anybody else has run across it, I’d be very interested to know.)

The obvious conclusion, of course, is that a baby was born dead, and was nonetheless given a name and a proper burial. But that doesn’t fit Archer’s narrative, in which Catherine was a living child who was tortured to death. Apparently Archer finds this version far more satisfying, or at least convenient.

She states in the video that the police informed her that her grandfather died in the early 1990s, of lung cancer.

Well, that may or may not be true. It’s entirely possible that all of us were mistaken, that we took a collective-yet-independent wrong turn, and all came up with the wrong information. I’m certainly willing to consider that possibility, but currently, with the information available, I don’t see it.

So here is my challenge to Jeanette Archer: send me your grandparents’ names, dates and places of birth, and dates and places of death, and prove we were all wrong.

If you do that, I promise you, I will retract my allegations about your grandfather’s death, and apologise wholeheartedly to you.

However, I’m not holding my breath.