Many people who believe that a paedophile death cult is torturing, raping, and murdering children and babies in Hampstead believe that members of the cult can be identified by tattoos on or near their genital areas.
1. What did the children say about tattoos?
In the videos which Abraham Christie and Ella Draper made of the two children in Morocco and en route home to London, the children say the following about the tattoos:
a. Abraham and Child Q (8-year-old boy):
A: Yeah, so he doesn’t have any other marks? No tattoos, nothing?
Q: No. YES!!!! He has tattoos.
A: He has a tattoo?
Q: Tattoo and pierce rings.
A: What? Really?
Q: Yes. And .. Xxxx, [a child] he has a pierce ring on his willy. At the end of his willy. Where it wees.
Q: Yeah, and also on his like, balls, not on his balls, on his leg. Down a bit.
Q: Yeah. Where your balls are.
A: Very good.
b. Abraham and Child Q:
A: Hi again Q. Sorry to disturb you while you are having your breakfast, but we’d like you to tell us about the tattoos please.
A: Can you tell us in your own words.
Q: All the 20 special children have a tattoo exs-pect …
A: Except …
Q: Except for me and myself, no, except for myself and my sister cause my mum isn’t a member of the cult.
A: Okay. Anyone else have tattoos?
Q: Yes. The 20 special children all have tattoos. And also, all the teachers have tattoos. XXXXXX has tattoos all over his arms. And XXXXXX also got tattoos all over his arms. And also they have on their pussies, their privates.
Q: And also all the teachers have it. Not all parents.
A: So all the teachers have tattoos on their privates …
A: … you say.
A: And what type of tattoo do they have on their privates …
Q: They all have tattoos …
A: What type of tattoos?
Q: They are devil and monster tattoos
A: On their privates?
A: They all have them?
A: All of the teachers in Christchurch Primary School have devil tattoos on their private parts?
Q: Yes. No also monster ones. Yeah, the devil one is in the middle but there’s monster ones and also they have piercings.
A: OK. Have you … are these the tattoos that you’ve drawn pictures of? You’ve given us pictures of?
Q: No …
A: You’ve drawn some pictures of tattoos. Are these the tattoos you are talking about?
A: So anybody else [inaudible] … Do parents have tattoos?
Q: Xxxxxxx, [inaudible] Xxxxxxx, [inaudible]
A: How many parents have we got?
Q: All the parents.
A: All 400 parents have tattoos.
A: Are you sure?
Q: [inaudible] 399, except my mum.
A: Except your mother, have tattoos on their privates. Thank you very much.
Evidence of coaching
Even just reading the interaction between Abraham and Q, it is obvious that Q is being coached here.
When he gives a “wrong” answer, Abraham corrects him: “Are these the tattoos that you’ve drawn pictures of?” “No…”
Abraham rephrases the question: “You’ve drawn some pictures of tattoos. Are these the tattoos you are talking about?” And Q responds, “Yeah”.
And again, when Q claims that “all the parents” have tattoos, Abraham reminds him: “Are you sure?” Q mumbles, “399, except my mum”.
Earlier, when Q is talking about the teachers having tattoos, Abraham prompts, “…And?” Q remembers what he’s been told to say: “And also all the teachers have it. Not all parents”.
It’s important that they establish that although all the teachers and other parents were in the cult, Ella was not. This will be important later on.
The tattoo/birthmark drawings
These are the drawings to which Abraham refers. As you can see, the central tattoo image is meant to be some sort of horned creature, a “devil or monster” as Q states:
2. Did the children draw those pictures?
The children drew parts of them, but in two, the outline of the female body was done by an adult hand. Children at that age do not normally have the manual dexterity, nor the understanding of human anatomy, to sketch a woman’s waist and hips in that way. However, it’s likely that the children were asked to fill in the “tattoos”.
In the more obviously “childish” drawing, a woman is portrayed with pubic hair encircling her lower torso and extending halfway down her thighs, rather like bicycle shorts. The woman’s breasts are covered in hair, like a man’s chest. This does not resemble any woman we’ve ever seen. It seems clear that this represents a child’s imagining of what a “very hairy” woman would look like.
It is unlikely that this drawing is based on anything the children actually observed.
3. How could a child have made those tattoos up?
Many who believe that the children were not coerced into lying claim that no child could know that much about the sort of tattoos drawn here.
On the contrary, we would argue that this is exactly what a child might think a devil or monster tattoo might look like. It is quite likely that the children were not only coached to talk about the tattoos, but were guided in their drawings. You can read more about Abraham’s farcical, childish view of Satanism here.
4. How do you know the tattoos do not exist?
Ella claims that both her ex-husband, Mr Draper, and the father of her two youngest children, RD, were “in the cult”, which she described as a life-long, multi-generational organisation.
As life-long cult members, both men would have received their genital tattoos at a young age.
According to the video transcript above, 399 of the 400 parents had tattoos. The only exception was Ella.
As leader of the cult, we would expect RD to have had the biggest and best tattoo of all. As well, we would expect Ella’s ex-husband to have had a large tattoo, since she and Abraham both said that he was the cult “financier”.
However, Ella somehow failed to notice that these two men, with whom she had been intimate and had borne a total of three children, sported large and unusual genital tattoos.
Ella has never mentioned this even once in the four years since the children made the videos and drawings.
If she had seen such tattoos on RD or her ex-husband, why would she not have spoken out to corroborate the evidence her children gave?
How could Ella not notice these prominent, unusual tattoos, despite having been intimate with both men for long periods of time? Why did she not question what they were? When the children talked about the tattoos, why did she not say, “Oh yes, I’ve seen those, here’s what they looked like”? This would have been sufficient evidence to have RD at least arrested, but she failed to do it. Why?
She didn’t say anything about RD’s tattoos because they didn’t exist, and she knew it. She knew that if he were arrested and accused of having fancy demon tattoos on his privates, he would be medically examined, and her lie would be obvious.
In early May 2017, we began asking Abraham to explain this curious anomaly in the story. We called it “the Awkward Question”.
It took three weeks, but finally he came up with this response:
But according to the children’s videos, their father was born into the cult, which was supposedly multi-generational.
Why would he wait until after leaving Ella to get his tattoo, when he was the cult leader? What happened to the children’s story that their father “gave them” to the cult when they were infants, and RD and Ella were still living together?
At the same time that Abraham admitted that much of the story about the tattoos and the cult was simply untrue, Ella admitted that she had been “mistaken” in stating that her ex-husband, his wife, and Ella’s eldest son had been involved in the cult.
However, this contradicted what the children had stated on video. Since the only “evidence” of the cult is what the children claimed, Ella’s admission means that even those who believe in the cult must question how much of that story was true.
5. Why were the tattoos so important?
“Monster and devil tattoos on the genitalia of 400 adults” seems like a strangely specific detail to add to this story. However, we have evidence which shows that when the hoax was being drawn up, those who planned it added the tattoos for a very specific reason.
In late 2015/early 2016, Abraham made the following comment on YouTube:
Bill Maloney in an interview with Lou Collins .(connected to Danielle la Verite)speaks out about the tattoo on Leon Brittan’s pubenda (sic) that a victim (Andrew) of Leon Brittan described and drew during an interview with a newspaer (sic) almost 2 years ago , so when Maloney and Gerrish received Ella’s email describing the Tattoos and distinguishing marks on the cult members (sic) pubenda (even more sic) they were well aware of this corroborating the testimony of Leon Brittan’s victim. Why then have neither of them said anything apart from the few times that Gerrish mentions the case on UK Column when the MSM had attempted a hatchet job on Abe and Ella, and he had to say something ? Now it’s clear why the info re Tattoos was buried buy (sic) Maloney, Gerrish AND the police and exposes Maloney and Gerrish as Shills ! Quite apart from the fact that Maloney passed the email onto a Nathan “NUMNUTS”Wedger a known police informant ; and the email eventually “found it’s (sic) way” to investigating/cover up Freemason, DS Steve Martin. mmmmmm…
Abraham was angry that he had gone to the trouble of including genital tattoos in the story he had forced the children to tell, because he knew that an alleged victim of Leon Brittan—Andrew Ash—had described similar tattoos on his abusers.
Abraham was complaining that despite this, Maloney and Gerrish had failed to deliver the huge social media push which Abe and Ella had been assured the hoax would receive.
A bit of history
In January 2014, months before the Hampstead SRA hoax was conceived, Bill Maloney did a breathless interview with Lou Collins of the UK Column. In it, he stated:
Leon Brittan, you know, the witness was attacked and raped by Leon Brittan. And Leon Brittan is the one that they don’t want to go for in the moment. The witness identified Leon Brittan by a tattoo that he has on his groin, and the witness drew the tattoo for the police.
In the video, Maloney identified “the victim” as Andrew Ash.
However, when Ash first mentioned Brittan in 1990, he did not mention anything about a tattoo. in his original description of the person who would later be identified as Leon Brittan, made in 1990, Andrew only described a birthmark, not a tattoo.
During his interview on BBC’s October 2015 edition of Panorama, Andrew (dubbed “David” for the show) made the following statements:
Narrator: David told me he’d described a distinctive birthmark on one of his abusers.
Andrew: I described a birthmark and a first name, and described the person, and [the person who allegedly coached him] says the surname and everything, and says that can only be one person. Why should I doubt them?
Narrator: The man who ended up being named was Leon Brittan.
In other words, it was Maloney, not Ash, who turned “birthmark” into “tattoo”.
Abraham would have known about the tattoo allegation, as it was big news amongst conspiracy followers in early 2014. And in his unsophisticated mind, he believed that adding “genital tattoos” to the Hampstead story would prove to Maloney and Gerrish, and their followers, that his story was the genuine article.
However, only a month after the police took the children into protective custody, the Panorama episode aired. The alleged Brittan “tattoos” were downgraded to “a birthmark”.
We expect that Maloney and Gerrish would have had a keen interest in the show, given their long acquaintance with Ash. His changing the detail from “tattoos” to “a birthmark” cannot have escaped their notice, though it seems to have gone right over Abraham’s head.
Knowing that the “tattoo” story was a product of Maloney’s imagination, and that anyone with an eye for detail would catch on and realise that it must have come from him, Maloney backed away from the story, despite his initial interest. He and Gerrish beat a hasty and strategic retreat, though Gerrish would later claim that he believed the story all along and just didn’t want to endanger Ella’s court case.
Araya Soma complained bitterly that Maloney wanted nothing to do with the hoax when she tried to peddle it to him, and Abraham was angry that the promised support hadn’t come through from either Maloney or Gerrish.
The tattoos, which had seemed like the perfect finishing touch, the addition which would lend credence to the Hampstead story amongst anyone who knew of Maloney’s “tattoo” claims, had become box-office poison.