Frequently asked questions: The ‘cult’ tattoos

One of the points made by those who believe that a mysterious, invisible, child-raping, baby-murdering, cannibalistic cult exists in Hampstead is that the RD’s two children described and drew pictures of “cult tattoos” that each alleged cult member sported in his or her genital area. On this page, we’re going to discuss the tattoos, what they symbolise, why no one has stepped forward to be examined, and how the tattoos, ultimately, can be shown not to exist.

1. The children claimed in the videos that all the members of the cult had tattoos on their privates. Why couldn’t those people just go to the police, have themselves examined, and clear things up once and for all? I know I would!

No, you wouldn’t. The only way a private citizen could legally present their private areas (or anything else) to the police for inspection would be if they were charged with a crime, and needed to show their lack of tattoos as evidence of their innocence. It is illegal for the police to demand evidence from anyone who has not been formally charged. Since no evidence existed that warranted any arrests, let alone charges, this did not happen.

In addition, even if anyone had been charged, and had demonstrated to police that they had no incriminating tattoos, the public would not hear about this until or unless the case went to trial. The police do not disclose evidence which they receive in the course of an investigation.

And what if those believed to have belonged to the cult had gone to a “trusted doctor” or someone similar and had their perfectly normal genitalia examined and photographed for posterity? Would those who promote and support the Hampstead SRA hoax believed them? Judging from past behaviour, they would have claimed that the photos were doctored, the physician and/or photographer were “compromised”, the tattoos had merely been removed or covered with make-up, etc.

And finally, in a democratic society such as ours, the burden of proof always lies with the accuser, not the accused. In other words, it’s up to the accuser to prove that the tattoos existed and were symbolic of something nefarious. It’s not up to the accused to prove the opposite. Ergo, no pants-dropping, no inspection of privates.

2. Surely the children could not have made up all the demonic imagery they described—and drew! No child could know all that, unless they’d seen it with their own eyes.

On the contrary, the images of “demons and monsters” that the children drew (with Abraham and Ella’s help) were exactly what a child would think such a tattoo might look like.

The pictures betrayed a farcical, childish, and incorrect understanding of “Satanic imagery”, very much in keeping with Abraham’s own unsophisticated fascination with the subject. The idea that an allegedly super-sophisticated, super-secret, international conspiracy of devil worshippers such as the Illuminati is alleged to be, would employ such childish and Hollywood-inspired imagery to represent themselves is simply farcical.

It’s akin to suggesting that Interpol or GCHQ might use a cartoon figure like Superman, or a cartoon crime-fighter organization like The Justice League, to represent themselves.

3. But the children drew those pictures! Don’t you believe the children?

We do believe that the children drew at least parts of the pictures, but we also know they had considerable “help” from Abraham and Ella. The drawings of a woman’s torso, complete with inverted navel and inguinal folds at the crotch, are far beyond the capabilities of a child of eight or nine years. Ella has a degree in art history, and probably has at least minimal training in sketching and life drawing. We believe she drew the outline, and then had the children fill in the “devils and monsters”.

In one still from a video circulated by Abe and Ella, Abe’s hand can be seen quite clearly “helping” the children draw one of the more difficult bits.

3. But all you’re saying is that you don’t believe the tattoos exist. How can you be so certain? After all, this cult has been around a very long time, and they are very, very good at covering up their activities.

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 videos the children were forced to make, 399 of the 400 allegedly involved adults had the tell-tale tattoos, which featured images of “devils and monsters”.

Their father, whom they described as the “boss” of the cult, would no doubt have had the biggest and best. After all, they claimed that he owned the biggest and best of the colour-coded dildoes. Surely he would have sported the most grandiose and scariest genital tattoo, as well?

And yet Ella has never said anything about tattoos on either of the fathers of her three children. Not a word. Not once.

If Ella had seen such tattoos, she might have at very least spoken out at some point during the past two years to corroborate the evidence her children gave…yet she has said absolutely nothing on the matter. So we are being asked to believe that despite two of her long-term sexual partners having glaringly obvious devil- and/or monster-related genital tattoos, she a) didn’t see them, or b) saw them but didn’t think they were all that unusual.

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 could have stood up and settled the matter right then and there. So she avoided the issue, and has done to this day.

Abe and Ella have stated on their blogs that “if the children were lying about the abuse, investigation into these marks may have supported that“. In other words, proving that the tattoos don’t exist—have never existed—calls the entire story into question.

We have repeatedly asked Abraham and Ella to explain this very curious anomaly, but so far they have remained uncharacteristically silent on the subject.

4. But Abe says that the tattoos prove the hoax is real! He says that one of Leon Brittan’s alleged victims was able to draw a tattoo that he saw on Brittan’s privates. This is exactly the same!

Yes, it is exactly the same. This is another reason we know the tattoo story is false: Abe’s utter rage when Brian Gerrish and Bill Maloney ignored his demands for support hinges on Abe’s complaint that they would have known that the tattoos described were the same as those described by “Andrew”, one of the early complainants about Brittan.

It seems very likely that as Abe and Ella fashioned the Hampstead SRA hoax, they would have had their intended audience in mind, much as a writer might consider what his or her publisher would require in a new book:

“Oh, if that chap who accused Brittan saw tattoos, we should make sure the cult members all have tattoos, eh? Maloney thought the tattoos were important, and Lou Collins was practically wetting herself.”

“Good thinking. That’ll make it seem more authentic. Here, I’ll draw a body, and we’ll get the kids to fill in the devils and monsters and upside-down stars and whatnot”.

“Brilliant. They’ll love it.”

Abe and Ella have since waved the “tattoo evidence” about like a flag, claiming that it represents “absolute proof” of the veracity of the children’s original claims.

What it really demonstrates, though, is their childlike grasp of how evidence works. Saying that “Person X saw tattoos on Person Y who he claims sexually abused him, and therefore anyone with tattoos must be a sexual abuser…oh, look, the children claim that these people have tattoos, so they must be sexual abusers!” makes approximately no sense whatsoever.

Abe and Ella’s naïve belief that the tattoos claim would persuade both Maloney and Gerrish that the case was for real is laughable when it’s laid bare. The tattoo element had been specifically designed to resonate with Maloney and Gerrish, and yet it had had no effect at all. It’s just another piece of evidence demonstrating that Abe and Ella fashioned this hoax specifically to appeal to a certain audience.

 

 

 

 

Advertisements