In the original videos taken en route from Morocco to London, Abraham, Ella, and the children mention tattoos, piercings, and birthmarks as “identifiers” of those accused of belonging to the imaginary cult in Hampstead.
When the hoax went viral following the release of those videos in February 2015, the tattoos became a topic of fierce debate, with hoax supporters claiming that “if the accused were truly innocent, they would have shown the police that they had no tattoos, and cleared their names”.
This is complete nonsense. Let us explain why.
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 said the following:
Video 1: Abraham and Child Q (8-year-old boy):
Abraham: Yeah, so he doesn’t have any other marks? No tattoos, nothing? [Abe is obviously leading the boy here.]
Child 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. [Abe praises him for repeating the story correctly.]
Video 2: 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.
A: And?[Abe prompts him, knowing there is meant to be more.]
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: Okay. Have you…are these the tattoos that you’ve drawn pictures of? You’ve given us pictures of?
Q: No…[The boy goes off-script here, so Abraham prompts him.]
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?[Again, Abraham prompts him: 400 is not the number he wants to hear.]
Q: [inaudible] 399, except my mum.
A: Except your mother, have tattoos on their privates. Thank you very much.
2. Did the children draw the pictures of the tattoos?
Whether the children drew any of the tattoos is questionable. In two of the drawings, the outline of the female body was certainly 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.
It’s possible that the children were encouraged/directed to fill in the “tattoos”, to match up with Abraham and Ella’s “brainstorming”—the process they described whereby they basically sat around making stuff up.
In the more obviously “childish” drawing, a woman is portrayed with pubic hair encircling her lower torso and extending halfway down her thighs, 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 the hoax claim that no child could know that much about the sort of tattoos drawn here.
On the contrary, this is exactly what a child might think a devil or monster tattoo would look like. The children were not only coached to talk about the tattoos, but were guided to make those drawings. You can read more about Abraham’s farcical, childish view of Satanism here.
4. Why did Abraham downplay the tattoos in the Jean-Clement audio?
Curiously, despite the importance Abraham placed on the tattoos in the “airport videos”, when he had the children describe the tattoos at his brother-in-law Jean-Clement’s house on the night of 4 September 2014, he took an unexpected stance, and stated repeatedly that the tattoos were worthless as evidence, and proved nothing:
J-C: The tattoo bit is the most important part, because…
Child Q: And the rings?
J-C: Yep! Because, um…
Ella: And piercing as well, they have.
J-C: Yyyyes. Because on the private parts…
Abraham: It doesn’t prove anything.
J-C: It’s on the private parts.
Abraham: It doesn’t prove anything. I can put that on my private parts. It doesn’t prove anything. Tattoo doesn’t prove anything, Jean-Clement.
J-C: Aby, let me finish.
Abraham: I’ll let you finish!
J-C: Okay. The tattoo, see, they can tell the name of the people, tattoo.
Ella: You’re right.
J-C: And how would the see another person with that person’s tattoo?
Ella: Sorry, can you say again?
J-C: How would they see another person’s private, if they’re not part of the family?
Abraham: That’s right. How would they see them?
J-C: So…that’s what I was asking.
Abraham: How would they see the privates?
J-C: That’s why it’s important for them to describe them.
Abraham: Of course it’s important. Jean-Clement, look. I’m totally with you—the fact that they have…I was very happy to find that out about the tattoos. The fact that they all have tattoos is one thing. And the fact that you wouldn’t see someone, you wouldn’t see someone…
J-C: I didn’t want to cause any…
Abraham: You wouldn’t see someone’s private parts unless, as you pointed out, you were a close family member. However, it still proves nothing.
Abraham: Cause it proves nothing. They may have seen it in swimming. They may—I’m just saying, Jean-Clement…
Ella: All the staff? All the teachers?
Abraham: Mama, I know they’ve—
Ella: The parents?
Abraham: I know this, but what I’m telling you is that as evidence, it proves nothing.
J-C: It’s for them, the most straight (?). To anyone questioning…
Abraham: Why have these children been able to see this?
J-C: That’s right!
Abraham: Of course!
Child Q: Because everybody likes to dance naked…
J-C: It will be ‘how does this child know, you’ve got a tattoo on your privates’?
Abraham: Because it’s common knowledge around the school.
Child Q: Because some people like to dance naked…
Abraham: It’s common knowledge around the school.
Child Q: It’s your choice, with skulls or not…
Abraham: Thank you. That’s what I’m saying. It proves nothing.
Child Q: I would like one with skulls…
J-C: That’s fine.
Child Q: We do it with skulls most of the time because Papa forces me to.
Abraham: To do what?
Child Q: To have skulls.
Child Q: On my body!
Abraham: Oh, you mean you dance with the skulls.
Child Q: But I don’t want to! He said it’s my…
Child P: Because it hurts. When you do it on the skulls. On Child Q it hurts.
Child Q: Yeah but I don’t…they give us the most hurting one. But you want to be like the best children…
Child P: …and it has like sharp bits, on, like, on the back, so when it is on our body it’s really hurting, it’s spiky.
Child Q: It’s really squee, um squeezy.
Abraham: So they actually like, they enjoy causing you pain?
Child P: Yes.
J-C: Look what I just put…
Child P: _______, she like, she love doing pain to children.
J-C: See what she said is a big black wart on, eh, Miss _____, her privates’ lip, right?
Child P: Yeah.
J-C: Now. How will you see this, as a child?
Abraham: Maybe she showed it to her, I don’t know.
On the face of it, this makes no sense.
Why would Abraham carefully coach the children to talk about tattoos on the genitals of alleged cult members, and then turn around and say that the tattoos are worthless as evidence?
The explanation is simple: Abraham knew very well that the tattoos did not exist. If the police started actually arresting suspects and asking them to disrobe, they would find nothing, and the hoax would be finished.
So why did he and Ella go to the trouble of making the children memorise all that nonsense about the tattoos in the first place?
That has a simple explanation as well. The videos were never meant to be viewed by police. They were meant to impress people like Brian Gerrish and Bill Maloney, as Abe and Ella wanted their support to push their story out into the UK conspiracy community.
Why Maloney? Why tattoos?
Abraham knew that Bill Maloney had made some startling claims about alleged “VIP paedophile” Leon Brittan during an interview with Lou Collins in early 2014, just a few months before the Hampstead hoax began.
In late 2015/early 2016, Abraham made the following comment under a video 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 Maloney had been very excited that an alleged victim of Leon Brittan—Andrew Ash—had described similar tattoos on his abusers.
Abraham complained that despite all the trouble he’d taken, Maloney and Gerrish had failed to deliver the huge social media push which Abe and Ella had been assured the hoax would receive.
However, the inclusion of the tattoos in the hoax actually had the effect of scaring Maloney off. Why?
A bit of history
In January 2014, 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 Andrew was first coached to mention Brittan in 1990, he did not describe tattoos. Rather, he described a birthmark.
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 Maloney’s 2014 tattoo allegation, as it was big news amongst conspiracy followers. He and Ella 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, as one of the people involved in coaching Andrew Ash, Maloney was well aware that he had fabricated the tattoo story, as an embellishment of Andrew’s original birthmark claim. He knew his allegation had been a lie, and the emphasis on “genital tattoos” would have tipped him off that Abe and Ella’s story was false too.
Maloney backed away from the Hampstead hoax, despite having expressed initial interest. He did turn up at one of the protests outside the church in March/April 2015, but he never threw himself behind the hoax.
Araya Soma complained bitterly that Maloney wanted nothing to do with the hoax when she tried to peddle it to him in October 2014, and Abraham was angry that the promised support hadn’t come through from either Maloney or Gerrish.
The tattoos, which had seemed like the addition which would demonstrate the validity of the Hampstead story to anyone who knew of Maloney’s “tattoo” claims, had become box-office poison.
However, Abraham continued to push the tattoo issue, apparently failing to realise his own error:
5. How else do we 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 describes as a life-long, multi-generational organisation.
As life-long cult members, both men would have received their genital tattoos at a young age, just like P and Q’s classmates.
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. We would also expect Mr Draper to have had a large tattoo, since she and Abraham both said that he was the cult “financier”.
However, if this was true, why did Ella fail 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?
If she had seen such tattoos on RD or her ex-husband, why would she not have spoken out to corroborate the children’s claims?
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.
It took three weeks of pestering, 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?
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.
Updated 5 November 2018