Frequently asked questions: The forensic evidence

It is a curious fact about the Hampstead SRA hoax that not a single shred of forensic evidence has ever been retrieved that could validate the original allegations.

Given the lurid descriptions of murder, rape, and cannibalism that were alleged to have taken place in some very public spaces, one might expect that at least some bone shards, blood, or other forensic evidence would be discovered.

Those who believe the hoax is real will contend that this lack of evidence is “only because no proper searches were done”.

In fact, Abe and Ella complain of this in two sections of their appeal to the Independent Police Complaints Commission:

  • Point 9: No forensic search was conducted on Mr Dearman’s flat.
  • Point 15: No search warrant was requested at the church. No forensic team was deployed.

The IPCC investigated both these questions and found that the police had nothing to answer for in either case. Here’s what they reported:

1. Why was no forensic search conducted on RD’s flat?

RD’s flat was never searched for forensic evidence because based on the children’s descriptions and the drive-round on which they accompanied police, RD’s flat was never identified.

Although both children stated that they had been to their father’s house many times and could identify it, when the police took them on separate drive-rounds through Islington, neither of them were able to point out the correct house.

The little boy did point out one house, but when police checked it out, it was clear that it had been vacant for some time, and that none of the features named by the children—secret rooms and passages, etc.—were present.

The police stated there was

…a clear view into the property through large unobstructed windows. The basement could be seen into and it was clearly not the house that had been described in the interviews. This is because the child described a ground floor flat with a secret passage into the basement. Not only was the first floor premises completely empty, there was no furniture, carpets or cupboards. There was nothing to search and no possible forensics. The officers could see into the basement which was clearly not a secret room.

In addition, neighbours confirmed that the house had been empty for several weeks. Officers would not have been able to get a warrant to search the premises, as there was no evidence that this house had been occupied by RD.

Further, following the children’s retractions of their original allegations, the little girl stated that the reason she’d been unable to point out her father’s house on the drive-round was that he did not live in London.

2. Why didn’t police get a warrant to search the church premises? If they’d done that, they might have found the drawers full of skulls that the children described, the secret tunnels, and the rooms where the secret rituals took place.

Those who believe in the hoax insist that the search of Christ Church was a cursory one, that too few officers had been involved, that no search warrant was sought, and that no forensic team had investigated the premises. For this reason, they say, it’s no wonder that no forensic evidence was found at the church.

The IPCC report stated that the number of officers attending the church was immaterial, since they could take as long as they needed to determine whether the children’s original allegations were correct. Those allegations were very specific and detailed, and had they been proven true, the police would then have declared the church a crime scene and deployed a forensics team to follow up their initial investigation.

However, none of the described places within the church were actually found, even though the officers even ascended the bell tower to search. No baby skulls were found, no baby meat was stored in the nursery refrigerator.

As the IPCC report states:

As the investigation progressed, quite rightly officers became concerned as to the veracity of your children’s accounts. The role of a police officer is to establish facts and that is regardless of whether they support or undermine an allegation.

This point is a useful one to bear in mind: the police investigation was not meant to validate the story Abe and Ella had forced the children to tell. It was meant to find out the truth of the matter.

3. What about the East Finchley swimming pool? The children never retracted their allegations about what had happened there, so why wasn’t the pool searched?

It’s true that the pool was never searched by police during the investigation.

Here’s why, according to the IPCC report:

The swimming pool was not searched. It is a public place with extensive use and public access. The areas would have been cleaned many times over and hold no evidential value. Should the investigation have continued officers would have been tasked to visit the location and make an assessment. However both the children retracted the allegations and stated that they had not been sexually abused by their biological father. The retractions negated the need to search and would not be an effective use of resources.

Interestingly, while the IPCC investigator agreed with this rationale, he decided to send an officer to the East Finchley pool to take some measurements and photographs, solely for Ella’s peace of mind.

Keep in mind that the ‘sex parties’ in the disabled changing room/toilets at the pool were supposed to have consisted of upwards of 30 people, including the two children and their father.

Here’s what the officer found:

The above three images (0104, 0105 and 0103) show the larges disabled changing room that is off of the swimming pool. As you can see in image 0103 the wall does not meet the ceiling. You can hear the pool from this room and you would also be able to hear from pool side what was happening in that room. The lifeguard also sits in a high chair next to the wall of this room and would therefore be able to hear what was happening in this room. In my opinion this is the only room that you could fit 20 people in, however if you were to do this you would not be able to move once in the room and you would be standing shoulder to shoulder. The room is about 3.5m long by about 2.5m wide.

The other two disabled changing room/toilets are even smaller, and could barely fit 10 people apiece, according to this report.

In addition, all three disabled changing room/toilets require a radar magnetic key to gain access. This can only be obtained from the reception desk upon request.

If the children’s original allegations were true, holding a sex ritual in one of these rooms would require the leader to sign out the key, and then 30 people would have to enter this toilet which barely holds 20 and can be heard by those in the pool area…and this would have to be accomplished without raising anyone’s suspicion.

4. While we’re on the subject of evidence, can you explain to me how an entire school could shut down once a week so teachers and parents could rape children, kill babies, drink blood, and conduct mysterious rituals involving dancing with skulls, without ever getting caught or reported, and without leaving any trace of their activities?

No. No, we can’t. Sorry.

Do you have questions about the forensic evidence that you’d like answered? We’re building this section of the blog, so please feel free to ask, and we’ll do our best to find the answers for you.