Hampstead Cult Believers: 6 Questions YOU Must Answer

MP3 Direct Download | iTunes | Stitcher | RSS Feed

Update: Why Hampstead Boy Was NOT Bullied To Retract Satanic Abuse Allegations

Despite the overwhelming evidence against Abraham Christie and mother Ella Draper, in the Hampstead abuse case, there are still people that are clinging on to the original “allegations.” To those that still believe there is a Satanic Cult operating in North London, I have 6 very important questions to ask you.

1) Why Do You Believe With No Evidence?

One of the most common arguments from believers is that the police did not investigate the allegations that were outlined in the original videos. This isn’t an accurate position at all, as they did interview the father, search the church where satanic ritual abuse allegedly occurred, and took the children on a drive to try and corroborate certain locations from the story. They found nothing. They also interviewed the children extensively, and a doctor medically examined them for signs of abuse on two occasions.

Some allegations are highly improbable. It’s alleged that on the last day of the school term a satanic abuse party was held until late at night, involving teachers from multiple schools, hundreds of children, and their parents. Would it not strike the local community as odd that lots of adults and children arrived at the school in the morning, but did not leave until night time? Wouldn’t there have been a huge commotion as they all left the school grounds, particularly if children had taken part in horrific rituals? Anybody could make an infinite list of problems with such a story, not least the fact that not one other person involved or observing from a far, has spoken out or provided tangible evidence that it occurred. When you couple such implausibility with the investigation that DID take place, and the retractions from the children, the police would have to come to a reasonable conclusion that it simply didn’t happen.

Despite this, the mantra from believers is still that the police did not investigate.

This then begs the question – if you don’t think the police carried out an investigation, or that it wasn’t up to the right standards, or that there’s a full blown cover-up – and because of this they have not produced any evidence of a satanic cult – why do you believe there is a satanic cult?

Regardless of the reason why there’s no evidence (most likely because there simply is no evidence) in order for you to believe the allegations, you yourself must have supporting evidence. Without any, your only logical position can be “I think the police should reopen the case,” which they actually have. They are seeking interviews with Draper and Christie, who have gone in to hiding.

This brings us back round to the crux of the issue. The believers believe, not because they have verified the claims in the videos, but for some other psychological or emotional reason. It’s like religious faith.

In fact they often fallaciously argue that the absence of evidence is somehow proof of a cover-up. Or that because something is possible (such as the doctor being pressured to revise her findings) that it happened. What this demonstrates is that they’re not interested in a rational, evidence-based approach, and are therefore not genuinely interested in the truth either.

2) How Can The Children Articulate Such Detailed Stories Without Coaching?

It has been argued that the “children’s allegations” are so elaborate and detailed, that they simply cannot be making them up. We must listen to the children! (except when they recant).

It’s not exactly the most sound argument, but I agree that it would be highly unlikely that the children could just lie about such a subject on a whim, with no outside pressures. That doesn’t however rule out that the stories and details were introduced to them by somebody else.

The evidence is now overwhelming that Abraham Christie used violence and intimidation against the children, so they would tell him what he wanted to hear. Once they were out of his reach, they said that this is what happened.

Even the mother’s own independent expert – former MET police officer Kylie Wilson – conceded in a written witness statement, that she thought Christie coerced the original allegations from the children, because of his position of authority over them and their desire to do what he wanted.

“[She] has acquiesced and then acquiesced again to further questioning. Undoubtedly as is the nature of someone who has started rolling the snowball of lies further disclosures came in order to please Mr Christie. There is a similar account given by [the boy].”

While Wilson does not believe that Christie premeditatedly coached them (though it’s now clear he did), she clearly does not think the wider body of the story is true.

“The accounts themselves may be far fetched and in some cases physically impossible, however given the current prevalence of child abuse enquiries … it is not surprising that a parent may get swept up into believing there is some truth to an apparently articulate account given by a child.”

In my opinion the real question that should be asked is how can the children articulate such complex and detailed stories WITHOUT somebody coercing, coaching or encouraging them? Even if the allegations were true, they wouldn’t know how to describe exactly what happened to them, or take on board all of the finer details of the people and places allegedly involved. That’s why social workers and other experts are brought in to conduct interviews, because children have a tough time verbalizing what may have happened. It is also important to have an impartial interviewer outside of the family, because a mother for example may be driven by emotion and not realize when she is influencing the child’s disclosure.

These kids do not have a tough time verbalizing the stories at all – it was Cafcass, it was McDonalds, there was this person, there was that person, and they list it all off without even the slightest bit of hesitation. In fact the boy gets so carried away in one of the original videos that he innocently claims “all the shopkeepers,” and “all the cafes” were involved. All of them!

So are these children just geniuses like Rain Man, did they take notepads with them to each “weekly” session to note down every detail, did each Satanist introduce themselves and outline their personal information – “hello I’m John Smith and I work at Cafcass, I now live in this town?” Or was it Abraham Christie and Ella Draper hammering home each little factoid within the violent environment the children later explained to police?

Despite this, a lot of the “detail” actually turned out to be false anyway. For example there was no secret room found in the church nursery area, and the children later admitted that Abraham forced them to say this. The teacher’s “house” where they were allegedly abused, turned out to be a block of flats and was not as described. They admitted that they had never actually been there.

Why would police round up the accused and force them to strip off for examinations, if none of the stories add up to begin with? There has to be a level of common sense before we turn it in to a witch hunt.

3) Why Do You Say The Police Were Coaching?

Those who are quick to proclaim it impossible for the children to have been coached, are just as quick to claim the police forced the children to retract the allegations and coached them to turn the tables on Abraham Christie. They literally claim the children were coached to say they were coached!

At the start of the girl’s interview she asks “what do you want me to say?” which has been jumped on as evidence of coaching, but the officer doesn’t prompt her or respond by saying “I want you to say this…” So despite the opportunity for coaching, the opportunity was not used. After all it would be pretty foolish to deliberately coach a child in a recorded interview. Believers however are happy to see something that isn’t there.

Likewise if the boy was bullied or pressured in to a retraction prior to his interview, why is he so comfortable with the interviewer? Why does he smile with relief after getting it all off his chest, and get happy and excited at the possibility of never seeing Abraham again, who he said he “hated”?

If you now concede that the children can be coached, isn’t that a contradiction? And what corroborating evidence do you have against the police? Or is it just convenient for you to accuse them of coaching so you can carry on believing the original story that you believed from day one?

4) Why Do You Smear The Father?

Believers have repeatedly referred to the past of the children’s father, citing so called “non-molestation” orders as evidence that he abused his children as part of the satanic cult.

First off, you do realize that a non-molestation order has nothing to do with child molesting right? It’s a civil court order designed to protect women from domestic violence, and can be applied for even if no domestic violence has occurred, so long as they fear it might happen in the future.

Now I’m not going to pretend to know what happened in their household, but the father has never been charged or convicted of domestic violence against Ella Draper, and there are certainly women that abuse legal privileges like this during nasty breakups and custody disputes.

Simply put there is no proof he was violent, and certainly no proof he was violent towards the children.

Even if we take Ella’s allegations at face value, that still is not evidence that the father was a child abuser and satanic cult leader in Hampstead.

Not satisfied, believers have implied that the father’s acting and nude modelling makes him suspicious, and that doing voice over work for a charity overseas means he’s involved in international child trafficking.

Ultimately none of it sticks.

5) Why Do You Ignore Abraham Christie’s Record?

On the contrary to the children’s father, Abraham Christie has a criminal record for drug offences, violence and dishonesty. Last year he received a police caution for assault against his own teenage son, and he was reported to police after he was publicly aggressive towards the children in question outside of the school. This was all documented by Draper’s self-styled legal adviser Sabine McNeill who dumped a bunch of files on Google Drive, perhaps not even realizing most of them actually went against her “client’s” case, and that she’d just made herself in contempt of court.

When the children where out of Christie’s reach they told investigators he hit them with spoons, poured jugs of water over them, and carried out other cowardly acts of violence, until they stopped “lying.” In his sick mind lying was anything that didn’t fit the story he’d concocted for them.

Those who were unfortunate enough to have watched the original videos will have noticed the children’s bruises, which were also noted in medical reports. Considering they hadn’t seen their father for months at the time that they were medically examined, I wonder where those bruises came from?

One allegation against the father was that he’d been giving them cocaine, as well as a drug that was injected. Police did find evidence of drug use, but this was THC in the children’s hair, which suggests that Christie (not the father) was forcing them to ingest psychoactive cannabis. His story is that he was giving them hemp, but this is easily distinguishable by drug tests. “Papa Hemp” was feeding them an illegal drug!

Believers, why do you ignore the verifiable evidence of Christie’s violent past including against his own son, the children’s testimony against him, and the visible and medical signs of abuse and cannabis consumption? But are happy to believe there’s a baby cooking cult in Hampstead instead?

6) What Medical Evidence?

Believers like to cling on to the very first medical reports from Dr. Hodes, because she wrote that the evdience supports allegations of sexual abuse. However even if there was medical evidence of sexual abuse, it still wouldn’t prove who the perpetrators were.

However it’s disingenuous to focus on these initial reports because Hodes took her findings to a panel of colleagues to be peer reviewed. She then subsequently agreed that she had overstated the findings, and what was actually observed fell within “possible normal variant,” meaning the children were comparable to children who were not abused.

It has since emerged that Draper was giving the children enemas for constipation, both of which can cause mild signs of damage, and therefore may be a factor in the findings.

I won’t get graphic, but the one finding that did remain after the peer review was the presence of “RAD” in the girl. This however did not accompany any signs of damage, which you would expect with sexual abuse.

When Dr. Hodes was asked about the enemas Draper had been giving the children, she conceded there could have been multiple possible causes for the RAD, not just sexual abuse.

“It’s another possible cause of trauma,” she responded.

So at this stage we’re dealing with “possible,” not provable.

Therefore evidence of sexual abuse is not a forgone conclusion, and is not the “smoking gun” believers are attempting to spin it as.

Hodes sought the opinions of her peers by herself and there is no evidence that she was pressured to revise her findings.

So let’s think about this logically for a second. If a massive cult had been abusing these children every week for an extended period of time, you’d think the physical signs would be absolutely overwhelming. Not one possible sign, in one child, without other supporting signs, and which has also been observed in non-abused children.

They should have been in constant pain, they should have been having nightmares, they should have been trying to stay off school in fear, and the evidence should be conclusive. It’s not!

While it’s possible some kind of isolated incident of sexual abuse has occurred, the children no longer seem to claim this, and the only evidence of abuse of any kind points towards physical and emotional abuse from Abraham Christie and Ella Draper.

Put Up or Shut Up

If the truth is on your side you shouldn’t have any trouble answering the above 6 questions and providing evidence for the satanic cult you believe so confidently in.

… I’m waiting.

Update: Why Hampstead Boy Was NOT Bullied To Retract Satanic Abuse Allegations

Follow WideShut

                               

Categories

  • GeneticModificationForMorons

    It is pointless asking morons questions because they are too stupid to give a rational and objective response. Now – ask them to go polish (as in Mr Sheen – not Polish people for the morons who may read this) their pitchforks and you may get somewhere – their small brains may be able to process repetitive manual tasks.

  • Olive Farmer

    it would beggar belief that the police and social services would cover up child abuse, doesn;t it? Er, well only “historically”, er for decades, er well OK some of them were satanists and necrophiliacs, er Ok there seems to have been judges and rich people and child care establishments up to their necks in ritual abuse BUT that was all a long time ago, right?

    • Keelan Balderson

      None of the high profile historical cases have ever been shown to be Satanic Ritual Abuse. You’re making a mockery of real abuse by saying that.

  • Olive Farmer

    Dear Genetic Modification etc:
    Ask yourself what is the nature of reality (check out quantum physics) then ask yourself where is the consciousness (check out various neurologists that debate this) then,once you have educated yourself as to the bewildering complexity of everything you thought you understood ask yourself why you think it;s OK to call other experiencers of this thing called life “morons” for smelling rats in a place where rats are. Even if this case proves false, the evident cover up and swift “nothing to see here, move along now, there’s a good boy” by the tainted Met, tainted Judiciary and tainted social services would cause any rational person to go Hmm.

  • Guest

    answers!
    1) because there is proof, and the shifty way the court has conducted itself is suspicious in itself! and the reluctance of the accused to have the examination that could wrap this whole thing up in a second, i also find very suspicious, and they were not allowed to look for more evidence on the ‘fact finding mission’ not even go through drawers or cupboards… the reason there is no evidence is because they were blocked from finding it

    2)err… coz it happened???? would that not also be a valid reason for knowing such detail??? in fact id say that such detail CANT be coached!

    3) coz u can see it for yourself in the video,
    The police are corrupt anyway, especially with child abuse cases as we are discovering, and have heads that can roll in this, also they gave access to the father which would show the kids he can still get to them… i bet thats all it took!

    4)well im glad u asked that… lets talk about the father for a second… because he seems to have scuttled off….. u talk about christies abusive record… what about the fathers? he was arrested numerous times for beating the shit out of Ella draper, indeed that was why she left him! so why is that conveiniently forgotten when demonising christie??
    and i have found the man conspicuous by his absence throughout!
    plus all he had to do to stop all this was arrange the examinations of the 10 people described and he wuda been off the hook and takin his kids home!

    5)i dont ignore christies record at all, he has conviictions for
    weed…. hardly crime of the century, indeed perfectly legal in most parts of the world and now a recognised medicine that is doing amazing things with cancer and chronic pain conditions….
    fighting…. again hardly crime of the century… sometimes some things are worth fighting for
    and dishonesty….. lol yeah well i think we are all a bit guilty of that from time to time.

    your point is????? lots of decent people have criminal convictions, and on the grand scheme of things this is all very mild stuff when u actually look at it… which is strange coz the way the papers and you lot implied it, he was a complete convict, a danger to society and a convicted child abuser (which just isnt true)

    6) if hodes findings had been that there was no child abuse, nobody would have even questioned it! and we would all be quoting it as gospel… it came back not saying wat u wanted so u set the corrupt court about debunking it, like they did with everything that didnt say wat they wanted it to like the psychological report, that says these kids have been horrifically abused!
    yet u are all still trying to deny it!!!!!
    besides this is all semantics… it coiuld be completely decided one way or another by ordering an on the record examination, no worse than they do to someone who they thinks hiding a joint!!!!!
    and i ask again! if this would clear this all up and put it to bed in a heartbeat… why wouldnt they want… no DEMAND it done???
    if i had been accused id have been down the police stn the next morning demanding they examine me and clear my name!!!!
    but then that wud be the actions of an innocent person that doesnt want any doubt about it…..
    the only reason for not wanting it done as far as i can see, is if they got something to hide…
    sorry bhut its true!
    hope that answers ur questions competantly…. now i call again for those described in the videos to come forward and put this to bed once and for all!
    if they are so totally wronged and innocent in all this… then the markings wont be there will they?? and we can all apologise and let them get on with their lives completely vindicated!

    • Keelan Balderson

      1) “because there is proof” … where?

      “the shifty way the court has conducted itself is suspicious in itself!” … nope that’s how all fact finding hearings in the family court context are held.

      “the reluctance of the accused to have the examination that could wrap this whole thing up in a second.” … If I said you abused me, would you whip out your todger or flash your gash?

      “the reason there is no evidence is because they were blocked from finding it.”

      Even if that was technically true, you are not in a position to know IF there really is evidence to block … so you believe with no evidence. Just because you saw a few Youtube videos.

      2) “Would that not also be a valid reason for knowing such detail?”

      No because A) Abused children aren’t logging every detail with a notepad, B) They use words and language that could only have been explained to them beforehand.

      3) Where in the video?

      “The police are corrupt anyway, especially with child abuse cases as we are discovering”

      We’re not talking about cases, we’re talking about THIS case. And none of the cases from the past were even remotely similar to this one.

      4) “he was arrested numerous times for beating the shit out of Ella draper.”

      Can you back this claim up? Was he ever charged? Or are you just taking Ella’s word for it?

      5) I don’t have a problem with adults smoking weed, but when he was cautioned for beating his own son, and THC was found in the children’s hair, proving he forced them to ingest cannabis, then I have a problem with him.

      Dishonesty is crimes like fraud, lying in business etc.

      “a danger to society and a convicted child abuser” … he beat his own teenage son, and the children in question have detailed what he did to them. Why do you ignore them? I thought you cared about the children?

      6) Dr. Hodes’ findings were revised by her herself, before the fact finding hearing. Please provide evidence that she was pressured, if that’s what you’re claiming.

      … Start from question one and try again, or admit you’ve been duped.

  • Sarah Cox

    honest answers!
    1) because there is evidence, not a lot granted, but thats because the actual investigation was closed after 6 days as ‘no crime confirmed’ despite the medical report saying abuse had taken place, and the lame ‘fact finding mission’ they sent out for a coffee morning, wasnt even allowed to look through drawers and cupboards, let alone investigate anything! it was not thorough enough!
    also the shifty bias way the courts have conducted themselves makes me suspicious, we know that the system being used, is set up to bury this kind of shit, as we are now discovering it has been going on right under our noses!
    dont u think that under those circumstances u wouldnt take any chances… and would use the conclusive, 100% irrefutable evidence available rather than conduct that circus that has raised nothing but doubt!
    especially when we know the judge is bias against children in cases like this when she sailed hollie greig down the river!
    all of this together with the fact that we could wrap this all up in a second and go home, knowing beyond any shadow of a doubt those kids got justice!

    2) Err… coz it happened???? would u not agree that that might also be another reason for knowing the detail??? in fact, id venture that that level of detail CANT be coached!

    3) coz u can see it plainly in the video!!!! in fact alissa starts with ‘wat do u want me to say’ hmmmm….. the questions are totally leading, and the interrogator badgers the kids the whole way through not allowing them to speak, and cutting them off all the time so they spoke about wat he wanted, and he tied them up in knots! it was digusting to watch! plus with what we know of the police, now coming to light, and how the system deals with child abuse cases of this manner….
    the fact that despite the possibility that this took place, they let the childrens father see them during the 6 days seperated in foster care, so they didnt even have each other… evil bastards!!!!!
    chased away the mother, and sent in the father for a visit! hardly nuetral was it???
    they were probably terrified!!! i bet that was all it took for them to recant! and its completely unreliable when there definitive proof available, and it would put a stop to all this!

    4)im glad u asked that… lets talk about the elusive father a minute….
    christies record has been pulled out, pumped up and blown out of all proportion, but wasnt Dearman arrested on numerous occasions for beating the shit out of Ella draper, in front of her kids????
    why is christies petty record relevant but Dearmans isnt????
    for me the man is conpicuous in his absence!!! if hes so sure hes innocent, why hide???
    and if this is all a mailicious plot, and he is the victim of it when really hes such an amazing father…. why wasnt his amazing parenting mentioned?? in fact…. nothing….. hmmmm… fishy!

    5) because the way christies record is portrayed, the man is an abusive lunatic deviant, international drug smuggler with a string of child abuse convictions… its never said in that many words, only implied, and the reason for that is that actually, his record is not for anything serious and sometimes quite understandable, he has been convicted for…
    weed…. whoopie shit! its legal in most places now and hardly crime of the century!
    fighting…. hey who hasnt got in a fight in their lives?? indeed some things are worth fighting for!
    dishonesty… lol yeah well i think we are all a bit guilty of that from time to time

    he has no convictions for child abuse, or domestic violence and its certainly not buggery is it?! so his record is irrelavant….
    Dearmans however was domestic violence around the children… THAT could be very damaging… yet not even mentioned!

    6) haha if Hodes report had come back saying wat pauffley wanted it to, it would never have been questioned! and her credentials would never have been questioned!
    as soon as she came across something that went against wat she wanted to hear, she would just contest it and give it to someone she know would say wat she wanted!

    either way this is all besides the point! this could all be cleared up in a heartbeat! just let the 10 innocent people come and be examined on the record, which shudnt be a prob if theres no truth in it… and we can put this all to bed once and for all!
    hope that answers ur questions!
    and know that this could all be put an end to in a second…. if they are innocent like the court knows with complete conviction…. then wheres the prob… all it would do is vindicate them beyond any doubt!

    • Voiceofreason

      Nope, you’ve not answered the questions! And please, it’s ‘what’ not ‘wat’ for crying out loud!!

    • Keelan Balderson

      1) Don’t confuse the medical reports as evidence of a baby cooking cult, and please refer to question 6, and my reply to Sploosh.

      2) Children don’t know what the likes of Cafcass is or who works for them, and it’s implausible for them to know the names of upwards of 100 people. This information was clearly fed to them.

      3) “wat do u want me to say” is an innocent phrase from a child in a strange situation. It’s not like the interviewer then replied “I want you to say this.”

      Furthermore please point to a section of either child’s interview where the interviewer prompts them to turn on Abraham. They did this on their own accord.

      4) “wasn’t Dearman arrested on numerous occasions for beating the shit out of Ella draper, in front of her kids????”

      So you don’t know if he was or wasn’t? So you’re making a baseless argument?

      Re-read point 4 more closely.

      5) I don’t have a problem with adults smoking weed, but when he was cautioned for beating his own son, and THC was found in the children’s hair, proving he forced them to ingest cannabis, then I have a problem with him.

      6) Hodes’ findings were revised by her herself, before the fact finding hearing. Please provide evidence that she was pressured, if that’s what you’re claiming.

      … Start from question one and try again, or admit you’ve been duped and learn a tough life lesson.

      • Sarah Cox

        absolutely not! points still stand!
        1)i took the medical reports as evidence that the kids had anal injuries consistant wiv sexual abuse. and would like to know where they came from as it certainly wernt christie… never even alleged!

        2) they are 8 and 9 not toddlers!!!!! of course they knew who caffcass was, they work with them… so ur saying they wouldnt remember the names of workers who they worked with and actually knew… but can memorise over 100 names that were fed to them ??….ur a fucking idiot!

        3) ‘wat do u want me to say’ means exactly wat it says! funny how u can always find an alternate meaning for things wen it suits ur purposes…. again…. pathetic!

        4) ok yes i do know! they are recorded crimes and easily provable…. Dearman used to beat the shit out of Draper, police were called MANY times and he was arrested for brutality and threats on her life!
        nice guy!!!!! makes christie look like a choirboy really as there is no domestic violence on his record…. i checked!

        5) pmsl he didnt force anyone to ingest cannabis you fucking moron! clutching at those straws again?! the levels could easily have been caused just by passive smoking! ok u could debate that smoking round kids is not right, but its not harmful in ANY way either, is not dangerous to them in ANY way and its hardly crime of the century is it???
        and the fact that you desperados are trying unsuccessfully to whip it up into something its not… says a lot about you and ur desperation to discredit these people….
        i think thats because you know if anybody scratches the surface of this case, it becomes very apparent how much of a house of cards it is… and its bout to get windy!

        6) she was pressured!
        besides, if its all shit, then the examinations of the described genitals will all come back clear wont they???…
        and i can finally be sure that we got to the truth… thats all i want… either way….
        for ALL the evidence to get checked no matter how much they try and squirm out of it!
        its no worse than they do to someone they think is hiding a joint!
        this is ridiculous! end this!

        trust me darling im not duped ! my eyes are wide open! you are trying ur best to dupe people…. but thankfully the truth cant be hidden… it just is!
        why are you so frightened of them doing the examinations??? honestly???? very fishy i must say!
        wheres the harm in just double checking the evidence available??? why do u find that so personally offensive???
        quite strange!.. and il spell things howeva i want thx! and there aint shit u can do about it…. so tuff!, live with it! hahaha

        • Just

          Dear Sarah, do not waste your time. Keelan is a piece of crap, who works for pedophiles.

  • Voiceofreason

    Keelan, great questions and once again I applaud you for bringing rationality into this debacle! However, as I observe the likes of Sabine Mc Nutter who continue to ignore the facts, post videos of the children, names and addresses of innocent people, and insight hatred despite knowing full well they are breaking the law, we must conclude it is impossible to expect even the smallest amount of critical thinking from these people. And this is because they are just not that astute, in fact of very low intelligence. They don’t care that satanic abuse has never been proven, they don’t care about these children, I doubt the majority truly believe in the cause they are fighting for. Most have never had an original thought in their lives. They’re sheep. They’ve latched on to an idea and run with it, because it excites them.

  • sploosh

    1) There was no full investigation.

    The descriptive evidence the children gave would positively
    identify the accused ie, distinguishing marks, wart, verruca, tattoos etc. This
    would be evidence of a ring. This video evidence was not seen by the police.
    Why? because they were sent to a property store. So this important evidence was not used in the ‘investigation.’ If it had been used, the accused, by law,
    would have had to undergo medical examination to disprove these claims.

    Concealing such significant evidence is also a serious
    crime.

    Under EU law, sexual abuse must be FULLY investigated if
    there is even mere suspicion, regardless of retractions. Under EU law, full
    support must be given to only the child’s victim statements, free from any
    influence of the alleged abusers. This didn’t happen.

    2) This ridiculous section contradicts your argument. The
    children’s ability to separately recall the amount of consistent descriptions
    and statements without hesitation solidifies their claims.

    ‘they wouldn’t know how to describe exactly what happened to
    them, or take on board all of the finer details of the people and places
    allegedly involved.’ Ridiculous and contradictory. You believe the children
    could relay hours of coached information, which was consistent in the initial
    interviews and the police interviews, without error or pause for thought. Yet
    you don’t think the children could describe and recount what happened to them or the people / places involved?

    3) ‘What do you want me to say’

    There is also an expert witness statement from a former
    police constable which supports this.

    4) You say ‘why do you smear the father’ and then you go
    ahead and smear the partner who brought these claims to the police’s attention.

    5) More smearing.

    6) “persisting physical sign post peer review was reflex
    anal dilatation in P which, so Dr Hodes, maintains is “consistent with her
    allegation of the blunt penetrating force to her anus i.e. sexual abuse.” In
    evidence she referred to her colleagues agreeing it was “abnormal and striking.” It is a sign which is “rarely seen.”

    Keelan, again, I ask you, should the grandparent’s request
    for custody of children be accepted?

    • Keelan Balderson

      1) “There was no full investigation. The descriptive evidence the children gave would positively identify the accused ie, distinguishing marks, wart, verruca, tattoos etc. This would be evidence of a ring.”

      So you admit you believe the allegations fully, even though by your own argument there was no investigation (which isn’t actually true).

      So you happily believe without any evidence? You’re just holding out hope that there will be evidence for you preconceived belief. Basically you saw a Youtube video and for some reason blindly believe it.

      2) The fact that you can’t get your head around this point, shows you’re either wilfully ignorant, or just stupid. “The children’s ability to separately recall the amount of consistent descriptions and statements without hesitation,” is one of the biggest signs of them all that they were coached.

      3) I want you to explain your position. This expert witness you cite, actually says she thinks Christie coerced them in a round about way, so you’re just blindly ignoring reality. Reread question 2 more closely.

      4) The difference here is EVIDENCE. There is evidence of Christie’s abusiveness on police file, there is NONE for the father. Hence why you are smearing the father, and I am stating facts about Christie.

      5) More official documentation, which even Sabine herself leaked.

      6) So you concede that the only sign of possible sexual abuse, is found with only one child, and that this “RAD” does not accompany any signs of physical damage.

      Now when Dr. Hodes was asked about the enemas Draper had been giving the children, she conceded there could have been multiple possible causes for the RAD, not just sexual abuse.

      “It’s another possible cause of trauma.”

      So at this stage we’re dealing with “possible.”

      I’ll repeat point 6) If a massive cult had been abusing these children every week for an extended period of time, you’d think the physical signs would be absolutely overwhelming.

      Not one possible sign, in one child, without other supporting signs, and which has also been observed in non-abused children.

      … as to your final point, it all depends on their relationship with the Grandparents, and their relationship with Draper.

      … Start from question one and try again, or admit you’ve been duped and learn a tough life lesson.

      • sploosh

        Yet you believe the judge based on a secret court hearing,
        one interview with the father and a church visit, with no criminal investigation, no investigation into the other alleged abusers or victims and when not all evidence was used.

        The judge says herself that ‘the police and social services inquiry could have taken an entirely different course if attention had been given to those recordings. At the very least, the questions asked of P and Q at interview would have been directed towards other areas of interest.’

        You also believe the children were coached yet there is no
        evidence of this or the ‘brainstorming’ sessions. ‘The majority of the information conveyed comes from or is prompted by them. The children are asked many, many leading questions.’ What about the police interviews then? when even
        MORE detail was expressed, detail which was not even spoken about in the mother and partner’s videos (about how and where the plastic willies were made, sizes, types etc – a lot of detail to remember and luckily enough, the mother and partner made sure they were coached to have an
        answer for this if asked.)

        In the retraction videos the children do not even describe
        how they were ‘coached.’ And when I mentioned ‘What do you want me to say’…This is what the girl said at the beginning of her retraction video which is evidence of coaching.

        A few quotes from the ex-constable witness statement:

        ‘To state categorically that the children had been coached
        (which is written on the Crime Report) which I understand is the assertion from Social Services, is simply not feasible.’

        ‘It is clear from the retractions that Alisa and Gabriel are
        not giving the same account in their retractions. They do not give the same sources of material as to where they got their ideas from for touching, whether they touched or not, where the idea for plastic willies came from etc. Gabriel’s
        retraction is particularly confused and he appears to be led through it by the police interviewer.’

        ‘I do not feel it was suitable to close this investigation
        at this point without further enquiries and corroboration being sought.’

        If you read the witness statement you may realise the flaws
        in Pauffleys judgement.

        ‘as to your final point, it all depends on their relationship with the Grandparents, and their relationship with Draper.’ So if they don’t get on with Draper they should have the kids? ok.

        The life lesson is coming to you Keelan.

        • Keelan Balderson

          – It wasn’t a secret court hearing, even members of the press attended. Ella and Abe however decided not to turn up.

          – Very little of my coverage of the case is based on what the Judge said, rather the information available in the public domain, such as the leaked documents.

          – Yes I believe the children were coached as outlined in question 2, and the fact that they said they made it up, and accused Abe of beating them.

          – ‘What do you want me to say’ is not a sign of coaching at all, it is a sign of an innocent child who doesn’t fully grasp what’s happening or is expected of her. If the policeman responded “I want you to say this” then you’d have a point.

          Interestingly the mother’s own expert witness (who you are quoting) says that it’s this willingness to please, which likely lead to the coercion by Christie. She doesn’t think it was direct coaching, but she doesn’t seem to believe the children were telling the truth.

          “[She] has acquiesced and then acquiesced again to further questioning. Undoubtedly as is the nature of someone who has started rolling the snowball of lies further disclosures came in order to please Mr Christie. There is a similar account given by [the boy].”

          It’s funny that you try to use the witness statement to back up your belief in the story, when their own position is only that the police should have been more thorough.

          You’re a true believer who believed from day one with no evidence.

          • sploosh

            – it was a secret closed trail.

            -Keelan… can you spot where you contradict yourself here? All your biased coverage has been based exactly on what judge has said, you are unable to answer or consider the many other questions being raised about the decision.

            – can you spot where you contradict yourself here?

            – why is she confused THIS time about what is expected of her?

            ‘It is clear from the retractions that Alisa and Gabriel are not giving the same account in their retractions. They do not give the same sources of material as to where they got their ideas from for touching, whether they touched or not, where the idea for plastic willies came from etc. Gabriel’s retraction is particularly confused and he appears to be led through it by the police interviewer’

            – can you quote that full paragraph? and care to quote the summary points of this witness statement or shall I do this for you?

            – Do you fancy criticizing another expert?

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEpYDoDvt7Y&list=PLaxtbpNuWoFQvuNMj5o-UF7MQvL96wpdO

            Keelan, the life lesson is coming to you. Maybe stick to wrestle-mania coverage where your incompetent blogging can do no harm.

            – Do you fancy deleting another comment?

          • Keelan Balderson

            “All your biased coverage has been based exactly on what judge has said”

            Not really. Most of my coverage came before the judgement.

            As for the “witness statement” … I assumed this was part of Kylie Wilson’s statement, but it’s actually the unsourced statement that has been floating around.

            For this, all I have to say is who wrote it?

            The so called expert doesn’t even give their name!

          • sploosh

            You’re not answering the questions again Keelan?

            And you’re wrong about the witness statement.

            She is saying its not surprising that a parent may believe there is truth to an account given by the child in light of recent scandals and cover ups- this actually implies that she believes these were actual allegations and not coached stories. She understands why the mother would believe the children’s allegations.

            And you didn’t finish that quote that you picked up and used out of context, shot yourself in the foot there:

            ‘she has been asked a number of other questions and is not believed by Abraham until she gives an answer that fits what he wasn’t (sic) to hear.” This shows that rather than being coached into making disclosures which is what has been alleged, that Mr Christie appears not to have believed the initial account Alisa gave and has asked if it was Alisa’s father who had taught her, as children often do, Alisa has acquiesced and then acquiesced again to further questioning. Undoubtedly as is the nature of someone who has started rolling the snowball of lies further disclosures came in order to please Mr Christie. There is a similar account given by Gabriel.’

            So she is implying again here that the children were not coached.

            You are a true believer of a judgement which has admittedly and proven to be a feeble investigation.
            Life lesson coming.

          • Voiceofreason

            Once again you have your wires crossed. Keelan has written about this case on 6 separate occasions since 11th Feb, so he, like many of us have not just based our opinions on the judgment. All this did was simply confirm what many (having already researched and considered the information available) already believed. This being, that the claims of satanic abuse are baseless. We’re not shills or dis-info agents (F*ck knows what one of those is) but people who have combined the evidence at hand with probability and common sense to arrive at a conclusion that happens to be one you don’t agree with. On the other hand you appear to hone in on snippets of information, or rather perceived information and use this to prop up your belief that the allegations are true. You may not agree with the findings of the judge, but as she says “Evidence cannot be evaluated and assessed in separate compartments”.

          • sploosh

            That’s a snippet

          • Voiceofreason

            ??

          • Keelan Balderson

            “She is saying its not surprising that a parent may believe there is truth to an account given by the child in light of recent scandals and cover ups”

            I agree, I said the same thing in one of my early articles.

            “So she is implying again here that the children were not coached.”

            No it’s semantics. She doesn’t think Christie coached them directly or premeditatedly, but that the children told him what he wanted to hear.

  • Kimmy Cakes

    haha, why didn’t you approve of my comment EYES WIDE SHUT?

  • river

    very good article, absolutely spot on. This case is a total joke, an absolute fantasy thought up by a mentally deranged and vengeful mother and her violent psychopath of a boyfriend, promoted by a handful of vile, malicious con artists and complete nutcases. Well done mate, keep up the good work. For all of us who have been called pedos or paedo protectors because we were too sane and discerning to believe in baby burgers and baby skin foot ware I thank you.

    • Snake Logan

      I agree, River. Apart from the fantastical claims of slaughtering, skinning, cooking, and eating “thousands” of babies (while leaving behind not even a trace of material evidence) or of “hundreds” of people involved in a mysterious cult, without even a whisper of it leaking out, the fact that almost all the falsely accused people just happen to have pissed off Abraham “Spoonman” Christie should tell us something.

      It takes guts to admit when you’re wrong, and I suspect most of the True Believers have become too wrapped up in their misguided rage to stop and have a good think about the matter. Some have–I’ve talked to a number of people who’ve changed their minds–but they’re not as loud as those who can’t admit they misjudged the situation.

      • Kimmy Cakes

        they didn’t look for evidence. there was no investigation, remember? see statements by “judge”

        • Keelan Balderson

          Well they did, you just ignore that part, but if they didn’t, then you have to concede that you believe with no evidence. Soooo where does that leave you?

        • Lilith Mooney

          they had six officers investigating it, can these people not read?

  • Voiceofreason

    The Links you’ve provided do not bear any relevance to this case. Please don’t waste my time.

    • Kimmy Cakes

      because they further proof of the pedophilia you so desperately try hide. the jig is up!! this cat is not going back in the bag.
      Subject: Re: Comment on Hampstead Cult Believers: 6 Questions YOU Must Answer

      • Voiceofreason

        Where have I stated that child sexual abuse does not occur?

        • Kimmy Cakes

          I’m not splitting hairs with you. puppet and coward is what you are. mouth-piece for evil. mouth-piece for abusers that are in power and control what is said about this in media. mouth-piece for pedophiles. mouth-piece for in-justice. puppet. coward.
          Subject: Re: Comment on Hampstead Cult Believers: 6 Questions YOU Must Answer

          • Voiceofreason

            Oh dear, you are even more stupid than I first thought. By the way since you are so desperate for my answers to the 6 questions, just re-read/read Keelans piece (above). He pretty much covers my thoughts.

          • Snake Logan

            Wow. So if I get this right, you’re saying “puppetcowardmouthpiece-nanny-nanny-boo-boo” over and over. Excellent contribution to the discussion.

  • Voiceofreason

    Since the principle belief of the ‘truth seekers’ is that the children could not
    possibly have been coached and/or fabricated the events, it would pay for them
    to invest some of their misguided energy into researching the large number of
    cases where false allegations of sexual abuse have arisen in divorce/separation.
    And also why they occur.

    False allegations are a feature of family separation, especially when accompanied by high levels of conflict where children are caught between warring parents or, in many cases, between one parent determined to eradicate the other.

    It usually presents in one of two ways:

    1. Children having said or done something which has been taken and misinterpreted by an angry parent as confirming their own deeply held beliefs about how bad the other parent is. Children confronted by this parent’s reaction to what they have said can be brought to a place where they are scared of the consequences of NOT confirming what the parent assumes is being said. And it is at this point that a child can trip something that actually happened but which was not wrong and not damaging, into a full-blown crisis.

    2.Children being primed and persuaded to tell stories about what has happened to them, in order to get them to make the allegations in the first place. Imagine, a child who has absolutely no understanding of sex, no concept of what sex means and no way of comprehending the act, but who is persuaded and
    encouraged to make such allegations against a loved parent. Unknowing of the
    implications of what they are saying, such children are often enmeshed by a
    parent who cannot see that their behaviour is damaging to the child. The
    children might also be complicit in such actions as a means of winning
    affection from this parent, and/or fear of repercussions if they fail to comply.

    Parents who either misinterpret or coach children in such ways also fall into a particular personality profile, and based upon what I’ve seen of Ella Draper so far ( though this is by no means conclusive) she fits this profile well.

    • Kimmy Cakes

      “, it would pay for them
      to invest ” ………. actually I think a lot would be willing to PAY for a just INVESTIGATION. I know I would.

    • Jon_357

      Spot on. I’d also add that some people are very ready to believe any such allegation, however improbable.

  • John

    You there ?

  • John

    Just to let you know Keelan Balderson admits to “MAKE A LIVING as a BLOGGER”

    He is also in contact with other suspected “PAID BLOGGERS”

    He also help to disrupt the Hollie Greig case

  • John

    Judge Paulfry was the judge who dismissed the Hollie Grieg allegations which was SATANIC in nature.

    • Keelan Balderson

      Not it wasn’t.

      • John

        Judge Paulfrey was the judge on the Hollie Greig case.

        • Keelan Balderson

          So what?

          • John

            And you were determentle to that case as well weren’t you Balder’s?

          • Keelan Balderson

            I helped expose it for the fraud it was.

          • John

            Bullshit Lies… Cover up like this Hampstead case,
            and these in the states

            “SATANIC RITUAL ABUSE”

            Franklin cover up, John Decamp
            Ted Gunderson Former head FBI L.A. CIA & Satanism

          • John

            You had a big hand in discreditting the HOLLIE GREIG case didn’t you Balder’s?

          • Jon Stevenson

            I think that was my doing…..just saying ;)

          • John

            More lies??

        • John

          Yes She was…

  • John

    POST MY ORIGINAL TEXT KEELAN.

  • John

    Keelan Balderson has not posted my ORIGINAL text,

  • John

    HE IS CENSORING MY POSTS!

  • John

    POST UP MY ORIGINAL TEXT KEELAN. OR ARE YOU “CENSORING NOW”

  • John

    The System will not allow “SATANIC RITUAL ABUSE” to gain a credible foothold…
    search Ted Gunderson Former FBI Head L.A. CIA & SATANISM

  • John

    SEARCH “The Franklin Cover up” John DeCamp

  • John

    POST UP MY ORIGINAL TEXT KEELAN. OR ARE YOU “CENSORING NOW”

  • Keelan Balderson

    Yeah I’m a blogger! As well as my own blogs which make money through standard banner advertising, I also get paid to write for other people’s blogs on a range of topics.

    I didn’t disrupt the Hollie Greig case, Robert Green did that himself when he ran around accusing people of being abusers with no evidence. It was also NOT Satanic. In fact that allegation only came at the very end when Green was buddying up to some Christians and he thought he’d get some more promotion by bringing Satan in to the fold.

    The Daily Mail contacted me because I used an image of Abraham Christie and they wanted to know where I got it from (one of Belinda’s videos).

    (I assume this is Alan Alan from Facebook). As to your incessant question “Is it possible the Dr. could have been pressured to change her findings?”

    If the world worked on possibilities instead of truth, where would we be?

    If you have evidence that she was, let’s see it.

    The site has been called WideShut for years, with reference to one of my favourite film-makers Stanley Kubrick. At one time I did entertain the popular conspiracy theories about him and even had an article up on here, but I eventually took it down when it didn’t stand up to scrutiny.

    Nope I’m not Jewish.

    Any other complete nonsense you wish to spout?

    • John

      POST UP MY ORIGINAL TEXT KEELAN. OR ARE YOU “CENSORING NOW”

      • Keelan Balderson

        This was the first comment you left. It was held in moderation because it contained a link. This is an auto filter to prevent spam.

        • John

          Oh your right, its gonna get real messy.

          • Voiceofreason

            In addition to all evidence confirming this case as
            baseless, people like you will always fail in your quest for so called ‘truth’ due to the deranged, paranoid ramblings you are so fond of spouting. Try reading back what you’ve put here. Do you honestly think any sane individual will ever take you seriously? Thankfully
            you will either get so hysterical you’ll spontaneously combust, or over step the mark and get thrown in jail. Hurrah!

          • Snake Logan

            Countdown to John’s head exploding: 3….2….1….

          • John

            Silly little Ring-tail…

          • Voiceofreason

            …And BOOM!……splat….there blows John. Mop, bucket and disinfectant if you please. :o)

          • John

            Go an read your papers.. Daily Mail & the Sport, soft cock… VOICEOFTREASON lol……

          • Voiceofreason

            It’s ‘you’re’. Mind your grammar, you imbecile.

          • John

            VOICEOFTREASON

          • John

            Shut up little arse licker man

      • John

        Everyone speaks nonsense but yourself eh? a boy of 25.

    • John

      Approve my OP will you?

      2 hours ago Hold on, this is waiting to be approved by WideShutUK.

    • John

      “IS IT POSSIBLE”…. the Dr. could have been pressured to change her her TWO separate medical examinations ?”
      An expert in her field

      Answer YES OR NO

      • Lilith Mooney

        Is it possible for drugged babies to be parceled up and posted from abroad to the UK via Hermes or other parcel delivery services?

        • Snake Logan

          If it’s anything like the parcel I received yesterday, the satanists wouldn’t get a chance–the babies would be mangled beyond recognition on delivery.

  • John

    Evidence of PAID BLOGGERS

    Search this term: Taking cue from Israel, U.K. military forms psychological tactics unit.

  • John

    THIS SITE CENSORS YOUR TEXT

  • John

    THIS SITE CENSORS

  • John

    POST UP MY ORIGINAL TEXT KEELAN.

  • John

    POST UP MY ORIGINAL TEXT KEELAN. OR ARE YOU “CENSORING NOW”

  • John

    WHY ARE YOU NOT POSTING MY FIRST TEXT CENSORSHIP?

    • Keelan Balderson

      It’s right there you fucking hysterical idiot!

      • John

        You have just stuck it up now ya little weasel

        • Keelan Balderson

          Posts with links get filtered so people don’t spam.

          • John

            It is still waiting for you to approve

          • Voiceofreason

            The adage “Don’t raise your voice, improve your argument” is evidently lost on you!

          • John

            My argument is this.. Shut your silly looking puck face…

      • John

        Keep insulting little man, you only make the case against you easier…

      • John

        It is still waiting for you to approve little boy…

  • John

    Where? i can see it boy

  • John

    How long on average, does it take for a post to be approved?

  • John

    There should be a post above with a link…. crimes of empire

    If not its been censored

  • Lilith Mooney

    Gosh really? Well, still doesn’t change the fact that the Hollie Grieg case, and this one, are both rubbish though does it. Have you tried looking into the history of the mum and the boyfriend? Or Sabine? Maybe you should look there before throwing stones eh?

  • Voiceofreason

    ‘Breaking News….Keelan makes a living from blogging!!!’
    Wow Sherlock, what amazing investigative skills you possess. So, he makes a living from writing. So what? So do thousands of other bloggers. And since you think keelan has such power to sway opinion against the allegations, are you therefore admitting that, conversely, you only believe the allegations because the likes of Uk Column and Sabine have told you so? Are you admitting that you can’t think for yourself?

  • John

    Censoring again Monkey boy?

    I posted last night a link, and below that link, I posted that there should be a link above, if not, its been censored… Where is that link Monkey boy?

  • John

    Voiceoftreason, Ha ha ha.. you only know what you, when someone tells you, you know nothing??

    Lilith Mooney…. (Lilith is a Hebrew name for a figure in Jewish mythology, developed earliest in the “BABYLONIAN TALMUD” ,) well well, another connotation to the JEWISH SATANIC TALMUD.. FFS man

    Snake Logan, Snake, say no more, Metal gear (wish I was) Solid…

    Is this all you can muster, 3 people? whose tongue’s are so far up your arse, there tickling your tonsils, you are weak, pathetic ring-tail vermin…

    No one evens reads your shit Baldies, Their monies are wasted on your piss poor efforts. 3 PEOPLE back you up… I’m wasting my time here, thinking I need to destroy you… there’s nothing to destroy, an audience of 3.. ha ha ha ha…

    GET THE SUSPECTED PEOPLE IN & CHECK FOR SAID MARKS & TATTOO’S

    Simple…

  • John

    DO NOT ENTERTAIN THIS SITE AS ADMIN CENSOR YOUR POSTS!

  • Guest

    sploosh Keelan Balderson 6 days ago Removed

    • John

      What’s that mate?

  • John

    Censoring again Monkey boy?

    I posted last night a link, and below that link, I posted that there should be a link above, if not, its been censored… Where is that link Monkey boy?

  • sploosh

    If there’s anything you should take down its these biased, insensitive and truly ridiculous articles. You are a true believer and a true puppet. You’ve made yourself part of the problem and show support for abusers of the worst kind, as well as all your other minions on here. There’s no going back now. Its only a matter of time before the truth is exposed to the masses. I hope you feel the shame when it does.

    It may even do you a favor, it may wipe the patronizing tone off your voice.

    – Life lesson coming

    • John

      “Its only a matter of time before the truth is exposed to the masses. I hope you feel the shame when it does.”

      Oooh, he’s gonna feel more than that sploosh, Folk will remember what he has done here in this case and the HOLLIE GREIG case…

      “ZION CORP MONKEY BOY” might even swing from a lamp post for his betrayal & manipulation

    • Keelan Balderson

      I answered all of your questions. People can read them and make up their own mind. Rambling on like this serves no purpose.

  • John

    Zion Monkey boy, you in there good buddy, you got your ears on..

  • John

    Cause you have, seen the fucking size of them?

  • sunmoom

    Why do some of the alternative media continue with the ritual abuse abuse element of the story? Profit, psyop or just plain stupid? If it is one, or both of the former, then we have are confronted with a problem with alternative media. 70% of the MSM in the UK are either owned or controlled by Jews, more in the USA. The Jewish population of the UK is 1%. We know that MSM reflects a bias towars Israel and Jews, so the same applies to alternative media, but the bias is concealed because the disinfo/misinfo is less obvious. There appears to be a Christian Evangelism support amongst the SRA believers with this case and I have have a vibe they are connected with Judaism.” What kind of religion sanctions deception and immorality
    for the sake of political goals? Orthodox Talmudic Judaism. The Babylonian
    Talmud encourages Jews to cheat and deceive Gentiles whenever necessary!
    In fact, “by way of deception” is the motto of Israel’s spy agency
    Mossad. Official license to deceive and even commit sexual immorality was
    seen in Israel this week.”

  • Keelan Balderson

    YES comments have been removed from this thread. I will no longer tolerate personal attacks, spam/duplicates, or completely off topic comments.

    Engage with the topic at hand or do not comment.

    Posts with links are automatically held in moderation to prevent spam bots. If you want a comment to go through right away, do not include links.

    Hysterical replies to this post will also be deleted.

    Crying “censorship” doesn’t cut it. Look at the posts I have allowed, and make up your mind if I’m censoring or not.

    • sploosh

      lol… how can people make up their mind if they cant see the posts you have deleted…? You’ve deleted comments of mine which were not personal attacks, spam or off topic. They simply exposed your short-sighted arguments. Glad you’ve admitted it though.

      • Keelan Balderson

        I can see all of the comments you posted. The only one in moderation is the one with the video of savage, which is identical to the one you already posted below and I answered.

        If I was censoring, what criteria am I using? Look at all the comments that are here.

        If you have a burning point to make, make it!

  • vermilion J

    The grammar is terrible.

  • steve button

    Are you claiming that ritual child abuse/murder is not an issue? Or just that in this case you don’t see it? I think false stories of Satanic child abuse -like the McMartin pre-school hoax – may have been purposely emphasized in order to detract from real paedophile ritual networks. Which we know exist as we’ve seen in the Marc Dutroux horror show in Belgium -as one particular example, which had nowhere near the media coverage as the McMartin hoax…

    • Keelan Balderson

      It’s not a widespread issue and the Satanic Panic was a very real phenomenon.

      In cases where it exists, well then it exists. In the many cases where it doesn’t, then it doesn’t. It’s about evidence.

    • Jon_357

      In Belgium it had a thousand times more coverage than the McMartin hoax. The Satanic Panic hoax is very real and the individuals who were promoting it in Europe are still active today, alleging VIP ritual abuse networks without a shred of evidence and in fact a great deal of evidence to the contrary.

  • nikki

    you are an arsehole Keelan. a Paedophile protector.
    what kind of man stands side by side with paedophiles and covers up their abhorrent crimes? another paedophile, that’s who.
    fuck you keelan. scumbag.

  • Jerky LeBoeuf

    EXCELLENT JOB, sir. As an old-school conspiracy RESEARCHER who has worked with true scholars such as Carl Oblesby (of Yankee-Cowboy War fame), the bullshit rise of the conspiritards breaks my fucking heart.

  • CrimeJail

    You are missing the point. NO CHILDREN should know about such adult themes. THE fact they do, is evidence of abuse. If a man shows an 8 year old an adult magazine, he is guilty of abuse. The children’s words are their evidence.

    • Keelan Balderson

      Errr yeah cos Abraham Christie made them tell the stories …

    • Lindsay Horst

      how is a crime jail different from just a regular jail- where people are sent for committing crimes?