Judge: Hampstead Children Were Abused By Mother and Partner, NOT Satanic Cult

Abraham Christie Hampstead

Children coerced to make “satanic cult” allegations through psychological and physical abuse

A judge has detailed the horrific physical and psychological abuse of two young children, at the hands of their mother and her partner in the Hampstead area of North London.

Abraham Christie with the support of Ms. Ella Draper “tortured” Draper’s 9 year old daughter and 8 year old son, over a period of several months last year. They were punched and kicked, shoved in to walls, drenched with cups of water, and hit in the head and other parts of the body with metal spoons. The presence of THC in the children’s hair might also indicate the content of their regular “hemp” drinks, may actually have been the juiced form of active cannabis.

Ella Draper
Evil mother Draper

The deranged couple also concocted a series of fanciful tales about sexual abuse and murder in the local community by a satanic cult, and used it to smear the children’s estranged father, who they claimed was the ringleader. The children were encouraged to share these lies on camera under the threat of violence, but recanted them once they were placed in to care.

Following their removal from the home, mother Draper and an unqualified legal adviser leaked the shocking footage online, which painted the picture of a desperate mother trying to get justice for her children. As a satanic panic erupted, little did the public know that the real abuse was happening off camera at the hands of Draper and Christie themselves. Not Satanists, but violent, neglectful and deluded.

Abuser Abraham Christie chats with duped supporters

The facts about the case were officially shared by Mrs. Justice Pauffley during a “Fact Finding” hearing last week at the Royal Courts of Justice, though we had already gleaned some of these details from leaked police documents.

Neither Draper nor Christie attended, perhaps in fear that they will be prosecuted now that the full extent of their abuse has been exposed.

The judge concluded that neither child has been sexually abused by those accused by the couple, and a peer review of medical evidence could not be certain if any sexual abuse had taken place in the home. What is certain however, is that the children suffered immensely at the hands of the couple, and careless members of the public have exacerbated that suffering by sharing their videos across the web. To those people the judge said:

The individuals who have watched the online film clips, read online articles and believed in the allegations would do well to reflect that ‘things may not be what they seem’ and that it is all too easy to be duped on the basis of partial information. There are many campaigning people, sadly, who derive satisfaction from spreading their own poisonous version of history irrespective of whether it is true or not.

Below is the full public judgement:



Sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

B e f o r e :

Re P and Q (Children: Care Proceedings: Fact Finding)


Hannah Markham for the London Borough of Barnet
Ella Draper, the mother, did not appear and was not represented
June Venters QC for the father, Ricky Dearman
Justin Ageros for the children by their guardian
Hearing dates: 17 – 20 February, 3 – 6 and 10 – 12 March 2015



Crown Copyright ©

Mrs Justice Pauffley:

Introduction and executive summary

    1. This judgment is being given in public and without anonymisation save as to the children’s names.
    2. The subject children have been named repeatedly on the internet. Their photographs and film clips in which they feature have been published and re-published widely. Filmed police interviews of the children have been uploaded on to publicly accessible websites; so, too, intensely personal information relating to both children. As at 10 March 2015, more than 4 million people worldwide had viewed online material relating to this case.
    3. It is inevitable that a large proportion of those have a sexual interest in children. Any rational adult who uploads film clips to Youtube featuring children speaking about sexual activity must be assumed to realise that fact.
    4. I considered but ultimately rejected the suggestion that the children’s names should appear within the judgment. My priority is to protect them from further harm of whatever kind. Those who have posted material identifying the children have done so with flagrant disregard for their welfare interests. I see no good reason for adding to the damage already done. Only those with prurient or unhealthy curiosity will take steps to identify the children. My faith in humanity indicates that the overwhelming majority of individuals will do nothing because they, like me, have no interest in inflicting further harm.
    5. In the period before 13 January 2015, there had been some relatively limited online publication of court and other relevant material. It had been my hope that after discussion with the mother and her McKenzie Friend on 13 January, there would have been withdrawal of material from the internet. Since about 26 January the volume posted in a variety of formats on different sites has increased markedly; and the claims made against the father, the children’s former head teacher, other teachers, professionals and a very large number of parents at the children’s former school have proliferated.
    6. Many of those individuals are now living in fear because they have been identified on the internet as abusers of children and their contact details including telephone numbers, home and email addresses have been published. Lives have been disrupted. Several of those implicated have received malicious, intimidating ‘phone calls and emails at all hours of the day and night from all over the world. For example, “Hey cock. We’re coming for you. You scum paedo.
    7. It has been necessary for the police to protect worried parents and children at the gates of the school in Hampstead at the centre of the allegations. Prospective parents have wondered whether to withdraw their children from allocated places. Existing parents have been uniformly supportive of the school and every member of the teaching staff.
    8. All the signs are that those responsible for posting material derive a great deal of personal satisfaction from attracting interest to their spiteful work from many thousands of people. It’s akin to the sensation, I imagine, of a Facebook user receiving an indication that some posting or other has been “liked.”
    9. This necessarily lengthy judgment has one essential purpose. It is to provide definitive conclusions upon a quantity of evidence at the end of a thorough-going hearing. I have surveyed the relevant history as well as all of the significant developments in a wide-ranging police and social services investigation. Everything of importance on all sides of the dispute has been considered so as to enable me to arrive at authoritative findings.
    10. These are care proceedings brought by the London Borough of Barnet relating to two children, P and Q who are 9 and 8 years old respectively. Their parents are Ella Draper and Ricky Dearman.
    11. In September 2014, lurid allegations of the most serious kind were drawn to the attention of the Metropolitan Police. In a variety of ways, it was suggested that P and Q were part of a large group of children from north London who had been sexually abused, made to abuse one another and that they had belonged to a satanic cult in which there was significant paedophile activity.
    12. Specifically, it was said that babies were supplied from all over the world. They were bought, injected with drugs and then sent by TNT or DHL to London. The assertions were that babies had been abused, tortured and then sacrificed. Their throats were slit, blood was drunk and cult members would then dance wearing babies’ skulls (sometimes with blood and hair still attached) on their bodies. All the cult members wore shoes made of baby skin produced by the owner of a specified shoe repair shop.
    13. Children, it was alleged, would be anally abused by adult members of the cult using plastic penises or “willies.”
    14. Christchurch Primary School in Hampstead was said to be where the “main action” occurred but at least seven other local schools were named. East Finchley swimming pool was identified as one of the other meeting venues for the paedophile ring. Rituals were performed, so it was claimed, in an upstairs room at the McDonald’s restaurant where the “boss” allowed child sacrifice because he was a member of the cult. Human babies were prepared, cooked in the ovens within a secret kitchen and then eaten by cult members.
    15. It was alleged that the children’s father, Ricky Dearman, was the leader of the cult and that others included the children’s headteacher, Ms Forsdyke, another teacher, Mr Hollings, the priest at the adjacent church, a large number of named parents of other children, social workers, CAFCASS officers and police officers. It was said that, in all, more than a hundred people were involved in ‘doing sex‘ to the children.
    16. I am able to state with complete conviction that none of the allegations are true. I am entirely certain that everything Ms Draper, her partner Abraham Christie and the children said about those matters was fabricated. The claims are baseless. Those who have sought to perpetuate them are evil and / or foolish.
    17. All the indications are that over a period of some weeks last summer, P and Q were forced by Mr Christie and Ms Draper, working in partnership, to provide concocted accounts of horrific events. The stories came about as the result of relentless emotional and psychological pressure as well as significant physical abuse. Torture is a strong word but it is the most accurate way to describe what was done to the children by Mr Christie in collaboration with Ms Draper.
    18. The children were made to take part in filmed mobile ‘phone recordings in which they relayed a series of fabricated satanic practices. Subsequently, at the instigation of Abraham Christie and Ella Draper, the children repeated their false stories to Jean-Clement Yaohirou, Mr Christie’s brother in law, in a late night discussion. It lasted for about three hours; Mr Christie and Ms Draper did most of the talking.
    19. P and Q were ABE (Achieving Best Evidence) interviewed on 5, 11 and 17 September 2014. On the first two occasions, they supplied information about events they claimed had occurred, similar in their overall content to the mobile ‘phone video clips and audio recording. On 17 September, in ABE interview, both children withdrew their allegations. Each stated they had been made to say things by Abraham Christie, the mother’s partner, which were not true; and they gave very full details of the way in which he had secured their compliance.
    20. Ms Draper and Mr Christie have not participated by being present in court. I am as sure as I can be that their absence has been deliberate. They have chosen to remain away; but the internet campaign has continued. Countless online articles have been posted in which the truth of the satanic abuse claims is asserted repeatedly. Notwithstanding injunctions restraining Ms Draper and Sabine McNeill, one of her supporters, from publishing information from the proceedings on the internet or elsewhere, such material continues to be uploaded. Efforts to persuade internet servers to remove material have been of only limited value. As soon as information is removed by one provider, it emerges elsewhere.
    21. The hearing has been lengthy. I listened to evidence from 16 witnesses. I read thousands of pages of written material and watched six ABE interviews. I viewed a dozen or so short film clips of the children being questioned by Ms Draper and Mr Christie and listened to the very lengthy audio recording.
    22. The forensic inquiry has been full and thorough. It has made little difference that Ms Draper has been absent. I have been actively assisted in my investigative role by Ms Markham, Counsel for the local authority, and Mr Ageros who represents the guardian. Each has asked questions designed to explore those matters which, in all probability, the mother would have raised. Close attention has been given to the claims she’d made in her written material so as to ensure her case was put to all relevant witnesses.

Essential background

    1. Ms Draper has an older child, R, now almost an adult, who is not related to Mr Dearman. His father is Will Draper. R has lived with his father full time since the summer of 2010.
    2. The parents of P and Q met in 2003. Their relationship had disintegrated by 2006 when the father went to live in an adjacent street. There were occasional referrals to the police when domestic violence was alleged. Ms Draper initiated private law proceedings in 2008.
    3. Over the course of the next six years, there was never a time when the children’s contact with their father proceeded smoothly. Countless returns to court achieved very little. If there was an attempt to achieve judicial continuity it failed miserably. Between November 2010 and August 2014 when the case was pending at First Avenue House, High Holborn it drifted between no fewer than seven different judges. None of the nine hearings resulted in a considered judgment on the basis of oral evidence. The essential cause of the problems was never the subject of judicial determination.
    4. A non molestation injunction order was made against the father in 2010. There was some involvement on the part of the London Borough of Camden; in December 2008 a core assessment was prepared. Between May 2010 and October 2013, therapeutic sessions occurred intermittently at the Tavistock Clinic. There was a period, notably between November 2011 and November 2012, when the children did not have contact with their father.
    5. There was intermittent concern about P’s relationship with her mother and also that both children were presenting as and complaining of being hungry at school.
    6. In May 2014, after a period of renewed involvement by the London Borough of Camden, Mr Dearman had contact with the children for the first time since October 2013. In that same month, the mother met Abraham Christie.
    7. On 4 June 2014, there was a scene in the playground at Christchurch School when Mr Christie was collecting P and Q at the end of the school day. He was loud and aggressive, accusing the teachers of poisoning the children by giving them the food supplied at the school. By the middle of June, according to Ms Draper, Mr Christie was staying over at her home on two or three nights each week.

Evolution of the allegations

    1. In August 2014, at a time when he was holiday in France, Jean-Clement Yaohirou received ‘phone calls and messages from Mr Christie in which he said he had information regarding the abuse of children. In evidence, Mr Yaohirou said that Abraham “had not been coming forward with specific information” but was “trying to give (him) justification.” Abraham Christie had said that a church, a school in Hampstead and a police station in Haringey were involved. Mr Yaohirou had asked whether Mr Christie “had evidence“. He said, “Yes;” and “that was it for July.”
    2. In early August, the mother, Mr Christie and the children went abroad. They travelled to Gibraltar and then Morocco. They returned on 4 September.
    3. It seems entirely probable that the majority of the short film clips of the children ‘speaking to camera’ were made at the airport whilst awaiting their flight back to England. There are others which appear to have been made whilst Q was either getting ready for bed or had awoken from sleep.
    4. When Mr Yaohirou came back to England on 3 September, he had told Mr Christie over the ‘phone that “anyone can make an allegation” but he would need “sufficient evidence for the police to take the case forward.” Mr Christie had replied, “I will bring you evidence.”
    5. On 4 September 2014 in the late evening, Mr Yaohirou returned to his home after work to find Mr Christie, P and Q present. They were subsequently joined by Ms Draper.
    6. With great presence of mind, Mr Yaohirou recorded the conversations between himself, Mr Christie, the children and the mother on his mobile ‘phone.
    7. Because, according to Mr Christie, Haringey police officers were implicated, Mr Yaohirou decided to report the matter to Scotland Yard. Subsequently, he was in touch by email with Detective Inspector Cannon, the senior investigating officer with responsibility for overseeing the police inquiry. By then Mr Yaohirou was, as he said in evidence, “greatly concerned for the children’s welfare.”
    8. Mr Yaohirou described how he had suggested to DI Cannon that the children should be placed in a safe environment until the case had been sorted out. Mr Yaohirou said he had been unsettled by what he’d heard and believed the children needed some medical or psychological assistance.
    9. On 5 September at about 15.00 Barnet Police began what DI Cannon described in evidence as a “wide ranging investigation” involving as it seemed “threats to life.” In all, six officers were deployed. That evening, DC Martin conducted ABE interviews with P and Q. Overnight, in response to the mother’s perceived fear, a panic alarm was installed at the home. DI Cannon compiled his summary of events that evening and logged it onto the system at 00.44 on 6 September.
    10. On Monday 8 September, the children were taken by the police on a drive around the area in an unsuccessful attempt to identify specific locations where abusive practices had occurred.
    11. On 10 September, DS Fernandez and DC Martin visited and inspected the interior of the church adjacent to Christchurch School. No notice had been given of their intended arrival. They had a good look around the vestry, including within the drawers where the priest’s vestments were stored, searching for material to assist in their inquiries. They found nothing of interest to the inquiry.
    12. That same day, P and Q underwent further ABE interviews, led by DC Martin. DS Fernandez interviewed the mother. He described in evidence how Ms Draper had told him in great detail about abuse but there had been “no tears at all.” There was, he said, “a distinct lack of emotion.” It was “just like she had learned this – it was quite strange.”
    13. On 11 September, P and Q were made the subjects of a Police Protection Order.
    14. On 12 September, both children were examined by Dr Hodes, a consultant community paediatrician at both the Royal Free Hospital and University College London Hospital.
    15. On 16 September, Dr Hodes performed a second examination of both children.
    16. On 17 September, there were further ABE interviews.

The mother’s and Mr Christie’s participation

    1. In the initial stages of the proceedings, Ms Draper had the advantage of representation by experienced Solicitors and Counsel. On 10 December 2014, at court, she dispensed with her legal team. My first involvement with the case was on 13 January 2015. Dates were secured for this hearing as follows: 17 – 20 February, 3 – 6 and 10 – 12 March. On 13 January, the indications from Ms Draper were that once again she would avail herself of legal representation.
    2. Until 26 January 2015, the mother appeared as a litigant in person assisted by McKenzie friends. On 9 February my clerk notified the parties, by email, that there would be a hearing the following day. Ms Draper failed to attend court on 10 February when mandatory and prohibitory injunctions were made against her. Ms Draper has not filed further evidence nor any schedule of the detailed findings sought as directed by my order of 20 January. Arrangements had been made for her to attend at the offices of the local authority to collect the final bundle and Practice Direction documents. Ms Draper did not attend although her email communication had suggested she would.
    3. The oral evidence began on 17 February. At 08.51 that day, my clerk received an email from Ms Draper in which she asked permission for her McKenzie friend, Belinda McKenzie to represent her and her parents’ interests in court. Ms Draper stated that she had been “prevented from being present in the court” and that Ms McKenzie had her “formal instruction to convey (her) position.” Ms McKenzie reiterated that request at the beginning of the hearing. But, as I explained to Ms McKenzie, in circumstances where the mother herself was absent, the Practice Guidance relating to McKenzie Friends expressly prohibits such an individual from acting as the litigant’s agent or from conducting the litigation on her behalf. In Ms Draper’s absence, it seemed to me that there was no proper role for Ms McKenzie.
    4. In response to my inquiry, it was established that Ms McKenzie remained in contact with Ms Draper. She assured me she would pass on a message urging the mother to participate by coming to court and informing her that the hearing would continue in her absence. Outside court on 17 February, Ms McKenzie apparently indicated to the local authority’s legal team that Ms Draper was in the process of instructing a lawyer. However, at no stage, has there been any contact with anyone purporting to act on behalf of Ms Draper.
    5. The mother has remained absent from the court. Her partner, Abraham Christie was outside the front entrance of the building on 17 February as part of the group campaigning for the “return of the ‘Whistleblower Kids’ to their Russian family.” A witness summons was issued requiring his attendance to answer questions on Friday 20 February. Attempts to serve that summons were unsuccessful.
    6. Earlier attempts at securing Mr Christie’s participation in the proceedings because of the likelihood that the local authority would seek findings against him were wholly unsuccessful. A series of communications from the local authority’s Solicitor went unanswered.
    7. It may be the mother would contend that she has been prevented from attending this hearing as the result of police action on the evening of 12 February. DS Paul Speer from Colindale police station described in evidence what happened firstly on the morning of 10 February when he spoke with Ms Draper over the telephone to discuss the material on the internet. Ms Draper told DS Speer that “it was nothing to do with (her).” She did not wish to speak to him and did not trust the police.
    8. On 12 February, police officers attended at Ms Draper’s address. Her car was on the driveway. A gentleman spoke with the police through the letter box and indicated that he was the mother’s lawyer. The police explained they were there to discuss possible offences committed under s.4 of the Harassment Act 1997. They were denied entry to the property. Whilst the police were waiting for the means to secure a forced entry, three people climbed out of a first floor window, ran along the roof line of three or four houses and climbed down onto some nearby garages where they disappeared from sight.
    9. The mother has not been seen by anyone in authority since 12 February. There are rumours that she has fled abroad. Her mother, Mrs Gareeva, told me she had had several phone conversations with her daughter. The last occasion was the day before the grandparents came to give evidence on 4 March. Ms Draper had not said where she was and had not mentioned the court hearing. Mrs Gareeva said she had tried to persuade her daughter to come back. In response, Ms Draper had said she was afraid she would be arrested and would not be able to “fight for the children.” Mrs Gareeva also said that Mr Christie who they had seen as recently as 17 February had said that they, the grandparents “should not know” where their daughter was.
    10. There is no substance in the assertion that the mother has been prevented from participating at this hearing. If she had been arrested on 12 February in connection with harassment allegations, the overwhelmingly likelihood is that she would have been released on bail enabling her to come to court on 17 February. If she had been remanded in custody, I would have been in contact with the police and prison authorities so as to make appropriate arrangements for Ms Draper’s attendance at court.
    11. As it is, Ms Draper has not communicated either with the local authority or with my clerk at any time since 17 February. Nor has she had contact with or made any inquiry about the children.
    12. Within her position statement for 26 January hearing, written for her by Ms Sabine McNeill as she later revealed, the mother made a thinly veiled threat as to what would happen if the children “were not returned to their mother and grandparents with immediate effect.” Ms Draper stated that the consequence would be “high level embarrassment.” An open letter to Theresa May, the Home Secretary, posted on the internet, explicitly states that the Position Statement was “our offer NOT to expose this scandal in exchange for returning the children.”
    13. The clear message from recent events is that whilst Ms Draper is prepared to campaign using the internet she is not willing to take part in this inquiry.

The mother’s case

    1. The mother’s case is clearly stated within those documents filed by her. Within a document entitled, “Summaries in support of the accusations made by my children,” Ms Draper says this – “The statements made …are not only exceptionally serious, but also so outrageous that they are effectively unbelievable. Hence my then partner Abraham Christie and I talked to them separately on holidays to ensure that their allegations were the truth.”
    2. According to the mother, the “most convincing argument of their believability is the utter consistency between what they are saying separately and together, on holiday, back home, when with Jean Clement Yaohirou on 04.09.14 and in the interviews with Barnet Police on 05.09.14 and 11.09.14.” Ms Draper also contends that the medical reports “clearly confirm sexual abuse over many months.” She places emphasis on children having “repeatedly expressed (their) fears of their father killing them, their nightmares and generally post traumatic stress.
    3. In relation to the children’s “supposed retractions,” the mother suggests they are inconsistent with their previous accounts over many weeks to different people. Neither their stories nor their body language on the police video of 17.09.14 are, she says, convincing.
    4. Though it did not emerge in any detail from the children’s police interviews, the mother’s claims against the father of the most serious kinds of sexual abuse extend back to the time when P and Q were babies and include grotesque assertions of repeated interference. She also claims that Mr Dearman rather than Mr Christie was responsible for the assaults which led to physical signs of injury as found by Dr Hodes last September.

The father’s response

    1. Mr Dearman was taken in evidence to the entire series of sexual and other allegations made against him. He denied there was truth in anything suggested. He does accept that the breakdown of his relationship with the mother both at the time and subsequently was acrimonious. But, said Mr Dearman, “There are two sides to the story. I’m not perfect. I’m a decent guy and a good father.” Of the mother, he said this – “When Ella is not doing crazy stuff she is a really beautiful person.”

The law

    1. The law in this area is well-known. There is only one standard of proof, namely the simple balance of probabilities. The burden of proof is on the party who makes the allegations: Re B [2008] UKHL 35. The ‘inherent probability or improbability’ of an event is a matter to be taken into account when weighing the probabilities and deciding whether, on balance, the event occurred – “common sense, not law, requires that in deciding this question regard should be had to whatever extent appropriate to inherent probabilities.”
    2. Neither the seriousness of the allegation nor the seriousness of the consequences should make any difference to the standard of proof in determining the facts. In our legal system if a judge finds it more likely than not that something did take place, then it is treated as having taken place. If he finds it more likely than not that it did not take place, then it is treated as not having taken place. He has to find for one side or the other. He is not allowed to sit on the fence. Sometimes the burden of proof will come to the rescue: the party with the burden of showing that something took place will not have satisfied him that it did. But generally speaking a judge is able to make up his mind where the truth lies without needing to rely upon the burden of proof.
    3. As the then President, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, said in Re T [2004] 2FLR 838,Evidence cannot be evaluated and assessed in separate compartments. A judge in these difficult cases must have regard to the relevance of each piece of evidence to other evidence and to exercise an overview of the totality of the evidence in order to come to the conclusion whether the case put forward by the local authority has been made out to the required standard of proof.”
    4. There was an acceptance, on all sides, that it would not have been appropriate for either child to have given oral evidence. Applying the criteria set out in Re W (Children) (Abuse : oral evidence) [2010] UKSC 12, the uncontroversial answer to the essential test – as to whether justice can be done to all parties without further questioning of the child – is that it could.
    5. Accordingly, it becomes necessary to consider how the hearsay evidence comprised within the children’s ABE interviews should be treated. It is admissible as a matter of law. Pursuant to s.4 of the Civil Evidence Act 1995, when estimating the weight to be given to hearsay evidence, the court must have regard to any circumstances from which any inference can reasonably be drawn as to the reliability or otherwise of the evidence. When a judge considers whether to rely on the statements of a child made to others … the following factors, amongst others, are relevant – the child’s age; the context in which the statement had been made; the surrounding circumstances; the child’s previous behaviour; the child’s opportunities to have had knowledge from other sources; any knowledge of a child’s predisposition to tell untruths or fantasize.

The mobile phone recordings

    1. The mobile ‘phone film clips made by the mother and Mr Christie form part of the material relied upon by Ms Draper to support the claims of exceptionally serious abuse. There are 16 short clips in all although 3 appear to be copies. It is useful to set out a reasonably full extract of the first film clip because of the way it sets the scene for the rest.
    2. The children are standing at the side of a car in a public place, possibly at an airport. P and Q look tired. There is a noticeable graze on P’s chin and, seemingly, a large bruise in the centre of her forehead.
    3. The conversation begins between the two children and Mr Christie. P and Q talk about deciding to stop touching each other and the children. P says they will “face their fear – and face our urge – and stop touching ourselves.” Mr Christie asks, “… what else are you going to stop?” Q replies, “And stop killing babies.” Mr Christie says, “You’re going to face your fear? Because fear is what?” P replies, “Fear is the mind killer.” Mr Christie then says, “And you’re going to help us catch, who are you going to help us catch?” Both children reply, “All the paedophiles.” P adds, “Papa, Mr Hollings.” Both children say, “the school.” Ms Draper interjects, “All the policemen, all the – Social Services.” Mr Christie urges the children to “speak up, speak up.” The children then repeat, “All the Social Services” and add, “All the shopkeepers – Cafcass – all the cafes, all the Pizza Express – McDonalds.”
    4. Mr Christie asks, “Who’s Cafcass? … What’s Cafcass” P and Q reply, “Cafcass is, they work with – they’re for children – they work with Social Services.” Mr Christie asks, “And what did they do to you?” Both children, one after the other, respond, “They do sex … They touch each other – they touch me and Q. They have plastic willies. And they stick it in our bottom.”
    5. Mr Christie then asks the children to say who has done this. The children reply, “Everybody does.” In response to his direct questions, “Who, who, who?” the children say, “Papa, Mr Hollings – the school …” The mother interjects, “Parents.” Q adds, “My dad’s family.” Mr Christie then says, “Tell me more people, tell me some more people because I’m interested.” P adds, “Parents, policemen –.”
    6. Mr Christie asks, “What about the teachers at the school, who are the main ones?” The children give names and then they are asked what the head teacher does. Both reply simultaneously, “And she does sex.” Next Mr Christie asks, “And what happens in the church?” P replies, “And we do sex with the baby sacrifice and eat the baby.” Mr Christie asks what she means and she says, “So we kill the baby and eat it and drink the blood from it.” Mr Christie asks Q whether that is true. He replies, “Yes. And we dance with the skulls… Baby skulls.”
    7. One of Mr Christie’s final questions is as to who kills the babies. Both children reply, “Papa.” Mr Christie then says, “And what, he gets you to help him?” Both children say, “Yes.” P adds, “So he tells us to hold our hand in a knife and then he holds his hand on our hand, so then he cuts the baby’s head off. And he tip it upside down and then we drain the blood.” Ms Draper asks, “And then what they do?” P replies, “And then we cook it and then we drink the blood and after we pick the bones, dance with the skulls…”
    8. The other film clips are similar in that the interrogation of the children is undertaken in the main by Mr Christie with occasional interventions by Ms Draper. More and more information about the activities of the cult and the identities of those involved is recorded. In the second extract, the children are instructed to “Tell the camera…. Say what you said to the camera.” Ms Draper at one point says, “So what are we going to do? We’re going to protect other babies – and children, huh? And save those children who are involved or have been forced to be involved, right?”
    9. The eighth clip starts with Mr Christie saying to Q, “Keep saying it to her.” It seems that he and the children are, by then, on a plane. Q then pleads with P to “Tell the truth.” He begs her saying, “P it’s really important. If you won’t tell the truth you’ll get yourself into big trouble … so please tell the truth.” The tenth clip continues similarly, Q fervently pleads with P to tell the truth. He says, “Mum and Papa Hemp are protecting you and you have to help them protect yourself … and to protect all of us because we’re in a group. If the group lies we’ll start to get wrong, things will start to happen wrong. And you might like, you might broke a glass, you might hurt yourself.” Mr Christie asks, “What about the babies?” Q replies, “And you might get your back your payment for the babies, you might get killed by someone.”

The 4 September recorded discussion between Abraham Christie and the children

    1. The 4 September audio recording made by Jean Clement Yaohirou on his mobile ‘phone is a key component of the material relevant to this inquiry. It provides an invaluable record of the interaction between Mr Christie and the children, the various prompts and instructions given by him to the children and, later, an insight into the mother’s attitude towards the children’s relationship with their father.
    2. At the very beginning, Mr Christie instructs the children, “Don’t tell Jean Clement any lies … Do you hear me?” He continues, “Otherwise we’ll have to lock you up in the jail. Have you got room to lock her up tonight Jean Clement? Have you got room, yes or no?” Mr Christie then laughs and says, “So tell him what you said. You deserve to be locked up for killing the baby. Listen did you kill any babies?”
    3. One of the children replies “No.” Mr Christie asks, “Who killed the babies?” A child replies, “Papa. Papa hold our hand… We put on our hand but we – ” Mr Christie then interrupts, saying “No, he puts your hand on.” The child continues, “And then he puts his hand on ours, cuts off the baby’s head. Because he’s strong – .” Mr Christie interrupts again, “But he teaches you (inaudible).”
    4. Mr Christie then explains to Jean Clement Yaohirou in the presence of the children what this is all about. He says, “… you don’t understand what I’m telling you? They are killing babies wholesale, wholesale. They are killing them, they are drinking the blood and they are eating meat, and the skulls of the babies they are tying them, four skulls here …., one here, two here, elbows here. And they are making, what about the shoes, this baby – ” One of the children says, “Yeah, skin, baby skin shoes.” Mr Christie asks “Who makes the baby skin shoes?” A man’s name is given, and in response to the question as to whether he is a shoemaker, the child answers that he is.
    5. There is a period early on when Mr Christie asks the children a series of quick fire questions, “What about the doctor, is he one as well? Answer “Yes.” What about your headmistress, is she one as well? A. “Yes” Q. “How many skulls does she wear when she’s dancing?” A. “20.” Q. So how many adults are involved then? A. “So maybe like 400, 400 plus, 450, 430, something like that.” Q. “How many skulls do they wear?” A. “20.” Mr Christie then says, “So, there’s over 400 adults and they’re all wearing 20 skulls each. Can you do the maths? Over 800 (sic).”
    6. A little later on in the discussion with Mr Yaohirou, Mr Christie introduces the notion that the mother’s three children are involved with “this cult“. He said the mother had come to him because she knew he could help her, “she didn’t know how and (he, Mr Christie) didn’t know how.” Mr Christie then said, “some of her friends that come to the house – they come to the house and they go to the school and they sex the children behind her back.” Mr Yaohirou asks if everything happened in the school. Mr Christie replies, “In the school, in the church and above at the swimming pool, at the local swimming pool.” One of the children adds, “In the house.” Mr Christie goes on to say, “Happens in school during school hours. You go there on a Wednesday and you will arrest them all. And you will take the children in the school because they do it to every child in the school and I guarantee you, out of the children, 100 of them will talk.
    7. P then says, “And they sell us for £50 each. So Papa sells me and Q.” Mr Christie adds, “At the parties. And 100 people do sex with them … 200 times 50 is how much? 10 grand, I’ve done the maths already…. What else do they sell?” One of the children starts to reply but is told to “Shut up” by Mr Christie who then says, “He makes movies. He makes snuff movies of the babies and he sells them in the Ukraine, in Russia, in Brazil, in Portugal, in Brussels, in England, he sells them all over the world.
    8. At times, Mr Christie sounded very agitated and aggressive, for example when he told Mr Yaohirou that they “have to give the (children’s) passports back to the solicitor who is a member of the paedophile group;” and also when he said “… But we’re not going to let him (the father) see them (the children). We can’t let him see them. They (sic) will kill them.”
    9. A little later, there is discussion between Mr Christie and Mr Yaohirou about the court proceedings between the mother and father. Mr Christie explains that Mr Dearman has taken the mother to court “because he wants to see his children.” Mr Christie rhetorically asks, “But why does he want to see them? To do sex to them, to make party, to sell them to other people and to make movies…. We cannot allow it to happen anymore. He must be arrested.” Mr Christie then introduces the topic of “Papa’s secret room” asking one of the children to say what is done there. But nothing is said by either child.
    10. There is evident pressure upon the children when, for example, Mr Christie asks, “Has father got keys to the house.” A. “Yeah.” Mr Christie says, “Is it a lie? Is it a lie? We do not have time for lies.”
    11. Mr Christie is directive towards the children saying, “Be quiet and go outside now, come on. Hurry up. Outside. Outside. Outside. I don’t play around, just stay there. That’s it. That’s right, discipline.” And a little later, “Sit round the table properly, son. Don’t let me tell you again, you sit down properly, thank you. Thank you. Don’t let me tell you again, sit down at the table properly.” He adds a few minutes later, “and you speak when you’re spoken to. You understand? Come on. Let’s have some respect … let’s help each other and let’s make sure that no more children get killed, ay?” One of the children adds, “And make sure papa goes to jail.”
    12. When Ms Draper joined the discussion she initially concentrates upon establishing that a letter and some drawings have been seen by Mr Yaohirou. She also relates a lengthy history of the court proceedings saying she had not wanted “to give (Mr Dearman) the children really.” She had wanted to “kind of limit (contact).” She related the incidents when there was alleged domestic violence; and indicated that Mr Dearman had been “fighting for this contact and (she) had been trying to limit it as much as possible.” One of the children interjects when the mother is struggling to describe the frequency of contact, saying it is “Every Saturday.”
    13. Ms Draper tells Mr Yaohirou of a problem she’s had with an upstairs neighbour who didn’t like it that there was a large trampoline in the communal garden. Mr Christie adds that the neighbour complained about “just about anything.” Ms Draper then says, “Apparently the same lady, she’s part of this cult as well.” There is then a discussion between one of the children and Mr Christie in which the child is asked, “Did that old lady upstairs abuse you? She never touched you did she? A. “No but Papa is friends with her … they met each other.” Mr Christie responds, “Papa is friends with her but she does not have an appetite for children?” A. “No.” Mr Christie then says, “She just, in fact she’s just an associate of the cult and she helps them and they help her.” One of the children chip in, “She doesn’t really like children.”
    14. In response to Mr Yaohirou’s question as to whether the neighbour attended the meeting, Ms Draper replied, “She was in the parties, you know, these fun set (?sex) parties.” She then asked the children, “did she … participate in, you know, killing babies and drink the blood and all this?” One of the children replied, “Yes, yes, yes, but she doesn’t, she doesn’t touch, like, she doesn’t go near the children she does, sometimes drink the blood, she does.”
    15. About two thirds of the way through the discussion, Mr Christie and Ms Draper tells Mr Yaohirou that they had only “discovered this … four weeks ago.” Mr Christie said he had his “first suspicions – about almost two months ago – when he first heard (Mr Dearman’s) voice on the Skype.” That was when he’d had his suspicions. Mr Yaohirou asked, “Oh, from the tone of his voice?” Mr Christie replied, “Yes.” He added, “And also because of the clues … from them touching the dog.” P said, “We’d be touching the dog’s privates.” Mr Christie added, “So another clue is I began to suspect heavily and then when we got to Morocco and I realised they were touching each other on a regular basis I said to them, ‘You guys are doing this regularly. How come no one’s caught you? Who else is touching you? Who is, I know someone else is touching you, you’ve learnt this from an adult, who is it? Who is it?’ And then they opened this bag [?]
    16. Mr Christie described something of the way in which the children had been questioned saying of P, “She lies, instinctively she lies.” He had believed her story, so he told Mr Yaohirou, “Because (he) had questioned her 10 times and then (he) would question him.” They had questioned the children “separately like the police do …” Ms Draper explained it had taken “four weeks to get to the – ” Mr Christie adds, “Ella and I, we will begin to discuss certain aspects of the situation – and by discussing it – we brainstorm and we come up or we work out, we work things out. What she (P) will do while we are talking, she will interrupt us – and distract us with something and send us, like attempt to send us in another complete – We say to her, ‘Be quiet … Don’t distract us anymore”
    17. The mother interjects, “Or she listen to our conversation. And she will – ” Mr Christie continues “– use the information, and he does it as well.”
    18. Towards the end of the recording there is a passage when the children and Mr Christie are all shouting, excitedly, “Kill, kill, kill.” Mr Christie urges the children to “Say it… Say it how they say it.” A. “Kill, kill, kill.” …. Mr Christie, “What’s the word that you say?” A. “Kill.” Mr Christie, “Say it more for me. I want to hear it…. I like the sound of it. Can you say it together, say it, let’s all say it together.” There is then repeated chanting of the word “Kill” and a little later of the phrase, “Kill the baby.” Once more Mr Christie urges the children on saying, “Let’s say it together. Let’s say it together. Kill the baby.” And they do.
    19. Mr Christie brings the discussion to a close saying that it is “a quarter past one” in the morning. He makes clear that he is tired, adding, “Some of us have been working on this for a month full-time, some of us haven’t slept for a month.

Conclusions in relation to the film clips and audio recording

    1. The recorded information just described – the film clips and the audio recording – are critically important in understanding how the children came to make their subsequent allegations in ABE interviews and elsewhere.
    2. Any proper investigation of sexual abuse claims will necessarily focus on the circumstances surrounding the initial complaints. It is always essential to consider how and to whom they are made; the associated emotion, if any, on the part of the complainant; the response of the individual(s) who hear the first version of the allegation and the evolution of the story.
    3. The person who has the most to contribute on the audio recording is Mr Christie. It seems from their interjections as though the children were present throughout as might be expected given that they were in Mr Yaohirou’s house.
    4. As for the very first indication of possible sexual abuse, Mr Christie’s account to Mr Yaohirou is both extraordinary and significant. To entertain suspicions about Mr Dearman from the tone of his voice over a Skype call defies reason. Moreover, senseless assumptions would seem to have been made by Mr Christie and the mother if, in fact, the children had touched the dog and were “touching each other.” To believe that children who demonstrate curiosity about and touch their own, the dog’s and their sibling’s genital areas must have, or probably have, been sexually abused is plainly ridiculous. It either shows alarming ignorance about normal childish behaviour or, as is much more likely here, wilful determination to distort innocent activities into something sinister and depraved.
    5. On Mr Christie’s and Ms Draper’s own account, the children were subjected to ten separate interrogations over a period of four weeks interspersed with ‘brainstorming’ sessions in which Mr Christie and Ms Draper came up with or worked out what they – and possibly the children – put forward as having happened. In the context of what P and Q later describe was done to them by Mr Christie in that four week period, it is clear that they were effectively persecuted so as to compel them to tell false stories.
    6. There is every reason to conclude that over the course of the four weeks spent abroad last summer, the children’s minds were filled with ever more elaborate, fantastical and sexually explicit stories. Over time, more and more detail was supplied to the central core of the fabricated story. ‘Brainstorming‘ brought about expanded versions of events. More and more individuals were named as participants within the cult. Venues for abusive activities grew in number, spread across Hampstead and Highgate. Ever more sexually explicit details were woven in to the fabric of the fantasies in an attempt to make the children’s accounts believable and seemingly authentic.
    7. By the time the children arrived at the airport for the journey back to England, at Mr Christie’s and Ms Draper’s instigation, they were able to ‘speak to camera’ about the stories concocted during the brainstorming. The obvious purpose of the film clips was to provide ‘proof.’ It was part of a deliberate plan by Mr Christie and Ms Draper. The children do as they are told. They do so forthrightly, without inhibition and with apparent conviction.
    8. The key speakers within the audio recording made by Mr Yaohirou are Mr Christie and later Ms Draper. The majority of the information conveyed comes from or is prompted by them. The children are asked many, many leading questions. Most of the time, they are simply required to join in with the accounts being supplied by Mr Christie.
    9. Even in the presence of Jean Clement Yaohirou, Mr Christie’s relationship with the children, at times, was harsh and coercive. He had known their mother by then for about four months, had assumed a quasi parent role and taken it upon himself to enforce discipline.
    10. Another significant feature of the audio recording relates to the intense animation generated by Mr Christie when he is urging the children to chant, over and over again, “Kill the babies … Kill, kill, kill … Let’s say it together … I like the sound of it!” The children, unsurprisingly, join in with the chanting and Mr Christie’s evident excitement.
    11. It is a curious fact that prior to the launch of these proceedings, no police officer had listened to the audio recording made by Jean Clement Yaohirou or watched the film clips of the children. DI Cannon made inquiries at my request to discover that DC Rogers, the member of his team who received the film clips and the audio recording from Mr Yaohirou, had sent them to a property store in Chingford. The focus would appear to have been upon arranging almost immediate ABE interviews.
    12. I say no more at this stage than 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.

The ABE interviews of 5 and 11 September

    1. The ABE interviews of 5 and 11 September are remarkable for a number of reasons. Firstly because the children describe a number of detailed allegations of ritualistic abuse; and second because they do so articulately, with good eye contact and without a trace of distress. P can barely wait for the next question before she is chipping in with an answer. Both children are entirely ‘matter of fact’ about what they say has happened. There is no trace of any emotional arousal.
    2. The children both describe killing and eating babies, drinking blood, being anally penetrated and being injected with drugs. They provide details of all the people who have been involved – all the teachers, parents of children at the school, social services. P says that the killing of babies is done with “cleavers“; the blood from the babies is poured into a “silver bowl” and she and her brother are “sold for £50 each every single day.” When P is asked what sex is, she initially says it’s when they are hit with a big plastic stick between their legs. Then she says “real sex is, like, they get plastic willies, they stick it in our bum, that’s what kind of sex they do.” When asked about the people involved in these activities, P suggests the police should “catch the whole school, catch all the staff there.” She adds a little later that “all the Hampstead schools do it.
    3. Q tells the police all about the plastic willies, who makes them and how his dad has the biggest because he’s “the boss of every single thing.” Q says that his bottom bleeds and that the last time this happened was on the last day of school when there was a big party. All the children, says Q, “do sex to him;” and at the end of the party his Dad “kills babies and eats the meat.” Like P, Q suggests that “all the teachers, (his) dad’s friends … and also the parents who are really mean” to him are involved.
    4. When P was re-interviewed by DC Martin on 11 September she described how Mr Christie would give her and Q “soft licks … it’s like a spoon hit … because we keep on lying … the only way that we could tell is by him hurting us.” Asked what her Mum said about that, P answered, “She thought it was a good idea. Because then after, when we had licks and we have water torture … So us so that we could tell.” According to P, her Mum thought it was “a good idea he gets loads of jugs of warm water – spills it on us, he says that he’s blessing to do that so that (they) could tell.
    5. P also said that she and Q would call Mr Christie “Papa Hemp” and that they made soup out of “you know the weed that you smoke … it’s real name is hemp.” She also gave many more details about the places where the killings of babies occurred as well as descriptions of the implements and objects used by the group. She seems completely immersed in the story as she described a secret room in the church where secret things are kept. She says, “It just looks like … patterned, patterned, like imagine this …. It’s like, imagine there’s this big like cupboard here – and it looks like a wardrobe. They’ve got loads of wooden patterns on … they got a big key lock there.” The descriptions go on and on. P has a seemingly endless supply of information to convey. The more questions she’s asked the more expansive she becomes.
    6. Q’s interview on the same day comprises explicit details of penetrative abuse upon him and sexual acts he was made to perform upon others. He gave an account of “rubbing” until “the white stuff” comes out of boys. Q continued, “And it’s really dangerous, my Mum told me never put it on a girl’s privates because … if I put it in my sister’s privates she’s create a baby … but the baby would have a problem and it might be blind and it might walk like this and … keep falling over… it might have no teeth” Asked what the white stuff felt like, Q said it “just feels like wee … it’s like a seed. … You have to have a microscope to see it.” Q also said that “lots” of this white stuff came out of his willy, “Like you can fill up like half of a bottle – a normal, like this big bottle.”
    7. Like P, Q had no difficulty in supplying an endless stream of information about the activities of the group. He said the school nurse had given him a sleeping injection if he screamed too much. His father came to the school “every day” and “he will do sex to us and they also do sex to the other children.” Like P, Q was able to supply a great deal of detail about secret rooms, cupboards, secret doors, locks, keys and killing babies in the kitchen.

Conclusions in relation to the 5 and 11 September interviews

    1. Again and again, as I watched the interviews of 5 and 11 September my sense was that the children, for the most part, were in the realms of fantasy. There was an urgency and an excitement about what they were saying as the detail became ever more elaborate. It was as if they had been transported away from reality and into dream land. There were obvious parallels in what P was saying with some aspects of the story line in C.S. Lewis’ ‘The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe.’
    2. There was no change in the presentation of either child when they described apparently horrific acts as experienced by them and others. There did not appear to be any emotional connection with what they were saying except that they seemed energised.
    3. The other significant deduction is that material supplied by P relating to the physical abuse of both children by Mr Christie in order to get them to talk should alert any sensible observer to the potential for false reporting.

The physical examinations and associated statements made by the children

    1. Both children were examined on 12 and 16 September 2014 by Dr Hodes.
    2. Arising out of the first examination, it was reported that P and Q had a number of scars and abrasions consistent with their assertions of having been physically abused by Mr Christie. The examination of P’s perianal area was performed in the left lateral position – as recommended by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health Review of March 2008. Dr Hodes identified 3 linear scars extending almost to the anal verge as well as anal laxity after 10 seconds of gentle buttock traction. There was, she said, no reflex anal dilatation.
    3. As for Q, Dr Hodes identified one anal fissure scar and no reflex anal dilatation. In relation to both children, Dr Hodes concluded there were physical signs which supported the children’s allegations of physical and sexual abuse.
    4. The second examinations occurred on 16 September. The resulting reports written that day, relate that the purpose was to meet the foster carer and children again for further history and medical examination, as well as for police photography of the injuries. When she gave evidence, Dr Hodes described more of the rationale for asking to re-examine the children’s genital areas. She said, “I’ve got this allegation which has been made to several people…” Dr Hodes had thought about it over the weekend and, “on reflection believed (she) should have examined the children in the ‘knee chest’ position.” She added, “it’s not what you do it’s how you do it.”
    5. On 16 September, each child provided Dr Hodes with graphic details of how they claimed to have been sexually abused – including the use of Vaseline on their “bottoms and willies.” They both said they’d experienced bleeding afterwards and said they were given a wet tissue with which to wipe themselves.
    6. Dr Hodes’ further genital examination of P revealed, “persistent reflex anal dilatation during buttock separation.” The three linear healed scars were confirmed. In relation to Q, Dr Hodes “confirms the physical findings of a scar in the anus from a healed fissure, consistent with inflicted injury from a blunt penetrating force that he has alleged.”
    7. Dr Hodes wrote a further report on 22 September, 5 days after the children had retracted their allegations. She repeated her physical findings and then comments upon the retraction in these terms – “Until a study in 2007 it was mostly thought that recantation rates were related to the certainty with which child sexual abuse is substantiated and that retraction of true allegations is rare and that when retraction occurs the allegation is likely to be false. Lindsay et al found a recantation rate of 16.9% in 257 substantiated cases of CSA which had relied on formal interviews by police and social services. This is four times higher than previously reported in the most often cited study by Bradley and Wood in 1996. Analyses of their data found predictors for recantation included younger age child, a parent figure being the perpetrator and a lack of support from the non offending care giver.” In summary, said Dr Hodes, “recantation does occur in a significant number of cases especially with the predictors that are present in both children.”
    8. In her concluding “Summary”, Dr Hodes states that both children have physical signs of sexual abuse that support their allegations; they have symptoms of post traumatic stress; and it is her opinion “the extensive and detailed accounts given by both children, repeated to different professionals, contain details of sexual acts that such young children would need to have had some sort of direct experience (sic).
    9. On 26 September, Dr Hodes and a Senior House Officer met with Ms Draper “for further information regarding the children’s medical history.” A little over two pages of the four page report are devoted to the “allegations allegedly made by P and Q to their mother.” The main focus of the interview was upon sexual complaints. Ms Draper claimed that Mr Dearman rather than Abraham Christie was responsible for the children’s physical injuries as documented by Dr Hodes.
    10. Subsequently, Dr Hodes took this case to a peer review meeting. As explained in her Amended Medical Report of 4 December 2014, her anogenital findings in relation to both children were then significantly amended. The previously confirmed fissures were said to be irregularities in the ruggae (folds, wrinkles or ridges) and their clinical significance was described as “possible normal variant.”
    11. The only 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.” In her written report she also said, “There is evidence in the literature that the absence of physical signs neither supports not (sic) refutes an allegation of anal penetration. In this case it was alleged that lubrication was used which adds to the probability of abuse.
    12. Dr Hodes’ very last report – of 5 February 2015 – was written in response to written questions. She states that “the overall situation is such that it is my view that the allegations / accounts need to be taken very seriously despite the confusing picture.” Dr Hodes’ view is that whilst it is a matter for the court to decide, she recommends “a series of more detailed observations and assessments over a longer period of time by a psychiatrist or psychotherapist with a particular interest and expertise in child maltreatment including sexual abuse.”
    13. Her oral evidence surrounding the importance of the physical sign found in P amounted to this – “It was there – clear – it is rarely seen … it is not diagnostic but is associated with anal abuse – part of the jigsaw.”

Conclusions in relation to Dr Hodes’ evidence

    1. Overall, I feel impelled to observe that the level of Dr Hodes’ involvement in this case was unusual. I remind myself of the several cautionary considerations when a court is considering the contributions made by experts as comprised within Re U; Re B [2004] EWCA Civ 567 – i) The cause of an injury or an episode that cannot be explained scientifically remains equivocal. … iv) The court must always be on guard against the over-dogmatic expert, the expert whose reputation or amour propre is at stake, or the expert who has developed a scientific prejudice.
    2. I was dismayed to find, twenty seven years after the Report of the Inquiry into Child Abuse in Cleveland 1987 that Dr Hodes adopted so definite a view as to the likelihood of sexual abuse to which she then adhered notwithstanding several noteworthy contraindications. One of the cardinal messages from Cleveland was as to the importance of multi agency collaboration so as to understand amongst many other things the context in which suspicions arose.
    3. In her very last report, Dr Hodes said that “the current evidence is that prolonged reflex anal dilatation (the finding in P) is associated with anal abuse;” and cited the Royal College of Paediatrics 2008 Review. The Review also reflects, I would observe, that there continues to be a debate about the significance of RAD. It is a sign seen in up to a third of children with a history of anal abuse although it can also be seen in small numbers of children selected for non abuse (the evidence base is very limited and unclear on this).
    4. I was troubled too that the children were subjected to intimate examinations to search for further signs twice in five days. I regret that Dr Hodes was not asked exactly what she hoped to gain by the second examination positioning the children differently. The 2008 Review suggests, arising out of Myrhe’s 2001 study, that there are differences in the muscle tone in the two positions.
    5. I consider it unusual, to say the least, that Ms Draper was invited to discuss her version of the history at a lengthy separate interview with the paediatrician and her SHO at a time when the social work team as well as the police were undertaking inquiries.
    6. I was perturbed that Dr Hodes was prepared to conclude and then confirm the presence of fissures when subsequent peer review resulted in them being described as a normal variant. Similarly, I found it curious that even although the physical signs had reduced in number to a single finding of RAD in P, nonetheless Dr Hodes adhered to her view saying that lubrication was used which “added to the probability of abuse.”
    7. When confronted, in cross examination, with the evidence about Ms Draper’s treatment of the children with enemas, Dr Hodes did not pause before saying, “No, it does not affect my conclusions. It’s another possible cause of trauma.”
    8. I was bemused by Dr Hodes’ suggestion of further psychiatric or psychotherapeutic intervention when she knew that Dr Clare Sturge – one of the leading and most experienced child and adolescent psychiatrists in the country – had already supplied two reports, the first arising out of her assessment of the children after interview.

The 17 September retractions

    1. DC Martin was asked to explain why the decision was made to interview the children again on 17 September. It is Ms Draper’s case that between 11 and 17 September the police and the children’s foster carers placed pressure upon them to change their story. DC Martin said that prior to collecting P and Q from the foster home he had not met either foster parent. DC Martin was accompanied by DC Carl Savage, who had not previously met the children. Neither of them had any conversation with the foster parents relating to the allegations. If anything of note had been said by anyone prior to the ABE interviews it would have been recorded.
    2. The decision to have a third interview arose because “of the sheer amount of stuff” emerging from the second, said DC Martin, and for clarification. During the drive to the interviewing suite, according to DC Savage, the children had said something along the lines of ‘they had made up the allegations and it was all to do with the Mask of Zorro.
    3. As emerges from the interviews themselves, both P and Q did indeed withdraw their claims, all of them. P said that Abraham had told them what to say. She had told him that E, one of her female friends, had touched her – Abraham had said, “No, it’s your Dad.” P said that “it was all made up,” everything about the school, the church, the swimming pool; none of it was true. Abraham, she said, “had hurt (her) and used bad words … ‘ a stupid little cunt“. She was scared and worried. Her mother had not stopped Abraham “because she loves him so much.” P described him as “an idiot.” As for her father, P said he is “fine and good.”
    4. Q’s interview was initially somewhat confused. He said, “Yeah there is still some of the babies killed … Not much (are there babies killed)…. I lied about it because he (Mr Christie) made me say it.” A little later, Q said, “None of it was real…. The plastic willies were not true.” Abraham had “slapped (his ear) as hard as he could.” Q said, “I hate Abraham” and he did not want to see him again. He described how his mother “would be really angry with (him).

Dr Sturge’s assessment of the children

    1. Dr Sturge assessed the children on 5 November 2014. P related that Mr Christie would tell her that “for lying she would go to prison for 20 years and never see her grandparents or Mum again.” P commented, “Abraham loved my Mum so much. He even blamed her for being in the gang.” He had kept on asking her, “Any other people.” He had threatened her with the spoon and poked her so hard in the chin with it that she had a big mark. When Abraham had asked her about plastic willies in her bottom, she had denied this. He had said, “How come Q told me.” The Vaseline had been, said P, Q’s idea. He knew one of her friends used it (for her lips). P said, “Thing is, Abraham came up with stuff we didn’t know and came up with ideas too.” Abraham was always saying Q was a good boy for telling him things and that she was lying and would go to jail.
    2. Dr Sturge asked P what the word ‘paedophile’ means. P replied that Abraham had said her Dad is a paedophile and explained what it meant. P had only a minimal understanding of ‘the facts of life’ and sex was “inappropriate stuff like touching each other in the privates.” Dr Sturge asked P about living with her mother. She said, not at the moment – “I feel angry with her, letting Abraham do all that stuff to us.” She had one question of Dr Sturge, could she live with her foster mother until she is 14 or 15?
    3. Q responded immediately to Dr Sturge’s question as to whether he knew why she was seeing him. He said, “cos Abraham said something I never did and he forced me to say it, he was really mean to us.” Abraham had accused him of touching his sister in the private parts which he “never, ever did.” And he forced them to say their Dad touches them. Abraham had also forced them to say they kill babies. Q said he had wanted Abraham to stop hitting him, “I was scared for him to hit me.” At that Q’s face creased up and he began to cry quietly. “He kept asking us questions again, and again and again.” His mother had started to believe him. Q said, “It upsetted me” and he became even more distressed.
    4. Q described how Abraham had been asking them all day. He had even woken them up and hit them. The hitting was if they didn’t wake up and talk. Asked how his mother had reacted, Q said “she didn’t mind.” He was asked about living with his mother and replied that “if she still believes it, (he) wouldn’t want to live with her.” Later he described with great vehemence that he would never live with his Mum while Abraham was still in the British Isles. She would just phone him and he’d come to their house. Q also said, spontaneously, that he hates Abraham, describing him as “the worst person I’ve ever met.”
    5. Dr Sturge asked Q directly about Vaseline. He said, “He (Abraham) forced me to say my Dad puts Vaseline on my willy – plastic and normal ones.” Q added, as if puzzled, that Vaseline is used to rub on your hands when they are sore. He was clear that Abraham had used the Vaseline word first. Asked about seeing willies, Q said he and a friend at school had shown each other their willies in the toilet.
    6. Q was distressed again when talking about having to stand when cold water was poured on him – “(dressed) just in our pants – he thought we was lying – when I cried and said my Mum never touched us, he said, ‘If you’re crying you’re lying.‘” By then, according to Dr Sturge, Q was crying in a very distressed way.

Demeanour on 17 September and during assessment by Dr Sturge

    1. The children’s demeanour during the 17 September interview with the police and in their discussion with Dr Sturge is a factor of relevance to the inquiry.
    2. It seemed to me that on 17 September P in particular was relieved to be unburdening herself and revealing the truth. Some of the ongoing and quite complex processes in Q’s mind were manifest. At the outset, it seemed as though he was still confused but gradually he, too, became clear in saying he had been forced to make untrue claims. There was none of the frantic scramble to provide answers to questions as in the earlier interviews. Both children were a great deal calmer.
    3. Q was evidently and genuinely connected on an emotional level with the content of his revelations to Dr Sturge.

Overall conclusions in relation to Ms Draper’s allegations

    1. In addition to my findings already made both within the opening paragraphs of the judgment and subsequently it is necessary to consider how and the extent to which the children have been harmed.
    2. Both P and Q have suffered significantly. Their innocence was invaded. Their minds were scrambled. Their grip on reality was imperilled. They were introduced to sexual practices of which they had no real understanding at a time when they should have been shielded from such things.
    3. Perhaps most significantly of all, the children were made to absorb and repeat on film and in interview grotesque claims against so many blameless people including the father whom they love.
    4. I have no doubt but that the physical injuries described by the children as having been inflicted by Abraham Christie were, indeed, caused by him. I reject as baseless Ms Draper’s suggestion that instead Mr Dearman was responsible. A straightforward conclusion given that neither child had seen him for about three months at the time of Dr Hodes’ examination and subsequent police photography. Those photographs clearly show recent rather than healed injuries.
    5. There is good evidence to find, as I do, that in the three months leading to their reception into care both children ingested cannabis. Scientific analysis revealed that both children had metabolites of the drug (THC) in their hair – a finding which could not be explained by ingestion of ‘hemp based products’ because none would contain sufficient levels of cannabis to produce the metabolite. It is impossible for the analysts to say whether the children had ingested the drug whether by passive smoking or oral ingestion. However, the children were clear in interview when describing the way hemp was made into soup using the juicer.
    6. The amounts found in the children’s hair samples suggested their ingestion had not been, as Ms Cave of Lextox described, a “one-off” but regular over the period. It is hard to imagine how any parent could deliberately expose a child to an illegal drug. But it may have been part of Mr Christie’s and Ms Draper’s plan so as to gain the children’s compliance. I need hardly say now profoundly damaging it was to administer illegal drugs to a child.
    7. The posting of film clips featuring the children speaking about sexual matters has exposed P and Q to the potential for very serious embarrassment and humiliation in the years ahead maybe, even, throughout the whole of the rest of their lives. Doubtless they will grow and develop so that their visual appearances will alter. But it may be difficult to shield them from unwelcome interest and reputational damage unless radical steps to divert attention are taken.

Final thoughts about the investigation

    1. If there is one key message at the end of this inquiry it is that it is not and never will be sufficient to consider just one or two evidential features in isolation. It is always necessary to take account of all the material not just a selection. Those who arrived at their own early conclusions on the basis of partial material were woefully misguided.
    2. The individuals who have watched online film clips, read online articles and believed in the allegations would do well to reflect that ‘things may not be what they seem’ and that it is all too easy to be duped on the basis of partial information. There are many campaigning people, sadly, who derive satisfaction from spreading their own poisonous version of history irrespective of whether it is true or not.
    3. Proper consideration should always be given to the context within which allegations are made. In this instance, years of court conflict over the issue of contact and Ms Draper’s antipathy for Mr Dearman provided fertile territory for the creation of false allegations and their reiteration by the children.
    4. The history of the key protagonists may also play a part in untangling the intrigue so as to get at the truth. Mr Christie has a background of criminality for drugs offences, violence and dishonesty. More recently, he received a police caution for assaulting his adolescent son.
    5. Finally, that it is never possible to predict how a court inquiry of this kind will unfold. Against the preconceptions of many including my own, when the maternal grandparents gave evidence on 4 March 2015 they made their views about the allegations plain. They consider them to be “total nonsense and fantasies.”
    6. This is a summary of my salient findings –

•     Neither child has been sexually abused by any of the following – Ricky Dearman, teachers at Christchurch Primary School Hampstead, the parents of students at that school, the priest at the adjacent church, teachers at any of the Hampstead or Highgate schools, members of the Metropolitan Police, social workers employed by the London Borough of Camden, officers of Cafcass or anyone else mentioned by Ms Draper or Mr Christie.

•    The children’s half brother, his father and stepmother – Will and Sarah Draper – are likewise exonerated of any illicit or abusive acts involving the children.

•    There was no satanic or other cult at which babies were murdered and children were sexually abused.

•    All of the material promulgated by Ms Draper now published on the internet is nothing other than utter nonsense.

•    The children’s false stories came about as the result of relentless emotional and psychological pressure as well as significant physical abuse. Torture is the most accurate way to describe what was done by Mr Christie in collaboration with Ms Draper.

•    Both children were assaulted by Mr Christie by being hit with a metal spoon on multiple occasions over their head and legs, by being pushed into walls, punched, pinched and kicked. Water was poured over them as they knelt semi-clothed.

•    The long term emotional and psychological harm of what was done to the children is incalculable. The impact of the internet campaign is likely to have the most devastating consequences for P and Q.

Follow WideShut



  • st__v

    Yeah yeah but aside from all the facts? yeah aliens

  • Lilith Mooney

    You’ve done some Stirling work covering this, an island of sanity in the mist of an ocean of madness. Alas, I fear the madness will continue.x

    • Keelan Balderson

      Thanks for the vote of confidence, sometimes I wonder why I even bother, but at least there’s some sanity out there.

      • Paula Burton

        Unfortunately the loonies shout loudest, Vicky heigh posted on Sabine page if she isn’t careful she could end up in prison again.

  • Voiceofreason

    The sane amongst us, always knew the truth. It was evident that the claims of satanic abuse were nonsense and these children had been subjected to physical and psychological abuse at the hands of the mother and boyfriend. It is a relief that justice has prevailed, but sad nonetheless, when you consider what these children have experienced, and will continue to experience.

    I also take no pleasure in the revelation that THC was discovered on the children’s hair, but it was always clear to me that cannabis had played a part in all of this.

    Sadly, but as expected, self-styled truth ‘seeker’ Sabine McNeill continues to spew her venom. In her latest post she goes on to declare, “The battlefield has widened and our armies are growing, while the ‘bullets’ are being ‘sharpened’.

    She also shares a pointless audio of a seemingly drugged or pissed conversation between the mother and boyfriend. This alone serves to show the pair as delusional and just plain weird.

    I seriously hope she, the mother and partner are brought to justice for what they have done to those poor children!

    • miraclelilies

      wouldn’t you be pissed if you had just found out your children were being contaminated by sexual deviants, Masonic vultures and abusers, all headed by the children’s ‘real’ father??? Get honest.

      • Voiceofreason

        The drugged/pissed conversation I refer to was recorded in recent days, not when she ‘just found out’. The abuse ‘revelations’ happened months ago.
        You want honesty?
        Why doesn’t the mother get off her backside, return to see her kids and if innocent of the accusations of coercion, neglect and abuse, put all her energy into proving it!

        • miraclelilies

          well there’s a question! Would you use fight or would you use flight if your liberty was at stake because of the crazies abusing their power, where the Court of Public Opinion can already see the EYES WIDE SHUT of the Judiciary, Govt. and all those accessing pecuniary advantage from this?

          You’re asking the wrong question, with respect. Put yourself in the poor mother’s shoes – she is innocent, she has observed countless other innocent mums before her being illegally incarcerated and victimised and their lives written off….get real

          Sabine has done commendable work and unstinting research, working tirelessly without any hidden agenda to support the Cause of Justice (which the Crown Corporation does not even recognise, let alone acknowledge).

          I reiterate that Sabine’s posting, below is very well researched and investigated, unlike HMCTS and “judge” Pauffley who is no judge at all! With no due court process, no Public trial, no attendance of those she is now trying to scapegoat, nor attendance of the children, and with no independence or independent witnesses, and with notorious police cover ups, and with legion vested interest from corrupt social workers who are gaining financially from their cognitive dissonance in all of this…. the Truth is staring us in the face that this is a criminal cover up and perversion of Justice by the Crown Corporation!

          #SatanicJudicialAbuse #SJA #Pauffley Judgement in the #WhistleblowerKids’ Interest?.

          • Keelan Balderson

            Sabine is a biased, deluded idiot, who is responsible for plastering the poor children’s faces all over the web, contempting family court proceedings.

            Her research amounts to nothing more than fawning over the abusers and regurgitating their every word and allegation on the internet like a fool.

          • miraclelilies

            This is slanderous and completely untrue. It is a vexatious and unkind throwaway set of remarks, made by someone who is evidently emotionally ‘charged’….the only contempt of court is from those conducting the invalid ‘hearing’ in SECRET – this is high treason. They are Draconian in their methods, and unjust in the extreme, they deny all rights of good men and women, and conduct rigged non-hearings to serve their own agendas which revolve around economic factors because they have grown too used to predating on the innocent and vulnerable.
            Sabine is a highly intelligent woman, with more competence and analytical skills in her little finger than anyone I’ve yet come across who is campaigning for social reform in Britain’s horrific paedo culture. Many people circulated the whistleblower children, who of their own volition decided to speak out. Those poor children were manipulated by the corrupt police corporations – and all of this has happened because of the CROWN CORPORATION protecting its ill-gotten income!

          • Keelan Balderson

            Nope it’s true … she leaked testimony from a family court case, and shared the names and details of innocent children in cahoots with the abusers in the case.

            That’s disgraceful behaviour and she deserves to be prosecuted.

          • miraclelilies

            Sabine is highly intelligent and anything but an ‘idiot’. She is not alone in taking a stand for Truth, she is amongst millions of people and has tremendous courage to stand up and be counted. She has no vested interest to be served, unlike those besmirching her. There is nothing more foolish than a criminal cover up and imaging in that those responsible will get away with this. It is early days.

          • Voiceofreason

            Where is your evidence that Sabine is highly intelligent?

          • miraclelilies

            There are none so blind as those who a) judge, and b) will NOT see. I’ve met Sabine and know her to some extent – but what is this to you, if you have an ‘already listening’ in place?

          • Voiceofreason

            I hate to break it to you, but your God is not going to come to your rescue.

          • miraclelilies


            God IS coming to the rescue of the innocent ones, and overturning the wicked acts of those who you are protecting – your nemeses is nigh

            Jeremiah 16:17
            My eyes are on all their ways; they are not hidden from me, nor is their sin concealed from my eyes.

            Hosea 8:13
            Though they offer sacrifices as gifts to me, and though they eat the meat, the LORD is not pleased with them. Now he will remember their wickedness and punish their sins: They will return to Egypt.

            Matthew 10:26
            “So do not be afraid of them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known.

          • miraclelilies

            ps I notice your profile is blank – hiding something?

          • Voiceofreason

            Yes, it’s called exerting your right to privacy. Something the likes of Sabine who publish the identity of innocent children all over the internet, could not possibly understand.

          • miraclelilies

            No one has any right to hide crime behind “privacy”

          • miraclelilies

            Sabine is not the only one who is exposing the Truth, thankfully – there are thousands like her. You will be the losers in the end – in fact you already ARE the losers and have egg all over your face. Can’t you even see the Crown Corporation is collapsing around their ears?

          • miraclelilies

            its obvious you are just an illegal protectorate of criminals. “privacy” is an illusion. There is no privacy on social media. All those who have things to hide and are too ashamed to be named because their words are piffle and they are accepting £££ in return for playing out a charade, conduct things in secret and use anonymous profiles and conduct ‘secret’ court sessions.. you are one of those, too cowardly to stand up and be counted. You are Voice of TREASON in fact

          • Voiceofreason

            “too ashamed to be named’
            Is that why you’ve changed your name miraclelilies/Liz?

          • Snake Logan

            Haha, nice call, VoiceofReason. Liz, dollface: when you change your name on Disqus, it’s retroactive. Just a word to the wise.

    • miraclelilies

      If the mother and partner are brought to justice then it will vindicate them and absolve them of the false accusers who will be laid down, and it will be from a REAL COURT with a REAL TRIAL and a FAIR HEARING with a JURY present, AWAY from the CROWN CORPORATION who are profiting from all of this filth

  • miraclelilies

    It wasn’t a “trial” – it was a set up and a cover up. A genuine ‘trial would have been held in OPEN COURT and would have tried the issues with INDEPENDENT WITNESSES and the children themselves, and the mother HERSELF – also be FREE OF UNDUE INFLUENCE and INTIMIDATION!
    How deluded are the Public sector workers and Judiciary in the UK?
    Astonishing! Unacceptable falsification – there was NO DUE COURT PROCESS, NO IMPARTIALITY, NO CASE NUMBER ! Ha ! do they take the Public as fools?

  • miraclelilies

    Look at the historic records of the HMCTS in matters such as this – ALL the mother end up being blamed. How so? Yet the evidence of child abuse is overwhelming and endemic and it is clear that the whole charade has been ‘doctored’ to cover the backs of those standing accused. Perhaps the ‘voiceofreason’ should be asking “how come the children knew 60 or 70 names of the social workers and police involved”? and “how can a ‘judgment’ be given without a FAIR TRIAL on the accused?” and “where is the evidence of such motivation to abuse their children by the mother and her husband, unlike the obvious motivation (pecuniary gain) by the County Councils etc?”
    Why would the children have wanted to avoid school or to avoid “sex on Wednesdays” – this hasn’t obviously been thought through. There has been no fair trial, no independence, only cover up – and huge numbers of us know to the innocent’s cost that the Judiciary and Police and Public workers are excellent at cover ups.
    This whole rigged set up is utterly sickening. Moreover, Sabine is more qualified than anyone to speak out truthfully because she has NO AGENDA, and NO VESTED INTEREST, and NO ULTERIOR MOTIVE and has provided an intelligent analysis of the FACTS and presented supporting evidence – unlike the Judiciary, the Police, the Social workers etc.
    For example, notice how the police were given the galling facts in the first interviews, and then went out of the room for an inordinately lengthy time period – it is 100% obvious there has been undue influence. Now check out the Home Secretary’s own words about police corruption being widespread and endemic, and consider how the children have been unlawfully retained and also manipulated by those unfit stewards who have created a whole new re-writing of events in order to ‘fit’ the Agenda that covers their backs!
    The more awake ones of us are not fooled. The fruits of the Judiciary and HMCTS instil NIL confidence in the Public – even less so after the way this non’trial’ (misnamed) has been conducted – it is beyond reasonable doubt that there has been a miscarriage of Justice and that the judgment is a nullity because there has been no fair hearing nor due process nor genuine trial – and there are too many snouts in the trough!

    • Voiceofreason

      I will respond to one point only: The children did NOT know the full names of police and social workers. Think about it. Can you reel off 60-70 full names (and addresses) of people who you, for example, work with, or have met only in brief? Furthermore, even if such people had been involved in abusing children, do you really think they would have disclosed their real identity and occupation? The list was obviously compiled by the mother, boyfriend, and/or the team of ‘truth seekers’ as part of this scam. As for the rest of your rant, I would suggest you read the public judgement (above) and take time to absorb the FACTS before commenting further.

      • miraclelilies

        What FACTS have you absorbed? Alas – It seems crystal clear that the most important FACTS are being overlooked: namely, the right to a fair hearing, a fair trial, independent witnesses, independent evidence, due process of Law, Public Jury trial before peers, in a criminal court given the criminal allegations – not a rigged tinpot dictator set up closed off to the Public with a mountain of vested interests and hidden agendas….. these things beggar belief
        Notwithstanding, a nullity set up such as we’ve observed has produced a nullity outcome, mis-described as a “judgment”

        • Keelan Balderson

          What is an “independent witnesses?”
          The judge spoke to 16 witnesses.

          The thousands of pages of evidence and testimony she viewed is the only evidence available. If you have other evidence, let’s have it. My guess is she’s seen way more than you have reading hysterical blogs and listening to Sabine on Youtube.

          It wasn’t a fair trial, because it wasn’t a trial. You should be happy because right now your hero abusers are still free and have NOT been charged for their crimes. They’re getting off very lightly.

          • miraclelilies

            These glib remarks demonstrate a lack of compassion and a lack of conscience to the Cause of Justice and Truth. Who produced the “thousands of pages of evidence and testimony” then? All those participating? Real evidence is hearing from the children and the parents, trying their testimony in a criminal court before a Jury in a competent set up – the opposite of what occurred.
            If it was meant to be a finding of fact hearing then why weren’t the key parties standing accused and the victims themselves, present? The Crown and the police and the Social workers are all operating from vested interest – Sabine and others are not. Its not over yet – hold fire and wait and watch what will develop next! You’ll then eat your words and all those responsible for this cover up will hang their heads in shame.
            The corrupt “courts” are the vehicles being used to perpetuate the crisis-state that Britain is in with rampant abusers lurking in every corner. The Media, legal Profession, Social workers are their foot soldiers.

          • Keelan Balderson

            You want the children to be in court? Haven’t they been through enough?

            As for the abusive mother and partner, they chose not to turn up.

            yes let’s have a criminal trial, then these abusers can be locked up for their crimes. And throw Sabine in there too.

          • Voiceofreason

            And it appears that you are more than a little biased!:

            EW purges contempt and is freed from Holloway

            Judgments in Haigh proceedings to be made available

            EW, who was last week sentenced to a nine month prison term for her part in the naming of parties in care proceedings, has been released after purging her contempt.

            Ms W had been imprisoned in Holloway Prison. She had assisted Victoria Haigh to breach court orders in care proceedings and to put into the public domain via email and the internet a series of unwarranted and scandalous allegations about the father in the proceedings and others. The President ordered that the parties to the proceedings should be named so that the father could be publicly absolved of the allegations made against him.

            According to the Press Association, the High Court was told: “[Ms W] is locked in her cell for 15 hours a day. She has had clearly a very long time to reflect on the circumstances in which she finds herself.”

          • miraclelilies

            Bollocks to all those lies! NO valid court ‘order’ was ever issued. Do you want hard facts? Not that I believe you’ll even take any of it in…

            Vicky Haigh’s child was stolen from her and given to the abuser who covered up his tracks aided and abetted by the Council who profited from doing so.

            He underwent NO TRIAL so nothing was ever tried and no facts ever found!

            The evidence is stacked high against him but was never examined – not even by Theresa May who refused to open the envelope!

            Before the course of justice was successfully perverted, David Tune had initially been arrested at the child’s school and was being prosecuted when his bent police-officer brother came to his rescue and turned the tables on Vicky by laying off all her witnesses and supporters – that is how desperate these evil-doers get.

            THANK YOU for raising this – you’ve done me a great favour actually – because soon this will all be publicly corrected on an international basis. Things are NOT what they appear to you and none of you know the FACTS which will soon emerge, you wait and see. As it happens, I’ve had umpteen offers from leading criminal solicitors to vindicate and clear my good name, also from kind people and even from international film-makers….its only a question of time then it will all be coming out. Rest assured!

            Not everyone jumps to untested foregone conclusions fed to them by the controlled Press, thankfully. I have remained 100% innocent of the lies published to serve the agendas of the same manipulators involved in covering up the crimes going on under our noses, now. Far from defeating me or shutting me down, they’ve made me stronger than before and I’m so grateful to have had my eyes OPENED WIDE well before the secret courts starting being condemned & exposed, and the huge cracks started appearing which underline the current paedo Britain image…I saw with my own eyes what they are capable of and a higher purpose is being served from it all. I saw in 2011 what many of you still don’t see even now

            So I’m glad you mentioned it in fact! I am really proud of the fact that I survived the illegal incarceration by criminals of the Stasi-State that Britain has become, and wear my stripes with honour for having survived the inhumanities of being turned into a political prisoner by those with blood-stained hands masquerading as officials….

            It is miraculous that I came out stronger and more powerful than ever, having transcended the dastardly experience of squalid Holloway which is one huge eye-opener – FYI it’s a very badly run squalid place that is filled with innocent mothers who’ve been banged up despite committing NO CRIME – so that the abusers can continue what they are doing to the poor children – this is why the typical scenario keeps repeating itself where custody of the child is granted to the abuser and the mothers are illegally imprisoned, persecuted and tortured by the satanist cult that is governing the entire putrid mis-named “Child care system”. Disgusting goings-on.

            There were also people there who were imprisoned from the riots, for stealing a £68 pair of boots whilst the Judges who sent them there are buggering young children and rent boys claim immunity in the filth-ridden System which is riddled with hypocrisy and the stench of deception is legion… and in the exact same way, meanwhile the criminal fraternity of banksters who are robbing honest civilians of collective billions of pounds, escape unscathed, without even arrest! Ask yourself – does British ‘Justice” work? Criminals in power – yet Britain’s prisons are full – of those who threaten to expose those in the Political system for what it is: a pile of leaves harbouring corruption and a private club where depravity rules.

            Many of you will be astonished to hear that I was never a party to the Vicky Haigh case, and was not even joined as a party – nor could I have been joined because the Courts held no records of the case and the whole thing was rigged by the Rothschild satanists who control Britain’s monetary system, Judiciary, parliament, collapsing Judiciary and corrupt Court system, Masonic-infiltrated police forces, and complicit county councils…all snouts in the same trough, courtesy of the CROWN CORPORATION. Beware of anything to do with the ‘Crown’ – by their fruits you know them.

            Not only this, I was never served any Summons! And had no Trial! And no opportunity to defend myself! It was a full set up with them all being caught with their pants down so they made me their sacrificial lamb, despite not being a party on the case – nor could I have been joined as one as the courts HELD NO RECORD!

            Those in Holloway were all bewildered as to how I came to be in there – so by Divine Grace, I surrendered to the experience and became instrumental in exposing the corruption of the whole child-trafficking system, ever since! There’s always something useful from injustice – they can imprison one’s body but can never imprison one’s mind, which is what they want to be able to do – mind-control.

            The reporting done about me is all false, by the way, it was all made up by the criminals involved, protecting their own backs from Public exposure.. but all they’ve done is delayed that process, not prevented it. Check out Nickel-arse’s “judgment” of 6 October 2011 made after his original bullshit….what they are not happy about is that I am now informed and a much more effective campaigner who speaks from first-hand experience – which most of you do not have the benefit of.

            I SPENT ONLY 10 DAYS IN THERE – and after giving out an illegal suspended sentence the Judge retracted his stupid ‘order’ and admitted he’d made it with no jurisdiction and so gave an unconditional discharge….but I should have had the whole matter quashed. They snatched thousands of pounds off me to try to save face for their evil acts – that’s right, It literally COSTS MONEY to “BUY BACK YOUR LIBERTY FROM CRIMINALS!

            It would be interesting to see how many of you would have survived such a circumstance as this? Keelan would have keeled over no doubt & fallen apart. None of you have the right to judge what you know nothing about. At least I now understand It all occurred because I uncovered the Truth about the goings-on in these citadels of satan – for example, councils issuing fake “court orders” with rubber stamps in their top drawer and no records held at the Principal Registry (I even have letters confirming this from the Court Manager! ha), and false “judgments” being bought and sold like the children, and these criminals refusing to examine any evidence and conducting 100% rigged non-‘hearings’…..their terror of being exposed for the charlatans that they are led them to resorting to seize control using illegal force and denying all human rights in the process

            If they had not felt so fearful then they would not have stooped so low as to bang me up illegally without due process of Law, then the Truth would have come out there and then… but these dark forces operating in HMCTS are still in full evidence now – and the likes of Keelan are paid protectorates of this Serious Organise Crime, thankfully the more awake amongst us are not being fooled – already several salient postings have been deleted by Keelan who controls this pathetic blog –

            in the same way there can be no fair hearing and no fair trial in HMCTS, there can be no free speech or Truth being voiced where despots and tinpot dictators have built their livelihood on the back of these depraved crimes.

          • miraclelilies

            Were you there, Keelan, for any of the time or for all of the 3 week period involved? Define “witness”….

      • miraclelilies

        Did you realise, for example, that this Case does not even have a CASE NUMBER allocated to it? Its as if it has never happened.
        they all have blood on their hands.
        I know the gross injustice and criminality that HMCTS are capable of! from first hand experience….
        It is a Draconian set up
        Why do you think the children would have lied to the police on the first occasion? Why do you think the children would have shied away from attending school esp. on Wednesdays? How can children describe in such lurid detail the goings-on- which are publicly evidenced in the Public domain re satanic rituals etc, if they hadn’t had first hand experience of it?
        The children are of an age that they can read and know the names of their teachers – with social workers and police whose names they also gave, they certainly would not have memorised a list which is what you seem to be suggesting.
        What would motivate a mother to do such a thing?
        The children were CLEAR that the mother had never touched them
        Did you watch ALL of the videos and have you tried joining up the dots?
        If this false”judgment” had any veracity in it whatsoever, ask yourself why it had to be held in secret without due process and why the judge was too afraid to try the mother or her boyfriend or the children themselves? I think the one who is ranting is you – you have selective seeing and selective listening. Are you a social worker by any chance?

        • Voiceofreason

          I don’t give a f**k about the case number. All that matters is what I have seen and read, which is EVERYTHING available in the public domain. Or rather the parts that Sabine selectively chose to share. Interestingly she only made available ‘certain’ excerpts of the Judicial Review. A great deal was missing, which appears above. I also note that parts of the initial phone videos were not shared, but which are detailed also in the above public judgement. Some of the dialogue outlined in points 69-96 were available to view online, but not points 95 and 96, unless I am mistaken.
          Take a look. It might help you understand why the judge reached her decision.
          Also ask yourself this: Why did the mother flee? Because she was afraid of being arrested? Oh dear, poor thing. I’m not sure if you’re a parent. I shall assume not. But as a mother I would have chained myself, naked, to the court railings if it meant remaining present whilst my children’s fate was decided. Instead, she flees to some ‘secret’ location, like she’s playing out a part in James Bond.
          The woman is a disgrace for that act alone!

          • Voiceofreason

            P.S: Case No: ZC14C00315

          • miraclelilies

            meaningless drivel – this appears nowhere on any official document or judgment! It is an administrative reference number for their deluded set up which is NOT A COURT because a real Court is INDEPENDENT and goes through DUE PROCESS OF LAW and allows FAIR HEARINGS and a FAIR TRIAL – NONE OF WHICH HAVE OCCURRED

          • Voiceofreason

            Note: Excessive use of capitals does not give your argument more weight.

          • miraclelilies

            There’s no contest – with our without capital letters
            The Truth stands alone. It needs no argument. That is reserved for the voracious Legal “profession” who hoover up £££££ on the back of these crimes.

          • Keelan Balderson

            You wouldn’t know truth if it punched you in the face.

          • Lilith Mooney

            oh get over it, you were wrong from the start, any sane person could see through all the bullshit from day one, going only on the evidence supplied by the mum and the conspirators themselves it was obvious what was really going on. If you were too caught up in your own conspiracy agenda to see it then you only have yourself to blame, you’ve been taken in by a couple of perps, the only reason to argue now is down to ego, and not wanting to admit you were wrong. Just learn from the experience and go and take any videos you have shared down becasue you are abusing those kids further by continuing to make them available for people to see, and probably wank over, on the net.

          • miraclelilies

            what are you rattling on about? hot air….nonsensical meaningless disjointed drivel – no idea what you are referring to. Sorry.

          • Sarah

            So naive.. and this is how it continues unabated.

          • miraclelilies

            What are you saying? that it is ok to run a CRIMINAL non-“trial” in a CIVIL “court” ? dream on….

          • Keelan Balderson

            It wasn’t a trial, it was a fact finding hearing.

            The fact that they have yet to be charged is the only CRIMINAL element here.

          • miraclelilies

            This is buying into mere hearsay: neither the mother, the accused boyfriend nor the children were there, so how can it possibly be deemed a legitimate ‘fact finding’ hearing? and where is the “hearing” ? No hearing, no listening – eyes wide shut
            The criminal element is the child abuse, the grooming of minors, the sexual molestation of minors, the stealing of these children’s innocence, the criminal cover up and perversion of Justice… shall I continue?
            There is nothing the Crown Corporation, trading as HMCTS can do to suppress the whole Truth emerging and drowning out their lies and concealment, like a giant Tsunami of change sweeping and cleansing out these goings-on and terrible cover ups, against the Public Interest.
            No man or woman has the right to steal children and persecute mothers – the Courts are not conducting themselves as real courts

          • Keelan Balderson

            They chose not to turn up on their own accord. Maybe because they couldn’t stomach facing their evil abuse being read out to the public. Shame on them!

          • miraclelilies

            alas, that is not even remotely believable. No one walks into the lion’s den to a rigged set up like that one unless they are on a suicide mission… many smart folks don’t DO intimidation! simple. The Public were debarred, so how could the evil be laid bare? think about what you are writing here, it is nonsensical and easily disproven, without foundation in fact.

          • Keelan Balderson

            They chose not to turn up on their own accord … whatever deluded reason they concocted to justify this, does not change that fact.

          • Sarah

            What abuse? because the court accused the mother and boyfriend you believe it? Think for yourself. Why wouldn’t the court accuse the mother and boyfriend to protect those guilty and shut the case down? Some people believe everything they are told simply because a Judge or Police man tells them it’s so. I am amazed at how many people take positions about what happened and who is guilty based upon hearsay without a trial.

          • Voiceofreason

            How interesting that you so easily believe the children were coerced into retracting their allegations, yet refuse to believe that they were coerced into making the allegations by the boyfriend and mother. So you accept that the children were coerced, but only by the police, rather than the people who had the greatest influence over them? Your argument defies logic.

          • miraclelilies

            How can you even call her a “judge” when she has no jurisdiction over this criminal matter, and has not TRIED anything that is relevant?
            If you were clued up you would know that mothers are being criminally victimised ,demonised and persecuted by the Stasi-State vultures who are masquerading as “officials”, all of who are profiting by the racketeering involved with Child Trafficking.
            Anyone would flee from State terrorists – mothers are being banged up ILLEGALLY in prison when they’ve committed NO CRIME and are innocent, having their offspring snatched from them – it is outrageous. Do the research.
            State terrorism is what this is – feeding the mouths of an army of deviants acting unconscionably who’ve built their entire livelihood on the back of Serious Organised Crime – child-traffickers who conduct everything IN SECRET, who these people have developed in to, because they are all acting ULTRA VIRES outside of the Law, outside of the Constitution, outside of their OWN RULES!
            Yes, I am a parent and I think it is horrific to override what the children had disclosed BEFORE they were being unduly influenced and manipulated by all those with vested interests. It stinks. I know what these unconstitutional rigged “courts” are capable of, no wonder so many “judges” are being sacked and forced to resign – this is all happening under the CROWN CORPORATION FYI.

          • Snake Logan

            I fear you are farting against thunder here. Our excessively vocal friend isn’t interested in the truth–he or she just wants to shriek about imagined injustice. I’d be willing to bet she-he circulated those kids’ videos, too.

          • Voiceofreason

            Agreed, I detect tones of the narcissistic Sabine in miraclelilies rants!

          • Voiceofreason

            This is ‘miraclelilies’, our ranting friend. She’s another Sabine. (I’ve blocked out her name as I’d hate to be tarred with the same brush)

            EW purges contempt and is freed from Holloway

            Judgments in Haigh proceedings to be made available

            EW, who was last week sentenced to a nine month prison term for her part in the naming of parties in care proceedings, has been released after purging her contempt.

            Ms W had been imprisoned in Holloway Prison. She had assisted Victoria Haigh to breach court orders in care proceedings and to put into the public domain via email and the internet a series of unwarranted and scandalous allegations about the father in the proceedings and others. The President ordered that the parties to the proceedings should be named so that the father could be publicly absolved of the allegations made against him.

            According to the Press Association, the High Court was told: “[Ms W] is locked in her cell for 15 hours a day. She has had clearly a very long time to reflect on the circumstances in which she finds herself.”

          • Snake Logan

            And yet, despite all that time to reflect, the message hasn’t sunk in yet. Impressive.

          • miraclelilies

            You aren’t “voice of reason” – you are voice of TREASON
            get knotted you liar. I wash my hands on you and shake the dust off my feet, I won’t sup with fools like you.

          • Sarah

            The mother would not have been any help to her children on the inside, she would likely have never gotten out also. You might have chained yourself to the court but if you have any knowledge about the corruption of the courts and Police you may think it wise to handle from the outside, albeit in another country where you have some hope of getting a result.

          • Voiceofreason

            Oh for God’s sake! What is wrong with you people?!
            Even if she had been arrested, she would have been legally entitled to appear at the fact find hearing. The verifiable facts are she’s subjected the kids to abuse and then bailed out on them. You have been duped, you willing fool!

      • miraclelilies

        PS – the heading you’ve used is FALSE – no fair trial and no fair hearing can not produce anything BUT a false judgment, the facts speak for themselves, the unexamined and unheard evidence speaks for itself, and a false judgment is always a false judgment

      • miraclelilies

        you are nothing more than a paid assassin

        • Voiceofreason

          Whilst I find your hysteria and paranoia profoundly irritating, not to mention dangerous, I am suddenly struck
          with a modicum of pity for you and the other ‘truth’ campaigners like Sabine.

          Like addicts, you just can’t help yourselves.

          You become seduced by the story, the drama and the opportunity it presents for you to make your mark on a
          world that has failed to take little notice of you.

          Oh you believe in your cause wholeheartedly. You are unfaltering in your belief. You store it in a hermetically sealed, impenetrable bubble. God help anyone who tries to break your resolve.

          You are now pumped full of adrenalin.You are a warrior, prepared to fight to the death. Nothing and no one will
          stand in your way. Victory, plaudits… fame even, is within sight.

          The problem is you have fallen prey to the effects of ‘love at first sight’, and in doing so are blinded. You fail to carry out a fact find, examine the hard evidence, or even
          pause for a moment to use critical thinking to determine the plausibility of the story you have fallen for. Even when
          you are proven to be wrong, you still cling, desperately to the story you’ve invested in. And then you become ‘stuck’.

          Sadly, you never really get to make your mark, not in a positive way. Nor do you ever get close to helping
          real victims, and in truth are unlikely to cope if faced with one.

          Experiencing, first hand, a child’s (proven) account of sexual abuse is harrowing. You witness a host of gut
          wrenching emotion/behaviour (tears, shame, guilt, hurt, anger, depression, withdrawal, to name but a few) and it takes many years of sensitive, pragmatic management to help them overcome this trauma, not the hysteria that people like you would employ.

          To coin a phrase “you just can’t handle the truth!”

        • Snake Logan

          And you’re a poo-poo head.
          Oh, wait. We’re not just exchanging insults here? Sorry. My bad.

    • Sarah

      Valid points, but such questioning requires common sense and the ability for one to think for themselves. One can only hope their are enough people who will not accept the courts ridiculous explanation and will demand an actual trial. While it looks highly unlikely that the kids could be lying, it’s not about making claims it’s about putting forward the evidence that speaks for itself, obviously if those involved were examined this would assist the case however it was shut down before this could even be addressed. It’s a case whereby the Mother didn’t even have a stand in the court. It would take people in the community actually taking responsibility themselves to demand the case be handled in a specific way, to remove it from the control of the very parties accused. It makes sense why those in control of these pedophile rings place themselves in positions of power, the police, Law Society, Doctor etc, they control the risk of exposure. All it takes is the public to sit back in a daze and wait for the media to tell them what to think. This is why it has gone on for so long. Those who are awake saw the case playing out this way and unfortunately it’s the children and the mother who suffer.

    • Paula Burton

      Sabine has an agenda, she was pushing this crap with the Hollie Greig case accusing all and sundry of satanic abuse. Now Hollie was not a virgin but being downe syndrome doesnt stop people from having sex. She is pushing danerous crap with no thought of the harm she is doing to the kids

  • Guest

    Why did the Police notify Ricky Dearman the day before they were due to inspect the church.. I find that odd.. on the 9th September the female child is interviewed at home her brother walks in and says the Police have notified the father..The judge states the Police visited the Church on the 10th great call Barnet Police if there was anything untoward going on wouldn’t take long to have a clean and hide the friggin goblet and really one again if your going to find a silver goblet anywhere it would be in a church surely? …

    • Keelan Balderson

      Please source your claims.

  • lh1

    I saw this story on Richie Allen’s youtube account and made the mistake of adding a couple of comments after viewing the videos. I say ‘made the mistake’ because now I get responses to my comments which I look at and am compelled to revisit the whole vile saga again and again. I said initially that the childrens’ presentation during the videos taken by ‘Papa Hemp’, others within the family and the police recordings, was strikingly unaffected when disclosing such horrific abuse.
    Their recall in relation to names, addresses, secret places and distinguishing marks on people which, are often on intimate places, is astonishing. Unheard of in child abuse.
    It’s clear from ‘Papa Hemp’s’ own videos that he’s coaching those children. And that he’s a seriously disturbed man. I find it even more shocking that he was only involved with this family for 4 months or so. The ‘hemp juice’ seemed to accelerate this particular man’s process of brainwashing I would think.
    I am completely dumbfounded as to why so many people believe these so called campaigners’ for justice. Look at all the evidence and facts!
    There are so many discrepencies in the evidence.
    And yes, I do know that sexual abuse and ritual abuse takes place. And I know it’s widespread and increasing in this country but, these children were not involved in satanic abuse. They have been abused however and I’m sure the real story will emerge at some point.

    • Snake Logan

      You’re right, lh1–when I listened to the initial videos, my first thought was that they sounded like they were reciting a catechism, not reporting a terrible crime. The words seemed to have little meaning to them, except inasmuch as they pleased Abraham C.–and I had to wonder why the little girl had a bruised forehead and a cut on her chin.

  • Steve Pilchard

    Let us all hope the abusive mother and her partner in crime are brought to justice as soon as possible.

    • Voiceofreason

      Absolutely. I see the nut job mother has now published a video ‘witness statement’, in which she goes on to verbally repeat all the names of the alleged (and now disproved) members of the satanic cult! Hopefully she’s just fast tracked her ticket to jail.

  • sarah

    Those who are awake are shaking their heads once again unsurprised by the verdict, it couldn’t have been any other way in order for the accused to walk away unscathed. These people rely heavily on enough naive members of society to believe everything they’re told without questioning the numerous inconsistencies in the handling of the case, “There’s no ritual abuse, the mother and boyfriend did it”. ” Who needs to think for themselves when the media will do it for you. This will keep happening until the community demands those accused, are not permitted to try their own case and give there own legal determinations which surprise, are in their favour. This outcome was to be expected, it sends a strong message to anyone else who might feel compelled to expose further abuse. The public’s ignorance allows it to continue. It’s not hard to see why the accused are referred to as the untouchables. The released tapes are probably the children’s only saving grace as it doesn’t take a genius to observe that you cannot make a child relay such an elaborate lie with such consistency, congruence and conviction while under duress. The police tape where the children recant the statement is the very opposite. Why would a Judge make the claim that the children were not abused by any of the accused when it is impossible for them to have any first hand knowledge of this?

    • Keelan Balderson

      “it doesn’t take a genius to observe that you cannot make a child relay such an elaborate lie with such consistency, congruence and conviction while under duress.”

      It also doesn’t take a genius to observe that you’re spewing absolute nonsense.

      Children can’t lie under duress? What alien species are these strange creatures that don’t operate like other humans?

      The reason why there is “such consistency, congruence and conviction,” is because they WERE coached. Children can’t articulate such things unless they’re given a script to repeat.

      Even if it was REAL, they wouldn’t be able to describe it in this way.

      “Why would a Judge make the claim that the children were not abused by any of the accused when it is impossible for them to have any first hand knowledge of this?”

      Yet you believe they were, despite sitting behind a computer?

      This is hilarity of the true believers. They believe even when their own arguments posit that there is no evidence.

      • sploosh

        Keelan, have you even researched this case for yourself before commenting? You say there is no evidence, but there is a medical report from a senior professional which clearly states that the children have been sexually abused.

        Have you read the medical report?

        • Keelan Balderson

          Yes I’ve read everything about the case, unlike you.

          The findings of the first doctor were reviewed by a panel of her peers, and the “injuries” were found to be within the normal variation.

          It also seems to have emerged that the mother was treating them with enemas, which might explain some of what was noted.

          But even if you were correct (which you aren’t) that’s not evidence of a satanic cult operating in Hampstead is it?

          So maybe it is you that needs to do more research, apply some more critical thinking, and come to a reasonable conclusion.

          • sploosh

            Read through the initial report… there is obviously a clear difference between ‘normal variation’ and damage consistent with blunt penetration…. do you honestly believe this could be so inconclusive?

            A doctor with 24 years experience, employed at the University College London, as part of an examination team, on several occasions, signed by medical practitioners with authorities in the field concluded that multiple injuries were found consistent with sexual abuse.

            If you can criticize this medical examination you can criticize this judges ruling.

          • Keelan Balderson

            There is a difference … but who am I going to believe, one single doctor who back-peddled, or a panel of her peers who reviewed her findings?

            More importantly why do you believe any of this proves there is a Satanic cult in hampstead?

          • sploosh

            There may be more proof found if an actual criminal investigation had taken place, instead of a smear campaign against the mother and partner. What this evidence does prove is that the children have been abused so there should be a criminal investigation.

            Not even one of the alleged were interviewed so how is that even a case? If you were handed evidence by an experienced doctor confirming evidence of sexual abuse the first thing you would do is follow this up…. to put more effort into disproving the medical evidence is absolutely shocking don’t you agree?

          • Keelan Balderson

            “There may be more proof found if an actual criminal investigation had taken place.”

            This is circular reasoning and shows your complete lack of rationality.

            There is no evidence of a satanic cult, but now the lack of evidence is somehow evidence. There’s either evidence or there isn’t. You’ve chosen to believe this is all true, clearly based on some other biased/warped reason.

            If your position was simply “I think the investigation should continue,” you may have a leg to stand on, but you’re a true believer.

            “What this evidence does prove is that the children have been abused.”

            Correct … but this points towards Abraham Christie and Ella Draper.

            “Not even one of the alleged were interviewed so how is that even a case?”

            Again you like to pretend you know what you’re talking about, but you don’t. For example the father was interviewed by police, police searched the church, and they went looking for so called locations of abuse. Nothing was found.

            “to put more effort into disproving the medical evidence is absolutely shocking don’t you agree?”

            This is a faulty premise for a number of reasons. It assumes any oversight of a medical report is based solely on ulterior motives.

            Perhaps it was not about disproving, but coming to an informed consensus on what was actually TRUE?

            It was Dr. Hodes who voluntarily took her findings to a peer review, and she subsequently agreed with their conclusions. She’s not on your side, she’s a doctor. She’s not on anybody’s side.

            So no there’s nothing shocking about it at all. In fact it shows everybody involved actually wanted to do a thorough job.

          • sploosh

            Your saying it was a thorough job? Its clear there hasn’t been a full investigation, none of the other many alleged abusers interviewed, none of the other alleged victims. Secret court hearing in such little time, not good enough at all. The one thing they have done a thorough job of is covering this all up, taking down alternative articles, videos and even a petition signed by 14,000. We are required by law to publicize these types of crime.

            I ask you who do you think should have custody of the children? and why the mother and partner would coach such an elaborate story which could be so easy to disprove (but hasn’t been) when the mother had a full residence order of the children? (With the violent father being restricted to only 2 days monthly access).

          • Keelan Balderson

            “Your saying it was a thorough job?”

            Two medical examinations and multiple professionals overseeing the findings is pretty thorough.

            “None of the other many alleged abusers interviewed.”

            Not every single person accused of something needs to be interviewed. That would be a terribly inefficient and unfair system.

            Things didn’t add up, there was no need to drag innocent people in to a police station.

            “The one thing they have done a thorough job of is covering this all up, taking down alternative articles, videos.”

            It’s not a cover-up, it’s standard procedure to keep children’s personal information out of the hands of the public. Plastering them all over the internet was fucking disgraceful!

            Without charges or convictions it’s also disgraceful to name people as abusers.

            “We are required by law to publicize these types of crime.”


            “I ask you who do you think should have custody of the children?”

            Not the mother and her partner, or those that support them. Whether that means foster carers, grandparents, I don’t know.

            “Why the mother and partner would coach such an elaborate story which could be so easy to disprove (but hasn’t been).”

            Because they are deluded.

            If you believe it is true, the burden of proof is on you. All you have are nonsensical stories. There’s nothing tangible whatsoever.

            Police hunted down some of the locations and nothing was found.

            “With the violent father being restricted to only 2 days monthly access”

            The father was never charged or convicted of any crime relating to domestic abuse. Christie has a criminal record.

          • sploosh

            It would be unfair if more than one of the alleged abusers was interviewed and would be unfair for the other alleged victims cases to be investigated? ok… that’s poor.

            ‘Because they are deluded’ that’s poor.

            Under EU law, the videos had a right to be shared with the public authority.

            The father has a non-molestation injunction with limited access to the children and reports of multiple police call outs which says a lot about him.

            The grandparents have requested custody of the children, would you object to this request?

          • smallcoder

            And Christie calls himself “Papa Hemp” ffs ? Sorry but what more fricking evidence is needed that him and the mad russian mother are fruitcakes feeding their kids drugs and abusing them physically and psychologically.

            I mean, reading some of the people on here, it shows that care in the community has been an even bigger failure than at first suspected. Every crazy has a laptop and internet connection. Get back on the meds folks!

          • Augustus Edem

            I really do hope you are proven wrong.

          • Snake Logan

            I do believe you’re about to get your wish: apparently a criminal investigation *has* been launched! They’re looking for Sabine McNeill, Belinda McKenzie, Ella Draper, and Abraham Christie, apparently. You see? Happy endings are possible!

          • Snake Logan

            Even if the doctor’s observations were consistent from one time to the next (which they were not), and even if the test she used were an accepted method of diagnosing sexual abuse (which it was not), the fact that a child might have been sexually abused in no way proves the existence of a satanic sexual abuse ring.

          • sploosh

            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 the child’s victim statements, free from any influence of the alleged abusers. Didn’t happen.

            This…. the initial videos, police interviews, medical evidence, cover ups, silencing of public, negligence shown in the case and of EU law and the risk of the children being back in the hands of the abusers, are just some of the reasons why the ‘evil’ ‘nutters’ are very concerned.

            Should the grandparents request for custody of the children be accepted?

          • Snake Logan

            “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.”

            They most certainly would not. Everyone who’s been bleating about how the “accused” (who have only been accused by Christie and Draper, using the children as sock puppets) should come forward and have their privates examined need to remember: in our system of justice, the onus is upon the prosecution to prove guilt. Just think about it for a moment: if it were the other way round, anyone could accuse anyone else of horrific crimes, and then sit back while the accused struggled to extricate themselves. The accuser would need to do nothing to point the finger. This was the methodology employed during the Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, and other fiascos–none of which led to justice being served.

            If you have concerns–fine. I think you’re wrong, but at least try to inform yourself as to how the legal system actually works.

          • sploosh

            And the prosecution admitted it didn’t use significant evidence and admitted ‘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.’

            And an expert witness agrees: ‘I do not feel it was suitable to close this investigation at this point without further enquiries and corroboration being sought.’

            Police and Criminal Evidence Act:

            ‘4ASearches and examination to ascertain identity

            (1)If an officer of at least the rank of inspector authorises it, a person who is detained in a police station may be searched or examined, or both—

            (a)for the purpose of ascertaining whether he has any mark that would tend to identify him as a person involved in the commission of an offence; or’

            If you were accused of a horrific crime and had an easy way of disproving the claims, by simply proving you do not have a mark or tattoo that they describe, would you not come forward and clear your name? Would’t this be the best thing you could do? or would you hide.

            Also you didn’t answer my question.

          • Keelan Balderson

            The investigation isn’t over though … they are hunting down Christie and Draper.

          • Shevatwo Burton

            litlle seeds of truth, contaminated and geminated, perpetuated with lies, throughout this, and the hollie case, why? … to silence or sidetrack people away from real cases, to overwhelm our platform as designed in 2010, when headliners rather than real survivors took to the mike, vampiric agencies and sites, 100’s set up by these teams of hoaxers ready to suck up new victims, using tags that real CSA campaigns use, and all because they sabines, belinda’s. brians and bills all want to cover up, whilst taking glory, for apparantly helping

          • Shevatwo Burton

            make it upasyougoalongsploosh

      • John

        Bombed again ZION CORP MONKEY BOY

    • SennaStar .

      Sarah this was a great response.

  • John


  • curve

    I am new to this story and I was lead here via the Holly Grieg story. Thanks for your sensible investigative approach to both of these very emotive stories Keelan.

    I just wanted to share what may perhaps be a lead into investigating the reasons why such hoaxes may be perpetrated. I noticed in both cases that the accusers seem to have some kind of connection to the Tavistock institute. The judges statement (paragraph 26) mentions in passing some involvement between the family and the Tavistock institute. What that is, I cannot glean for one sentence, but it did stand out to me having only just read a report from the Holly Grieg case that there was also some involvement.between the same institute and one or more of that cases accusers and/or supporters. Could mean nothing at all…

    • Keelan Balderson

      While it’s pure speculation it wouldn’t be the first time therapists have implanted the idea of satanic ritual abuse in to their patient’s minds.

    • Jon_357

      One of the leading psychologists at the Tavistock Institute has quite a history of propagating myths about Satanic Ritual Abuse over the years and has either been directly involved in or has commented in the media on most if not all of the well known cases. Her name keeps cropping up again and again. Worth mentioning that the person is a very devout born-again Christian. Having said that, I do not know if she has been involved in any way with the Hampstead/Holly Greig hoaxes.

      • Keelan Balderson

        Are you talking about Valerie Sinason?

        • Jon_357

          Yes, although I’ve no idea if she has had any involvement with these particular allegations.

  • honeycat155

    Those poor children,its heartbreaking and devastating to see the systematic torture they suffered,their tired little faces trying to remember and regurgitate the wicked lies that were beat into their minds. god love them and protect them,i hope they can heal,but theyre scarred.
    as for that evil sadist abraham christie and the complicant mentally unstable mrs draper, they need locking up for a long long time,sick evil bastards.

  • Tuzza

    I find the argument in the comments below astonishingly selfish and missing the point. Let’s forget the sex cult and the ‘evil’ mum for a minute. Have the kids been sexually abused as the medical report would suggest. The judge has made her mind up on the case clearly, but it cannot stop there and forgotten about?!

    • Keelan Balderson

      The medical reports are inconclusive at best. The one sign that abuse might have taken place was only found in the girl (RAD), without any other supporting signs. The same thing is found in non-abused children. So abuse is not a forgone conclusion at all.

      That being said the case isn’t over as the police are still seeking Ella and Abe.

  • Tim Veater

    If as the judge states: ”

    “Mr Christie has a background of criminality for drugs offences, violence and dishonesty. More recently, he received a police caution for assaulting his adolescent son.”

    “The children’s false stories came about as the result of relentless emotional and psychological pressure as well as significant physical abuse. Torture is the most accurate way to describe what was done by Mr Christie in collaboration with Ms Draper.”

    “Both children were assaulted by Mr Christie by being hit with a metal spoon on multiple occasions over their head and legs, by being pushed into walls, punched, pinched and kicked. Water was poured over them as they knelt semi-clothed.”

    Why at no stage did the police initiate a criminal investigation at least involving an interview under caution? (The claim that because all the abuse was in Morocco put it outside their jurisdiction is unconvincing in any respect)

    Even if the Judge placed all the blame on the mother and step-father, the fact that she retains no reservations regarding the father, who has a DOCUMENTED history of dubious business connections and violence towards his wife and children – in fact wholly exonerates him – is truly astonishing, and undermines the credibility of her judgement on this point alone. And it is just one of many such.

    • Keelan Balderson

      “Why at no stage did the police initiate a criminal investigation.”

      It’s my understanding that they are still seeking Draper and Christie, but as to why they didn’t charge them initially, there are a number of possible considerations. Laziness being one of them, but also perhaps it wouldn’t have stood up in court in terms of establishing time and place, and coupling that with the children’s testimony which obviously changed a lot.

      It might not have been the right thing, but the mentality could have just been “let’s get the children to safety, that’s the main thing.”

      As for the father he doesn’t have any charges or convictions for alleged violence against Ella. A non-molestation (nothing to do with child molestation) order was once sought, but that can be obtained without any evidence, based solely on what the woman says.

      And as far as I’m aware this did not involve the children directly, only Ella.

      • Tim Veater

        Keelan I have to say I have found your position with regard to this case arrogantly biased and blinkered. This from someone who makes claims to reason and impartiality appears rather strange to me. Even if you decry suggestions of ill-treatment by the step father, and if true rightly so I think, I cannot understand like the Judge, you are quite blind to the fathers faults that involve documented cases of physical and emotional abuse to his THREE children and wife that necessity the police being called and a non-molestation order. Recorded mobile text proves corroborative elements of the children’s story in harassing messages to his wife. His Hollywood work and business interests, beside events abroad are all supportive of the children’s and wife’s narrative. The judge (and you) want us to believe that ‘torture’ was employed to make them tell the stories they did. No rational person took take this position if they have viewed the interviews – incidentally why it became so important to get them withdrawn wherever possible. The patent honesty of the children, on multiple occasions to different people, including the police, when describing what happened to them is totally convincing. Nor can it explain the detailed physiological and other identifiers or the convincing synergy of description (often of quite obscure practices) and body language that cannot be forged by children of that age. As to your excuses for police inactivity, they are wholly unpersuasive. If accurate they are confirmation of police incompetence supportive of the contention that the substantive allegations against the father and others, were also never properly investigated, despite a heavyweight team of six or seven experienced detectives. The police only appear to take an interest in pursuing the mother when several months have passed and the films have appeared on the internet. So much for their concern for the ‘torture’ meted out by the step-father!

        • Keelan Balderson

          “I cannot understand like the Judge, you are quite blind to the fathers faults.”

          I’m not blind to the father’s “faults”, the main point I have made in my videos and articles about the father is that people are too quick to point the finger at him, when unlike Christie, his “faults” only come from Ella’s word. He has not been cautioned, charged or convicted. We’re dealing with hearsay, hearsay in the context of a divorce.

          If you know anything about non-molestation orders you will know that they are a grossly abused and do not even require a shred of evidence to be granted.

          Perhaps he was abusive to Ella, but that does not prove he is the leader of a widespread baby eating Satanic cult in Hampstead. Let’s not lose sight of that!

          I also am not excusing the police inactivity. Abraham Christie should be in a jail cell.

        • https://hoaxteadresearch.wordpress.com Dani Wiggy

          Hey Tim, did you get bored with endlessly spouting about God on Jacqui the Troll’s illegal blog? I see you’re so quick to follow your “fearless” leader’s edict to come here to harass Keelan. But let me ask you one thing – where is she? Is she here to support you, having ordered you to come here? Er…no. How does it feel to be used by a notorious troll who’s currently wanted by the Police? Go you!

        • Sandi

          The medical report shows that the children were hit with the spoon, and all the other abuse. Which Abraham partially admits. There was dried blood inside the boys ear and abrasions outside, which could not be the father as he had not seen them in 2 months. The kids say it was Abraham. Ella went on to claim it was the father, showing her capacity to make up lies against the father and protect Abraham. I believe the children over Abraham.
          The CRIS report states that they did consider charges against Abraham for ABH, but could not carry them through because the incidents happened in Morocco. The police did ask during ABE interview whether Abraham had hit them while in England.
          You wonder why the police didn’t press charges and claim the Morocco reason is unconvincing. Seeing as there is evidence of abuse; a partial confession and of the police considering charges….what is your theory?…Are you saying the police were being biased and deliberately letting Abraham off?…why would they do that?
          You say unconvincing but have you documented evidence that the Morocco reason is not true?
          Likewise, you make claims about what children at 8 and 9 can or cannot learn or imagine. Have you evidence from developmental psychology studies which demonstrate your claim?
          ….or is all you’ve got just subjective opinion?
          You see, that is the reason people don’t put much weight on the allegations made about RDs domestic incidents. If taken as completely true (though we know Ella is a liar), then domestic violence is not congruent with Satanic ritualistic sexual abuse and cannibalism. It requires another leap of faith and subjective opinion.
          While in contrast, Abrahams history of violence towards children is exactly what he is again being accused of, it is congruent. Not only is it congruent but unlike the SRA, there is clear evidence that Abraham did abuse the kids, and some of his coaching. The nature of his abuse, such as suffocating them with his hands, hitting them repeatedly with a spoon( digging it into the girls face so hard it cut her) and punching the boy hard enough to perforate an ear drum, IS most accurately described as torture. In fact, the girl described “water torture”.Even some of Abrahams friends (eg Araya Soma) describe him as aggressive and controlling, again consistent with the children’s allegations against him.
          If the Morocco excuse is true, then it does not show incompetence, just that the current law is rubbish. The police did not take months to act. They removed the children from Ella and Abraham within days of first meeting them. They went after Ella due to the harassment caused by the release of the video…etc, which obviously would be some time later.

  • http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/337485161 David Howard

    Polygraph tests have a 100% accuracy rate when done properly. Google “The FBI uses polygraphs to eliminate suspects”

    • Keelan Balderson

      I’m not sure what your comment is referring to, unless you’re suggesting everyone accused be forced to take a test.

      They can be accurate in detecting deception, but they certainly aren’t 100% accurate. And even then there is still no way to know what the suspect is being deceptive about or to what degree, without supporting evidence.

    • https://hoaxteadresearch.wordpress.com Dani Wiggy

      David, you’ve been posting that same comment on Jacqui the Troll’s blog day in, day out, for weeks. And with all due respect, it’s utter tripe, You’ve been watching too many American cop movies, mate. Polygraphs are nothing more than a toy and neither the FBI nor the British Police touch them with a bargepole.

      • http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/337485161 David Howard

        Google “Floyd Dent polygraph test”

      • SUshine

        Obviously you don’t think the police are capable of doing their jobs properly, hence why you are spending your life on the internet trying to trash people who believe the original testimonies. You are on the internet 24/7, maybe it’s time for you to go out and get some fresh air and rethink your position. You seem to have cabin fever.

        • Keelan Balderson

          Why would anyone believe the original testimonies? Why would you be so foolish as to believe some videos with no supporting evidence?

    • Mary Doll

      How accurate polygraphs are is debatable. A big problem is that they don’t work on psychopaths, who generally have low level of arousal.

  • https://hoaxteadresearch.wordpress.com Dani Wiggy

    I’m curious. Why are all the Hoaxteaders so keen to attack all the people originally accused by the children in their made-up testimonies (even going so far as to issue death threats to me and others who have questioned this view), yet equally determined to stop Abraham – the one person whom the children have actually accused of abusing them – from being questioned? I wonder what it is they’re scared we’ll find out. We already know about his previous convictions, so it must be something very big they’re trying to conceal. Which is why whenever anyone posts that question on Charlotte Ward’s Hampstead Research blog, it is immediately deleted; and whenever anyone asks it on YouTube, we’re threatened and slandered to within an inch of our lives! Still, it’s fun to watch the scammers squirm!

    • Mary Doll

      I’m not sure they’ve got something to hide. I think you’re hearing from the lunatic fringe who wouldn’t know evidence if they fell over it. Who is Charlotte Ward?

      • https://hoaxteadresearch.wordpress.com Dani Wiggy

        Charlotte Ward is the real name of Jacqui Farmer, the nutter who runs the illegal, hate-filled ‘Hampstead Research’ blog.

        • Mary Doll

          Thank you. I’ve just been reading Hampstead Research and Hoaxted Research too. Lots of info! Re death threats – ALWAYS keep a record and if there’s a direct threat report it to the police. Even if they haven’t got enough to act on immediately they’ll put it on police intelligence and it can come back to slap the perp later.

          • SUnshine

            Is it normal for a father to be taking pictures of his children in swimming pool changing rooms?

            Is it normal for a (now disgraced) judge to declare bestiality as normal childhood behaviour?

          • Keelan Balderson

            Look it’s the leader of the no cameras at sports day brigade … Of course it’s normal to take pictures of your kids!

            As for “Bestiality” what the hell are you talking about? Innocently touching a dog is not bestiality no matter how much you want it to be.

            A normal parent asks where they got the idea from and then explains that we don’t touch the dog there and move on. Abe and Ella begin patching together a delusion about a Satanic cult.

            Get a grip.

          • Sandi

            I remember right at the start that Ella and Abraham claimed they were touching the dog. It could be true, it may not be.
            I also remember that about 2 months after the videos began circulating, that people were becoming wise to Abraham. More and more people began to understand it was down to him, and were angered by abuse of the children.
            That pushed Ella and Abe to try justify his abuse. They then, from out of know where, began to claim that the kids were also touching a 3yr old child. Ella and Abe obviously thought that suddenly making this claim would distract from Abrahams abuse.
            Instead, because people could see through this lie, which had never been mentioned before, it gained no traction and increased peoples anger at Abraham and Ella. In fact, up to that point I had some sympathy with Ella. However, when I realised she was willing to make up such disgusting stories about her own kids just to save Abe, my sympathy ended.
            Since then, they have carried out more interviews and totally dropped the story about the 3yr old, and just mention the dog.
            They are a very sick pair.

  • The Truth Goose

    I am curious why people are unable to see that the father has been incredibly violent towards Ella, a fact he partially admits in the BBC interview. Is it acceptable to rip up your partners glasses and shake her, when you feel she isn’t listening? Is it really OK? No, it is never OK to resort to abuse, especially in front of children.

    Does no one else find it highly ludicrous and disturbing that the judge should term bestiality as being normal in childhood development?

    Does no one find it sinister that Ricky (the father) was taking photographs of his children in the changing rooms of a swimming pool? Which he admits in his police interview (in which he was free to leave at anytime.)

    Is it not somewhat absurd that over 5 police officers should be attempting to arrest Ella (the mother) for harassment of people she believes have harmed her children in the worst possible ways? Why on earth should so many police officers have been required, other than out right intimidation, which was countered by her barrister, who repeatedly asked for what purpose they were there and they repeatedly failed to answer.

    • Sandi

      There is a difference between domestic violence and satanic sexual abuse and infanticide. It would not be right for any judge to say “oh, you grabbed your wife and hit her, well then you are guilty of being a cult leader that sexually abuses and murders babies”. So while it is not ok, it is not evidence of these particular allegations either.
      Research shows that about 15% of girls and 10% of boys experience some sexual behaviour with siblings. If you Google terms which parents who find their children touching might use, such as “my children are touching each other”…you will find many examples of parents dealing with this problem. So while it is not typical, it is normal. It should not be described as bestiality, or even incest, as this is not two consenting adults. It is children experimenting. The advice given is to explain to the kids that what they are feeling is normal, but that they shouldn’t do these behaviours with their sibling and until they are older. What is not advised is to beat up the kids and insist they were abused by a satanic cult that eats babies.
      The father described that he had bought the kids new swim wear and a ball for using in the pool. That they entered a large changing room. I don’t find it particularly weird that he would want to take pictures of them in the swim costumes he just bought them, maybe posing with the ball or mucking about. After all, it’s not like he could take the camera In the pool.
      You must bear in mind that it was not just Ella in the house. There was Ella, Abraham, the Russian grandparents and the solicitor. That alone means a few officers would be used. Further, it is likely they would have wanted to search the house for anything which would be evidence of releasing the list of names or videos…etc. That means searching for any paper or electronic trail, including disks, USB sticks..etc, that could be passed to any of the people in the house to conceal them. It would therefore be a good idea to have numerous officers to help search and keep an eye on movement. Their mistake was being too nice, hoping that Ella would comply without the use of force. They should have waited for a warrant; bust the door through; arrested Ella and Abe, and searched for evidence.

      • Keelan Balderson

        “There is a difference between domestic violence and satanic sexual abuse and infanticide.”

        It’s sad that we have to point that out.

  • Fred Krueger

    The kids were sexually abused , just read the whole document about the examination. I am not so concerned about who did it, I am more concerned about the wellfare of the kids.

  • W Scott

    “President, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss”. Ha, ha. You couldn’t make this stuff up. Didn’t she partake in derailing the HCSA inquiry?