Despite the overwhelming evidence against Abraham Christie and mother Ella Draper, in the Hampstead abuse case, there are still people that are clinging on to the original “allegations.” To those that still believe there is a Satanic Cult operating in North London, I have 6 very important questions to ask you.
1) Why Do You Believe With No Evidence?
One of the most common arguments from believers is that the police did not investigate the allegations that were outlined in the original videos. This isn’t an accurate position at all, as they did interview the father, search the church where satanic ritual abuse allegedly occurred, and took the children on a drive to try and corroborate certain locations from the story. They found nothing. They also interviewed the children extensively, and a doctor medically examined them for signs of abuse on two occasions.
Some allegations are highly improbable. It’s alleged that on the last day of the school term a satanic abuse party was held until late at night, involving teachers from multiple schools, hundreds of children, and their parents. Would it not strike the local community as odd that lots of adults and children arrived at the school in the morning, but did not leave until night time? Wouldn’t there have been a huge commotion as they all left the school grounds, particularly if children had taken part in horrific rituals? Anybody could make an infinite list of problems with such a story, not least the fact that not one other person involved or observing from a far, has spoken out or provided tangible evidence that it occurred. When you couple such implausibility with the investigation that DID take place, and the retractions from the children, the police would have to come to a reasonable conclusion that it simply didn’t happen.
Despite this, the mantra from believers is still that the police did not investigate.
This then begs the question – if you don’t think the police carried out an investigation, or that it wasn’t up to the right standards, or that there’s a full blown cover-up – and because of this they have not produced any evidence of a satanic cult – why do you believe there is a satanic cult?
Regardless of the reason why there’s no evidence (most likely because there simply is no evidence) in order for you to believe the allegations, you yourself must have supporting evidence. Without any, your only logical position can be “I think the police should reopen the case,” which they actually have. They are seeking interviews with Draper and Christie, who have gone in to hiding.
This brings us back round to the crux of the issue. The believers believe, not because they have verified the claims in the videos, but for some other psychological or emotional reason. It’s like religious faith.
In fact they often fallaciously argue that the absence of evidence is somehow proof of a cover-up. Or that because something is possible (such as the doctor being pressured to revise her findings) that it happened. What this demonstrates is that they’re not interested in a rational, evidence-based approach, and are therefore not genuinely interested in the truth either.
2) How Can The Children Articulate Such Detailed Stories Without Coaching?
It has been argued that the “children’s allegations” are so elaborate and detailed, that they simply cannot be making them up. We must listen to the children! (except when they recant).
It’s not exactly the most sound argument, but I agree that it would be highly unlikely that the children could just lie about such a subject on a whim, with no outside pressures. That doesn’t however rule out that the stories and details were introduced to them by somebody else.
The evidence is now overwhelming that Abraham Christie used violence and intimidation against the children, so they would tell him what he wanted to hear. Once they were out of his reach, they said that this is what happened.
Even the mother’s own independent expert – former MET police officer Kylie Wilson – conceded in a written witness statement, that she thought Christie coerced the original allegations from the children, because of his position of authority over them and their desire to do what he wanted.
“[She] has acquiesced and then acquiesced again to further questioning. Undoubtedly as is the nature of someone who has started rolling the snowball of lies further disclosures came in order to please Mr Christie. There is a similar account given by [the boy].”
While Wilson does not believe that Christie premeditatedly coached them (though it’s now clear he did), she clearly does not think the wider body of the story is true.
“The accounts themselves may be far fetched and in some cases physically impossible, however given the current prevalence of child abuse enquiries … it is not surprising that a parent may get swept up into believing there is some truth to an apparently articulate account given by a child.”
In my opinion the real question that should be asked is how can the children articulate such complex and detailed stories WITHOUT somebody coercing, coaching or encouraging them? Even if the allegations were true, they wouldn’t know how to describe exactly what happened to them, or take on board all of the finer details of the people and places allegedly involved. That’s why social workers and other experts are brought in to conduct interviews, because children have a tough time verbalizing what may have happened. It is also important to have an impartial interviewer outside of the family, because a mother for example may be driven by emotion and not realize when she is influencing the child’s disclosure.
These kids do not have a tough time verbalizing the stories at all – it was Cafcass, it was McDonalds, there was this person, there was that person, and they list it all off without even the slightest bit of hesitation. In fact the boy gets so carried away in one of the original videos that he innocently claims “all the shopkeepers,” and “all the cafes” were involved. All of them!
So are these children just geniuses like Rain Man, did they take notepads with them to each “weekly” session to note down every detail, did each Satanist introduce themselves and outline their personal information – “hello I’m John Smith and I work at Cafcass, I now live in this town?” Or was it Abraham Christie and Ella Draper hammering home each little factoid within the violent environment the children later explained to police?
Despite this, a lot of the “detail” actually turned out to be false anyway. For example there was no secret room found in the church nursery area, and the children later admitted that Abraham forced them to say this. The teacher’s “house” where they were allegedly abused, turned out to be a block of flats and was not as described. They admitted that they had never actually been there.
Why would police round up the accused and force them to strip off for examinations, if none of the stories add up to begin with? There has to be a level of common sense before we turn it in to a witch hunt.
3) Why Do You Say The Police Were Coaching?
Those who are quick to proclaim it impossible for the children to have been coached, are just as quick to claim the police forced the children to retract the allegations and coached them to turn the tables on Abraham Christie. They literally claim the children were coached to say they were coached!
At the start of the girl’s interview she asks “what do you want me to say?” which has been jumped on as evidence of coaching, but the officer doesn’t prompt her or respond by saying “I want you to say this…” So despite the opportunity for coaching, the opportunity was not used. After all it would be pretty foolish to deliberately coach a child in a recorded interview. Believers however are happy to see something that isn’t there.
Likewise if the boy was bullied or pressured in to a retraction prior to his interview, why is he so comfortable with the interviewer? Why does he smile with relief after getting it all off his chest, and get happy and excited at the possibility of never seeing Abraham again, who he said he “hated”?
If you now concede that the children can be coached, isn’t that a contradiction? And what corroborating evidence do you have against the police? Or is it just convenient for you to accuse them of coaching so you can carry on believing the original story that you believed from day one?
4) Why Do You Smear The Father?
Believers have repeatedly referred to the past of the children’s father, citing so called “non-molestation” orders as evidence that he abused his children as part of the satanic cult.
First off, you do realize that a non-molestation order has nothing to do with child molesting right? It’s a civil court order designed to protect women from domestic violence, and can be applied for even if no domestic violence has occurred, so long as they fear it might happen in the future.
Now I’m not going to pretend to know what happened in their household, but the father has never been charged or convicted of domestic violence against Ella Draper, and there are certainly women that abuse legal privileges like this during nasty breakups and custody disputes.
Simply put there is no proof he was violent, and certainly no proof he was violent towards the children.
Even if we take Ella’s allegations at face value, that still is not evidence that the father was a child abuser and satanic cult leader in Hampstead.
Not satisfied, believers have implied that the father’s acting and nude modelling makes him suspicious, and that doing voice over work for a charity overseas means he’s involved in international child trafficking.
Ultimately none of it sticks.
5) Why Do You Ignore Abraham Christie’s Record?
On the contrary to the children’s father, Abraham Christie has a criminal record for drug offences, violence and dishonesty. Last year he received a police caution for assault against his own teenage son, and he was reported to police after he was publicly aggressive towards the children in question outside of the school. This was all documented by Draper’s self-styled legal adviser Sabine McNeill who dumped a bunch of files on Google Drive, perhaps not even realizing most of them actually went against her “client’s” case, and that she’d just made herself in contempt of court.
When the children where out of Christie’s reach they told investigators he hit them with spoons, poured jugs of water over them, and carried out other cowardly acts of violence, until they stopped “lying.” In his sick mind lying was anything that didn’t fit the story he’d concocted for them.
Those who were unfortunate enough to have watched the original videos will have noticed the children’s bruises, which were also noted in medical reports. Considering they hadn’t seen their father for months at the time that they were medically examined, I wonder where those bruises came from?
One allegation against the father was that he’d been giving them cocaine, as well as a drug that was injected. Police did find evidence of drug use, but this was THC in the children’s hair, which suggests that Christie (not the father) was forcing them to ingest psychoactive cannabis. His story is that he was giving them hemp, but this is easily distinguishable by drug tests. “Papa Hemp” was feeding them an illegal drug!
Believers, why do you ignore the verifiable evidence of Christie’s violent past including against his own son, the children’s testimony against him, and the visible and medical signs of abuse and cannabis consumption? But are happy to believe there’s a baby cooking cult in Hampstead instead?
6) What Medical Evidence?
Believers like to cling on to the very first medical reports from Dr. Hodes, because she wrote that the evdience supports allegations of sexual abuse. However even if there was medical evidence of sexual abuse, it still wouldn’t prove who the perpetrators were.
However it’s disingenuous to focus on these initial reports because Hodes took her findings to a panel of colleagues to be peer reviewed. She then subsequently agreed that she had overstated the findings, and what was actually observed fell within “possible normal variant,” meaning the children were comparable to children who were not abused.
It has since emerged that Draper was giving the children enemas for constipation, both of which can cause mild signs of damage, and therefore may be a factor in the findings.
I won’t get graphic, but the one finding that did remain after the peer review was the presence of “RAD” in the girl. This however did not accompany any signs of damage, which you would expect with sexual abuse.
When Dr. Hodes was asked about the enemas Draper had been giving the children, she conceded there could have been multiple possible causes for the RAD, not just sexual abuse.
“It’s another possible cause of trauma,” she responded.
So at this stage we’re dealing with “possible,” not provable.
Therefore evidence of sexual abuse is not a forgone conclusion, and is not the “smoking gun” believers are attempting to spin it as.
Hodes sought the opinions of her peers by herself and there is no evidence that she was pressured to revise her findings.
So let’s think about this logically for a second. If a massive cult had been abusing these children every week for an extended period of time, you’d think the physical signs would be absolutely overwhelming. Not one possible sign, in one child, without other supporting signs, and which has also been observed in non-abused children.
They should have been in constant pain, they should have been having nightmares, they should have been trying to stay off school in fear, and the evidence should be conclusive. It’s not!
While it’s possible some kind of isolated incident of sexual abuse has occurred, the children no longer seem to claim this, and the only evidence of abuse of any kind points towards physical and emotional abuse from Abraham Christie and Ella Draper.
Put Up or Shut Up
If the truth is on your side you shouldn’t have any trouble answering the above 6 questions and providing evidence for the satanic cult you believe so confidently in.
… I’m waiting.