SOME THOUGHTS ON THE HAMPSTEAD ABUSE CASE
FROM AN OUTSIDER'S POINT OF VIEW
Early in February of this year, I
came across videos of a 9-year old girl A. and his 8-year old brother G., living
in Hampstead, London, telling a horrendous story about their having been
sexually abused multiple times over the course of many years by their father
and more recently by dozens of other adults, as well as having been forced to
take part in multiple satanic ritual murders of babies. According to the
children, members of staff of their school, parents of fellow pupils, members
of children's care institutions and other local officials are all in this
network of abusers. A. and G. give detailed descriptions of the abuser's naked
bodies, including things like tattoos on intimate parts. And they produce
drawings like this one:
Now this is a story that few people
will believe at first sight. It is simply too grotesque and too gruesome. Even
so, obviously something is very wrong here. If it's a hoax, then it is a very
sick and disturbing one. Let's have a closer look.
The children's mother E. and her
then boyfriend Ab. claim that during the summer of 2014, they succeeded, with
great difficulty, in extracting the above mentioned story from them, despite
threats of the father that he would kill them if they would ever talk about it.
E. and Ab. make videos of the children giving all kind of horrifying details.
After the summer holidays, they
contact the police. A twofold investigation is now carried out: A. and G. are
questioned by the police and they are medically examined. The questioning leads
to the same story as the children told their mother and her partner. The examination
reveals injuries like anal scarring which may well indicate long-term sexual
abuse.
Some days later, the police claim to
have received a disturbing telephone call, warning them that the children hate
the mother's partner Ab. so much, that they would want to kill him. This leads
to them being taken away from the mother and her partner and placed in local
authority foster-care.
Up to this point, I can follow the
police's logic. But now things get weird.
A few days later, A. and G. are
again questioned by the police. This time, they retract their story, and now
they blame Ab. for having coached them into telling the things they told the
first time. Again some days later, the police close the case, concluding:
'crime not confirmed'.
We may assume that according to the
police's investigation and subsequent decisions, the mother's partner Ab. is the
'bad guy'. He is the one to be held accountable for setting the children up to tell
a horrible but apparently fabricated story. But then their decision to close
the case is very odd. One would expect that Ab. would be arrested on account of
having coached the children to tell gruesome details about things they
shouldn't even know that exist. And since the medical examination did indeed
reveal injuries pointing to long-term sexual abuse, we must assume that 'someone
must have done it', either the 'bad guy' Ab. or someone else. Maybe Ab. is evil
enough to have abused the children himself?
Let's for a moment assume that this
is the case. Why then would he set the children up to telling such a story? It
would mean an immediate end to his sexual 'pleasures' and on top of that, he
would risk that in the end the finger would be pointed to himself. Maybe the
mother found out about the abuse and together they concocted this story as some
sort of kinky 'escape'? Highly unlikely and non-sensical. Or maybe Ab. wasn't
the abuser, and the mother simply wanted to destroy the father's career. In
that case, setting the children up to tell such an extremely gruesome story would
seem like a very unwise way to do so, wouldn't it? And such an explanation
doesn't explain the injuries.
Another strange twist in the
unfolding of events is that the father is now given the right to see his
children twice as often as before. This obviously means that the police do not
suspect him in any way to have abused his children, even though the mother had
repeatedly applied for a non-molestation order on his behalf since 2009, the
details of which can be read here:
https://whistleblowerkids.wordpress.com/this-case/evidence/.
One would expect that A. and G.'s
safety would have top priority to the extent that they would be brought to a
location where they would be safe beyond the shadow of a doubt. In their case, the
most obvious location would be the home of their grandparents in Rostov, Russia,
as the grandparents themselves explain here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fx9qEnPIyew.
Yet another bewildering thing is
that the police and judicial system do not decide to check the children's
description of the alleged abusers' naked bodies. This could easily be done and
would provide very strong evidence for or against their allegations.
Yet something else that seems
strange is the way the children's retraction came about. Here is a critical
analysis of the process:
http://crimesofempire.com/2015/03/01/hampstead-analysis-of-the-september-17th-police-interview/.
And there are more strange things, but let's stop here.
The story goes on. In November, the
mother contacts McKenzie Friend Sabine McNeill, who helps her to try to re-open
the case. When this attempts fails, in January 2015 it is decided to put a 'Position
Statement' online:
https://nationalinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/15-02-05-position-statement.pdf.
In February, someone leaks the
videos of A. and G.'s statements to the internet. One of the videos placed on
YouTube gets over 280,000 views in record time. This time, the police and the
judicial system spring into action immediately. First, nine (!) policemen go to
the mother's house in an attempt to arrest her, without a warrant. The attempt
fails and the mother flees the country. McKenzie Friend Sabine McNeill is
warned by a friend and also flees the country. Next, international arrest
warrants are issued against both women for having been instrumental in making
A. and G.'s story public. On top of this, YouTube starts removing many of the
children's videos and Facebook blocks both of Sabine McNeill's accounts.
I can understand the logic in
removing videos that violate the privacy of one or more individuals whose guilt
in an alleged crime hasn't been proven, even though the measures taken by YouTube
and Facebook seem draconic in this particular context, but I find the behaviour
of police and judicial system highly illogical from the perspective of common
sense justice. The only logical explanation I can think of is an attempt to
cover things up.
What I can understand from the point of view of logic is that Ab. did use
a degree of violence in forcing the children to tell their story. This is
explained here:
https://whistleblowerkids.wordpress.com/2015/03/03/how-the-whistleblowerkids-broke-the-deal-with-their-dad-under-threat-of-being-killed/,
and I can understand that in circumstances as described here not everyone acts in
a perfect way all the time. What I can also understand is that the children may
have come to hate Ab. for having forced them to tell their story, thereby
losing what sense of 'security' they had that they would not be killed as long
as they would keep their mouths shut.
Personally, I believed from the
start that A. and G.'s story is basically true. This is because I had done some
internet investigation a few years earlier, when the crimes of Jimmy Savile
came to the surface after his death in 2011. Here are just a few examples of
the many stories that can be found, always pointing to the same: the existence
of a very large global network of very powerful people who indulge in rituals
whereby children are sexually abused and killed:
Satanic
elite and ritual child abuse (German documentary, Dutch subtitles)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H0cm7T1PY0
(One of the victims, Naomie, recalls a meeting of her abusive father with Marc
Dutroux. Both are clearly part of a network.)
Excerpt: Deborah, with English subtitles:
Satanic human sacrifice fbi raid 1998
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9CtZDsoOfE
(Halfway this video there is even an excerpt from a 'snuff movie'. Warning:
extremely graphic. I had to stop watching it.)
Institutional child abuse:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69TtyKith_M
(The story of A. and G. placed in a context of similar stories, each of which
may be difficult to believe, but the cumulative effect of all of these stories
is compelling.)
There are
many more similar stories that everyone who wants to do some research him- or
herself can easily find.
If there is
anything positive about A. and G.'s story having come to the surface, it may be
that it will uncover things that have been going on far too long and that must
stop as soon as possible. I sincerely hope that this will be the eventual result.
And I also hope that the children A. and G. will be allowed to live with their
grandparents as soon as possible. Here is a petition about this subject:
https://www.change.org/p/the-rt-hon-theresa-may-mp-return-whistleblowerkids-and-abusesurvivors-to-their-russian-family.
Please sign it, if you haven't done so already.
Ed de Boer,
Alkmaar, The Netherlands; March 6, 2015
