Hampstead- Analysis of the September 17th Police Interview

Witness/Victim G in the September 17th Interview.
Witness/Victim G in the September 17th Interview.

Hampstead Retraction Interview Analysis

This work will claim  that a Police cover up is completely exposed by examination of the way the interviewing officer repeatedly intimidated the witness during the September 17th “retraction” interview and that the conduct of the interview indicates that the police investigative goal was to protect the abusers from criminal prosecution and destroy the future credibility of the witness/victim G rather than to discover the truth.

The interview of September the 17th was the third interview of witness G. Witness G and his sister A had been taken into the care of the state following the previous interview of September 11th, 2014. The children are in the care of the state and the child is unaccompanied in the interview, a fact that seems extraordinary given the adversarial nature of the interview.
The taped portion of the September 17th interview lasts for 24 minutes. The first five minutes do not involve any actual questioning as the police officer seeks to explain the “ground rules” of the interview to the witness.  It is absolutely clear throughout that the interviewing officer is working his way through a checklist and his sole intent is to achieve retractions from the witness with absolutely no intent to discern the truth. Zero.

The Retractions and How They Were Produced.

Right at the start of the questioning, the interviewing officer makes it completely clear, albeit in a dishonest and disingenuous fashion, that he has been discussing witness G’s statement with witness G in the car on the way to the interview.
This is couched by the interviewing officer in a transparent  manner that is typical of the entire interview as “There was something you desperately wanted to tell me on the car on the way over, do you remember?”
This is after wasting five minutes on waffle apparently to ensure that witness G is bored and impatient by the time the actual interview begins and will be more pliant, that he will be easier to “direct” as he will just say whatever is required in order to end the ordeal and be able to leave.
The counter-story is actually two mutually exclusive and incoherent sub-stories,  they try to claim that the original claims were fictions coaxed by the mother’s partner whilst also claiming that the children’s claims were fantasies based on their having viewed the movie Zorro.itself a completely ludicrous claim that does not explain the claims the children made nor their physical injuries.

If we entertain the police counter-story regarding the mother’s partner coaching the children, the only plausible counter-story given that the whole Zorro thread is pure nonsense not even worthy of consideration. Why on earth would the mother’s partner coach them to say so many detailed things that go so far beyond the father? The school, the intimate details of the head-teacher’s anatomy. Ponder that, we are actually supposed to believe that someone got these children to concoct a story so detailed and at the same time irrelevant to a custody battle that it includes details of the birthmarks on the head teacher? That is pure madness. It is absolutely obvious which version of events is correct.

The Retractions.
1.Dead babies.
Interview transcript.
Interviewing Officer: (topics and content of conversation clearly predetermined prior to interview)
“So when we was (sic) in the car there was something you desperately wanted to tell me but I asked you to wait until the interview, what is it you really wanted to tell me?”
Initially witness G is on message and states that the mother’s partner told him to say that Dad hurt him really bad but he didn’t.
IO “We talked in two other interviews didn’t we?”
Witness G “Yeah”
IO “Was what you told me the truth?”
Witness G “Yeah” Affirmation 1.
IO “So all that stuff about the babies….”
Witness G “Yeah.” Affirmation 2.
IO “and the Church and all that?”
Witness G “No the babies, well the babies, there is some of the babies killed yeah.” Affirmation 3.
He is looking the interviewer directly in the eye as he states that “Yes” I was telling the truth. Witness G has affirmed it is true three times now, but the Interviewing officer is undeterred.
IO “OK, are you sure?”
Witness G Starts to bend. “Yes, but not much, not every single day, not every single day killed no. Not like that.” Affirmation 4.

What is happening at this point is very easy to read and very telling. The child is trying to tell the truth and please the adult, he can tell that the Interviewing Officer is not happy at what he is hearing, so he tries to do both. He sticks to his honest story but he tries to minimise it over and over stating things such as, “not every day” and “not all the time” and” not that much.” before the penny drops and he realises that a retraction is required, truth be damned.

Witness G has repeated his earlier allegations of murder from the previous interviews and affirmed them now four times in this interview, Anyone who truly believed the child was daydreaming would simply ask the child for the details of the story and if it came from the imagination that would be immediately clear.
The Zorro meme is nonsense, pure nonsense. Was the school head teacher appearing naked with her birth marks in the movie Zorro? Were young children raped onscreen in the movie Zorro? It is genuinely pitiful.

At this point the Interviewing officer abandons all pretense of conducting a witness interview and straight out verbals the witness with the Zorro nonsense.
IO “Cos I heard you watched a film Zorro, is that right?”
Witness G “Yeah.”
“and there was someone kill…. killed there someone was killed there.weren’t there?”
Witness G appears confused at this point and seems to react very strangely at the time the IO says “kill, killed”..
IO “Because it sounded to me like, what it sounded to me was similar to the story you told about the babies. And that’s why I was a bit (sic) wondering wondering. are babies actually killed?”
Witness G “Yeah”. Fifth affirmation. Ignored.
IO “or is that something you’ve been made to say?”
Witness G ”Yeah it is something I was made to say.” Verballed 100%.
IO “Are babies being killed?”
Witness G.”No, not much but there is yeah.” Sixth affirmation.
IO “By who?”
Witness G “By my dad. Not much” Seventh affirmation.
The interviewing officer inexplicably completely refuses to pursue the obvious line of questioning here.He has been told that the father specifically killed babies, neither pertain to the movie Zorro, so any reasonable interviewer would solicit further details, When did it happen? Where did it happen? Who else was there? What time of the day did it happen? What day of the week? How many times? etc and if the story was not true it would obviously collapse under scrutiny once all those details were provided.
IO “Are you sure? It’s ok If it hasn’t happened it’s ok as long as we talk about it now.”
This is a disgrace and should be grounds for immediate dismissal alone. Seven affirmations, details provided and he is now implicitly threatening the witness.”It will be ok as long as we talk about it now.” Clearly implies that if we don’t “talk about it now” that is if you do not retract things will not be ok, it could not be clearer.

In the face of barely veiled threats, having reaffirmed seven times even upon prolonged badgering, Witness G finally understands what he is supposed to say and now debunks the “dead babies” claim obeying the obvious instructions of the Interviewing Officer. The Retraction follows.
2.Secret rooms.
IO. “What about the secret rooms? Are there any secret rooms?”
Witness G. “Not much. Well there is but not much.” The pattern from retraction one is repeated, only this time the process begins at the stage where Witness G is minimising but affirming, it was only after four affirmations of the dead babies claim that he began to minimise.
IO “What do you mean? Have you ever been in a secret room in one of those places.?”
Witness G.”It”s not a kind of secret room.”
IO “Shall we start with the church, you told me there was sort of a secret room,”
Witness G. “Yeah there is there” at this point the child receives a non verbal signal that he is saying the wrong thing, becomes confused and starts shaking his head and immediately contradicts what he has just said. “No there isn’t there isn’t.” He was about to describe it before he realised that he was saying the wrong thing.. What follows is quite simply a bullied retraction.

3 The Abuse in the Disabled Changing Room at the Swimming Pool.
The interviewing officer asks Witness G about an allegation previously made regarding being abused in the disabled toilets of a local swimming pool.
Witness G.”That was true, that happened.”
IO. “But you were only four years old you weren’t in the school?”
Witness G. “My sister was in the school.”
When Witness G does not fold upon being challenged, the Interviewing Officer drops the entire subject and returns to safe ground asking Witness G to restate the retractions he has already made. It really sticks out that the officer does not even bother to coach a retraction of this allegation nor does the Interviewing Officer show any interest in investigating the claims. Once it becomes clear that a quick easy retraction will not be forthcoming the subject is simply dropped. It is quite simply impossible for an honest or sincere investigator to drop all interest in an allegation without reason and return to previous retractions as the Interviewing Officer does at this point.
This conversation points to the truth about this entire interview and makes the purpose of the interview crystal clear. The point of the retraction interviews was partially to achieve retractions but the core goal of the Interviewing Officer was clearly to destroy the witnesses. Once the witnesses are coerced into giving two completely varying accounts of the event all their accounts become virtually worthless legally . Even if this pathetic excuse for a police officer were to face the criminal and disciplinary charges that he deserves to face and is punished, the witnesses have been destroyed. It will be impossible to achieve a criminal conviction with the evidence of these witnesses at the core of the case.
That is why the policeman did not even bother to force a retraction on the abuse in the disabled toilet claims, it was no longer necessary, the required damage had already been done. The job of protecting the criminals against prosecution had been done. The claims about the abuse sessions in the disabled toilets were no longer in need of a retraction.
This is truly a putrid and despicable performance from the police officer involved. His faux attempts at showing empathy are one of the most nauseating things I have ever seen.

4. The Bruises

During the “retraction” section of the interview Witness G is asked about the bruises on his bottom and states he has no idea how they occurred, there is a gap in the coaching here and the child has no answer. If there were an innocent explanation for the injuries 100% the child would know, when a little child hurts themselves, they make a massive deal out of it and remember it, if he fell off a swing or off a skateboard he would 100% remember it and boast about it “I was going really fast downhill on my bike and I lost control it hurt really badly.” These type of incidents are the highlights of the young child’s life and boasting about their minor accidents and injuries is one of the favourite topics of conversation for a child, It is therefore telling that witness G cannot say how he got the bruising.

5. Plastic willies.
Interviewing Officer” How did you find out about plastic willies? Who told you bout plastic willies?
Witness G. “Nobody,  that’s true.”
At which point the same routine of intimidation and retraction is repeated.
Io.”Because I’ve been told something different.”
Witness G. “By (sister)?”
IO. “Yes. Look honestly, you can just be truthful..”
It is sickening. It is obvious and it is criminal.

A Repeating Pattern

The pattern of the Police Interview is very clear, Repeatedly during the interview witness G affirms the allegations he has previously made, the interviewing officer has clearly predetermined that the allegations are to be quashed at any cost and the tool that is used is intimidation.
The interviewing officer succeeded in his goal of intimidating the witness into retracting the claims and has probably destroyed the accounts of witness G as evidence. It is very easy to intimidate a child but the officer has made it absolutely obvious his intent, and it is not directed  towards the discovery of the truth in the slightest. Quite the opposite.

Scrutiny of the counter story that the interviewing officer and his  comrades in the cover up conducted reveal that they have created a story that is completely ludicrous and incoherent in a blatant attempt to obfuscate the truth and protect the abusers.
It is worth remembering that if there is no crime, there is no need for a cover up, no need to badger witnesses, to concoct a story that makes absolutely no sense, no need to intimidate, no need for any of this nonsense and the conduct of the September 17th interview is in itself powerful prima facie evidence that the claims made by the children G and A are based in the truth. It is inescapable, that the police involved in this interview believed there was truth to the claims and sought to debunk them in any way possible and that all ethical considerations were entirely abandoned by the Officers involved in this case.

The Interviewing officer deserves to be professionally destroyed for his conduct of this interview .The destruction of this Officer’s career would not begin to compensate for the wanton vandalism of truth and justice this minor league factotum for organised crime has conducted. All the Police Involved in this investigation should face instant dismissal if not Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice Charges. I have no idea how they are able to live with themselves. It is very rare that we get to see “Criminal police’ in action in the present and yet here they are in the flesh. The same police force that would not prosecute Saville, Smith, Hayman and so many others are still at it aren’t they? As the Coleman Experience would put it “they are up to their neck in filth” there is no other possible explanation.

”Return #WhistleblowerKids and #AbuseSurvivors to their Russian Family!


Sabine Kurjo McNeill | Voluntary Public Interest Advocacy


Petitioning EU Parliament


Extracts of EXPERT Statements re Police Videos and Investigation.pdf
15 02 15 Chronology.pdf

ZeeklyTV – G- 17 Sep – 24 min

ZeeklyTV – Anonymous’s Channel





















aangirfan: Michael Aquino, alleged child sex abuse and the United States military


Filthy Britain’s Satanic Secrets | thecolemanexperience





Ex-MI6 chief named as sexual abuser of boys at Dolphin Square | ExaroNews


Why has paedophile Greville Janner been allowed to escape justice? | thecolemanexperience

perverting the course of justice | UK Criminal Law Blog
Perverting the course of justice

The People’s History: The Finders Cult

The Paedophile Father of Alisa and Gabriel* | Hwaairfan’s Blog

Perverting the course of justice – Crime and Justice

Perverting the course of justice: Administration of justice: Sentencing manual: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service

Youth Offenders: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service

Guidance Perverting the Course of Justice – Charging in cases involving rape and/or domestic violence allegations

Inchoate offense – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perverting the course of justice – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Hampstead situation described by the Coleman Experience, several months before the story emerged. It was not prescience, the Coleman Experience simply knew what was happening.
“Filthy Britain’s Satanic Secrets | thecolemanexperience”

November 22, 2014
“In fact, at this very moment, there are hundreds of satanic paedophile rings in existence throughout the UK and many are quite horrifyingly taking place in primary schools.

Children who’ve been abused at school and reported their injuries to parents have been ignored by the police when evidence was presented to them.

More disturbingly, there are reports that the remains of thousands of children are buried right across Britain.Children who lost their lives at the hands of satanic filth.
You see dear reader, a massive wide-scale cover-up has long been in place to prevent the British public from discovering the extent and horror of the satanic debauchery which has been carried out by the very crème de la crème of society.
When any report about satanic abuse has materialised ‘liberal’ journalists and ‘child-protection’ experts step forward to claim the children were imaging it or are the victims of ‘false-memory-syndrome’.
Well they would say that wouldn’t they?
Unfortunately for these depraved animals though, their sickening secret is finally being exposed.
A light is being shone into the darkest and most disturbing corners of their secretive world.
Their devil-worshipping days are numbered.”

Further reading:

Child G police interviews @ Truth1

Child A police interview@Truth1

77 thoughts on “Hampstead- Analysis of the September 17th Police Interview

  1. I have seen the interview, and I think the police have been professional and did not lead the child into saying anything. I am interested in this “Abraham” who by hitting the child and putting him under psychological pressure convince him to make false allegations against his parents and teachers.

  2. Brilliant!

    You picked it a part brilliantly!

    I could see it but not until you detailed it did it become obvious.

    I just remembered being interviewed as a 15 year old (late 1970’s) in relation to a skirmish involving my older brother and his friends.

    Being a child, my interview by police BY LAW had to be conducted in the presence of one of my parents and in fact took place in my family home. What has changed?

    Why is G unaccompanied?!

    Obvious now is it not!

    • Thanks for that, I do not understand but assume that the protections are all set up to protect those accused of crimes rather than victims or witnesses. This would generally make sense, if the rights of the victim were given the respect they deserve. I am very unfamiliar with British legal procedures but i assume that is the loophole they have used. Will research it. Thanks again.

  3. I’m afraid it’s part of the

    1. Systemic Pattern of Child Snatching and Forced Adoptions

    2. Seven Deadly Syndromes and Seven Media Cover-Ups

    THANKS A LOT for your wonder-ful work!!! Did you use transcription software? I had downloaded one but never got round to using it…

    • Thank you very much for your kind remarks. Thanks also for alerting me to transcription software as I had never heard of it, I just watched the video and paused to transcribe.

      • At 10.24 Jim – I do not think it is a loophole as such but suspect the laws have been changed, as you say, to benefit the criminals and victimise the victims, to suit the agenda of the breaking down of society.

        Go for it Dude!

        We very much look forward to examine more of your skilled analysis.

        Could you post updates on the Tap Blog and Aangirfan as this is where many learned about the case.

        I personally look forward to following your blog in future.

  4. What makes you think the child was unaccompanied? It is normal practice for children to be interviewed without a parent present in the room but that is not the same as being unaccompanied. It is most likely a social worker for foster parent who has bought them to the interview suite. How could you possibly investigate an allegation against parents accused of abuse and have them in the same room? These interviews are governed by guidance which is easily available to anyone who cares to look for it. The document is called Achieving Best Evidence. It lays down the information that must be discussed at the start of the interview including a number of ground rules and a discussion about truth and lies. The officer has been through a number of interviews with this child already so this process is shorter than normal. ( the officer would be criticised if this was not discussed). This interview is not perfect but you are not looking at it with an open mind. You must be prepared to go where the evidence takes you and not seek evidence to suit your biased views. I can’t tell you how tired I am on people jumping to conclusions and sitting in judgement on police and social workers who are seeking to make positive changes to the lives of children. What do you do other that pontificate?

    • The fact that the child was alone in the room perhaps? If this type of infantile pedantry is all you have to offer then I truly pity you. As far as normal practice goes, pure bullshit. It amuses me that you actually think anyone will be fooled by such transparent trolldom. The only quasi valid point you made was that it was possibly unfair of me to criticise the officer for the necessary cautions at the beginning. As far as social workers and police officers go, I made no generalised or blanket criticism of either. If you disagree with the characterization I have provided watch the interview yourself and provide your own account. I am sure it would be fascinating. Oh and as far as what I do other “that” pontificating” I spellcheck. It is actually a good idea to read what you have written prior to pressing send.

      • Thank you,I have actually received comments that could not be published as they incited violence against specific people involved in this case (the non police video maker) that make it clear to me that this is extremely worrying and upsetting to many, even on this tiny and obscure site there is a small campaign to obfuscate the truth using low tactics.The campaign is just another obvious sign that this is a cover up.
        Thanks for the link, I have skimmed it and thought it was very strong but used rather technical language but I will finish reading it I know that I should have done so already.

    • What I don’t understand is that NO ONE is talking about the fact that between the time that the children were taken into custody (care?) and BEFORE the retract interviews on the 17th, in those five days the children had at least TWO unsupervised access visits with their father AWAY from the centre, PLUS who knows how much access via Skipe, those children have been bombarded by their father!
      This after they clearly said that he (the father) had threatened to kill them if they told anyone.
      I don’t know British law per se, but you would think that in any civilised society that this would prove HIGH NEGLIGENCE perpetrated by the authorities, and a definite reason why the children (or any person in fear of their life) would retract their original statements. Therefore, you would think that your barrister could be able to say those retracted statements would be contaminated or unreliable, and have them thrown away as evidence.
      And could even be used for grounds to suggest that what the children alleged, that some in the social services and police depts. are complicit with the father and that any further ‘retracted statements made by the children while in their ‘care’ would not be considered reliable.
      Just thinking – the revelation of these access visits and Skipe access are in G’s 17th September police interview, and since these interviews will be the main (only?) piece of evidence that the authorities will be relying on to KEEP them, in my opinion, they’ve stitched themselves up.

      • Thanks for this great comment Evelyn, I must admit I was not aware of those details, clearly the police and the children, especially A have been influenced somehow in that period.

      • Thanks James, 18 mins into G’s 17th Sept interview, he says “this is really true what happened, In the last week, the first time……..we went shopping, and then ate in the car,,,then first time he ever gave us pocket money….and then it was time to go back Centre. Then the next time we went swimming East Finchley. (Note, this is also where he stated abuse had occurred in the past)

        Since this is the Retraction video they will claim are the only ones that are truthful, they can’t say that only parts were true. Also note, G says ‘us’ (particularly regards pocket money). Both the children were there .

      • Thank you Evelyn for another excellent observation. Your knowledge of this case is beyond impressive and it honestly shames me reading how well you have observed these things and I really meant that you could probably do a better job writing about this. It wasn’t hollow flattery. Thanks for a great comment.

  5. The interesting thing is the bibliography at the end of this article. It is a collection of the most obsessive and bigoted crackpots one could possibly imagine.

    The whole thing is a mischievous falsehood concocted by a paranoid nutter for the titillation of the credulous masses. It is chav-panic aimed at white trash, and as such it will not be short of an audience. Just wait; next they will be asking for ‘donations’ to ‘stop the evil pedos (sic).

    • The most interesting thing to me is that you do not have one salient observation to offer regarding this case. Those with facts bring facts, those without facts such as yourself have nothing to offer beyond ad hominem trash. If you do not like one of the sources I have used please tell them about it, do not expect me to give your putrid opinions a second’s consideration. Thank you for commenting, the fact that i have raised the ire of someone so venal and repugnant is powerful reassurance that I am on the right track.

  6. The father is watching it all, here he is on Youtube…. https://www.facebook.com/1562918357309654/photos/pcb.1568151753452981/1568151716786318/?type=1&theater

    This is a great analysis you have done, thank you. Not much interest in this case yet, simply amazing that people REFUSE to believe what is happening. Heartbreaking story, poor kids. I hope the grandparents from Russia can take them away from all the horror in the UK and get them the help they need to become happy, playful children as they should be…..

  7. Here’s a comment I got sent from someone who has been learning about Satanic Ritual Abuse for years: I urge everyone to watch the police videos of 11th Sept, where both children say that they were hit by Abraham, they spoke about it as though it was not sore or hard but it was to prompt them into speaking about the situation at the school.

    They spoke as if they liked Abraham and both said their mother was kind to them. Abraham was not a problem for the children it would seem in this video. Later that day they were taken into care, the next video 17th Sep one hated Abraham did not want to see him and accused him of physical abuse, I do not trust the children’s testimony since been taken into care.

    Any accusations of abuse committed by Abraham to his other children I would have to see, undoctored, as I do not trust any of the other sides information as they are covering up their own butts, every step of the way, and lets face it they have access to it all to do with what they want. I am not saying Abraham is an angel but I do know that satanist will do everything in their power to put the blame elsewhere.

  8. There is no doubt that this is a deeply unpleasant individual, all allegations aside. I believe this cover up must be about something bigger than a Z grade actor and a rather nondescript London school although this is only an opinion.The channel has now disappeared.

  9. I have watched the videos and I have little doubt about the reality described by the childrens in the first interviews. But since words can be interpretated or manipulated especially with childrens, they are giving facts. And the work of a policeman is to check if the facts can be true or not. Was it done in this case?
    This was done in the Dutroux investigation with the witness Regina Louf.
    I hope one day the archives of the secret services of Russia will show that the protections concerning murdering children, babies and young teenagers will show up the degeneracy of the elites in Western World.

  10. They were also unable to give detailed explanations of how they were ‘coached’ or ‘forced’ to tell the fabricated story. They just said they were forced by Abraham with ‘yes he did, no he didnt’ comments.

    The level of coaching required to tell such an elaborate story with many details in perfect accord would be astounding, and yet these children do not mention any coaching, testing or memorizing.

    The girl also mentions the ‘bady’ from Zoro looks like her dad. It could be perhaps that the father is obsessed with this film which is why they may have had plenty of exposure to its content.

    • Terrific observations here, thanks. I think, and this is only speculation that the female victim A was ‘gotten to” between the 11th and 17th of September and so she was actually doing her best to protect herself and her brother by retracting and the Zorro nonsense was the best she could come up with. The police did not particularly care if the retractions were credible or made sense or anything else, they just had the orders to achieve retractions. By whatever means required in my opinion.

  11. Satanic ritual abuse is a fact. It happens. The police know it, as does the social services as well as other “child care” institutions. We have a situation now where the vast majority of the general public who have been kept in the dark (by design) by perpetrators in positions of power associated with said institutions, are being exposed to the depredations due to the exposure of these children’s plight. Understandibly they are balking. To know this is real we have to “go there”, but most of us wont. But, by not listening to victims and survivors, we are standing by while their very spirits are being torn from them. We are complicit. I live in Australia and contacted my sister who lives in London and who is a therapist and who has experience in working with survivors. She hadn’t heard about this case. She watched the children’s testimony and wrote back that “it fits exactly with their rituals”. Finally, a survivor of SRA in Australia has revealed that in her experiences whilst a child victim, the skin was also removed from the babies and used to cover books that the perpetrators used. Of course, this is only one of many allegations in her testimony and I am only repeating it here as a result of the children’s description of the shoes being made from baby skin.

    • Thank you Jacqueline. Yes it is a fact, and I think some of the best material I have seen about this subject is in “the Franklin Scandal” by Nick Bryant. This is not a matter of one or two anomalies or aberrations, there are tens of thousands of cases reported each year in the USA. Many thanks for your fabulous comment you along with others have completely blown my(hitherto unfair) perception of my fellow Australians. In a good way! As far as the whole awakening thing goes, this is one of the most difficult subjects, my mother told me that she did not even try and read my work on this because it “is too upsetting.” In Britain, the protected paedophilia is the elephant in the room, it is the truth that is emerging and cannot be ignored. In the USA, it might be the false flag terror attacks that do it, I am not sure. Ultimately this civilisation is on the way to one of the rudest awakenings ever experienced in my opinion. Thanks for a wonderful comment and all the best!

  12. It is impossible to decide how much credence we can place on this interview or the claimed ‘retraction’ of some or all previous claims, without knowing precisely what went on in practice in the six days preceding it. This is the period between about half past two in the afternoon on the 11th September, 2014 when “Q” was interviewed in Barnett police station and 11 am on the 17th September, 2015 when he was interviewed somewhere else (not altogether clear). We assume from the video equipment this was also a police station or some other purpose made premises.
    Between these dates the eight year old male and his nine year old sister were effectively removed from the care and protection of their mother under a police initiated procedure in liaison with presumably the local Social Services (SS) department. We know little or nothing what discussions were held with the mother or whether the children’s opinion was sought in this. We must assume it was an arbitrary act against the wishes of the mother and imposed on the children without seeking their consent or agreement. No doubt it was done in as humane and considerate way as possible but this does not lessen the serious or cruel nature of it.
    Nor are we party to the specific discussion or rationale that underpinned the decision. It is an extreme act to remove children, particularly children that have undergone trauma, from a natural parent unless there is concrete evidence to support the conclusion that not to do so would render them to imminent and serious harm. The decision is inexplicable insofar up to that point there was no evidence of harm coming from the mother and even the step father, that would justify it, and that all accusations by the children pointed to the father for whom there was corroborative evidence of past violence, against whom there were Court Orders preventing and limiting access. So why was removal from the mother decided upon and justified? Given that the children after nearly eight months have not been returned, this initial reasoning needs to be explained.
    If there was no concrete evidence of harm from or by the natural mother or partner, the act of removing the children must by definition be unreasonable, unjustified and illegal. If the authorities had genuine reason to believe that the children were at risk from the Step Father or natural father, steps could have been taken to controlling the threat short of abducting the children completely. This is a horrifying aspect of the case, apparently not unique, that the children were doubly punished and traumatised by trying their best to tell the truth on the assurance, repeated several times by ‘Steve’ the policeman that if they did they “wouldn’t get into trouble”. It is hard to envisage a worse ‘trouble’ for young children to be forcibly separated from their caring and loving mother so the promise was clearly reneged on.
    If in fact the decision was influenced less by real risk from the mother but more to do with getting control of the children to prevent the allegations escaping to the public domain, with all its implications on the school and community, it would be an outrage of significant proportion. We cannot be sure this was the prevailing reason but the way the case was handled, investigated and subsequently interpreted by Judge Pauffrey, gives rise to suspicions that this was the case. The fact that both children in six days of separation from the mother could be persuaded to (sort of) retract their earlier versions, rather supports it.
    So returning to my original point, without knowing what actually happened to the children in that six day separation it is impossible to make judgements as to what persuasion or influence they had been subject to, promises made, threats floated, or the consequent state of mind or motivations resulting from them. As the above video analysis points out in the case of boy ‘Q’ in any event the so called ‘retractions’ are far from unequivocal, despite the obvious subtle pressure exerted. In respect of ‘killing and eating babies’ and the insertion of ‘plastic willies’ he obviously tries to moderate the claims to make them less onerous to please his very gentle inquisitor. In the case of the events at the baths he never does retract and indeed the police interview of the father would tend to support them, for what father takes photos of their children in that location or rubs hair cream (?) into them?
    In any event, a vague, indifferent, reluctant negation of a story can never have the persuasive power of a detailed, extensive and natural positive description of events. One has only to view the first police video from the 5th September, 2014 (here: Gabriel-05-Sep-I-27-min) to be utterly convinced of the veracity of the allegations in contrast to that of the 17th September 2014 (here:http://zeeklytv.com/video/19738/Gabriel-17-Sep-24-min) to be satisfied as to the dubious reliability of the retraction.
    There is no disguising, as I pointed out when they originally became available, in the second of these two on the 17th, we are dealing with a very different child as demonstrated by the contrast in behaviour and non-verbal signals. In the first he is relatively relaxed and attentive. His facial expressions and hand movements are wholly congruent with what he is trying to describe. For example when he explains the closeness of his father to a named teacher he moves his palms together in a prayer-like gesture; he describes in hand movements the size and significant details of the ‘plastic willies’ supported by un-contrived subjective experiences as to their manufacture and use; and whenever he strays onto something painful or disagreeable his nose screws up unconsciously. In an eight year old this totally convincing.
    In comparison in the interview on the 17th after six days of separation and unknown pressures and influence, the change in his demeanour is immediately apparent. Now although maintaining his composure his nervousness and inner conflict is demonstrated by fine picking at the sleeve of his top garment and almost continuously engaging in wild circulatory hand gestures. Not only are the retractions highly suspect where made, we can see a child trying desperately here to provide a script expected of him, to satisfy the interviewer’s clear intent, to come to terms with the inner turmoil of being expected to lie to contradict the earlier truth to ensure that the present torture of separation can be terminated and he can be returned to his former life.
    The “earlier conversation in the car” needs to revealed as does the substance of all the informal contacts between SS and police in the six days preceding the interview. We should be told at what point it is claimed the children viewed the film ‘Mask of Zorro’ if it is suggested it had such an unbelievably potent effect to enable them to contact such outrageous but compelling accounts. Finally I cannot help taking the view that the old police interview trick of using one witness account to undermine another, by suggesting his sister had said something different, was quite incorrigible. It also suggests as further twist of inhumanity the children were kept apart and ‘worked on’ separately. If true it is yet another despicable item to add to the litany of such, this case reveals.
    It should be noted that the interviews of girl ‘P’ are not discussed at all here or indeed the interview tapes of ‘Q’ on the 11th September, 2014. Nor have I examined in detail all the earlier home made videos that are consistent and persuasive as to their claims.

    • Thanks, the police interview of September 17th took place in a police station somewhere north of London, I think it is the Midlands. The interviewing officer makes mention of this during his introductory remarks to the interview

  13. Firstly the argument of the Hampstead hoaxers that the mother went through all this to get custody of the children is risible.

    If you were going to make up al lie to get rid of Rick Dearman there were easier lies than this.

    The argument for not believing the medical evidence is equally laughable

    THe reaction of the state to back up the father including the BBC , and their attempts to jail anyone involved tells you all you need to know.

    Like Hollie Greig and the Baldwin case there is no hoax here.

    Those denying it like El Coyote aka Snake Logan aka Karen Irving Canadian social worker and author and Mike Dyce aka Flo Destroyer fae fife as well as porn master cips clips further reinforces how the states running dogs and shills are into this



    Further proof of the sleazy nature of the father is attempt to pimp his kids out for a 1000 prize from e bay under 2 false names


Leave a Reply to jamesrobertson648Cancel reply