Why Cult Leader Dearman Should Never See His Children Again

Please note: Ella and I put an Application for a Non-Molestation Order together in January 2015. She had already had two in place against him in 2010!

We took it to the family court in High Holborn and were told that it would come under Judge Pauffley’s ongoing proceedings. But it was ignored by High Court Judge Anna Pauffley.

Here’s what I got thanks to the wonderful people at Hampstead Research:

Why Cult Leader Dearman Should Never See His Children Again

Dad (RD) does sex to me he touches my privates and puts a plastic willie in my bottom and it bleeds. They give us a tissue to wipe away the blood. The headmistress does sex to me and lots of the teachers, social workers, cafcass, friends of my papa’s, the father at the church Paul Conrad is also involved, he does sex to us.

This was said by both children so many times it is difficult to count them, this is a criminal act and why is it not being investigated following Dr Hodes report which has confirmed the physical “scarring in the anal region of both children” and the emotional “post traumatic stress” evidence that this is in fact true. The Archbishop of Canterbury should be asked why he has a paedophile running Christchurch Church in Hampstead.

My dad (RD) does not let me learn anything he does not let me have education. He knows all the staff at the school. Instead of literacy, numeracy and lessons, we had sex, ate babies. My dad lied to my mum about being vegan.

The fact that Dearman has this amount of influence that he can prevent the child from having an education is in itself unlawful, the school Christchurch, Hampstead, are liable on this issue and should be made to answer, why was Gabriel held back a year? All of his school reports should be scrutinized.

Under his (RD) or Christchurch Primary’s care, the party (last day of school) lasted for 6 hours. We helped him RD kill babies. My dad tells us to touch each other on our privates on a regular basis when we are not with him. When they stick the plastic willie in my bottom, if I cry they hit me on the head with a metal spaghetti spoon, if I cry again they hit me with the spoon, if I cry again the nurse Ms Marsden injects me in the neck with a sleeping drug and I fall asleep.

As this happened in either the school or the church adjacent to the school the school should be prosecuted for failing in their “duty of care” for these and the other children involved. The other children should be questioned, why is this not happening? Furthermore Alisa and Gabriel said that the other 18 children who are regularly abused all have tattoos, this should also be followed up. The sleeping drugs injected into the neck of the child should still be traceable through a hair follicle test. Just because you have a child does not give you carte blanche on allowing the abuse of this child by whoever you choose.

Every Saturday he had contact, took us to Topsy Turvy Land, friends house and East Finchley Swimming pool, in all places, they did sex to us. Bought us chicken and slush, fish and chips stuff we should not eat.

These children are vegan, to give them animal flesh is very wrong, never mind human flesh and blood. With this amount of allegation towards Dearman it does not take much thinking to know how both children have scarring in their anal area.

The children have at no time accused anyone other than Dearman or his friends, of this sexual abuse.

Dad (RD) gave us alcohol from a green bottle, it is white. Gives us red wine also gives us beer. He gives me a tablet. I get headaches and feel dizzy. Gave me white powder makes me feel I have things in my nose, makes me sneeze. He gets it in a see through packet. Puts it like a line on his hand for me to sniff, makes me feel relaxed and dizzy.

The children underwent a hair follicle test, this test should determine for a long period of time if drugs have been in their system. The mother should have been given the results of this test, she was not. Even now this test would show drug use. Furthermore a test for chlamydia and gonococcal was supposed to be done, it is my understanding that the mother has not received the results of this either.

Summing up: Dearman and his friends are in breach of so many laws, yet there has been no decent investigation into these allegations. No children questioned, no adults questioned except Dearman, who said that he did not do it, so that was the end of that.

I have to conclude that the powers that be want satanic ritual abuse in our society. Like the way of upholding the value of gold as taught in the freemasons is by using the strong arm of the law, they are using the strong arm of the law to allow this crime to perpetuate.

Until you realize that you are first spirit and second human, crimes like this will continue. Putting food in our bellies and a roof over our head is in my opinion is secondary, if it means the suffering of the vulnerable in society.

This is a battle of the souls and I cannot sanction the handing over of these 2 children to this horrific man and I ask everyone who feels like me on this issue to stand up to be counted and let everyone know that this is unacceptable at every single level.


26 thoughts on “Why Cult Leader Dearman Should Never See His Children Again

  1. We hear you Sabine, and our prayer is that this whole situation will come to the attention of all the right people who can take the appropriate professional action to see the Pauffleys Judgment overturned on appeal, the children set free and reunited with their mother in Russia, a full criminal investigation to be launched, evidence to come to light, the other children to be set free and all the perpetrators convicted. This is our prayer. Bless you, and everyone else who is working for the good.

    John 3:19-21

    19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”

    Proverbs 5:22 His own iniquities entrap the wicked man,
    And he is caught in the cords of his sin.

    Be encouraged Sabine, all we be exposed, they will not escape.


  2. This with excerpts has been forwarded to “Inquiring Minds” web site:


    This is the latest post from Sabine MacNeill, currently forced to seek refuge in her native Germany from the English police arrest warrant, for actively publicising the now notorious injustice centred on a Hampstead school and children and for defending their interests. It consists of a sample of the actual quotes from two eight and nine year olds which is verbatim and graphic . High Court Judge Dame Pauffley has rubbished it as the product of “scrambled minds” and the result of drug induced coaching by the “evil” mother and step-father, which she categorised as “torture”. The father and other named individuals, against whom very specific and detailed allegations of abuse, were incredibly exonerated by her.

    Rather significantly it appears none of the accused have issued denials or statements of innocence, nor have they as far as can be ascertained, with the exception of the father, been interviewed by police or made themselves available for medical examination to quash the children’s intimate descriptions. Despite making its web-site private and alleged staff changes, there has been no statement from the education authority or Church of England, to which it is affiliated. This to say the least, given the gravity of the allegations, is surprising. Rather suspiciously premises referred to by the children have subsequently closed and every opportunity has been afforded the alleged perpetrators to as far as possible, cover their tracks.

    Amazingly, despite the severity of the accusations, the Met’s own specialists in either ritualistic or child abuse, were not engaged to lead the enquiry and it was carried out in such a desultory and incompetent manner as to allow any remaining evidence, in so far as it could be, to be destroyed. The subsequent actions of the police and courts, including the partisan and biased High Court proceedings and judgement, should send a shock wave through the whole of society. Its ramifications and implications for the justice system and child protection are so profound as to require the widest dissemination and debate. It should be an issue in the forth-coming election given recent events of abuse cover-up throughout the country and the assurances given by the Home Secretary herself.

    However yet again the opposite is the reality. The national press just repeated the Judge’s version in a most sensationalist manner, demonising the mother that unprecedented in family proceedings, emblazoned her photograph and details as the chief miscreant across its pages. This is propaganda in its most blatant form, with no effort given to balance or critical analysis. A Daily Mail reporter is quoted (by UK Column) as saying it was “Just easier to report a Judge’s decision, as this gave rise to less problems from the lawyers upstairs”! (See below)

    Meanwhile of course the children remain in the “care” of the state – effectively arrest – removed from each other, the loving mother and sensible grand parents, and accessed by the very people they have bravely named, and whom, with it appears good cause, they have stated they fear for their safety and very lives. Could a worse set of circumstances be conceived? Could the systems of this country, ostensibly designed to protect the vulnerable from the actions of adults, be demonstrated to have failed more calamitously? How in the circumstances can Judge Paulffrey retain her credibility let alone office? If ever there was a case where the Prime Minister, Justice Secretary and Home Secretary should intervene, this is it. In what appears to be a concerted effort to cover up and close down the incident it needs to be broadcast as widely as possible. Hopefully a swell of outraged public opinion will not allow it to go away.

    Regards, Tim.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. a non molestation order in the UK is a joke. I am sorry to say, being an advocate for a mother and father who had their children abducted abroad taken to the UK and placed in an abuser and traffickers care is sickening. The children are not British in the case i am advocate for. but the courts in the UK think they can do what they want to……… these children needs saving.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Originally posted on http://www.alanwrightson.wordpress.com:

    Anna Pauffley: Ignorant or complicit?

    This is Anna Pauffley (you can watch a video of her speaking here), the woman who thinks that when an eight year old girl and a nine year old boy spend hours on video, describing in detail how their father and various carers abused them, that they were acting. They must have more acting ability at 8 than their father does decades later, if that is true, because when one watches them talk, one can see that they aren´t lying. They corroborate each other, aren´t “high on hemp”, are not led into making statements, and clearly surprise the interviewer with their experiences.

    Medical evidence has ascertained that they both have anal scarring, and therefore long-term abuse has been going on, that much is certain. Their mother´s partner has only been with her for a couple of years, however, and they are quite categoric that it is their father and teachers and others in local power in Hampstead who “do sex to them”, not Abraham Christie the interviewer, or Ella Draper the mother.

    Yet that is not enough for Anna Pauffley. What the children say doesn´t matter, apparently. Instead she believes what they said when a policeman called Steve (how unsurprising that he had that name) badgers them into a partial, unconvincing retraction, after taking them away from her mother. She now apparently believes that the mother and her partner were the abusers.

    Then why did the mother report the matter to the police?

    Why did Belinda McKenzie, the “McKenzie Friend” of the mother in court get stalked by secret police vans during the court hearings? Is this normal? Why did Sabine McNeill get chased off to Germany by hordes of police? Is this normal? Why did Ella Draper get chased off to Russia by more hordes of police? Is this normal?


    All this was part of the policy of supporting child abuse at large within the British government, so it was all done so the children would be alone in england without a family, and in the clutches of a system that want to continue their abuse.

    And Anna Pauffley has made sure that has happened.

    Is she ignorant of systemic child abuse? Or is she, rather, part of the system which exploits it when it finds it happening within families?

    Either way she is a disgrace. On the one hand, how can she be ignorant of systemic abuse given all the high-profile instances of it recently, when the Met is investigating high-level cover-ups of it, and when Lowell Goddard is being brought in from New Zealand to investigate it?

    The alternative is that she does know, and is therefore part of the system which is encouraging the abuse of children, protecting abusers of children, and covering up the abusers of children.

    Which one is it, Anna: ignorance or complicity?

    Does anyone give a shit about children anymore?

    Liked by 2 people

    • Pauffley is definitely complicit. I’ve just watched Gabriel’s retraction again: it is so flimsy and the police interviewer asks some very leading questions and makes some very leading remarks. You can see the difference in the previous interviews in the police officers technique and in Gabriel’s entire demeanour and eye contact. Rest assured Mr Alan Wrightson, we do give a shit about these, and the other children. We care very deeply for them and we are highly concerned about the whole situation, and it’s far reaching implications. This is not going to go away, we need to see justice. We just need the right people in the right places to do the right thing. I pray it will come to pass.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. One thing I wonder is, has anyone had any further contact with that June Wigan, the woman from Hampstead who left that message in you tube confirming what the children said? And has anyone had any contact with the Irish chap who can be heard speaking in the original interviews with the children? Does anyone know his name, and who is he? Was he just a friend of Ella and Abraham? Is he contactable? I’m sure these would be good people to interview. Does anyone have any new info, or any info at all about them?


  6. The coverup is so vast and so inexcusable, no one should miss the intentions of the evil ones. The kids have offered us so much testimony and you can be damn well assured there is a lot more in their heads that could come out so they are kept under house arrest so that no one may get any more incriminating evidence. As it is, the amount of evidence already had is staggering. We are all doing our parts. But in the end, since the devil is against the children, it should follow that the only force that can take on the devil and win, is God. God listens to those who follow Him and His rules. For these He can intercede. I would suggest that many consider that if Satan is real, it might follow that God is, too. No one is going to beat an immaterial force of his great power and knowledge, except with the help of God. In fact, those who battle the devil without God’s help could also get in trouble. Satan loves to attack the defenseless. God only asks for our trust in Him and obedience to His laws, while there “appears” to be no force or compulsion to do so. We are being tested for worthiness in the rebuliding of the new world. He wants to see how willing we are to obey, when not being forced to do so. God does not like to resort to force among those who claim to love and follow HIM, the sole source of light, purity, and truth. There is far more power with God than the other dork, Satan. But most do not trust in something they can not see and do not perceive they are being tested for fitness. I understand but only faith is going to get results, not doubt.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. It just occurred to me tonight that we ought to get someone to examine the video testimony of the kids with a voice stress analyzer. That would prove their integrity and blow the courts out of the water. Of course, that would not change their course but it might be good for the public to know.


  8. truth1now
    March 29, 2015 at 7:50 am All praise to those who, in the face of threats and defamation, have represented the kid’s interests, after they have been failed so calamitously and disreputably by the police, social services and courts, but somehow in the face of what can only described as a wicked inversion of justice, the effort to overturn the judgement needs to be coldly calculated and co-ordinated. Widespread public outrage needs to be channelled and focused if it is to be effective in its aims. These courageous individuals need all the support we can give them. After all we are sending them out as “sheep in the midst of wolves and therefore must be wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.” As the whole case turns on the voracity and accuracy of the children’s testimony, effort should be directed as you suggest, towards independent professional analysis to establish this fact, particularly as the Judge has so misdirected herself on this point. She had no lawful right to treat it so flippantly and to put it down to malign coaching with such flimsy evidence to support it. Nor should the children’s words be dismissed as ‘hearsay’. As far as I am aware that term relates to ‘second-hand’ and ‘third-party’ reportage, whereas most of the children’s consists of first-hand witnessing and direct experience, which is not only evidentially admissible but also compelling. Is there not a top-notch barrister, moved as we are, by the blatant injustice of this case, prepared to act pro-bono for these children and appeal Pauffley’s epic failure?


    • I agree with you Forced Adoption
      April 21, 2015 at 2:09 pm that it is prudent to remain sceptical about any claim by a child, particularly if it borders on the unbelievable or extreme. By the same token, it should never be dismissed out of hand. Indeed the rule is to believe unless or until it is proved otherwise. Almost as extraordinary as the children’s reports is the claim by Pauffrey that it all resulted from coaching by two ‘evil’ individuals (mother and step-father) in a period of about three months, yet she asks us to believe her, presumably as being more credible! The assertion this was achieved by ‘torture’ without evidence is not only flawed jurisprudence it is ‘over egging the mix’.

      The absence of any firm evidence for the theory of ‘coaching through torture’, the judge has failed to provide an alternative remotely plausible explanation of the children’s accounts. The step father’s admitted and deplorable actions, we may regard as excessive and inappropriate physical parenting, but by any definition falls far short of ‘torture’ nor is it related to imparting a particular story. There is no evidence from either of the adults, the children or third parties that this was happening. Perhaps most tellingly, neither did the natural father ever make such a claim, perhaps the first who would have been motivated to do so, if there had been any trace of it in his presence. Were they being ‘brain washed’, and were the natural father the loving, caring person the judge wants us to believe, might not it been expected they would have intimated what was going on?

      Pauffley’s conclusion holds no credibility simply because the children’s testimony is cogent and patently honest. For her to have seized on two ambivalent, hardly convincing ‘retraction’ conversations, after six days enforced separation from parents (and each other?) as reliable, whilst apparently not even considering the earlier allegations, repeated in police interview, as worthy of consideration, and then basing her whole judgement on this fundamental error, can only be regarded as an intentional error that must constitute a misfeasance in public office at the very least.

      She appears to reject the children’s clearly stated claims on the basis that they are too preposterous to be believed. This may have been understandable in the 70’s and 80’s when the public was far more naive but it surely cannot be acceptable for a judge to adopt that position now. After all that has been revealed and all that is known about internet child abuse, up to and including murder, and of all the high-level child abuse emerging from previous decades, most recently by (allegedly) a past Home Secretary and one of the most prominent Jewish leaders in the House of Lords, surely rules out ‘unlikelihood’ as a justification for dismissing the children’s accounts. Perhaps Judge Pauffley is unaware of what has and does happen in the world of porn and sexual exploitation, which even the British government now admits operates on a multi-billion pound level. Only a Carmelite nun could claim the accounts were too outrageous to be taken seriously.

      No reasonable person could come to any conclusion, other than that the children’s accounts are believable. Yet a trained and experienced High Court judge takes the opposite view, based on an illogical and unsupported belief that the children were tortured into learning and regurgitating a bizarre script. This simply defies logic and common sense. To have any chance of viability two children apart from one another would have to have been word perfect to corroborate one another, yet from independent positions and remain consistent throughout on different days, with different interviewers. Even when being interviewed by police this was maintained and significantly without any indication of nervousness or shame. This was an exercise in honesty and relief, in the belief that if they at last told the truth as far as they were able – to “face their fear” as they bravely put it – they would be protected from those they feared. Sadly they were let down, indeed betrayed by the very people charged with the duty to do otherwise.

      Finally, no reasonable person could dismiss the multiplicity of sexual and other detailed informations, far beyond the possible knowledge of the average eight and nine year old; nor the medical evidence that the judge unconscionably attempted to discredit; or the specific references to buildings, places and people; nor the anatomical distinguishing features that could only have been obtained by intimate interaction. Where is the evidence that each and every claim was meticulously checked out and disproved? Nowhere because as a police detective of many years standing was prepared to state, there was no thorough investigation carried out. An experienced High Court judge apparently found this acceptable!

      There were of course many more indicators the children were telling the truth as far as they were able. How else to explain the descriptions of “sticky skin”, of blood tasting of “metal”, of adult anatomy of specified persons, the subjective experience of being anally abused, information on dildos and their manufacture, accurate representation of the act of severing heads, so on and so, all pointing to the fact this was NOT inculcated by torture or anything else but real time experience. The suggestion that it all resulted from watching the “Mask of Zorro”, apparently accepted by the judge, deserves only utter astonishment and contempt.

      We now have been subjected to a media exercise that can only be described as propaganda, just replicating the judges deplorable reasoning, culminating in a nauseous BBC interview of the natural father, against whom the principle allegations were laid. If anything it underscores the children’s and mother’s worst fears. If somebody in government doesn’t quickly get a handle on this lamentable situation, the reputation of Britain in the eyes of the world, will plummet even further, to the disgrace of us all.


  9. True ,it is very dangerous for a mother (especially) to accuse the father of a child of sex abuse as this not merely often but actually usually results in the father getting custody ,plus the mother losing custody and often losing all contact with her child.
    That said in the course of advising literally thousands of parents I have learned that I get the best results by being sceptical about their initial claims as contrary to what many believe exaggeration does not increase credibility,it lessens it !
    That is why I am sceptical of any child who claims to have personally witnessed more murders committed by their relatives and schoolteachers than Myra Hindley ,Peter sutcliffe and ,Dr Shipman,all put together .Cooking babies drinking their blood etc and not one single person has now come forward in the media or even on a blog like this to confirm (even anonymously) that they have taken part in or witnessed such horrors.
    Yes I believe the children were sexually abused but I cannot believe mass murders and cannibalism committed on such a scale and by so many people could if true remain undenounced by any adult witness even anonymously.


  10. Perhaps all those that follow this site, and particularly the legal travails of Sabine, Nina and Belinda, should be aware of yet another individual who, ‘coincidentally’, has found himself subject to very incursive and controlling action by state agencies, of a very ominous and disturbing character.

    Jake Blake, who has given permission for his circumstances to be made public, and who became very concerned and active in the Hampstead case, was subject to prolonged and vicious Internet ‘trolling’ from particular sources not unconnected to the people involved. (To a lesser degree, I have experienced this myself.)

    A complaint was made to the police about this but after initial indications of serious attention, was subsequently ‘down-graded’, indicated by a visit of two “Special Constables” – i.e. unpaid, part-time and voluntary. The issue appears to have been ‘shelved’.

    As might be expected this harassment and bullying had psychological consequences, which resulted in a consultation with his GP for anxiety and stress. From there he was referred to the Community Psychiatric Team, which subsequently resulted in him being ‘Sectioned’ under the Mental Health Acts and admitted to the Luton Mental facility. Initially this was for ‘only’ 72 hours but before this period was up it was extended to 28 days and thence to six months! An appeal he submitted against this was rejected.

    (Perhaps it should be noted that previously officers connected to the Hampstead case had requested an interview with him, in which he was effectively advised to desist from his publicity activities.)

    Once in this position, an individual is in a very perilous situation and wholly dependent on the beneficence and good practice of the doctors, psychiatric nurses and administrative staff, for the way he/she is treated. The most obvious consequence is a loss of ones independence and freedom. His liberty has been removed, and any movement outside the bounds of the hospital – even the ward – are in the gift and at the discretion of the staff. Access to his computer, and thus contact with friends and relations via this route has been denied.

    The facility for outside visits once a week, has been used to put pressure on him to submit to medication – both by tablet and injection – when he objected to it. Allowed one three hour visiting window a week to meet his parents was withdrawn when he refused the anti-psychotic medication. He has therefore agreed for it to continue. Given the known consequences of this chemical “Risperidone”, the necessity and ethical basis for so treating someone, who it has been agreed may be ‘obsessive’ but not psychotically ‘delusional’, is deeply worrying and questionable.

    His initial diagnosis was based on “obsessive and delusional thoughts” because he questioned the official version of events on 9/11 and 7/7, and believed the Hampstead children’s account of their experiences. Even were this true, it falls far short of the normal threshold for ‘sectioning’ under the Mental Health Acts, namely a distinct and palpable risk of harm to oneself or others.

    (I have referred elsewhere to the tragic case of Julian Assange’s barrister, John Jones QC who whilst being treated for mental health problems, fell under a train. His psychiatrist stated clearly that despite this, “He had not reached the required threshold for him to be sectioned”)

    Of course the terrible irony exists that the medication may create the very symptoms that have been falsely attached to his beliefs and actions.

    It is hard to avoid the conclusion that were it not for his activities – that may or may not have been inadvisable or misguided, I cannot say – to publicise the Hampstead facts, it is unlikely that he would have found himself in his present predicament. Whether his doctor or psychiatric team were influenced directly or indirectly by the police is not clear, but if they were it would be perfectly consistent with the indications he received from them himself and how others, mentioned above, have been treated, so it is far from the realms of impossibility.

    This raises the even more fundamental and disturbing question as to whether powers conferred under the Mental Health Acts, are being misused and misapplied to control the actions of an individual, for social and policing purposes – unrelated to his actual welfare or mental health. Even were this the case, as many suspect, it is high unlikely it would ever be admitted as it smacks of the worst excesses of the Soviet era rightly castigated by western media and governments.

    So yet again we may pose the question, “why are agencies of the state so determined to ignore and refute the palpably genuine accounts of two children, effectively removing and silencing them, whilst coterminously, by every means open to them, pursuing and silencing those who sought to bring the case to the attention of the public, eschewing all usual norms of criminal enquiry and investigation of the accused, whether fairly or not?”

    Could anyone, anywhere, ever think up a more disturbing set of circumstances than those revealed by the Hampstead case?

    In the meantime Jake Clarke is in urgent need of proper and effective legal and medical representation to protect him from the excesses of state organs, whether for the right or wrong reasons.


  11. That is so tragic. I hope his family can start legal proceedings for him. Noone should be silenced fighting for justice just what kind of a world do we live in? Its seems more evil than I can possibly comprehend. Truth is stranger than fiction…This Whistleblower story is immensely tragic BUT it needs to be heard out in court to be given a fair trial. There seems to be plenty of cases like this in the media and day in day out they collapse for so many reasons so that eventually they run out of time and cant be heard. It is a travesty. Where is justice when you really need it?
    As for this tragic case of Jake too can somebody really be held against rheir own will for not showing any danger towards society. He will now be a mess on this medication because he doesnt need it and now he will be deemed incapable or mad when he does leave this institute and/or readdress the issue therefore mking the public think what he says has no credibility based upon being sectioned. What a brave person for standing by his beliefs on behalf of others. That is a modern day hero.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s