#Pauffley as #SpinDoctor? #Judgement needs a Shot of #Truth #WhistleblowerKids

This analysis has come from ‘Witness A’, someone who knows not only the mother and Abraham Christie but also other child snatching cases, the second contributor to a ‘Portfolio of Public Witness Statements‘ I am starting to gather on Let’s Respond to the Pauffley Judgement. I have yet to publish the first one.

Please, dear Commentators all over the net, do repeat, copy and paste and contribute to this page which focusses on the judgement as the ‘public response of ‘evil’ and ‘foolish’ people to the appeal. My first publication of the judgement is here on this blog.

You can also email your analysis / comments asap me to sabine AT globalnet.co.uk, in case I have missed some of your superb observations and you want anonymity as Witness A does.

Pauffley: Your Judgment Needs a Shot of Truth.

Full case on this Family Law Week link and on the official site of judgements [a recent introduction to lift the veil of secrecy somewhat]:

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2015/26.html&query=ZC14C00315&method=boolean

I have decided to name the children as with over 4,000,000 hits on the internet why be coy about their names as if it makes much difference. [The first blogger‘s YouTube profile was viewed over 27 million times before the 3 videos he down- and uploaded were deleted.]

Introduction and executive summary

  1. My faith in humanity indicates that the overwhelming majority of individuals will do nothing because they, like me, have no interest in inflicting further harm.

4A. You chose to make rulings in a secret family court for a case that is obviously criminal, you have left the children with anonymous foster parents when they have at no time indicated that their mother harmed them. You have done a lot of harm single handedly.

  1. Many of those individuals are now living in fear because they have been identified on the internet as abusers of children……

6A. If a full enquiry had been made and these people were proven to be innocent, there would be no recourse towards them, we both know that has not been done and so far does not look like is about to be done.

  1. All the signs are that those responsible for posting material derive a great deal of personal satisfaction from attracting interest to their spiteful work from many thousands of people…..

8A. Bit petty there judge, truth is two children have said some pretty heavy stuff and because you decide it is false in what is indeed an unlawful ruling you are a bit miffed that the public are seeing the evidence to make their own minds up.

  1. I have surveyed the relevant history as well as all of the significant developments in a wide-ranging police and social services investigation….

9A. Do you mind letting us know the depth of the investigation and were police and social serviced not spoken about by the children as doing sex to them?

  1. I am able to state with complete conviction that none of the allegations are true…..

16A. Without a thorough investigation the public can only make up their own minds on the evidence that is available to them.

  1. Jean-Clement Yaohirou….

18A. You did not mention that Jean-Clement Yaohirou is the brother in law of Abraham Christie and a community police officer. This might have held the man’s opinion and trust in Mr Christie in a different light.

  1. interviewed 5, 11 and 17th Sept…..

19A. The police ABE interviews of 5th Sept, 11th Sept and 17th Sep were extremely varied. The 5th and 11th the children came across as honest, truthful and genuine, the 17th Sept they were clearly tutored. This followed 6 days in care following their removal from their mother.

  1. The forensic inquiry has been full and thorough. It has made little difference that Ms Draper has been absent. I have been actively assisted in my investigative role by Ms Markham…

22A. This is not quite how the law is supposed to work. Ms Markham is the Barrister for Barnet, so would not be acting in the best interest of the children and would be justifying their removal and continued removal.

Essential background

  1. A non-molestation injunction order was made against the father in 2010…..

26A. Goes to show the character of this man.

  1. In May 2014, after a period of renewed involvement by the London Borough of Camden, Mr Dearman had contact with the children for the first time since October 2013. ….

28A. Mr Dearman gave up his rights to see his children and at the time the court said he was foolish. He must have decided that indeed they could be a beneficial part of his life after all and reinstated contact.

  1. Food supplied at the school…..

29A. The food supplied at the school in this incident where Mr Christie reacted and said they were trying to poison the children, was a big handful of sweets.

Evolution of the allegations

  1. Because, according to Mr Christie, Haringey police officers were implicated, Mr Yaohirou decided to report the matter to Scotland Yard. Yaohirou was “greatly concerned for the children’s welfare”….

36A. Concerned for the children’s welfare is very understandable considering the people implicated.

  1. Mr Yaohirou described how he had suggested to DI Cannon that the children should be placed in a safe environment until the case had been sorted out. Mr Yaohirou said he had been unsettled by that he’s heard and believed the children needed some medical or psychological assistance.

37A. This has been left ambiguous, I think Mr Yaohirou totally believed the children and it was their welfare he was concerned with, exposing so many people within the system and in powerful positions left them in a vulnerable position.

  1. 5th Sep Barnet Police began what DI Cannon described in evidence as a “wide ranging investigation” involving as it seemed, “threats to life”. DC Martin conducted ABE interviews with (the children)… a panic alarm was installed at the home. …

38A. The father had told the children that he would kill them if they ever told of their ongoing abuse. However if police, etc, were implicated this would have been of further concern to their well being.

  1. On 10th September, DS Fernandez and DC Martin visited and inspected the interior of the church adjacent to Christchurch school….

40A. Why is DC Martin involved so much in this case? This raises concerns. This should have been investigated by other independent police, not the policeman that was also interviewing the children???

  1. Alisa and Gabriel underwent further ABE interviews, led by DC Martin. DS Fernandez interviewed the mother. He described in evidence how Ms Draper had told him in great detail about the abuse but there had been “no tears at all”. There was a distinct lack of emotion.” It was “just like she had learned this – it was quite strange.”

41A. Maybe she too was traumatized by the sheer horrific nature of the allegations. I could understand if she was as many people are. It was “just like she had learned this – is DS Fernandez an expert on how one should/would behave facing these allegations from your child?

  1. 12th Sept, both children were examined by Dr Hodes, a consultant community pediatrician at both the Royal Free Hospital and University College London Hospital….

43A. The first medical examination of the children.

  1. 16th Sept, Dr Hodes performed a second examination of both children.

44A. The second medical examination of the children.

  1. 17th Sept, there were further ABE interviews……

45A. These interviews were very different than the first 2. Gabriel could not get his lines straight and would not say that babies were not killed, DC Martin had to openly prompt him about 3 or 4 times to get him to say no babies were killed. This is so obvious and yet this is the interview that Pauffley chooses to use the evidence of. The public need to look at these interviews and draw their own conclusions.

The mother’s and Mr Christie’s participation

  1. On 10th Dec 2014, at court, she (Ms Draper) dispensed with her legal team. My first involvement with the case was on 13 January 2015. Dates were secured for this hearing as follows: 17th – 20th February, 3 – 6 March and 10 – 12 March. On 13th January, the indications from Ms Draper were that once again she would avail herself of legal representation….

46A. Ms Draper dispensed with her legal team as they would not follow her instruction and had their own ideas how the case should go. As seems to be the case these days in the judiciary it is difficult to get an honest lawyer.

  1. Ms Draper failed to attend court on 10th February….

47A. Ms Draper knew since the 26 January hearing that the judge would not return her children to her.

  1. …the mother would contend that she has been prevented from attending this hearing as the result of police action on the evening of 12 February. DS Paul Speer from Colindale police station described in evidence what happened firstly on the morning of 10th February when he spoke with Ms Draper over the telephone to discuss the material on the internet. Ms Draper told DS Speer that “it was nothing to do with (her)” She did not wish to speak to him and did not trust the police.

52A. This is totally understandable taking that after inviting her with the children for a second interview following their allegations, on the 11th September 2014 the children were removed by Barnet police and taken into care. The whole farce of the allegation being fabricated then began and until now the children have not been returned to her and even on contact the court dates always coincided with her contact visits, meaning she could not see her children as she was busy in court fighting to have them returned.

  1. On 12 February, police officers attended at Ms Drapers address. … A gentleman spoke with the police through the letter box and indicated that he was the mother’s lawyer. The police explained they were there to discuss possible offences committed under s.4 of the Harassment Act 1997. ….Whilst the police were waiting for the means to secure a forced entry, three people climbed out of the first floor window, ran along the roof line of three of four houses and climbed down onto some nearby garages where they disappeared from sight.

53A. 9 police showed up at Ms Drapers home. They did not have a warrant but said that they would force entry if the door was not opened. Ms Draper saw this attack as a way of imprisoning her, leaving her little time to continue the legal battle to return her children. She fled. The audio of this can be found on the internet as the legal representation present at Ms Drapers at the time of these events informed the police that he was indeed recording the situation. See https://hampsteadresearch.wordpress.com/vid-2-police/

  1. …Mrs Gareeva said she had tried to persuade her daughter to come back. In response, Ms Draper had said she was afraid she would be arrested and would not be able to “fight for the children”.

54A. As answered in 52A

  1. There is no substance in the assertion that the mother has been prevented from participating at this hearing…..

55A. When reading 53A you can plainly see that there are good reasons for Ms Draper not attending the hearing, she has lost faith in the whole UK system.

  1. …..26 January. Position statement was “our offer NOT to expose this scandal in exchange for returning the children.”….

57A. All that was wanted was the children to be returned. The judge made the choice not to do this.

  1. …whilst Ms Draper is prepared to campaign using the internet she is not willing to take part in this inquiry….

58A. Like many people they see the whole thing as corrupt and illegal and do not feel it is their better interest to follow this route. The children are still in the care system, they have not been visited for many weeks and the last visit by the grandparents saw many changes in them. They were scared. They are behaving violently towards each other in a blaming situation for where they are now. This procedure has been very damaging to them and everyone in their inner circle who loves them. They have been betrayed as many children have by this uncaring monolithic system that is more intent in covering its back than further protecting these children.

The mother’s case

  1. Ms Draper says this – “The statements made….are not only exceptionally serious, but also so outrageous that they are effectively unbelievable. Hence my then partner Abraham Christie and I talked to them (the children) separately on holiday to ensure that their allegations were the truth.”…

59A. These people did everything in their power to ensure honesty from the children, most thinking people believe the children.

  1. …the mother, the “most convincing argument of their believability is the utter consistency between what they are saying separately and together, on holiday, back home, when with Jean-Clement Yaohirou on 04.09.14 and in the interviews with Barnet Police on 05.09.14 and 11.09.14.” Ms Draper emphasis on children having repeatedly expressed (their) fears of their father killing them, their nightmares and generally post traumatic stress.”…

60A. Utter consistency says it all.

  1. …the children’s “supposed retractions,” the mother suggests they are inconsistent with their previous accounts over many weeks to different people. Neither their stories nor their body language on the police video of 17.09.14 are, she says, convincing.

61A. As I have watched these videos, I wholeheartedly agree. See  http://zeeklytv.com/video/19743/Gabriel-05-Sep-II-18-min

  1. … the mother’s claims against the father of the most serious kinds of sexual abuse extend back to the time when Alisa & Gabriel were babies and include grotesque assertions of repeated interference. She also claims that Mr Dearman rather than Mr Christie was responsible for the assaults which lead to physical signs of injury as found by Dr Hodes last September.

62A. This is confirmed by the children in that the police interview on the 5th and the 11th September neither of the children had a problem with Abraham Christie and although admitted being hit with a spoon, said that it was not painful and described it as licks. They also described the water poured on them as luke warm not cold which was described in later reports.

The father’s response

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

63A. “There are two sides to the story.” And thanks to the Colindale police you will only hear mine.

The law

  1. ….the simple balance of probabilities….”common sense, not law, requires that in deciding this question regard should be had to whatever extent appropriate to inherent probabilities.”

64A. So we are beholding to your inherent lack of knowledge, your ignorance, your limited beliefs or your determination to cover this up in allowing it to continue elsewhere in the country

The mobile phone recordings 

  1. …whether justice can be done to all parties without further questioning of the child – is that it could.

67A. Not how I see it Justice Pauffley, a mother without her children, two children without a mother and contact with their grandparents almost non existent. Waiting on you making a decision about their destiny.

  1. …”who are you going to help us catch?” Both children reply, “All the paedophiles.” Alisa adds, “Papa, Mr Hollings.” Both children say, “the school.” Ms Draper interjects, “All the policemen, all the – Social Services.” ….repeat, “All the Social Services” and add, “All the shopkeepers – Cafcass – all the cafes, all the Pizza Express – McDonalds.”

71A. Not one of these people have been questioned that I am aware of. Cafcass and Social Services in attendance and contribute to all child stealing in the UK which is now at some astronomical level and these children say that they did sex to them. They were present while babies were killed and eaten. This is another level of conspiracy and with 140,000 children going missing in the UK every year we need to question where Cafcass and Social Services are involved in this atrocity. See http://pact-online.org

  1. …”Who’s Cafcass?…What’s Cafcass” Alisa & Gabriel reply, “Cafcass is, they work with _ they’re for children – they work with Social Services.” Mr Christie asks, “And what do they do to you?” Both children, one after the other, respond, “They do sex…They touch each other – they touch me and Gabriel. They have plastic willies. And they stick it in our bottom.”

72A. Covered in 71A.

  1. …And we do sex with the baby sacrifice and eat the baby.” Mr. Christie asks what she means and she says, “So we kill the baby and eat it and drink the blood from it.” ….. is that true Gabriel? He replies, “Yes. And we dance with the skulls…Baby skulls.”

74A. With one child being taken every 20 minutes in the UK, this certainly gives one room for thought.

76…..Ms Draper…”So what are we going to do? We’re going to protect other babies – and children, huh? And save those children who are involved or have been forced to be involved, right?”

76A. That is not quite what the court had in mind Ms Draper, more of the same and utilize every media outlet to ensure that this is what happens. Your children will just have to remain in this sordid predicament for the time being.

The 4 September recorded discussion between Abraham Christie and the children

  1. 4 September audio recording made by Jean-Clement Yaohirou on his mobile phone is a key component….

78A. Have not heard those.

  1. …Mr Christie introduces the notion that the mother’s 3 children are involved with “this cult”. ….”Happens in school during school hours.”…”they do it to every child in the school and I guarantee you, out of the children, 100 of them will talk.”…

83A. As the children have said that both Will Draper and his now wife Sarah Draper come to the school to the parties, it would suggest that Abraham Christie might be right. Also was Ella Draper groomed by Ricky Dearman with knowledge from Will Draper as both appear to be members of the same cult.

84…..He makes snuff movies of the babies and he sells them in the Ukraine, in Russia, in Brazil, in Portugal, in Brussels, in England, he sells them

all over the world.”….

84A. Snuff movies are on the internet. They are real and they are on the Deep Dark Web. I would not be surprised if evidence in the future sees some of these children witnesses are found in this location.

  1. …”And make sure papa goes to jail.”….

88A. The courts, the judiciary and the powers that be are protecting papa.

  1. …some drawings have been seen by Mr Yaohirou. …wanted to “kind of limit (contact).” …..there was alleged domestic violence; and indicated that Mr Dearman had been “fighting for this contact and (she) had been trying to limit it as much as possible.”

89A. These drawings are on the internet, they are explicit and there is no way children of this age could do such detailed drawings of many teachers and people they have spoken about, unless they had seen these people naked. There are tattoos, birthmarks, warts, scars, etc., all talked about by the children and put on the drawings. Exposure of these bodily parts would be enough to exonerate the alleged abusers and exonerate them if the children were wrong, but there is no one coming forward which further adds to their guilt.

  1. …from them touching the dog.” Alisa “We’d be touching the dog’s privates.” Mr Christie added, “So another clue is I began to suspect heavily and then when we got to Morocco and I realised they were touching each other on a regular basis I said to them, ‘You guys are doing this regularly. How come no one’s caught you? Who else is touching you? Who is, I know someone else is touching you, you’ve learnt this from an adult, who is it? ……

92A. This behaviour goes beyond normal children’s curiosity

Conclusions in relation to the film clips and audio recording

  1. …”To believe that children who demonstrate curiosity about and touch their own, the dog’s and their sibling’s genital areas must have, or probably have, been sexually abused is plainly ridiculous. It either shows alarming ignorance about normal childish behaviour or, as is much more likely here, wilful determination to distort innocent activities into something sinister and depraved.

100A. Touching each other as children and perhaps even touching a dog’s genital area could be construed as childish curiosity. When it is happening 4 and 5 times a day with the added instruction that papa told them to do it, then it becomes a lot more sinister. Papa appears to want to mind control the children even when he is not with them, this constant touching does exactly that.

  1. ….it is clear that they were effectively persecuted so as to compel them to tell false stories.

101A. The stories are too accurate and consistent with clarity. The only stories I found doubtful are the ABE on the 17th September 2014. Gabriel was really struggling to keep his false story up for the policeman, so he was badgered until he said what DC Martin wanted him to say. “There was no killing babies.”

  1. It is a curious fact that prior to the launch of these proceedings, no police officer had listened to the audio recording made by Jean-Clement Yaohirou or watched the film clips of the children….

107A. I wonder why, maybe Mr Yaohirou would know.

The ABE interviews of 5 and 11 September

  1. ABE interviews of 5 and 11 September. ….detailed allegations of ritualistic abuse; and second because they do so articulately, with good eye contact and without a trace of distress. Alisa can hardly wait for the next question before she is chipping in with an answer. Both children are entirely ‘matter of fact’ about what they say has happened. There is no trace of any emotional arousal.

109A. Post traumatic stress could account for their matter of fact attitude.

  1. …it is like a spoon hit….because we keep lying…the only way we could tell is by him hurting us.

112A. The children also said that it was not painful, but enough to make them tell the truth. Not that I agree with this form of getting information, but taking that the allegations were so serious I can understand that the information had to be got out of the children.

  1. Gabriel …..explicit details of penetrative abuse upon him and sexual acts he was made to perform upon others. ….”rubbing” until “the white stuff” comes out of boys.

114A. He also said that when the white stuff comes out, he feels like he has no energy, this must have happened as a child would have had to go through it to know this.

  1. ….His father came to the school “every day” and “he will do sex to us and they also do sex to the other children.” Like Alisa, Gabriel was able to supply a great deal of detail about secret rooms, cupboards, secret doors, locks, keys and killing babies in the kitchen.

115A. Did their stories of the secret rooms etc correlate with each other.

 Conclusions in relation to the 5 and 11 September interviews

  1. …It was as if they had been transported away from reality and into dream land. There were obvious parallels in what Alisa was saying with some aspects to the story line in C.S. Lewis’ ‘The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe.’

116A. I would imagine they felt a great sense of relief unloading the awful things that had been done to them and feeling that at last they could live a life with a semblance of normality about it. Not the case with their young lives awaiting their fate at the hands of Justice Pauffley.

  1. There was no change in the presentation of either child when they described apparently horrific acts as experienced by them and others. There did not appear to be any emotional connection with what they were saying except that they seemed energized.

117A. I feel that excellent diet from their mother and strong family bond with their grandparents have helped them cope much better than other children who have experienced such trying experiences.

  1. …relating to the physical abuse of both children by Mr Christie in order to get them to talk should alert any sensible observer to the potential for false reporting.

118A. They were not physically abused between 5th, 11th ABE interviews and they said the same things.

The physical examinations and associated statements made by the children

12th September 2014 Dr Hodes Examination

  1. …Alisa. The examination of Alisa’s perianal area was performed in the left lateral position – as recommended by the Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health Review of March 2008. Dr Hodes identified 3 linear scars extending almost to the anal verge as well as anal laxity after 10 seconds of gentle buttock traction. There was she said, no reflex anal dilation.

120A. Confirmation of sexual abuse.

  1. Gabriel, Dr Hodes identified one anal fissure scar and no reflex anal dilation. In relation to both children, Dr Hoes concluded there were physical signs, which supported the children’s allegations of physical and sexual abuse.

16th September 2014 Dr Hodes 2nd Examination

  1. Dr Hodes’ further genital examination of Alisa revealed, “persistent reflex anal dilatation during buttock separation. “The three linear healed scars were confirmed. In relation to Gabriel, Dr Hodes “confirms the physical findings of scar in the anus from a healed fissure, consistent with inflicted injury from a blunt penetrating force that he has alleged.”

22nd September 2014 Dr Hodes, 5 Days After Retraction of Allegations

  1. …She repeated her physical findings…. In summary, said Dr Hodes, “recantation does occur in a significant number of cases especially with the predictors that are present in both children.”

125A. Again Dr Hodes believes the children were sexually abused.

  1. 26th September, Dr Hodes and a Senior House Officer met with Ms Draper…..”The main focus of the interview was upon sexual complaints. Ms Draper claimed that Mr Dearman rather than Abraham Christie was responsible for the children’s physical injuries as documented by Dr Hodes.

127A. Ms Draper is aware that there is a move towards blaming Mr Christie for injuries to the children and away from the person the children said hurt them.

  1. Dr Hodes took this case to a peer review meeting. As explained in her Amended Medical Report of 4th December 2014, her anogenital findings in relation to both children were then significantly amended. The previously confirmed fissures were said to be irregularities in the ruggae (folds, wrinkles or ridges) and their clinical significance was described as “possible normal variant.”

128A. It would appear that even when a trained doctor finds evidence of sexual abuse that is confirmed by the children, the procedure is to try to normalize it. What chance do children stand in this society?

  1. …persisting physical sign post peer review was reflex anal dilatation in Alisa, which, so Dr Hodes maintains is “consistent with her allegation of the blunt penetrating force to her anus i.e. sexual abuse.” ….it was alleged that lubrication was used which adds to the probability of abuse.”

129A. Again confirmation of sexual abuse by Dr Hodes.

  1. 5th February 2015 – the overall situation is such that it is my view that the allegations/accounts need to be taken very seriously despite the confusing picture.” …whilst it is a matter for the court to decide, she recommends “a series of more detailed observations and assessments over a longer period of time by a psychiatrist or psychotherapist with a particular interest and expertise in child maltreatment including sexual abuse.”

130A. Dr Hodes believes that the children have been sexually abused by the evidence before her, the judge has the final decision.

Conclusions in relation to Dr Hodes’ evidence

  1. Overall, I feel impelled to observe that the level of Dr Hodes’ involvement in this case was unusual. …..on guard against the over-dogmatic expert, the expert whose reputation or amour propre is at stake, or the expert who has developed a scientific prejudice.

132A. Dr Hodes wanted to be thorough and appeared to be getting a lot of pressure on her for revealing her findings. The children have said they were abused numerous times and the physical forensic confirms that, so why is not one arrested?

  1. I was dismayed to find, twenty seven years after the Report of the Inquiry into Child Abuse in Cleveland 1987 that Dr Hodes adopted so definite a view as to the likelihood of sexual abuse to which she then adhered notwithstanding several noteworthy contraindications. One of the cardinal messages from Cleveland was as to the importance of multi agency collaboration so as to understand amongst many other things the context in which suspicions arose.

133A. The Cleveland case was a whitewash and many more children suffered abuse than the newspapers reported. When the extent of the abuse was revealed just like this case the wheels went into action to say that it was a big mistake, following the newspapers printing of that, the true figures were much higher than portrayed, but unless you went on to read a book on the subject, which I did, then you would take the newspapers account as accurate. In fact the Cleveland case managed to get many doctors to think twice before reporting sexual abuse for fear of humiliation. Maybe Dr Hodes is sick of having to do that while the children continue to be abused.

  1. I consider it unusual …that Ms Draper was invited to discuss her version of the history at a lengthy separate interview with the pediatrician and her SHO at a time when the social work team as well as the police were undertaking inquiries.

136A. Did Pauffley not listen to the children’s interviews where they said social services and police did sex to them? How can they be trusted to undertake inquiries and come to a truthful conclusion?

  1. …lubrication was used which “added to the probability of abuse.”

137A. Of course this would contribute to the probability of abuse as what reason would there be for Vaseline to be put on the children’s bottoms.

The 17 September retractions [after 6 days in care]

  1. DC Martin was asked to explain why the decision was made to interview the children again on 17 September. ………It is Ms Draper’s case that between 11 and 17 September the police and the children’s foster carers placed pressure upon them to change their story. …If anything of note had been said by anyone prior to the ABE interviews it would have been recorded.

140A. So it might have been recorded but who decides if they are released for public viewing. These children have so obviously been badgered into the withdrawing of these allegations.

  1. …’they had made up the allegations and it was all to do with the Mask of Zorro.’

141A. This movie was used to cover up another alleged satanic ritual abuse case. Is this why Mr Dearman reinvented it?

  1. …both Alisa & Gabriel did indeed withdraw their claims, all of them. Alisa said that “it was all made up,” everything about the school, the church, the swimming pool; none of it was true. Abraham, she said, “had hurt (her) and used bad words…’a stupid little cunt”. Alisa described him as “an idiot.” As for her father, Alisa said he is “fine and good.”

142A. The interview before this one on 11th September Alisa and Gabriel both said that Abraham was kind and never hurt them. They both liked Abraham. These recanting of original stories has been coaxed out of the children to cover up these horrendous crimes. Alisa could say it without much trouble but Gabriel kept going back to the truth, hence DC Martin repeating again and again the question until he got the answer he wanted.

  1. Gabriel interview was …..confused. “yeah there is still some of the babies killed….Not much …I lied about it because he (Mr Christie) made me say it. “A little later Gabriel said, “None of it was real…The plastic willies were not true.” Abraham had “slapped (his ear) as hard as he could.” “I hate Abraham”….

143A. See 142A.

Dr Sturge’s assessment of the children

146 ….Abraham had accused him of touching his sister in the private parts which he “never, ever did.” And he forced them to say their dad touches them. Abraham had also forced them to say they kill babies.

146A. Both children said without any pressure in the ABE interviews of 5th & 11th September that they had been touching each other and were caught by Abraham, so the fact that now they are saying Abraham made them say it, they have been pressured into saying this.

  1. ….He had even woken them up and hit them. The hitting was if they didn’t wake up and talk….. “if she still believes it, (he) wouldn’t want to live with her.” He would never live with his mum while Abraham was still in the British Isles….also said spontaneously, that he hates Abraham, describing him as “the worst person I’ve ever met”.

147A. I believe this is obviously made up by Gabriel and possibly help with by some adult behind the scenes. The sad thing is both children are really unhappy now and are blaming each other for where they are now in life. The courts have a lot to answer for.

  1. ….Vaseline. He said, “He, (Abraham) forced me to say my dad puts Vaseline on my willy – plastic and normal ones.

148A. This would have been on his bottom, not his willie as that was another reason Dr Hodes believed the children’s stories of sexual abuse.

Demeanour on 17 September and during assessment by Dr Sturge

  1. It seemed to me that on the 17th September Alisa in particular was relieved to be unburdening herself and revealing the truth. ….Both children were a great deal calmer.

151A. I did not witness this calmness in Gabriel, he looked much better, but he was frustrated by not being able to keep up the façade and kept reverting back to the truth which was the original story told on 5th and 11th September.

Overall conclusions in relation to Ms Draper’s allegations

  1. Both….have suffered significantly. Their innocence was invaded. ….They were introduced to sexual practices of which they had no real understanding at a time when they should have been shielded from such things.

154A. If this is true which I believe it is why have there been no arrests? Both children have said by whom and that the main perpetrator was their father Ricky Dearman and all those other mentioned in the ABE on 5th & 11th September.

  1. …most significantly of all, the children were made to absorb and repeat on film and in interview grotesque claims again so many blameless people including the father whom they love.

155A. I dispute this doctor saying that they love their father, this is not the words of the children and I think they are misleading. The children have evidence of abuse, the children have said who abused them, arrests should be made.

  1. ….in the three months leading to their reception into care both children ingested cannabis. Scientific analysis revealed that both children had metabolites of the drug (THC) in their hair –

157A. Maybe you should look at Mr Dearman who Gabriel said gave him a tablet and white powder, as well as many different forms of alcohol.

  1. I need hardly say now profoundly damaging it was to administer illegal drugs to a child.

158A. I totally agree so why is Mr Dearman not being charged for such crimes as stated by Gabriel in his ABE interview of 11th September?

  1. The posting of film clips featuring the children speaking about sexual matters has exposed Gabriel and Alisa to the potential for very serious embarrassment and humiliation in the years ahead maybe, even, throughout the whole of the rest of their lives. Doubtless they will grow and develop so that their visual appearances will alter. But it may be difficult to shield them from unwelcome interest and reputational damage unless radical steps to divert attention are taken.

159A. You can solve this problem immediately by giving them to their grandparents where they will go back to Russia with them to live, they will be quite anonymous there and will have a chance of a life for the rest of their lives.

Final thoughts about the investigation

  1. …There are many campaigning people, sadly, who derive satisfaction from spreading their own poisonous version of history irrespective of whether it is true or not.

161A. What is true is that the children said they were being sexually abused, what Dr Hodes confirmed was that they have been sexually abused. Who the children said sexually abused them was their father Ricky Dearman, teachers at their school, friends of Ricky Dearman and parents of children at the school. All I want to see is enquiries and arrests as I believe the children and Dr Hodes.

  1. Mr Christie has a background of criminality for drugs offences, violence e and dishonesty.

163A. Mr Christie has not been accused of hurting the children until they were in care for 6 days. Mr Christie is the court’s fall guy while trying to protect the real criminal, Ricky Dearman. The children have been pressurized into making the allegations about Mr Christie. Ricky Dearman however has a history of violence while in his relationship with Ella Draper and at one point almost cracked her skull open by kneeling on her head.

  1. Summing up of my salient findings.

165A. You heard this in a secret family court setting, while the crimes against these children are criminal. It will be heard in a criminal court and the people who committed these acts against these and the other 18 children will have their day in court.

Advertisements

25 thoughts on “#Pauffley as #SpinDoctor? #Judgement needs a Shot of #Truth #WhistleblowerKids

  1. “I have decided to name the children as with over 4,000,000 hits on the internet why be coy about their names as if it makes much difference.”

    It makes a difference because as per the above link to Family Law Week it is given that not retaining anonymity is “contempt of court”. The 4M hits occurred before the judgement.

    Please don’t set yourself up for a fall here witness A (and the owner of the blog). We all know who “Child A” and “Child G” are but they chose “P and Q” deliberately so as to “mind your P and Q’s”:

    “From an old printer’s axiom. Back in the early days of printing presses, each line of text had to be set up one letter at a time. Since the letters in the press were reversed (so they’d print forward), the printmaker (or typographer) needed to be careful not to confuse one letter for the other.
    Reminding someone to “watch his p’s and q’s” means to pay attention to the details.
    On the stand, Bill was always careful to watch his p’s and q’s when dealing with the lawyers.”

    Source: Urban Dictionary

    Like

  2. 84…..He makes snuff movies of the babies and he sells them in the Ukraine, in Russia, in Brazil, in Portugal, in Brussels, in England, he sells them

    all over the world.”….

    84A. Snuff movies are on the internet, they are real and they are on the Deep Dark Web. I encourage anyone with the courage to go there, to look out for evidence of these children and the allegations they have made to add to the evidence of their and the abuse of the other 18 children named……

    >>>>>> Witness A. I am STUNNED that here you are actually advocating joe public to have the ‘courage’ to seek out snuff movies and evidence of these abused children on the ‘Deep Dark Web’!! Can you not see that by encouraging this behaviour you are actually giving credence! to this Judge’s comments that all those that have been trying to seek the truth are they themselves not only ‘evil and foolish’ but are ‘paedophiles’ themselves!
    Sabine PLEASE address this comment (84A) in this article as I fear this could do irrevocable damage to your cause.

    Like

    • Hi Sabine
      Thankyou for responding. I was not advocating that the public turn a blind eye to child abuse. Far from it. I salute those that are not only bringing attention to these horrors to the wider public but are working tirelessly to try and stop children being abused.

      I accept that this might mean ‘conventional’ methods to expose the truth might not be enough but surely being responsible we should also caution Joe Public from putting themselves and their families at risk by actually searching out footage of child abuse? There are other ways that we the public can try and support those that are trying to stop these terrible crimes from continuing without us being labelled ‘evil/foolish/abusers ourselves’.

      One might well argue that Judge P’s comments to the ‘Truth-Seekers’ searching for answers were DESIGNED to denigrate and shame the British Public in NOT seeking the truth.

      Well have no fear. ‘We’ are listening, watching and learning and collectively all want this abuse of our children to STOP.
      Best Wishes

      Liked by 2 people

  3. For a starter – Why not ask our proven advocatus diaboli/John Allman here?

    John Allman March 27, 2015 at 11:46 am
    @Nike and others

    “Sorry to put this so strongly. However, this client of yours (Sabine McNeill) is not going to help your reputation. Her winning in court (of which there is not the slightest chance) would ensure that the efforts [had succeeded] to persuade the children to give false testimony against their father, every other child in their school, the entire teaching staff of their school, the parents of practically every other child they know, the parish priest and the school nurse, are murderers of babies, pagans, cannibals and sexual abusers of children, who use a vast stock of plastic willies,in secret basements accessed via wardrobes.
    We seem to have reached an impasse.(…) I don’t think either side is going to change its opinion, even if we spend the next year exchanging comments on this page. If there is some important point that you, or anybody else, does not consider me to have responded to adequately, then by all means remind me. Otherwise, I think we’ve made all the progress we are ever likely to make, and I might as well disengage here, to leave you all to agree with one another, without challenge or contradiction, which is what most here seem to want.“

    # challenge
    John, would you be so kind as to enlighten us what to expect next?
    How about refuting Sabine’s answers (4 to 165) in an adequate, matter of fact manner?

    Tooo much of a challenge for you?

    Like

  4. I’d like to know what nay sayers say about Alisa admitting in the Garden video, about drinking blood and knowing how it tastes, when she says they are vegetarians. Her description of the taste is very accurate. All made up? I seriously doubt it.

    Like

  5. I agree with the comments made in this article: the Judge is not credible at all and neither is her “assessment”. The children are clearly telling the truth regarding their experiences and the later retractions are clearly forced and their interviews flimsy. we do indeed need a proper criminal investigation

    Like

  6. Copy of complaint to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office. Others might like to do similarly. It can be submitted on-line from here: http://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk/making-a-complaint.htm

    Re: P and Q (Children: Care Proceedings: Fact Finding)
    Before Mrs Justice Pauffley. (Case Number: [2015] EWFC 26 (Fam)
    Case No: ZC14C00315)

    I wish to (publicly) make the following complaint(s). I am not a party to the proceedings although I have followed the case reasonably closely and as a concerned member of the public wish to formalise and record my objection in the prescribed manner. Although criticism might be directed at public bodies charged with a statutory responsibility for the education and protection of children and the investigation of crime, as a senior High Court Judge, Mrs Justice Pauffley assigned to this case, had an over-arching duty to apply the law and do justice to the parties involved, which she conspicuously failed to do.

    The reasons for this assessment are as follows:-

    (a) She demonstrated partisanship and bias in the way she controlled proceedings, in that she did not ensure “equality of arms” from the parties concerned, insofar as throughout, the mother did not appear and was not permitted representation by her ‘McKenzie Friend’. Nor did she allow the chosen mother’s representative even to attend to witness proceedings. To allow the remaining parties to the case to be represented – it is reported – by some sixteen legal personnel, without the mother having any, breached the rules of natural justice and equality of treatment.
    (b) The whole tenor of her published judgement and conclusions far exceeds the evidence on which she claims to base it and is clearly slanted against the mother and in favour of the father. As such it demonstrates unjustified bias. Indeed it is quite contrary to the evidence! Previous court judgements had confirmed the mother to be good and safe, whilst the father had a track record of violence and dubious behaviour. Yet Judge Pauffley, incredibly concludes “on a balance of probability” quite the opposite, without supporting evidence, that the father and others should be exonerated whilst the mother was guilty of “torture”. Not only is this by every judicial standard, irrational, it is partisan and unwise.
    (c) In publishing her seven conclusions in para. 165 of her judgement, she has exceeded her brief and competence by making assertions on criminal matters without being constrained by criminal rules of proof and evidence. She may have undermined on-going investigations – we are told – into allegations of sexual assault. This cannot be acceptable.
    (d) She demonstrated bias and poor judgement by effectively rubbishing and rejecting all the videoed witness statements by the children as unreliable, whilst paradoxically accepting their so-called ‘retraction’ as reliable. Nor apparently was she prepared to take evidence from the children directly. This defies all logic and best practice in matters of alleged child abuse.
    (e) Finally her sweeping condemnation of the public as ‘foolish, evil and/or perverted’ is unwarranted and a clear breach of her oath, not to demonstrate ill will to any.END.

    Like

  7. Nice one Tim Veater!
    One point though: Pauffley didn’t rubbish and reject ALL the kids’ video witness statements – she left out the “Distinguishing Marks”+”Drawings” videos.
    I think the most damning evidence – apart from the medical evidence – is contained in the “Distinguishing Marks and “Drawings” mobile-phone videos revealing the intimate identifying marks. No way could they allow those vids – their WORST POSSIBLE EVIDENCE – to get anywhere near an investigation.That’s why DC Rogers dutifully scuttled off to bury the vids somewhere in Chingford(Epping Forest?) so no other investigating police officers(read: decent, unintimidatable cops)were aware of their existence until they saw them on youtube several months after the case was closed. As of March this year,4 million plus evil fools had already seen the vids, so Judge Pauffley, now unable to deny their existence, was obliged to attempt to trash some of them in her report – but she makes NO mention at all of the dangerously untrashable “Distinguishing Marks” vids. She also tried to ridicule the medical evidence, by pathetically trying to ridicule Dr Hodes. All an attempt to hide the truth, deception being their strongpoint. I think their weakest point, which needs to be exploited, is where Pauffley actually tells the truth in paras 107 and 108 of her report. She makes known the fact of DC Rogers’ crime of concealing evidence, or fraud in para 107. This revealed fraud not only utterly demolishes the validity and credibility of the police and SS investigation, but as her “fact-finding” report was based largely on that investigation, it destroys the validity and credibility of her judgement too. Simply allowing the proceedings to continue while aware of DC Rogers’ fraud, is aiding and abetting fraud. Judge Pauffley’s claim that the police and SS investigation was “wide-ranging”(para 9) when it couldn’t possibly have been(as DC Rogers had hidden the entire evidence from the investigating officers before the investigation had even begun!) is fraudulent. The proceedings should have been stopped immediately the fraud was revealed, but that would have been contrary to Achieving Best Findings.
    I think the above proves the police/SS investigation and Pauffley’s “fact-finding”(invert: fact-concealing) hearing are nothing more than an operation in deception – a FRAUD – and therefore to be rejected as null and void. But what to do? This is just a suggestion: Instead of playing along with THEIR legal rules and appealing, petitioning, asking, demanding – all of which concede authority to these impostors who pretend authority over us – might it not be an idea to LAWFULLY affirm publicly we do not consent to this – that we entirely reject the mockery of the law that is Paffley’s “judgement”?

    Drifloud

    Like

  8. RE: John Allman’s analysis. If you play according to Legal Rules(their rules), he’s correct.
    However, if we realise what law is – and we should, as it emanates from the very core(heart)of our existence – then we realise the law is not an abstraction, something separate from us.
    The law is simple: cause no harm, cause no loss, cause no fraud – call it common law, or natural law, or universal law if you like. It’s the law of the living. We intuitively “know” it because it’s in our DNA.
    Legal law is an artificial construct.
    Legal Law covers THINGS, legal entities, corporations, commerce, where “legal persons” are corporations.
    Law of the living trumps Legal Law every time. The language of Legal Law – legalise(pronounced “lies”) is deliberately duplicitous, designed to confuse and deceive.
    A connected point: Satanism was officially made LEGAL in the Royal Navy in 2004.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/3948329.stm If Navy Law=Law of the Sea=Admiralty Law=Legal Law – and there is sufficient research to prove it does, then murder, rape, war, paedosadism, etc.are all perfectly legal…. but NOT lawful.

    Like

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