My analysis of the police interviews of Gabriel and Alisa

Reblogged from

I have just finished watching Alisa´s interview with “Steve the policeman” and it was very troubling. The first two hours were full of the well-known allegations, and the last half an hour is a fairly comprehensive retraction of them. I found the Gabriel interviews to be quite different, however: the retraction wasn´t complete at all, in fact he argues that some of the things that happened were true, just not “every day”.

I was very bothered about the fact that he seemed to have undergone a complete personality change in the retraction interview, and had clearly been talking with Steve or perhaps others, unrecorded before the interview, so we will never know how much the retraction was forced from or induced in him. This in itself surely invalidates the whole thing.

But even if we accept what Gabriel does retract, there is the extremely troubling moment when he says his father puts glue up his bum. When Steve asks him how he knows that, Gabriel says because his bum is all sticky after his father has been doing sex to him, so he must have put glue in him. This simply cannot be a made up story; it involves his own reasoning process in the depths of the events.

He is also noticably uncomfortable before and during the interview, as if he has been told off beforehand. He makes hardly any eye-contact with the interviewer. The change in his character really is remarkable in the two prior interviews when compared to the “retraction” one. Although I thought Steve had done a fairly good job in the first two, he did ask leading questions in the third one, and made suggested answers which Gabriel just agreed to without thinking, which he had tended to do before, but this time Steve never clarified these points, he just put words in his mouth and Gabriel just said yes, unthinkingly.

Even if this wasn´t the case, Gabriel still didn´t retract his story, just the skulls bit. Perhaps watching films has made both children embellish their testimony, but that doesn´t invalidate the other parts.

There is also the medical report, which I haven´t read yet but which talks about scars, which implies long term abuse of both of them. Alisa said she might have slipped in the bathroom when she was younger…but that sounds very much like something someone had suggested to her.

Abraham, of course, was only in their lives for a couple of months before the disclosures, so it is impossible that those scars were made by him. It certainly wasn´t the mother, either.

Now I haven´t seen the “Mask of Zorro”, but if it does have wardrobes with secret doors and people having their heads cut off, this may invalidate some of their evidence. But that can do nothing for the medical report, nor the “glue”. Nor, for that matter, can it explain them knowing how to use secret languages and body language. What about the white powder? The graded plastic willies? And if it was all lies, why are they still telling their foster-carer about them so much she has been getting upset?

The fact is, Pauffley has done a whitewash with her “factfinding”. Even if pieces of the testimony are embellishments, or Abraham was over-enthusiastic in his own attempts to get the story out of them, this doesn´t invalidate the whole testimony.

If you take two young children away from their mother for weeks (now many months) who knows what interior logic they will be using to try and say the right things to get what they want to happen, to happen?

Let´s say they don´t get on so well with Abraham (which only might be the case), this doesn´t mean one latches onto that and just takes them away from their mother, accusing Abraham of abusing them! The point is Pauffley has made things almost impossible to find out about, with her categoric denial of the children´s entire testimonies. What should be happening is that they should be with their mother, and a full criminal investigation of the allegations should be undertaken. The examinations of the alleged abusers´ distinguishing marks should happen immediately – it should have happened within days of the allegations – in order to establish whether or not the children have seen their teachers naked.

And if two young children have embellished long-term abuse memories with things taken from films or their friends´iPads, this should be understood as such, and not as invalidating those memories.

Pauffley´s idiotic denunciations after 12 days, and mainstreampress smear campaigns are unforgiveable. None of this is sufficient to find out what really happened.

What if Alisa´s retraction is just another layer of stories over what happened? Gabriel hasn´t even retracted most of his testimony.

Dearman´s manager, Peter Ferris, is certainly making some unpleasant occult-oriented films which use fear and evil as themes which he quite blatantly basks in the “fun” of. He also gets child actors involved in these films. This also needs to be investigated in case it is more than simply dark movie-making.

My current conclusion after watching 5 hours of the childrens´ police interviews is that the retraction was minor in Gabriel´s case, more complete in Alisa´s case, but that given the potential situation neither of these can really be considered reliable. In other words, a full criminal police investigation is crucial to understand this case. And given all the mistakes so far, maybe even that will have trouble finding the truth out, given their young ages and whatever is causing the multiple stories to come out. And on top of that, we have the entire mind-control thing which all cults use, potentially going on.

And then there is police complicity in that! And yes, even corruption of any eventual criminal trials. The system is involved in these things, we know this.

So yes, there must be a criminal investigation, but that must be unhampered by the power we know VIP paedophile rings can exert over that process. Is this even possible? Will we get a criminal investigation only to have that whitewashed?

My suggestions:
• the children should go back to their mother as soon as possible, because she is definitely not abusing them.
• the father should be kept away until his innocence is proven
• Abraham should try not to investigate things himself with the children
• A full criminal police investigation should begin, and the very first thing that they should do is check the alleged abusers for distinguishing features.
• Pauffley should go away and questions asked of her conduct
• Second and third opinions on the anal scars should be sought.
• The father should be taken into custody and a full investigation on him undertaken
• Sabine and the mother / Abraham should be brought back to the UK without fear of prosecution.
• The reasons and command-structure at work behind the police intimidating Ella, Sabine and Belinda should be investigated.

In other words, the family court should have nothing to do with custody. Custody was with the mother, and it should stay with the mother.

The other question, is there a huge satanic cult in Hampstead? should be answered by the criminal investigation. Yet it is now six months since the original allegations! How many wardrobes, bowls, goblets, skulls, shoes, tatoos, piercings, decors and other evidence could have been removed or tampered with in that amount of time? The answer is – all of it.

That is why Pauffley the whitewasher should go, and be investigated. The “retractions” are incomplete at most, and change nothing. The internet community of good people want a full, open criminal investigation. And if the Mask of Zorro etc made them embellish some things, which is possible, well – they are children after all. That doesn´t invalidate the rest of it.

Who knows, they may have been subject to pornography, too. How confusing will that have been for them from an early age? Their attempts to encompass any experiences like these will make the investigation more difficult, but they don´t invalidate the allegations – they are part of them. We do not know the truth yet, and this is all we want.

On behalf of the children, we demand a full criminal inquiry including the investigation of the alleged abusers to see if the most basic of the children´s allegations are true. That is, at least, a good place to start. And none of this should be under Pauffley!

And the children should be with their mother who categorically hasn´t abused them.


14 thoughts on “My analysis of the police interviews of Gabriel and Alisa

  1. Alan, I can only agree with your analysis and everyone’s comment … excellent and clear.

    I have emailed a statement informing Alison Saunders of the public interest in prosecuting Judge Pauffley, Detective Constable Rogers and Detective Inspector John Cannon for fraud in the Hampstead case. There’s enough evidence to prosecute, and I KNOW it is in the public interest.
    Sure, the Director of Public Prosecutions is part of the control system and believes she has the power to refuse to prosecute her friends, but maybe she can only do that if we let her. We are the public after all, and it is in OUR interest that these Satanic paedo-sadist killers are stopped, isn’t it? The DPP is just a public servant who is supposed to act in OUR interest.
    Perhaps every individual member of the public who agrees it’s in the public interest to prosecute these three criminals, ought to email/write and let the DPP know it’s in the public interest? Please feel free to copy, add to, or use parts of the statement below if you like.
    I was wondering if there might be a way of keeping score of the amount of emails/letters/SMS’s sent to the DPP informing her of our/the public’s interest? …any suggestions?

    This is the statement I have just sent to the DPP:


    As one of the public, I inform you of that public’s interest in prosecuting, for perpetrating crimes of fraud, Judge Mrs Anna Pauffley and the Metropolitan Police officers Detective Inspector John Cannon and Detective Constable Rogers of Barnet Police Station. The three public servants committed fraud during the child rape and murder investigation in Hampstead, and the subsequent hearing and public Judgement in the Royal Courts of Justice over the period 5th September, 2014 to 19th March, 2015.


    Film clips showing the children naming their attackers individually, and giving detailed descriptions of distinguishing marks on and around each of their named attackers’ private parts were concealed from police throughout the entire investigation by DC Rogers of Barnet Police Station Child Abuse Unit, who sent them to a property store in Chingford.
    This concealment of evidence by DC Rogers was/is FRAUD.

    Detective Inspector Cannon, who led the team investigating the child rape and murder case, never required the adults named by the children as their attackers to undergo medical inspection in order to be eliminated from the inquiry, despite the children’s detailed knowledge of distinguishing marks on and around their attackers’ private parts. It appears the police never even questioned these adults! This shows the intention of DI Cannon, i.e. to AVOID requiring those people NAMED and intimately identified by the children to undergo a medical examination to clear themselves. The only possible objectors to such a medical examination are those people named by the children as their attackers who also have distinguishing marks on or around their privates MATCHING the descriptions given by the children.
    DI Cannon’s effective blocking of the necessary medical examinations and interviews of these suspects, and then claiming the investigation was “wide ranging” (see para 38. Judge Pauffley’s Judgement) is clearly FRAUD.

    The children were interviewed by police on 5th September and again on 11th September 2014, and in both interviews their accounts were very consistent. Obviously not satisfied, The Authorities ordered the children to be detained, and six days later a third set of interviews were produced. Despite the many leading questions from their interrogator, the children reaffirmed many parts of their stories. The interviewer clearly uses suggestion and leads the children throughout these interviews, which is not only gross professional misconduct, but is also psychological abuse of the children. He should also be prosecuted.

    The police investigation was closed before the police had received the medical report from University College Hospital’s Consultant Paediatrician Dr Deborah Hodes. The report CONFIRMED anal injury, which was consistent with both children’s allegations of sexual abuse. The case could not LAWFULLY be closed without first receiving the results from the medical examinations – which the police themselves had requested! The closing of the investigation was, and is, UNLAWFUL.


    The hearing was conducted in secret, and was completely one-sided. Ella draper and her legal representative, Sabine McNeill, had been hounded out of the country following threats and actual attempts to imprison them by criminals posing as police officers.
    The entire hearing was, in short, a convening of parties hostile to ella draper and her children. So, what was there to HEAR actually? It was just a show-hearing from start to finish, totally devoid of anything lawful.


    Judge Pauffley reveals, in paras 107 and 108 of her judgement, her knowledge concerning the concealment of crucially important evidence by DC Rogers during the investigation, which prevented investigating police officers access to this crucial evidence. Despite her knowledge of this “curious fact” (the Judge’s own words), Judge Pauffley CONTINUED with the hearing, when her only lawful option was to call a halt as the hearing was evidently incomplete and seriously compromised. The continuation of the hearing was/ is WILFUL CONTEMPT of the law. The Judge then went on to describe the police investigation as “wide-ranging”(para 9. of judgement) – a claim which is clearly FRAUDULENT.

    Unlike the police officers and social services during the investigation, Judge Pauffley WAS able to view “a dozen or so short film clips of the children being questioned by Ms Draper and Mr Christie and listened to the very lengthy audio recording.” (para 21. of judgement). However, it seems the Judge did NOT view the video clips containing the children’s detailed descriptions and drawings of the distinguishing marks on and around the private parts of the adults named by the children as their attackers, as she makes no mention of these anywhere in her twenty-page “fact-finding” judgement. This was a deliberately selective review of the video clip evidence with the intention to continue to conceal the fact the children were able to describe – and had described – distinguishing marks on and around their named attacker’s genitals. Again, FRAUD.

    Consultant Paediatrician Dr Deborah Hodes’ report CONFIRMED the children’s allegations of inflicted anal injury from insertion of a blunt instrument of penetrative force, which were consistent with both children’s allegations of sexual abuse. Judge Pauffley’s response to this concrete evidence was a disgraceful attempt to rubbish Dr Hode’s report and to launch a vile ad hominem attack, stating: “The court must always be on guard against the over-dogmatic expert…” Such tactics are beneath contempt.

    Judge Pauffley’s judgement was/is designed to deceive and mislead the public, and is nothing more than a sham. It is fraud at such a loathsome level that it is sickening to all decent human beings.

    These crimes of fraud by these three public servants have put at risk of harm not only ella draper’s two young children, but children everywhere, and therefore all human beings.
    Their crimes are also a betrayal of public trust. As one of the public, I inform you, Director of Public Prosecutions, of the public interest in prosecuting Judge Mrs Anna Pauffley, Detective Inspector Cannon and Detective Constable Rogers for perpetrating the very serious crime of fraud, without delay.

    One of the public, and a conscious living being,

    Drifloud 20th April, 2015

    EVIDENCE: The mobile phone film recordings showing the children naming their attackers, and giving detailed knowledge of distinguishing marks on and around each of their named attackers’ private parts can be delivered to your office, along with the medical reports and police interviews of the children.
    All the other evidence incriminating Judge Pauffley, DC Rogers and DI Cannon can be found in the Judge’s own words taken from her “Care Proceedings: Fact Finding” judgement made public, 19th day of March, year 2015 – in particular the following two paragraphs:
    107.”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. DI Cannon made inquiries at my request to discover that DC Rogers, the member of his team who received the film clips and the audio recording from Mr Yaohirou, had sent them to a property store in Chingford. The focus would appear to have been upon arranging almost immediate ABE interviews.”
    108. “I say no more at this stage than that the police and social services inquiry could have taken an entirely different course if attention had been given to those recordings. At the very least, the questions asked of P and Q at interview would have been directed towards other areas of interest.”


  2. Gavin Goulburn Hamilton
    5th Baron Hamilton of Dalzell
    Betchworth House,
    Surrey. RH3 7AE.

    This is the Baron to send your allegiance to, this is not bunkum it is law Common law what the Police should be upholding. The sealing of Magna Carta 1215, provision was not just for noble men, it included everyone. Being in Rebellion the Crown authority is removed we are governed by consent not by force. Despite the fact MC 1215 is 800 years old it has been used many times, and was last invoked in 200. There has been no redress by the Crown so is still active. If anything in the ghastly situation it gives more force because under Rebellion the crown has no power. This against Social Services and the Courts, because they are treasonous the judge is treasonous and should be arrested. Friend you may laugh now but in 2017 when Euro police come into force and will be kicking your door in for no truly valid reasons.

    Bring all this against them Sabine, whatever is in our Arsenal has to be used.

    Liked by 1 person

    • It can’t possibly have passed your notice that this website is a banner of lawful rebellion. It was sparked into being by the courage of two young children who endured the most unspeakable brutality, and were then threatened with death if they spoke of the vile crimes they were being subjected to. Yet, speak out they did, PROVING their bravery, honesty and integrity – all qualities mirrored in the ACTIONS of their mother, her dedicated partner and their loyal friend Sabine; true nobility with not a title of privilege among them.
      There is no doubt in my heart, where my allegiance belongs.
      All conscious living beings hold only to what is lawful and KNOW there is, never was, and never will be any need of redress for true law, no matter what so-called Monarchs, Parliamentarians, Popes or titled aristocracy, write, say or do.
      Many have had, and are having, their doors kicked down and lives threatened( and far worse) NOW, so why concern ourselves with The Authorities proposed plans two years hence?
      And, anyone who knows the children are telling the truth cannot possibly consent to give authority to those filthy liars in the police, courts, social services, parliament, royalty, aristocracy, the media, etc.


  3. Slightly off-thread here, but..
    Birthday Wishes to Alisa

    A friend who’s very into energy waves healing – love, suggested that everyone wishing Alisa – and Gabriel of course – love and strength on 24th April, focus their attention on sending these love vibrations to the children. She says the more people doing this at the same time intensifies the energy. It’s quite difficult trying to link up everyone around the Earth at the same moment, but can I propose two particular times, say midday and 7pm GMT, for five minutes each occasion? Of course, any other times are also fine – it’s the intention/thought that counts.


  4. Here is the original article published in the Telegraph. Peers petition Queen on Europe

    Hopefully you do use the Lawful Rebellion, in doing so. What this means to Judge Pauffley, “OFFICIALS HAVE NO AUTHORITY to issue demands in the name of the crown, and commit the statutory offence of “fraud by misrepresentation”, if they try”

    Once you have sent the template letter to the named Baron by Recorded delivery, you can track it see if signed for that is your proof. Keep everything filed. Once done you have agreed to stand with the Baron. There has been no redress by the Crown “Queen” so this is active since it was invoked. In other words they are nothing.

    For the consideration of those not standing under British constitutional law when it is desperately needed to ensure its survival and our own lives.

    The entire government (imposters) and ALL public servants are today operating as OUTLAWS. This means that they have NO PROTECTION under the law. Anything can be done to an outlaw without repercussions from the law, including murder in fact. We are not suggesting we murder those not standing under the constitution of course, but this is the truth in law and those public servants should seriously think about that.


  5. These are the Barons you can send your Oath to, i chose Hamilton and he signed but nevertheless.

    Viscount Massarene John David Clotworthy Whyte-Melville Foster Skeffington, C/0 MD Barnard and Co, 150 Minories, London, EC3N-1LS

    David Manners 11th Duke of Rutland, Hadden Hall, Bakewell, Derbyshire, DE45-1LA

    Edward Barry Greynville Gibson 4th Baron Ashbourne Of Ashbourne in the County of Meath, Colebrook Barn, East Harting Farm, Nr Petersfield, Hampshire, GU31-5LU

    Gavin Goulburn Hamilton 5th Baron Hamilton of Dalzell, Betchworth House, Surrey, RH3-7AE

    They need showing enough is enough your time is up you face the wrath of the people you swine.


  6. One last thing since they have no authority have this case put before a Court de jure let the people decide tell the police “OFFICIALS HAVE NO AUTHORITY to issue demands in the name of the crown, and commit the statutory offence of “fraud by misrepresentation”, if they try”


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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