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?
• 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.