Sabine McNeill Interview Part 2! - Whistleblower for Hampstead Child Abuse Scandal!

a reply to: and14263

The remark about the cost of the trial was meant to underscore that the INITIAL investigative techniques were very poor and coercive (that point is probably made better in the linked article than I made it) and created a situation that got wildly out of control. And it took the courts $15 million dollars and 7 years to untangle what ineffective investigators could not do at the initial reports of child abuse.

Let alone the emotional toll on the kids that had to testify and endure the whole long, needlessly drawn out process. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the court didn't use videotaped testimony in the McMartin trial (like they do nowadays) to lessen the emotional impact of the legal process on kids...

My point is that TODAY, people that investigate allegations of child abuse have learned (somewhat) how to not let a witch hunt and hysteria run the show. And that it's possible (and likely) these kids were molested, but take the whole 'Satanic Illuminati Coverup' thing with a grain of salt.

It's possible that the household of these Hampstead kids was abusive and neglectful - and allowed them to see some bizarre and inappropriate "Rosemary's Baby" type horror movies on TV (quite a pervasive and accessible genre right now - Occult Horror movies). Coupled with what could have been very real sexual abuse by the mom's boyfriend -- well ...

All I'm saying is that whatever the "real" story is, it probably lies somewhere between two extremes.

I posted this link in the other thread but thought I would post it here as well. I hadn't seen this before, not sure what to make of it. It's less than a minute long.

zeeklytv.com...

originally posted by: midicon
I posted this link in the other thread but thought I would post it here as well. I hadn't seen this before, not sure what to make of it. It's less than a minute long.

zeeklytv.com...

Hi, it's not playing on my screen, perhaps it has been removed?

WORKS NOW. Must have been my connection. No audio here though


Mind giving me a brief idea of what it's about?

a reply to: and14263

It's confusing. Gabriel is prompted by Abraham, a few mumbled words like 'go on'. Gabriel is saying something like

'Alisa, Alisa papa's not here, Alisa look, where is he? Alisa where is papa, look this is not papa, Alisa that's not papa just tell the truth please. Look papa is he here? no. Alisa tell the truth please. Is this papa, is it Ricky Dearman? no. Look, ( a mumbled name from Gabriel ) ........ mama and papa hemp are protecting you and to help them protect yourself and protect them, protect all of us. Alisa tell the truth please. Because their in a group. If the group lie, things will start to go wrong, get wrong, things will happen wrong, and you might, and you might, break a glass. You might hurt yourself'. As he says this Abraham intervenes and says. ' Tell her, what about the babies? ' and Gabriel says to Alisa ' and you might get back your payment for the babies, you might get killed or something.'

Best I can do. That little boy looks stressed out and under a lot of pressure. He is urging his sister to go along with whatever he is saying. My heart goes out to him, he is in a desperate situation.

Perhaps someone can help me with the mumbled name. It sounded as if he is mentioning a third person.

a reply to: midicon

Cheers midicon.

Although as suspected it hurt my brain.

originally posted by: GuanoLoco

My point is that TODAY, people that investigate allegations of child abuse have learned (somewhat) how to not let a witch hunt and hysteria run the show. And that it's possible (and likely) these kids were molested, but take the whole 'Satanic Illuminati Coverup' thing with a grain of salt.

Exactly. But even after seeing the police interview with Gabriel dated the 17th, Im not sure if they were even sexually abused.
Im of the opinion now that they suffered physical abuse at the hands of Abraham, and the mother, in her misplaced love for this nasty bloke, put him before the welfare of her children.

Given that interview with Gabriel and what he says about his mother being angry, to the point of hating Gabriel was very very telling.

When I was around 12 my mum met a bloke, I never liked him, he was an alcoholic and verbally abusive towards my mum, and when my mum wasnt around he was always nasty to me, not physically abusive, at least not until we came to having a fight when i was 15, it was because I could see right through him. He wasnt physically abusive at least not till the very end, but he was a nasty piece of work, I was the only one that could see it, my mum was invested in her "love" for him. She finally saw the light when he almost broke my nose. I still have the scar on my nose as a memento. But I have seen first hand how a mother could put a man before her own children.

When he finally did come home and attack me, he said "alright you have won" and wanted to beat up a 15 year old boy.
It cost me a reasonable amount of blood, but it was a price I was happy to pay.

a reply to: OneManArmy

I wonder where all this leaves the much maligned father. He might not be such a devil after all. I did notice that the mother's account of his behaviour toward the children was not so damming. She complained about diet and a suspect account of something when one of the children was a baby.

I know much has been made about his record and non molestation order but no one has heard his side. She could be a nutcase, in fact she probably is. I do wonder at why the father has not been given custody if in fact the couple were in a custody battle. It wouldn't be so strange if the father was entirely innocent and was given custody, there would be an instant cry of cover up. Perhaps that scenario is a non starter. I don't know what to make of it. If the court's hand the kids over to the grandparents to be taken to Russia then the mother and boyfriend would have access to them.

originally posted by: midicon

I know much has been made about his record and non molestation order but no one has heard his side. She could be a nutcase, in fact she probably is.

This is exactly why trial by internet is NOT a good idea.
One thing this case has highlighted to me more than anything else, is how easy totally innocent people can be dragged into something that they have nothing to do with.
And how well meaning people, with the best intentions in the world, can be fooled because of the emotional response that cases like this invoke.

originally posted by: TechUnique
I honestly don't know what to think anymore :/

Just based on the fact that you are willing to look at this objectively is a huge boost to your credibility. I honestly thought you were all about milking You tube views, and this was just a means to an end, but it's obvious that you are emotionally invested in this.

Hurting a child is the most vile thing that can be done, but making those accusations falsely is a close second. It can diminish other real claims and possibly leave a real child with real problems all alone.

Satanic ritual abuse and eating babies is such a wild accusation it's almost impossible to believe. And it's a crime that cannot help but leave evidence if real.

I just felt the need to offer kudos to your efforts and honesty.

originally posted by: network dude

Hurting a child is the most vile thing that can be done, but making those accusations falsely is a close second.

I just felt the need to offer kudos to your efforts and honesty.

Now that is the truth.

I feel exactly the same way.

a reply to: OneManArmy

Regards that transcript I posted.

I have just realised that he is not urging his sister to go along with what he is saying. He is acting as if he is...for the camera. These children have been coached. At one point he is repeating the words to himself and at others he is saying a phrase repeatedly to get it right. I also notice in videos that they call their father Ricky Dearman sometimes it is as if they have to mention his name when really they can just say papa. In that video he says to Alisa ' is Ricky Dearman here?'. It isn't natural and it doesn't quite make sense or flow because he is following a script and stumbling a little.

Edit to add

The establishments named by the children may be ones the mother has had problems with. She is a strict vegan and would hate MacDonalds and shoe shops. She may have a history with the school and church.

originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: OneManArmy

Regards that transcript I posted.

I have just realised that he is not urging his sister to go along with what he is saying. He is acting as if he is...for the camera. These children have been coached. At one point he is repeating the words to himself and at others he is saying a phrase repeatedly to get it right. I also notice in videos that they call their father Ricky Dearman sometimes it is as if they have to mention his name when really they can just say papa. In that video he says to Alisa ' is Ricky Dearman here?'. It isn't natural and it doesn't quite make sense or flow because he is following a script and stumbling a little.

Yes, the videos made by Abraham seem to be coached, and rehearsed, which is exactly what Gabriel says in the police interview, when not under threat of Abraham.
The police interview was impeccably carried out IMO, and I have the utmost respect for the police officer whose job it is to get to the bottom of this.
When the importance of being honest was explained to and understood by Gabriel, the real truth actually came out.
Which was that Abraham made them say it. Theres things he said that never actually happened regarding plastic willies and real willies that I cannot explain for fear of breaking T&C's regarding "graphic sex acts", but needless to say, he came clean and said THEY NEVER REALLY HAPPENED, ABRAHAM TOLD THEM TO SAY IT.
He went on to say his father didnt really abuse him. He said the secret rooms didnt really exist. Not all of them at first, but when gently pressed and reminded the importance of telling the truth, he says they dont exist.

The case literally falls apart before your very eyes.
And NO POLICE OFFICER IN THE LAND, would seek a prosecution or further investigation of the childrens "satanic" claims.
But then I could see a very plausible reason to put Abraham in the frame and to investigate how the mother let this happen in the first place.

Others who had seen this video had come to the same conclusion much earlier.
If I had seen that interview sooner, Id have done too.

The kids didnt recant their stories for some unknown reason, it was because they knew they could tell the truth, and Abraham wouldnt hurt them. Gabriel was even hoping to never have to see Abraham again.

And on top of that, I fear with what I know about what actually does go on in the UK care system, the poor kids nightmares are only beginning.

The more I think of it, the sadder it is.

With regards to the McDonalds, there were a lot of people in Hampstead against it, it took a 12 or 13 year battle(depending on what article you read) to get the green light. And with her being a vegan, yes I would say that would be a likely scenario.

I would hope so too, because I have eaten at the East Finchley McDonalds on many occasions.

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: OneManArmy

Regards that transcript I posted.

I have just realised that he is not urging his sister to go along with what he is saying. He is acting as if he is...for the camera. These children have been coached. At one point he is repeating the words to himself and at others he is saying a phrase repeatedly to get it right. I also notice in videos that they call their father Ricky Dearman sometimes it is as if they have to mention his name when really they can just say papa. In that video he says to Alisa ' is Ricky Dearman here?'. It isn't natural and it doesn't quite make sense or flow because he is following a script and stumbling a little.

Yes, the videos made by Abraham seem to be coached, and rehearsed, which is exactly what Gabriel says in the police interview, when not under threat of Abraham.
The police interview was impeccably carried out IMO, and I have the utmost respect for the police officer whose job it is to get to the bottom of this.
When the importance of being honest was explained to and understood by Gabriel, the real truth actually came out.
Which was that Abraham made them say it. Theres things he said that never actually happened regarding plastic willies and real willies that I cannot explain for fear of breaking T&C's regarding "graphic sex acts", but needless to say, he came clean and said THEY NEVER REALLY HAPPENED, ABRAHAM TOLD THEM TO SAY IT.
He went on to say his father didnt really abuse him. He said the secret rooms didnt really exist. Not all of them at first, but when gently pressed and reminded the importance of telling the truth, he says they dont exist.

The case literally falls apart before your very eyes.
And NO POLICE OFFICER IN THE LAND, would seek a prosecution or further investigation of the childrens "satanic" claims.
But then I could see a very plausible reason to put Abraham in the frame and to investigate how the mother let this happen in the first place.

Others who had seen this video had come to the same conclusion much earlier.
If I had seen that interview sooner, Id have done too.

The kids didnt recant their stories for some unknown reason, it was because they knew they could tell the truth, and Abraham wouldnt hurt them. Gabriel was even hoping to never have to see Abraham again.

And on top of that, I fear with what I know about what actually does go on in the UK care system, the poor kids nightmares are only beginning.

The more I think of it, the sadder it is.

With regards to the McDonalds, there were a lot of people in Hampstead against it, it took a 12 or 13 year battle(depending on what article you read) to get the green light. And with her being a vegan, yes I would say that would be a likely scenario.

I would hope so too, because I have eaten at the East Finchley McDonalds on many occasions.

There are a number of ways to figure this out. Do all those people involved have the markings and tattoos on their privates that the kids said they do. Have a doctor examine them for sexual abuse. Its pretty simple actually.

Also the McDonalds close 2 months after these kids admitted these things.

originally posted by: dominicus

There are a number of ways to figure this out. Do all those people involved have the markings and tattoos on their privates that the kids said they do. Have a doctor examine them for sexual abuse. Its pretty simple actually.

Also the McDonalds close 2 months after these kids admitted these things.

The McDonalds closed in 2013. The kids claims came out in 2014.
The McDonalds closed before the claims ever came out.
Apparently someone already did examine Gabriel, but then Gabriel says he doesnt know why they would have said he had been sexually abused, because he hadnt. EVER.

Now with that as your "evidence" could you even consider entertaining this wild fantasy(its just my opinion) given Gabriels testimony?
I couldnt. Not honestly and with a straight face go and ask a school teacher if I can start taking photos of her "private parts" to prove or disprove a case that has already fallen apart.

If you guys could help me come up with some really hard hitting questions for Sabine that would be cool. Not loaded questions aimed at discrediting her, but precise and calculated questions that will show for sure whether she is being honest or not and whether she is willing to look at this objectively.

So far I want to ask her the following:

- How do you think Abraham's previous criminal record effects the validity of the children's claims before retraction? Do you think it is possible that he has abused the children?

- How do you think reports of the mother locking the children outside in the cold for hours effects the validity of the claims?

- How do you think the reports of Abraham being abusive to the children effects the validity of the claims?

- Do you think it is possible that the scarring could be a result of Abraham being abusive, not sexually but in a physically violent sense?

- Why does the date of McDonalds closing not add up to your claims that it closed after the abuse scandal came to light?

- Do you think it is possible that the story has been fabricated in order to cover up abuse at the hands of the mother and Abraham?

Any help with questions would be much appreciated, I am sure I could get another interview with Sabine pretty much whenever I wanted, but I know it could be my last chance so I want to be prepared.

EDIT TO ADD: I want to ascertain whether or not Sabine is being honest. I think that would be a good start seeing as I can't get access to anyone else involved in the case.

originally posted by: TechUnique
If you guys could help me come up with some really hard hitting questions for Sabine that would be cool. Not loaded questions aimed at discrediting her, but precise and calculated questions that will show for sure whether she is being honest or not and whether she is willing to look at this objectively.

So far I want to ask her the following:

- How do you think Abraham's previous criminal record effects the validity of the children's claims before retraction? Do you think it is possible that he has abused the children?

- How do you think reports of the mother locking the children outside in the cold for hours effects the validity of the claims?

- How do you think the reports of Abraham being abusive to the children effects the validity of the claims?

- Do you think it is possible that the scarring could be a result of Abraham being abusive, not sexually but in a physically violent sense?

- Why does the date of McDonalds closing not add up to your claims that it closed after the abuse scandal came to light?

- Do you think it is possible that the story has been fabricated in order to cover up abuse at the hands of the mother and Abraham?

Any help with questions would be much appreciated, I am sure I could get another interview with Sabine pretty much whenever I wanted, but I know it could be my last chance so I want to be prepared.

The thing with a narcissistic personality disorder, which either the mother or Abraham or both have IMO, is incapable of doing something wrong. It will deflect blame by ANY means. And by God, this is one case that shows the extent to me at least, how far someone will go to deflect blame.


As for questions to Sabine.
I really dont know where to begin.

EDIT:

Yes I do, the interview with Gabriel on the 17th.

I would ask her, "How could the police possibly take this case against the father and the best part of Hampstead seriously, with the testimony given by Gabriel in that interview as evidence?"

This whole case falls apart with that interview. IMO. I willing to let due process take its course. This has hurt enough people already.

a reply to: TechUnique

I would ask. Is the father still trying for custody?

Is there any news about Theresa May's involvement?

Has the school changed any staff? ( this was something she claimed)

Are the grandparents still in the running for custody?

If they get it would the mother's access be monitored?

Is the mother in Morocco? Why Morocco?



Does she have any doubts about this case?

a reply to: OneManArmy

And on top of that, I fear with what I know about what actually does go on in the UK care system, the poor kids nightmares are only beginning.

Faint hope I know, but the publicity might protect them.

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: dominicus

There are a number of ways to figure this out. Do all those people involved have the markings and tattoos on their privates that the kids said they do. Have a doctor examine them for sexual abuse. Its pretty simple actually.

Also the McDonalds close 2 months after these kids admitted these things.

The McDonalds closed in 2013. The kids claims came out in 2014.
The McDonalds closed before the claims ever came out.
Apparently someone already did examine Gabriel, but then Gabriel says he doesnt know why they would have said he had been sexually abused, because he hadnt. EVER.

Now with that as your "evidence" could you even consider entertaining this wild fantasy(its just my opinion) given Gabriels testimony?
.

Here's what I would do. 3 independent Medical examiners to see if they were sexually abused, so as to defeat bias or insider connections

I couldnt. Not honestly and with a straight face go and ask a school teacher if I can start taking photos of her "private parts" to prove or disprove a case that has already fallen apart

Yes, I could. THIS IS AN EXTREMELY SERIOUS MATTER AND SEEING IF THE PRIVATE PARTS MATCH THE CHILDRENS DESCRIPTION IS THE NAIL IN THE COFFIN.

Those same 3 indepednent inbiased examiners can easily perform these same duties as they are trained to see these sorts of things. Nail in the coffin right there.

All of this needs to be done ASAP and until the people named to be involved are matched up against the descriptions of the children, and until we have indy/unbiased medical confirmation of child abuse, then the virdict is out.

I personally am friends with a sexual abuse counselor who has shown the videos to his colleagues and based on the body language, tone, context, they are all in agreement that the kids are telling a desensitized truth. THESE ARE PROFESSIONALS!!!!!

GO take these Vids to any professional sexual abuse experts and ask them their opinion and see what happens.

This stuff is for real!!!!!

originally posted by: OneManArmy


As for questions to Sabine.
I really dont know where to begin.

EDIT:

Yes I do, the interview with Gabriel on the 17th.

I would ask her, "How could the police possibly take this case against the father and the best part of Hampstead seriously, with the testimony given by Gabriel in that interview as evidence?"

This whole case falls apart with that interview. IMO. I willing to let due process take its course. This has hurt enough people already.

The interview on the 17th is staged. Its obvious the cops have programmed the kids on what to say or not to say. There is an interview with the grandparents and even they said, the kids are freaked out, whispering, need permission to ask or say anything, they are being controlled and the grandparents of all people are saying these are not the same grandchildren (they weren't even aloud to be given any sweets)

All evidence is pointing to those kids really having gone through this. Ted Gunderson ex-FBI head admitted this goes on in the States. Anonymous has a ton of evidence that this is going on in UK, the word is out in the MSM, Jimmy Sivelle, other witnesses and whistle blowers are out there.

Seriously are you a shill or sleep walking at all?

This stuff is real and if I lived in UK I would right now, RIGHT AT THIS MOMENT, organizing some staged event to get those kids out of the hands of the crooked Government, I'd corner each of those individuals named with a camera and have them reveal themselves, I'd go into self justice vigilante mode to be quite honest and really start breaking this thing wide open.

I'm actually talking to some people that live there and they are organizing and coming up with plans to make certain things happen.