Thursday, March 12, 2015



Early in February of this year, I came across videos of a 9-year old girl A. and his 8-year old brother G., living in Hampstead, London, telling a horrendous story about their having been sexually abused multiple times over the course of many years by their father and more recently by dozens of other adults, as well as having been forced to take part in multiple satanic ritual murders of babies. According to the children, members of staff of their school, parents of fellow pupils, members of children's care institutions and other local officials are all in this network of abusers. A. and G. give detailed descriptions of the abuser's naked bodies, including things like tattoos on intimate parts. And they produce drawings like this one:

Now this is a story that few people will believe at first sight. It is simply too grotesque and too gruesome. Even so, obviously something is very wrong here. If it's a hoax, then it is a very sick and disturbing one. Let's have a closer look.

The children's mother E. and her then boyfriend Ab. claim that during the summer of 2014, they succeeded, with great difficulty, in extracting the above mentioned story from them, despite threats of the father that he would kill them if they would ever talk about it. E. and Ab. make videos of the children giving all kind of horrifying details.

After the summer holidays, they contact the police. A twofold investigation is now carried out: A. and G. are questioned by the police and they are medically examined. The questioning leads to the same story as the children told their mother and her partner. The examination reveals injuries like anal scarring which may well indicate long-term sexual abuse.

Some days later, the police claim to have received a disturbing telephone call, warning them that the children hate the mother's partner Ab. so much, that they would want to kill him. This leads to them being taken away from the mother and her partner and placed in local authority foster-care.

Up to this point, I can follow the police's logic. But now things get weird.

A few days later, A. and G. are again questioned by the police. This time, they retract their story, and now they blame Ab. for having coached them into telling the things they told the first time. Again some days later, the police close the case, concluding: 'crime not confirmed'.

We may assume that according to the police's investigation and subsequent decisions, the mother's partner Ab. is the 'bad guy'. He is the one to be held accountable for setting the children up to tell a horrible but apparently fabricated story. But then their decision to close the case is very odd. One would expect that Ab. would be arrested on account of having coached the children to tell gruesome details about things they shouldn't even know that exist. And since the medical examination did indeed reveal injuries pointing to long-term sexual abuse, we must assume that 'someone must have done it', either the 'bad guy' Ab. or someone else. Maybe Ab. is evil enough to have abused the children himself?

Let's for a moment assume that this is the case. Why then would he set the children up to telling such a story? It would mean an immediate end to his sexual 'pleasures' and on top of that, he would risk that in the end the finger would be pointed to himself. Maybe the mother found out about the abuse and together they concocted this story as some sort of kinky 'escape'? Highly unlikely and non-sensical. Or maybe Ab. wasn't the abuser, and the mother simply wanted to destroy the father's career. In that case, setting the children up to tell such an extremely gruesome story would seem like a very unwise way to do so, wouldn't it? And such an explanation doesn't explain the injuries.

Another strange twist in the unfolding of events is that the father is now given the right to see his children twice as often as before. This obviously means that the police do not suspect him in any way to have abused his children, even though the mother had repeatedly applied for a non-molestation order on his behalf since 2009, the details of which can be read here:

One would expect that A. and G.'s safety would have top priority to the extent that they would be brought to a location where they would be safe beyond the shadow of a doubt. In their case, the most obvious location would be the home of their grandparents in Rostov, Russia, as the grandparents themselves explain here:

Yet another bewildering thing is that the police and judicial system do not decide to check the children's description of the alleged abusers' naked bodies. This could easily be done and would provide very strong evidence for or against their allegations.

Yet something else that seems strange is the way the children's retraction came about. Here is a critical analysis of the process: And there are more strange things, but let's stop here.

The story goes on. In November, the mother contacts McKenzie Friend Sabine McNeill, who helps her to try to re-open the case. When this attempts fails, in January 2015 it is decided to put a 'Position Statement' online:

In February, someone leaks the videos of A. and G.'s statements to the internet. One of the videos placed on YouTube gets over 280,000 views in record time. This time, the police and the judicial system spring into action immediately. First, nine (!) policemen go to the mother's house in an attempt to arrest her, without a warrant. The attempt fails and the mother flees the country. McKenzie Friend Sabine McNeill is warned by a friend and also flees the country. Next, international arrest warrants are issued against both women for having been instrumental in making A. and G.'s story public. On top of this, YouTube starts removing many of the children's videos and Facebook blocks both of Sabine McNeill's accounts.

I can understand the logic in removing videos that violate the privacy of one or more individuals whose guilt in an alleged crime hasn't been proven, even though the measures taken by YouTube and Facebook seem draconic in this particular context, but I find the behaviour of police and judicial system highly illogical from the perspective of common sense justice. The only logical explanation I can think of is an attempt to cover things up.

What I can understand from the point of view of logic is that Ab. did use a degree of violence in forcing the children to tell their story. This is explained here:, and I can understand that in circumstances as described here not everyone acts in a perfect way all the time. What I can also understand is that the children may have come to hate Ab. for having forced them to tell their story, thereby losing what sense of 'security' they had that they would not be killed as long as they would keep their mouths shut.

Personally, I believed from the start that A. and G.'s story is basically true. This is because I had done some internet investigation a few years earlier, when the crimes of Jimmy Savile came to the surface after his death in 2011. Here are just a few examples of the many stories that can be found, always pointing to the same: the existence of a very large global network of very powerful people who indulge in rituals whereby children are sexually abused and killed:

Satanic elite and ritual child abuse (German documentary, Dutch subtitles) (One of the victims, Naomie, recalls a meeting of her abusive father with Marc Dutroux. Both are clearly part of a network.)

Excerpt: Deborah, with English subtitles:

Satanic human sacrifice fbi raid 1998 (Halfway this video there is even an excerpt from a 'snuff movie'. Warning: extremely graphic. I had to stop watching it.)

Institutional child abuse: (The story of A. and G. placed in a context of similar stories, each of which may be difficult to believe, but the cumulative effect of all of these stories is compelling.)

There are many more similar stories that everyone who wants to do some research him- or herself can easily find.

If there is anything positive about A. and G.'s story having come to the surface, it may be that it will uncover things that have been going on far too long and that must stop as soon as possible. I sincerely hope that this will be the eventual result. And I also hope that the children A. and G. will be allowed to live with their grandparents as soon as possible. Here is a petition about this subject: Please sign it, if you haven't done so already.

                                                                                                     Ed de Boer, Alkmaar, The Netherlands; March 6, 2015