Hampstead Police Interview Retraction Analysis
The Police cover up is completely exposed by examination of the way the interviewing officer repeatedly intimidated the witness during the September 17th “retraction” interview and the conduct of the interview indicates that the police "investigative" goal was to protect the abusers from criminal prosecution and destroy the future credibility of the witness/victim G rather than to discover the truth.
The interview of September the 17th was the third interview of witness G. Witness G and his sister A had been taken into the care of the state following the previous interview of September 11th, 2014. The children are in the care of the state and the child is unaccompanied in the interview, a fact that seems extraordinary given the adversarial nature of the interview.
The taped portion of the September 17th interview lasts for 24 minutes. The first five minutes do not involve any actual questioning as the police officer seeks to explain the “ground rules” of the interview to the witness. It is absolutely clear throughout that the interviewing officer is working his way through a checklist and his sole intent is to achieve retractions from the witness with absolutely no intent to discern the truth. Zero.Hampstead Cover Up. 17.09.14. Masonic Mind Controlled "Retraction" Interview With Gabriel.
The Retractions and How They Were Produced.
Right at the start of the questioning, the interviewing officer makes it completely clear, albeit in a dishonest and disingenuous fashion, that he has been discussing witness G’s statement with witness G in the car on the way to the interview.
This is couched by the interviewing officer in a transparent manner that is typical of the entire interview as “There was something you desperately wanted to tell me on the car on the way over, do you remember?”
This is after wasting five minutes on waffle apparently to ensure that witness G is bored and impatient by the time the actual interview begins and will be more pliant, that he will be easier to “direct” as he will just say whatever is required in order to end the ordeal and be able to leave.
The counter-story is actually two mutually exclusive and incoherent sub-stories, they try to claim that the original claims were fictions coaxed by the mother’s partner whilst also claiming that the children’s claims were fantasies based on their having viewed the movie Zorro, itself a completely ludicrous claim that does not explain the claims the children made nor their physical injuries.
If we entertain the police counter-story regarding the mother’s partner coaching the children, the only plausible counter-story given that the whole Zorro thread is pure nonsense not even worthy of consideration. Why on earth would the mother’s partner coach them to say so many detailed things that go so far beyond the father? The school, the intimate details of the head-teacher’s anatomy.
Drawing of Head Teacher Kate Forsdyke, by Alisa
Ponder that, we are actually supposed to believe that someone got these children to concoct a story so detailed and at the same time irrelevant to a custody battle that it includes details of the birthmarks on the head teacher? That is pure madness. It is absolutely obvious which version of events is correct.
Interviewing Officer: (topics and content of conversation clearly predetermined prior to interview)
“So when we was (sic) in the car there was something you desperately wanted to tell me but I asked you to wait until the interview, what is it you really wanted to tell me?”
Initially witness G is on message and states that the mother’s partner told him to say that Dad hurt him really bad but he didn’t.
IO “We talked in two other interviews didn’t we?”
Witness G “Yeah”
IO “Was what you told me the truth?”
Witness G “Yeah” Affirmation 1.
IO “So all that stuff about the babies….”
Witness G “Yeah.” Affirmation 2.
IO “and the Church and all that?”
Witness G “No the babies, well the babies, there is some of the babies killed yeah.” Affirmation 3.
He is looking the interviewer directly in the eye as he states that “Yes” I was telling the truth. Witness G has affirmed it is true three times now, but the Interviewing officer is undeterred.
IO “OK, are you sure?”
Witness G Starts to bend. “Yes, but not much, not every single day, not every single day killed no. Not like that.” Affirmation 4.
What is happening at this point is very easy to read and very telling. The child is trying to tell the truth and please the adult, he can tell that the Interviewing Officer is not happy at what he is hearing, so he tries to do both. He sticks to his honest story but he tries to minimise it over and over stating things such as, “not every day” and “not all the time” and ”not that much” before the penny drops and he realises that a retraction is required, truth be damned.
Witness G has repeated his earlier allegations of murder from the previous interviews and affirmed them now four times in this interview. Anyone who truly believed the child was daydreaming would simply ask the child for the details of the story and if it came from the imagination that would be immediately clear.
The Zorro meme is nonsense, pure nonsense. Was the school head teacher appearing naked with her birth marks in the movie Zorro? Were young children raped onscreen in the movie Zorro? It is genuinely pitiful.
At this point the Interviewing officer abandons all pretense of conducting a witness interview and straight out verbals the witness with the Zorro nonsense.
IO “Cos I heard you watched a film Zorro, is that right?”
Witness G “Yeah.”
“and there was someone kill…. killed there someone was killed there.weren’t there?”
Witness G appears confused at this point and seems to react very strangely at the time the IO says “kill, killed”..
IO “Because it sounded to me like, what it sounded to me was similar to the story you told about the babies. And that’s why I was a bit (sic) wondering wondering. are babies actually killed?”
Witness G “Yeah”. Fifth affirmation. Ignored.
IO “or is that something you’ve been made to say?”
Witness G ”Yeah it is something I was made to say.” Verballed 100%.
IO “Are babies being killed?”
Witness G.”No, not much but there is yeah.” Sixth affirmation.
IO “By who?”
Witness G “By my dad. Not much” Seventh affirmation.
The interviewing officer inexplicably completely refuses to pursue the obvious line of questioning here. He has been told that the father specifically killed babies, neither pertain to the movie Zorro, so any reasonable interviewer would solicit further details, When did it happen? Where did it happen? Who else was there? What time of the day did it happen? What day of the week? How many times? etc and if the story was not true it would obviously collapse under scrutiny once all those details were provided.
IO “Are you sure? It’s ok If it hasn’t happened it’s ok as long as we talk about it now.”
This is a disgrace and should be grounds for immediate dismissal alone. Seven affirmations, details provided and he is now implicitly threatening the witness. ”It will be ok as long as we talk about it now.” Clearly implies that if we don’t “talk about it now” that is if you do not retract things will not be ok, it could not be clearer.
In the face of barely veiled threats, having reaffirmed seven times even upon prolonged badgering, Witness G finally understands what he is supposed to say and now debunks the “dead babies” claim obeying the obvious instructions of the Interviewing Officer. The Retraction follows.
IO. “What about the secret rooms? Are there any secret rooms?”
Witness G. “Not much. Well there is but not much.” The pattern from retraction one is repeated, only this time the process begins at the stage where Witness G is minimising but affirming, it was only after four affirmations of the dead babies claim that he began to minimise.
IO “What do you mean? Have you ever been in a secret room in one of those places.?”
Witness G.”It”s not a kind of secret room.”
IO “Shall we start with the church, you told me there was sort of a secret room,”
Witness G. “Yeah there is there” at this point the child receives a non verbal signal that he is saying the wrong thing, becomes confused and starts shaking his head and immediately contradicts what he has just said. “No there isn’t there isn’t.” He was about to describe it before he realised that he was saying the wrong thing. What follows is quite simply a bullied retraction.
3. The Abuse in the Disabled Changing Room at the Swimming Pool.
The interviewing officer asks Witness G about an allegation previously made regarding being abused in the disabled toilets of a local swimming pool.
Witness G.”That was true, that happened.”
IO. “But you were only four years old you weren’t in the school?”
Witness G. “My sister was in the school.”
When Witness G does not fold upon being challenged, the Interviewing Officer drops the entire subject and returns to safe ground asking Witness G to restate the retractions he has already made. It really sticks out that the officer does not even bother to coach a retraction of this allegation nor does the Interviewing Officer show any interest in investigating the claims. Once it becomes clear that a quick easy retraction will not be forthcoming the subject is simply dropped. It is quite simply impossible for an honest or sincere investigator to drop all interest in an allegation without reason and return to previous retractions as the Interviewing Officer does at this point.
4. The Bruises
During the “retraction” section of the interview Witness G is asked about the bruises on his bottom and states he has no idea how they occurred, there is a gap in the coaching here and the child has no answer. If there were an innocent explanation for the injuries 100% the child would know, when a little child hurts themselves, they make a massive deal out of it and remember it, if he fell off a swing or off a skateboard he would 100% remember it and boast about it “I was going really fast downhill on my bike and I lost control it hurt really badly.” These type of incidents are the highlights of the young child’s life and boasting about their minor accidents and injuries is one of the favourite topics of conversation for a child. It is therefore telling that witness G cannot say how he got the bruising.
5. Plastic willies.
Interviewing Officer ”How did you find out about plastic willies? Who told you bout plastic willies?
Witness G. “Nobody, that’s true.”
At which point the same routine of intimidation and retraction is repeated.
IO. ”Because I’ve been told something different.”
Witness G. “By (sister)?”
IO. “Yes. Look honestly, you can just be truthful..”
It is sickening. It is obvious and it is criminal.
A Repeating Pattern
The pattern of the Police Interview is very clear. Repeatedly during the interview witness G affirms the allegations he has previously made, the interviewing officer has clearly predetermined that the allegations are to be quashed at any cost and the tool that is used is intimidation.
The interviewing officer succeeded in his goal of intimidating the witness into retracting the claims and has probably destroyed the accounts of witness G as evidence. It is very easy to intimidate a child but the officer has made it absolutely obvious his intent, and it is not directed towards the discovery of the truth in the slightest. Quite the opposite.
Scrutiny of the counter story that the interviewing officer and his comrades in the cover up conducted reveal that they have created a story that is completely ludicrous and incoherent in a blatant attempt to obfuscate the truth and protect the abusers.
It is worth remembering that if there is no crime, there is no need for a cover up, no need to badger witnesses, to concoct a story that makes absolutely no sense, no need to intimidate, no need for any of this nonsense and the conduct of the September 17th interview is in itself powerful prima facie evidence that the claims made by the children G and A are based in the truth. It is inescapable, that the police involved in this interview believed there was truth to the claims and sought to debunk them in any way possible and that all ethical considerations were entirely abandoned by the Officers involved in this case.
The Interviewing officer deserves to be professionally destroyed for his conduct of this interview .The destruction of this Officer’s career would not begin to compensate for the wanton vandalism of truth and justice this minor league factotum for organised crime has conducted. All the Police Involved in this investigation should face instant dismissal if not Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice Charges.
I have no idea how they are able to live with themselves. It is very rare that we get to see “Criminal police’ in action in the present and yet here they are in the flesh. The same police force that would not prosecute Saville, Smith, Hayman and so many others are still at it aren’t they? As the Coleman Experience would put it “they are up to their neck in filth” there is no other possible explanation.
aangirfan: MIND CONTROL, SATANISM, 7/7, TAVISTOCK, CAROL MYERS
Aangirfan: HAMSTEAD STORY PLAUSIBLE
Aangirfan: HAMPSTEAD, FINDERS, DUTROUX, FRANKLIN – ‘ALL TRUE’
Aangirfan: GABRIEL INTERVIEWED BY POLICE
Aangirfan: HAMPSTEAD AREA GANGS
Aangirfan: CHILD RAPES AT FLATS LINKED TO MI5 – DOLPHIN SQUARE IN PIMLICO
Aangirfan: JIHADI JOHN AND HAMPSTEAD
Aangirfan: CLIFF RICHARD; MIND CONTROL; ISRAEL
Aangirfan: GRANDPARENTS OF ALISA AND GABRIEL; ISIS
aangirfan: Michael Aquino, alleged child sex abuse and the United States military
Filthy Britain’s Satanic Secrets | thecolemanexperience
Aangirfan: COVER-UP; CIA, MOSSAD, MI5, MI6; SAVILE AND JACONELLI; AMSTERDAM SEX
Aangirfan: SECURITY SERVICE ‘PROTECTED TOP CHILD ABUSERS’
Aangirfan: SATANIC CHILD RAPE IN WALES
Ex-MI6 chief named as sexual abuser of boys at Dolphin Square | ExaroNews
aangirfan: CYRIL SMITH, JIMMY SAVILE, SATANIC ORGIES, HINDLEY AND BRADY, MADELEINE McCANN
Why has paedophile Greville Janner been allowed to escape justice? | thecolemanexperience
perverting the course of justice | UK Criminal Law Blog
Perverting the course of justice
The People’s History: The Finders Cult
The Paedophile Father of Alisa and Gabriel* | Hwaairfan’s Blog
Perverting the course of justice – Crime and Justice
Comment from: [Member]
The children were telling the truth from the begining.
Form is loading...