She doesn't like to be called Grace, her middle name. Why would anybody use a middle name for a 9-year-old, particularly when she doesn't like to be? Was this a name used by clients?
Why were the police interviewing a 9-year-old so late at night when under normal circumstances the child would be tired and at least ready for, if not already in bed, and even if it's a Friday night? She looked tired, she did not want to be there, and was therefore under duress.
The police officer clarifies with the child as to the difference between a truth and a lie. A 9-year-old child is below the age of responsibility and thus cannot be expected to understand this.
He then goes on to explain to the child that she will not get in trouble for anything so long as she tells him now anything he should know. Again, she is below the age of responsibility.
She then indicates that she doesn't understand. Again, a 9-year-old would not be expected to understand.
So far, it is my conclusion that the child was effectively being interviewed under caution.
Okay, this is a long interview and it very quickly went into some very gory stuff. Now, one thing I've noticed about the cop is that he's regularly going, "riiight" or "oookay". If it were an adult being questioned then, while it may not be proper or fair there is more scope to question, say mental health, and wonder if the person is sane. Here, we're talking about a child who is making very serious allegations and at no point thus far has the officer taken it seriously. As I said, it's long so I'll just highlight some poignant issues.
Let lone her describing what could have been a katana, hanging babies upside-down and whatnot else, the child mentioned a goblet. That is an extremely intricate detail which absolutely defines an occult practice. It would be interesting to know what material it was made of (pewter, silver... gold?). Even markings on it could identify a specific cult, but oddly enough the officer did not even think to ask about it.
It would be expected that any child of that age would not know about anything like this. Here, she is talking in great detail about very gory activities involving children which should, by all standards, cause her to become upset. Alas, she was clearly conditioned enough to either see it as normal or it just no longer upsets her.
She talks about what they do with the bones. Using them for carvings and statues has Freemsonry all over it. Actually, I still recall a suspicious moment in my life a few years ago when I wondered about a neighbour who was relaying his small drive with gravel. I have seen "gravel" before which, in all honesty, looked like bones. Gravel for driveways is possibly a common means of disposing of and concealing such evidence.
She mentions jewellery, tattoos, birthmarks and/or scars around privates. If a 9-year-old child can correctly identify such details about a person's private place then that is highly incriminating. Therefore, it is forensic evidence.
She explains that a particular person drives a Porsche. What sort of teachers or clergies drive a Porsche?
Then she's talking about the house and how they do sex in an underground area. So the cop asks, "how do you know they do sex there?" So she replies, quite sternly for that matter, "because they took me there to do sex". Not just conventional sex, because it doesn't hurt, but using plastic willies so that that it does hurt. Children do not make this stuff up.
She stated that her and the brother were not particularly trusted. Now who would distrust such young children anyway? They did not trust her because she's too smart.
What sort of copper asks a child "so what is sex?" when she has already vividly detailed dildos and touching each others' privates? Then she says they hit them in between the legs with a wooden stick, so he asks, "is that sex?" - she then replies with something like "no, no, sex is like when they stick the plastic willies up our bums*. So what does he then ask? So what is your bum? When a child makes such a statement, she should not be expected to clarify that the bum is where the poo comes out. And then we have to consider the medical evidence which has proven that her, and the brother, have anal scarring. Is this guy for fucking real or what?
And I'm not only 40 minutes into this long interview. To think that they're keeping her there until 1am.
I'm fucking livid. I need a break already and I'm not even there having to go through that nonsense. I'll get back to it later and maybe write more stuff down. So I'll leave it it with this for now...
The child was under duress and she didn't know it because she was too young to understand. That was not an interview, it was an unlawful interrogation.
Well I'm sorry if they're corrupt, complacent and compromised. They couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery, let alone investigate systematic torture of children.
Well I can't be bothered to look into the technicalities of the jargon, but either way if a child can correctly identify markings in the pubic area of teachers and clergies then something is clearly very wrong. Personally, if a child said that a man had exposed himself and that he has a tattoo on his penis, the description fit my own and I had been brought into it, then the first thing I would probably do is go to my doctor and show him that I do not have a tattoo on my penis. What I'm saying is that those accused should be checked for such markings because a child has made extremely serious allegations. Maybe it's not forensic per-se, but it's certainly evidence.
Listen, you need some sleep , you can't handle what's going on, this it's how you properly interview children that have been sexually abused, do some research on the correct way to get the real story out, if you need to you may need to check into your doctor, get a check up from the neck up, there's no reason to type in bold or cuss, this stuff is sick, I don't want it to be true, but I believe these kids are telling the truth,
Why would I need to do that? Because I have PTSD after delving into this hideous subject?
Sorry, but... the child had no attorney, she was at a police station until at least 1am, she was below the age of responsibility and thus could not be questioned under caution. As serious as the matter is, I'm not even sure that it would be legal for this interview to be released by the police because it involves a minor. So why was it released anyway? Why was she placed under duress? I've brought these issues up not because I question the interview techniques as such, but rather because she's a child and should never have been put in that position, most certainly not without a solicitor. Excuse me for calling the police out on this.
Do you guys think she is the same kid as in the commercial? She sure looks like the same girl. Breaks my heart if this is true. Then again this whole thing is breaking my heart and making me beyond furious and frustrated with the slow process of anything happening about it.
I can tell you one thing about the girl in the kart... that is a child who has cried a lot and seemingly for once is happy. She looks like a child who has been in a bad home and has been taken on an outing by Social Services. I've been there, I know how it feels.
Heartbreaking. I've seen the police interview with the children, there is no doubt they are telling the truth. That interview is on the website mentioned at the end of the video.
Wait, hang on... having watched only 40 minutes of her police interview, she explicitly describes a Porsche several times. Given the subject matter and how sensitive it is, if that is her in the advert then it beggars belief that she would be flaunted in a car advertisement, it seems so deliberate.
Well she apparently retracted everything, she now asserts that it is not her child. Regardless, this is an extremely fishy scenario whichever way it's looked at, be it the Hampstead case itself or the advert.
Oh look, somebody saw "Hampstead" in the title and downvoted it. Sheesh, we really do need to get this out there because it will be swept away if we slacken off.
Vigilia_Procuratio ago
Okay, I'm breaking down Alisa's police interview.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6x4hxV2JfsY
Firstly; the child has no attorney present.
She doesn't like to be called Grace, her middle name. Why would anybody use a middle name for a 9-year-old, particularly when she doesn't like to be? Was this a name used by clients?
Why were the police interviewing a 9-year-old so late at night when under normal circumstances the child would be tired and at least ready for, if not already in bed, and even if it's a Friday night? She looked tired, she did not want to be there, and was therefore under duress.
The police officer clarifies with the child as to the difference between a truth and a lie. A 9-year-old child is below the age of responsibility and thus cannot be expected to understand this.
He then goes on to explain to the child that she will not get in trouble for anything so long as she tells him now anything he should know. Again, she is below the age of responsibility.
She then indicates that she doesn't understand. Again, a 9-year-old would not be expected to understand.
So far, it is my conclusion that the child was effectively being interviewed under caution.
Okay, this is a long interview and it very quickly went into some very gory stuff. Now, one thing I've noticed about the cop is that he's regularly going, "riiight" or "oookay". If it were an adult being questioned then, while it may not be proper or fair there is more scope to question, say mental health, and wonder if the person is sane. Here, we're talking about a child who is making very serious allegations and at no point thus far has the officer taken it seriously. As I said, it's long so I'll just highlight some poignant issues.
Let lone her describing what could have been a katana, hanging babies upside-down and whatnot else, the child mentioned a goblet. That is an extremely intricate detail which absolutely defines an occult practice. It would be interesting to know what material it was made of (pewter, silver... gold?). Even markings on it could identify a specific cult, but oddly enough the officer did not even think to ask about it.
It would be expected that any child of that age would not know about anything like this. Here, she is talking in great detail about very gory activities involving children which should, by all standards, cause her to become upset. Alas, she was clearly conditioned enough to either see it as normal or it just no longer upsets her.
She talks about what they do with the bones. Using them for carvings and statues has Freemsonry all over it. Actually, I still recall a suspicious moment in my life a few years ago when I wondered about a neighbour who was relaying his small drive with gravel. I have seen "gravel" before which, in all honesty, looked like bones. Gravel for driveways is possibly a common means of disposing of and concealing such evidence.
She mentions jewellery, tattoos, birthmarks and/or scars around privates. If a 9-year-old child can correctly identify such details about a person's private place then that is highly incriminating. Therefore, it is forensic evidence.
She explains that a particular person drives a Porsche. What sort of teachers or clergies drive a Porsche?
Then she's talking about the house and how they do sex in an underground area. So the cop asks, "how do you know they do sex there?" So she replies, quite sternly for that matter, "because they took me there to do sex". Not just conventional sex, because it doesn't hurt, but using plastic willies so that that it does hurt. Children do not make this stuff up.
She stated that her and the brother were not particularly trusted. Now who would distrust such young children anyway? They did not trust her because she's too smart.
What sort of copper asks a child "so what is sex?" when she has already vividly detailed dildos and touching each others' privates? Then she says they hit them in between the legs with a wooden stick, so he asks, "is that sex?" - she then replies with something like "no, no, sex is like when they stick the plastic willies up our bums*. So what does he then ask? So what is your bum? When a child makes such a statement, she should not be expected to clarify that the bum is where the poo comes out. And then we have to consider the medical evidence which has proven that her, and the brother, have anal scarring. Is this guy for fucking real or what?
And I'm not only 40 minutes into this long interview. To think that they're keeping her there until 1am.
I'm fucking livid. I need a break already and I'm not even there having to go through that nonsense. I'll get back to it later and maybe write more stuff down. So I'll leave it it with this for now...
The child was under duress and she didn't know it because she was too young to understand. That was not an interview, it was an unlawful interrogation.
ArthurEdens ago
Paid shill
Vigilia_Procuratio ago
Who, me? Why, because I'm ripping into the police for mishandling that situation?
ArthurEdens ago
Nah, but yes
Vigilia_Procuratio ago
Well I'm sorry if they're corrupt, complacent and compromised. They couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery, let alone investigate systematic torture of children.
equineluvr ago
"highly incriminating. Therefore, it is forensic evidence"
You are incorrect..
https://definitions.uslegal.com/f/forensic-evidence/
Vigilia_Procuratio ago
Well I can't be bothered to look into the technicalities of the jargon, but either way if a child can correctly identify markings in the pubic area of teachers and clergies then something is clearly very wrong. Personally, if a child said that a man had exposed himself and that he has a tattoo on his penis, the description fit my own and I had been brought into it, then the first thing I would probably do is go to my doctor and show him that I do not have a tattoo on my penis. What I'm saying is that those accused should be checked for such markings because a child has made extremely serious allegations. Maybe it's not forensic per-se, but it's certainly evidence.
rippingtheveil ago
Listen, you need some sleep , you can't handle what's going on, this it's how you properly interview children that have been sexually abused, do some research on the correct way to get the real story out, if you need to you may need to check into your doctor, get a check up from the neck up, there's no reason to type in bold or cuss, this stuff is sick, I don't want it to be true, but I believe these kids are telling the truth,
Vigilia_Procuratio ago
You sound like those 4Chan bots.
So what is going on then?
Why would I need to do that? Because I have PTSD after delving into this hideous subject?
Sorry, but... the child had no attorney, she was at a police station until at least 1am, she was below the age of responsibility and thus could not be questioned under caution. As serious as the matter is, I'm not even sure that it would be legal for this interview to be released by the police because it involves a minor. So why was it released anyway? Why was she placed under duress? I've brought these issues up not because I question the interview techniques as such, but rather because she's a child and should never have been put in that position, most certainly not without a solicitor. Excuse me for calling the police out on this.
rippingtheveil ago
This can be enough to make a grown man cry, these sick pedos are the problem, I'm sorry if I was rude
Vigilia_Procuratio ago
It's alright, as long as your heart is in the right place.
Whattheheck321 ago
Do you guys think she is the same kid as in the commercial? She sure looks like the same girl. Breaks my heart if this is true. Then again this whole thing is breaking my heart and making me beyond furious and frustrated with the slow process of anything happening about it.
Vigilia_Procuratio ago
I dunno, but why was she the only racer wearing gloves? Does she have a disability affecting her hands? Huh?
Vigilia_Procuratio ago
I can tell you one thing about the girl in the kart... that is a child who has cried a lot and seemingly for once is happy. She looks like a child who has been in a bad home and has been taken on an outing by Social Services. I've been there, I know how it feels.
Also, this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5f9N6wmiLQ
emeraldeye ago
Heartbreaking. I've seen the police interview with the children, there is no doubt they are telling the truth. That interview is on the website mentioned at the end of the video.
rippingtheveil ago
https://youtu.be/bwFNnBH6b4o @47 min is where they discuss the Audi ad where she believes these are her kids
Vigilia_Procuratio ago
Wait, hang on... having watched only 40 minutes of her police interview, she explicitly describes a Porsche several times. Given the subject matter and how sensitive it is, if that is her in the advert then it beggars belief that she would be flaunted in a car advertisement, it seems so deliberate.
rippingtheveil ago
I know this is crazy, I don't know if this is true, just reporting on what the Mom said, plus maybe there was editing done in interview,
Vigilia_Procuratio ago
Well she apparently retracted everything, she now asserts that it is not her child. Regardless, this is an extremely fishy scenario whichever way it's looked at, be it the Hampstead case itself or the advert.
Vigilia_Procuratio ago
@47 will probably drop by at some point in the next year and wonder what the fuck Pizzagate even is.
rippingtheveil ago
Everyone it's going to know what Pizzagate is by years end!!!!
Vigilia_Procuratio ago
We would hope so.
Oh look, somebody saw "Hampstead" in the title and downvoted it. Sheesh, we really do need to get this out there because it will be swept away if we slacken off.