Satanist Ritual Abuse (SRA) in Berne, Kingston-upon-Thames, Wales, Ireland, Scotland, Westminster and Hampstead

In November 2017 I attended the European Society for Trauma & Dissociation (ESTD) conference in the beautiful medieval city of Berne. Given that my four presentations were inspired by suspected cases of ‘Human Sacrifice Murder’ in London imagine my surprise to see the ‘Kindlifresser Brunnen’ (literally ‘Child Eater Fountain’) a photo of which I uploaded to this blog. Naturally various legends compete on the origin of this fountain – however the You Tube postings concerning ‘Octagon’ and ‘Hexagon’ probably will not make it into the publications of the Berne Tourist Office.

ESTD Berne Poster

I reluctantly prepared a poster based on medical records I retrieved when helping a mother to appeal against a ‘Forced Adoption’ ruling. She had escaped a Satanist Cult in Kingston-upon-Thames where her parents were (are?) seemingly very influential. She disclosed to authorities at various stages in her life that she had a baby at age 14 that ‘disappeared’. ‘Mind Control’ manipulation and persecution followed instead of proper investigative action.


In the poster I put a snippet from voluminous health records that there were no GP visits for six months in the run up and aftermath of  the unregistered birth in April 1997. I got an audio recording of the mother describing the circumstances e.g. her parents removed all calendars and claimed that she had ‘slept around’ (rather than acknowledging that the impregnation resulted from incestous rape). She reportedly on one occasion observed half a dozen men entering the family home in the Kingston Hill area and changing into robes. On another occasion half a dozen men turned up dressed in robes (which implies that there was a temple/base nearby). One week after the birth the parents dressed in black and said they were going to a funeral.

Another snippet represents a Black Swan case in that disclosures of a Satanist Ritual Abuse (SRA) act disclosed at age 30 were already mentioned in records at age 16. Reportedly she was made at age 8 to have sex with a girl of the same age on a stage somewhere in Ireland. Such ‘Cult Shows’ have repeatedly been reported in survivor accounts in books and alternative media. No reference to such SRA matters can be found in materials of the British Psychological Society (BPS) leaving Psychologists naïve and wearing rose-tinted glasses (until they come across a harrowing case where the natural inclination towards ‘Professional Dissociation’ denial fails).

ESTD Berne Paper

I discussed shenanigans at the British Psychological Society (BPS) in a standalone (sic) paper.

Kurz (2017) Lost Memories, False Prophets & BPS Guidelines

Why on earth did the BPS, a Learned Society supposedly, let Prof Martin Conway, who is on the Scientific & Professional Advisory Board of the British False Memory Society (founded and funded by accused parents), lead the development of ‘Memory & Law’ guidelines? The 2008 version contained the following ‘jobs for the boys’ phrase which was (thank god) removed from the 2010 edition:

A memory expert is a person who is recognised by the memory research community to be a memory researcher. It is recommended that, in addition to current requirements, those acting as memory expert witnesses be required to submit their full curriculum vitae to the court as evidence of their expertise.


2010 Sentence revision:

A memory expert is a person who is recognised by the memory research community to possess knowledge relevant to the particular case.

 memory_the_law_revised_version_april_2010_web – retrieved 2017 07 09th

Funnily (?) enough judges in a ruling on 20th July 2012 at the Royal Court of Justice (RCJ) Court of Appeal Criminal Division suggested that ‘Prof Conway may wish to consider amending his CV’ i.e. to include the various cases where his evidence was rejected. Doing so could have potentially prevented the very unsafe convictions in September 2015 of the ‘Norwich Three’ Marie Black, Jason Adams and Michael Rogers (whom I posted the various ESTD presentations today). The evidence of Prof Martin Conway was reportedly rejected outright – regardless of content and merit (and being ‘recognised by the memory research community to be a memory researcher’). ‘Throwing the baby out with the bath water’?

 I wrote about the Norwich Three case on my blog:


ESTD Berne Symposium

I originally submitted an ‘Experts-by-Experience’ symposium. One author thoroughly researched causes and symptoms of childhood trauma in the context of a high society abuse ring seemingly featuring dozens of academics, politicians and business people in a country in Central Europe. The other author from a neighbouring country had been subjected to Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA) and become an expert in the field with encyclopaedic knowledge of the literature (that is largely ignored by mainstream Psychology and Psychiatry). Alas – costs (financial and possible reprisals) became prohibitive (especially as EMF torture had reportedly recommenced for one of them).

The organisers allowed me to restructure the symposium so that I talked about inadequate psych assessments in the first Symposium paper and about an ORCAN in the last. I found a brave volunteer who stepped in at short notice to present in between on (mal-)adaptive personality assessment and how he helped a colleague escape a Satanist Cult (before any criminality occurred).

Kurz (2017) Challenging Inadequate Assessments and the ‘Discourse of Disbelief’

In this paper I relayed some of my attempts to challenge psych assessment malpractice in Family Courts. In Case A I discussed IQ testing results of the mother in the Kingston-upon-Thames case in the poster. The data attests to a Twice Exceptional ability pattern (that gave rise to a Dyslexia diagnosis). These IQ tests were ‘concealed’ from the proceedings – seemingly to fraudulently ‘help’ Social Services succeed in the Forced Adoption court process. The poor auditory memory test results explain why the mother was re-victimised at numerous occasions and fell for the manipulation of a Kingston police officer who instructed her to delay any reporting of a sexual assault on her or her toddler for several weeks. When she reported an assault on her toddler in South Wales with three weeks delay the ‘system’ pounced. A NHS Psychiatrist threatened to ‘section’ her reportedly making self-incriminating remarks suggesting he was compromised. He was seemingly brought into the UK around 1996/1997 straight after graduating from a medical school in Pakistan with a Psychiatry specialisation. Interestingly I recently heard that Satanist Ritual Abuse (SRA) groups decided strategically in the 1980ies to increase involvement of Muslims. The Psychiatrist was seemingly a family friend of the Satanist family in Kingston and at the time of the teenage pregnancy lived in Hounslow. A ‘compromise’ allegation to the Council was largely ignored. Three years later I submitted a 46 page ‘Third Party Crime Witness’ document to South Wales, Surrey and Wiltshire (Operation Conifer) Police alongside a 45 page complaint about 7 officers concerning suspected arson murder of the toddler’s godmother. As far as I can see the submissions have been ignored. Similarly Operation Midland refused to interview me with regards to the alleged deadly ‘hit’ of a school boy in Kingston in the 1980ies in spite of the case I am writing about involving four instances of ‘Dangerous Driving’ (2 with lethal outcomes).

Case B was in the Westminster area with the Psychiatrist claiming – seemingly fraudulently – that the mother had ‘Histrionic Personality Disorder’. General Medical Council (GMC) concerns were ‘fobbed off’.

The same Psychiatrist, who seemingly adds to her NHS income by running on Saturdays a ‘character assassination service’, was writing a damning report on the mother in Case C. It is disconcerting to learn that her use was recommended by the legal representative of the biological father who was accused of abuse of his son on weekend stays. The Court ignored two previous reports as well as the next five reports by other Psychiatrists stating that there is no psychiatric problem with the mother. Borderline Personality Disorder was proffered by the Psychiatry Gun for Hire. A similarly minded Psychiatrist later added ‘overvalued sexual abuse beliefs’. It was a cruel demonstration of how so called ‘Child Protection’ works in practice.

US Clinical Psychologist Dr Ellen Lacter is one of the few professionals who critically reflects on the difficulties and persecution/retaliation risks of reporting child sexual abuse:

Case Study D is based on a survivor of extreme abuse who is willing to share his journey.

In the final paper of the symposium I exposed some of the workings of the British Satanist ring finishing on the chilling ‘house fire’ where the godmother of the toddler was found dead (half a year before the toddler got assaulted in broad day light).

Eye, eye, Westminster!

In summer I exposed the all-knowing attitudes (e.g. ‘Satanic child abuse claims are almost certainly based on false memories’) of Psychology Professor Chris French at Goldsmith to some of his academic colleagues. Shortly afterwards a trio of articles appeared in Private Eye portraying negatively my poster ‘THE SATANIST CULT OF TED HEATH: ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF AUTHORITY COMPROMISE’ presented at the European Psychiatry Association (EPA) Conference 2016 in Madrid.

I uploaded below scans of the articles, relevant EPA posters and other information. With a circulation of 200k I welcome the ‘publicity’ as some of the brightest and most critical thinkers are given an opportunity to reflect on my investigation.

Private Eye (8th September 2017) and Kurz (2016) EPA Poster The Satanist Cult of Ted Heath – Ethical Implications of Authority Compromise

Private Eye (22nd September 2017) and Kurz (2016) EPA Poster POOR QUALITY OF MENTAL HEALTH REPORTS IN UK FAMILY COURTS


In parallel a self-identified survivor of the Luciferian variety of Satanist Ritual Abuse (SRA) submitted to Mike Veale at Operation Conifer an account of his involuntary encounter with Edward Heath around 1969 including a description (based on ‘Tactile Memory’) of one of his body parts. A different self-identified rape victim of Ted Heath reportedly can describe the interior of his Yacht. Naturally if the Metropolitan Police or Northumberland Police get involved any witnesses giving statements are likely to end up in a ‘persecution’ situation like ‘Nick’ who is facing trumped up ‘perjury’ charges.

At least 5 individuals have reportedly claimed seeing Ted Heath involved in SRA:

The Operation Conifer report detailed six incidents in the 1960’ies for which Ted Heath would have been interviewed and made some references to SRA e.g. at Pages 59 and 60:

Enquiries about Ritual Abuse

 8.11.1 During the course of the investigation six victims made disclosures that included allegations that Sir Edward Heath was involved in satanic or ritual abuse.

 8.11.2 There is no nationally recognised or agreed definition of ritual abuse. Operation Conifer assessed that disclosures were of a ritual nature if the abuse alleged included a combination of emotional, physical, sexual and/or spiritual abuse and that the offences were committed using symbols, ceremonies and/or group activities that appeared to have a religious or supernatural meaning.

 8.11.3 Two of the alleged victims of ritual abuse died before Operation Conifer commenced. They had made disclosures of alleged ritual abuse where it was alleged that Sir Edward Heath was a perpetrator. There was limited opportunity to investigate those disclosures further.

 8.11.4 Following investigation, no further corroborative evidence was found to support the disclosures that Sir Edward Heath was involved in ritual abuse.

According to victim advocates Leon Brittan, Jimmy Savile, Edward Heath, Cyril Smith and Lord Montague of Beaulieu were all during their lifetimes clearly identified by SRA Survivors as Satanist Ritual Abusers.

Wales, Scotland, Shropshire & Hampstead

What links these regions? -The Justice Anna Pauffley Connection! Born 13 January 1956 she retired (surprisingly early) at age 61 from the Family Court on 1st October 2016:

She received praise for some of her actions:

On a Court Appointed Clinical Psychologist:

Dr van Rooyen’s involvement – fundamental flaws

I am gravely troubled by the speed, the manner and the ambit of Dr van Rooyen’s involvement. It simply cannot be right, fair or reasonable to commission an expert to provide what may turn out to be the pivotal evidence justifying separation of a neonate from his mother in the way that happened here.

It surprises and alarms me that Dr van Rooyen was asked, and was prepared, to provide a report during the course of a single working day, a terrifyingly tight timeframe, and on the basis of papers supplemented by a telephone conversation with a local authority professional who had never met the mother. I struggle to understand how Dr van Rooyen’s apparently firm opinions, adverse to the mother, could have been formed given the complete absence of any kind of discussion with her or, indeed, any communication with [the resource].

To my mind, it is quite simply unacceptable for an ‘independent’ expert to be instructed in the way Dr van Rooyen was – to conduct such a scant inquiry in preparation for a hearing which was to have such wide ranging consequences for the child.

However other reports are less favourable:

Tag: Dame Anna Pauffley QC

Anna Pauffley QC. Anna represented over 100 people who had received ‘Salmon letters’. These were letters sent out to people who were alleged to be guilty of physical or sexual abuse of children or who were likely to be the subject of criticism. The Salmon letter recipients included people who had been named by the former children in care as having abused them – some of these people had already been convicted and even imprisoned by the time that the Waterhouse Report was completed. Other Salmon letter recipients were people who had witnessed or been told about abuse but who did nothing. So the Salmon letter recipients included some Grade A scumbags. Anna represented people who had punched and kicked children, who had raped or buggered them or forced them to participate in oral sex. If the former children in care were to be believed – and of course Anna’s job was to suggest that they weren’t – some of their abusers took them to other locations where they were molested by unknown people as well. One of the many people whom Anna represented was Lucille Hughes, former Director of Gwynedd Social Services, whom it was acknowledged even by Waterhouse had known that a paedophile ring was operating in the social services but who had not acted.

So what became of Anna who defended Lucille et al by severely cross-examining anyone who dared allege that they’d been abused? Like Nicola Davies QC, Anna is now a Dame of course! She was appointed a High Court judge in 2003, although she did end up in hot water in 2015 when she publicly stated that it was ‘Okay for migrant families to hit their children’ (it’s their culture you see). Gov’t spokespeople were wheeled out to explain that child abuse was unacceptable from anyone. But what did the Gov’t expect from a woman who was made a Dame after psychologically assassinating people who relived details of the most horrific abuse – sensitivity???

A particularly remarkable anti-Hoaxtead site:

I presented a poster at the European Psychiatry Association (EPA) in Florence comparing how Justice Anna Pauffley made the timely and credible disclosures of two children regarding SRA ‘disappear’ whereas in Norwich Marie Black’s five children made NO DISCLOSURES of abuse between January (coercively taken into care on a ‘voluntary section 20’ arrangement) and August. Only when it transpired that her children would probably be returned to her did the SS produce ‘overnight’ a document alleging sexual abuse by 40+ individuals. Through Parental Alienation techniques and Brain Washing her children seemingly had ‘False Believes’ implanted over the next few years – possibly using post-hypnotic suggestions.

Kurz (2017) EPA Poster From Hampstead to Norwich

Issues regarding Complex Trauma and False Memories were very competently discussed in this 1995 document written by the BPS Working Group on Recovered Memory:

Andrews et al (January 1995) Recovered Memories – Report of the Working Party of the BPS

Their informative article in the May 1995 issue of The Psychologist found that 15% (!) of practioners surveyed had encountered Satanist Ritual Abuse (SRA) disclosures (see pages 209-214):

The Psychologist May 1995



A week in the life of Chartered Psychologist Dr Rainer Hermann Kurz 15th – 8th October 2017

Sunday 15th October 2017

I attend a meeting of the Education Division of SGI – a 12 Million strong humanistic lay Buddhist movement. As usual I am inspired by the ‘experiences’: personal testimonies of overcoming hardship and persecutions. I note down the wise words of leader ‘Shinichi Yamamoto’:

‘The true results of education will only become apparent 10 or 20 – no 30, 50, or 100 years later.’

I ponder how the trauma work of Pierre Janet (1917) was brushed aside by vested interests promoting Emil Kraepelin and ‘chemical imbalance’ theorems and how the ‘Discourse of Disbelief’ was shored up by the controversial 1994 report of Jean La Fontaine that was widely read as denying the existence of Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA).

I hear that Dyslexia Action went bust. I am not surprised and actually pleased as the organisation was known for mismanagement, excluding from certification the individuals who had completed the Hornsby Dyslexia Diploma and failure to distance itself from retired Hull University lecturer Dr Christopher Singleton who admitted nine counts of accessing indecent images and was given a suspended prison sentence by a judge at Hull Crown Court.


Saturday 14th October 2017

I visit retired Psychology Professor Dave Bartram in Kingston Hospital who is recovering from serious surgery. His partner Pat Lindley also had major surgery not long ago. I suspect their health suffered considerably in the wake of a highly irregular BPS process where a disgruntled company owner was unhappy with the review of his test and – rather than submitting his grievances in the standard procedure – lobbied ‘Trustees’ of the BPS who promptly interfered with the processes of the ‘Psychometric Testing Centre’.


Friday 13th October 2017

I attend the Association for Business Psychology (ABP) where I enjoy key notes by Prof Stephen Reicher on leadership as identify creation and my MSc Industrial Psychology course mate Prof Fiona Patterson on Gender issues. I deliver my paper ‘The Practitioner’s Guide to the Dark Side’ – nobody fainted, quite a few laughs and generally a warm reception on a difficult topic. I explained that my Symposium at the BPS Annual Conference got ‘pulled’ and encourage the audience to express their views on this irregularity to the BPS President.

Kurz (2017) ABP Conference The Practitioner’s Guide to the Dark Side

At dinner I talk with a former colleague about old times, current business but also about the sinister reasons why I left Saville Consulting. He has been made aware of the negative articles in Private Eye and attentively listens to the chilling sequence of events.

Private Eye (8th September 2017) and Kurz (2016) EPA Poster The Satanist Cult of Ted Heath – Ethical Implications of Authority Compromise


Private Eye (22nd September 2017) and Kurz (2016) EPA Poster POOR QUALITY OF MENTAL HEALTH REPORTS IN UK FAMILY COURTS


In the evening there is an interesting Magic Show that demonstrates how easily people can be fooled. This is followed by a Darth Vader partly where I politely refuse to get a matching ‘tattoo’ as it reminds me of the Satanist ‘Illuminates of Thanateros’ cult of Colin Batley where all members sported an ‘Eye of Horus’ tattoo.


Thursday 12th October 2017

After six years of volunteer activity I attend my last meeting of the BPS Committee on Test Standards. Survey responses to the proposed ‘Diploma in Psychological Testing’ were largely positive – implementation would also revive the ‘Specialist in Test Use’ qualification.

I am pleased to learn from a trauma informed colleague that ‘C-PTSD’ (a term first introduced 1992 by the excellent Janet Herman) will become a diagnostic category in ICD-11 when it is released in 2018:


Wednesday 11th October 2017

I send Chief Constable Mike Veale an email titled ‘Complaint about 7 Officers’ concerning a suspected arson murder that seemingly was perpetrated by an associate of the Ted Heath Abuse Group to cover up ‘Human Sacrifice Murders’ in Kingston-upon-Thames.


I attach a 45 page complaint document that was ignored by local, regional and national authorities including Operation Midland. It contains materials that could potentially lead to nailing a serial killer and even exoneration of ‘Nick’ who reported a fellow pupil was killed by a car ‘hit’ in Kingston-upon-Thames. He is currently facing a persecutory ‘perjury’ accusation that appears to be ‘trumped up’ like the one against extreme abuse survivor Alicia in the Franklin cover-up in Nebraska.


Tuesday 10th October 2017

I upload five abstracts on Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA), torture, trauma, dissociation and healing for a 2018 mental health conference.


Monday 9th October 2017

I attend a BPS meeting where I hear the welcome news that former BPS CEO Ann Colley has retired (one month after the senior manager left who I made a complaint about).

Even better news is that the concerns I expressed about BPS guidelines related to memory are – at last – going to be tackled.

Evidencing Satanic Ritual Abuse in the UK – Public Lecture Friday Evening 22nd September 2017 in Euston


I am delighted to join up again next week with Canadian Counsellor Sarah Fecht who has been supporting survivors of Satanic Ritual Abuse for many years. Jo Lomax who runs a web radio show on Conscious Consumer Network (CCN) invited her to repeat the intriguing and thought (as well as healing) provoking workshop held in London last year. I uploaded the flyer which provides details of the Public Lecture Friday 22nd September 2017 6pm-10pm where I will speak for an hour on ‘Family Court Child Snatching’ and fellow advocate Wilfred Wong on Satanic Ritual Abuse, and the full event including the workshop on Saturday and Sunday with guest speakers Fran and Dave.

Trauma workshop Sept 2017 final

Date and Time

Lecture Fri, 22 Sep 2017, 18:00 – 22.00 (Lecture Only Price: £32.45)

Workshop Sat, 23 Sep 9.00 – 17.00 & Sun, 24 Sep 2017, 9.00-17:00 BST £191.75 (including the lecture)

Event Booking URL Link:

Sandra Fecht -Trauma Healing: Lecture & Workshop


What will be covered in the Public Lecture? The following CCN (NOT CNN!) interviews conducted by Jo Lomax provide an outline on what has been going on for hundreds and thousands of years ‘behind closed doors’ of high society as well as local communities. I pasted below links to Jo’s interviews with Sandra, Fran, Dave, Anne, Wilfred and me.


Sandra Fecht Discusses Her Experience & a Forthcoming Workshop in the UK (Sept)



Sandra Fecht Discusses Her Experience & a Forthcoming Workshop in the U…



RECLAIMING PERCEPTION: Healing Techniques to help Survivors of SRA



RECLAIMING PERCEPTION: Healing Techniques to help Survivors of SRA

On Reclaiming Perception 2nd Feb 2017 I am delighted to speak to 3 people who I now consider to be great friends…


Reclaiming Perception | Jo Lomax talks to Fran Teows & Dave Staffen



Reclaiming Perception | Jo Lomax talks to Fran Teows & Dave Staffen



Reclaiming Perception | Jo Lomax talks to Dr. Rainer Hermann Kurz



Reclaiming Perception | Jo Lomax talks to Dr. Rainer Hermann Kurz

On Reclaiming Perception 11th April 2017 – Rainer Kurz who is a Chartered Psychologist specialising in assessmen…


Reclaiming Perception | Jo Lomax talks to Wilfred Wong



Reclaiming Perception | Jo Lomax talks to Wilfred Wong


I must be doing something right as I acquired another ‘Badge of Honour’ – a negative article on page 7 in the current issue of ‘Private Eye’ misconstruing in a predictable manner my EPA 2016 conference poster:



I sent a Letter to the Editor (as attached) yesterday but would be very surprised if they would actually publish it as they have been feeding False Memory propaganda since 2006 – hence feel free to distribute widely.


Private Eye (September 2017) and Kurz (2015) EPA Poster The Satanist Cult of Ted Heath – Ethical Implications of Authority Compromise

Writing about an ‘Eye of Horus’ tattoo (see previous post) reminded me of an interesting article I read that purports that ‘Self-styled Satanist High Priest Colin Batley’ is actually associated with a wider cult ‘Illuminates of Thanateros’:

‘Although police at the time could not identify the members of the wider cult surrounding Batley it has been confirmed through disclosures from various sources that he was a member of the Illuminates of Thanateros’.

‘Batley’s followers called him ‘Lord’, and bore tattoos of the Eye of Horus as marks of initiation into the cult’.

There a few websites illuminating the dark occult interests of the wider group:

I read a lot about the case including the book ‘The Devil on the Doorstep: My Escape From a Satanic Sex Cult’ by his victim ‘Annabelle Forest’:

Nathaniel J. Harris seems to have a lot of insider information. Before his move to Kidwelly Colin Batley resided in London where he seemingly impregnated his niece and forced her into prostitution.

‘An unnamed niece of Colin Batley told of how she was made pregnant by him, prevented from having an abortion, and told her child belonged to the cult. A year later, she became pregnant again, and had her second son. Shortly after his birth, she discovered through another cult member that Colin Batley had abused a child as young as six. She says, “It was the information and power I needed to escape.” (“He stole my life”: How a teenager was forced to join a satanic sex cult… by her evil uncle, Mirror, 21 July 2012).’

‘Between the ages of 15 and 23, Catrina was forced to have sex with up to 12 men a month.’

I am impressed by the reflective thoughts of Harris and share his hope that authority representatives will increasingly resist the massive pressure for ‘cover up’ and that Satanist extreme offenders will no longer be exempted from investigation and prosecution:

‘The group were connected to a wider cult, whose members were never identified or charged. Despite the protestations of many from within the occult community, it is a sad fact that Batley’s cult included many who are not only recognized for supposed contributions to occultism, but are also trusted and respected members of the ‘community’.’

‘One might wonder if the reason his neighbours did not notice an abusive cult operating in their midst. They include an ex-bishop, and an ex-police commissioner amongst them. Might they have been directly involved? In any case, it seems Batley’s cult was connected.’

‘I personally know who the six year old was, and where they are now. Now a teenager, I shall refer to them only as ‘X’. Through their disclosures to me, together with information from other ‘inside sources’, as well as personal encounters with Colin Batley and members of his cult, I can identify many other guilty parties yet to be arrested and prosecuted.’


‘It took a decade before police took allegations against Colin Batley seriously, during which time he remained free to abuse. Even after three of his child victims had grown to adulthood and came forward independently it still took another three years before anything was done. I am reliably informed (by someone directly involved with the investigation) that the officers who successfully prosecuted him had to go against orders from ‘higher up’, and were passed up for promotion. Doing the right thing, it seems, proved bad for their careers!’

Trauma at the BPS Annual Conference in Brighton


Trauma at the BPS Annual Conference in Brighton

As I unpack my suitcase I hold fondly the book ‘The Trauma Model – A Solution to the Problem of Comorbidity in Psychiatry’ by my favourite Psychiatrist Dr Colin Ross who runs some Trauma clinics in the US and is a prolific writer.

He criticises the ‘medical model’ underpinning traditional Psychiatry and outlines a convincing vision where medication would morph into a very small component of a much wider mental health approach that acknowledges the toxic effect of neglect and abuse in early childhood in the emergence of ‘pathological’ symptoms. When I presented my first ever paper on mental health issues (which happened to be my 100th publication) in Summer 2014 at the ESTD conference in Copenhagen Colin presented in the same session and kindly expressed approval of my ‘Case Management’ volunteer activities:

In Spring 2015 he was well chuffed at the ISSTD (International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation) conference in Orlando when I bought 5 of his books! At the time I joined a ‘low key’ meeting of 2 dozen professionals who exchanged experiences supporting victims of ‘Ritual Abuse’.

If all Psychiatrists were as trauma-informed and competent as Dr Ross child sexual abuse would dramatically decrease. Unfortunately many mainstream mental health professionals have little understanding of complex trauma. In a sinister twist some well-known specialists seem to have abundant expertise about dissociation and trauma but develop and apply this knowledge in a clandestine way. For example a child was experiencing an intensive ‘flash-back’ seemingly remembering painful extreme abuse (i.e. ‘child torture’). In a seemingly ‘empathic’ gesture the specialist organised a ‘Clown’ to appear. Within seconds the child started smiling and laughing with the tears of terror barely dried. The uninitiated nurse was well impressed by this skilful ‘turnaround’! However the reality of the situation may well be that the ‘programming’ of that child involved the use of ‘Clowns’ to ‘condition’ exactly this response in order to quickly obfuscate the childhood traumas that led to the flash-back. I have heard alarming reports of ‘Clowns’ featuring as ‘Entertainment’ at a Trauma Conference – foolish if not outright manipulative!

A minor relationship trauma for me is that Prof Peter Kindermann at the BPS Annual Conference in Brighton stepped down from the volunteer role as BPS President and former President Prof Jamie Hacker-Hugh from being Deputy President. I must have written two dozen emails to them alerting them to the Hampstead case and the Kingston-Wales case that I have been investigating since May 2012. While showing some interest in the matters raised they were limited by the BPS ‘Charity’ status and could only recommend I raise matters with the HCPC and the Police Independent Complaints Commission.

I contributed to Jamie’s initiative to reform the shady Work Capability Assessment practices the toxic effects of which were well illustrated in the gritty movie ‘I, Daniel Blake’. He is assuming a leadership role in a Franciscan order which seems to have humanitarian values similar to my Buddhist organisation SGI.

Prof Kindermann wrote courageously in 2007 about the involvement of mental health professionals in the development of torture programs e.g.:

As BPS President he was lead signatory of an ‘Open Letter about BBC Coverage of Mental Health’:

He authored ‘The New Laws of Psychology: Why Nature and Nurture Alone Can’t Explain Human Behaviour’ (a copy of which enjoyed the trip to the seaside) where he argues that Personality Disorders are social constructs rather than a disease or illness in the medical sense. I hope that the addition of a dimensional model of personality difficulties in DSM-5 will accelerate the demise of old-fashioned conceptions and spell an end to family courts claiming that parents have a ‘Narcissistic Personality Disorder’ based on flaky interpretation of MCMI – a barely adequate tool that in my view should never ever be used in court settings. I was going to make that point in my presentation on Friday afternoon drawing on slides 9 to 13 of an earlier presentation at the ABP Conference 2014 that is available on YouTube.

There were very few sessions on trauma with 4 of the 7 titles featuring the word accounted for by the symposium that I submitted. I was going to listen to Philemon Iyagba presenting on ‘Continuous traumatic disorder and PTSD of sexually abused pre-teenage children, resulting in vesico virginal fistula disorder in Nigeria’ but this was a ‘no show’. The session just before by Shola Apena Rogers was excellent illustrating thoughtful efforts to combat sexual harassment on trains in London (‘Chikan’ in Japanese). I was looking forward to Symposium 7260 ‘Psychologists and the benefits system: Time to get off the fence’ convened by Dr Stephen Weatherhead due to feature promising presentations such as ‘Democide: A Brief Introduction’ by Rick Burgess (Disabled Human Rights Activist) and ‘Speaking truth to power’ by Mad Dog (Recovery in the Bin co-founder). However this promising symposium disappeared by the time the final program was published – perhaps ‘pulled’ by vested interests?

What also disappeared to my alarm was my own Symposium on ‘Trauma, Dissociation & Healing’. I organised a dozen symposia before where I made it a habit to ask for slides a few weeks in advance, provide some feedback and then circulate them to all presenter. As far as I am concerned it is the role of the ‘Symposium Convener’ who organises the submission to manage any concerns that presenters may raise. With mature professionals it should always be possible to reach through dialogue resolution on any points of conflict. Presenters who are uncomfortable with content should in my view withdraw from participation in a timely manner so that a replacement paper can be organised. If a presenter refuses to act constructively (e.g. insisting on showing slides that other find offensive or potentially triggering) I would see it as the prerogative and duty of the Symposium Convener to drop a paper as a last resort. Cancellation of a Symposium at a late stage should be avoided as it is unfair to the researchers, inconveniences the audience and raises questions regarding the competence and ethics of the BPS as an institution.

I had planned to comment on half a dozen BPS Guidelines in the light of my advocacy work with abuse victims. The ‘Recovered Memories: Report of the BPS Working Group’ 17 page document is superb and fills me with pride to be a Psychologist:

In the May 1995 issue of The Psychologist there is (besides an interesting note about Lord Woolfe’s reforms leading to a ‘Directory of Expert Witnesses’) a good article on the survey the Working Group conducted:

Interestingly 15% of 1083 mental health professionals who completed the survey had encountered disclosures of ‘SRA’. Nowadays it has become a career limiting or terminating move to make reference to ‘Satanic Ritual Abuse’. In the case of Max Spiers who looked into the Presidio scandal in California (and others closer to home) it seemingly became life terminating. It is high time to repeat this kind of survey to better understand this complex area.

I am extremely uneasy about the Memory & Law guidelines issued in 2008 (revised 2010) by the BPS Research Board of which I am a member since 2016. The picture I uploaded to this blog shows Prof Kindermann addressing a BPS  Research Board meeting featuring Research Board Chair Prof Daryl O’Connor (D.B.O’ and BPS Lead Policy Advisor Dr Lisa Morrison Coulthard who sports an ‘Eye of Horus’ Tattoo):

These guidelines were developed, supported by an ESRC grant, under the direction of Prof Martin Conway who is on the Advisory Board of the British False Memory Society (BFMS):

The list of authors and advisors reads like a ‘who-is-who of False Memory’ listing. Early childhood trauma and neglect is barely covered – just a paragraph referring to the ‘Recovered Memories’ report that was published more than 10 years earlier. Why were the UK based authors of the Recovered Memories working group, who are willing to stand their ground in court cases, not part of the ‘Memory & Law’ working group, and what is the value and accountability of international ‘advisors’ who are not eligible and available for court work in the UK?

To make matters worse Prof Martin Conway was repeatedly criticised in Appeal Court judgements in 2010, 2011 and 2012 as I outlined in an earlier blogpost:

I pulled together some further resources in a poster at the EPA 2017 in Florence:

I have heard repeatedly from inmates at Isle of Wight prison that their defence commissioned a report from Prof Conway but that the judge dismissed the report outright. Particularly chilling is that in the case of the ‘Norwich Three’ the report procured from Prof Martin Conway was deemed ‘inadmissible’ by the judge ‘due to appeal court rulings’. Anthony Stadler, who spent his whole career in the insurance industry commissioning medico-legal expert reports, explained to me the significance of Lord Woolfe’s reforms and the importance of instructing the most credible expert witness available. His daughter Marie Black is caged in Ashford prison due to a (very unsafe) conviction of crimes that are unthinkable and unspeakable:

In my view these are actually genuine cases of ‘false memories’ implanted by vested interests. In the Recovered Memories document it describes in the Executive Summary where this is likely to happen:

Sustained pressure or persuasion by an authority figure could lead to the retrieval or elaboration of ‘memories’ of events that never happened.

There is a very useful section ‘4.4 Guidelines for therapists’ where point 7 advises:

If the role of the professional is to obtain evidence that is reliable in forensic terms they need to restrict themselves to procedures that enhance reliability (e.g. use of the Cognitive interview and avoidance of hypnosis or suggestion and leading questions).

In Section ‘6 Overall Conclusions’ the second bullet point states:

With certain exceptions, such as where there has been extensive rehearsal of an imagined event, the source of our memories is perceived reasonable accurately.

I quickly cottoned onto the massive issues in the ‘Norwich Three’ case as I came across a similar case a few months before where the manipulation by inadequate authority representatives was very clear:

How ‘credible’ are the BPS Memory & Law guidelines if court reports by its lead author Prof Martin Conway are routinely rejected by judges? Why do legal representatives continue commissioning reports from him raising false hopes with defendants?

Science is meant to be cumulative i.e. knowledge should get better and insights deeper all the time. However as the response to the Focal Article of Brewin and Andrews (2016) shows False Memory and Complex Trauma positions are almost diametrically opposed.

I personally find expert witness professionals much more credible if they act for prosecution and defence. I am suspicious of experts who exclusively acts for the defence e.g. Elizabeth Loftus, the darling of the False Memory lobby.

In 2012 Forensic Psychology Professor Jane Ireland published an initial report on research commissioned by the Family Justice Board. Across about a hundred psychological assessment reports drawn from UK Family Courts she found that 2/3 were ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’.

Some of the experts who felt slighted submitted a ‘Fitness to Practice’ complaint that strangely met the HCPC ‘Standard of Acceptance’ even if none of the experts concerned ever had any direct dealings with Prof Ireland. Having been ‘hung out of the window’ for 4 years all allegations against Prof Ireland were dismissed in 2016. Was this a ‘Let’s shoot the messenger’ exercise to intimidate anyone daring to challenge psych assessment malpractice in court settings?

In a flurry various BPS Guidelines appeared in rapid succession. However they appear inadequate, continue the obfuscation of the true causes and nature of dissociative disorders, and inevitably led to travesties.

I submitted a complaint to the BPS CEO Ann Colley. Guess what her response was?


Norwich Conferences & Inversions

Good news at last about Norwich: the city hosted last week the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) conference organised by the Edith Ellen Foundation and the UK conference of the European Society for Trauma and Dissociation (ESTD).

Mental Capacity Act (MCA) Conference

Kate Blake kindly invited me to present at the MCA conference. In the run up to the event she told me how her fire fighter husband had been shafted by the refinery that employed him (e.g. forcing him to shift dangerous substances without adequate protective clothing) as well as his Union that cynically withdrew funding a few days before a crunch-time legal challenge. Following her mother’s avoidable death (due to poor care) she organised a charity to improve standards in care with the laudable vision that Edith Ellen Foundation accredited carers will become as well-known as Macmillan cancer nurses.

There were good presentations by mainstream care and legal professionals operating in the care field slides of which can be viewed here:

There were also presentations by lay people including courageous former pilot Len Lawrence who got poisoned by organophosphates (remember recent incident of flights making emergency landings as crew fell sick?). When he fell ill he got dumped by his wife, asset stripped and framed by fraudulent authority representative activity. Len highlighted how the lack of a serial number and proper registration process undermines lawful use of ‘mental incapacity’ certificates and processes:

One quote that organiser Kate Blake shared with us:

“Thank you for finding such compassionate speakers, who I believe were excellent in helping to convey their messages. I admit that when I attended the Conference I believed I had a good understanding of care and felt I could not learn anything I did not already know. I was wrong and it was your choice of speakers that opened my eyes. We need more Conferences like yours, not only to help our older people, but all of our most vulnerable members of society to get the care and the love that they deserve”.

The up-to-date slide deck of my 30 minute presentation can be found here:

I presented to 250 delegates an updated version of the slides I used at the ‘Children screaming to be heard’ event organised by Maggie Tuttle in April 2016 and at a trauma workshop in September 2016. The updates are concerned with suspected criminality and cover up.

Welsh Valleys ‘Crowd Investigation’

I coined the term ‘Crowd Investigation’ (as per slide 14) which is seemingly needed when authorities insist on ‘looking away’. I got reason to belief that the ‘Kingston Terminator’ bumped off three individuals in the 12 months before assaulting a 2 year old toddler: The half-aunt whose own son according to authority records had been buggered by a ‘stranger’ (who may that have been if there are another 2 alleged victims in the same family?) at age 2 when playing in the garden, the godmother who was found dead ‘on top of roof tiles’ in her burnt out house (with broken legs and arm) and the boy’s nursery teacher’s friend. The aunt and godmother could have jeopardised the Child Smuggling operation by advising the mother during the 6 months stalking, defamation and harassment campaign on how to respond.  In the aftermath of the assault they could have acted as intermediaries assisting the mother to report the assault in a timelier manner.

Why bump of the nursery teacher’s friend? There were anonymous calls to Social Services that the mother was mentally unwell. Apparently the caller claimed that this mother was aggressively pushing her toddler boy into his buggy at the end of each session. I remember walking through Blaengarw with a rainbow in the sky listening to the puzzled mother’s efforts to make sense of the accusation reinforced by the SS – explaining that a different mother was acting in that way. How did the caller know? Did he befriend the Nursery teacher’s friend to extract information about his targets?

In my presentation I included a ‘map’ on slide 14 that formed part of the Judicial Review Application that was thwarted through fraudulent (?) action at the Royal Court of (In)Justice. It was also included in various police submissions that have been ignored. As a ‘Crowd Investigation’ seems one of the few steps open to pursue public safety I am going to explain a few more details.

Kebab Shop: The mother disclosed that an acquaintance had ‘confided’ that someone had asked for his flat keys during his holidays. First I thought some kind of big-wig was involved but eventually it transpired that people were ‘befriending’ young girls at the Kebab shop – a few months later the Rotherham grooming-abuse scandal broke.

Drug Dealer Flat: The mother disclosed that she observed a huge car repeatedly driving up-and-down Pontycymer High Street – seemingly to intimidate a small time drug dealer who may have not paid up. Intriguingly the mother relayed that the driver resembled a guy at a charity where she had done an internship!?!

Looking through police records I felt inspired by the mother’s action to bring these incidents to the attention of the authorities. However Social Services ‘inverted’ the protective mother’s actions to keep her community safe into ‘evidence’ that she may be deluded. On a location visit 1 year later the owner of the Pet Grooming Salon stated that the small time drug dealer was sent to prison for a few months and that his girl-friend (unfortunately) was on hard drugs again.

The mother reported that the ‘Stalker’ (who closely resembled a family member who has got clay pigeon shooting rifles at home) had fired off a gun outside a nearby pub shouting ‘Come out – I know you are in there’.

A few days after the assault on the toddler the mother heard a gun going off next to her house. She called police who denied that the cartridge found on the roof was from a gun (what else?).

Intriguingly the mother told me that the nursery school teacher’s friend had been seen with the Stalker in a Blaengarw pub and later arguing outside Railway Terrace. The next morning she was found dead in a river. South Wales police stated ‘there are not believed to be any suspicious circumstances surrounding the death’ – what an inversion!


Three weeks later the toddler’s godmother was found in her burnt out house across the Irish Sea – another obvious ‘inversion’ in that police officers simply overlooked suspicious artefacts:

One month later the row of cottages overlooking the site where the dead women was found in the river went up in flames. Coincidence? Another arson?

What lends credence to the mother’s claims is that police recorded an ‘unbelievable’ defamation incident as per slide 10. On the sunniest days of the year the mother set off for a hiking a trip with toddler and 2 dogs along the Taff trail – a dismantled railway path in the valleys. On the way she bumped into some people. Not long afterwards a helicopter landed next to her and two police cars turned up – a total of 10 coppers. What had happened? A caller reported to police that the mother was ‘sleeping rough’, ‘the baby is stinking and had been eating dog food’ and ‘his nappy is stinking’. Police found the mother utterly surprised that a horde of 10 officers had appeared out of nowhere. Police found everything in excellent order. After waiting for several hours at Merthyr Tydfil police station two friendly coppers drove the young family home. The caller was not ‘anonymous’ but reportedly requested: ‘Can police let me know of outcome’. Why has this individual not been charged with wasting police time? What did the solicitor and the social workers do with this police document that provides 100% proof that a defamation campaign was underway? Was this shared with the mental health professionals who tried to ‘section’ the mother and proffered various ‘mental illness’ hypotheses?

A dozen other stalking, defamation and intimidation acts (including a ‘dangerous driving‘ incident) were disclosed. It is plain to see that a massive efforts was made to create ‘unbelievable’ situations that when relayed to authority representatives would make the mother sound ‘delusional’.

As outlined on slide 11 a compromised Psychiatrist (‘Dr Shock’ who reportedly threatened ‘I will use ECT to burn out your bad thoughts about your parents’) lay in waiting who was seemingly an associate of the Stalker. A comprehensive compromise allegation was sent to the Council even identifying a specific cult with a ‘temple’ base at a farmhouse nearby but neither the mother nor the advocate were interviewed. However at least a ‘paper trail’ was laid and elements of the complaint made it into court papers. Nevertheless the judge and the ‘professionals’ ignored the compromise allegation.

Please send any ‘Crowd Investigation – Welsh Valleys’ information on the deceased, the cottage fire or Blaengarw to !

Some may find the thought of a serial offender who is shielded by authority representatives far-fetched. Police usually dismiss instantly the notion of organised paedophile rings with dozens of members and strategically planned ‘projects’. I counted 36+ professionals who are implicated in the ‘cover-up’ of the blatant child smuggling operation. In a document related to the Edward Heath Abuse Group (see Kurz, 2016) 235 individuals were named, in the alleged Hampstead ring more than 150 and in an alleged ring in Austria that I got some insider information about more than 50.

Inversions in Austria & Kingston

Subverting society through ‘Inversion’ is central to secret societies such as occult cults. Often abuse is carried out behind the façade of a ‘mainstream’ religion and/or charitable organisations. The principle of inversion is particularly well-portrayed in the excellent drama ‘May 33rd’ where the cross hanging on the wall is ‘inverted’ before an abuse session commences:

Film maker Guy Hibbert heard about the condition Dissociative Identity Disorder and decided to make the movie when he discovered that young women all over the UK were suffering from it as a result of ritual abuse. He actually needed therapy after making the film!

I uploaded to this blog what looks at first sight like an ordinary wedding snap where a befuddled husband holds the wedding certificate the wrong way around (the letter spell URKUNDE – the German equivalent of CERTIFICATE). Or was the geezer on drugs? Or was he showing to his mates and the world that this wedding was a ‘fake’ – an ‘inversion’?

Apparently the bride was lured into the relationship through an attractive job offer at an organisation where the potential hubby was employed. The ‘cult’ had done its research on the bride’s values and interests which duly resulted in getting the two together and the bride pregnant.

The circumstances described remind me very much of how the Kingston Terminator was brought together with his half-aristocratic wife number 3 (or 4?). The term ‘Arranged Marriage’ takes on a particular sinister meaning when individuals are brought together to ‘breed’ a child for the cult!

The wife of the Kingston Terminator ‘looked away’ throughout the marriage. She responded to the daughters allegations of abuse by her father with ‘Talking about sex is not lady-like. See that you get married.’ and threats if the topic was ever brought up again. The wife conveniently attributed the ‘Breeder Baby’ carried out at age 13/14 to her daughter ‘sleeping around in the neighbourhood’ (rather than recognising her husband’s likely involvement).  A few days after the (unregistered) home birth the parents dressed in black stating they were going to a funeral. Even her daughter’s suicide bid (40 pills – thrown up) aged 16 did not bring the wife to her senses. Neither did the assault on her 2 year old grandson when the allegation was relayed by the SS who vetted them as potential foster carers!  Unbelievably – Social Services even let the alleged assailant (and his wife) interact with the toddler in a supervised contact session. The mother was not consulted and only found out when at the next session her boy’s legs were shaking uncontrollably and he gesticulated that he had been photographed. A year earlier the boy had spent 6 weeks in the house of the grandparents thus creating an emotional bond. The grandfather made at least three bizarre comments that led the mother to conclude that he was a threat to the young family.

ESTD-UK Conference

On Friday I attended the 2nd day of the European Society for Trauma and Dissociation (ESTD) UK conference – also in Norwich. I listened to a brilliant keynote on Compassion and networked with professionals who take disclosures seriously. At least three sessions at the ESTD conference openly addressed ritual abuse. One session involved a victim of ritual abuse who made two (unsuccessful) attempts to get her tormentors prosecuted: ‘Not enough evidence’. Where is the evidence against the ‘Norwich Three’?


‘Arranged Marriage – Made in Hell’

What happened next in the ‘sham marriage’ in Austria? The bride separated from her newly-wed hubby when he started to act weirdly (from the wedding day onwards). Cult associates lay in wait to befriend the pregnant yet estranged wife. A ‘Truman Show’ like scenario opened up once the child was born and the father started to have unsupervised contact once per months on Saturdays from 9 to 5. On his return the toddler started to act strangely and have ‘flashbacks’. He screamed uncontrollably when pictures of acquaintances were shown. The mother’s family in a different city in Austria turned out to be cult members. Even a childhood friend was seemingly associated. Authorities (as usual) ignored the concerns of the protective mother and refused to get the child properly examined. In line with the global inversion scam (Child Protection = Abuser Protection) authorities wrestled away custody for the child – ‘taken into care’ (actually ‘legally kidnapped into abuse’). A foster care couple was heavily tattooed. When the mother innocently offered in a supervised contact session to make a (temporary) tattoo ‘like the foster carers have’ the child freaked out – as he was being abused by them and threatened with ALSO being tattooed!

Having made in-depth submissions regarding suspected abuse of her child and requests for proper medical examination a Vienna judge Dr Heidemarie Mendel ordered the mother to undergo an examination by  Psychiatrist Dr Kurt Meszaros as there are concerns whether she can look after her affairs.

Dr Heidemarie Mendel — Dr Kurt Meszaros

Who is this Dr Meszaros? A look at a fringe website tells us that Dr Meszaros is known for inadequate psych assessments that led to ‘sectioning’, loss of freedom and asset stripping.

Apparently he is in an infamous network that comprises of Dr. Meszaros, Dr. Piatti and Dr. Burghardt – who was put by courts in charge (i.e. given power of attorney) of 1000+ individuals. What are the chances that Dr Burghart can remember the names of these, let alone say something meaningful about their current life?

Inversion in Norwich

In the UK the Judiciary equally likes to rely on ‘Hired Guns’. Cathy Fox blog has uncovered a lot of information about disgraced Psychiatrist Anthony Baker and how his nemesis blogger Chris Spivey was ‘punished’ by the establishment:

Here is a link to ‘Taken’ by Sue O’Callaghan – seemingly a victim of Dr Baker:

So many lives destroyed – by inadequate psych assessments?

How could the General Medical Council (GMC) fail to strike off this so-called professional? Why-oh-why did Norwich authority representatives commission this highly controversial Psychiatrist Dr Anthony Baker as a Court Appointed Expert in the case of the ‘Norwich Three’? Reportedly the judge was confronted with records of the GMC complaints against Baker but complacently replied: ‘He is a reformed character’.

Norwich County Council: ‘ridogulous’

Michael Rogers Messenger Chats with Aunt


Today two weeks ago I talked to an aunt of Michael Rogers who is with her husband ‘filling in’ for his deceased parents and his oldest brother who died at age 56 while working hard on getting an appeal together against Michael’s unsafe conviction. I heard that his surviving brother fell ill in China with the same ‘brain blood clot’ condition. The hospital in China charged £700 per day – the aunt and her husband decided to re-mortgage their home to raise £60k to get him back into the UK a few weeks ago. He is unlikely to make it for much longer…

People like Ched Edwards got resources to challenge ‘unsafe’ convictions:

What about poor and vulnerable people? Virtually no chance.

Michael’s aunt kindly provided me with Messenger chats covering the period up to the ‘guilty’ ruling in the clandestine criminal trial – an outcome that came utterly unexpected for Michael who had been led to believe that the case of the prosecution was weak and that refraining from testimony was advisable. I uploaded to this blog the chat with minor redactions to illustrate what I believe to be a travesty. Persecution. Poverty. Infliction of Legal Trauma.

Michael wrote on 16/11/2013 13:21 about his daughters’ Facebook profiles: ‘I can see L. been made ‘prefect’ now, she got a ‘prefect’ badge, which does not surprise me. I’ve taught her ALL I know…!! I just hope I can get solicitor to try get normality sorted out sometime soon as it’s been totally ridiculous. Or as L. says ‘ridogulous’ (from one of our fav films, Bolt!).

Normality ceased in 2011. At the end of 2010 Marie Black, his partner for 18 months, moved with her children back to Norwich. In early 2011 Norwich County Council coerced Marie into signing a ‘Voluntary Section 20’ agreement on which basis her children were taken into care – ostensibly ‘temporarily’. However when a 4 bedroom house was ready the authorities repeatedly refused to return the children appealing immediately against several Court Orders to return them. Michael Rogers became involved in the court case as an ‘Intervener’ and observed controversial Psychiatrist Anthony Baker give oral evidence.

Abuse Allegations

The second of Marie’s children had experienced early trauma (shattered glass door at 3 months & facial injury at 2 years) and ‘Urinary Tract Infection’ from the age of 3 necessitating many medical examination. From the age of 4 the child was known to ‘make things up’. While in ‘temporary foster care’ the child claimed that Marie wanted to take back only this child and one other but not the rest. The foster carers were fully aware that this was a lie.

After 8 months of persecuting Marie Black Social Workers ‘out-of-the-blue’ produced pages of allegations of sexual abuse featuring (eventually) 40+ relatives, friends and members of institutions. No prior concerns had been raised. There were no police interviews and no investigation. Odd!?!

Marie’s mum angrily burst into a meeting room where authority representatives were sitting around a table – seemingly smirking and celebrating that they managed to obstruct (yet again) return of the children. Oddly an authority representative from a different UK region was present in the room who had no formal role whatsoever at this point in time – but shortly afterwards assumed a key role. Disgraced Psychiatrist Anthony Baker was instructed by the authorities (why-oh-why?):


Marie & Joe

Marie Black did NOT observe Anthony Baker giving oral evidence as she had fallen pregnant and she needed to go to hospital. Who fathered this child? Joe Ollis. Again.

Joe and Marie were teenage sweethearts for 4 years leading to the birth of their first child (who is said to be highly intelligent). They got together comforting each other: Marie had suffered stalking and abuse that necessitated her family to escape (in the face of local police turning a blind eye) by moving home – see earlier post. Joe had suffered the sudden loss of his father. After giving birth Marie and the baby lived in her parental home. The teenage parents broke up when their child was 1 year old.

In the context of the abuse allegations levelled at the ‘Norwich Three’ Marie re-established contact with Joe who undertook a DNA paternity test. Between the extremes of 0% and 99% match there appear to be many shades of grey:

A Social Worker informed Joe and Marie’s oldest child that Joe’s paternity had been confirmed through DNA testing. However shortly afterwards the authorities claimed that the match value was ‘insufficient’. Marie insisted on a second paternity test which came out with a nearly identical match value. The authorities claimed that the match value was not high enough (how convenient!) and since then proceedings recorded the father of Marie’s first child as ‘unknown’. What is the psychological impact on a child to be told that the biological father has been identified only to have the certainty and hope associated with such news dashed a few days later? What is a sensible ‘Match’ value when a father and mother claim parenthood?

In the light of authority unreasonableness Marie and Joe realised their vision to live in France where Joe’s mum had resided for many years. Without any medical proof Norwich authorities claimed that Joe was a violent person who once broke Marie’s arm yet refused to release Marie’s NHS medical records. Norwich County Council seemingly used subterfuge to get the French authorities to seize new born baby Luna from their parents and get the baby handed over to their Social Workers.

Due to a few lucky co-incidences Birmingham solicitor Brendon Flemings, one of the few legal professionals prepared to take on the all-powerful Councils, took on the case and succeeded in getting Luna returned. Joe Ollis and Marie Black (formerly known as Marie Adams) were interviewed about the ordeal by Sue Reid whose insightful article appeared on 1 August 2012:


‘Satanist Death Cult’, ‘Confabulation’ or ‘Coaching’?

Authorities insisted on a DNA sample of Marie’s father insinuating that her first child may have been the result of incest. Marie’s father objected to the preposterous suggestion and explained that he had a vasectomy after the birth of his two daughters. DNA testing – of course – ruled him out. Next the authorities tried to pin another relative who also was also ruled out. Infliction of ‘Legal Trauma’?

It is of note here that in ‘real’ extreme abuse circles it is common that a father is simultaneously a grandfather of a baby. In such settings the impregnation (through incestuous rape) is timed in such a way that the new born baby becomes available for a Human Sacrifice Ritual at an important date in the cult’s calendar. The blood of the baby is drunk and the flesh consumed by cult members. There are now quite a few disclosures in the public domain some of which are featured in the ‘Extreme Abuse Dossier’ alongside successful prosecutions of extreme abusers:

More recent cases are summarised below with an intriguing suggestion that Colin Batley was perhaps not so much a ‘self-styled’ high priest but that he was a member of the ‘Illuminates of Thanateros’:

Interesting observation here about how long it took to bring Colin Batley to account:

It took a decade before police took allegations against Colin Batley seriously, during which time he remained free to abuse. Even after three of his child victims had grown to adulthood and came forward independently it still took another three years before anything was done. I am reliably informed (by someone directly involved with the investigation) that the officers who successfully prosecuted him had to go against orders from ‘higher up’, and were passed up for promotion. Doing the right thing, it seems, proved bad for their careers!

I have spoken to several survivors of extreme abuse including one in Germany who disclosed that she was made to kill her new born baby – in front of ecstatic cult members in a castle. Experience of ‘Forced Impregnation’ was in the Extreme Abuse Survey endorsed by 40% of 1041 survivors and 71% of 220 professionals responding. Results of the Extreme Abuse Survey can be downloaded free-of-charge from the website of US Clinical Psychologist Ellen Lacter:

The Kingston-Wales Child Smuggling case revolves around an extreme abuse network and featured disclosures of a total of five new born babies that ’disappeared’:

Reportedly a couple was lodging with this Kingston-based family and had a baby. One day the couple and their baby were gone – a traumatic experience for the landlord’s pre-teen daughter. Police later claimed that the couple had been found dead in a car and that they did not know about a baby (cults leave babies ‘unregistered’ to have a ‘disposable child’ that can be deployed according to the cult’s plans).

At age 7 or 8 the landlord reportedly got his daughter to perform sex acts with a girl of a similar age on a stage in front of an audience of cult associates (note ‘occult shows’ are all-the-rage in Hollywood). Some years later it transpired that the other girl was made to have three babies that ‘disappeared’. As an adult this female managed to get her father behind bars (for a few years) for child sexual abuse based in part on her detailed diary entries. However her own Barrister ‘recommended’ not to mention the babies that disappeared as this could make the jury disbelieve her and side with the alleged perpetrator. While understandable on an individual case basis such legal handling of the situation perpetuates the widespread ‘Discourse of Disbelief’ promoted by vested interests.

Around the time the landlord’s daughter got impregnated her parents removed all calendars in the home. At some point in the pregnancy they applied for home-schooling. In the course of preparing an appeal I contacted the school that provided materials that would be helpful for a proper investigation. However ‘The System’ would do anything to prevent an appeal that would have to be heard in Open Court. I got a flavour of this when I tried to submit a 188 page judicial review application that got thwarted by the Royal Court of (In)Justice clerk who phoned around (perhaps prompted by 20 headings featuring the word ‘Misconduct’ and spooked by the crime map with six large and 2 small crosses?) and erroneously claimed that the three identical folders I had prepared would have to be submitted at the court where the original ‘Forced Adoption’ court ruling had been made. It was the afternoon of the final day of the period allowed after a ruling – fallen at the first hurdle!

The question arises to what extent such chilling stories represent real crimes, confabulation or results of manipulation/coaching?

In the case of the ‘Norwich Three’ Marie’s 2nd child had a known tendency to ‘confabulate’ with teachers complaining about fibs at the age of 4 years. This child claimed (after many months in ‘foster care’) that Marie ostensibly put a baby that her friend had ‘run over’ into a bag, carried it into her house and made her children drink its blood! The foster carer seemingly ‘believed’ this story (possibly egging on this kind of confabulation). What is the credibility of these allegations when the friend did not own a car and did not even have a driving licence? No baby was reported missing and no dead baby was found.

Without any physical evidence a criminal case ensued against 10 defendants most of whom were members of Marie’s family while many of the remaining 30 ‘alleged abusers’ were not even interviewed by police! In extremely dubious circumstances Marie and two former partners were found guilty of sexual abuse.

Broadly in parallel a 9 year old boy and his 8 year old sister living in Hampstead (North London) made disconcerting disclosures in September 2014 to their mother and her boyfriend concerning extreme abuse and murder of babies (‘Ritual Sacrifice’?). Video recordings appeared on the Internet in February 2015 that were reportedly viewed by 4 Million individuals across the world. The astonishing disclosures implicated family members, friends and members of institutions. Ricky Dearman, the man at the centre of the allegations, denied all wrongdoing and was afforded an interview on the BBC Victoria Derbyshire program (that did not mention his ‘acting career’). Several websites sprung up:

In February 2017 a headline screamed ‘Group of women who say they were abused by Sir Edward Heath also claim their parents ran a satanic sex cult that was involved in SIXTEEN child murders’ – a claim found credible by the police chief of Wiltshire:

The claims were reportedly dismissed when they first surfaced in 1989. Since then a society-wide ‘Discourse of Disbelief’ has been drip fed that ritual abuse does not exist. Some months ago Wiltshire police reportedly arrested two individuals on child sexual abuse charges. I made contact with the officer who had interviewed me earlier expressing hopes that the Kingston Terminator (see previous post) may have been arrested together with his accomplice wife. However it seems more likely that the parents of the ‘group of women’ may have been apprehended.

The three cases surveyed suggest that a lot more investigation should be carried out that is commensurate with the seriousness of extreme abuse and ritual sacrifice murder. The ‘Hampstead Kids’ and ‘Norwich Three’ rulings both appear extremely unsafe:



‘I, Michael Rogers’

The persecution of Michael resembles the narrative in Ken Loach’s gritty movie ‘I, Daniel Blake’. Michael was bullied by an arrogant job centre advisor. Sacked by a spineless employer. His bank ominously barred his account (coincidentally?) at the worst possible time setting about a chain of events leading to a period of homelessness (possessions in storage; some nights sleeping in the car, then B&B). Police ‘pounced’ on the opportunity to impose strict bail conditions and confiscated his mobile phone. To qualify for Legal Aid he had to resign from his job – classic authority imposed ‘double-bind’. Bicycle stolen. Preparing a SORN declaration for his car. For 4 years living under a dark cloud, then swallowed up by the cloud.

How difficult would it be to figure out that the children were manipulated into making false allegations? Michael’s initial solicitor just read the letter from Norfolk County Council and remarked almost immediately (what does this say about the state of so-called ‘Child Protection’?):

“this looks like a plan to get the kids off the mum”

Michael mused in the message chat:

I just looked at her, thinking also, is it that obvious??!!

When the aunt hears about the detailed allegation on 14th August 2014 her response hits the nail on the head:

‘Michael I am lost for words. I don’t know these children obviously but it all sounds like a make believe game where every time a child is spoken to, they try to outdo their story.’

A chilling reality is that the children made allegations about 40(!) individuals but only family and friends of Marie Black were made defendants.

Yes <Aunt> you dead right to be lost for words. I been like that for last 3 years at least, thinking what on earth?? No, <ex-wife> not a defendant, but anyone who is actually ‘mentioned’ should be brought forward as a defendant though, shouldn’t they? That issue alone was brought up 3 years ago by one of barristers, Marie’s I think but not sure, at fact finding hearing. I mentioned it to my brief, saying “everyone who is mentioned AT ALL should be a defendant. It’s not rocket science“. I tell you his answer. “Yes but there’s a core of you mentioned time and time again”. He made my blood boil and I felt helpless. I thought and knew, no matter what, no matter how many times someone is mentioned that they become a defendant?? A mention is a mention. Wether it’s true or not.

The aunt can see through the shenanigans right away (why could the judge not?):

‘Well Michael, I am surprised as you are about the apparent selective method of choosing who is a defendant and who is not. Obviously the CPS think that the more someone is mentioned, the more likely the jury will be to convict. It’s a real eye opener!’

It is obvious that in a ‘make believe tale’ competition the immediate family and closest friends will feature most frequently. Is this why the media coverage in the criminal case never mentioned that Marie’s children had been ‘taken into care’ on a voluntary section 20 arrangement and never returned, that Luna was exposed to ‘kidnap trauma’ in France due to Norwich County Council errors and (just about) returned, and that the defendants were family or close friends?

What would happen if authorities properly followed up ALL disclosures? I guess that more and more contradictions with the ‘real world’ (I heard a few from former defendants) would become apparent exposing the children as unreliable witnesses and the foster carers as manipulators pushing an evil ‘Parental Alienation’ agenda for the ‘best interest of the Forced Adoption and Care’ industry. Teachers were named – how would they have reacted if threatening letters had arrived at their doorsteps? With a clear conscience they probably would have invoked Teacher’s Union and/or Professional Indemnity insurance to challenge the ‘myth’ created by vested interests, or mobilised fellow teachers, parents and school alumni. Did authorities only go for the ‘low hanging fruits’ – disadvantaged individuals who already had more than their fair share of trauma and challenge?

What kind of stories are there? Here is just one of them:

‘All this is statements from foster carers. most if not all lies. There was mention one point of me dressing up as Father Christmas and apparently scaring the kids? I’ve never dressed up at all. Not even as Father Christmas.’

On 03/10/2014 news about the Social Worker interfering with Foster Carer reports came out:

 ‘<Aunt>, well my sol called yesterday, Thurs. Apparently (hope i get this right) the s/w for these f/c’s has dug herself a huge hole and probably difficult to get out of, if at all… She (the s/w) went and changed, edited original notes from foster carers after notes were put on a certain computer system called ‘CARE FIRST’ (I think). It’s a process they supposed to do apparently. But this s/w took it on herslef to change, edit the notes. Which is unbelievable, and very disturbing. And she (s/w) now due to be arrested, questioned etc and maybe more, maybe face prison or something (i personally hope so). Just got to wait and see though. I think i got the jist of it. Solicitor went throught it quite quick as she was technically outside her hours at the time, 1845 last night!! I was trying to take all in quickly, so it was hard!! But if true how idiotic eh?!

The Aunt immediately understood the significance of this (which the judge unfortunately never did):

Gosh Michael, this case is getting more and more weird. What implications will this latest fiasco have on the trial? Hopefully, the judge will throw it out!!

Social Workers removing the ‘leading questions’ that the children got bombarded with. Apparently 6 months of foster carer records covering the crucial period when the children were told they would NOT return to their mother – lost. Why did the CPS proceed in these farcical circumstances? Why did the judge not throw out the case? To save the establishment embarrassment? To shield the ‘Forced Adoption and Care Industry’? To punish Marie for having Luna and preventing Norwich to add her to their ‘collection’? Because the ‘super-tanker’ was unstoppable? Because no one would notice and speak up for the ‘Norwich Three’?

On 07/11/2014 Michael wrote he was made to see a Psychiatrist. The infliction of ‘Legal Trauma’ by Norwich County Council nearly had the lethal effect as the authority persecution had on the main protagonist in ‘I, Daniel Blake’:

‘I’ve seen a psychiatrist before now, earlier this year, again firm procedure, and result was good, all clear, no concerns. Anyway, this meeting yesterday started okay, but went a bit pearshaped. I was basically a mixture of tired, stressed out, sense of frustration, all round and I basically broke down, in front of the psychologist and sol. I was tired from being up since 4, leaving at half 4, driving to Barking area in East London, about a mile from Barking tube station, and getting tube to Temple station near solicitor’s. Apart from being tired otherwise, all this waiting etc and trying to move back to Romford when damn CPS let me!! I’ve asked sol just WHAT is their problem??!! Well I got as bad as sol and the psych getting an ambulance in the end. I was that bad. 2 paramedics came, 1 dealt with me. It just so happened I was starting to be able to calm down eventually. I got no idea how long it was. But I told paramedic basically this whole nonsense from 3 and half years ago now, since I got letter from NCC in Feb’11 and being arrested twice, co-operating accordingly. but trying to put a brave face on things, when it’s almost impossible. He said something almost straight away regarding this letter and being arrested that made me think “oh my god” in that IF there’s ANY such crime of ANY nature happens, the FIRST thing one does is… the police. Which he said. And NOT drum up some letter, as scaremongery, and be arrested a year later??!! You’d call police straight away. Which didn’t happen. I just looked at him. He lifted his shoulders up and down. A paramedic, we don’t know each other, yet he said in about 10 minutes flat, if that, what he just said. I couldn’t help but scoff.’

Everyone hearing Michael’s story grasp the issues very quickly. How can ‘well-educated professionals’ be so blind, oblivious and indifferent to the truth? Protecting ‘The System’ at any cost!

I had to take a deep breath and close down my laptop when I read what Michael typed in Messenger on 30/01/2015 19:24:

‘One thing my barr mentioned in private though was fact of other kids (not Marie’s kids) with foster carers apparently been saying same things??!! He left it at that. I can only think that’s on our side?’

What does this mean? Are these foster carers specialising in the dark art of ‘Parental Alienation’ turning children against their biological parents? What greater child cruelty could there be than brainwashing your foster children into falsely believing that their parents, family and friends sexually abused them? An even greater cruelty would be to farm this role out to prior foster children – to let them do the ‘dirty work’!

Why am I so angry and shocked about this? In ‘real’ (or at least ‘realistic’) extreme abuse cases that went to criminal trial self-declared child victims were forced to give testimony for hours and hours – and in the end in spite of consistency were ‘disbelieved’ with Alisha Owen in the notorious Franklin case even ‘convicted’ of ‘Perjury’. If ‘The Establishment’ gets its way ‘Nick’ in the UK will share this fate – a stern warning to anyone else who is thinking about disclosing their story.

I recall Randy Noblitt, co-author of the excellent ‘Ritual abuse in the 21st century’, coming under pressure for his testimony by the ‘Disbelievers’ and steadfastly explaining that in a specific case each sibling group was kept apart to rule out cross-contamination of stories. Marie had many children and naturally even ‘in care’ efforts would have been made (presumably) for the siblings to continue interacting. An inevitable side effect is that ‘round the kitchen table’ all sorts of stories could be co-created – rendering long-delayed disclosures rather questionable. How much worse must such cross-contamination become if previous foster care kids who believe they were abused by their biological parents were interacting with the kids of Marie? Cross-contamination Galore!

During the same period the defendants were barred from communicating leaving them with little opportunity to ‘catch’ the contradictions. A particular strong counter to the allegations is that Michael Rogers had never met Jason Adams summarily discrediting all abuse claims where both men would have ostensibly been present.

On 13/02/2015 18:31 Michael got me reaching for my dictionary.

‘I tried calling sol’s office (again) about 4.45 earlier, but sol (Des) not available at the time. I’m having trouble contacting him! We’ve only spoken the one time, last year, as he took over from my original sol on her her last week there. He’s replied via email a few times though. I know I’m only on legal aid, and it’s ‘skeleton help’, basic, as it were, be different if I funded this myself, but it all feels a bit ‘je ne sais quais’?! I don’t know… Anyway, I ‘m going to try call again Monday now. More waiting…’

je ne sais quoinoun [ S ]

UK  /ˌʒə nə seɪ ˈkwɑː/ US  /ˌʒə nə seɪ ˈkwɑː/

French for ‘I don’t know what’: a pleasing quality that cannot be exactly named or described


a quality that cannot be described or named easily.

“that je ne sais quoi which makes a professional”

What are the qualities professionals need to succeed in the Child Protection Trojan horse of today?

Read Lynne Wrennel’s illuminating (sic) article:


‘Always 2 sides to every story…’ Michael writes on the 21st February and reveals a chilling concern:

‘I might be thinking of changing lawyers ,if not too late, as I’m not getting good vibes at all from this new chap I got. He’s got few things wrong so far, and possibly assuming, guessing things, which just should not happen. Even my barrister got couple of things wrong at PTR in Dec. But just yesterday, my new lawyer made too many mistakes for my liking. One would be too many, it’s just not on.’

On 10/03/2015 17:18 more chilling disclosures about supine legal personnel (Michael was close to sacking his legal representatives but was talked out of it) – whose interested is this QC representing?

Went to sol’s again yesterday to try clear up an issue I wasn’t happy with. But looks like I’m stuck with a QC who said totally the wrong thing when I met her last year. Even my solicitor, (first one last year) agreed and my barrister thought what she said was unacceptable.’

There are and have been so many grey areas since these allegations came from NCC, it’s crazy. And I said so. Maybe I shouldn’t have. I don’t know.’

There’s no justice anywhere. My sense of trust is an all-time low too.


On 17th March some insights into the spuriousness of the case:

‘In my mind and other defendants, there is no case, But if it’s case of lawyers, barristers, judges, see sight of or get whiff of ‘pounds’ at all, then they probably going to milk it??’

21st March:

‘I’m in a position, insane position, which I just should not be in anyway. Almost seems like mission blooming impossible…’

‘I’m going to see my gp next week (Thurs) re new sick certificate from work, and able to apply for hb at least, for duration of this poxy trial, till I either end up ‘inside’ or end up free, back to normal. If justice prevails.’


09/04/2015 16:44:

More bad vibes about the QC and the solicitor (who seemingly wants through a ruse of a ‘quick meeting’ prevent Michael from attending a hearing – whose side is that solicitor on?):

‘I got a ‘quick meeting‘ at sol’s again tomorrow. God knows what about or what for, but I’ll probably find out, hopefully at least. And same day as there’s supposed to be this last hearing, PTR, which I had in mind to go, but not sure now. And I really shouldn’t be saying this next bit, BUT, I’m really not too keen on the solicitor I got now. He took over my original sol who left the firm just before Xmas. Nor am I too happy with QC (silk) I got either. I have mentioned it, but the firm ‘sings’ her praises, but I’m just not sure myself. And as I said at office last time, if I have to wait till my time come trila, to ‘say things, my side of story’, then so be it. All sol keeps saying or kept saying was ‘ok, ok’. It sounded like a brush -off to me. Have to wait and see.’

On 13/04/2015 15:30 yet again unhappy about legal representation and eagerly awaiting his opportunity to tell his story (shenanigans follow that fatally reduce this enthusiasm with chilling consequences):

‘I’m not happy with my legal team still. I preferred my first solicitor except she did get couple of things wrong herself, BUT I’m just going to have to wait till I get my side of story, my turn when I can, with or without sol or barrister help. Yep, trial coming up Monday still. Roll on…’

Some insights on 13/04/2015 19:16 into the chaotic case – what is going on at Norwich County Council?

‘My sol called earlier, asking me to pop in to office tomorrow, 10am for instructions on more papers been served. I don’t really mind too much, albeit to say it’s almighty “weird”, like week before trial due and there’s still more papers being served. Same has happened last 2 weeks or so. But it’s been same papers as I’ve been through last year!! To me, it’s Norfolk council sounding ‘desperate’ , trying to get somewhere, trying to make something from nothing. I’m not worried what it is at all, just blooming curious I suppose.’

A fighting attitude and spookily true words on 14/04/2015 15:13:

‘But I’m still looking forward to it though. It just sounds really strange, weird to be thinking that let alone say it, to look forward to a trial. But so be it. And I’ve got a lot to fight for too. Normality, in a word. I’ve been through a heck of a lot of paperwork, most of it a load of crap. I know, realise, Norfolk council have got A LOT to lose. A heck of a lot. They have. Even a mate of mine said that. And they’ll try ANYTHING to try to get their own way. I’ve seen a lot of it in paperwork so far!! So much RUBBISH. One thing tough, I’ll try let you know when I’m due at the stand or whatever it’s called, as soon as I know myself. Except if I don’t know till last second, it could prove awkward, but I’ll try anyway.’

The Trial

First day of court 20/04/2015 18:38 – just learned something new about a ‘Nanny’:

‘The kids Nanny, who the kids themselves ALWAYS went to for love and comfort etc, she had an extra charge. She also pleaded not guilty.’

Hold on – must be the grandmother (who I talked to half a dozen times). Absolutely unbelievable what she was ‘sent down’ for. The foster carers claimed she pierced one of the children with a BBQ skewer during a contact session in her home. Michael says he never saw a skewer at the BBQs he attended at that home. The taxi driver did not notice anything on a 20 minute journey back. On arrival the foster carers did not ‘bother’ getting medical help and securing evidence. Unbelievably Granny spent 3 months in Peterborough prison ‘convicted’ (based on foster carers say so) of GBH. It is my view that these foster carers should be charged with neglect and relieved of their responsibility for the foster children in their care.

There were allegations made by the oldest child that the Grandfather pushed this child down the stairs on the day the children were taken into care, and that he poured cornflakes and milk all over this child. Strangely the child went to school and no one found anything untoward. This absurd allegation was thrown out due to inconsistencies and the proper conduct of his diligent legal representative.

On 21/04/2015 17:10 Michael writes:

‘trial’ can be and is a big horrible word.

The last for 4 years already had been a trial (or ordeal), and the trial would be followed by a 24 year ordeal (or travesty) – courtesy of the clandestine authority activities and inadequate ‘legal representatives’ of the four defendants that were not cleared.

‘another of defendants had 4 extra charges on him today, to plead to, which he pleaded guilty, after consulting his brief. But this was years ago, before I was on the scene with Marie, and he served time in prison for it. And he acknowledged all this at civil case in 2011, family court. But, he pleaded guilty anyway, 4 counts, to cruelty.

Why were these charges sprung on this defendant at the last minute? To wrong-foot the man (Jason Adams – former husband of Marie) and lay the ‘closed loop’ foundation for the judge’s cruel and misleading ‘summing up’ and (mis)direction of the jury? How long did the ‘vested interests’ work on concocting this particular sequence of manipulation?

Even I – without any legal training – have heard of ‘double-jeopardy’ rules – why-oh-why are the legally qualified people (including the most senior appeal court judges in the country) letting this happen? Why did Jason’s ‘brief’ advise to plead guilty rather than invoke ‘Double Jeopardy’ arguments? The whole case should be ruled a ‘mistrial’ even on the basis of this irregularity alone!

Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges and on the same facts, following a valid acquittal or conviction.

If this issue is raised, evidence will be placed before the court, which will normally rule as a preliminary matter whether the plea is substantiated; if it is, the projected trial will be prevented from proceeding. In some countries, including Canada, Mexico and the United States, the guarantee against being “twice put in jeopardy” is a constitutional right. In other countries, the protection is afforded by statute. In common law countries, a defendant may enter a peremptory plea of autrefois acquit (formerly acquitted) or autrefois convict (formerly convicted), with the same effect.


On 22/04/2015 he comments:

Today, Marie’s kids’ intermediary got sworn in and most if not all barristers questioned her, or grilled her even. Mine was good. He asked about ‘age relevance’ questions, just exactly what I was thinking at the time. And I told him in private after. Made us both smile. I’m sure he can read my mind….

…this kids’ intermediary, bearing in mind her POSITION, her TITLE, boy have I got issues with some of her answers what she gave today. Already. I wrote them down anyway. And if not raised by Marie’s immediate family, (bound to be – they were discussing between themselves galore) then I’ll raise with my barrister myself. And believe me there were issues. Even at this early stage, just with the intermediary.

On 23/04/2015:

I believe we’ve ALL lost any jobs we did have, all of us. Scandalous. And yes I been writing notes. When and where necessary. It’s helping to keep the mind clear, to save relying on memory so much, plus being able to possibly refer to notes written down too, in case needed?? You know what I mean no doubt. I did use to think, “what’s the point?”, of making notes? Surely that’s where sol and or barrister comes in?? BUT, not necessarily. As I’ve found out. Boy it helps to make notes, no matter how irrelevant it might seem. Blooming annoying! But if it helps the cause then so be it. In other words I’m slowly becoming or turning into a solicitor at the moment!! Without realising it! About today, all barristers said about quantity and quality of questions for Marie’s kids, when they come in. Not sure when that is though. They got to try to keep it as few as possible.

On 27/04/2015 some comments on the prosecution (or should that be ‘persecution’?) and Michael’s eagerness to tell his story:

To let you know, prosecution said her bit today. Loads of lies though. I’m making notes here and there. Yes it was fairly annoying, frustrating, hearing her rabbit like she did, but I’m just waiting for my turn. When I say loads of lies, it wasn’t all. There was a couple of true bits that I know of. But otherwise, rest are lies.

On 29/04/2015 testimony from Marie’s eldest child:

Video-link of Marie’s eldest, I won’t say name. BUT, although said about me and this former husband of Marie being mean and or violent ( me mean, this other defendant, violent), did NOT say anything untowards, or illegal happened.

It is disturbing that this child on a previous occasion reportedly burst in a recorded session ‘suddenly’ into a ‘scatter-gun’ mode making allegations of sexual abuse against all and sundry. Was he coached, manipulated, coerced and/or hypnotised into making false allegations ‘to get the judicial persecution started’?

On 05/05/2015 comments on the testimony of the (fourth?) child:

Another tiny good point came up today. But again possibly huge. My QC put 1 quite simple question to this other _____ of Marie, via live video link. If _____ remembered a flipping game we used to play (they ALL used to play, including R & L). She even described it, walking up my knees and flipping themselves over. _____ said no. I was stunned, gobsmacked. (this _____ would say ‘stop’ eventually as we did it too much. And I did stop.)

What does it mean that the (fourth?) child did not remember a harmless game (which SS of course twisted into a ‘sexualised’ activity) that all children participated in? Does the child have ‘amnesia’ issues? If the child cannot remember such everyday activity it raises grave doubts about the reliability and validity of any ‘abuse’ disclosures.

On 06/05/2015 some references to another one of Marie’s children (probably the third oldest who reportedly defended Marie saying ‘Mummy never did that’?):

Today there were ‘live’ questions from certain barr’s to this _____. MIne asked few simple ones, last being if _____ wanted to stay in Romford (rather than go back to Norwich, as I thought was case), and _____ said “yes”. Which surprised me. Because I thought or knew rather they were ALL homesick, plus if there was anything untoward going on, she would equally have said “no” to staying at mine in Romford. If that makes sense?? I just thought and expected _____ to say “no”. But… ! There’s more ABE’s to follow. Then the foster carers come in, next week I believe. Yes it’s been horrible, nasty, painful, so far. But, as I’ve said to my QC, barr and both intermediaries so far, it’s knowing what’s true and NOT true, in my mind. And trying to prove it.

I am confused and concerned about the entry on 07/05/2015 which probably refers to the 2nd oldest child who has been known to ‘confabulate’ since age 4:

It’s okay really (?!). I was warned about this before anyway, from you too. BUT, the bottom line being knowing what’s true, what’s not. It’s just sitting through all the junk. Let them get on with it! Like today, there was nearly call for boxing gloves. Yep seriously. Between judge, prosecution and 1 barrister, but not mine. Prosecution and judge WANTED 1 particular child be brought in, be questioned “live” as has 2 others so far. BUT, none other barr’s felt the need. Mine said “too many inconsistencies” in old video evidence (ABE’s). Which she told judge directly. Prosecution and judge reluctantly agreed in the end NOT to bring this child in for questions. It was messy. But anyway, more videos tomorrow apparently. And that’s story so far…

What is this about? Why would the defence barristers decline to cross-examine the ‘main’ source of the sexual abuse allegations? The reliability and validity of the child witness disclosures surely must be properly tested in court, and if appropriate dismissed? Why would the barristers vehemently refuse to have this child brought in for questioning?


It is a fact that Marie greatly regrets not taking the stand to give testimony. She reportedly was manipulated by her own legal representatives who cowed her by referring to the hundreds of prosecution pages that questions may relate to. The trouble seems to be that her own legal team had largely swallowed the ‘prosecution’ side of the story and accused Marie of not giving a clear account of the situations the children reportedly referred to. It was as difficult for all defendants to comprehend the nightmare situation they found themselves in with no knowledge of any of these alleged abuses.

Apparently Jason Adams, who was the first defendant, was at one point asked by the judge whether he believed the children had been abused. When he responded ‘I believe the children have been abused…’ he reportedly was ‘cut-off’ mid-sentence by the judge before he could finish ‘…by the foster carers’.

A very bizarre situation developed with the Nanny who got manipulated by one of the defence representatives into agreeing ‘There must have been some abuse’ (which was later pounced on in an unfair manner by the judge). Her husband recognised the lead up of the questioning yet had to helplessly watch his wife being ‘set up’. He stated that until the end of the Prosecution’s case he was on tenterhooks (i.e. in a state of uncomfortable suspense) to hear any ‘smoking gun’ evidence. There was none.

On 09/05/2015:

There was last of ABE’s (video evidence) yesterday, Friday, and was the youngest child. There was nothing in it. ____, like the others I think, just wanted to be at school!



On 09/05/2015 the aunt enquires whether the trial all going to hinge on the evidence of the foster carers. How true this becomes!


Interesting information on 12/05/2015:

I’m not sure what the trial rests on at the moment really. So far, the prosecution finished today (Tues). And the first of defence Barr’s started pm, will continue tomorrow am (WED). I’m still 6th on indictment (being 3rd and top before…). One of f/c’s in witness box at the moment, started yesterday (Mon).

How come that Michael is 6th on the indictment list dropping down from being in ‘top place’? This seems to be related to ‘The Stain’. Remember the stain on the sweater of Monica Lewinsky? What would you think about Bill Clinton if you were to hear that the sweater had been through the washing machine? This is a suitable comparison scenario to the ‘ridogulous’ shenanigans that ‘kick-started’ the criminal case. Police gained unsupervised access to Michael’s accommodation and removed two sets of child clothing. Apparently they also removed a ‘used condom’. Strangely the police claims to have found sperm on the children clothing – which had been washed. Equipped with this ‘pseudo-evidence’ the criminal case was started.

Let’s reflect on a few disclosures. Reportedly Norwich Social Workers hissed (out of earshot of any witnesses of course) at Marie: ‘You will never get your children back’. When Marie called Norwich police expressing her concerns that her children were brainwashed into making false allegations they – somewhat apologetically at first – said they could not do anything as it was flagged as a ‘child protection’ issue (this ‘card blanche’ underpins a lot of the shenanigans in the local cabals). When claiming that the DNA Match was not high enough the Social Worker stated a classic ‘inversion’: We are not messing with your children’s mind. When Marie and Joe settled in France Norwich officials made up allegations he broke her arm. They erroneously claimed to have jurisdiction of Luna and unlawfully removed the baby. When under high a court order they returned Luna at last they reportedly stated ominously: ‘You have not heard the last of us yet.’

With this kind of ‘irregularities galore’ it makes me wonder how sperm got onto those clothes? The court proceedings engaged a fanciful expert who ‘explained away’ the significance of the find (could be due to contamination in the washing machine) and the (non-)issue faded into insignificance. Had the ‘pseudo-evidence’ done its job in cranking up the pressure to start a criminal case? Did the timing have anything to do with the fact that Marie and Joe shortly before had given up on their fight for compensation regarding the unlawful removal of Luna through Norwich officials? They apparently gave up pursuing the claim when Norwich made heavy-handed threats that they would be made responsible for all legal costs of Norwich if they lost the case.

Comments about the first foster carer on 13/05/2015:

The first of the foster carers been questioned still. She seems to be ‘avoiding’ certain questions somehow, reverting to ___ notes, diaries ___’s done before. Wether it’s true or not. I’ve not been too impressed myself. But I’ll leave it up to my barrister and QC.

Comments about the second foster carer (and Michael’s QC!) on 15/05/2015:

There was 2nd f/c as witness. As far as I could tell ___ was lying through ___ teeth throughout, yet trying to make it sound good at same time. And my QC’s actually buying it. She’s trying to tell me differently, but I’ll just have to wait and see. There’s 2nd pair of f/c’s next week, starting Monday. So basically prosecution continuing.

On 22nd some reflections on the foster carers, Michael’s girls and life after trial if cleared:

But this week it’s been the foster carers, 2 pairs, husbands & wives. And I THINK I’m not the only one to think so, but they ALL lied. 3 of them actually wanted a screen around the witness box. This was a flexible 4-fold barrier covering 2 sides of the stand. Only 1 of them didn’t want it, the screen. And ___ lied. But it’s just a case of so far so good though really, still. Yes I’ve heard some more Crap. We all have, those of us there, suffering it. But I’m just TRYING to think of end result, 4 possible jobs on offer. and most importantly, normality. We not in now till Monday week, 1st June. As half-term next week (Whitsun?). So yet more agonising waiting. And apparently there’s to be another 27 witnesses for prosecution yet, including police. Before you ask, I do not know…. I got no idea.

On 05/06/2015 social worker witness reflections:

Been various witnesses giving evidence all week, including s/w on Thursday & Friday who most of the barristers tried hard to get much or any sense out of her, except mine. Mine managed to somehow actually get some sense out of this s/w! It was pretty sad. And hard going. Mind you, I not been in witness box yet, so…

Very interesting turn of events indicated on 26/06/2016 when Michael realised it is not compulsory to give evidence (why was that not made clear before???):

But prosecution mentioned finishing their bit sometime Monday. I’m not holding my breath though. Some jury members have complained about the length of it so far already, apparently. Judge did not say exactly what was said, but there’s been grievances about length of prosecution. I’ve recently found out though, that us defendants don’t actually need to give evidence if we don’t want to at all? I didn’t realise this, know this. I thought we just had to come forward in indictment order, say our bits, or answer questions rather. I just thought it was compulsory. BUT, not so. My QC said to wait till the others before me give their evidence, and we’d have a chat about my bit. As straight away I was in 2 minds whether to go forward or not? For couple of reasons at least. I’m concerned, too, about length of time taken so far. It’s been crazy. Plus I’m thinking of affording accommodation still, especially if this case does prolong? my Barrister said it should be over by August(!) or end of July. Again I’m not holding my breath, my own Barr or not. I think he knows I’m concerned though. I think everyone knows we all concerned. Except the judge. Who is not impartial, I’ve noticed. Since day 1. He’s been quite 1-sided. Plus I’m all too wary of how I might sound and come across to jury. Even though I got intermediary. It’s going to be up to me in the end I know. I do want to go forward still, but as I said, I can’t help but feel wary. My police interviews been read out to jury anyway, summing up my side of story, so I really am in 2 minds.

On 23/06/2015 Michael still was 90:10 sure that he would like to give testimony:

To let you know defence FINALLY got going today, Tuesday. I’m 6th (of 10) on indictment list. But as I only found out yesterday, we don’t actually have to come forward at all, it’s not compulsory. Which I didn’t know. So I been in 2 minds whether to or not. But my legals been filling me in as to what to expect. Basically expect the unexpected. And more. Much more. It could well be grilling time. Steaks well done…. Or probably burnt. Or set on fire. Anyway, my legals said, IF and a big IF I go forward, it could be Friday, or Monday. Just depends though. But I’m just trying to gear myself up to go forward at the moment. I want to more than not. But it’s our own choice in the end. I’m 90 – 10 on it so far.

On 30/06/2015 the aunt learns that Michael ‘changed his mind’ – partly due to a bruising experience with a different judge.

I didn’t give evidence after all. 2 of us haven’t. But, as said, yes my interviews were read out in full to the jury. And my QC said they both were quite strong, even under the strain and duress and very much outside comfort zone at the time. I’m certainly not expecting police to knock on door at any time. And we all stated more or less the same, without knowing, as we’re all hearing. But it was the judge from the family court hearing 4 years ago that didn’t believe me on the stand. He chose to believe when I touched on a brief personal note about Dad. Now I could have just made it up just to try get some sympathy, but not the case. The judge just didn’t believe anything else. But that was 4 years ago. Yes all paperwork on my side was read out, quite strong in QC’s mind, so thought better to let the papers speak volumes. Or try to.

I am wondering to what extent other people changed Michael’s mind? I am being told that Michael’s stutter was one factor that influenced the decision not to give evidence. I personally found Michael particularly credible due to his unpolished, slightly awkward social style (when many abusers hide behind a charismatic front). I can also relate to his background as I used to cycle a lot and also ran a marathon. A massive influence was the issue of ‘images’ referred to early on in the messenger thread. Some clues can be found in my earlier blogpost that included media report links:

Let’s look at a particular claim in more detail:

Sarah Elliott QC, mitigating for Black, said her client had been the victim of very serious domestic violence at the hands of Adams. “He was, and is, a very manipulative man,” she said. Elliott told the court that evidence was found on Rogers’ telephone suggesting he was a paedophile who exploited Black.

So what was this evidence found on Michael’s telephone suggesting he was a paedophile?

The reality is that whilst single and outside of a relationship Michael clicked on his phone on an advert for a site that was called ‘Slim women small tits’ i.e. the clue was in the title they were small breasted Women. Michael was threatened that this evidence would be put before the jury if he took the stand i.e. his legal team did everything to persuade him not to give evidence even though he fully wished to do so. Had this evidence been seen by the jury it may well have helped rather than hindered his case. I asked Michael to comment on this situation and he dutifully gave an account in his letter that I uploaded with my last blog post. Nothing at all to do with Paedophilia, Sarah Elliott!

Here are some more examples how the defendants were ‘taken for a ride’ by their legal representatives:

Did the prosecution describe Marie Black as “clearly a vulnerable, corrupted woman“? No – her own barrister Sarah Elliott QC did!

Isabella Forshall QC, for Adams, said he had no previous convictions for sexual offences and Black was “the common denominator between all the offences.” Reportedly Jason Adams legal representative also referred to him as ‘a nasty piece of work’ (or a similar derogatory phrase) on a day that Jason was not attending court.

Ann Cotcher QC said Rogers was a “naive” man who had sought to help Black and was not the instigator of sexual and physical abuse. Charming comments! I found Michael genuine, compassionate and forthright, and more insightful about the case than all ‘professionals’ combined.

Who needs enemies with friends (= legal representatives) like that?

“The case is the most harrowing it has been my misfortune to try,” said Judge Nicholas Coleman. He also said he had “had enough” of legal argument from her barrister and went at it both barrels.

I gathered that Judge Coleman actually took the ‘Double Jeopardy’ admission of Jason Adams of child cruelty (for which he had already spent one year in prison) and the coerced admission of the Nanny ‘There must have been abuse’ to direct the Jury that there has been abuse, and that their role is to identify who is guilty of the abuse. Naturally the parents of the children and Michael as Marie’s former partner would have the most frequent ‘mentions’ in the ‘make believe’ game so got sent down.

Are the ‘Norwich Three’ Michael Rogers, Marie Black and Jason Adams the victims of clandestine authority processes instigated by the ‘Forced Adoption & Care’ industry, a compromised Psychiatrist, inadequate legal representatives, and an unfair judge?

Serious researcher will find rich pickings when unpicking this pseudo-investigation. Budding script writers could turn this into a mainstream success like ‘Making a murderer’. Suggested title of the production: ‘Making a paedophile ring’.

PS: Today is ‘Mother’s Day’ (at least in the UK) so that I would like to dedicate this blog entry to the grieving mothers around the world who are victims of barbaric ‘Child Snatching’ practices.


The Travesty of Michael Rogers: 24 Years for 18 Months



I was delighted to receive a clear and informative letter (uploaded to this blog) just before X-mas from Michael Rogers who I visited at HMP Isle of Wight in Summer 2016. He has since moved ‘home’ to HMP Swaleside on Sheerness where understaffing brings a lot of time locked up in the cell.

I wrote earlier about the backgrounds of the Norwich Three:

I asked Michael to provide a biography of his life which I have now uploaded to this blog entry with some key names redacted.

What strikes me is the humbleness and ordinariness of Michael’s background. Caring for his father who was wheel-chair bound already when Michael was born. Learning a trade. Driving buses. A lot of cycling. Getting spotted by a ‘broody’ woman. Getting married. Two girls. Separation.

This could be anybody’s life story. No ‘Romeo’. No serial adulterer. A total of three relationships.

No conflict with the law. Not until that 18 months ill-fated relationship. One accident affecting a child when trying to move a TV. One incident involving two children with questionable ‘chastisement’. Another incident – ‘smacking’? The circumstances of the ‘Caution’ issued for these incidents bizarre and chilling. His partner at the time went with her children for a long weekend to visit a friend who got agitated – probably over-interpreting what Michael’s partner said about their relationship. His partner called the Police as her friend refused to let her leave with her children! A police officer asked Michael to sit with him in his car ‘for a chat’. The opening line was reportedly: ‘Sometimes we arrest the wrong person’. Michael felt the ‘red mist’ rising inside, did not listen any further and did not say anything. Got ‘arrested’ and after a night in a cell only wanted to get away from this godforsaken region as quickly as possible. So accepted a ‘police caution’.

More conflict with the law when THAT letter arrived. He contacted a solicitor – in spite of never meeting him before and knowing nothing about the circumstances she immediately grasped the motivation of the people behind the letter:

‘This looks like a plan to get the kids off the Mum’.

The cowards who had sent the letter refused to answer calls. No police interview investigation. Just unproven allegations. Contact with his own two daughters cut (who he is missing terribly).

His spineless employer (Stagecoach) immediately engineered a dismissal. Other jobs followed where he was competent, reliable and well-liked.

The ludicrous court case saga continued.

Michael explained to me the ‘twirling game’ he used to play with some of the children – ostensibly for sexual gratification. He told me that he sometimes carried a tired child on the neck when on an excursion. Allegations were made that he had carried a girl with her skirt over his eyes – ostensibly to eye up the girl’s intimate parts. Michael explained to me: Would it not have been rather difficult to walk like that without falling over? Would not members of the public intervene if seeing such a ‘spectacular’ in public places? Sadly it sounds like the kind of concoction that tends to be fabricated to further lucrative ‘Child in Care’ prospects.

The last sentences in the letter emphasise that his intimate partners were adult women. The reason for this is that horrific allegations of child sexual abuse were made against the Norwich Three. I believe that there is no truth to these allegations, that some of the darkest ‘Child Smuggling’ forces in the UK are behind the travesty, and that the convictions are extremely unsafe.

In the recent letter I appreciate the observations regarding the first Psychiatrist: ‘apprentice like’, ‘amateurish’. Odd behaviour of the second Psychiatrist. The saga about the pictures on the mobile.  AFTER the trial two burly ‘police officers’ interrogate him in prison about the Chiropractor. First shoot (i.e. pronounce guilty) – then investigate? Is this the Norwich way? I think it is a no good way!

I will talk about these and other shenanigans at the

Mental Capacity Act 2005 Conference – A Decade On, What’s Right & What’s Wrongs

in Norwich on 30th March 2017 organised by Kate Blake at the Edit Ellen Foundation:

See you there!?!