The Hampstead Cover Up – Exposed – Justice and Child Protection In Action

Contact:

jakeclarke8888@protonmail.com

The Legal/Lawful Document Presenting Evidence That This Case Is Being Covered Up. Deniying Justice and Protection of the Victims still 10+ years on from the initial Disclosures in Sept 2014.

The 2 Witness/Victim ‘Whistleblower’ Children Alisa Grace Gaveeva-Dearman and Gabriel Ewan Gaveev-Dearman, of the 72 named Children (at the time, this is a perpetual community in existence until stopped so amount involved unknown until dealt with) in Immediate and Constant Most Serious Danger.

And not numbering the unknown individual babies being murdered/’sacrificed’ in this child abuse, trafficking, rape and killing, paedophile/generational incest ring/cult.

‘Strange Religion’ and ‘Special Culture’ as named/described by the 2 Whistleblower Children.

Summary of Document A

Detailed Summary of Document ADownload

Detailed Summary of “Document A”

1. Purpose of the Statement

The document is a formal witness statement and complaint submitted by Ella Gareeva (formerly Draper) requesting:

  • An urgent review of a 2015 High Court judgment.
  • Re-examination of police investigations into serious abuse allegations made by her children in 2014.
  • Scrutiny of the conduct of police, social services, courts, and other authorities.

The complaint specifically challenges the High Court “fact-finding” judgment of March 20, 2015, which dismissed the children’s allegations and concluded that the father was innocent.

The author argues that:

  • Police investigations were inadequate and biased.
  • Evidence supporting the children’s claims was ignored or misrepresented.
  • Authorities focused on discrediting the mother rather than investigating suspects.

2. Background of the Case

Family members involved

Key individuals referenced:

  • Mother – Ella Draper / Ella Gareeva (author of the statement)
  • Father (RD) – estranged partner accused of abuse
  • Two children – aged approximately 8 and 9 at the time of allegations
  • Half-brother (J) – older child
  • AC – mother’s partner

The children reported alleged crimes to Barnet Police in London on 5 September 2014.

3. Nature of the Children’s Allegations

The children reportedly described extremely serious crimes involving:

  • Sexual abuse
  • Ritual abuse
  • Drugging of children
  • Production of child pornography
  • Child trafficking
  • Prostitution of children
  • Murder of babies

The alleged perpetrators were described as a large organised group involving:

  • Teachers
  • Police officers
  • Social workers
  • Clergy
  • Business people
  • Other professionals

The father was alleged to be the leader of the group.

4. Locations Where Abuse Allegedly Occurred

According to the children’s accounts, abuse allegedly took place at:

  • Christchurch Primary School in Hampstead
  • The church on the school grounds
  • Finchley Swimming Baths
  • McDonald’s
  • Costa Coffee
  • Private homes
  • Estate-agent properties

The children described secret rooms at some locations.

5. Police Investigation (According to the Document)

The document strongly criticises the police investigation.

The author claims police:

  • Conducted only one interview with the father
  • Did not arrest him
  • Did not search his home
  • Did not seize his computer
  • Did not test him for drugs
  • Did not investigate finances
  • Did not check CCTV
  • Did not investigate other suspects

The author argues that these steps would normally be standard in investigations involving:

  • child pornography
  • drug supply
  • organised abuse

6. Allegations About the Police Interview

The document analyses transcripts of the father’s police interview and claims:

  • Police asked very few substantive questions
  • Officers frequently used short responses such as:
    • “right”
    • “okay”
    • “yeah”
  • Allegations made by the children were not put to the father during questioning.

The author argues the interview resembled a witness interview rather than an interrogation of a suspect.

7. Medical Evidence

Medical examinations of the children reportedly found:

  • Anal scarring
  • Signs consistent with sexual abuse
  • PTSD
  • Reactive Attachment Disorder

These findings were initially described as consistent with abuse by medical professionals.

However, the High Court later concluded the injuries could be explained by constipation.

The author disputes this interpretation and states that the original doctor maintained the injuries were consistent with abuse.

8. Retraction of Allegations

The children later retracted parts of their allegations after entering local authority care.

The author argues these retractions were unreliable because:

  • They occurred after the children were removed from their mother.
  • Interviews were allegedly leading and poorly conducted.
  • A former police child-protection officer analysed transcripts and concluded the interviews were flawed.

The expert reportedly stated that coaching by the mother could not be confirmed.

9. Criticism of Child Interview Techniques

The report claims the police interviewer:

  • Used leading questions
  • Interrupted children
  • Asked closed questions
  • Attempted to challenge or discredit statements early in the interview

The author argues this tainted the reliability of the investigation.

10. Alleged Bias Against the Mother

A central theme of the document is that authorities focused on discrediting the mother.

Examples cited include claims that authorities:

  • Described her as mentally unstable
  • Criticised her vegan diet for the children
  • Claimed she was “robotic” or emotionally detached
  • Suggested she fabricated allegations to stop the father seeing the children

The author argues these issues were irrelevant to the abuse allegations.

11. Allegations of Institutional Cover-Up

The document alleges a potential cover-up by authorities.

Reasons given include:

  • Failure to investigate suspects
  • Early dismissal of allegations
  • Police closing the case quickly
  • Heavy reliance on children’s retractions
  • Family court secrecy

The author argues the case was improperly treated as a family dispute rather than a criminal investigation.

12. Concerns About Evidence Handling

The document claims:

  • Some forensic results were lost
  • Police misrepresented timelines of evidence
  • Hair samples showed cannabis exposure but context was unclear
  • Police closed the case before all evidence was received

13. Role of the High Court

The document criticises the High Court fact-finding hearing.

The judge concluded that:

  • The allegations were false
  • The father was innocent
  • The children had been influenced by their mother

The author argues the judge:

  • Ignored contradictory evidence
  • Dismissed medical findings
  • Accepted reports from authorities without scrutiny.

14. Criticism of Family Court System

The author argues the family court system allowed secrecy, which:

  • prevented public scrutiny
  • allowed evidence to be dismissed
  • enabled authorities to avoid accountability.

15. Additional Claims Raised

The document also raises broader concerns about:

  • connections between suspects and organisations
  • alleged links between officials through professional networks
  • potential conflicts of interest.

These claims are presented as reasons to question the integrity of the investigation.

16. Overall Argument of the Document

The central argument is that:

  1. The children made detailed and credible abuse allegations.
  2. Authorities failed to properly investigate those claims.
  3. Evidence supporting the allegations was ignored or reinterpreted.
  4. The focus shifted toward discrediting the mother and children.
  5. The High Court judgment relied on inadequate investigations.
  6. Therefore the case should be reopened and independently reviewed.

17. Outcome Requested by the Author

The author requests:

  • A review of the High Court judgment
  • Re-examination of evidence
  • Investigation of police conduct
  • Proper criminal investigations of the suspects.