In 2014, a video depicted two young children, Alisa and Gabriel, explaining in detail the horrific abuse that they had been exposed to at Hampstead Christ Church Primary School. Scenes of satanic rituals, sexual abuse, infant murder and cannibalism were described in vivid detail by the children, causing the video to become viral.

Among the alleged perpetrators was the children’s biological father, Ricky Dearman, as well as a number of staff members and parents of children at their primary school in Hampstead, London. Despite the severity of the case, an adequate investigation into the children’s claims was never carried out.

Instead, the case took an unexpected turn when it was ruled that Ella and her partner had abused the children and fabricated the story – forcing her to flee the country. In a recent interview with SGT Report, Ella resurfaced to share the truth of her children’s story and the large-scale cover up of the satanic group in Hampstead.

Today, information surrounding the case is difficult to pin-down. A simple Google search revealed that much of the content surrounding the case has been removed. We will begin our investigation by looking at the evidence that was found immediately after Ella reported the crimes to the Barnet Police (Hampstead area).

Medical examinations of the children were ordered after the crime was reported. The medical reports were later leaked, and showed that the examiner found physical evidence (scars) that supported the children’s claims. The following week the children were taken into police custody, and later retracted their statements. In a report by a medical examiner, it is highlighted that a 2007 study of child sexual abuse uncovered that retractions occur more frequently than previously thought.

During the time leading up to the court proceedings for the case, no investigation into the perpetrators named by the children ever took place. Physical evidence – including the descriptions of tattoos on the genitalia of teachers at the school – that would have quickly proved or disproved the children’s claims, was simply ignored. Instead, the headmistress – who, it is important to note, was among the suspects named by the children – was invited to partner with the police on the strategy meeting.

Why would the police chose to partner with one of the main perpetrators that was named by the children, instead of investigating her? Ella believes it is because it was part of a plan to silence her children and cover up the story.

During the court proceedings themselves, the local authority’s barrister and the judge held private meetings without Ella, which is in violation of the ‘Code Of Practice’. Neither Ella nor her partner have been investigated or charged with the abuse detailed in the 22-page judgement written by High Court judge Mrs Justice Pauffley.

With such severe allegations, it is disturbing that no action was taken against the mother who allegedly drugged and abused her children. Why is this so? If charged with such crimes, Ella would be permitted to cross examine the perpetrators named by her children. The fact that officials do not want this case to enter the court suggests that Ella and her children are the victims of a large-scale cover-up to protect paedophiles in London.