“Now I’m going to tell you a little story. I heard it myself long ago, an old lady told it to me, and I’ve never forgotten it. If I remember rightly, this is how it went:
“I was young at the time when almost all children were often hit. People thought it was necessary to hit them, to make them well-behaved and obedient. All mothers and fathers were supposed to hit their children as soon as they did anything that mothers and fathers thought children shouldn’t do. My little boy, John, was a well-behaved, happy little chap and I didn’t want to hit him. Bu one day, the neighbour came to see me and said that John had been in her strawberry patch and had stolen some strawberries, and that if he did not get a beating he would certainly remain a thief for his whole life. Now, mothers tend to get very frightened and worried when someone comes and complains about their children. And I thought: maybe she’s right, now I really have to give John a beating.
John sat there and played with his building blocks – he was only five years old at the time – when I came in and said that he was going to get a beating and he should go out to cut a switch from a tree himself. John cried as he went. I sat in the kitchen and waited. It took a long time until he came, and he was still crying as he crept in at the door. But he didn’t have a switch with him.
“Mama,” he sobbed, “I couldn’t find a stick, but here is a stone that you can throw!” He handed me a stone, the biggest that he could hold in his hand. Then I began to cry as well, because I suddenly understood what he had thought: “My mummy wants to hurt me and she can do it even better with a stone.” I felt ashamed. And I took him in my arms, and we both cried till we could cry no more, and I thought to myself that I would never, never hit my child. And so that I would never forget it, I took the stone and laid it on a kitchen shelf, where I could see it every day. It lay there a long time, until John grew up. He never became a thief. I would have liked to tell my neighbour, but she had moved away.”
Yes, that is what the old lady said, who told me this when I was still very young. And I still remember thinking to myself: I won’t hit my children either, if I ever have any. I had two children and I never hit them. Despite this, they became good people. And they don’t hit their children either.
Why am I telling you all this? After all, we were supposed to be talking about peace. And how can there be peace in the world if there are no peace-loving people? I think it would be good if a stone lay on the kitchen shelves just about everywhere in the world, as a reminder.”
(Astrid Lindgren: On Peace)
This foreword written by Astrid Lindgren describes the reaction of a healthy child and a normal healthy mother. If you have the task of questioning a young child who is showing signs of torture based on the findings of medical MRT/CT/nuclear medical examinations (cf. Istanbul Protocol http://traumabasedmindcontrol.com/index.php/istanbul-protokoll-fuer-kleinkinder-bei-folterverdacht/?lang=en/), then you are getting into territory that is not only dark but also deeply pathological and sick.
A criminal phenomenon
Signs of torture on the body of your child may indicate that your child is potentially a victim of satanic ritual abuse, also called SRA, or is a “training subject” of trauma-based mind control (MK). SRA can be understood as the combined application of physical, psychological and spiritual assaults. MK is mainly used in the military, intelligence and political areas, although the boundary line between these two forms of abuse is relatively fluid. MK contains an abundance of elaborately devised, complex psychological strategies, ultimately designed to achieve absolute control over the thoughts and feelings of your child. Finally, i.e. at the end of the state-run MK programme, the aim is for your child to be conditioned to such an extent that he/she can be ordered to carry out actions that go against his/her human nature, when “wearing” different fragmented personalities (or “alters”) that are artificially created through torture, ideally without being able to remember carrying out those actions. The means employed to achieve that final state are physical, sexual, psychological and emotional torture. The ability and declared willingness of the perpetrators to subject their child to these kinds of mistreatment and abuse, when ordered to do so by the state, is what distinguishes this group of people from all other living beings on our planet. State-organised torturers are not interested in publicising their criminal actions, which go completely unpunished. MK torture perpetrated on a young child is not the result of a superstitious belief in witchcraft: it is consciously and deliberately planned, organised and continuously perfected. There is basically no part of your child’s body for which a “suitable” torture method does not exist. There is no element (water, air, fire and earth), no ideology and no tool that cannot be used for torturing your child. Clear your mind of the propagandistic falsehoods propagated by western (criminal) cartel media that the torture of young children is only practiced in designated “rogue states”.
These crimes are of course kept secret. This is why it is ultimately very hard to find a definition that covers the “programming” of your child. Survivors describe it as an act designed to activate physical and psychological reactions to external stimuli. A person conditioned in this way is intended to finally be able to react in an intended way after receiving an auditory, visual or tactile signal (trigger), ideally without noticing anything about it themselves. If the conditioning brought about through torture is successful, the political system or network will have raised the perfect mental slave who carries out orders, without conscience and against all the standards of successful ethical coexistence. As the violence-induced raising of such a multiple personality ultimately involves the most serious violations imaginable of the child’s legal rights, in this area of crime the scientific overlaps between psychology, medicine, social sciences, philosophy, criminology and criminalistics are relatively fluid.
This final construction of a multiple personality outlined above is closely linked to the use of hypnosis. In the respective procedural modules, the programmers used, who are usually conventionally trained physicians, generate a torture-induced, selective intensification of perception in the child victim, whose attention in this respect is ratcheted up through the assaults. Due to the strained attentiveness thus induced, the child’s real state of awareness is clouded. In systematic collaboration, the psychopathic perpetrators described above open a way into the child’s mind by controlling his/her perceptions and memory, and by creating false memories. At the end of several years’ programming, the subject is able to obey like an automaton, receives all instructions uncritically and without question, and can carry out complex orders requiring a high intelligence, but is usually not aware of it all. In order to prevent people who are, from humanitarian motives, on the side of the tortured child from glimpsing the perfidious structures of the state-run torture programmes, false memories are implanted in the child victim and posthypnotic reaction patterns are instilled in order to produce false statements. This is why you should not be surprised if, when asked about the complex sequence of abuse, your child either maintains a consistent silence or behaves in a completely irrational way. The network of perpetrators is fully aware that, due to the ethnic heterogeneity of the police force, at least some police employees would not be indifferent to these severe violations of victims’ legal rights. Even though fully initiated perpetrators within the police ultimately cover up this abuse and actively work to prevent convictions, to begin with the „Police“ organisation is simply too big for the group of perpetrators to control. One cannot therefore rule out the possibility that, when you initially report the offence to the police, you may get a criminal investigator who takes the concerns of the protecting parent seriously. The more importance this officer accords to the parent’s report, the more quickly they will implement urgent measures to search for and secure clues and to determine the evidence. During this important phase, the ring of perpetrators is not yet able to attain ultimate control of the course of the proceedings. Therefore the perpetrators’ strategy must be to implant the suggestion in the police investigator’s mind, through conditioning the child, that the child or the protecting parent is suffering from mental illness. Where fathers are the protecting parent, a suspicion is usually fabricated that the father is the perpetrator. However, SRA or MK can only be carried out by groups of perpetrators, i.e. by several people, as a single individual could never manage to do it. Usually, these protecting parents are quickly separated from the children concerned – without securing evidence of any kind – in order to remove further traces and to falsify the overall impression, and the young child continues to be used without hindrance – usually lifelong.
The following serve as torture methods before the programme units (quoted from Ellen Lacter, 2017):
- Rape: vaginal, anal rape, group rape, using sharp objects, weapons, etc.
- Filming the torture
- Verbal cruelty, mockery, making child ridiculous, laughing and enthusiasm as reactions to the pain and terror of the victim
- Hanging the victim up, including with the head hanging downwards, in stress positions, during which they are tortured by spinning, etc.
- Being fully immersed in water tanks filled with ice
- Being buried alive with insects, snakes, rats, etc. with an oxygen source that is controlled by the perpetrators
- Being hung up above fire or extreme heat
- Extreme thirst and hunger
- Leaving the victim in urine, excrement and vomit
- Being forced to ingest poisonous substances
Control of the victim’s surroundings – painfully hot or cold, dark or intensely bright, being
- bombarded with loud noise, etc.
- Mutilation, e.g. removing nails or fingers
- Removal of body organs and dismemberment of victims kept in complete captivity (Ellen Lacter, 2017)
All the information that the victim receives during these torture sessions (“programming”) is stored in his/her deeper psychobiological levels. Therefore, pay close attention to such statements when questioning the child. One special feature of this crime, not just from the aspect of children’s statement psychology, is that it will be suggested to the child that the adults are able to access his/her body at any time and/or to control the individual environment – and this often corresponds to the unimaginable truth:
Besides the known monitoring technologies in the child’s household, persons are also placed in the child’s immediate vicinity in order to develop a professed emotional relationship with him/her. As soon as this has been firmly established and the child can be successfully deceived into trusting that person, the child is then betrayed. The subsequent messages are clear and unambiguous: “We know everything about you”, “You have betrayed us”, “You won’t escape us”. Other “game versions” involve the child’s being told that an all-hearing microphone has been implanted in his/her tooth, or even a bomb in the stomach, which can explode in the event of betrayal. Adult victims have in fact been able to ascertain the presence of real, i.e. (in)active, implants through conventional medical examinations. Nowadays there is in fact the possibility of ensuring that dementia sufferers or animals can be found by means of (electromagnetic) pulse-controlled implants. An additional – though still less researched – aspect is the assumption that parts of MK programming as well as the use of triggers can meanwhile be carried out via microwaves and radiofrequencies.
As the silence of the young child involved is so important in terms of criminal law, the techniques to ensure it are practically innumerable: threats that their beloved primary caregiver (usually the mother) will be killed; needles in the area of the gums as a “training in keeping silent”; and wiping conscious memories through deliberately caused concussion, electroshock treatment and psychoactive medication. An additional way of ensuring silence is the showing of the pretended or actual liquidation of a “traitor”. Above all, witnessing a real murder makes a particularly devastating impression on the child. Killings in the context of so-called “snuff pornography” (filmed torture, followed by the death of the victim) are also used for this purpose. It is likewise known that it is suggested to the young children that they have killed a person or else – far more dramatic for the child’s psyche – they have actually been forced to kill someone.
It is thus very easy to understand that you can only achieve a comprehensive account of all these circumstances with endless patience and absolute, benevolent neutrality. The child must deal with his/her shame about the fact that it has been the victim of a series of the most unimaginable acts of emotional, mental and physical violence and has thus displayed accompanying physical reactions and emotions, that no one has helped and that he/she was even laughed at by the group of perpetrators. These things have formed part of the child’s everyday experience. It is therefore your task to remain completely neutral during the questioning process.
Never forget the punishment with which the child has been threatened if he/she speaks out, which usually involves the murder of the primary caregiver or torture. The process of questioning the child must basically be done in several stages, and must therefore be planned to take place over a period of several months. As the investigators are generally left to their own resources when working out the course of the abuse as a whole, they must organise the questioning sessions themselves. If investigators know people with knowledge of criminology knowledge in their personal or professional circle (police detectives, juvenile court representatives, lawyers specialising in criminal law), these can of course be consulted and/or brought in too.
The person concerned must be clear in their mind about what they may ultimately be getting into. Regarding doing it oneself: even a poorly planned questioning session is better than leaving the child alone with the abuse.
Although MK/SRA as a criminal phenomenon has, for obvious reasons, not been made a specific subject of study in criminological research up to now, its individual torture methods have been. Sexual violence perpetrated on a child in a private context has meanwhile been relatively well studied. Because the sexual abuse is a cornerstone in the process of programming the child, one can therefore use it as a starting point. It is of course important to have an idea of the basic process of questioning a child victim before you start. Nevertheless, the essential difference here is that a child who has been through SRA/MK has undergone unimaginable torture with the aim of splitting their personality. The essential elements of this crime are therefore briefly described below:
Phenomenon of the split personality
The simplest form of split personality consists of a normal state (A) and the hypnotically controlled state (B).
Below: Visible change of personality in a child who is secretly enrolled a torture programme.
Source: “Luki” Dara Sadegh on a supervised visit to his mother Mag. Andrea Sadegh 2013: Change of personality within 10 seconds. Assumed posthypnotic command: “Whenever you’re near your mother, remember what you’ve done and said: if she knew, she wouldn’t love you anymore.”
The change of the child’s personality is based on a posthypnotic command or a trigger. To do this, planning, a trigger and implementation are needed. An effectively instilled posthypnotic command is not aimed just at generating the outward behaviour of the subject – it also has to create inner mental states in the controlled human tool. Using inculcated key stimuli or codes, it is possible to condition complex operative sequences. The programmer can thereby also command the victim to forget the key signal again as soon as they have carried out the ordered action. This method is intended to undermine the police investigation of the crime outlined above. An additional obfuscation strategy is what is called “posthypnotic amnesia”. Here, the contents of the child’s memory are fragmented through mentally traumatising the child. This perfidious tactic is deemed successful if an outsider does not notice that the victim’s memory is impaired. To achieve this, during the child’s programming the method of fear-based suggestion is used. One technique is to plant the idea that they have a headache when they are inwardly processing the abuse suffered that day.
Below: A child mentally processing the abuse suffered that day – a headache induced by suggestion, also called a “splitting headache”.
Source: “Luki” Dara Sadegh, taken by his mother Mag. Andrea Sadegh, in the summer of 2011, when the child had suffered the first flashbacks.
An observable headache can also be the result of an artificially induced neurosis, consisting of inculcated guilt or inferiority complexes intended to prevent the child from talking about their experiences.
Why is it done at such a young age?
Due to their highly imaginative minds, children can be more easily influenced than adults. In order to prevent prosecution, perpetrators exploit the fact that due to their still limited vocabulary, the child does not feel able to talk about the abusive assaults. Through the MK programming techniques a number of separate identities, called “alters”, are generated in the child. The group of perpetrators that installs, activates and controls these alters can ultimately also communicate with the respective individual alters. So that the child is outwardly able to cope with their everyday life, in addition to the alters, an “apparently normal personality” (ANP) must also be in place. The ANP is, so to speak, the facade for the programmed individual’s future role in the social system. The ANP, functioning as an outer shell, ensures that the multiple personalities finally remain hidden to non-initiates.
If investigators try to get the child to open up by showing him/her affection, a word of warning: perpetrators will deliberately create associations between natural interpersonal actions (kissing, caressing) or words (“love”, pet names, etc.) and dark threats against the child. You must therefore reckon with triggers deliberately implanted in the child to ensure that they are mentally imprisoned by an “inner guard” and their constant fear of the consequences of being a “traitor” i.e. of speaking the truth. The same applies to conditioning and hypnosis in connection with the initial routine procedures in a criminal investigation. In the presence of someone urgently suspected of being involved in the abuse, the child may for example in greet that person with joyful eagerness, while simultaneously rejecting their actual persons of trust, usually the protecting parent. Since enormous financial resources are available for the programming process, props, magic tricks, stage plays, special effects, film screenings, cameras and microphones are also used. The manipulation of the child’s thoughts is activated by means of roleplay and characters from fairy-tales or other adventure worlds (extra-terrestrials, demons). These are stored in the child’s mind linked to certain colours: i.e., during the programme unit concerned, the perpetrators show themselves to the child in identical costumes and colours. Thus, in time, it is possible to forge cross-connections in the mind of the child victim, which are accessible to the programmer through codes. For you, as an outsider, these are usually completely innocuous, everyday words or other triggers. Nevertheless, the child is prepared in such a way that, in the end, the “opening and closing” of the child’s personalities function appropriately. This process is considered successful if the trigger words have a certain rhythm and the treacherous word combination or other trigger chains are selected in such a way that an everyday situation cannot trigger a change of personality.
Multiple personality disorder (MPD), also called “dissociative identity disorder” (DID) is used in the international system for classifying illnesses (ICD 10), in this case concerning the psychiatric illnesses (DSM4). It would thus be a punishable offence for the perpetrator to deliberately create a sick person twice over (knowing the prohibition on simultaneous intention to perpetrate a crime and succeeding in perpetrating that crime). Consequently, there is a causal connection between dysfunctional family integration, the use of violence, mental trauma and disorders when processing experiences. It is thereby necessary for the child to be placed in the hands of the programmers at regular interviews. The above-described mental trauma of the child is devised based on a process of “internally running away”. Since the physically much weaker child is unable to justifiably defend itself against the assaults and can also see no way of physically escaping from the location of the abuse, it must finally choose the path of mental dissociation. The rule of thumb here is: “The earlier the traumatisation of the child occurs, the greater the probability of multiple personality disorder.” A decisive point is thereby the extent of control over the child’s defence mechanisms. In the specialist literature, one finds different instructions as to the most suitable time for this. After dissociation and violent training, children aged two and a half can already display a completely split personality. Under the supervision of a physician, tortures such as pinching fingers with pincers, violent blows to the head, rapes, and having fingers painfully trapped in a mousetrap while being locked in a room, etc. As soon as the child stops crying and is only whimpering in pain, it is released. Then the child receives their aversion conditioning through commands. Not all stages are the same here. Meanwhile, the following main programming procedures are known:
Alpha: Basic programme – the aims are the unresisting obedience and automatic reflexes of the child
Beta: Sexual programme activated by a key word
Delta: Assassin programme, fighter programme
Theta: Programme for integration in occult groups
Omega: Obscuration programme with the aim of maintaining the split psyche of the child
A typical technical method for creating multiple personalities is “spin programming”, “spinning” or the German term Rädern which (appropriately enough) means “being broken on the wheel”. The child is strapped to a rotating disc, and through extremely painful centrifugal forces, their personalities are polyfragmented. This kind of programming method already begins in earliest childhood. The child can either be spun on their own axis – as on a spit – or turned in a vertical direction.
Here too, one must of course take the rapid development of new technical possibilities into account. Seizure-inducing treatments, CT, as well as the influencing of the mind by means of electromagnetic fields are used here, and are still relatively little researched in relation to young children. The special feature is basically that the programming of the child relates to the generating of personality fragments. Therefore, a specific message is always conveyed to the child during programming. While being questioned, the child may thus give you answers that appear completely incoherent. The same applies if you thereby observe illogical ways of behaving. However, when you become more familiar with them, these are always connected to commands instilled through violence:
- You deserve to be punished – we’ll find you wherever you are
- No one believes what you say
- You deserve the violence you have experienced
- We’re watching you and can kill your parents
- The police will come to get you – you’ll go to prison
Subsequently building on this, in the next stage the victim is usually indoctrinated with the following ideas (cf. Ellen Lacter, 2017):
- You are evil.
- You are a murderer.
- You are an accomplice in crimes (often such scenes are filmed as evidence).
- You are now one of us.
- You are now a voluntary member of the network which commits rapes and abuse.
- No one except us will ever want to have anything to do with you again.
- The people who have been taking care of you can’t take care of you ever again.
- No psychotherapist will ever want to help you.
- The whole of the clergy will condemn you.
- You are lost in the sight of God.
- You now belong to: _____ (a god/goddess that demands blood sacrifices).
Certainly, the most ruthless method is brain surgery. Here, the surgeon deliberately damages the healthy tissue of the healthy child. Another possibility is medically influencing the amygdala (the part of the brain important for emotions and feelings) using electrical current. Other surgical interventions (scars on the brain stem, etc.), and the removal and mutilation of glands, are also known methods.
The child often remembers the torture in everyday life in flashbacks, usually triggered by associations while processing the experience. It can thereby quite possibly happen that the child reveals the abuse at this very moment: the young child experiences the torture as if it is happening again.
First of all, some good news: as soon as they have been able to relate one of the events in their entirety, the young child finds greater peace of mind: in every flashback or anxiety state, and in every recounting of the abuse, you are already helping the children to heal their unimaginable experiences to a great extent.
Finding out about the torturers’ world represents a particular challenge for you, but is everyday routine for the children, as is the often-staged, seemingly “fairytale-like” world of Satanism: Satanic rituals and the procedures conducted in an MK programme can definitely overlap. According to Michaela Huber (1995), victims have reported the following methods:
- Strange smells […]
- Men in black coats/cloaks, hoods, masks, etc.;
- Cellars, painted black or their walls hung with black cloths;
- Rituals with oil, blood […]
- Blood, that runs down one’s naked body […]
- Eating raw animal or human flesh, or faeces, drinking urine and blood
- Vaginal, oral, anal gang rape; being penetrated with sticks, knives, crucifixes, etc.
- Blows, kicks, electric shocks
- Being locked in chests, coffins, water-tanks, etc.;
- Loud, sacral or Wagnerian music, “sacral” chanting […]
- Extreme feelings of shame and guilt, the feeling of having to “sacrifice” oneself or of “being chosen to die”, to feel like “Satan” (or having “inner alters” who think they are Satan)
- A vow that cannot be broken, otherwise someone will die (either they themselves or someone close to them, or their favourite animal)
- The exaction of punishments upon them and/or other children or adults who have been “disobedient”
- Invocations and curses; the feeling of being able to be killed by the words of a spell, etc.
Before starting a questioning session, you should therefore bear in mind the following patterns of reaction, which the child has already able to show an investigator or protecting parent on occasion in the past:
- Fear of giving blood samples, and of dental examinations
- Fear of being tied up
- Ritualistic chanting
- Nervousness at meals (cocoa: faeces; red fruit-juice: blood; barbecues in summer: burns/scalding)
- Wanton destruction of toy figures and dolls (mutilations)
- Fear of “harmless” everyday objects
The questioning session
Questioning young children is an essential skill in cases of suspicion of torture: it is made very clear to children through a wide variety of tortures, extreme drills and threats that they should never, ever talk about what has happened and never name names. The perpetrator networks are very aware of that particular danger and have usually infiltrated city-centre facilities such as child help centres, and medical, psychiatric and therapeutic services, to prevent possible further examinations of the child, and to usually forcibly remove the child from its protective primary care-giver (usually the mother, but in some cases also the father). If, after already having invested in a particular child, the torture of the child becomes visible due to injuries or flashbacks, the loss of the child to the perpetrator networks not only involves the risk that parts of the recognised and named network will be severely prosecuted under criminal law, but also means a massive financial loss. As the perpetrators of these networks have as a rule themselves gone through these kinds of torture-based programmes as young children, it is easy to verify this in the case of adults too, by means of radiological technologies like MRT/CT/nuclear medical examinations, based on unmistakeable characteristics (incapacity to empathise, dissociative tendencies, scars on the brain stem, etc.).
Triggers during questioning
Before asking questions, you need to be aware that touch triggers may have been implanted in the child: you should therefore be careful with touching and only touch the child with his/her permission. The most well-known here is the silence touch: for this painful lesson, the child is first encouraged to chatter. The child is then given an electric shock, or pricked in the gums or in the tongue. Another method is to use a silence trigger that is activated through stroking the child. It should thus be no surprise if, after being caressed or receiving any affection, immediately clams up towards the other person. Further triggers, which perpetrator networks often like using are pressure (stress, strict voice, accusing look, hand signs). Take care to ensure that your body language is congruent and explain to the child if anything irritates you. Openness, truth and – most importantly – the absolute benevolent neutrality of the investigator are the only way to attain reliable results.
Later on, two cameras will be needed: one camera should point at the child and the other at the questioner. Ideally, there should be a third camera filming you both from above (bird’s eye view). There is footage from the sadly notorious Hampstead case in which the police investigator, who offers behavioural training on a private basis, triggers the children during the “questioning session” using hand signs, see below:
Source and summary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSOa6Siko-8
It is therefore essential that you remain neutral, no matter what you may hear or experience during the questioning session. Give the child as much space and freedom as possible during the interview: any pressure can put the child into states of fear and anxiety, and thus cause them to clam up or to feed you “well-rehearsed stories”.
As a general rule, every questioning session should be recorded on video: it is important to ensure that the physical reactions are also recorded – both those of the investigator and the child. The same applies if a question causes the child to suffer a flashback. For the purpose of giving evidence, it is therefore important to find out and record whether and how the flashback corresponds to the question posed. Take time to think about what you have heard. Don’t rule out any hypothesis and don’t be afraid of not being able to calm the child after a flashback: the only unforgivable mistake you can make is to abandon the child to the perpetrator network. If the questioning session is filmed, both the continuation of the session after the child has “calmed down” and a fully documented flashback have value as evidence. Bear in mind that all the recorded injuries (Istanbul Protocol) should be addressed and investigated in the interview.
A short digression: Personal evidence and material evidence
The evidentiary value of the child’s statement can vary; here is an overview:
A: Personal evidence
Personal evidence can come from the statement of a court-appointed expert, an accused party/defendant or a witness (your child).
B: Material evidence
Material evidence can consist of a document or what is called a “piece of visual evidence”. The document is a physical declaration of ideas and intentions (e.g. a written document). The piece of visual evidence contains no ideas, but may enable certain conclusions to be drawn (e.g. if the investigator finds an object used to commit the offense based on the child’s statement).
The reason that the material evidence is so important is because, detached from the series of criminal actions, it speaks for itself and enables non-involved people to draw conclusions about the course of the abuse and the perpetrators involved. The material evidence is thus basically objective and is therefore given preference over personal evidence in court. Although it is true that it can be checked using scientific methods, it can however yield a false trail to probative facts due to mistakes in securing evidence, in examinations, storage and analysis. Personal evidence is basically subjectively influenced. You should therefore try to check the truth of the child’s statements and to diligently follow up any indications given by the child as to potential material evidence. Questioning the child should make it easier for you to, for example:
- identify suspects
- determine that perpetrators belong to a group
- reconstruct the assaults
- seek/secure evidence
If you subject the child to questioning, this is a private investigative procedure, not an official interrogation/hearing. In an official interrogation/hearing, the questioner is there in an official capacity, states the fact and makes a formal request for information required by the authorities.
As already explained, you should video all questioning sessions with the child from two, and ideally from three angles. After each questioning session you should transcribe the entire contents. You should ensure that in every questioning session you have at least one witness of good repute and good standing. Make suitable backup copies of every video recording and written record. [!] In addition, depending whether the laws in the country concerned permit it, the witness should consider making use of the possibility of affirmation in lieu of an oath. The video recording should document the complete conversation and also portray all the non-verbal reactions of the child – including you yourself. The questioning process itself should not be interrupted. Place the child in such a way that they can definitely be clearly seen in the video. The arms, hands and feet must also be fully visible. Take the necessary lighting conditions into account and switch off your mobile phone. Avoid being disturbed by third parties (put a “Don’t disturb” on the door). Make sure that the child has had enough sleep and has had a proper meal beforehand. If several children have potentially been abused, they should be questioned separately from one another.
Checklist & procedure
Don’t simply ask questions in an unmethodical way: instead, draw up a checklist beforehand. In cases of sexual assault, no individual questioning session should last longer than 30 minutes; any breaks should be documented. When questioning in cases of SRA or MK, follow your intuition, and also let the question last longer. You need to be aware that you are certainly not going to be able to clear up such a complex cluster of actions in a short time. Also, be aware that if perpetrator networks continue to assault the child, the child can be prepared relatively easily for 30-45 minutes, i.e. deliberately prepared.
All the important facts should then be worked through point by point. The checklist should contain the essential points, such as:
- What is already known about the assaults, times of the abuse and perpetrators?
- Driving routes to the scene of the abuse, means of transporting the child, instruments used in the abuse?
- What patterns of injury have been ascertained in the visual examination of the child (Istanbul Protocol)?
Besides the specific characteristics of the case of a child in an MK programme, there are also basic features which apply to all child victims. Children are often taciturn and use short sentences. When putting the questions, you should therefore also take into account the child’s style of talking and linguistic deficiencies – which are often due to the complex trauma suffered. The statements display lack of vocabulary, and often lacks analogies and metaphors due to its lack of life experience. It is therefore possible that, in the course of assimilating the experience and in accordance with their mental capacity, the child describes an offense by referring to a familiar process (“he wetted” for ejaculation). If you ask the child intimate questions, explain in advance why it is necessary. The child still has a play world, which is not compatible with adult logic, while conversely adult logic can hardly grasp the experiences of the child. A child’s speech comprehension first starts to slowly develop after about 24 months. The child thereby believes that all actions and processes are purposeful (“The weather will be nice if I eat all the food on my plate”). Small children are unable to intentionally lie, as they lack the necessary cognitive preconditions to do this. If the child is not able to give you information on the chronology of events, objects, descriptions of people and distances, this is not a lie. It also does not yet have any pubescent self-interest, such as the desire for revenge or craving for recognition. Remember that the group of perpetrators likewise use a “fantasy vocabulary”, especially with young children – ask questions to clarify any expressions that are not clear to you.
It may of course also happen that, during a questioning session, a child from an MK programme will give you the false answers that have been instilled in them through violence, or from time to time reveals inauthentic reaction patterns. Nevertheless, because of their age, the child cannot consistently maintain this “myth”. Always bear in mind the child’s conditioned conflicts of loyalty and fear of punishment. The child may therefore refuse questions or give evasive answers. Make use of the child’s impulse to play. The use of children’s picture books and story cubes can likewise be very helpful in questioning sessions, particularly with children who are already “keeping quiet”.
Source: Andrea Sadegh – “Story Cubes from © Gigamic” (2017)
Beyond the imaginable
Even if a child describes an injury that you failed to see in the prior visual examination (compare the Istanbul Protocol http://traumabasedmindcontrol.com/index.php/istanbul-protokoll-fuer-kleinkinder-bei-folterverdacht/?lang=en), you have no reason to doubt the truth of that information. Bear in mind that you must react by exploring new directions in accordance with a statement from the child (looking for the crime scene, searching for clues and evidence). Always remember that you can still find clues that you have overlooked in your immediate surroundings. Also, bear in mind that there are no limits to the evil imagination of the torturers. Thus, in the Sadegh case, the two-and-a-half-year-old child suffered massive flashbacks on seeing a toilet brush. In time, it emerged that the child had not been hit with it but had been anally penetrated with the handle. You should therefore never interrupt the flow of the child’s narrative: if need be, after documenting the questioning session, bring in an expert who specialises in SRA or MK, and also text researchers can be extremely helpful in putting the parts of the story into the right order, especially in the case of young children.
Forensic analysis of traces: a brief summary
Traces/clues are material objects and physical changes at the macro and micro levels. These arise through the series of actions perpetrated and can make it possible to reach conclusions about the perpetrators and their modus operandi. If there is no connection between a material change and the incident relevant to the crime, we speak of a false trail. However, when dealing with MK, you must reckon with changes that have been deliberately brought about. What one is dealing with in such a case is a fake clue, rather than a false trail. Clues that are significant with regard to child torture can be:
Evidence of a crime: That is, traces produced due to the criminal activities at the scene of the crime, and found either on the child themselves or on the perpetrator. Such traces can make it easier for you to reconstruct the course of the abuse. Some examples of this are, for example, defensive injuries on the child, or traces of secretions and blood connected to the abuse described by the child.
Traces of perpetrators: These are traces that the perpetrator has left on the instruments of abuse, on the child or at the scene of the crime (sperm, blood, vaginal secretions, hairs, textile fibres).
Traces are created interactively. You have to start from the assumption that the perpetrators will also find these traces.
Traces of blood:
“Blood is a special juice.” This statement has a special meaning in criminalistics. The special aspect is that the characteristics of human blood are preserved and are passed on genetically in accordance with the laws of nature, and that blood is serologically detectable and classifiable. After leaving the body, blood is at risk of being destroyed from bacteria, moulds and environmental influences. The analysability of a blood spot therefore gets more and more limited as time goes on. Blood rapidly changes colour and is therefore difficult to see. Nevertheless, even in the case of minute amounts, it is possible to prove in a laboratory that a substance found is in fact blood. Human blood has unalterable characteristics.
One such characteristic is the statistical classification in accordance with blood groups. The so-called ABO system is used for this purpose.
A blood spot can thus be used to narrow the investigation down to a particular suspect as against other people with different blood groups. After the child makes a statement, it is therefore important to secure the specific instrument used for the abuse or their clothing. As, according to this elimination system, you are holding a means to single out a potential suspect from other persons, the blood spot enables considerably more, based on the DNA evidence. The DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) contains the genetic information of the suspect. This particularly applies if you discover blood or sperm on the child’s body immediately after an assault. The probability of the chromosomal pattern of the DNA of two people being the same is less than 1 to 30 billion. For this reason, if several traces of a suspect’s DNA are found, the chances of being wrong basically become immeasurably small. It is now also possible to identify the DNA from hair roots and vaginal secretions.
A laboratory analysis can differentiate between the gender and origin of the blood (blood from the nose or anus). As in MK Ultra torture sessions, dogs can also be deployed as an instrument to abuse the children, a blood spot could also stem from a dog. It is likewise possible to differentiate between human and animal blood in a laboratory (using the so-called “Uhlenhaut method”). In addition to securing the trace carrier, while keeping it as sterile and germ-free as possible, you should first take a photograph of the trace (close-up, giving scale of length).
As the torture of the child encompasses the aspects of humiliation and degradation, you must also expect to possibly find traces of urine. The presence of urine is verified through the concentration of urea in the trace. However, larger quantities are needed for an examination. Verification is done on a microscopic and biochemical basis.
Sexual torture can result in traces of the saliva of a suspect being found. Here, verification is carried out through the enzyme ptyalin produced in the body. Following an assault, despite subsequently washing the child, saliva can nonetheless remain clinging to the child’s mucosal cells.
In actuality, there is no limit to the circumstances under which the hairs and flakes of skin of a suspect can remain or be transferred. Even if you thoroughly wash the child after the torture. Through microscopic examinations and biological comparisons, it is possible to distinguish human hairs from hair-like wool fibres and synthetic fibres. By way of qualification, it must be said that it is generally not possible to definitely allocate hairs to a perpetrator. However, it is a different matter if the found hair combines special attributes such as, for example, pathological changes through fungal infestation or residues of care products. However, it is possible to determine whether it fell out naturally or was torn out violently by magnifying the detachment point of a hair. This would be significant in cases where children are dragged along the floor by the hair or when the hair on the head is pulled violently.
Besides human traces, there is also the possibility of finding textile fibres. This includes plant fibres (cotton), animal fibres (wool), mineral fibres (glass fibres) and chemical fibres (nylon). The transfer of fibres in fact takes place everywhere every day. Above all, textile fibres are characterised by great durability. Such fibres are extremely tenacious and can hardly ever be completely removed. Studies (e.g. Aldermasten/GBR) show that about 80% of all fibres transferred from other people are lost within 48 hours. The rest continue to stick tenaciously. After every questioning session, you should therefore compare the child’s statements and check whether any corresponding trace carriers can be found and/or which people the child names to you as suspects.
Questioning intervals and techniques
Even if you question the child at intervals, you should not interrupt the video recording – otherwise the perpetrators would easily be able to say that you may have manipulated the child. Bear in mind that due to the torture suffered, the child was limited in its cognitive ability, was probably dissociated or that his/her personality may already be split. Unlike normal perception, the human brain stores traumatic events in an unordered memory fragment. You therefore have to constantly adjust your discoveries about the course of the abuse, depending on the situation.
You need to help the child understand that they are not being forced to take part in the questioning. It should be clear that they should only report what they have actually experienced.
“Now, before you tell me anything, you can just quietly think about what you would like to say. It is important that you tell me the truth. But it’s okay if you can’t say something. You can simply tell me that you don’t know.”
Show the child that you are extremely interested in them and help them to sharpen their capacity for remembering places, people and activities.
“Have you ever been to the Christmas market? –Oh, you were there last year.”
This helps to strengthen the child’s perceptions regarding a particular place.
“Were any other people with you at the Christmas market?”
“Aha, so you were at the Christmas market with Granny.”
“What does your Granny look like? – Aha, so Granny has glasses and short hair.”
This helps the child to focus their attention on a person more sharply.
“What did you do together at the Christmas market? – Wow cool, so you sat in a fire engine! But Granny didn’t? No, she’s already much too old. You’re right! Wouldn’t it be funny if grannies always came with the fire brigade? – Do you know all about what the fire brigade does? And did you even have candyfloss? So when do you always get candyfloss or other sweets?”
This helps to increase the child’s attention regarding activities. At this point, you should already focus on building a positive relationship with the child. Describing familiar surroundings, people and activities like this helps the child to feel more secure for the subsequent questioning about the scene of the abuse, the suspects and the abuse itself.
You can now begin to ask about the abuse. Try to get the child to describe the scene of the abuse, the abuse itself and the suspects as precisely as possible. Take time for this.
You should never pre-formulate answers for the child; never make any assumptions.
“So then X lay down on you and painfully forced his penis into your anus?” – A young child would never make such a statement.
You should also ask what the child means when it is describing the abuse and the respective body parts.
“What do you mean when you say ‘his wee-wee’?”
“What do you mean when you say ‘he did a banana in my botty’?”
“What do you mean when you say ‘wet and hit’?”
Make sure that you do not give the child any information that it has not already disclosed. Nevertheless, you should stick to the initial subject in your questions. Avoid conditioning the child and always be sparing with praise, maintaining a benevolently neutral but appreciative attitude.
It is up to you how you create a good relationship with the child. Here are some examples for how to build a relationship:
“What kind of children’s films do you watch on TV?”
“What’s your favourite toy?”
“Are you already going to Kindergarten?”
Then you can slowly get round to talking about the abuse.
“Can you tell me why you have such bad dreams?”
Avoid posing suggestive questions, even if you already have some idea of the basic underlying situation. The child should be permitted to formulate statements by themselves and independently.
Neutral questions: Such questions are free of implied suspicion: the child is not being fed any answers.
What? Where? How? How often? Who?
Contrary questions: Although such questions have a suggestive drift, in the end you can hardly be accused of having influenced the child.
“Did Mrs K say that you are allowed to tell your Mummy all about it?” (When you sense a command to keep silent)
“But how could X touch you there – after all, you had your trousers on, didn’t you?” (When you assume that the child had to take its clothes off.)
Multiple-choice questions: These enable you to narrow down the facts.
“Were you standing, sitting or lying down?”
“Was it on the bed or on the sofa?”
Leading questions (these are suggestive and should be avoided):
“So then X strangled you with the belt round your neck in the car?”
Use additional phrases to underpin important statements. Or use a counter-probe through counter-suggestion.
“I didn’t quite understand that bit. Can you explain it to me a little more exactly?”
If you reach a point where the child can betray their emotions, there is a risk of an emotional outburst or a flashback. At this point, you have two possible solutions to this. As you are recording the questioning session on video, the filmed flashback does of course have appropriate value as evidence. Or you can immediately distract the child and behave as if you haven’t noticed their state of agitation.
One possibility: The child is just about to burst into tears. You react as follows:
“There was something I absolutely wanted to ask you. You did tell me that you like playing with your Indian castle. Have you got some little Indians to play with? – Really? Lots and lots? You must show them to me some time!”
Pose the questions in such a way that you always have as complete a picture as possible of every single assault. Do not move on to the next incident of abuse until you have completely finished questioning the child about a course of events. You should thereby bear in mind that the child needs to be given the space and freedom to open up and talk about it.
Something else you should observe is also the way that the child may show the abuse in actions. This is certainly due to their inability to express the abuse in words, but also corresponds to the way that children relive experiences. So it may also happen that instead of making a statement, the small witness displays a physical position, a series of movements or accompanying mimicry. Make use of this childlike characteristic.
“Could you show me how X hit you?”
With questions as to the guilt of a suspect, the child can get into difficulties. A statement like “It was him” is not sufficient here. The child must be able to describe characteristics specific to the person. You should therefore try to get as accurate as possible a description of the person. The same applies to the times and durations of the abuse. You have to help the child here. As you proceed, you can show the child photos of different people, including suspected perpetrators.
Remember that being able to “recognise” perpetrators again has become essential for the survival of the young children: as a rule, these children recognise every detail of the torturers again and can also – depending on their age – describe them. In the Sadegh case, when looking through private photographs, the two-and-a-half-year-old child immediately recognised a former acquaintance of the mother and cried: “Kind! Kind!” and was pleasantly surprised to see that person again in a photo on her laptop. In answer to the question “Hey – that’s great! What kind thing did A do that makes you so excited, darling?” – “She told Farrokh to stop. Stop. When it was ouchy.” – No doubt, Ms. A had been present at (at least) one torture ritual and had intervened. Although such complex procedures as these can be faked to deceive a young child, one cannot suggest such a series of events to a child of this age through programming.
When the child makes the simplest statements such as “my Mummy/my Daddy” or “my Granny/my Grandpa”, check who the child is talking about: on the one hand, the children are indoctrinated through torture who their “Mummy”, “Daddy”, etc. is, while on the other hand strangers can simply call themselves “Granny” or “Grandpa”. Here is an actual example of how young children can be forced to call other people “Daddy” or “Mummy” through torture:
When they are having flashbacks, in which they are remembering the torture and reliving it all 1:1, the screaming of young children sounds similar to, and sometimes even more heartrending than that heard in the above video.
There are no limits to the mind games, just as there are no limits to the torture methods or the triggers. Statements about location are also deliberately trained under torture:
“Where were you?” “At home with Daddy.”
– Here, in this context, you should ask whether the child means the familiar “Daddy” or whether they may be referring to some other “Daddy”, and also check the details of the location – “What did it look like there?” It is known from the Sadegh case that “At home with Daddy” sometimes also meant being tortured and raped by a series of other paedocriminals in strange apartments. Over a period of just under 9 months, it emerged that there had been a number of Daddies and quite a few Mummies too. “At home with Daddy” could mean in the child’s father’s apartment, but could also mean being forced into child prostitution in council flats, and in an attic which was obviously in the centre of Vienna, near the Vienna “Naschmarkt”.
Other mind games with names are also known to be played in cults: programmers sometimes take the name of deities (in the Sadegh case, one of the main programmers told the young child that he was called “Oka”), while Dr White, Dr Green, etc. are familiar names from the American programming scene.
Remember that the child has survived the torture, is sitting in front of you and, being very young, can relatively quickly attain healing or huge relief, provided that they are protected from the perpetrator networks and not separated from the protecting parent. Due to their experiences, the young child has already lived through more trauma than you will probably ever experience, no matter how long you live. Therefore, bear in mind that you can’t do anything “wrong” as long as you act with benevolent, appreciative neutrality and openness, unless you abandon the child to its own resources and thus to the perpetrator networks, who not infrequently stem from the immediate family circle.
Bibliography (a selection)
Ackermann, Rolf; Clages, Horst; Roll, Holger: Handbuch der Kriminalistik: Für Ausbildung und Praxis. (Manual of Criminalistics: for training and practice.) Boorberg Verlag: Stuttgart, Munich, 2007 (second edition)
Arntzen, Dr. Friedrich: Psychologie der Kindervernehmung. (Psychology of questioning children.) Bundeskriminalamt 1970/1, Wiesbaden, 1970
Artkämper, Heiko; Schilling, Karsten: Vernehmungen: Taktik – Psychologie – Recht. (Hearing witnesses: Tactics – Psychology – Law.) Verlag Deutsche Polizeiliteratur: Hilden, 2012
Füllkrug, Michael; Schmidt, Volker; Burghard, Waldemar; Hamacher, Hans-Werner: Lehr- und Studienbriefe Kriminalistik 10. Sexualdelikte, Kindesmißhandlung. (Study materials for Criminalistics 10. Sexual offenses, child abuse.) Verlag Deutsche Polizeiliteratur: Hilden,1998
Gresch, Hans Ulrich: Unsichtbare Ketten. Der Missbrauch der Hypnose und anderer Trance-Techniken durch Kriminelle, Sekten und Geheimdienste. (Invisible chains. The abuse of hypnosis and other trance-inducing techniques by criminals, sects and intelligence services.) Self-published: Nuremberg, 2003: http://www.orwell-staat.de/cms/files/mindcontrol.pdf
Habschick, Klaus: Erfolgreich Vernehmen: Kompetenz in der Kommunikations-, Gesprächs- und Vernehmungspraxis (Grundlagen der Kriminalistik, Band 46) (Successfully questioning witnesses: Competence in the practice of communication, conversation and questioning. In: Basics of Criminalistics, Volume 46) Kriminalistik Verlag: Heidelberg, 2016
Hamacher, Hans-Werner: Naturwissenschaftliche Kriminalistik. (Scientific criminalistics) Verlag Deutsche Polizeiliteratur: Hilden, 1989, (second edition)
Hermanutz, Max; Hahn, Jürgen; Jorda, Lena: Leitfaden zur strukturierten Anhörung von Kindern im forensischen Kontext. (Guidelines for structuring hearings of child witnesses in a forensic context) Police academy: Baden-Württemberg, 2015
Hermanutz, Max; Litzcke, Sven Max; Kroll, Ottmar: Polizeiliche Vernehmung und Glaubhaftigkeit: ein Trainingsleitfaden. (Police questioning and credibility: a training guideline.) Boorberg Verlag: Stuttgart, Munich, 2005
Herrmann, Bernd; Saternus, Klaus-Steffen (Ed.): Kriminalbiologie (Band 1 der Reihe Biologische Spurenkunde). (Criminal biology. In: Vol. 1 of the series on biological trace evidence) Springer-Verlag: Berlin, Heidelberg, 2006
Herrmann, Horst: Die Folter: eine Enzyklopädie des Grauens. (Torture: an encyclopaedia of horror) Eichborn Verlag: Frankfurt am Main, 2004
Hofmann, Anja: Personenidentifizierung durch Zeugen im Strafverfahren: Anforderungen an die ordnungsgemäße Durchführung von Wiedererkennungsverfahren und Beurteilung des Beweiswerts von Identifizierungsleistungen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung rechtspsychologischer und kriminalistischer Aspekte. (Identification of persons by witnesses in criminal proceedings: Requirements regarding the proper conducting of identification procedures and appraisal of the evidential value of identification processes, particularly taking into account forensic psychology and criminalistics aspects.) Verlag Duncker & Humblot: Berlin, 2013
Huber, Michaela: Multiple Persönlichkeiten. Seelische Zersplitterung nach Gewalt. Durchgesehene Neuauflage. Junfermann Verlag, Paderborn 2010. (New, revised edition, first published in 1995, Fischer)
Lacter, Ellen: For Those Who Condemn Themselves for Acts Coerced Under Torture. Self-published: http://endritualabuse.org, 2017
Miller, Alison: Healing the Unimaginable. Treating Ritual Abuse and Mind Control. Karnac, London: 2012
Sadegh, Andrea: Original records of Luki Dara Sadegh. 2011ff. Vienna, Graz: http://traumabasedmindcontrol.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Beilage1_protokolle-interaktionen-2011-2012_strassburg2.pdf
Translated by Verity Speedwell.