About ritual abuse, bizarre police policy regarding reporting sexual abuse and the removal of the Amber Alert
Aline Terpstra, April 7, 2021
Esther and many other victims of ritual and organized child abuse speak of high-level involvement in cult meetings and the affiliated pedosexual network. Among other things, Esther recounts in excerpts part 2 that by no means all of the high-ranking officials involved are participating of their own free will. Some were blackmailed into it, using victims like Esther who, as children and teenagers, had to seduce them into sex and other crimes, of which photographs were taken. Esther says that these photos were then used to coerce them into more serious crimes, which were photographed again. Esther also tells me that as a child sex slave in high places, she witnessed such photos being used to put pressure on high-ranking people to enforce certain political/policy decisions. She also told me that children who grow up in satanic families, are not free in their choice of profession, but get an assignment. Other victims confirm this. Studies that can help to get a function within the judiciary, police, politics and education are important, but also functions within for example (youth) care are in demand.
A former manager of the vice squad told me how he was already very surprised at the extremely low sentences demanded by prosecutors for pedosexual offenses and the equally very low sentences imposed by the judiciary. What Esther and other victims say about the modus operandi of the cult network may be at the root of this. In an earlier article, I explained extensively - although for reasons of privacy, among other things, I cannot publish all the reasons for this - why I believe Esther and consider her testimonies reliable. That also applies to these testimonies. I am right on top of Esther's fight to get rid of this pedosexual cult and I can see a part of it with my own eyes, also supporting evidence. And I believe her. In this, too.
I understand that you as a reader -depending among other things on your life path, previous knowledge and experience- may have a different position than I do when it comes to the credibility of Esther's testimonies. Yet I want to challenge you - if only as brain gymnastics - to look at two recent news items through these glasses: what do inexplicable policy decisions look like from this perspective? First the spotlight is on the way the police work with regard to reports of sexual abuse, followed by the decision of the Dutch police to cancel Amber Alert.
Police procedure when reporting sexual abuse plays into the hands of perpetrators and perpetrator networks
Recently, on March 21, the newspaper Parool published a clear Article about the police procedure in case of a report of a sexual offence. The Netherlands is the only country worldwide where since 20 years first an informative conversation with the police must be held. Journalist David Hielkema writes:
According to the vice squad, this is necessary to assess whether an offence is being committed and to explain to the victim what the consequences of reporting the crime are. The victim is often told that the chance of prosecuting the perpetrator is small, that reporting a crime takes a long time or that the evidence is flawed. After this conversation, there is usually a two-week reflection period in which someone can decide whether or not to press charges. In practice, the modus operandi of the vice squad has a discouraging effect on vice victims, as a result of which no reports are made.
The effect is obvious. If even the police - the body in our constitutional state which aims to catch criminals - pursues a policy of dissuasion, what effect will that have on victims? For most of them the step to report a crime is enormous anyway. Exactly, victims start to hesitate and only a little over half of the victims who come forward actually report the crime. Very recently, in my work as a clinical psychologist, I had an intake with an abused woman who had gone down this road.
The article in the Parool explains that this working method was introduced in 1999. The year the LEBZ was founded, the National Expertise Group on Special Cases. The original goal of the LEBZ, which can be found on their website -changed after Argos reported this- was to prevent false reports of ritual abuse. In practice, the institution, attitude and method of the LEBZ proved to be very discouraging and almost nobody came forward to report the abuse. Article of Argos about this. The method used by the police to report sexual violence in general has a similar effect: almost half of the reports. André de Zutter, legal psychologist quoted in the Parool, states based on research that only 5% of the reports are false. After 20 years, this data allows only one conclusion: this policy does not work. This has to change. And fast.
It is easy to guess who benefits from this way of working of the police: perpetrators of sexual abuse and their networks. The pressing question arises: where does this policy come from? And who is or are responsible that this obviously failing policy, of both the LEBZ and the vice-police, will not be reversed?
Dutch police decide to cancel Amber Alert
Other recent and very alarming news is that the police have decided to discontinue Amber Alert, the very successful national warning system for urgent missing children and child abductions. Gone is the expertise, gone is the network, gone is the experience gained through years of hard work for the safety of our children. Co-founder Frank Hoen says on the website of Amber Alert: "I find it staggering that the police do not take into account the enormous breakthroughs we have made in recent years in finding missing children. We have saved the lives of countless boys and girls. (...) In the 1,040 times the Amber Alert system has been deployed, the child was brought back home safely in 94 percent of the cases. "The whole network ceases to exist, even abroad. And that without any consultation", said Hoen in a response against nu.nl.
Why on earth change something that works perfectly? The police say that Amber Alert should be integrated into Burgernet. However, this has a much smaller range and cannot cross borders, while Amber Alert has a finely woven international network which has taken years of work and has three million citizens participating. Amber Alert was so successful that the network has been rolled out across Europe (see Article on their website), a necessary step because kidnappers often do not stay within national borders. What reason can there be to kill such a successful organization that protects the most precious thing we have - our children?
This choice 'has among other things to do with costs and efficiency', the police say. Money should not be a decisive argument here. But even that argument cannot be right. Anyone who has worked in an organisation knows how much time, effort and certainly money it takes to set up processes and infrastructure and to have them run smoothly. And eliminating something that runs well, or in this case even excellently, can never be efficient. When upgrading Burgernet to the same quality, many teething problems will have to be overcome. That takes a lot of time, manpower and a lot of money. And it is always at the expense of efficiency, i.e. results. In this case, 'results' means traced missing children. The argument of the police (money and efficiency) can therefore not be correct in the long run.
Moreover, the success of organizations depends on having passionate people at the top. Amber Alert was born from the personal passion of two people who made sacrifices to achieve this, see the very readable stories about the history of Amber Alert. What valid argument can there be for killing a well-functioning, very essential organisation like Amber Alert, a few years after the initiative has been adopted in Europe due to its success?
On their website, Amber Alert calls the police's policy choice an ill-considered decision that will cost children's lives. That this will cost children's lives is very obvious. And let us beware of being taken in by a police spokesperson who has been in the news for years. message via nu.nl states: 'The change has no further impact on the quality of the search for missing children. Amber Alert was deployed on average twice a year'. The figure 'two per year' is misleading, as an average of 20 Amber Alerts are sent out per region. But more importantly, an investigation network that runs as well as Amber Alert also has a preventive effect, as Diederik Greive (at the time the chief Public Prosecutor) rightly pointed out in an interview with Amber Alert. When planning a crime, every criminal mainly considers the chance of being caught. If the chance of being caught is high, as is the case by using Amber Alert when a child goes missing, this will discourage offenders. So yes, it goes without saying that this will cost children's lives.
But is Amber Alert right in saying that this is an ill-considered decision? Surely our police are not so stupid that they cannot come up with all the above arguments themselves? Shouldn't the question arise whether something else is going on here? It is very clear who benefits from the removal of Amber Alert: kidnappers of children, often including pedosexuals. This can also be a police officer, as we know from the solved disappearance case of the 12-year-old girl Milly. What if such people or blackmailed people are in posts where they can turn policy knobs?
Esther and many others tell us how the ritualistic and related pedosexual network needs children for its crimes, see a.o. excerpts part 4 where she talks about how, as a child, she herself was used to kidnap another child. Could it be that there are people in influential positions in government who want to abolish Amber Alert, precisely because it is too successful? And who benefit from the fact that sexual and organized (ritual) abuse is not reported?
Amber Alert is a petition started