Werner de Jonge, Aline Terpstra
March 2026
No evidence at all
Time and again, the claim pops up that ‘no evidence’ would have been found for ritual abuse. The Hendriks commission drew this conclusion in late 2022, and the recent documentary ‘Het Complot’ by the Evangelische Omroep (2025) also makes this claim. For those who have never delved into this subject before, this may sound convincing and discourage them from taking a closer look for themselves.
Yet for decades, there have been court rulings in several western countries that suggest something quite different. Recently, the English National Association for People Abused in Childhood (NAPAC) in collaboration with the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) a research report entitled (translated): ‘Organised ritual abuse and its wider context: humiliation, deception and denial’. The author, Dr Elly Hanson[1] brings out staggering facts not only about the existence of ritual abuse but also about the techniques of mass media and politics to shove the phenomenon under the carpet.
Ritual features widely recognised
The report contains a thorough analysis of organised, satanic ritual abuse. Hanson states on page 6: “In the UK, there are at least 14[2] cases where people have been convicted of child sexual abuse. Their use of ritual practices in this process was widely recognised, both criminally and civilly.Nine of these cases involved more than one perpetrator. In addition, there have been convictions for sexual abuse similar to organised ritual abuse, where multiple family members sadistically sexually abused and/or tortured their children in childhood, forcing them to have sex with others.”.
The fact that ritual features were present in these cases means that there is no doubt: ritual abuse - in other words, organised, satanic ritual (child) abuse - exists.
The pernicious effect of rhetoric and suggestion
However, Hanson's research also shows how testimonies of survivors and evidence of ritual abuse have been skillfully rendered implausible over the years. The media play an important and detrimental role in this, using suggestive claims and manipulative practices (Hanson, pp. 45-47).
Hanson argues that, among other things, a 1994 report by La Fontaine[3], frequently quoted later, did much damage in this. It states, for example, that “adults who confirm ritual abuse would reinforce a ‘climate of belief’ even before actual cases of children come to light.”[4] (La Fontaine, p. 4). There is a nasty rhetorical trick here: La Fontaine's starting point is apparently that testimony from adult survivors is suspect. On this basis, the author builds her reasoning further. No substantiation is given for her premise, but readers are thus drawn into the thinking.
La Fontaine also uses the biased approach (‘biased approach’) in a later book, that “similarities between the victims” statements would be evidence of a conspiracy, while differences would confirm that everything was fabricated"[5].
Another example of unsupported claims by La Fontaine: “there is evidence in the transcript that children learn over the course of repeated interviews what adults want to hear” (La Fontaine, pp. 30-31). However: this evidence is not specified.
In short, almost all findings questioning the credibility of ritual abuse must be adopted on the authority of the author in question, Hanson argues.
La Fontaine also brings up the fact that renewal movements within Christianity would, in her view, ‘accuse other (satanic) religious groups of witchcraft and of pacts with the devil’ (Hanson, p. 46). In doing so, Christians would claim spiritual authority. However, Hanson rightly points out that this theory is completely separate from the question of whether ritual abuse exists; of course individuals may use rituals in abusing children, while at the same time some Christian groups may have motives to see ritual abuse as part of ‘religious movements’ they oppose. However, La Fontaine (and many others) build an unwarranted contradiction, arguing that if Christians (and others) project ritual abuse onto ‘religions they fear’, then this means it does not exist (Hanson, p. 46).
The documentary “The Conspiracy” (Evangelische Omroep, 2025) carries the same kind of rhetoric: it presents satanic ritual abuse as a phenomenon that allegedly blew over from the US to the Netherlands in the 1990s via conferences for psychologists. Dutch psychologists then allegedly talked their clients into this ritual abuse. No evidence or substantiation is provided for this theory. It is also suggested - by means of showing restless Christian meetings and fanatical ’prayer‘ - that Christian psychologists in particular would act in this way. Without any substantiation, it is claimed that Aline Terpstra would give ’such therapy‘. About how she does work and about the regular ways of processing trauma she applies (to be read at www.lichtopsrm.com), not a word is mentioned.
In other words, the EO too degrades itself to baseless and thus manipulative rhetoric to make ritual abuse implausible. Why?
And why is other information, such as Hanson's investigation and the 14 cases of proven ritualistic features not given any attention in the media production, which was precisely presented as a product of serious investigative journalism?
La Fontaine and receptive mass media proclaimed back in the 1990s that no evidence would have been found for ’satanic ritual abuse‘ - a claim that seems to hold up to this day in the UK. The acknowledged existence of ’ritual abuse‘ was left unmentioned.
We see this same choice of words again in the report of the Hendriks Commission (2022), which investigated organised sadistic child abuse in the Netherlands at the behest of the Dutch Parliament: sadistic abuse of children in organised contexts exists, but evidence for the presence of ritual characteristics would be lacking. Not a word is said about court rulings that do speak of ritualistic features, as Hanson's research suggests. We read, “the investigative experts the Commission spoke to all say they have never come across any footage of abuse with ritualistic features.”[6]. This while at least one foundation involved had indeed received reports of ritual abuse (which is also mentioned in the report on page 46). Did the committee conduct a sufficiently thorough investigation, or did it look away?
There is even more evidence
When it comes to legal verdicts where ritual abuse was involved, there is more than Hanson's recent study. On the website “RA-info.org” contains an (additional) list of many convictions in the United States (https://ra-info.org/ritual-abuse/conviction-list-ritual-abuse-cases/) which in many cases contain ritualistic features. The authors note: “the ritualistic aspects of the crimes are often not presented in court, but are clearly indicated by the victims in their testimonies.”
Retrieved from EndRitualAbuse.org, is the full Chapter 6 of the book Cult and Ritual Abuse: Narratives, Evidence, and Healing Approaches by James Randall Noblitt and Pamela Perskin Noblitt included. It contains a comprehensive review of international sources of empirical evidence: https://endritualabuse.org/empirical-and-forensic-evidence-of-ritual-abuse/ The authors state, “eyewitness accounts do constitute evidence”.
They also give two caveats when it comes to forensic evidence:
- In court cases related to ritual abuse, forensic evidence is often closed (sealed) and not made available to the outside world, partly because of the privacy of the victims involved (children or families)
- The fact that a crime contains ritualistic features may never be publicised in the media. Many of the US states do not have laws that specifically prohibit ritual offences, and therefore the crime is usually prosecuted as another defined crime - for example, murder or child abuse
Ritual abuse also exists in the Netherlands
Back to the Hendriks Commission and its ruling that there is no evidence of organised abuse with ritual characteristics. On logical grounds alone, it is highly unlikely that this would not be the Netherlands. If both the United States and the United Kingdom have numerous convictions surrounding child sexual abuse with ritual characteristics have taken place, the chances of it not happening in the Netherlands are slim - especially given the way politicians and media report on it and use the same evasive and trivialising techniques Hanson describes regarding cases in the UK and US.
There are also a lot of testimonies about ritual abuse in the Netherlands, including the 140 that Argos reported on earlier (and were later removed from the VPRO website).
All indications are that ritual abuse is unquestionably prevalent in the Netherlands. It is time to face that reality and act accordingly.
[1] Hanson, E. (2025) Organised ritual abuse and its wider context: degradation, deception and disavowal.The Hydrant Programme (part of the National Police Chiefs’ Council: NPCC) and National Association for People Abused in Childhood (NAPAC). London. Overview: https://napac.org.uk/organised-ritual-abuse-report-guidance-2025/, and the report itself: https://napac.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/NPCC-Organised-ritual-abuse-and-its-wider-context-Degradation-deception-and-disavowal.pdf
[2] The 14 cases concern: Malcolm and Susan Smith, and Albert and Carolee Hickman (The Guardian, 1982; Mullin, 2015); Shaun Wilding (Birmingham Evening Mail, 1986); Brian Williams (Evison, 1987); Hazel Paul and others (Daily Post, 1988); The ‘T’ family (Donnelly & Stewart, 1989); Reginald Harris (Rees, 1990); a case in Liverpool (Daily Post, 1992); Michael Horgan (McMullan & Revell Walton, 1999) a case in Ealing (The Birmingham Post, 1993); a case in Swansea (The Guardian, 1994); David and Bette Stalford (Nutall, 2004); Colin and Elaine Batley, Jacqueline Marling and Shelly Millar (The Daily Telegraph, 2011); Peter Petrauske and Jack Kemp (The Independent, 2012); seven individuals in Glasgow (Scott, 2023; BBC, 2024, 2025). More details are available in Hanson's report.
[3] The publication cited by Hanson (on p. 45) concerns: J.S. La Fontaine, “The extent and nature of organised and ritual abuse”, HSMO: London (1994). For the full list of source references, please refer to Hanson's report (2025)
[4] Quotes from La Fontaine's publication have been translated into Dutch for readability purposes
[5] J.S. La Fontaine, “Speak of the devil: Tales of satanic abuse in contemporary England”. Cambridge University Press (1998)
[6] Hendriks Commission final report, ‘Between disbelief, support and detection’ (2022), p. 46
English (UK) 
Nederlands