What do you mean? How do you know that? There seem to be multiple articles about this story. What about that court in Brussels? Have you googled to see if that is official?
How do you know the media didnt cover it up? There are many important things that the media never reports, such as the court ruling that Princess Diana was killed by an unlawful killing, or that a civil court ruled that Martin Luther King was killed by a conspiracy and not by james earl ray, or that E Howard Hunt confessed on his deathbed that he was involved in the JFK assassination, etc. Tons of important info doesnt get reported in the media. So why do you use that as a basis?
However i gotta admit that the story is implausible for one obvious reason though. If i were the Queen of England, and i wanted to use children in a Satanic sacrifice, i wouldn't abduct them in full public view after making a public appearance. I would hire henchmen, mobsters, secret agents or mercenaries to abduct children from orphanages or third world countries. And not have my name or reputation be associated or connected in any way. Furthermore I'd put many intermediary groups and layers between me and the kidnappers so the crime could not be traced to me if the kidnappers were caught.
But the last thing I'd do is to show up publicly and take children on an outing and disappear with them. Thats the least conspicuous way to do it. No public official would commit a crime in full public view like that. They would do it covertly by using others or subcontracting hitmen or mafia or secret agents. Im sure a woman of immense power and wealth like Queen Elizabeth II would have far easier and more covert ways of abducting children than that, if she wanted to that is.
Thus this story is highly suspicious and doesnt fit basic logic.