posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 08:42 AM
reply to post by stevenmilne
you forgot to add that the fact that the police complaints commission have already looked into anne's allegations and found none of them to be true
(see previously linked pcc report).
the fact that hollie was paid compensation doesn't prove she was raped by any pedo ring. as i said, they would have judged on the basis of
probability on a case that isn't provable anyway. is there any documentation about the compensation that can be reviewed or are we again just to
believe what we are told the findings of it actually were? as i mentioned in an earlier post - i believe it is 'possible' that hollie was abused by
her father but it is equally 'possible' that she was having consensual sex with her boyfriend. i don't believe there is a huge massive conspiracy
to cover up a pedo ring based on the evidence.
before putting the word 'facts' in capital letters though, please look up it's dictionary definition. facts, like the truth, don't change whereas
anne's story has. your version of 'facts' revolves around what you have been told happened by anne and robert and you will not question this at
all. we have no idea what hollie said other than what we are told.
'facts' get quoted all the time by the hollie group, but when pointing out the 'fact' that when hollie was asked (in the only time i ever heard
her being publicly questioned) if she was afraid her father would kill her dog she replied with the word "no". let's not forget that hollie
supporters keep reminding us of the 'fact' that hollie cannot lie. i know people who have met hollie in person and talked to her on the phone and
other than yes or no, nobody heard her say anything else. it was always anne doing the talking and telling what hollie said.
i read the psychiatric report (from the dead psychiatrist who cannot now be questioned to see if after reviewing other presented evidence she would
still draw the same conclusion). did you read it? if so, then you will already know it is a 'fact' (a real one) that anne tells a different
version of how she came to leave the house in it, to the version she tells when she was publicly interviewed? it's also a fact that she omits to
tell in all the public interviews about how she was being poisoned and followed by the person she claimed her husband was having an affair with. why
would she leave this out? is it because it makes her sound paranoid? was the psychiatrist aware of all the other sides to this story and it's
contradictions or did she just hear annes version (which is very convincing i will admit). are you absolutely certain that anne had no previous
mental health problem? is this because you were told she didn't? like you were told her brother never drank or had no reason to 'commit suicide'?
only when all facts and evidence is presented can a fuller and more accurate picture be given. not just a one-sided version based on evidence we are
not even allowed to look at anymore.
again, i challenge that you provide all their documentation that can then be reviewed by the members for themselves.