Originally posted by COMMA
Even Daly said Hollie was abused

no he didn't. he said it was 'possible' that she was abused by her father but there was no way it could ever be proven in court. he also doesn't believe in any paedophile ring.

so she was abused there was a link there was a cover up , its really not hard

Originally posted by COMMA
just read this


Point is though it doesn't matter a jot if Anne is as mad as a box of bats! Likewise it doesn't matter than Robert Green has gone about this all the wrong way - which he has! FACT is there IS evidence Hollie was abused

where is this fact then? you keep saying FATCS but you don't produce any when asked.

the doctor says she wasn't abused in his opinion. that is a fact which i produced here in the form of the doctors letter. she did have an infection which was similar to a friend of hers. it was described as 'perianal redness' - or a rash. you still have ignored my repeated requests to explain why her parents were asking for contraception for hollie in the very same letter. has hollie ever had sex with anyone that didn't allegedly rape her?

again - read my above post regarding mark daly's thoughts on what happened to hollie.

a criminal charge? was he or was he not breaching the peace when he was handing out leaflets NAMING people he claimed were pedos without even bothering to check if they existed?

he was under interdict before he went there to NOT go to aberdeen to leaflet, yet he did it anyway. when he was bailed he was apparently given a huge list of conditions to abide by, most of which he seems to have apparently broken. so, at the court case, if he is found guilty of breach of the peace (which it seems likely as he ignored an interdict to not go there to leaflet) why should he not be jailed for breaking the law?

what you seem to want is fpr a court case to happen regardless of evidence or people that actually exist and for the court to find in favour of anne and hollie regardless of the truth of the story. all the people named should be guilty, even the non-existant ones or those who didn't exist at the time. why should these people have to clear their names? anne needs to prove her case FIRST before it can go to court.

in your eyes it seems that any person can go around claiming all sorts of nasty horror stories about other people and you expect the named people to prove their innocence rather than the person making the allegations prove their guilt.

Originally posted by COMMA
so she was abused there was a link there was a cover up , its really not hard

show me ONE single piece of proof that she was abused that is not someone's say so. it's not hard if there is so much proof as you keep insisting.

the doctor who examined her found NO PROOF. if she had been raped repeatedly for many years then someone somewhere would have noticed it because she was examined regularly.

and yet Hollie , the Police and even Mark Daly all say Hollie was abused


For reference...



“I’m saying to you is that I think that there was probably some strong evidence that Hollie was abused”



...The very words of Mark Daly transcribed from a broadcast April 25th 2010 on Manchester Radio Online.




Eva harding says Hollie was a credible witness .

I am sure Anne would love to have had Doctors she could trust but looking at some of the "gang" who worked in hospitals I doubt that was ever going to happen.

No the balance of probability points to abuse and cover up .

here is an interesting challenge for hollie supporters.

can you find out from the official hollie team if hollie was ever shown pictures of the alleged abusers and asked to identify them?

could she identify them or does she only know their names?

as i said in the above removed post. 49% is a possibility and 51% is a probability, and when daly said it was 'probable' he was just being generous. he was also referring to her father and not a vast pedo ring

having actually spoken to mark daly i am well aware of what he thinks.

Originally posted by COMMA
Is this a conspiracy site , I would have thought taht was a slam dunk myself to there being a conspiracy.


As to their motives I can only guess but Mr Milne did kindly send me an e mail showing a facebook friendship between two of those accused , a link Grampian Police ,whos common purpose chief is accused , said they could not find.

yes it is a conspiracy site but isn't it strange how so few of the members are posting in this thread about this vast conspiracy? now why would that be?

as you have email evidence - please post the information here for review.

No its confidential and would name people

So Daly says she was probably abused and the Police do too and in fact they gave 13k because of it and her father leaves his raped daughter with her mad mother .

The police say there is no link and Mr Milne finds a link between the son and one of those named.

And the first minister of Scotlands reaction ,say nothing and pretend you were never told.

You wonder whats in it for those who want to bury this story , is the Scottish government not enough ?

Originally posted by COMMA
No its confidential and would name people

So Daly says she was probably abused and the Police do too and in fact they gave 13k because of it and her father leaves his raped daughter with her mad mother .

The police say there is no link and Mr Milne finds a link between the son and one of those named.

And the first minister of Scotlands reaction ,say nothing and pretend you were never told.

You wonder whats in it for those who want to bury this story , is the Scottish government not enough ?

edit on 13-7-2011 by COMMA because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-7-2011 by COMMA because: (no reason given)

you can still post it and xxxxx out the names to hide their identities. besides, anyone who can search google can even find their names AND addresses because the hollie team has posted them in various places online.

so - as you have facebook proof - may i ask if you passed this information on to the police? if not, why not?

do you also expect the police to check facebook every single day since anne made her claims for a link between two people who might even be in contact with each other now due to them all having been named in public by the hollie team? are they going to be the some of the witnesses at robert's upcoming trial by any chance?

for about the 5th time of asking, please show where the police say she was abused.

also answer my previous question as to whether alex salmond ever replied to any contact regarding the hollie case.

one has to wonder why you keep refusing to answer any of my questions on the proof i am posting.

There are so many holes in this case it is quite unbelievable how anyone (that has looked at ALL of the REAL evidence) can side with the totally incompetent RG.

Justyc has done a great job of providing the evidence here for you to see. If you don't want to look at it "objectively" with an open mind because this case tugs at the heart strings, then your very foolish indeed.

I too spent a while on this case along with many others, and if anyone out there wants to blame anyone in particular for the cynic's and doubters that have arose, then they can blame me. I believe i was one of the first to arouse suspicion after looking at the evidence critically, after being pulled in myself. I certainly remember talking to Justyc when she was right behind the case, but Jystyc had the ability to step back and consider what i was saying objectively. From then on, with the help of Justyc, i believe the truth started to emerge.

I won't waste my time on it anymore, but i would like to add 2 things.

1. The money paid to Holly was compensation for some amount of abuse perpetrated by the father. I believe the cps were convinced of that which is why they paid up. I don't believe there was enough evidence to follow that up with criminal proceedings, although the cps are incredible good at being incompetent. This is the only thing i believe about this case.

2. There is one thing that is continually bounded around by the believers of the HG case. "Why the threats if any of this is printed in the press?" This is completely superficial. It's is right and proper that the innocent (and guilty) are protected from such allegations until there is insurmountable evidence and criminal proceedings are brought. You simply cannot go around calling people paedophiles and making allegations of corruption without strong evidence. And this case simply doesn't have any such evidence.

End.

I too spent a while on this case along with many others, and if anyone out there wants to blame anyone in particular for the cynic's and doubters that have arose, then they can blame me. I believe i was one of the first to arouse suspicion after looking at the evidence critically, after being pulled in myself. I certainly remember talking to Justyc when she was right behind the case, but Jystyc had the ability to step back and consider what i was saying objectively. From then on, with the help of Justyc, i believe the truth started to emerge.


My goodness what an ego , just joined today to say that eh ?

END