posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 09:55 AM
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
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
(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.