Makara
Former Member
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2010
- Messages
- 7,107
- Reaction score
- 86
BBM. That is certainly not the case as far as I'm concerned. My opinion on BS's involvement in William's disappearance has absolutely nothing to do with the historical sex charges. The police have had BS in their sites as a person of interest from the beginning. They've invested many man hours, time and money in their investigation. They do not do that on a whim. I feel sure that they have a lot more evidence that will eventually be revealed.
I don't think Hillsley has almost admitted sexually assaulting the little girls BS is accused of sexually assaulting. It is all supposition. We don't know how many nieces Hillsley has and we don't know if he was actually living with the said victims in January 1987. All of this is assumed because of what we've read in MSM and Hillsley's court record. It's joining the dots but it doesn't always give a complete picture. I'm looking forward to Spedding's upcoming days in court and hopefully the truth will finally be revealed one way or the other.
Adding to my last post.
A defence lawyer, Peter O’Brien, told the court Hillsley, who had been convicted of abducting and indecently assaulting a five-year-old, had lived in the same home as Spedding’s alleged victims in January 1987.
http://www.theguardian.com/australi...-seeks-bail-over-historical-sex-abuse-charges
So it would seem that Peter O'Brien has evidence that Hillsley did live in the same home as Spedding's alleged victims in January 1987. So that clears that up. It doesn't explain how Hillsley could have raped and assaulted those two little girls between April - May 1987. He was in jail. And that's what the charges against BS are. That he raped and assaulted the two little girls between April - May 1987, not January 1987.
BBM.