Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: hocndoc

I understand it. And I’ve been down the road. I’ll point out that I’m talking about families who had nothing do with what you said, and you’ll come back with some other issue, and I’ll answer that and then you’ll say something else and eventually we’ll be back to how they had to raid the compound because of Sarah.

I’m not discussing the specifics of this anymore, because nobody wants to, they want to score points. Thus, my comment which said I was waiting for the actual facts to come out, rather than arguing the point.

Eventually there will be actual facts regarding the allegations you raised.


327 posted on 05/09/2008 10:11:16 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies ]


To: CharlesWayneCT

You are the one making up hypothetical families.

The facts are that the children were not removed from the cult compound because of Sarah. The investigation began that way.

However, the evidence that led to the removal of the children came from the children’s own stories about - and the frank evidence of - sexual abuse: underage girls who were pregnant or had been pregnant.

If you want to get hypothetical: What do you imagine would have happened if the adult men and women had been honest about names, ages, and relationships?


328 posted on 05/10/2008 1:41:51 AM PDT by hocndoc (http://www.LifeEthics.org (I have a mustard seed and I'm not afraid to use it.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson