[–] pizzaboss [S] ago (edited ago)
Ok get it. You are saying it went down like this. 1. Abe takes kids away for a month and beats /couches them into a crazy bizarro accusation of satanic cult cover up. To cover up the huge amount of sexually inflicted injuries and bruises he had inflicted during that month which were inflicted to cause them to tell a crazy lie targeting the father, school, church and businesses. .. And also when then police take custody of them, they make a very nervous retraction
[–] pizzaboss [S] ago (edited ago)
[They did not 'confess' anything until they were in Morocco where he tortured them into making the claims against the father. They admitted to lying because Abraham made them after the police had investigated some of their claims ] You saying 1. Abe took them, abused them mentally, physically, and giving them both extremely sexual injuries. And 2. That this happen AFTER the police investigated some of their claims. So you are saying they made claims against the father twice and then imediately after the second claim they retracted after hearing about wardrobe. Unless you are saying the first claims are the claims that Abe beat about AFTER the police investigated the claims. Either way your story seems p shakey. Anything else to add to it? Maybe theres an important comma or two missing from your statement so it makes more since.
[–] norobotono ago
The only thing that is shaky is your insistence on seeing only what you want to see regardless of what the evidence proves. The peers of the doctor did not agree with her findings when it went up for review. The anal injuries were not anything like the doctor had made them out to be in both her first and second examination and were most likely caused by constipation or the enema which the mother had given them for it. The constipation likely having been caused by Abraham's forcing a change of diet onto the children.
Or perhaps it was caused due to neglecting to ensure the children ate or drank enough, because the school were concerned about their well-being after finding them eating food from a bin at school because they were so hungry. Or how about the time the social services were called by a neighbor because the mother locked them out on the balcony in their nightwear for hours with no food or drink.
So are you saying that the cuts and bruises on the children were caused by the father 3 months ago and that neither the mother nor Abraham saw them in all that time?
[–] pizzaboss [S] ago (edited ago)
No i suspect the cuts and bruises occured after they were taken into custody with the police. Please continue your campaign in this new post https://voat.co/v/pizzagatewhatever/1541891
[–] pizzaboss [S] ago
I just want to be sure of what your cover story is. I dont want to have to report you to your handler for poorly promoting a cover up story.
[–] norobotono ago
Why are you protecting Abraham who is a proven abuser? Still no comment on the child porn that was found on Abraham's phone?
Your only defense is insults and insinuations because the real evidence doesn't back up the fantasy version of events. Supporters of this story are so predictable in how they react to facts and anyone that questions the story.
[–] pizzaboss [S] ago
Sure. Heres a response, the police were thr major contributing party to the coverup and they planted evidence and couched the kids. Now where is your response to the medical report stating that injuries were also sexual and evidence of many years of abuse. So far all yout got is more cover-up opinions which you keep promoting like a broken record in a lame attempt to drown out the truth. Please reply in the new thread EYES ON HAMPSTEAD 2 as i am deleting this post as it got too crowded here.