Bohemian
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2015
- Messages
- 10,376
- Reaction score
- 16,601
Yes, this was robustly argued in earlier threads. I can't help but think that in point 11. he made a veiled confession to his parole officer of what he had done to his nieces. I came to that conclusion because when he had committed prior acts of paedophilia, he admitted to the police what he had done. When he is caught with the child in the toilet, he minimises the situation which leads me to believe he hadn't done anything yet to that child but had intention and was downplaying it. He seems to be quite candid about his intention to his nieces. Also that point 11. shows the fears his family at the time had of his intentions to the girls. Wonder if they mentioned their fears to police when the girls were interviewed in hospital? IMO
Yeah, I know it's been debated previously but the program I watched last night piqued my interest about the time Hillsley spent in and out of Chelmsford, living with various family members, and/or jail.
Hmm...that's what's been puzzling me too. The language he uses (ie 'I would probably have intercourse this time'? What had he done to them before 'this time'?), collecting the girls' clothing (fantasising?), the allusion to his father telling him not to take them to the bedroom, his anger at the family's accusations and, yes, if he had been/was living with his sister (and BS) at the time, if any of this was noted at the hospital when the girls were examined and, if not, why not? Mother and GM both knew about Hillsley's 'proclivities' or, perhaps, the girls were only examined at a later date (April/May 1987) due to symptoms of a chronic UTI as a result of the earlier assault(s)? By this time, might Hillsley have been back in jail? (God, I don't even want to think it but, may those girls been assaulted by both men?)