THE FACTS AND WHY WE BELIEVE HOLLIE GREIG’S ALLEGATIONS
1 The fact that Hollie has been entirely consistent at all times, even during gruelling three-and-a-half-hour long police interviews.
2 The fact that Detective Inspector Alley found Hollie to be “A reliable witness to the best of her ability and an entirely innocent victim”.
3 The fact that Down’s Syndrome people cannot make up stories or lie.
4 The fact that Down’s Syndrome people have photographic memories.
5 The fact that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, basing their decision on the usual civil standard of proof – the balance of probability – found that Hollie was telling the truth and had suffered repeated rape and sexual abuse as a child.
4 The fact that a Memo dated 5th July 1990 from Dr Paul Carter, Beechwood School doctor, to Dr S J Wilson, of the Grampian Health Board Community Services, states that Hollie, aged 10, had contracted sexually transmitted perianal warts and was an ‘at risk’ child.
5 The fact that a letter dated 3rd February 1992 from Dr Paul Carter, then Senior Medical Officer at Grampian Health Board Priority Services Unit/Acute Services Division, to Hollie’s GP, Dr James Maitland, states that Hollie is exhibiting signs of having had sexual experience.
6 The fact that Dr Frances Kelly, a police doctor who examined Hollie at Bucksburn Police Station on 20 May 2000, confirmed that there was evidence of sexual penetration.
7 The fact that an assessment of Hollie, dated 5th October 2001, by Dr Jack Boyle BA, BSc (Econ), MEd, PhD, AFB PsyS, C Psychol concluded that a) she was telling the truth and that b) she had been abused, and, in Dr Boyle’s professional opinion, it was both plausible and probable that there had been multiple abusers.
8 The fact that the ‘Report on Hollie Mackie (Greig)’, dated 22nd February 2003, by Dr Eva Harding C Psychol, AFB PsyS concluded that a) Hollie was telling the truth and that b) she had been abused and, in Dr Harding’s professional opinion, it was both plausible and probably that there had been multiple abusers.
9 The fact that a Grampian Police report dated 8th May 2007 notes that Dennis and Greg Mackie are believed to have ‘a predilection for very young girls’, and that Greg already had a conviction for masturbating in public, coupled with the fact that Hollie (“a reliable witness to the best of her ability and an entirely innocent victim”) was hardly likely to have made a mistake when she identified her own father and brother as her earliest tormentors.
10 The fact that no allowance was made for Hollie’s speech impediment when questioning her, despite the advice of the Down’s Syndrome Association, and that her difficulties in this respect were then used to discredit her testimony.
11 The suspicious death of Hollie’s uncle, who apparently committed suicide by beating himself up and breaking his own sternum before climbing into a burning car – all this shortly after he had, according to his niece (deemed to be a reliable witness by both police and medical professionals), seen her being abused by her father.
12 The fact that, after Hollie made her allegations, she and her mother were subjected to such a level of persecution by the authorities – including a violent attack on Anne, in an attempt to have her sectioned, and a police raid on their home – that they were forced to flee the country. Why such ferocity, if Hollie’s allegations were groundless ?
13 The fact that this persecution continued after they settled in Shropshire, so that they were forced to escape from their new home, where a violent raid by the police had left them with no means of securing the doors, and go into virtual hiding. Why this pursuit across borders, if Hollie’s allegations were groundless ?
14 The fact that the ultimate sanction of threatening to take Hollie into care was used to silence Anne. Why such extreme action, if Hollie’s allegations were groundless ?
15 The fact that Hollie’s champion, Robert Green, has been relentlessly and unreasonably persecuted by the Scottish police and judicial system, and has been sentenced to two separate terms of imprisonment, nine months of house arrest, and 250 hours of community service on trifling charges. Why such an extreme reaction, if Hollie’s allegations were groundless ?
16 The fact that Robert Green was only at last granted his freedom by virtue of a gagging order which forbids him to speak of any case of child abuse in Scotland, past or present, on pain of re-imprisonment. Why are the Scottish authorities so afraid of what he might say ?
17 The fact that computers and notebooks containing valuable evidence – including a verbatim record of Hollie’s three-and-a-half-hour interview with DC Lisa Evans of Grampian Police which took place on 8th September 2009 – were confiscated by Grampian without inventory during raids on Robert Green’s home in Warrington, and have never been returned. Again, why are the Scottish authorities so keen to prevent certain facts being made public ?
18 The fact that none of the 22 people named by Hollie as abusers in her interview with DC Lisa Evans on 8th September 2009 was interrogated by Grampian Police. Why not ?
19 The fact that none of the named abusers’ computers were seized by Grampian Police. Why not?
20 The fact that Grampian Police failed to search the homes of any of the named abusers. Why not?
21 The fact that none of the 7 children named by Hollie as fellow victims was interrogated by Grampian Police. Why not, when the prosecuting authorities know perfectly well that rape cases in Scotland require corroboration by a second person ?
22 The fact that not a single one of Hollie’s 22 named abusers has dared to defend his or her reputation in a court of law.
23 The fact that there is both documentary and verbal evidence suggesting that former Lord Advocate, Elish Angiolini, was responsible for blocking a full investigation into Hollie’s claims, even though they were backed by medical evidence and the testimony of expert witnesses.
24 The fact that key public figures involved both in preventing a full investigation, and in the persecution of those attempting to secure one, appear to be associated with each other in ways which might cast reasonable doubt on their impartiality.
25 The fact that Crown Office officials, including Lords Advocate past and present, refuse to give straight answers to straight questions, as far as this case is concerned.
26 The fact of the former First Minister’s refusal to respond to a legitimate Freedom of Information Request relating to Hollie’s case, which – particularly in the light of continuing revelations south of the border – suggests the possibility of political involvement at an embarrassingly high level.
HOLLIE GREIG NO REASON TO LIE