Hollie Greig alleged in 2000 that she was the victim of a paedophile gang in Aberdeen. Her mother Anne was forcibly sectioned within days of the allegations being made.
Hollie was awarded £13,500 from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority in spite of the fact that no-one was ever charged with any crime.
THIS IS A SINGLE-ISSUE, HUMANITARIAN CAMPAIGN WITH NO CONNECTION TO ANY OTHER CAUSES.
This will be my last blog prior to the impending trial.
Since it is difficult to predict what may occur, I would again like to take this opportunity of thanking all of those wonderful people who have supported Hollie, Anne and me throughout this campaign and to those who have attended my many court hearings. To those of you who may be able to come along on Friday, I shall be most grateful and pleased to see you.
My fate is not in the hands of a jury, but of one man, Sheriff Principal Edward Bowen.
Since the trial, it has been discovered that this individual lacked the professional and personal integrity to divulge his relationship, for over ten years, on the board of an organisation with a fellow member who had been cited as a witness for the defence. This relationship on the board lasted until May last year, when Bowen and the cited witness left within 24 hours of each other. Thus, it is reasonable to believe that the two were at least, fairly well acquainted.
Moreover, on Bowen`s intercession, the witness, Elish Angiolini, was prevented from having to attend court and provide answers on oath under cross-examination, hence displaying the prospect of disadvantaging the defence. Given that justice needs to be seen to be done, it would be difficult to argue against the view that Sheriff Bowen was not competent to adjudicate at the trial, owing to a reasonable supposition that a conflict of interest may well be seen to exist.
A formal complaint has been lodged with the appropriate authorities, which has been formally acknowledged today and Bowen will be challenged in court in connection with his failure to disclose. One would hope that under Scottish Law, the requirement to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth in court extends to members of the judiciary.
Bowen`s conduct so far has been instrumental in my having a criminal record inflicted upon me and the prospect of a prison sentence, quite apart from the way my human rights have been persistently breached from the time of my initial arrest.
It may be a good time to note, in comparison, a few examples of how actual sex offenders in Scotland are treated.
This week it was announced that Liam Gibson, described as one of Scotland`s most notorious purveyors of child pornography, was spared a jail sentence despite Lothian & Borders Police discovering 50,000 images of child pornography at his home.
In 2009, Douglas Haggarty QC, a senior member of the Legal Aid Board with the responsibility and influence in deciding if I should be granted legal aid, was found to have committed a sexual act with a 17-year-old male prostitute in the public toilet of British Home Stores, St Enoch Centre, Glasgow on a Saturday afternoon at a time when the store was full of families out shopping. Mr Haggarty was not only spared prison, but was allowed to retain his lucrative job in a position of public trust.
In 2001, when Elish Angiolini was busy covering up over Hollie`s allegations, in an unrelated case, a 22-year-old man who admitted to raping a 10-year-old girl and 7-year-old boy was allowed to walk free. This was reported in The Times and The Telegraph in May of that year. Angiolini was subsequently forced into a public apology for her incompetence. This monumental blunder did not prevent her climbing to the highest office in the justice system.
Then, of course, we can mention the repeated Grampian Police and Crown Office failings over the Hollie Greig case. At the outset, Hollie`s father should have been arrested and had his computer seized, as Dr Frances Kelly`s medical examination, accepted by Grampian Police, supported Hollie`s allegations within three weeks of Hollie first making them in May 2000.
All this may be of some interest when my sentence is announced. In this Kafkaesque country, where right is wrong and wrong is right , the indications are that anyone who exposes police failures and tries to protect children from being raped is likely to be much more seriously dealt with than the actual perpetrators.
The eminent Ian Hamilton QC described the way that Scotland is currently being governed as being akin to fascism. It is an opinion that is not easy to disagree with.
Scotland is a fine country with some of the most decent and humane people you are likely to find anywhere on Earth. It is so sad that its governance has fallen into the hands of a cabal whose members have characters that are diametrically at odds with the best traditions of those of the overwhelming majority of Scottish people.
Thank you all and God bless you.
Central Police has now confirmed that the investigation related to an alleged misappropriation of public funds involving Elish Angiolini and Peter Watson, of Levy & McRae, has been passed to the CID.
With regard to Angiolini`s ten-year boardroom connection with Sheriff Principal Bowen, it has proved difficult to ascertain exactly who was responsible for allocating my case to him. I have been informed that the application for a sheriff to adjudicate was passed to Sir Stephen Young, Sheriff Principal for Grampian, Highland and Islands.
Sir Stephen is also a commissioner for the Northern Lighthouse Board.
Finally, thank you to everyone who has been kind enough to offer their best wishes and prayers for me next Friday at Stonehaven. I would also like to extend my appreciation to those who may be able to make the journey there to witness and support me.
Of course, what may happen to me is not really of major consequence. What is important is to bring to justice those who committed such appalling crimes against Hollie and other children, which in itself will help to prevent further unspeakable sufferings at the hands of those perpetrators still at large.
Is there a senior political figure in Scotland with sufficient courage and compassion to stand up and demand an inquiry?
At present, official responses are being awaited about Sheriff Principal Bowen`s failure to disclose details of his long-term boardroom acquaintance with Elish Angiolini and about the complaint made about the latter over the alleged theft of public funds.
In the case of the former, the Scottish Law Reporter provided an excellent updated report on 7th February and there has been a very good article about the trial, prior to the uncovering of Bowen`s concealment, in the UK Column on 25th January, stating its opinion that Scotland is now, unsurprisingly, Europe`s paedophile capital. It certainly seems to be the only country that I am aware of where the powers-that-be tacitly support the rape of its own children and the disabled.
Other helpful pieces and films have also appeared in the public domain.
With regard to Angiolini`s refusal to cooperate with the Queen`s appointed officer over the payments to Levy & McRae, Sergeant Hogg, of Central Police, has informed me today that it has now been passed to Lothian & Borders, as the alleged crime was believed to have been committed in that area.
This matter should not take long to resolve. All Angiolini has to do to establish her innocence is to provide proof that she paid the law firm out of her personal funds, although this was something she felt unable to do when questioned on this very issue by the Freedom of Information Commissioner over a six-month period.
Finally, whilst I am a great advocate of free speech and freedom of expression, I have noticed that the comments section is sometimes being used as a vehicle for expressing forceful views about persons and issues not directly connected to the subject of the blog. Therefore, I would appreciate it if those concerned would be courteous enough to restrict their views by relating them to the content of the blogs on this site.
We have received detailed and prompt information from the Northern Lighthouse Board, which is to its great credit.
Sheriff Principal Edward Bowen and Elish Angiolini DBE were together on the board for ten years, leaving it within 24 hours of each other in 2011.
A more blatant conflict of interest on Bowen`s part could scarcely be imagined, yet the sheriff declared nothing about his acquaintance with a key cited witness for the defence.
This is yet another example of the degree of the corruption that lies at the heart of the Scottish justice system. Due to the nature of the charge, a summary offence, any sheriff in Scotland would have been qualified to adjudicate on my case.
Why then was Bowen, of all people, chosen, and who selected him for the task?
Fred Goodwin has, of course, just been stripped of his knighthood.
David Ruffley MP has now suggested that if people regard anyone else as being unworthy of such an honour, they should approach the Forfeiture Committee with their views.
Mr Ruffley, it may be recalled, was the first MP to have the courage to speak out about the appalling way in which the Scottish justice system had dealt with the Hollie Greig case. He is not a Scottish MP, but represents Bury St Edmunds in Suffolk, so his concerns about justice and the protection of Scottish children are all the more commendable.
In my view, the recent honouring of Elish Angiolini was in some ways far more troubling than that of Fred Goodwin and I shall explain why. This has nothing to do with anyone`s opinions on the Hollie Greig case or mine, for that matter.
At the very time that Her Majesty The Queen was bestowing the honour on Elish Angiolini, the latter was persistently refusing to comply with a question relating to her financial probity from the Queen`s own senior appointee, Mr Kevin Dunion, the Freedom of Information Commissioner for Scotland.
How was it possible for such an individual who could be facing serious criminal charges by ignoring a senior official representing the Queen, to be simultaneously made a DBE by Her Majesty?
As many of you will have seen, the official response to the question of who exactly nominated Angiolini for this award has met with the reply that it is not in the public interest for the identity(ies)to be divulged.
I think it is.
Of course, I could not possibly assume what the Queen might think, but it is hard, I propose, to imagine that Her Majesty would have acted as she did had the full facts about the recipient been made known to her. At least, in the case of Fred Goodwin, his subsequently bad conduct was not known at the time that he was nominated and honoured,as far as I am aware.
I intend to contact the Forfeiture Committee accordingly.
Followers of my trial will know that Sheriff Principal Bowen decided to support Crown objections to deprive me of two key cited defence witnesses, Stephen McGowan and Elish Angiolini.
It has now been discovered that Bowen and Angiolini are co-directors of the Northern Lighthouse Board and have been present together at three meetings since I was arrested, 22 February 2010, 01 June 2010 and 28 February 2011.
Therefore, at the very least, they can be said to be acquainted.
Sheriff Principal Bowen has made no effort to disclose his personal connection with Angiolini. I believe that, at the very latest, he should have recused himself when Angiolini was formally cited by the defence. Justice must, of course, be seen to be done and there can be no doubt that Bowen`s impartiality is thus a matter for serious questioning, as his actions spared his personal acquaintance,the former Lord Advocate, from being cross-examined on oath, to my disadvantage.
Angiolini is perhaps the most central figure in the case against me, as it was largely her failings and worse, that led me to take the actions for which I was subsequently charged, on her personal authority.
It is also hoped to obtain the audio of the trial, which I recall will contain a rather mumbled and incoherent response by Bowen when I challenged him on the subject of Angiolini`s conduct on the last day of the hearing.
This revelation is but the latest in a transparently biased series against me by the Scottish justice system, if that is not a contradiction in terms.
I have reason to believe that I have suffered as a result of a mistrial due to an undeclared conflict of interest on the part of Sheriff Principal Edward Bowen.
Whilst there remains a good deal of focus on the injustices meted out to me, what is really at stake here is the establishment`s craven failure to protect Scottish children and the disabled from systematic rape and torture.
Today and Saturday, the Scottish Law Reporter has put up two new articles about my trial and the curious award to Elish Angiolini.
Of course, her name was put forward to be honoured by the Queen, despite it having been established that she had made false statements over Hollie`s case and even more importantly, that she had refused to respond to the FOI Commisioner`s requests over a financial matter of public interest, which may well lead to her facing a criminal prosecution.
So, in the circumstances, who would want to nominate an individual of such dubious repute?
We still don`t know, as the official document featured in today`s SLR article shows.
There is, of course, no reason at all for the details of this matter and those related to it being published in the mainstream media. I am only too well aware of the pressures being placed on editors by those in positions of considerable power and influence in Scotland, as was displayed earlier by Angiolini`s personal threats, but much of the information is already in the public domain. Such established names as The Firm, The Drum, The Scottish Law Reporter, The Scottish Sunday Express and the former Scottish News of the World have all published accounts of matters directly or indirectly connected to the Hollie Greig case.
Finally, thank you all for your continuous messages of support since my conviction. It is important to be aware that anything that happens to me will be of little account when compared to what has happened to Hollie Greig. Her account on 8th September 2009 to Grampian Police`s DC Lisa Evans is something I shall never forget, so clear and harrowing were the details,as was Hollie`s astonishing bravery.
As uncovered during the trial, that no action was ever taken by DC Evans and Grampian Police is a matter of disgrace and shame for all those whose chief objective and priority is to protect prominent and powerfully connected child-abusers at all costs.
A local police officer called at my home this afternoon, on behalf of Sergeant Hogg of Central Police, Scotland, to provide me with a crime reference number in connection with my formal complaint about the alleged misappropriation of public funds by Elish Angiolini, in order to pay Levy & McRae for legal actions on her behalf in a private capacity.
Such an alleged crime should not be difficult to solve. All Dame Elish needs to do is to provide proof that the fees in question were paid by her personally. However, it would seem that she has so far been finding this simple query difficult to address. It is now two years since the question was first put to her and for a six-month period, the Freedom of Information Commissioner, Mr Kevin Dunion, asked her to respond. She has yet failed to do so.
Levy & McRae ought also to be able to help clear this issue up. The firm must know who it invoiced and who paid the bill. There can be no lawful reason for the Scottish taxpayer to have paid this.
Central Police say that everyone in Scotland is treated equally under the law. If Dame Elish remains unable to exonerate herself, there can be no reason why she should not be arrested and charged, as anyone unfortunate enough to have less influential allies would be in similar circumstances.
I would like to take this opportunity to bring everyone up-to-date regarding recent events but would first like to thank again all of you who have offered their support and expressed their objection to Sheriff Principal Bowen`s personal decision to convict me on a Breach of the Peace charge.
Especially I cannot really find appropiate words to express my thanks to those of you who came to the court, day after day, to witness what I believe to be another unacceptable incidence of bias against me by the Scottish justice system. Those of you in Scotland who have so gallantly stood by me represent the true face of Scotland – brave, loyal, fair-minded and thoroughly decent and compassionate.
I have no doubt that my prospects of a successful defence were impaired unacceptably by the Sheriff`s decision to deny me the testimonies under oath of two key defence witness who had both been formally cited, Procurator Fiscal Stephen McGowan and former Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini.
As events progressed, it became clear that the integrity of the trial was compromised by the fact that McGowan, leading for the prosecution, was himself being protected from having to answer pertinent questions about his own conduct and influence.
In the case of Angiolini, in many ways the central figure whose failings led directly to my being charged, she would have had to face some telling questions on oath had our citatation not been blocked by Bowen`s intervention. Under Scottish law, it would not have been necessary for her to answer questions that may incriminate herself, but it would surely have been in the interests not only of the defence, but for Scotland in general as to how she would respond to the matter of who paid Levy &McRae for her private legal actions, a question she has persistently failed to answer to a formal request from a senior public official, the Freedom of Information Commissioner, Mr Kevin Dunion.
As we were denied Angiolini`s opportunity to speak on this specific topic, amongst others, I formally made a complaint yesterday at the police station in Dunblane, where she resides, having been invited to take this course of action by a letter from Lothian and Borders Police. The constant evasions by Angiolini in responding to a perfectly simple official question would strongly indicate, in my view, that a serious criminal offence has taken place, which I have been given to understand should be termed the misappropriation of public funds.
Regardless of opinions on the Hollie Greig case or on mine, surely no one can reasonably take a view other than that the former Lord Advocate has conducted herself in an unacceptable manner leading to the gravest suspicion of her culpability over the likely criminal misuse of public funds.
One of the most important facts to emerge from the trial was that following Hollie`s lengthy interview with PC Lisa Evans on the 8th September 2009, which I witnessed, not one of the named alleged perpetrators, not one of the alleged victims, nor any of the expert medical witnesses whose reports completely supported Hollie`s allegations were ever questioned by Grampian Police. Of course, contrary to police procedures in such cases involving the sexual abuse of children were the computers of the alleged perpetrators seized or examined. One of the main reasons for this is that whilst rape is inevitably a complex issue as far as proof is concerned, the downloading of child pornography is not. It is a known fact that abusers generally avail themselves to this type of crime and given the sheer number of those named by Hollie, there can surely be no rational explanation for Grampian Police`s failures.
As we have said so often, Hollie`s competence and honesty has never been in any doubt, as admitted by Grampian Police themselves. The condition of Down`s Syndrome leads to those who have the condition to describe past events exactly as they have experienced them, without the facility to fabricate or embellish. Hollie Greig is therefore the best type of witness one could have in acase such as this, unlike any of her alleged attackers.
Thanks to extra information alluded to or gleaned during the trial, particularly from witness Rosemary Murray, someone certainly not involved in the abuses, I have every reason to believe that two specific witnesses in particular, committed perjury during the course of the trial.
Naturally, I have always stressed that my chief objective in the campaign is to secure a proper public inquiry into the repeated failures and obstructions of the authorities in dealing adequately with all the allegations and other matters, including the death of Robert Greig.
Indeed, if any proper police investigation had taken place it would have exonerated those who professed to be innocent in court long ago.
I must attend Stonehaven Court on 17th February at 10.30 hours for sentencing.
I shall just end by repeating these facts.
Following Hollie`s indescribably brave conduct and precise allegations on 8th September 2009 to DC Lisa Evans relating to most horrendous crimes, the police took no action whatsoever.
In January 2010, when I circulated a letter highlighting the police`s failure in this matter and the potential danger to the public, Grampian Police interviewed no fewer than 61 witnesses within five weeks and I was thus arrested and charged.
An extended adjournment until Monday has allowed me to post this update on the trial`s progress.
To begin with, I must thank all those kind, loyal and courageous people who had come again to Stonehaven yet again to support me. They have come from other parts of Scotland and even England in their own time and at their own considerable expense. I am deeply moved by such support, which has been a source of great strength to me.
Perhaps a very pertinent and basic question that is arisen as to why I have been prosecuted at all for a Breach of the Peace, which is intended to protect the public in general, not a specific number of individuals who have been identified by letter of other means of communication. Virtually all of the civilian witnesses brought by the prosecution who claim to have been upset by me comprise some of those named as alleged abusers or victims by Hollie.
A perfectly adequate legal remedy exists for those concerned – defamation.
I have always invited anyone who regards my publication of the allegations to be unfair or inaccurate to challenge me.
No-one, either individually or collectively has chosen to take this logical civil route that would have the most appropriate one, at no cost to the people of Scotland. Instead, even prior to the trial, an estimated half a million pounds of taxpayers` money has been spent on prosecuting me on a simple summary charge. It is an issue of possible misuse of much-needed public funds that may justifiably be put to the Scottish establishment, including leading politicians.
The most interesting cross-examination so far has been that of DC Lisa Evans by defence counsel Andy Lamb QC. The prosecution in fact attempted to obstruct Mr Lamb from doing so in the manner he intended, which led to an unexpected adjournment on Wednesday.
DC Evans was the Grampian Police officer who interviewed Hollie on 8th September 2009, at which I was present. Hollie, displaying an astonishing degree of courage and composure, clearly related her rape ordeals during the formal questioning that lasted three and a half hours. It was the most harrowing discussion I have ever witnessed and left me with a lasting admiration for the fortitude under pressure of this extraordinary young woman.
Such was the power and sincerity of Hollie`s evidence, backed by the knowledge that the state had earlier accepted the overwhelming probability of the truth of Hollie`s allegations by paying her £13, 500 from the CICA, that I then believed that even Grampian Police could no longer ignore the necessity for a full investigation. An action of this type would naturally have led to all those named being interviewed, along with the seizure or examination of their computers of those that used them, a normal procedure where serious allegations of child-sex crimes exist.
During the cross-examination of the alleged abusers and victims, all stated that they had never been approached by the police following Hollie`s allegations.
In the circumstances, it may be of significance that DC Evans was among the four officers who raided my home whilst I was held in custody in Aberdeen. No inventory of the items removed was ever left with me, but among the missing items were two notebooks which I used to record details of Hollie`s interview with Evans. Neither of these important documents was returned to the defence by the Crown. Under pressure from my legal team, it is understood that one has now been “found”, but there is still no sign of the other.
When cross-examined by Mr Lamb, Evans even attempted to mislead the court about the exact layout of the area where the interview took place.
Much was made by the prosecution of the items seized from my home that day, including a list of the alleged perpetrators that I had sent out that has been used against me. In his quiet but penetrative way, Mr Lamb asked DC Evans if any of the names that appeared on that list corresponded with any of the names provided to her by Hollie.
The officer admitted that there were.
Thus, there can be no rational explanation for the total lack of action in Grampian Police not contacting named individuals following the 8th September 2009 interview.
The alleged abusers all stated in court that they were entirely innocent. If this is true, then Grampian Police has failed them also, because if they had been questioned, had their computers checked and it had been found that no evidence existed to justify a prosecution, I could have no longer been in a position to realistically continue my subsequent actions in support of Hollie`s case and there would have been no grounds to prosecute me at all
Naturally, the matter of the true facts behind death of Robert David Greig is an issue that cannot possibly go away.Only a full and reliable investigation is acceptable.
As this will be my last blog before my trial begins, I would again like to thank all those people around the world who have offered such wonderful support to Hollie and Anne and to me in our many battles over the past three years.
I have always been a great admirer of Scotland and the Scottish people and this view has been in no way diminished by my recent experiences. In fact, I have been extremely impressed by the sheer scale of decency, kindness, unselfishness and courage displayed by so many Scots in our efforts to secure justice for Hollie and her uncle and all the other vulnerable children and disabled of the country.
Although so many senior figures in politics, the police, medical and justice systems have consistently displayed an alarming lack of courage in protecting Scottish children and the disabled from the terrible ordeals of rape and torture, the conduct of others has been exemplary.
Although none can be said to be part of the Hollie campaign as their roles are governed by impartiality, may I congratulate in particular the Scottish Law Reporter, The Drum and The Firm, whose editor, Steven Raeburn, exemplifies the highest standards and ethics of journalism. There are other publications, too, who have helped when it has been possible for them to do so.
Finally, I must pay tribute to Mr Kevin Dunion OBE, the retiring Freedom of Information for Scotland Commissioner. His departure constitutes a sad loss to all in Scotland who hold dear the principles of democracy, freedom, justice and openness. It is sad to say that in my experience, he is the only senior official in Scotland who has remained faithful to his duty to the public and I congratulate him for his steadfast integrity and courage.
I have no idea what lies ahead in the coming days, but I am greatly moved by your thoughts and prayers.
Let us hope that our efforts will go some way in preventing at least some of the Hollie Greigs of this world from facing such unspeakable horror and evil in the future.
With best wishes and appreciation to you all.
It`s official, Elish Angiolini has been cited to appear for the defence!
The trial is going ahead on Monday and is expected to last for two weeks.
Thank you all for the wonderful support you have provided to Hollie and Anne and to me. It is very much appreciated and let us hope that it is not too long before these horrifying crimes are investigated fully. It has also been very moving that so many have told me that I am in their thoughts and prayers in regard to the oncoming event in Stonehaven.
All I have ever asked, apart from the removal from office of Angiolini, which has been achieved, is for a full, independent and public inquiry into why only two people named by Hollie were ever questioned, despite her competence, clarity and sincerity, why were no computers were examined, why supporting medical evidence was withheld and for a full investigation as to who was responsible for the murder of Robert David Greig, and a brutal murder it most surely was, which also involved the unlawful withholding of the revealing contents of the autopsy for twelve years to Anne Greig, his next-of-kin.
Had such an inquiry been pursued, I would have been content to keep quiet and let the lawful procedures take their course.
No one expects people to be condemned without a fair trial, should it come to that, but I have named those responsible,as the Daily Mail did over Stephen Lawrence`s killers, mainly because no adequate police investigation could have possibly taken place and by the very nature of their alleged crimes, those named were likely to constitute an ongoing threat to public safety.
It is a great shame that the good people of Scotland have been so cruelly let down by those in the Grampian Police and Crown Office, plus senior politicians, whose duty it is to protect its citizens, especially Hollie and the other children.
One hopes that a new start will begin in Scotland, where those in senior public office seem to be granted immunity from prosecution, due to their influence and connections, Elish Angiolini being an obvious candidate.
In the meantime, the trial must be dealt with. Interesting days lie ahead.
Although I haven`t spoken yet to my new legal team, the trial is still set to begin in Stonehaven at 10.00 hrs on Monday. If there is any unlikely last-minute change I shall let you know, as a number of kind and courageous supporters of Hollie have indicated that they wil come along, some from considerable distances.
I hope I didn`t give the impression of being a little down at the beginning of my last blog, because that definitely isn`t the case. All I wanted to convey was that the Scottish legal and political elite have a strong vested interest in shutting me up by putting me in jail. The constant violations of my human rights from the day I was first arrested is surely contrary to the terms of Article 6(1), which indicates that I have a right to a fair trial. In no way could it be said that I have been treated without bias by the Scottish justice system, if that is not a contradiction in terms.
I have every intention of carrying on blogging, but it might be a bit difficult for me, if I`m put in prison again.
Former Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini must be called as a defence witness and I believe that Sheriff Principal Bowen has already damaged my defence by refusing to allow Crown Prosecutor to be called . It is significant that in spite of our later differences, all my previous six legal advisors were convinced that McGowan should have been ordered to comply with his citation.
It has been established already, thanks to the letters of Brian Adam MSP of 27th October and 28th November 2000 and Angiolini`s own letter to Anne`s solicitor of 12th July 2001, that she publicly lied when she claimed to have no involvement in the case. It is also a matter of public record that she has failed to comply with the formal requests of the FOI Commissioner, over the last six months of her tenure, to divulge how Levy & McRae were paid for her private legal actions to silence the media over her involvement in the Hollie Greig case.
So, the head of the justice system, responsible ultimately for all Scottish prosecutions, blatantly contravenes the terms of the FOI (Scotland) Act 2002.
Quite transparently, she has misappropriated public funds for her personal use and potential private financial gain. Who would refuse to answer, when being branded as a thief , if one could prove that such an allegation was untrue?
The recipients of the funds, Levy & McRae must know , too, but Senior Partner Peter Watson steadfastly refuses to disclose the truth.
It is, of course, a scandal in itself that Alex Salmond, in the full knowledge that she is likely to face criminal charges, not only refused to sack her immediately, but has now awarded her a plum job in assisting him. All this for someone who is not SNP and a Unionist. A valid question – what hold has she got over him?
She is a key figure in my case as all the actions I took that led to the charges against me were largely atributable to her failures and dishonesty.
This a criminal matter and I intend to see that it is dealt with appropriately.
The last word about Elish Angiolini should perhaps come not from me .but from the eminent Professor Robert Black QC, who described her term of office as “a disastrous experiment.”
The good professor was being rather kind to her, I think.
I am aware that the Scottish establishment would like nothing more than to remove me from public life and it should not be forgotten that Alex Salmond is personally implicated in the Hollie Greig case, having first lied about a letter sent from his office to Anne and then having the FOI Commissioner ruling that Salmond and his ministers had failed to comply with the regulations in Hollie`s case. It is signiicant that whilst brave English MPs like Andrew George and David Ruffley have tried to stand up for Scottish children, Salmond has remained silent. Perhaps he is more interested in protecting his cronies in the North East than Aberdeen children being raped and tortured.
Consequently, it is difficult to know how much longer I shall be able to post my blog, given the oncoming trial and its likely outcome. However, before I go, I must address in detail the circumstances surrounding what I believe to be the brutal murder of Hollie`s, Robert David Greig, just six days before the 18th birthday party he had arranged for his beloved little niece. The disgraceful and shameless cover up of his murder by the Scottish establishment is almost beyond belief.
Robert, or Roy as he was always known, was 53 when he died on the night of 17th November 1997 in a burning stationary parked car on a remote and little-used lane that runs parallel to the A90, north of Aberdeen. It was separated from the main road by high banking and a row of trees. The night was a particularly wild one with high wind and driving rain.
Roy had no known worries of any consequence at all, no mental problems and was looking forward to Hollie`s special birthday.
The emergency services were called by Sylvester Cadger, who claimed to have seen flames above the trees whilst driving along the A90. The height of the flames would indicate that the car was already an inferno, but Mr Cadger, who still had to drive some distance to reach the scene from the A90, only suffered minor burns when he claimed to attempt to pull Roy clear. The emergency services arrived at 21.59 and Roy was taken to hospital and pronounced dead. By 01.27 hrs on the 18th November, according to the records, it had already been decided that Roy had committed suicide.
This is very curious, to say the least, as very few people take their own lives by fire, it is just too painful. When a death occurs by fire, it is normally due to accident or foul play. In fact, I have a letter from Grampian Police stating that only one death has occurred in this way in the past ten years. Subsequent enquiries have discovered that the NHS have no record whatsoever of any authority requesting Roy`s medical details, essential in assessing the state of mind before suicide can be decided on.
No mention of suicide was made to his next-of-kin, Anne Greig, nor was she ever questioned about any concerns her brother had, and she was not allowed to see the body, which had been placed in a sealed coffin..
In order to solve this apparent mystery, Anne repeatedly asked for the following 12 years for a copy of the pathologist`s report, only to be rebuffed on every occasion. The death certificate had attributed the death to smoke inhalation.When the autopsy finally arrived, it stated that Roy`s sternum, one of the body`s strongest bones, had been broken.along with several ribs and damage to the skull, consistent with having been badly beaten. It has been said that under intense heat, bones can crack, but if this was the case, how could Mr Cadger possibly have tried to drag him from the car and only suffer minimal burns?
After receiving the autopsy at the end of 2009, I interviewed the pathologist, his response was evasive and unconvincing. He is one of those who has complained to the police about me.
In 2001, Hollie Greig told her mother that Roy had walked in on her being sexually abused by her father. In the ensuing altercation, threats were issued. Anne was able to deduce that the incident had taken place just prior to Roy`s hitherto mysterious death.
It had also come to light that Hollie`s father successfully claimed £51,000 from the Scottish Widows, through a solicitor named by Hollie, on a life insurance policy taken on his brother-in-law`s life.
Meanwhile, Sylvester Cadger had been given an award for his bravery in trying to rescue Roy by the Royal Humane Society, which posed yet another question. In order to receive such an award his action must have been witnessed. It was not a member of the emergency services, although a later newspaper report mentioned a “passing nurse”, odd in itself given the remoteness of the spot. However, there seems to be no record at all of this elusive individual, The Royal Humane Society does not know, the police do not know and Sylvester Cadger refuses to answer. Now Mr McGeechan, at the Crown office, has refused to disclose the identity of this person, always assuming that the individual actually exists.
Within the PCCs 2006 inquiry requested by Anne into Grampian police`s failures to investigate, no mention of Roy taking his own life was even mentioned in the extensive report.
When I was first arrested in 2010, on the 12th February and was questioned, I disclosed my concern about Sylvester Cadger`s role in Roy`s death. My suspicions were raised further when both the transcripts which arrived later thisfrom the Police and Crown Office had omitted the entire mention of Mr Cadger. When challenged, both stated that no omissions had been made and that the transcripts were faithful to the contents of the tape. Thanks to my solicitor, Mr Gerry Sweeney, who successfully pressed to obtain the tape, there was the section about Syvester Cadger. Why did the Police and Crown Office omit and then lie about it?
No other section had been tampered with.
It must be said that Sylvester Cadger is not among those named by Hollie and he is not one of the 61 prosecution witnesses in my case.
In May 2011, Malcolm Webster was convicted of the murder of his wife, Claire, in 1994 in a burning car not far from Aberdeen. Quite apart from it taking 17 years to convict Webster, there are some alarming similarities with Roy`s death. Grampian police initially described her death as an accident, despite police and fire officers who were present suspecting foul play at the outset. Several testified that they were told to forget their concerns and move on by senior officers. Grampian Police and the Crown Office even refused to conduct an investigation in 2001, when approached by the New Zealand Police, after Webster had tried to kill his second wife in similar circumstances. In fact, it took an intervention by Scotland Yard years later to force Grampian into appropriate action to secure the long-overdue conviction. Even more suspicious is that some senior personnel were the same as those in Roy`s case, the same pathologist and the same Chief Constable. Ian Oliver was forced to resign in disgrace after failures in the Scott Simpson case, a nine-year-old boy murdered by a paedophile. Two of her relatives named by Hollie as abusers also came before the court, described as friends of the murderer, from whom they received an unexplained payment of £10,000, Webster also made a fraudulent insurance claim of £200,000 on his wife`s life.
What is really going on at Grampian Police?
It really looks as though two attempted cover ups of similar murders in the nineties have taken place. It is surely now time to examine the true cause of the death of Robert David Greig.
I hope to have a new Senior and Junior Counsel available to represent me next week. It does appear that despite the new arrivals, the trial is likely to begin on Monday or Tuesday.
I would like to thank again all the many well-wishers who have so kindly offered their support and especially to those of you who are intending to make the long and difficult journey to Stonehaven, as has occurred on other occasions and which I appreciate so much.
Many have commented on a recent blog, where I mentioned Hollie`s interview with Grampian Police`s DS Lisa Evans on 8th September 2009, at which I was present. I would just remind everyone that Hollie gave her information very consistently with everything she has said previously, naming details of her abuse, specific individuals, other victims and locations. Of course, by this time, it had already been established that the state had accepted that Hollie had been a victim of sexual abuse by paying her £13,500 from public funds by the CICA, based on detailed analyses of Dr Jack Boyle and Dr Eva Harding, the latter naming unconditionally Hollie`s father and brother as serial abusers of Hollie. Dr Harding also mentioned one of her female abusers, a cousin of Hollie`s father who has been named by the prosecution in my case. Why was she not questioned in September 2009 and her computer examined?
Naturally, the CICA payment is based on a lower threshold of the balance of probabilities than in a criminal trial, but Dr Harding went on to say that apart from her father and brother, Hollie had “probably been abused by others who had access to her” . Given that Hollie had been accepted by the police as a competent and truthful witness, one might have reasonably expected Grampian Police to question all those named and follow normal police procedures in child sexual abuse allegations by examining the computers of all the alleged perpetrators. We now know that Grampian Police did no such thing, making absolutely no effort to carry out any meaningful investigation after Hollie`s incredible courage and clarity in reliving her ordeals before DS Evans.
In January 2010 certain individuals claimed to have been upset by warning leaflets I had sent out, with the motive of alerting people in Aberdeen of the persistent failure of Grampian Police and others to protect vulnerable citizens from a group who clearly needed to be thoroughly investigated. Immediately Grampian Police went out of its way to interview no fewer than 61 people, some of whom didn`t even want to complaint, according to their sworn statements. One of those responsible for seizing my computer whilst I was held in custody in February 2010 was the same DS Lisa Evans.
I have been asked how anyone can offer tangible help to me at the moment, as there can be little doubt that the Crown Office has consistently behaved towards me with a bias that would clearly appear to contradict Artcle 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, that requires defendants to be treated fairly.
The most practical way would be to write to your MP, asking them to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr Michael Moore to examine this issue. Far, far more important than anything that may happen to me, is to press Mr Moore, through your MP, to call for inquiries into the failures to conduct adequate investigations by Grampian Police into Hollie`s allegations and to establish the true facts behind the brutal death of Robert David Greig.
Previously, we have seen how the Metropolitan Police failed to investigate the death of Stephen Lawrence and Grampian Police`s failure to do so in the case of Mrs Claire Webster, which has uncanny similarities to Robert Greig`s death and actually includes some of same personnel.
May I thank all of you for the magnificent support I have received for my stance in not retaining Gary Allen QC, who refused to cooperate in calling Elish Angiolini. I must stress that I have no issue at all with Mr Allen and no reason to believe that he acted in anything other than a professional manner, but I was and remain, totally unconvinced of his argument that Angiolini`s presence in the witness box could possibly constitute any harm to the defence.
However, my earlier Senior Counsel, Frances McMenamin QC is in a very different situation. Based on the circumstances of 15th November at Stonehaven Court already published, particularly in the Scottish Law Reporter`s article of 9th December, it seems transparently clear that Ms McMenamin, along with senior Crown Office and Procurators Fiscal, conspired without my consent or knowledge, to attempt to coerce or imtimidate me into changing my plea to guilty and to disclose confidential court business to an uninvolved third party, the Scottish Sun. No responses have been received by any of the parties concerned to offer any lawful explanations to the polite questions I posed, once the Scottish Sun reporter had made his statements.
Today, I have completed my formal complaint to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission about Ms McMenamin, suggesting that in the public interest that she be suspended from the Faculty of Advocates until a full police investigation is completed, as it would appear that offences of a possible criminal nature may well have been committed. I have also informed Steve Burns, of Black Chambers, about the situation as it would be very unfair for the other members of her chambers to receive adverse publicity due to her misconduct. Black Chambers will make no comment at present over Ms McMenamin`s position.
To say that I am displeased with Ms McMenamin would be an understatement as I trusted her with defending me and regularly commented publicly on her excellent reputation. I regard myself as an easy-going person (I hope), but do not take betrayal very well.
I hope to have news of possible arrests by the police soon, if that is not too much to hope for in Scotland, but have named Procurators Fiscal Anne Currie and Stephen McGowan, who were both present in Stonehaven on 15th November, along with Ms McMenamin as likely suspects. Also, as witnesses, the Scottish Sun reporter, of course and Sheriff Principal Edward Bowen. It would not be right to accuse the Sheriff of any impropriety, but as the incidents happened under his personal jurisdiction, I have suggested that it might be in the best interests of justice that he recuse himself from my case whilst a police investigation into what seem to be prima facie offences has been concluded.
To those who are justifiably questioning the costs to the public purse of this extraordinary case, I should emphasise that I have always stressed the need for Elish Angiolini to be called as witness for the defence. Any concern about unnecessarily wasting further money should therefore be directed at my past Senior Counsels.
Today, I met my legal team again in Glasgow to discuss the forhcoming trial and the witnesses required for the defence.
I had made it clear that Elish Angiolini is probably the most important witness for the defence and must be called. However, after deliberations, Senior Counsel Gary Allen QC felt that Angiolini`s appearance in the witness box would prove damaging to the defence, on the grounds that she would refuse to answer questions that may incriminate her and in that, her position would be supported by the sheriff.
I stated that whilst I had never held any great expectation of Angiolini breaking down under cross-examination and confessing, I considered it valuable both to the defence and in the public interest for her to be seen in court, failing to answer pertinent questions about her conduct in public office in connection with both my case and that of Hollie. It has been her failings and private interventions with the media, using public funds, that led to me taking the course that has resulted in the prosecution that she in fact personally authorised.
Thus I regard her as a key witness. I also failed to see how Angiolini being cross-examined could possibly harm the defence.
As a result of our difference of opinion, we have mutually agreed that I would be best served by instructing another Senior Counsel to represent me. I accept that Mr Allen and Junior Counsel, who supported his view, were acting professionally in what they deemed to be my best interests and there is hence no ill will of any kind. It is just that an impasse was reached on a single important issue that could not be resolved.
My solicitor will try to find a new team to represent me in the future, but it must be on the fundamental basis that Elish Angiolini is called as witness for the defence. I will not accept any deviation from that position.
It appears obvious that given the complexity of the case, it would be unrealistic for the trial to still go ahead on 16th January, as it would take a new team, even if it were to be assembled quickly, a considerable amount of time to examine the vast amount of documentation and to have the appropriate consultations, but I must await advice from my solicitor on that point.
I am anxious to emphasise that no criticism should be made about Counsels` decision today. It was a honest but irrevocable divergence of view.
Today, some justice was finally done by the conviction of two of the murderers of Stephen Lawrence, after eighteen years of gallant effort by the poor young man`s parents and others.
The Daily Mail has been congratulated for publishing an article, some years ago, after the police had discontinued the initial investigation due to “insufficient evidence”- where have we heard that before?
The Mail decided to go ahead and name the five men it believed to have killed Stephen on the basis that it was in the public interest, that the police`s investigation was unsatisfactory and that given the nature of the crime, the public remained at risk from the perpetrators. The Daily Mail went on to invite anyone who thought the article inaccurate to take action against it. No one did.
This is precisely the position that I have always taken in the cases of Hollie Greig and Robert Greig, yet I am being prosecuted.
Let us hope that it does not take as long as eighteen years for these terrible crimes to be fully investigated.
Although there will, no doubt, be discussions involving both sets of legal representatives, at present there remains the prospect of a maximum combined total of 96 witnesses being called by the prosecution and the defence.
As far as the prosecution is concerned, the two individuals named unconditionally as sexual abusers in Dr Eva Harding`s successful report to the CICA, which resulted in the compensation award by the state to Hollie, have not been identified by the prosecution for some reason that one can only speculate upon. The pair are, of course, the father and brother of Hollie, whom one might reasonably expect to be the most distressed of all the possible witnesses, if my allegations were without substance. However, I do intend to call them for the defence.
In fairness, it must be said that one other alleged abuser of Hollie, a female relative named in Dr Harding`s report, has provided a statement for the Crown and I shall be most interested to see how she behaves under cross-examination.
It may be that pyschological and medical examinations may be required of some witnesses to establish further whether or not they are telling the truth, as I am given to understand that reasonably reliable analyses exist in cases of ritual abuse for both perpetrators and victims.
Meanwhile, I am awaiting a response to my formal complaint to PC Vicky Henderson of the seemingly prima facie case of crime being committed in Stonehaven Court on 15th November involving the Crown, Frances McMenamin QC and a reporter from the Scottish Sun. Sheriff Principal Edward Bowen has also been named as a possible witness to the likely offences committed.
Finally, may I wish all the kind people throughout the world who have been following the Hollie Greig case a very Happy New Year and to thank you all for your support. It means so much to Hollie and Anne.
On 8th September 2009, I was present as Hollie Greig was interviewed for three and a half hours by Grampian Police officer DS Lisa Evans. During the interview, Hollie, accepted as a competent and truthful witness, gave clear details of the sexual abuses she had endured, the identities of her abusers and locations where the abuses took place.
No-one else was subsequently interviewed, no computers belonging to the alleged abusers were examined and no expert medical witnesses, whose testimonies supported Hollie`s allegations, were contacted, despite the state having earlier granted Hollie £13,500 in compensation for her suffering as a result of the crimes she had described.
In January 2010, certain individuals took exception to my efforts to warn the citizens of Aberdeen of the police`s failures and that vulnerable children and the disabled were likely to be continually at risk as a direct result.
Grampian Police promptly interviewed no fewer than sixty-one people and even sent two detectives from Aberdeen to Glasgow in order to interview solicitor Peter Watson, of Levy &McRae, who had earler issued threats to the media on behalf of Elish Angiolini to prevent stories of her proven involvement in the Hollie Greig case entering the public domain.
As soon as I was arrested on 12th February 2010, Grampian Police arranged for four officers to be sent on a 700-mile round trip to my home in Cheshire, to seize personal documents including my computer records. One of those officers was DS Lisa Evans, who had previously taken no action to seize the computers of the alleged sexual offenders.
In 2001, when Elish Angiolini was Procurator Fiscal in Aberdeen, having prevented an investigation in the allegations made by Hollie in 2000, she also failed to have a 22-year-old man charged, who actually admitted to having raped a girl of 10 and a boy of 7. Working with Angiolini on this case was the same sheriff who Hollie has accused of abusing her. The story of this shocking failure was published in May 2001
in The Times and by Tara Womersley in The Telegraph. Angiolini was forced to issue a public apology for her incompetence, claiming as an excuse that her department was understaffed.
In 2010, in contrast, Angiolini lost no time at all in having me arrested and charged for a “Breach of the Peace”.
As many followers of the case and those related to it, including my own, will be aware, I have made it clear that I regard it as unfair that there is general criticism relating to undue influence being exerted by members of the Freemasons in suppressing the true facts about the attacks on Hollie and others or the murder of her uncle.
I have absolutely no evidence to support that supposition and am aware that many of our most loyal followers are Freemasons. I have also known many members of the organisation during my lifetime and found most of them to be people of the highest calibre and rectitude. Therefore, I bear no personal ill-will towards Freemasonry in general and would only challenge any individual I thought may be abusing membership in order to pervert the course of justice.
However, an incident took place at Stonehaven Court on 30th April 2010 that I have hitherto not published, but as my trial date draws near and the Scottish establishment have not seen fit to drop the charges against me, I believe that it is in the interests of justice and impartiality that I should now mention it.
The hearing came as a result of my application for a variation on my bail conditions to allow me to campaign freely as parliamentary candidate for Aberdeen South in the last few days prior to the General Election on 6th May, which had hitherto been denied me. I was to be represented by Aberdeen solicitor George Mathers, but he withdrew unexpectedly at the last minute, leaving me with no option but to fend for myself. My application was refused, albeit on extremely controversial grounds that have already been discussed.
In my elevated position in the witness box, I was able to see Crown Prosecutor Stephen McGowan pass an A4 size document in black and white to Sheriff Patrick Davies, covered entirely by the commonly used square and compass symbol of Freemasonry. As I had made no attack on the Freemasons, I could not understand why such a document could possibly be used in evidence against me. Frankly, I was placed in the dilemma of challenging McGowan and Davies at that point or giving the impression that I had not seen the transaction. As the hearing was held in secret with no supporters, press or independent witnesses present, I decided to take the latter course.
However, Sheriff Principal Edward Bowen has just ruled to deny me the availability of Stephen McGowan as an important witness for the defence, allowing the latter to lead the prosecution against me. Therefore, in order to avoid any widespread perception of any conflict of interest that may be thought to exist, and in the best interests of justice and fair play, I shall ask, at the beginning of the trial, whether the Sheriff and the Crown Prosecutor are Freemasons.
Yesterday, the hearing at Stonehaven was presided over by Sheriff-Principal Edward Bowen. Despite stating on 14th November that he would not be participating in a future trial in this case, it seems that now he will be in charge again on 16th January.
It must be said that my new legal team, led by Gary Allen QC, did very well in overcoming an objection by the Crown to the use of Article 10(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights in my defence. However, despite Mr Allen`s eloquent and well-reasoned view that Procurator Fiscal Stephen McGowan is regarded as an important witness for the defence, the sheriff decided not to support the defence`s plea which means, bizarrely, that McGowan is now free to lead the prosecution again.
Not only should McGowan have been ordered to appear as a defence witness, but he is also part of an serious investigation concerning false statements made earlier in court, on 13th April and 18th August respectively, by fellow Procurator Fiscal Anne Currie and by Mr McGowan himself.
I have also now lodged a formal complaint with Police Officer Vicky Henderson in Stonehaven in regard to the events of 15th November, concerning what appears to be a prima facie case of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice involving the Crown Office and my former Senior Counsel, Frances McMenamin QC. There is also likely to be a further crime involving disclosure of confidential court proceedings by the Crown office to the Scottish Sun.
Key witnesses are likely to include Sheriff Principal Bowen, Anne Currie and Stephen McGowan again, the latter seen by two witnesses as having entered a room in the court building in discussion with the Scottish Sun reporter.
That McGowan, despite all this, can still be allowed or would even wish to represent the Crown in prosecuting this case in such deeply suspicious circumstances is an indication everything that is wrong with the Scottish justice system and its endemic and shameless lack of integrity.
Finally, may I wish all those kind, brave and loyal supporters of Hollie the very best for Christmas and the New Year. I feel sure that by working together, this terrible evil that infects and intimidates the highest echelons of Scottish society and beyond can be exposed and overcome.
Thank you all and God bless you.
The position of First Minister Alex Salmond in regard to Hollie`s case has been a curious one, as he perpetually claims to stand for the interests of the Scottish people – but to which Scottish people is he referring?
Surely not the vulnerable children and disabled of Aberdeen, facing rape and ritual abuse, whose plight he has not only ignored, but also made false statements about his involvement in and knowledge of the Hollie Greig case, as published in The Firm magazine of 11th July.
Whatever one`s views on the case, it seems distinctly odd that two English MPs, Andrew George and David Ruffley, have gone out of their way to register their considerable disquiet about the lack of proper investigation into the case and that an English member of the House of Lords, Lord Monckton has gone on film to demand a public inquiry. It is also puzzling that the First Minister and his SNP Westminster colleagues showed no interest in attending the meeting in the House of Commons in which I was invited to speak about the case.
Meanwhile, Mr Salmond, who represents a constituency neighbouring that of the scene of the atrocities, now maintains an undignified silence. Who is he seeking to protect and why?
He appears to display a staggering personal loyalty to Elish Angiolini, made all the more remarkable as she is not a member of the SNP and a Unionist – and what about his magic circle friends and associates in the North-East?
Are these the Scottish people whose personal interests he really stands for?
Perhaps the First Minister may wish to clarify his stance to the people and taxpayers of Scotland.
On a different note, many thanks for all of you who have kindly sent me cards and Christmas and New Year good wishes. If I do not manage to reciprocate personally, please forgive me, but I have received a very considerable number of messages. One surprising and charming Christmas card has arrived from Terra Firma, Elish Angiolini`s Chambers. I do hope that it has not been sent to me in error.
I attempted to speak to the Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland, today, regarding his failure to respond to my email requesting an explanation about the events of 15th November, as I have good reason to believe that confidential information (albeit inaccurate and premature) about my case was disclosed to a third party not involved (The Scottish Sun).
As the details so far available indicate that this leak came from the Crown Office, I feel that it is entirely reasonable that an explanation should be provided to me.
My call today, on 0131 226 2626, was taken by a male who described himself as a security man, who proceeded to tell me that he was under orders not to put my calls through to anyone in the Crown Office! He refused to identify himself.
These are public officials who are refusing to respond to a request directly concerning me, that must be regarded as reasonable, given the circumstances and the contents of the article in the Scottish Law Reporter.
There is the separate issue of whether there existed a conspiracy against me between the Crown Office and my former Senior Counsel, Frances McMenamin QC. She too has failed to respond to my request for an explanation, so I have approached the Faculty of Advocates for advice as to how to formulate a complaint against her.
The editor of the Scottish Sun, David Dinsmore, has similarly refused to comment on the statements attributed to one of his paper`s journalists.
If no serious irregularity has taken place, why does this wall of silence exist?
The issue highlighted in the recent article in the Scottish Law Reporter remains unresolved, owing to the continued refusal of those involved to respond to my requests.
On Tuesday morning, 15th November, a reporter from the Scottish Sun arrived at Stonehaven Court, stating the reason as having been informed by the Crown Office that a deal had been done in which I would plead guilty to the charges. No such deal had been done, nor would I envisage making any deal with a body as transparently and blatantly corrupt as the Crown Office in Scotland. Significantly, the Scottish Sun had hitherto shown no obvious interest in the plight of Hollie nor my own case.
Curiously, after repeatedly been informed for many months that my position vis-a-vis the Crown was a fundamentally strong one, at ten that morning, my Senior Counsel suddenly informed me that if I was not willing to change my plea to guilty, she was no longer prepared to represent me. Naturally, I flatly declined this unwelcome offer.
Since then, the Scottish Sun reporter`s information points to a conspiracy behind my back between the Crown Office and my ex-Senior Counsel, even to the extent of disclosing this important issue of which I knew nothing to a third party not involved in the case. It has also been stated that the Crown Office had already prepared a press release.
I have given my former Senior Counsel, Frances McMenamin, several days to offer an explanation and extended the same courtesy to Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland and Scottish Sun editor David Dinsmore, since it would not be appropriate to make serious allegations over this incident without offering those thought to be involved an opportunity to provide an explanation.
It must be said that no response has yet been received to my polite enquiries.
I am due back in Stonehaven Court on Wednesday 21st December, the hearing being held purely to discuss the defence`s citation to call the Crown`s Chief Prosecutor Stephen McGowan as a witness. McGowan is also currently playing a part into investigations against Procurator Fiscal Anne Currie`s clear attempt to mislead Sheriff Valerie Johnston on 13th April 2011. McGowan has already made a false statement to the investigation`s director over the content of his own statement in open court, again before Sheriff Johnston, on the 18th August 2011.
Furthermore, McGowan also made a misleading and inaccurate statement about Elish Angiolini`s role in the Hollie Greig case in a letter to Anne Greig on 4th December 2009.
It does not seem reasonable to believe, under Article 6(1) of the European Court of Human rights, that I could ever receive a fair trial in Scotland.
Finally, I have had the most kind offers again from loyal and courageous people to attend the hearing, but do not know if there will be much excitement and am concerned over the time, expense and travel at this time of the year, so I should not be at all disappointed to be there merely with my new legal team.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Dame Anne Begg
I am shocked to learn that Aberdeen South MP Anne Begg has been made a dame in the New
Years Honours List for “services to disabled people”.
She repeatedly refused to answer questions related to the allegations of sexual abuse made by
her disabled former constituent Hollie Greig during the 2010 General Election campaign
despite it being an important local issue on which I was standing as a candidate.
My client, Anne Greig, had earlier approached Ms Begg, directly asking her for help in
seeking justice for her daughter Hollie, who had been so cruelly abused and betrayed by those
whose duty it was to protect her. Ms Begg`s answer was succinct and telling – it was “What
do you expect me to do about it?”
Perhaps Ms Begg`s attitude to this appeal had been somewhat coloured by the fact that one of
her key activist supporters, Wyn Dragon, had been identified by Hollie as one of her abusers.
At some point around the summer of 2010, Ms Dragon became a “Facebook friend” of
Hollie’s abuser father, Denis Mackie.
Friday, December 24, 2010
Seasons Greetings to all Hollie Supporters
I would like to express my deep gratitude, on behalf of Hollie, Anne and me, for all the wonderful
support we have received over the past year and also our admiration for the enormous courage
displayed by many of our active contributors. Although many people have displayed great kindness in
their remarks to me, it is absolutely essential to appreciate that this tremendous campaign is very
much a team effort, involving numerous brave people, all, no doubt, inspired as I am by these two
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Explain this Mr. Thomas, Head of Democratic Services, Shropshire Council…
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 16:02
Dear Mr Thomas,
As you will be aware, I was unhappy about not being allowed to address the full
council today regarding the most shameful actions by officials and a councillor, Mrs
Caesar-Homden, that threatens to bring both national and international disgrace on
the county. Both councillors and public are entitled to be be made aware of such
conduct and the way in which public finances are used or in this case, abused.
Please ascertain that I have the opportunity to speak at the next meeting of this
kind and confirm the details accordingly.
Finally, was the decision to prevent me speaking today in any way attributable to the
Chief Executive. I must tell you that of the absolute importance that your answer to
this question is entirely truthful.
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 16:15:47 +0000
Dear Mr Green
The Council’s Procedural Rules provide for members of the public to ask a question,
make a statement or present a petition subject to them giving the appropriate notice
prior to the meeting. For statements and questions this is two clear days. So with
regard to the next meeting on 13 January 2011, I would need to have details of your
question or statement by no later than 5.00 p.m. on Monday, 10 January 2011.
Please be aware that a question needs to include the name of the person to whom it
is to be put. At any one meeting no person may submit more than two questions.
Furthermore, the Chief Executive, as Proper Officer, may reject a question if it:
· is not about a matter where the Council has a responsibility or a legitimate
· is defamatory, frivolous or offensive;
· is substantially the same as a question which has been put at a meeting of the
Council in the past six months; or
· requires the disclosure of confidential or exempt information.
Given the final pre-condition, it is unlikely that any question relating to Holly would
Finally, I can confirm that enforcement of the Procedure Rules with regard to you
not being allowed to speak, cannot be attributed to the Chief Executive.
I think that Mr Thomas, in his official role, should explain to the people of Shropshire and beyond
how he thinks democracy is being served by trying to conceal attacks by the council on a disabled
multiple rape victim and her devoted mother, moreover at the expense of the Shropshire taxpayers
without their knowledge. Shropshire Council officials are already avoiding a number of pertinent and
legal questions about its conduct and that of individuals employed by or acting as its agents.
Does Mr Thomas believe that the taxpayers of Shropshire and their elected representatives should be
denied knowing the details of this case that has attracted global support and opprobium for those
who seek to persecute victims and in doing so, help to protect those involved in the most horrifying
crimes against children and the disabled?
Please feel free to email Mr Thomas at email@example.com and pose the question to him yourselves.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
To all Hollie’s Facebook Supporters
I am very pleased to support the new Scotland`s Shame? Google Hollie Greig facebook group
and would be delighted to see as many of those who care about Hollie and Anne to join or to
check on the latest events and views.
The Hollie campaign is first and foremost a team effort and it is my wish and that of Hollie and Anne that all the loyal, caring and courageous people who have contributed so much, without being in the limelight, will someday soon receive the widespread acclaim they so richly deserve. When justice is achieved, Scotland will be a better place thanks to these wonderful people.
Please click on and join the groups listed below and be part of a growing movement for justice this Christmas, thank you.
FULL PARDON FOR ROBERT GREEN – JUSTICE FOR HOLLIE GREIG
Sunday, December 12, 2010
The Sectioning of Anne Greig
There are so many issues of the case which compellingly point to official lies and criminal
misconduct. Perhaps one of the most blatant is the kidnapping and assault on Anne Greig on
5th September 2000, just eleven days after Hollie had named a large number of abusers and
other child victims to Grampian Police.
Ten people, including police officers, arrived at Anne and Hollie`s home that day to drag
Anne to a local mental institution and to assault her publicly by thrusting a needle into one of
her buttocks, in full view of the neighbours and a terrified Hollie.
Hollie was then taken by social workers to her rapist father.
Anne had the wherewithall to get away from the institution at Cornhill Hospital, Aberdeen, a
few days later and then, supported by her solicitor, Yvonne McKenna, was sent to a
prominent specialist, Dr Margaret Smith for an analysis of her condition, said to be
schizophrenia by Dr Alistair Palin, the doctor responsible at Cornhill. Dr Smith’s report
contained the following quotes:
~ She was articulate, fluent and coherent with a good verbal ability. She appeared to be
functioning intellectually within the high average range.
~ Anne is not suffering from any major mental illness.
~ She is not suffering from mental handicap nor intellectual impairment.
~ There is no evidence that her behaviour is a danger to herself or others.
~ There is no evidence that she requires detention within the terms of the Mental Health
(Scotland) Act 1984.
The solicitor then followed up by demanding a copy of the necessary sectioning warrant. On
1st November, Yvonne Osman of the Scottish Welfare Commission replied to say that no
record of the required document could be discovered. Even Dr Palin had to concede,
meanwhile, that he had to support Dr Smith`s analysis and that no trace of schizophrenia
existed. On 23rd January 2001 Dr Palin wrote to Anne’s GP to “confirm that I have now
closed her case from a psychiatric point of view”.
The Welfare Commission has repeatedly refused to launch an investigation into the affair,
even though its own letter makes it clear that a serious irregularity has taken place. I think it
clear that a very serious crime has been committed against Anne and almost certainly against
One additional curiosity is that one of the Social Services` officers involving in instigating
the attack on Anne is called Sarah J Buchanan, a surname shared with four of the named
abusers. I have been asking for the past five months whether Ms Buchanan is related in any
way to any of those named by Hollie. This apparently simple question appears to have Ms
Buchanan and the Aberdeen Council`s Elizabeth Wood in some difficulty, as it is claimed
that no information relating to the query is available.
The only reason that I have asked the question is, of course, to avoid any misunderstanding or
distress should it be that Ms Buchanan is not related to any of the abusers. The failure to
respond to such a simple question can only lead to understandable conjecture.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Council Meeting In Shrewsbury
This morning I attended a meeting of Shropshire County Council in Shrewsbury. I was
under the impression that this was a public meeting and I intended to ask the Chief Executive,
Kim Ryley, some pertinent questions regarding the Council’s treatment of Hollie, most
notably in relation to the police raid on her home 6 months ago.
I was pleased to be joined by 8 other Hollie supporters in the hall and we were not
particularly surprised when it was announced at the start of the meeting that Councillor Aggie
Ceasar-Homden was unable to attend. Ms Ceaser-Homden is the Councillor most closely
associated with the intimidation of Hollie.
When there was a suitable break in proceedings I got to my feet and took the opportunity to
describe to the meeting the appalling treatment which Hollie has endured from the Council
but I was told by officials that I would not be allowed to speak. After barely 30 seconds I was
escorted from the premises by security guards. As I was leaving, a lady got to her feet to
express her disgust as she had travelled all the way from London in the hope of finding out
the truth about this case.
Immediately following my expulsion I was followed out of the meeting by a BBC reporter
who had been in attendance and I talked to her at length about Hollie’s case. Later we were
joined by Councillor Roger Evans who expressed his concern that he knew absolutely
nothing about the case. I was able to supply him with several dozen leaflets to distribute to
his fellow Councillors.
On Tuesday night I appeared on the Paul Drockton Radio Show and took the opportunity to
read from the report prepared by the child psychologist Eva Harding, which is powerful and
distrurbing evidence of the abuse suffered by Hollie. Paul is based in the USA and has been a
great supporter of Hollie’s cause. This week we have also benefited from the case being
publicised in America via the websites of Henry Makow and Debbie Morgan.
I am very grateful to these people for their efforts in getting the message out although I
would also ask that each of you do what ever you can as individuals to tell Hollie’s story.
With virtually no coverage in the mainstream media, I need to rely on Hollie’s supporters to
spread the word by telling their family, their friends, their work-mates and their neighbours.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Interview on www.freedomcentral.info
I was recently interviewed by Mel Ve, a Dutch based journalist/activist who runs a website
I was pleased to be able to bring out the facts of the case to a wider international audience
and to remind the British government of its responsibilities to its most vulnerable citizens.
Further delay by the authorities can only be in the interests of the alleged perpetrators and
those in positions of responsibility who have been proven beyond reasonable doubt to have
taken steps to cover the issues up.
A link to the interview is attached.
Monday, December 6, 2010
The Shameful Role of Shropshire Council
Although the atrocities against Hollie and Anne took place in Aberdeen, the attacks they
have been subjected to in England by Shropshire Council (and others) indicate the power of a
cruel and ruthless network, prepared to use any means to cover up paedophile crime.
Shropshire`s actions to cause alarm and distress to the ladies include taking the form of
preventing them from attending meetings about Hollie`s case. The reason given is that the
council feel that Hollie`s attendance may lead to her being upset, whereas the total opposite is
true. Hollie is overjoyed to be in the company of those who demonstrate that they believe in
her and offer support and love in a most wonderful way, as any who have met Hollie in such
circumstances must surely testify to.
Shropshire based its ill-judged opinion largely on the view of a known felon and malcontent
who does not even know Hollie. Additionally, two false and misleading reports were
prepared by social worker Helen Ogilvy and psychologist Dr Carolyn McQueen. The latter
has also never met or spoken to Hollie or Anne and Ogilvy`s personal involvement was of a
cursory and very temporary nature a long time ago, relating to administrative matters.
Moreover, Hollie is not and has never been under the care of Shropshire Council, although it
clearly attempted to mislead West Mercia Police into believing that this was the case. We
hold a document indicating that this is so.
It may not be coincidental that both Ogilvy and McQueen are Scottish, the latter a product of
St Andrews University.
Perhaps cruellest of all was the raid and ransacking of Hollie and Anne`s home on 3rd June.
The ludicrous excuse for this was that the council had deemed, with no justification
whatsoever, that Holie had suddenly become a “missing person” and it claimed that there was
“concern for her safety.” The raiding team, consisting of three uniformed police officers and
two council employees, spent over three hours searching their little home. The property was
effectively vandalised, as I can personally testify to as I was with Hollie and Anne when they
first re-entered their home. Anne`s computer and other articles were seized and one item
appeared shortly afterwards on the aforementioned felon`s site.
If there had been any rational semblance of truth in the council`s alleged concern, then surely
the most obvious person to approach would have been me, as I am the ladies` lay legal
representative and the person most closely identified with them publicly. In fact, I received a
call from DC Bates, of West Mercia Police, around 13.30 hrs on 3rd June. Although I told the
officer that I did not know precisely where they were, as I understood that they were taking a
short holiday, I had absolutely no reason to have any concern for their safety whatsoever. I
was, of course, extremely surprised by the call at the time. DC Bates said his call was at the
request of Social Services.
I learned the following day that the raid took place just one and a helf hours after I had
given the officer this assurance!
When subsequently challenged, Shropshire Council claimed that they had no idea that the
raid had taken place, despite an assurance by Inspector Jim Stafford that two of its
employees, one from the housing department and one a carpenter, were present during the
proceedings, which would appear to have been supported by local witness statements.
So far, those primarily responsible for the persecution of Hollie and Anne, have been
identified as Chief Executive Kim Ryley, Legal Officer Tim Collard, Social Services officer
Stephen Chandler and Councillor Aggie Caesar-Homden. The last named resigned from the
local parish council rather than face me at a public meeting on 1st November. Collard has so
far refused to name those who attended a Level 2 meeting that led to the ransacking of the
home. Every effort has also been made to conceal the costs of these actions from the people
of Shropshire, who are paying for these inhumane attacks on vulnerable local residents.
The sheer cruelty and dishonesty of Shropshire officials is scarcely credible in persecuting
these dear and gallant women who have already endured so much. I am determined to bring
those responsible to account and my attendance at the public council meeting in Shrewsbury
at the Shirehall at ten this Thursday, 9th December, is intended to accelerate this process.
There are other disturbing issues relating to the events in England which will be disclosed at a
Friday, December 3, 2010
Robert Green’s New Blog
I have decided to start a blog so that the many, many people who are supporting Hollie Greig
in her quest for justice can be kept up-to-date with ongoing developments.
Hollie and her mother Anne are still living in Shropshire and both were deeply touched by
the number of cards sent by supporters on Hollie’s recent birthday. Both are in good spirits ,
they are looking forward to Christmas and in order to clear up any possible
misunderstandings they are not subject to any form of supervision from Shropshire Council
or any other body. Nevertheless the council has sought to prevent Hollie and Anne attending
meetings where their case is discussed. Hollie is now 31 years old, competent and exercises
her right to vote, amongst other things and I regard these restrictions as a cruel and flagrant
breach of her human rights.
In respect of the criminal charge which has been brought against myself, I have not yet been
advised of a trial date in spite of the fact that nearly ten months have elapsed since I was
arrested for Breach of the Peace in Aberdeen as I was preparing to distribute leaflets about
Hollie’s case. Standard procedure is that a trial date is set immediately after a person is
charged but no-one has been able to provide an explanation for this delay. I am still bound by
bail conditions which require me to report to my local police station twice per week and
prohibit me from entering the city of Aberdeen or the county of Aberdeenshire.
I have a great deal more information on Hollie’s case and the ongoing cover-up which I will
share in future blogs. I would welcome your comments and will do my best to address any
points which you may raise.