A LOT OF NONSENSE JUST TO COVER UP A HOAX !

MONDAY, 30 SEPTEMBER 2013

A TANGLED WEB

It is interesting to re-read earlier comments by those involved in trying to dismiss Hollie`s claims.

When the Crown Office first advised Anne Greig, on 4th December 2009, that it was not taking any action over Hollie`s detailed allegations, Procurator Fiscal Stephen McGowan concluded that the decision was made purely  on the grounds of “insufficient evidence“, nothing more. Of course, we now know that not a single one of those named by Hollie on 8th September 2009, in my presence and supported by extensive expert witnessevidence, was even so much as questioned by Grampian Police.

When I first spoke in the Commons about the case on 30th November 2011, I shared the platform with two excellent young officers from South Wales Police, who had successfully brought Colin Batley and others to justice in the Kidwelly satanist ritual abuse case. The officers told the audience that the normal police procedure in cases of alleged paedophile rings is not only to question those accused, but also to examine their computers. In Hollie`s case, Grampian Police did neither. No wonder Mr MacGowan was able to describe the evidence as “insufficient”. No attempt whatsoever had been made to obtain any meaningful evidence.

On the basis of the contents of Mr MacGowan`s letter, my legal team suggested he be cited as number one witness for the defence. He refused to face cross-examination and like Angiolini later, his decision was supported by Sheriff Principal Edward Bowen, thus depriving me of another key defence witness.

On 3rd May 2011, Frank Mulholland, Lord Advocate, responded to a query about the Hollie Greig case to Conservative government minister David Ruffley, who had bravely voiced his opinion that Hollie had been treated appallingly by the Scottish justice system. The reasons for the failure to act had now been inexplicably extended to lack of  “admissible, credible or reliable evidence” in addition  to “insufficient”. It can be concluded that the Lord Advocate was thus dismissing the expert witness evidence of Dr Jack Boyle, Dr Eva Harding, Dr Paul Carter, Dr Frances Kelly, D.I.Iain Alley and other police officers, Ruth Beckmann and Susannah Seymann of the Downs` Syndrome Association and the entire panel of the CICA, to a minister of Her Majesty`s Government.

May I now turn to Peter Anderson, of Simpson & Marwick, representing Sheriff Graham Buchanan in his action against me, after the latter`s agent had stalked me in Aberdeen on 12th February 2010 before I had been served or had knowledge of an interdict.

On the 8th March 2010, Mr Anderson admitted that of Dr Eva Harding`s analysis, “It does conclude that Hollie was sexually abused by her father and brother over a long periodfrom childhood.” He continues by saying that “it may well be the case that Hollie was the subject of sexual abuse by her father and brother. It may be the case that she has been the subject of sexual abuse by others”.

What makes this particularly interesting is that Mr Anderson was inadvertently discussing one of his own firm`s clients, Hollie`s father!

Although Mr Anderson initially denied that he represented both Sheriff Buchanan and Denis Mackie, I was able to produce a document confirming that it was indeed the case. Mr Anderson had no option but to retract his earlier assertion.

It is illuminating to learn that even Hollie`s father`s solicitor appears to share the same suspicions as all the expert witnesses.

Meanwhile, Sheriff Buchanan, under cross-examination at my trial, decided to dismiss all the detailed expert witness evidence supporting Hollie as untrue, “because David Icke believed in it”.

David Icke was also the only public figure to have the guts to accuse Jimmy Savile of his shocking crimes whilst he was alive. Perhaps Sheriff Buchanan may now wish to reflect on his irrational prejudice.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *