HOLLIE GREIG HOAX, SCOTS COPS IN TROUBLE AGAIN

Alan Bowker
 
I believe I have uncovered evidence against Police Scotland and / or COPFS covering up the crimes of someone currently under investigation for sex crimes against children. Sir Stephen House has confirmed that investigation in writing. I’m currently in senior communications with COPFS Edinburgh calling out their action in burying TWO vital pieces of evidence against the abuser. Is cover-up in Scottish Criminal Justice System now standard procedure? My evidence is formal and in writing at the most senior level of Police Scotland/COPFS.

Ms XXX Mr Alan Bowker Response & Information Unit 6 Sorbie Rd Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service ARDROSSAN 25 Chambers Street Ayrshire EDINBURGH KA22 8AQ EH1 1LA 26th July 2014 Witness Interference – Perverting the course of Justice Domestic Violence & Stalking Your Ref: RXXXX – Letter dated 23 July 2014 Dear Ms XXX, Thank you for your considered input to my earlier letter to Superintendent XXX and I am encouraged that COPFS has taken an active and proactive interest in writing. I am sure it will be of little surprise that I am disappointed by your comments and I note that any referral to SPSO can only be based upon how that COPFS has handled my complaint (I hadn’t actually complained to COPFS via my letter, simply copied for information) rather than an appeal upon any decision. Nonetheless, I do believe that COPFS has mishandled the complaint by failing to recognise or take adequate steps to investigate the details behind it rigorously, and therefore I welcome the opportunity to record these issues within this letter of response. Child Sex Abuse Investigation As you are no doubt well aware, Police Scotland have been investigating the conduct of Ms XXX for almost two years. It is well noted that my suspicions are that Police Scotland – possibly with the complicit support, or even direction, from COPFS – are not investigating this with the seriousness it requires. I understand from PF that this has been discussed “at very senior levels” within COPFS itself. It appears to me that it is the intention to ensure Ms XXX is not prosecuted. There is an abundance of evidence to support the view that Ms XXX is being awarded immunity for her crimes. Domestic Violence & Stalking In support of the previous statement, I have also made more than a dozen complaints – ALL with supporting evidence – against Ms XXX for stalking and domestic abuse. Those details have been witnessed firsthand by Police Scotland’s uniformed officers. These reports are all on record. Recently it has been suggested to me by Police Scotland that the failure to prosecute “may be” due to direction from PF. That would now appear to be a credible explanation. TWO further recent incidents are: 1) The following and stalking upon 11th June 2014 – the same incident which you refer to in your letter with respect to potential broken bail conditions which was specifically reported as yet another blatant DV/Stalking offence against Ms XXX. 2) The confirmation under oath by Ms XXX upon the adjourned trial date 24th June where it was confirmed the threat document was given to the accused by Ms XXX. As you are aware, the passing of documents, direct or via another, whether threatening or not, is a stalking offence. I am yet awaiting a response and action with regards to these offences from Police Scotland’s Domestic Abuse Unit, Kilmarnock. Or is this going to be two further incidences where immunity is awarded? Threats You refer to the document I enclosed with my letter. The point is that this document contained direct quotes from Ms XXX’s Witness Statement. Those are her actual words. It contains threat to me dating back almost four years. She has now directed two accomplices – both now convicted the latest case very recently. I’m sure you can verify those quotes indicate likely mental health issues and her comments and subsequent behaviour are intended to keep me in fear. It most certainly does – and for good reason. Ms XXX has stolen the keys to both my car and house and despatches abusers to my home. Yet, once more, COPFS and/or Police Scotland continue to make excuses to take no action and to make every excuse to offer immunity. Fingerprint Evidence Originally, it was confirmed to me – both in letter and writing – that the threatening document had to be processed for fingerprint evidence to “link” to Ms XXX before, and in order that she could be charged. This incident dates back to October 2013. After multiple enquiries as to progress I was ultimately informed that the evidence was not being processed – in order to give immunity to Ms XXX. The evidence being, very effectively, buried. I wrote to Solicitor General after being informed that COPFS was responsible. I was referred to, and eventually met with XXX, Fiscal Depute, upon 23 April 2014. I was informed that there was no time left to process that fingerprint evidence to link to Ms XXX AND prosecute Mr XXX at trial. XXX Fiscal Depute asked me to formally choose and recommend an action for PF – essentially which course of action to pursue – which was then rejected! At the 90 minute meeting we discussed, at some considerable length, the past stalking actions and the need for fingerprint evidence. We discussed in detail the layout and location/views from Ms XXX’s home and from which the threatening letter was despatched upon her behalf and bequest. I described in some detail the abilities of Ms XXX to stalk me. I presumed that these details were being considered by Mrs White to allow a criminal case to ultimately progress against Ms XXX. It appears my expectations were unfounded. Subsequently, despite ample opportunity to be informed of the fact and with no obvious reason not to do so, I now understand that XXX, Fiscal Depute may be a close neighbour of Ms XXX knows her, and have frequented the same social venues. Court Case KXXXXXXXX606 I’ve already detailed many of the confessions that Ms XXX made under oath on 24 June 2014. These confessions confirmed her criminal activities under DV/Stalking and Witness Interference criminal legislation. To deny otherwise further underlines the intention to award immunity despite considerable evidence of wrongdoing, and underlines my suspicions that the agenda is to ultimately grant immunity to yet another (female) suspect of child sex abuse. You state that COPFS “is not in possession of a transcript of the trial and I can confirm that recordings are not ordinarily made of trials conducted under summary procedure” This was no an “ordinary” trial – I had already met with the PF, I had written to Superintendent XXX twice advising strongly to have a detective there to listen to the confession, I had communicated with the Secretary General , the background was being discussed at senior levels and my MP was communicating with Sir Stephen House. It was also the second of Ms XXX’s fellow abusers and accomplices to be prosecuted. There are ample records on all of this – COPFS are very much informed of this. Now I’m told there are no transcriptions, no evidence, and no criminality. Really? Are you confirming that no transcript was made or has it been “buried” in order to award immunity yet again? If no records exist then why did Mr XXX, PF Prosecuting read out substantial comments made by the accused much earlier in the trial? What other records exist? Both Mr XXX and Sheriff XXX took copious notes throughout, yes? I can name three other public witnesses – apart from myself – who can also confirm the confessions by Ms XXX that she was/is an abuser, a stalker, and boasted that the threats to me were fully supported by her and were “justified”. Is it the case that you know she confessed, you have or are able to collate that evidence but that in order to award immunity you wish to bury even more crucial and damning evidence and ultimately refuse or withhold direction to Police Scotland to investigate? … And all of this after the fingerprint evidence to link her to the original crime was buried. “I can, however, confirm that there was nothing in Ms XXX’s evidence which suggested any criminality on her part and there was no evidence led which would lead the Procurator Fiscal to instruct the Police to carry out any investigation into any other party”. That paragraph is simply untrue. It is utter nonsense to suggest otherwise and you must either be very aware of that or you have not taken the time and effort to verify the facts prior to writing to me – and that very much is an issue into how COPFS has handled the complaint. I trust that COPFS may wish to reconsider these details in the light of content of his letter and the additional and supporting items I now bring to attention. Yours sincerely, Alan Bowker cc. Sir Stephen House, QPM Superintendent XXX My MP

Ms Lesley Thomson Mr Alan Bowker Solicitor General 29th June 2014 Witness Interference. Child Sex Abuse Investigations Dear Ms Thomson, Further to my earlier communication. Since I last wrote to you, I’ve had numerous communications with Superintendent XXX and I have had a long meeting with XXX, Fiscal Depute at Kilmarnock. Unfortunately, it appears that my suspicions are founded, that there appears to be a clear agenda in covering up the evidence against a child sex abuser with a view to ensuring no criminal proceedings are pursued. May I respectfully ask you to review the enclosed documentation to draw your own conclusions? Deliberately and persistently avoiding processing fingerprint evidence, failing to actively investigate the actions of the suspect of both child abuse and witness interference, failing to acknowledge and deny confessions of criminal activity under oath and ultimately failing to record these confessions in order to award immunity are not the actions that ought to be expected from an honest Scottish criminal justice system. Yours sincerely, Alan Bowker

 

2 thoughts on “HOLLIE GREIG HOAX, SCOTS COPS IN TROUBLE AGAIN”

  1. Ms Lesley Thomson
    Solicitor General
    Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service
    25 Chambers Street
    EDINBURGH
    EH11 1LA

    29th June 2014

    Witness Interference.
    Child Sex Abuse Investigations

    Dear Ms Thomson,

    Further to my earlier communication.

    Since I last wrote to you, I’ve had numerous communications with Superintendent XXXX and I have had a long meeting with YYY, Fiscal Depute at ZZZ

    Unfortunately, it appears that my suspicions are founded, that there appears to be a clear agenda in covering up the evidence against a child sex abuser with a view to ensuring no criminal proceedings are pursued.

    May I respectfully ask you to review the enclosed documentation to draw your own conclusions?

    Deliberately and persistently avoiding processing fingerprint evidence, failing to actively investigate the actions of the suspect of both child abuse and witness interference, failing to acknowledge and deny confessions of criminal activity under oath and ultimately failing to record these confessions in order to award immunity are not the actions that ought to be expected from an honest Scottish criminal justice system.

    Yours sincerely,

  2. Women who sexually abuse our children – why aren’t ALL child sex abusers being prosecuted?

    OPEN LETTER to Sir Stephen House, QPM, Chief Constable of Police Scotland JANUARY 2014

    Dear Sir,

    Sadly, I find it necessary to address this Open Letter to you only after my own MP has written to you directly and repeatedly over an eight month period, by asking for action on Child Sex Abuse.
    Despite these representations, neither a meaningful response nor action have been forthcoming.

    Our concern is that despite senior officers of Police Scotland formally claiming that all child sex abuse reports are taken “very seriously indeed”, the facts don’t support this assertion.

    As an example, with respect to one incident, Police Scotland and yourself were made aware of a formal report in January 2013, and a formal complaint made in March 2013, yet despite evidence including a viable formal Witness Statement and Expert Psychological support documentation, the female suspect has been neither questioned nor interviewed.

    This is clearly not an isolated incident. Research findings by prestigious child protection organisations such as NSPCC/Childline/The Lucy Faithfull Foundation/Kidscape, together with findings reported in numerous academic journals, confirm that in between 5 – 20% of all occurrences of child sex abuse, the abusers are women. (1)
    In a paper published in 1984, Petrovich & Templer reported that 59% of incarcerated (male) rapists had been sexually abused when they were children, by one or more women.

    Anecdotal evidence suggests that these research conclusions are accurate, and that the criminal justice system treats women who sexually abuse children very leniently compared with men who sexually abuse children.
    This is entirely consistent with my own research and personal experience.

    Within the past reported twelve months, it’s been confirmed that in my local policing area alone that there were NO instances of women been convicted of any of the 27 possible categories of sexual abuse of children. In the same area, over the same period, 78 men were convicted of such offences. The political party Justice for men & boys (and the women who love them) http://j4mb.org.uk is taking an increasing interest in the topic of women committing sexual abuse of children, and the reluctance of the police to prosecute them. (2)

    My recent Freedom of Information requests (FOI 2013-1171 & 2013-1447) via Police Scotland for statistics and data across all Scottish regions, and nationally, over three years, also confirms that convictions of female perpetrators of child sex abuse are insignificant.

    Not only is this a possible infringement of the Scottish Equality Act 2010, it’s also inconsistent with the public claim that Police Scotland take all child sex abuse offences “very seriously indeed”.

    References:
    (1) Bibliography of Female Child Sex Abusers
    (2) http://j4mb.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/women-who-sexually-abuse-children/

    Name and Address Supplied

Leave a Reply

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