Friday, 24 January 2014
POLICE SCOTLAND – JUST WHO ARE THEY PROTECTING?
In it he repeated the ridiculous mantra that a “thorough investigation” into Hollie`s allegations had taken place. Officer Richardson had clearly not bothered to check the facts before putting his name to such nonsense. Police evidence given on oath at my trial confirmed that not one of the 22 named alleged abusers of Hollie, whom the police have already described unequivocally as a victim, had ever been questioned, or had their computers examined, following Hollie`s statement to the police on 8th September 2009, which I witnessed. Additionally, the letter failed to address the fact that Grampian Police had withheld two crucial medical documents supporting Hollie from the Prosecutor.
The police officer who made this staggering confession in court was the one who had interviewed Hollie , DC Lisa Jane Evans. Of course, Hollie`s claims had been fully supported by a wide range of expert witness statements that are in the public domain. At the police interview, Hollie conducted herself throughout three and a half hours with astonishing courage and composure and despite her speech impediment and her recounting of horrifying ordeals, made her statements with impressive clarity and detail.
DC Evans` admission was supported by nine of those accused by Hollie, who was accepted as a truthful and competent witness, whom the prosecution had chosen to testify against me. All nine confirmed that the police had never interviewed them over Hollie`s strongly and professionally supported allegations made to DC Evans.
Significantly,the complainants against me did not include Denis and Greg Mackie, the two individuals against whom the expert evidence was overwhelmingly strong.
The nine who gave evidence in open court, with no reporting restrictions, are as follows.
That is all.
Although this cannot be included as evidence, the police and authorities would do well to heed the words of one of Scotland`s most prominent lawyers, Peter Anderson of Simpson & Marwick, who represents both Sheriff Buchanan and Denis Mackie. Mr Anderson is adamant that Sheriff Buchanan is innocent of all allegations, but has written to me to say that he thinks Denis and Greg Mackie may well have sexually abused Hollie and that others may well have abused her too. It is good to find a lawyer in Scotland who can not only be loyal to his clients, but be brutally honest when appropriate, especially when a small disabled girl has been raped.
Returning to Officer Richardson, what was most extraordinary about the letter is that he holds the rank of Deputy Chief Constable. This means that in the absence of the Chief Constable, the women, children and disabled of Scotland will have to rely on him for their safety and protection from sexual attack.
Now, having vigorously responded to his letter in a way that you might expect, DCC Richardson can reply in two ways.
Either he can admit his mistake and accept that no adequate investigation of Hollie`s claims has ever taken place that could be remotely described as “thorough”, or he can say that he does not think those accused of rape need to be questioned at all, even when the accuser`s claims are supported by extensive expert evidence.
Again, Police Scotland, just who are you really protecting?