As a result of last week`s Tony Legend Show, in which Mark Daly was a
participant, I would like to clarify certain points as I know that there have
been some concerns expressed by those who wish Hollie well. I have been away
from home much of last week, including two days in Scotland for another Court
When participating in the programme, I understood that the basis be that
Mark Daly wished to offer his explanation for the BBC`s sudden decision, on
10th June last year, not to proceed with the commissioned programmes. I
thought that this was entirely fair, in view of the public criticisms I have
made. Mark deserved a chance to speak.
As the programme progressed, however, it seemed that the prime reason was
not so much to defend the BBC`s position, but to make a more general attack on
the credibility of Anne and me.
Mark highlighted a number of facts that he considered were incorrect.
Notwithstanding that we may well dispute these issues, it is significant that
at no time during the seven weeks that the BBC held all the documentation did
Mark or any of the BBC team every query any aspect of the information placed
before them. It is reasonable to suggest that if there were any errors, which
would have been made entirely in good faith, the BBC would have queried them
at the time before sending down three investigators from Scotland to
Shropshire to spend five and a half hours inteviewing Anne, Hollie and me on
4th June last year.
Moreover, at the end, Mark gave an unequivocal assurance that the
commissioned programmes would go out in August or September and that a camera
crew would come down to complete the requirements. At no time was any doubt
ever expressed over the facts, nor about the competence or integrity of Hollie
and Anne. We were categorically assured that everything was “in the bag”.
That said, one point brought up by Mark on the programme was the question
of the relationship between one of the women named and the sheriff. The woman
was a close friend of a relative of Anne`s who described her as the named
sheriff`s sister. Anne had therefore always accepted this in good faith,
having no reason to query it. Unfortunately, we do not have the vast publicly
funded resources of Mark and his team, but our investigations since allude to
the woman being the sheriff`s sister-in-law. Certainly Hollie, in her
interview with the police on 8th September last year which I witnessed, told
them that the woman`s husband was the sheriff`s brother. Much of this
interview centred on the home of the woman and her husband, which appeared to
have been used as a centre for much of the sexual abuse. I had assumed that
Hollie meant brother-in-law.
However, this relationship question cannot possibly be central to the
nature of the offences committed.
We were puzzled by Mark’s query about the ages of some of the children,
which appeared to be another attempt to muddy the waters. Again it would seem
that any question of this type should have been dealt with when the BBC had
the documents. Most of the victims, like Hollie, are now mature adults.
It should also be remembered that the commissioned programmes were not just
about Hollie, but other cases of paedophile crime in Scotland that his team
had discovered, according to Mark. He told us about one defenceless girl in
the Glasgow area with Down’s Syndrome who was being repeatedly raped. What has
happened to this and other cases as far as the BBC is concerned?
Mark attempted to ask me about the victims I had made contact with. As an
experienced investigator, he knew full well that I could not possibly discuss
such an issue on air.
Of all the issues brought up, by Mark, nothing could have revealed his
black propaganda agenda more than discussion of the death of Roy Greig. As
this issue was simply not on the table when our discussions with the BBC took
place as we did not receive the autopsy until more that six months after the
BBC had left the scene, Mark’s attempts to cast aspersions about this had
nothing whatsoever to do with the planned programmes and could only be
described as deliberately malicious.
However, I should clarify that Roy’s suspension at the time was not a cause
for any significant concern and was not a worry for Roy. He talked to Anne
about it and because of the nature of Roy’s position of bar manager,
responsible for stock and a numbers of staff, this type of action is far from
uncommon in Roy’s trade. He had also been given support and assurances from
his union that he had nothing to worry about. What is significant is the
discovery by Roy of Hollie being sexually abused by her father just a few
weeks before his death.
Mark suggested that Roy’s bone fractures may have been caused by attempts
at resucitation. Roy was a strong, healthy middle-aged man. The sternum is one
of the strongest bones in the body. To break that is virtually impossible in
the circumstances and is only possible had the victim had, for example, been
very elderly with brittle bones.
Furthermore, how could Mark Daly engage in detailed comments about a
document he had never seen?
The autopsy is a highly confidential document belonging to Anne, who had to
battle for twelve years to obtain it.
Finally, Mark was extremely selective on the new “facts” he claimed to have
unearthed. He made no reference to the financial irregularities surrounding
the considerable wealth of the family estate following Roy’s death concerning
the solictor, later to be named as one of the ring and Hollie’s father. It is
a matter of public record that Anne won a case over this with the Scottish Law
Society. Mark seems to have missed this. Perhaps it just did not fit in with
Investigations into this financial fraud continue with the help of Anne’s
specialist in this field.
I do hope that this will clarify matters for those concerned and trust that
the forces of distraction do not succeed in their attempts to deny justice and
protection for Hollie and the other defenceless victims in this horrifying
Thank you all for your wonderful support throughout on behalf of Hollie,
Anne and myself.