Thursday, 19 September 2013
ANGIOLINI REFUSES OFFER TO HELP HOLLIE
At the end of the last hearing over Elish Angiolini`s defamation action against me , on 1st May, her legal representatives Roddy Dunlop QC and solicitor Fred Tyler approached me with an offer to reach an agreement. Angiolini believes that I have been unfair in criticising her by claiming that she has been instrumental in covering up the rape of Hollie Greig. It should be pointed out that whilst in office as Lord Advocate, Elish Angiolini was most vociferous about her commitment to protect victims of rape.
Therefore, I sent all the detailed expert witness statements supporting Hollie`s allegations to Mr Tyler along with the Commissioner`s evidence confirming that Grampian Police had withheld two of these crucial supporting medical documents from the Procurator Fiscal. It is certain from the evidence provided by experts with impeccable credentials that Hollie has been the victim of rape and that she has identified her attackers and indeed, their views have been accepted by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority in granting Hollie a financial award.
My offer, which, in the circumstances, I regard as an extremely generous and fair one, was for Angiolini to be prepared to publicly call for a proper and adequate investigation to take place into Hollie`s case. In return, I would willingly cease criticising Angiolini in public and would in fact be willing to cooperate with her in trying to ensure that such an investigation is correctly undertaken, in an effort for justice to be served and to protect Scottish children and the disabled from sexual abuse.
I have taken the position that what has happened in the past, relating to my imprisonment and Angiolini`s concern about her reputation, count for very little in comparison to the horrific ordeals suffered by Hollie and probably other children and the disabled.
I have asked nothing for myself other than the right to continue to contest against my conviction and to offer support to Rusty (Tim Rustige) who has also been treated in an extraordinarily unjust and disproportionate manner.
Elish Angiolini, self -proclaimed protector of rape victims, has declined, without explanation, the opportunity to come to the aid of such a victim, disabled and defenceless.
The next hearing in this case is to take place in Edinburgh on 18th October.
Rusty`s next hearing, an interim one at which he need not attend, is scheduled for 8th October at Aberdeen. His trial is set to take place on 4th and 5th November. Sylvia Major, Elish Angiolini and Win Dragon are set to come before the Court. I understand that there is also the prospect of Hollie`s father and brother being called. Given the weight of evidence provided by Dr Eva Harding, Dr Jack Boyle, Dr Frances Kelly, Dr Paul Carter and Detective Inspector Iain Alley and other police officers, some very interesting cross-examinations are likely to take place.
Meanwhile, one person who is definitely not going to jail is Stuart MacFarlane, whom I have mentioned in previous posts. Mr MacFarlane is a former Procurator Fiscal and a deputy to Elish Angiolini. His latest trial has been reported in the 18th September editions of the Scottish Express and the Daily Record. He was found to have been in possession of 15,000 computer images, described as “horrifying”, including sexual acts between adults, children and animals. Of course, for a magic circle member like Mr MacFarlane, this was not deemed serious enough to merit a custodial sentence.
The two articles, though no doubt correctly interpreting public sentiments, do not mention that in 2006, Macfarlane was found performing a sexual act in public with a female prostitute, He went on to attack the two police officers who arrested him, causing injuries that had to be treated in hospital.
One would have thought that in any country that regarded itself to be civilised, such criminal conduct would invariably result in a prison sentence. But, no, MacFarlane, now a violent double sex offender, has powerful friends. He did not go to prison. It was deemed by Elish Angiolini`s Crown Office, “not to be in the public interest” to jail him, leaving him free to re-offend.
It was decided, however, by Angiolini, to be in the public interest for Rusty and me to be imprisoned.
It may reasonably be asked exactly who are these members of the public in whose interests Angiolini has purported to act?
Posted by Robert Green at 18:26
ANGIOLINI`S RECORD ON HUMAN RIGHTS EXPOSED
Ian Hamilton QC, is a widely admired figure in Scotland and a staunch supporter of independence.
On 6th July 2011, he was interviewed by BBC Newsnight and described Scotland`s record on human rights as appalling. For this shocking state of affairs, he primarily blamed Elish Angiolini, followed by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill. Mr Hamilton goes on to strongly condemn them over the Peter Cadder case, by which approximately 76,000 people were unsafely convicted.
I was one of those, denied my human rights, in direct contradiction of Scotland`s own legal commitments, by DS Drummond and DC Crowder on 12th February 2010, when they refused me the legal representation to which I was entitled when I was charged.
Another glaring example of Angiolini`s and MacAskill`s utter contempt for fundamental human rights lay in the circumstances connected with the false conviction and imprisonment of Mr Al-Megrahi in the notorious Lockerbie case.
Mr Hamilton`s interview can be seen thus:-
Many observers who have been following the Hollie Greig case are at a loss to understand why the Scottish mainstream media barely ever mentions the issue, even when connected criminal cases are involved, such as those of Tim Rustige (Rusty) and mine. The police officers from Operation Yewtree seemed puzzled that at the height of the Jimmy Savile scandal that no mention or photographs at all were published in the Scottish media when his cottage in Glencoe was prominently daubed “Justice for Hollie Greig”.
One possible explanation for the existence of this blanket of secrecy may lie in the person of Peter Watson, senior partner of solicitors Levy & McRae. The firm claims to specialise in managing unwelcome publicity affecting its clients. It states that “we aim to keep our clients off the front page”. This is certainly no idle boast. It is clearly very successful in that regard.
Professor Watson acts for Elish Angiolini and personally represents First Minister Alex Salmond. Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill is a former colleague when working as a solicitor at Levy & McRae. When Chief Constable Sir Stephen House was head of Strathclyde Police, Levy & McRae represented the Police Federation of that force. Now Sir Stephen leads Police Scotland, Levy & McRae now represent the Federation covering the entire country. The firm also acts for the Scottish Prison Officers Association. Professor Watson even acts as a part-time sheriff.
Levy & McRae`s power and influence does not end there, by any means.
Professor Watson is a key advisor to Alex Salmond in his efforts to further control the Scottish media. The firm represents a good part of the media, including Scottish TV, the Daily Record, Herald Scotland and others. In fact, Levy & McRae states that it represents “the biggest names in print and broadcast media”. Is it any surprise then that issues damaging to Elish Angiolini, such as the Hollie Greig case, may never see the light of day?
It must be said that Levy & McRae has received many glowing accolades from satisfied clients and in 2008, Peter Watson, described as “brilliant”, was voted Solicitor of the Year.
All this is, no doubt, wonderful for Professor Watson and for Levy & McRae, but could any of these wide-ranging spheres of influence constitute potential conflicts of interest in the way that Scotland is governed, possible effects on policing, the justice system and matters of genuine public interest being concealed from the people of Scotland?
If I have omitted any other remaining powerful organisations or individuals in Scotland that Levy & McRae represent, I sincerely apologise.
Saturday, 19 October 2013
ANGIOLINI – EDINBURGH
Thank you all for your wonderful support yet again and to the gallant Scottish, English and Irish people who made the journey to the Court of Session. Also, I would like to thank all of you who sent messages of support. It means a lot to me and I`m sure it does to Hollie and her devoted mother who has had to endure so much. Thanks also to those who spread the word, including the televised messages put out by UK Column Live.
Dame Elish Angiolini, on the other hand, was conspicuous by her absence, as usual.
Roddy Dunlop QC, of Axiom Advocates, requested that Lord Bannatyne issue a perpetual interdict on me to prevent me criticising the great Dame. Of course, I could not defend this proposition on equitable grounds, being denied the level of legal representation to which I am entitled. In previous hearings, Lords Glennie and Stewart have made this point perfectly clear, but Lord Bannatyne disagreed with his fellow Lordships, which poses yet another interesting question for the Scottish legal establishment.
Lord Bannatyne did reserve judgement, but I do not think he should have even considered such a motion by the pursuer with my being deprived of adequate means of defence. Mr Dunlop`s legal points were, of course, unintelligible to me.
However, I was permitted to read out a copy of my letter of 12th September 2013 to the Court of Session. This was said in open court with no restrictions, so its contents can be reported on freely.
I will not go through the whole letter, which will be published, but here are some of the most salient points.
Excerpts included my disappointment that Angiolini had refused my offer to cooperate in calling for a proper and adequate investigation into the Hollie Greig case. Interestingly, during his submission, Mr Dunlop did refer to all right-thinking people being opposed to the sexual abuse of children, but perhaps wisely, did not specifically include his client among that number.
I was able to list the severe public condemnations of Angiolini by Professor Robert Black QC, Ian Hamilton QC in his BBC interview, the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Hope of the Supreme Court, amongst others. I believe there is a valid argument for submitting that Angiolini`s record as Lord Advocate was so appalling that it would be difficult for anyone to defame her in that regard.
I went on to describe Angiolini, on 8th September 2009, publicly criticising Mr Al-Megrahi`s attempt to clear his name as being contemptible. It was actually Angiolini who displayed contempt, both for the law of Scotland and for the basic human rights of a dying man, falsely imprisoned far from his home and family. She knew at that time that his conviction was unsound, yet was prepared to lie to the whole world, presumably to protect the interests of the CIA. It is quite possible that Angiolini knows the true identities of those who were responsible for the Lockerbie bomb and that may offer a possible indication of why the Scottish establishment will go to such extraordinary lengths to protect and cosset her. It may well be that she knows too much.
I then referred to the information that Angiolini had even tried to deceive her own legal team in this particular case, as I discovered from Mr Dunlop and Balfour & Manson`s Mr Tyler after the 1st May hearing. She had led them to believe that she had not been cited as a defence witness at my trial, a blatant untruth. She was indeed cited by my Counsel, Andy Lamb QC to appear, but refused to be cross-examined under oath, If she had nothing to hide, why avoid being questioned in open court.
Moving on, I was able to present details from expert witness statements, including that of Dr Eva Harding, one of those accepted by the CICA for Hollie to be granted an award. It was also one of the documents concealed from the Prosecutor by Grampian Police. I said that Dr Harding`s findings concluded unequivocally that Hollie`s father and brother, Denis Charles Mackie and Greg Mackie, had sexually abused her from childhood and that she was probably abused by others who had access to her. Among those named was a cousin of Denis Mackie, Sylvia Major and her police officer husband, who was Terry Major, Chief Fingerprint Officer for Grampian Police. Is it any wonder that rogue elements within the police force did not want the Prosecutor to see this evidence?
Of course, despite the police holding this overwhelming supporting evidence, not one of the individuals named by Hollie to the police in my presence in September 2009 was so much as questioned.
Although I did not discuss this at the hearing, Alex Salmond is up to his neck in the Hollie Greig cover up.
The Firm`s article of 11th July 2011 is headed “First Minister in missing records riddle over Hollie Greig abuse allegations”. It highlights Mr Salmond`s failure to answer a FOI request made to him of 28th January 2011, which eventually led to the entire SNP government coming within 24 hours of being held in contempt of court. It appears that Mr Salmond was initially trying to give the impression that he knew nothing about Hollie Greig, but The Firm pointed out that the Crown office`s Andrew McIntyre, in a letter to me of 23rd July 2009, had referred to an email that I had sent to the First Minister on 20th June that year. I also hold a copy of a letter dated 2nd October 2007 to Anne Greig from Julie Muir, of his constituency office, in which she states “Mr Salmond has asked me to thank you for your letter and to reply”.
That is not all.
On 1st May 2011, in Perth, I personally handed over the expert witness documents to Mr Salmond, explaining briefly what they contained. He took them and said “I`ll take a look at them”.
There is an important event taking place in September 2014 to resolve the question of Scottish independence. If Alex Salmond does not think that the unchecked sexual abuse of Scottish children and the disabled by paedophile gangs is sufficiently important as to warrant his attention, then he should say so- publicly!
The SNP`s office number is 0131 525 8900, if you would like to know the First Minister`s views on this specific topic are and an explanation for his conduct over the Hollie Greig case.
Finally, thanks must go to Tim Rustige`s MP, Graham Brady. After he had contacted the Prime Minister, having been given full details of Hollie`s case, a letter to Mr Brady from 10 Downing St states “The Prime Minister has asked for a Minister in the Home office to reply to you directly”. The letter also refers to the Prime Minister`s awareness of the request for a Parliamentary level National Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse coverups.
Perhaps this may be a tangible official step towards untangling and exposing the corruption involved in the horrific case of Hollie Greig and protecting others from such ordeals.
Thank you all again for staying with us throughout this battle for justice.
Posted by Robert Green
From Time to Time
By Robert Green – Robert Green’s Blog –
From time to time, supporters of Hollie`s case draw my attention to a bizarre little knot of people who call themselves the Hollie Greig Hoax Group, in total denial of the powerful supportive documentary evidence that has often been published. Unsurprisingly, the group is backed by Peter Watson, of Levy & McRae, who is the personal lawyer for Alex Salmond and Elish Angiolini, amongst other Scottish luminaries. These individuals seem to think it acceptable to publicly smear a disabled multiple rape victim who they know is not able to defend herself. Having gone through some of the most horrific and disgusting ordeals imaginable, Hollie is still pursued by this vociferous but fundamentally cruel and cowardly little group.
I get attacked also by them, but at least I am able to stand up for myself. The attacks on me are actually diversionary, as my opinion of Hollie`s case actually counts for very little. I was not a witness to the crimes, have no medical, psychological or relevant legal expertise and knew nothing of Hollie until a group of patriotic Scots asked me to help Hollie and her mother in 2008. My only real value as a witness at all is that I was present on 8th September 2009 when Hollie made her harrowing three and a half hour statement about her ordeals and those responsible to DC Lisa Jane Evans of Grampian Police, DC Evans later admitted on oath in court that not one of those named had even been so much as questioned – some police investigation!
The opinions that do count and on which I have overwhelmingly relied are those of independent and respected professionals, none of whom are known to me personally. It is already a fact that the state has also accepted the weight and validity of the evidence by making a financial award through the CICA, regarding Hollie as a genuine victim of sexual abuse.
Now, I propose to remind you of some excerpts taken from the mass of expert witness evidence in support of Hollie`s claims.
Dr Eva Harding stated that “it is undoubtedly the case that Hollie`s father and brother have sexually abused her over a long period from childhood and probably by others who had access to her”.
Dr Jack Boyle wrote that “Hollie is truthful and is describing sexual abuse”.
Detective Inspector Iain Alley of Grampian Police reported as follows ,“The investigating officer and others who have conducted further enquiry since were all of the opinion that she had been the victim of penetrative sexual abuse and that she named her father, Denis Mackie as the perpetrator. There is a sufficiency of evidence to accept, on the balance of probability, that Hollie was sexually abused and that included penetration of her private parts. Given that Hollie, because of her difficulties, has been closely supervised throughout her life, the perpetrator is most likely to have been someone close to her who had regular unsupervised access. She named her father as responsible.
Officers who have dealt with Hollie have taken the view that she was a truthful witness and an entirely innocent victim”.
There is, of course, much more supportive evidence from a variety of experts in similar vein.
Even Peter Anderson, the senior partner of Denis Mackie`s own solicitors, Simpson & Marwick, writes “it may well be the case that Hollie Greig has been sexually abused by her father and brother”.
In the midst of my usual criticisms of Scotland`s politicians and legal profession, it is surely right to praise the integrity of Mr Peter Anderson. There cannot be many solicitors anywhere who would express the view to the effect that their own client is probably guilty of a serious sexual offence against a child. Other solicitors and Mr Salmond please take note. Mr Anderson`s altruism is a credit to Scotland.
Coincidentally, Mr Anderson also represents Sheriff Graham Buchanan.
The First Minister, Alex Salmond, has been in possession of all these documents for some time now and his office promised a reply to me in a letter dated 18 October 2013, written by Mr David Woods. I am still waiting, although I have invited him to comment on any of the expert evidence with which he may choose to disagree, as he was prepared to break the law twice when challenged by the Information Commissioner to explain his inaction and evasiveness over the Hollie Greig abuse case.
The staggering multiple crimes committed by Jimmy Savile and Cyril Smith were never investigated whilst the pair of them were alive. There is a reason for this. Dead men cannot speak. Without doubt, naming their circle of accomplices would have rocked the British establishment to its foundations.
Hence, the problem now faced by the Scottish establishment is that Denis Mackie remains alive and at large. Following Hollie`s account of September 2009, why on earth was Mackie not questioned and his computer seized, standard police procedure in such cases?
It is surely not unreasonable to suggest that the discovery of Denis Mackie`s list of “contacts” would prove very damaging to the Scottish hierarchy. Is there any other reason for the Scottish government`s extraordinary and continuing efforts to close the case down at all costs?
Why is Alex Salmond prepared to break his own country`s laws rather than instigate a proper inquiry into the multiple rapes of a disabled girl in a neighbouring constituency to his own?
Finally, let me make it perfectly clear that the fundamental purpose of the Hollie Greig campaign is to ensure that such an appropriate inquiry takes place to compensate for past police failings, in the public interest. It is not to prejudge. Even Denis and Greg Mackie are entitled to be treated with a level of justice consistently denied by the Scottish state to Hollie.
Given the strength of the evidence, who could honestly argue against such a simple request?