Robert Green writes to former CC House WHO IS NOT GAY

4 Birchdale Road,
Appleton, WARRINGTON,
Cheshire, WA4 5AR
Tel: 01925/602389
29 th January, 2015
Chief Constable Sir Stephen House QPM,
Police Scotland Headquarters,
PO BOX 21184, Alloa, FK10 9DE
Dear Chief Constable House,
Hollie Greig Case
I refer to the contents of a letter received from DCI Alexander Dowall of Aberdeen
dated 15 th January 2015.
I am assuming that you are already fully aware of the background to this
extraordinary case, which has even led to the former First Minister breaking Sections 10(1)
and 21(1) of the FOISA, as confirmed on 26 th May 2011 by the Information Commissioner,
Mr Kevin Dunion.
Salmond’s breach of the FOI is unacceptable I agree – but the only thing it indicates
is shoddy clerical procedure. As I explained in previous emails, the Lord Advocate is
accountable to no-one in terms of what does or does not get prosecuted in Scotland.
Salmond COULD NOT have intervened and so the documentation was passed on to
the COPFS virtually unread. It obviously was not recorded and that’s wrong; but it’s
trivial and et seperatim irrelevant to anything surrounding either the Hollie Greig case
itself or relevant to Robert’s persecution – It certainly doesn’t justify the inferences
that have been drawn from it and – for the record – those have only served to
alienate certain individuals who might otherwise have been inclined to help.
In order to avoid any misunderstanding on your part, allow me to relate the sequence
of events, dating from Hollie’s interview with DC Lisa Jane Evans of Grampian Police on 8 th
September 2009, which I witnessed.
Firstly, the interview was held in a manner contrary to the expert advice provided by Enable
Solicitor Nicola Smith, as described in her letter of 19 th November 2003. Yet again,
Grampian Police took no steps to provide an expert to assist, despite Hollie’s known speech
impediments. It may reasonably be said that, on this basis alone, the interview was flawed
from the start. – Quite so!

Nonetheless, during the traumatic three-and-a-half-hour interview Hollie was able to
provide clear information about the identities of her alleged abusers and even details of
locations.
Nonsense! – I have a transcript of Hollie’s interview here in front of me now, which I
read with the benefit of some limited Police Training – i.e. I understand a little of how
the Police would separate the wheat from the chaff of this. Even with that limited
training in discernment it’s obvious that…
i) Hollie is (truthfully and credibly) describing the loss of her virginity to her Father
and repeated assault with some sort of black rubber instrument – presumably a dildo
or vibrator. This rings true because it is not the sort of knowledge Hollie is likely to
have gained through any other means but experience – i.e. rupture of the hymen
causing bleeding etc. and her account is consistent throughout the interview.
ii) She is clearly describing ongoing familial assault by her Brother – her testimony
here is by no means conclusive nor is it particularly cohesive, but it is consistent and
it is credible that Greg would have used the same instrument to assault Hollie as was
available to his Father – who he seems to have been emulating.
iii) There is some merit in the argument that Hollie may be describing group sex
parties that took place at the family home; the reason I say the locus was the family
home is that she is unable to describe any other locus in even the most basic detail.
She also seems to have been coached to say this was ‘Jack Buchanan’s house’.
“Q. Hollie, we will go back to Jack Buchanan’s house. You said Jack raped you and your Dad,
Greg and Earl were there. Why were they there.
A They were having sex.
Q. Who were they having sex with?
A. Jack and Graham Buchanan.
Q. Who is Graham Buchanan?
A. Jack’s brother.
Q. How many brothers has Jack got?
A. One Jack, two Graham, three Mackie.
Q. So your Dad, Greg, Earl, Jack and Graham were all having sex.
A. Yeah.
Q. Who were they having sex with?
A. Evelyn his wife.
Q. How do you know this?
A. A lot.
Q. But how do you know?
A. I don’t understand
Q. Did you hear about it, see it?
A. See it.
Q. Where were you?
A. I was there.
Q. Where abouts were you?

A. At Jack Buchanan’s house.
Q. What were you doing at Jack’s house where all these people were having sex?
A. Pushed me.
Q. Jack Buchanan. “
The ‘tell’ here is her fixation on this “Jack Buchanan” name – she is completely
unwilling to describe the place; why is that? Possibly because the place she would
describe is her old family home? She has obviously been coached to ‘close the
question down’ with, simply “Jack Buchanan.”
iv) Beyond that there is a degree of very obvious parroting of her Mother, and her
testimony is incoherent. From the question “Anything else you meant to tell us?”
onwards it’s clear she’s just parroting ‘coached’ names and projecting the experience
of her rape onto them. This is gleaned from the simple fact that her account of the
experience does not vary between alleged assailants and she cannot give any
credible or cohesive account of locations etc… i.e. she’s describing the loss of blood
(rupture of hymen – which wouldn’t happen in this later alleged assault) use of the
black rubber instrument; only the names have been changed.
iv) This ‘embroidery’ of the account and these added allegations actually have the
effect of discrediting Hollie’s testimony in relation to the allegations against her
Father and Brother – Any defending council would shred a case constructed from
that testimony with the greatest of ease. Likewise rhetoric which is beyond Hollie’s
normal scope of communication further discredits her overall account. For
Example…
“ Q. How do you know Jack Buchanan?
A. The court thing.
Q. What was the court thing?
A. Manager.
Q. He is a manager?
A. Yes.
Q. You said you got to know Jack through Court.
A. Yes.
Q. Were you at Court?
A. Yes, Aberdeen.
Q. What were you at Court for.
A. A fight
Q. Who was the fight between?
A. I don’t understand.
Q. You said you were at Court for a fight.
A. Me and mum fight.
Q. What about?
A. Me and mum are happy whatever. We’ll fight you bastard.
Q. Who are you gonna fight?
A. All them lot.
Q. Why?
A. Dad, Greg, Helen, Helen’s husband and children. “

“Jack Buchanan” – as far as any associate of Mackie can be identified – was not
called or known as “Jack”. The individual in question was a former technician at
Aberdeen University. Mackie is known at one time (late 80s/Early 90s) to have had
an ‘interest’ in acquiring professional level video kit (specifically U-Matic kit) with
which he would have required technical assistance. It is believed he got that
assistance from this individual – it is not known if that person had any ‘nefarious’
interests. It’s thought that Mackie’s ‘back story’ for acquiring this kit was an interest in
making videos about steam engines (and he may well have duped ‘Jack’ in this
respect). But he seems not to have shot a single frame of such material!
v) The Police accept that Hollie is ‘truthful’ in so far as her account of sexual assaults
‘hold water’ and are credible. But beyond that her account is of extremely limited use
in building any sort of case against any individual – not even her Father or Brother!
There can be no excuse or rational explanation for the police’s subsequent failure
even to question a single one of those named or to examine their computers. Of course, it is
not just Hollie’s words which must be taken into account – although DI Iain Alley and his
fellow officers had earlier described her, in writing, as “a truthful witness” and “an entirely
innocent victim” – but also the wealth of independent expert-witness evidence which
completely supports her claims.
It may well be asked what precisely Grampian Police actually did to warrant the
contention that, in DCI Dowall’s words, this was “a thorough investigation”. I must tell you
that an unnamed male describing himself as a Grampian Police officer contacted me in
November 2009 to tell me that no-one named by Hollie was ever interrogated by Grampian
Police.
Nonsense again! – The Police are not empowered or entitled to question private
citizens without a good reason – reasonable cause. Additionally, the Police service
has a duty and obligation to deploy its resources proportionately with due regards to
balancing costs against justification… i.e. it would be quite ‘possible’ (as was
requested of a Police Officer friend of mine recently) to use DNA analysis to ‘prove’
that a particular dog had fouled a particular area. It would also be a monumental
waste of money out of all proportion to the ‘crime’!
As I understand it both Greg and Denis Mackie WERE interviewed about Hollie’s
claims; it’s spectacularly clear that Hollie’s testimony is no basis for a prosecution of
them, but still they were interviewed on the basis of the tenuous consistency of her
statement to explore the possibility that their testimony might inform or progress
some further investigation.
They closed ranks and covered their own tails!

Tracing and ‘Interviewing’ another 22 people – named in so incoherent and
inconsistent way? Estimate costs to the police as a minimum of £2500 per witness –
In excess of £55,000 to be squandered on a wild goose chase? Seriously? Then
there is the point that such an action would put these individuals in a position where
they could claim they were being hounded by the Police with no good reason…
Should it later emerge that there is some legitimate enquiry to be made of them later,
that might be hampered by pre-existing claims of harassment. The investigation of
these people was as thorough as the law allows. Background checks were made.
Times, dates places were cross referenced looking for any sign that Hollie’s
testimony might lead to some line of enquiry. None was found and no justification
could be found to approach these people. In fact, the most basic investigation
eliminated them from enquiries. – And in the circumstances, that’s as far as a
thorough police investigation can possibly get!
Then there is the matter of the documents received from Dr Paul Carter, in October
2009, in the midst of this so-called “thorough” investigation. Dr Carter was the medical
officer for Beechwood Special School, at which Hollie was a pupil, and which was one of the
locations at which she claimed to have been sexually abused. As you will see, Dr Carter’s
reports of 1990 and 1992 clearly indicate that he considered Hollie to be sexually “at risk”. I
interviewed Dr Carter immediately on receipt of the reports and he was shocked that no
apparent action had been taken as a result of his conclusions. He told me that he had returned
to England shortly after 1992, and said, “I suppose that the police will now be bound to
contact me.” I replied that I could see no reason why they would not, as he must be
recognised as an expert witness. Futhermore, considering just how long the alleged abuses
appeared to have been taking place at Beechwood, the indications were that other pupils had
been, and perhaps continued to be, at risk.
When I learned of the Crown Office’s letter of 4 December 2009 advising Anne Greig
that no further action against the alleged perpetrator or perpetrators was being undertaken, I
called Dr Carter again, and was astounded to learn that Grampian Police had made no effort
to contact this vital witness. Dr Carter, too, appeared deeply shocked. I could offer no
rational explanation for this police failure, which tied in with the disturbing information
provided by the person who claimed to be a police officer.
It is not for me – frankly I’m not in the position – to second guess the Police in this
respect . However I am prepared to make an educated guess as to why Dr Carter
was not contacted as an ‘expert witness’. Simply there was no credible case that
could be made against the likely perpetrators and therefore no expert witnesses to
be called! Dr Carter’s testimony merely confirms that concerns existed when Hollie
was at school; it aids corroboration of the fact that Hollie was abused – but that takes
us no further forward from what was established (and mitigated to the best of the
law’s inadequate ability) by the CICA. Short of the Mackies breaking down and
confessing there is nothing that can be done to progress Hollie’s case beyond that
already done by the CICA.

It would be speculation – intelligent speculation in my view – to suppose that Dr
Carter’s contribution will have entered the general pool of Police intelligence; it may
well be that he is contacted at some point in the future, but his information provides
no leverage in terms of identifying and building a case against Hollie’s rapists…
That’s why they didn’t trouble the man. It’s really just that simple!
And there is more to this… Whether you like it or not, digging into Hollie’s
unfortunate background reveals a highly dysfunctional family. The inconvenient truth
is that exploring the contemporaneous concerns raised about Hollie just as easily
implicates Anne Greig as accessory to her daughter’s abuse as it does Denis Mackie
as lead abuser… Possible links start to emerge between the Mackies and the
seedier side of life in Aberdeen.
Digging far enough and hard enough into this case – and insisting on matters being
pushed to their absolute conclusion – is as likely to see Anne Grieg prosecuted (and
Hollie consequently placed in an institution) as it is the Mackies jailed.
Whilst I was being held on remand in Perth prison, a police intelligence document
dated 8 th May 2007 came into my possession. As you will see, the two individuals against
whom evidence of sexual abuse of Hollie was strongest are clearly identified, along with a
police statement that they were believed to have “a predilection for very young girls”. The
pair’s connection with Portugal was stated in the report, which was produced just five days
after the disappearance of Madeleine McCann: and at that time Hollie’s mother had attended
the main police station in Shrewsbury, along with a support worker, to warn the police of the
named pair’s background, in order to assist the Portuguese police in their enquiries into
Madeleine’s disappearance.
My own research, through former police officer Arthur Cowley, who led Mr and Mrs
McCann’s private investigation, and through my direct contact with the Portuguese police in
Faro, confirmed that the latter had never been informed about the two individuals at any time
by the British police.
Clearly, the Grampian Police intelligence report, which could have been of
considerable value to their Portuguese counterparts, had been withheld. Quite apart from any
possible connection with Madeleine McCann, the content would indicate a likely danger to
little girls in Portugal.
Why was this document so concealed ?
I feel sure you will concur that this presents a further grave matter of international
importance, given the failure to discuss vital information from the police of one EU member
state to the police operating in a fellow EU state.

I don’t believe for a microsecond that the Portugese Police are uninformed as to
what potential miscreants are ‘on their turf’ or what they are allegedly capable of.
However (as investigative work by the likes of Bill Maloney and others confirms)
Portugal seems to be a hotbed of child abuse – this situation does not (in my
opinion) exist without the co-operation of the Portugese Police and authorities. The
Portugese have been highly embarrassed by the McCann case, and done their
utmost to bury rather than properly investigate it.
MY investigations leave me with absolute, cast-iron, gold plated certainty that
information relating to various ‘worthies’ (as the police call them up here) including
the Mackies and the Leasks – particularly the latter – WAS passed to the Portugese
police; that they’re now ‘singing dumb’ is unsurprising.
I should perhaps make it clear that when I received Dr Carter’s reports in October 2009 I
forwarded copies immediately to Grampian Chief Constable Colin McKerracher, to Lord
Advocate Elish Angiolini, and to First Minister Alex Salmond, given the potentially horrific
scale of this case.
Now that you have this information before you, I trust that there will be no more
irrational and nonsensical comments of the type attributed to DCI Dowall. Such statements
are, frankly, an insult to the intelligence of anyone acquainted with the true facts surrounding
the Hollie Greig case.
And the quixotic Mr Green doesn’t see how much HE is insulting the intelligence of
those acquainted with the TRUE facts of the Hollie Greig case who are prepared to
make an honest and cogent analysis of them…
I would also ask that on this occasion you do me the courtesy of responding
personally rather than delegating your answer to another officer.
You will be aware that a Westminster parliamentarian has nominated me for the 2015
Nobel Peace Prize for my work in attempting to secure justice and protection for Scottish
children and the disabled. This recommendation also strongly and rightly criticises the
conduct of the Scottish Police.
Oh grow the fuck up! – NOBODY believes this bollocks! It’s very convenient that this
parliamentarian is anonymous and the nominations remain secret for fifty years isn’t
it – this is sheer absolute pish! An idiot who variously tries to pontificate on the law
of Scotland then hide behind a plea of ignorance? And into the bargain calls ‘racist’
when he’s called out on that? A numpty who tried to use a court of law to ‘showboat’
instead of defending himself? A clown who has done nothing but provide the
ammunition needed by Elish Angiolini to claim ‘it’s all the work of conspiracy
theorists and mad people?

Surely any attempt to continue to defend the indefensible can only bring Police
Scotland into further disrepute.
As always, I am willing to cooperate positively at all times and, once again, would be
willing to meet you privately and confidentially to discuss any aspect of this case about
which you may be uncertain, or about which you may have been misinformed.
Yours sincerely,

+Robert Green
Cc: Chief Constable Simon Byrne (Cheshire Police); DCI Michael Orchard
(Operation Yewtree); Rt Hon Theresa May, Home Secretary; Jim Murphy
(Leader, Scottish Labour); Angela Constance MSP; David Scott

Leave a Reply

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