Saturday, March 5, 2011

The Case For The Defence #4: Police Investigations Have Found No Evidence

 The response of Grampian Police to Hollie's allegations could not be described by any reasonable person as "investigations". I will simply reproduce my blog of February 14th in full to demonstrate this.


The Press & Journal report of 27 January 2011 made the following statement in relation to the allegations made by Hollie:
"two police investigations have found no evidence to support the claims"

  Similar statements have been made by the Solicitor-General of Scotland, Frank Mulholland, when responding to MP's and MSP's.

  It is worth reminding ourselves of the scope of the "investigations" carried out by Grampian Police.

  On 18 May 2000, Hollie made her initial allegation that she had been abused by one member of her family, referred to as Relative C in the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland (PCCS) Report. The PCCS Report states: "Relative C was traced, detained and interviewed on 12 June 2000... and the circumstances were reported to the Procurator Fiscal." This was the one and only interview with "Relative C" and there appears to have been no further investigation undertaken. One may have thought that the police may have searched the property of "Relative C" and removed items for forensic examination but this did not happen.

 On 25 August 2000, Hollie made further allegations against a number of individuals. As a result of this only one further interview with a suspect took place and that was seventeen months later. To quote from the PCCS Report: "Relative A was interviewed on 9 January 2002, after which he was released without charge due to the absence of evidence. .... Detective Sergeant F stated that it was possible that he expressed civil regret that Relative A had been inconvenienced by the process."

 None of the other named persons were as much as interviewed. This is how Grampian Police explain this failure: "Superintendent J stated that he had contemporary checks carried on police system's regarding the individuals named by X and confirmed that at the time of Detective Sergeant F's check there was nothing present on the systems to support any of the complainer's suspicions." This extraordinary statement suggests that if you do not have a police record then it is the policy of Grampian Police not to investigate any allegation against you !

 At the time the wider allegations were made Grampian Police were more interested in arranging for the sectioning of Anne Greig rather than investigating allegations of sexual abuse, as is evidenced by this statement from the PCCS Report: "Detective Constable E stated that she was later advised by a Social Worker and the complainer's GP that the complainer had failed to keep any appointments and, as a result, consideration was being given to visiting the complainer at home with the intention of detaining her under the Mental Health Act. " So it is the view of Grampian Police that missing an appointment with a GP or Social Worker is  grounds for sectioning someone !

 On 8 September 2009 I was present and able to listen when Hollie was re-interviewed in Shrewsbury by DS Lisa Evans of Grampian Police.Hollie spoke clearly and consistently, naming both the alleged attackers and other alleged victims, and giving details of locations. By this time Grampian Police were fully aware of expert medical witness statements, which overwhelmingly supported Hollie's allegations.

 To the best of my knowledge, Grampian Police did not interview any of the alleged attackers or any of the other alleged victims or any of the medical experts.  

 It would appear that Grampian Police investigate some crimes more zealously than others. Attached is the story of how they spent £170,000 of public money by repeatedly arresting a male stripper who dresses as a policeman as part of his act.


I have had a very interesting morning indeed and intend to post a full report on the blog tomorrow.


1 comment:

  1. I should like to know how they can dismiss the physical evidence that must exist surely?

    Apart from this, how can they refuse to accept the statements Hollie has made in some depth and for which there is other evidence to support the veracity of these?

    The blind leading the blind? Or is it that there are none so blind as those who do not want to see?