Throughout all the state`s innumerable attempts to obstruct and pervert the course of justice in relation to Hollie`s case and those related to it, none could be more blatant than the continued failure of the Scottish establishment to conduct a full investigation into the death of Hollie`s much-loved uncle, Robert David Greig, found in a burning stationary car in a remote lane to the north of Aberdeen on the night of 17th November 1997.
After a good deal of persistence, I received an anonymous email from the Crown Office on 30th August, stating that it had been concluded that Mr Greig had died by suicide.
Although a great deal of information, much of a documentary nature, has since clearly and overwhelmingly indicated murder, all the circumstances, even at the time of his death, pointed to foul play. I shall be laying out full details of the evidence and circumstances in a future blog, but what I can say is that suicide by fire is a very rare occurrence, Grampian Police admitting that during the past ten years, there has only been recorded one such similar event. This did not prevent the authorities concluding, in a document I hold, that Mr Greig had committed suicide just four hours after his death.
The NHS has also recently confirmed that it has no knowledge that any medical reports were ever requested about Mr Greig`s health by any investigating body and Robert Greig`s next-of-kin was never questioned about this vital aspect.
Many interested parties, including MP Andrew George, have stated that there appears to be a lot of evidence relating to these issues that point in one direction only, indicating that the whole case deserves a thorough review.
I have recently contacted the current Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland on three occasions, not only requesting the identity of the author of the Crown Office`s email, but also asking him to endorse the statement about Robert Greig`s suicide if he believes that to be true.
The Lord Advocate has refused to do this.
Thank you to all those who have sent me their good wishes in connection with the coming speech in the House of Commons on Wednesday.
Monday, November 28, 2011
Friday, November 25, 2011
House of Commons
On Wednesday, 30th November, I am due to address Members of Parliament at a meeting in the House of Commons on the Hollie Greig case, which is an indication of how widely the case is being followed and at a high level.
Meanwhile there is an article in the Scottish Law Reporter suggesting bias against me by the Crown Office after the successful exposure of Elish Angiolini.
http://scottishlaw.blogspot.com/2011/11/vendetta-drives-crown-no-matter.html
Meanwhile there is an article in the Scottish Law Reporter suggesting bias against me by the Crown Office after the successful exposure of Elish Angiolini.
http://scottishlaw.blogspot.com/2011/11/vendetta-drives-crown-no-matter.html
Thursday, November 24, 2011
A Sincere "Thank You" from Robert
I would like to register my deep appreciation to all those who travelled to Stonehaven to support me during the recent court hearings. I regard you as true, brave and compassionate patriots who are a real credit to Scotland.
Thank you also to those who travelled all the way from England.
It was a wonderful gesture by all of you and gave me great comfort by your presence.
Thank you so much.
Thank you also to those who travelled all the way from England.
It was a wonderful gesture by all of you and gave me great comfort by your presence.
Thank you so much.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Court Hearing Monday 21st November
Sheriff Principal Bowen heard the application of Edinburgh Procurator Fiscal Stephen McGowan`s request to remain as Crown Prosecutor, despite having been called as a witness for the defence.
Mr Alan MacLeod, for the defence, stated that as he was part of a new legal team and that time was needed to assimilate all the copious and complex evidence, requested that the trial be delayed until 16th January at the earliest. This was opposed by Grampian Area Procurator Fiscal Anne Currie, who wished for the trial to go ahead as quickly as possible in the interests of the Crown witnesses. Mr MacLeod responded that if the sheriff accepted this, the whole defence team would have to withdraw as it would be impossible and unreasonable for them to prepare its case in a short amount of time, given its undoubted complexity.
Sheriff Bowen accepted the defence`s plea and ruled that the trial should commence on 16th January and that an interim hearing to resolve the issue of Mr McGowan`s refusal to recuse himself should be heard on 21st December.
The sheriff also voiced his concerns about the rising costs of pursuing the case.
Mr Alan MacLeod, for the defence, stated that as he was part of a new legal team and that time was needed to assimilate all the copious and complex evidence, requested that the trial be delayed until 16th January at the earliest. This was opposed by Grampian Area Procurator Fiscal Anne Currie, who wished for the trial to go ahead as quickly as possible in the interests of the Crown witnesses. Mr MacLeod responded that if the sheriff accepted this, the whole defence team would have to withdraw as it would be impossible and unreasonable for them to prepare its case in a short amount of time, given its undoubted complexity.
Sheriff Bowen accepted the defence`s plea and ruled that the trial should commence on 16th January and that an interim hearing to resolve the issue of Mr McGowan`s refusal to recuse himself should be heard on 21st December.
The sheriff also voiced his concerns about the rising costs of pursuing the case.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Compare And Contrast
Further to the article in the "Scottish Law Reporter", it has been pointed out to me that there is a marked contrast between the massive efforts made by the police and COPFS to prosecute me for Breach of the Peace and their failure to prosecute anyone in relation to the alleged sexual abuse of Hollie Greig by a paedophile ring.
I would remind everyone that Hollie received a payment of £13,500 from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority in spite of the fact that no-one was ever charged with any crime. I am well aware that the standard of proof required to justify a compensation payment is less than that to secure a criminal conviction, however, what can be established beyond reasonable doubt is that no investigation worthy of the name was carried out by Grampian Police following Hollie's allegations.
The so-called "investigation" consisted of one interview each with two members of Hollie's family.
The other alleged abusers were not interviewed due to the fact that their names did not appear on police records and the police could not establish any links between them.
The other persons whom Hollie named as victims were not interviewed.
To the best of my knowledge, no attempt was made to gather forensic evidence.
There were no searches made of any of the properties where abuse was alleged to have taken place.
No attempt was made to have Hollie questioned by a doctor or a psychiatrist.
I would remind everyone that Hollie received a payment of £13,500 from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority in spite of the fact that no-one was ever charged with any crime. I am well aware that the standard of proof required to justify a compensation payment is less than that to secure a criminal conviction, however, what can be established beyond reasonable doubt is that no investigation worthy of the name was carried out by Grampian Police following Hollie's allegations.
The so-called "investigation" consisted of one interview each with two members of Hollie's family.
The other alleged abusers were not interviewed due to the fact that their names did not appear on police records and the police could not establish any links between them.
The other persons whom Hollie named as victims were not interviewed.
To the best of my knowledge, no attempt was made to gather forensic evidence.
There were no searches made of any of the properties where abuse was alleged to have taken place.
No attempt was made to have Hollie questioned by a doctor or a psychiatrist.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Day Two In Court
I arrived early at court today for a meeting with my legal team and received some unexpected news. They advised me that, having looked at all the evidence, I should plead guilty. I then told them that I had no intention of changing my not guilty plea, which left them no alternative but to stand down. We left on good terms and I thank them for their efforts.
In the courtroom, where the Crown was represented by Anne Currie, the Sheriff adjourned the trial until Monday 21st November to allow me the opportunity to assemble a new legal team.
In the courtroom, where the Crown was represented by Anne Currie, the Sheriff adjourned the trial until Monday 21st November to allow me the opportunity to assemble a new legal team.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Day One In Court
Twenty-one months after my arrest my trial has finally got underway at Stonehaven in front of Sheriff Principal Edward Bowen.
After a morning of legal arguments my defence team served a witness citation during the lunch break on Stephen McGowan. As Mr McGowan is the Procurator Fiscal representing the Crown in this case, this citation may have put him in an awkward position and he asked for the case to be adjourned until tomorrow to allow him to consider his position.
My team took this action as the documents produced by the Crown in evidence included correspondence between myself and Mr McGowan, dated before my arrest, relating to the decision by the Procurator Fiscal not to prosecute anyone in relation to the allegations of sexual abuse made by Hollie Greig.
After a morning of legal arguments my defence team served a witness citation during the lunch break on Stephen McGowan. As Mr McGowan is the Procurator Fiscal representing the Crown in this case, this citation may have put him in an awkward position and he asked for the case to be adjourned until tomorrow to allow him to consider his position.
My team took this action as the documents produced by the Crown in evidence included correspondence between myself and Mr McGowan, dated before my arrest, relating to the decision by the Procurator Fiscal not to prosecute anyone in relation to the allegations of sexual abuse made by Hollie Greig.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Disorderly ?
The Crown Office, represented by Anne Currie, have claimed, inter alia, that I conducted myself in a disorderly manner at various locations in Edinburgh. I believe she is referring to August 21st 2010 when I handed out leaflets in Scotland's capital. You can watch this video and decide for yourself whether or not I am conducting myself in a disorderly manner.
Monday, November 7, 2011
When Is A Vulnerable Witness Not A Vulnerable Witness ?
In my blog on September 6th I pointed out the inconsistency between two statements made by the Crown at intermediate diets in April and August.
I wrote to the Crown Office asking for an explanation of this matter and have now received a belated response from Mr David B Harvie, Director of Serious Casework.
I will quote from Mr Harvie's response:
"You claim that, in opposing your motion to adjourn, Ms Currie indicated that there were 50 Crown witnesses available for the period of the trial and that half were vulnerable witnesses suffering from trauma as a result of your alleged conduct..... Ms Currie made it clear to the sheriff that she was using the word "vulnerable" in the everyday meaning of the word. The sheriff could not therefore have considered Ms Currie was referring to the specific legal definition of "vulnerable witness" found in section 271 of the Criminal Procedure of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995."
This statement is quite simply untrue. I was standing approximately ten feet from Anne Currie when she referred to "vulnerable witnesses" and, unless she used some form of secret code, she made absolutely no attempt to clarify that she was using the word "vulnerable" in it's everyday sense. Several other persons in court on the day will also be able to vouch for this.
I would point out that on the day when Anne Currie referred to "vulnerable witnesses suffering from trauma", I was forced to represent myself in court as my Legal Aid application had been refused at that stage.
Mr Harvie goes on to say:
"...you have misunderstood what was said to the presiding sheriff at the intermediate diet on 18 August by Mr McGowan. He advised the court that there were 18 complainers. this is not equivalent to stating that there are 18 witnesses."
Once again this statement is simply untrue. I have a very clear recollection that Stephen McGowan referred to "18 civilian witnesses", and other persons in court on the day share this recollection. The comment was made in the context of the Crown arguing that the trial should not be delayed, so the number of witnesses was relevant but the number of complainers was not.
I am deeply concerned that the Crown Office's response to my complaint should contain two untrue statements. I have advised Mr Harvie of these errors, and when he establishes the facts it may well be that he re-considers his opinion that "the conduct of the Area Procurator Fiscal for Grampian on 13 April 2011 was entirely appropriate".
I wrote to the Crown Office asking for an explanation of this matter and have now received a belated response from Mr David B Harvie, Director of Serious Casework.
I will quote from Mr Harvie's response:
"You claim that, in opposing your motion to adjourn, Ms Currie indicated that there were 50 Crown witnesses available for the period of the trial and that half were vulnerable witnesses suffering from trauma as a result of your alleged conduct..... Ms Currie made it clear to the sheriff that she was using the word "vulnerable" in the everyday meaning of the word. The sheriff could not therefore have considered Ms Currie was referring to the specific legal definition of "vulnerable witness" found in section 271 of the Criminal Procedure of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995."
This statement is quite simply untrue. I was standing approximately ten feet from Anne Currie when she referred to "vulnerable witnesses" and, unless she used some form of secret code, she made absolutely no attempt to clarify that she was using the word "vulnerable" in it's everyday sense. Several other persons in court on the day will also be able to vouch for this.
I would point out that on the day when Anne Currie referred to "vulnerable witnesses suffering from trauma", I was forced to represent myself in court as my Legal Aid application had been refused at that stage.
Mr Harvie goes on to say:
"...you have misunderstood what was said to the presiding sheriff at the intermediate diet on 18 August by Mr McGowan. He advised the court that there were 18 complainers. this is not equivalent to stating that there are 18 witnesses."
Once again this statement is simply untrue. I have a very clear recollection that Stephen McGowan referred to "18 civilian witnesses", and other persons in court on the day share this recollection. The comment was made in the context of the Crown arguing that the trial should not be delayed, so the number of witnesses was relevant but the number of complainers was not.
I am deeply concerned that the Crown Office's response to my complaint should contain two untrue statements. I have advised Mr Harvie of these errors, and when he establishes the facts it may well be that he re-considers his opinion that "the conduct of the Area Procurator Fiscal for Grampian on 13 April 2011 was entirely appropriate".
Friday, November 4, 2011
Yet More Injustice In Scotland
Although there has been little or no coverage in the mainstream media of my own case, the newspapers do report on some of the other blatant abuses of the criminal justice system in Scotland.
In the latest case, a widow is claiming that her husband's death was not properly investigated by Lothian and Borders police.
Martin Douglas was killed after being hit by a car in Edinburgh. The driver drove off, but a charge of leaving the scene of the crime was dropped in spite of the fact that there were 58 witnesses. The driver was not breathalysed and there are discrepancies between the police accident report and the pathologists report.
The driver has recently been revealed as an off-duty police officer, who last year was pictured meeting "Justice" Secretary, Kenny MacAskill.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2011/10/30/hit-and-run-hogmanay-horror-cop-revealed-as-victim-s-widow-demands-answers-86908-23525517/
http://www.anorak.co.uk/242671/news/the-muslim-police-association-acts-as-recruitment-consultant-for-a-biased-force.html/
In the latest case, a widow is claiming that her husband's death was not properly investigated by Lothian and Borders police.
Martin Douglas was killed after being hit by a car in Edinburgh. The driver drove off, but a charge of leaving the scene of the crime was dropped in spite of the fact that there were 58 witnesses. The driver was not breathalysed and there are discrepancies between the police accident report and the pathologists report.
The driver has recently been revealed as an off-duty police officer, who last year was pictured meeting "Justice" Secretary, Kenny MacAskill.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2011/10/30/hit-and-run-hogmanay-horror-cop-revealed-as-victim-s-widow-demands-answers-86908-23525517/
http://www.anorak.co.uk/242671/news/the-muslim-police-association-acts-as-recruitment-consultant-for-a-biased-force.html/
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Breach Of The Peace
I am facing a charge of Breach of the Peace which is defined in Scots Law as: “conduct severe enough to cause alarm to ordinary people and threaten serious disturbance to the community".
The legal firm, Levy and MacRae, who have played a prominent role themselves in the Hollie Greig case, state that: "Breach of the peace is designed to protect the community at large, not guard against an affront to individuals based on their own character."
http://www.lemac.co.uk/resources/guides/Breach_of_the_Peace.htm
The legal firm, Levy and MacRae, who have played a prominent role themselves in the Hollie Greig case, state that: "Breach of the peace is designed to protect the community at large, not guard against an affront to individuals based on their own character."
http://www.lemac.co.uk/resources/guides/Breach_of_the_Peace.htm
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Trial Will Proceed On November 14th
Following yet another intermediate diet at Stonehaven it now appears certain that my trial will commence on November 14th. As I have no intention of changing my plea of Not Guilty the only realistic scenario which could cause the trial not to go ahead would be if the Crown was to drop the charges. The trial is still expected to last for 2 weeks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)