On 8th September 2009, I was present as Hollie Greig was interviewed for three and a half hours by Grampian Police officer DS Lisa Evans. During the interview, Hollie, accepted as a competent and truthful witness, gave clear details of the sexual abuses she had endured, the identities of her abusers and locations where the abuses took place.
No-one else was subsequently interviewed, no computers belonging to the alleged abusers were examined and no expert medical witnesses, whose testimonies supported Hollie`s allegations, were contacted, despite the state having earlier granted Hollie £13,500 in compensation for her suffering as a result of the crimes she had described.
In January 2010, certain individuals took exception to my efforts to warn the citizens of Aberdeen of the police`s failures and that vulnerable children and the disabled were likely to be continually at risk as a direct result.
Grampian Police promptly interviewed no fewer than sixty-one people and even sent two detectives from Aberdeen to Glasgow in order to interview solicitor Peter Watson, of Levy &McRae, who had earler issued threats to the media on behalf of Elish Angiolini to prevent stories of her proven involvement in the Hollie Greig case entering the public domain.
As soon as I was arrested on 12th February 2010, Grampian Police arranged for four officers to be sent on a 700-mile round trip to my home in Cheshire, to seize personal documents including my computer records. One of those officers was DS Lisa Evans, who had previously taken no action to seize the computers of the alleged sexual offenders.
In 2001, when Elish Angiolini was Procurator Fiscal in Aberdeen, having prevented an investigation in the allegations made by Hollie in 2000, she also failed to have a 22-year-old man charged, who actually admitted to having raped a girl of 10 and a boy of 7. Working with Angiolini on this case was the same sheriff who Hollie has accused of abusing her. The story of this shocking failure was published in May 2001
in The Times and by Tara Womersley in The Telegraph. Angiolini was forced to issue a public apology for her incompetence, claiming as an excuse that her department was understaffed.
In 2010, in contrast, Angiolini lost no time at all in having me arrested and charged for a "Breach of the Peace".
Friday, December 30, 2011
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Freemasons and the Hollie Greig case?
As many followers of the case and those related to it, including my own, will be aware, I have made it clear that I regard it as unfair that there is general criticism relating to undue influence being exerted by members of the Freemasons in suppressing the true facts about the attacks on Hollie and others or the murder of her uncle.
I have absolutely no evidence to support that supposition and am aware that many of our most loyal followers are Freemasons. I have also known many members of the organisation during my lifetime and found most of them to be people of the highest calibre and rectitude. Therefore, I bear no personal ill-will towards Freemasonry in general and would only challenge any individual I thought may be abusing membership in order to pervert the course of justice.
However, an incident took place at Stonehaven Court on 30th April 2010 that I have hitherto not published, but as my trial date draws near and the Scottish establishment have not seen fit to drop the charges against me, I believe that it is in the interests of justice and impartiality that I should now mention it.
The hearing came as a result of my application for a variation on my bail conditions to allow me to campaign freely as parliamentary candidate for Aberdeen South in the last few days prior to the General Election on 6th May, which had hitherto been denied me. I was to be represented by Aberdeen solicitor George Mathers, but he withdrew unexpectedly at the last minute, leaving me with no option but to fend for myself. My application was refused, albeit on extremely controversial grounds that have already been discussed.
In my elevated position in the witness box, I was able to see Crown Prosecutor Stephen McGowan pass an A4 size document in black and white to Sheriff Patrick Davies, covered entirely by the commonly used square and compass symbol of Freemasonry. As I had made no attack on the Freemasons, I could not understand why such a document could possibly be used in evidence against me. Frankly, I was placed in the dilemma of challenging McGowan and Davies at that point or giving the impression that I had not seen the transaction. As the hearing was held in secret with no supporters, press or independent witnesses present, I decided to take the latter course.
However, Sheriff Principal Edward Bowen has just ruled to deny me the availability of Stephen McGowan as an important witness for the defence, allowing the latter to lead the prosecution against me. Therefore, in order to avoid any widespread perception of any conflict of interest that may be thought to exist, and in the best interests of justice and fair play, I shall ask, at the beginning of the trial, whether the Sheriff and the Crown Prosecutor are Freemasons.
I have absolutely no evidence to support that supposition and am aware that many of our most loyal followers are Freemasons. I have also known many members of the organisation during my lifetime and found most of them to be people of the highest calibre and rectitude. Therefore, I bear no personal ill-will towards Freemasonry in general and would only challenge any individual I thought may be abusing membership in order to pervert the course of justice.
However, an incident took place at Stonehaven Court on 30th April 2010 that I have hitherto not published, but as my trial date draws near and the Scottish establishment have not seen fit to drop the charges against me, I believe that it is in the interests of justice and impartiality that I should now mention it.
The hearing came as a result of my application for a variation on my bail conditions to allow me to campaign freely as parliamentary candidate for Aberdeen South in the last few days prior to the General Election on 6th May, which had hitherto been denied me. I was to be represented by Aberdeen solicitor George Mathers, but he withdrew unexpectedly at the last minute, leaving me with no option but to fend for myself. My application was refused, albeit on extremely controversial grounds that have already been discussed.
In my elevated position in the witness box, I was able to see Crown Prosecutor Stephen McGowan pass an A4 size document in black and white to Sheriff Patrick Davies, covered entirely by the commonly used square and compass symbol of Freemasonry. As I had made no attack on the Freemasons, I could not understand why such a document could possibly be used in evidence against me. Frankly, I was placed in the dilemma of challenging McGowan and Davies at that point or giving the impression that I had not seen the transaction. As the hearing was held in secret with no supporters, press or independent witnesses present, I decided to take the latter course.
However, Sheriff Principal Edward Bowen has just ruled to deny me the availability of Stephen McGowan as an important witness for the defence, allowing the latter to lead the prosecution against me. Therefore, in order to avoid any widespread perception of any conflict of interest that may be thought to exist, and in the best interests of justice and fair play, I shall ask, at the beginning of the trial, whether the Sheriff and the Crown Prosecutor are Freemasons.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Stonehaven Court - again!
Yesterday, the hearing at Stonehaven was presided over by Sheriff-Principal Edward Bowen. Despite stating on 14th November that he would not be participating in a future trial in this case, it seems that now he will be in charge again on 16th January.
It must be said that my new legal team, led by Gary Allen QC, did very well in overcoming an objection by the Crown to the use of Article 10(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights in my defence. However, despite Mr Allen`s eloquent and well-reasoned view that Procurator Fiscal Stephen McGowan is regarded as an important witness for the defence, the sheriff decided not to support the defence`s plea which means, bizarrely, that McGowan is now free to lead the prosecution again.
Not only should McGowan have been ordered to appear as a defence witness, but he is also part of an serious investigation concerning false statements made earlier in court, on 13th April and 18th August respectively, by fellow Procurator Fiscal Anne Currie and by Mr McGowan himself.
I have also now lodged a formal complaint with Police Officer Vicky Henderson in Stonehaven in regard to the events of 15th November, concerning what appears to be a prima facie case of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice involving the Crown Office and my former Senior Counsel, Frances McMenamin QC. There is also likely to be a further crime involving disclosure of confidential court proceedings by the Crown office to the Scottish Sun.
Key witnesses are likely to include Sheriff Principal Bowen, Anne Currie and Stephen McGowan again, the latter seen by two witnesses as having entered a room in the court building in discussion with the Scottish Sun reporter.
That McGowan, despite all this, can still be allowed or would even wish to represent the Crown in prosecuting this case in such deeply suspicious circumstances is an indication everything that is wrong with the Scottish justice system and its endemic and shameless lack of integrity.
Finally, may I wish all those kind, brave and loyal supporters of Hollie the very best for Christmas and the New Year. I feel sure that by working together, this terrible evil that infects and intimidates the highest echelons of Scottish society and beyond can be exposed and overcome.
Thank you all and God bless you.
It must be said that my new legal team, led by Gary Allen QC, did very well in overcoming an objection by the Crown to the use of Article 10(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights in my defence. However, despite Mr Allen`s eloquent and well-reasoned view that Procurator Fiscal Stephen McGowan is regarded as an important witness for the defence, the sheriff decided not to support the defence`s plea which means, bizarrely, that McGowan is now free to lead the prosecution again.
Not only should McGowan have been ordered to appear as a defence witness, but he is also part of an serious investigation concerning false statements made earlier in court, on 13th April and 18th August respectively, by fellow Procurator Fiscal Anne Currie and by Mr McGowan himself.
I have also now lodged a formal complaint with Police Officer Vicky Henderson in Stonehaven in regard to the events of 15th November, concerning what appears to be a prima facie case of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice involving the Crown Office and my former Senior Counsel, Frances McMenamin QC. There is also likely to be a further crime involving disclosure of confidential court proceedings by the Crown office to the Scottish Sun.
Key witnesses are likely to include Sheriff Principal Bowen, Anne Currie and Stephen McGowan again, the latter seen by two witnesses as having entered a room in the court building in discussion with the Scottish Sun reporter.
That McGowan, despite all this, can still be allowed or would even wish to represent the Crown in prosecuting this case in such deeply suspicious circumstances is an indication everything that is wrong with the Scottish justice system and its endemic and shameless lack of integrity.
Finally, may I wish all those kind, brave and loyal supporters of Hollie the very best for Christmas and the New Year. I feel sure that by working together, this terrible evil that infects and intimidates the highest echelons of Scottish society and beyond can be exposed and overcome.
Thank you all and God bless you.
Monday, December 19, 2011
Alex Salmond - Scottish Patriot?
The position of First Minister Alex Salmond in regard to Hollie`s case has been a curious one, as he perpetually claims to stand for the interests of the Scottish people - but to which Scottish people is he referring?
Surely not the vulnerable children and disabled of Aberdeen, facing rape and ritual abuse, whose plight he has not only ignored, but also made false statements about his involvement in and knowledge of the Hollie Greig case, as published in The Firm magazine of 11th July.
Whatever one`s views on the case, it seems distinctly odd that two English MPs, Andrew George and David Ruffley, have gone out of their way to register their considerable disquiet about the lack of proper investigation into the case and that an English member of the House of Lords, Lord Monckton has gone on film to demand a public inquiry. It is also puzzling that the First Minister and his SNP Westminster colleagues showed no interest in attending the meeting in the House of Commons in which I was invited to speak about the case.
Meanwhile, Mr Salmond, who represents a constituency neighbouring that of the scene of the atrocities, now maintains an undignified silence. Who is he seeking to protect and why?
He appears to display a staggering personal loyalty to Elish Angiolini, made all the more remarkable as she is not a member of the SNP and a Unionist - and what about his magic circle friends and associates in the North-East?
Are these the Scottish people whose personal interests he really stands for?
Perhaps the First Minister may wish to clarify his stance to the people and taxpayers of Scotland.
On a different note, many thanks for all of you who have kindly sent me cards and Christmas and New Year good wishes. If I do not manage to reciprocate personally, please forgive me, but I have received a very considerable number of messages. One surprising and charming Christmas card has arrived from Terra Firma, Elish Angiolini`s Chambers. I do hope that it has not been sent to me in error.
Surely not the vulnerable children and disabled of Aberdeen, facing rape and ritual abuse, whose plight he has not only ignored, but also made false statements about his involvement in and knowledge of the Hollie Greig case, as published in The Firm magazine of 11th July.
Whatever one`s views on the case, it seems distinctly odd that two English MPs, Andrew George and David Ruffley, have gone out of their way to register their considerable disquiet about the lack of proper investigation into the case and that an English member of the House of Lords, Lord Monckton has gone on film to demand a public inquiry. It is also puzzling that the First Minister and his SNP Westminster colleagues showed no interest in attending the meeting in the House of Commons in which I was invited to speak about the case.
Meanwhile, Mr Salmond, who represents a constituency neighbouring that of the scene of the atrocities, now maintains an undignified silence. Who is he seeking to protect and why?
He appears to display a staggering personal loyalty to Elish Angiolini, made all the more remarkable as she is not a member of the SNP and a Unionist - and what about his magic circle friends and associates in the North-East?
Are these the Scottish people whose personal interests he really stands for?
Perhaps the First Minister may wish to clarify his stance to the people and taxpayers of Scotland.
On a different note, many thanks for all of you who have kindly sent me cards and Christmas and New Year good wishes. If I do not manage to reciprocate personally, please forgive me, but I have received a very considerable number of messages. One surprising and charming Christmas card has arrived from Terra Firma, Elish Angiolini`s Chambers. I do hope that it has not been sent to me in error.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Crown Office - Running Scared?
I attempted to speak to the Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland, today, regarding his failure to respond to my email requesting an explanation about the events of 15th November, as I have good reason to believe that confidential information (albeit inaccurate and premature) about my case was disclosed to a third party not involved (The Scottish Sun).
As the details so far available indicate that this leak came from the Crown Office, I feel that it is entirely reasonable that an explanation should be provided to me.
My call today, on 0131 226 2626, was taken by a male who described himself as a security man, who proceeded to tell me that he was under orders not to put my calls through to anyone in the Crown Office! He refused to identify himself.
These are public officials who are refusing to respond to a request directly concerning me, that must be regarded as reasonable, given the circumstances and the contents of the article in the Scottish Law Reporter.
There is the separate issue of whether there existed a conspiracy against me between the Crown Office and my former Senior Counsel, Frances McMenamin QC. She too has failed to respond to my request for an explanation, so I have approached the Faculty of Advocates for advice as to how to formulate a complaint against her.
The editor of the Scottish Sun, David Dinsmore, has similarly refused to comment on the statements attributed to one of his paper`s journalists.
If no serious irregularity has taken place, why does this wall of silence exist?
As the details so far available indicate that this leak came from the Crown Office, I feel that it is entirely reasonable that an explanation should be provided to me.
My call today, on 0131 226 2626, was taken by a male who described himself as a security man, who proceeded to tell me that he was under orders not to put my calls through to anyone in the Crown Office! He refused to identify himself.
These are public officials who are refusing to respond to a request directly concerning me, that must be regarded as reasonable, given the circumstances and the contents of the article in the Scottish Law Reporter.
There is the separate issue of whether there existed a conspiracy against me between the Crown Office and my former Senior Counsel, Frances McMenamin QC. She too has failed to respond to my request for an explanation, so I have approached the Faculty of Advocates for advice as to how to formulate a complaint against her.
The editor of the Scottish Sun, David Dinsmore, has similarly refused to comment on the statements attributed to one of his paper`s journalists.
If no serious irregularity has taken place, why does this wall of silence exist?
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Stonehaven Court, etc.
The issue highlighted in the recent article in the Scottish Law Reporter remains unresolved, owing to the continued refusal of those involved to respond to my requests.
On Tuesday morning, 15th November, a reporter from the Scottish Sun arrived at Stonehaven Court, stating the reason as having been informed by the Crown Office that a deal had been done in which I would plead guilty to the charges. No such deal had been done, nor would I envisage making any deal with a body as transparently and blatantly corrupt as the Crown Office in Scotland. Significantly, the Scottish Sun had hitherto shown no obvious interest in the plight of Hollie nor my own case.
Curiously, after repeatedly been informed for many months that my position vis-a-vis the Crown was a fundamentally strong one, at ten that morning, my Senior Counsel suddenly informed me that if I was not willing to change my plea to guilty, she was no longer prepared to represent me. Naturally, I flatly declined this unwelcome offer.
Since then, the Scottish Sun reporter`s information points to a conspiracy behind my back between the Crown Office and my ex-Senior Counsel, even to the extent of disclosing this important issue of which I knew nothing to a third party not involved in the case. It has also been stated that the Crown Office had already prepared a press release.
I have given my former Senior Counsel, Frances McMenamin, several days to offer an explanation and extended the same courtesy to Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland and Scottish Sun editor David Dinsmore, since it would not be appropriate to make serious allegations over this incident without offering those thought to be involved an opportunity to provide an explanation.
It must be said that no response has yet been received to my polite enquiries.
I am due back in Stonehaven Court on Wednesday 21st December, the hearing being held purely to discuss the defence`s citation to call the Crown`s Chief Prosecutor Stephen McGowan as a witness. McGowan is also currently playing a part into investigations against Procurator Fiscal Anne Currie`s clear attempt to mislead Sheriff Valerie Johnston on 13th April 2011. McGowan has already made a false statement to the investigation`s director over the content of his own statement in open court, again before Sheriff Johnston, on the 18th August 2011.
Furthermore, McGowan also made a misleading and inaccurate statement about Elish Angiolini`s role in the Hollie Greig case in a letter to Anne Greig on 4th December 2009.
It does not seem reasonable to believe, under Article 6(1) of the European Court of Human rights, that I could ever receive a fair trial in Scotland.
Finally, I have had the most kind offers again from loyal and courageous people to attend the hearing, but do not know if there will be much excitement and am concerned over the time, expense and travel at this time of the year, so I should not be at all disappointed to be there merely with my new legal team.
On Tuesday morning, 15th November, a reporter from the Scottish Sun arrived at Stonehaven Court, stating the reason as having been informed by the Crown Office that a deal had been done in which I would plead guilty to the charges. No such deal had been done, nor would I envisage making any deal with a body as transparently and blatantly corrupt as the Crown Office in Scotland. Significantly, the Scottish Sun had hitherto shown no obvious interest in the plight of Hollie nor my own case.
Curiously, after repeatedly been informed for many months that my position vis-a-vis the Crown was a fundamentally strong one, at ten that morning, my Senior Counsel suddenly informed me that if I was not willing to change my plea to guilty, she was no longer prepared to represent me. Naturally, I flatly declined this unwelcome offer.
Since then, the Scottish Sun reporter`s information points to a conspiracy behind my back between the Crown Office and my ex-Senior Counsel, even to the extent of disclosing this important issue of which I knew nothing to a third party not involved in the case. It has also been stated that the Crown Office had already prepared a press release.
I have given my former Senior Counsel, Frances McMenamin, several days to offer an explanation and extended the same courtesy to Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland and Scottish Sun editor David Dinsmore, since it would not be appropriate to make serious allegations over this incident without offering those thought to be involved an opportunity to provide an explanation.
It must be said that no response has yet been received to my polite enquiries.
I am due back in Stonehaven Court on Wednesday 21st December, the hearing being held purely to discuss the defence`s citation to call the Crown`s Chief Prosecutor Stephen McGowan as a witness. McGowan is also currently playing a part into investigations against Procurator Fiscal Anne Currie`s clear attempt to mislead Sheriff Valerie Johnston on 13th April 2011. McGowan has already made a false statement to the investigation`s director over the content of his own statement in open court, again before Sheriff Johnston, on the 18th August 2011.
Furthermore, McGowan also made a misleading and inaccurate statement about Elish Angiolini`s role in the Hollie Greig case in a letter to Anne Greig on 4th December 2009.
It does not seem reasonable to believe, under Article 6(1) of the European Court of Human rights, that I could ever receive a fair trial in Scotland.
Finally, I have had the most kind offers again from loyal and courageous people to attend the hearing, but do not know if there will be much excitement and am concerned over the time, expense and travel at this time of the year, so I should not be at all disappointed to be there merely with my new legal team.
Friday, December 9, 2011
The Crown Office - Unfit To Prosecute me, Unfit For Purpose?
The Scottish Law Reporter publishes another disturbing story about the ongoing transparent bias displayed against me by the Crown Office, this time hinting at something even deeper- a possible conspiracy.
http://scottishlaw.blogspot.com/2011/12/ex-lord-advocate-elish-angiolini-to-be.html
The reporter in question in the article is from the Scottish Sun.
Many similar instances of malpractice in this case have occurred, beginning with my exposing Elish Angiolini`s established misconduct in 2009 and 2010 as highlighted in previous blogs.
On 4th December 2009, Procurator Fiscal Stephen McGowan made a false statement about the involvement of Elish Angiolini in the Hollie Greig case. He has since made a false statement to an official investigation in regards to his statement in open court on 18th August 2011. Despite being asked to remove himself as chief prosecutor by my defence lawyers, he still refuses to go. He has also been served a citation to appear as a key witness for the defence. A further hearing at Stonehaven about this sole issue will take place on 21st December.
On the 12th and 13th February 2010, I was arrested and charged in Aberdeen and had my home in Cheshire raided, in which my entire defence was stolen and has not yet been returned to me. Of course, my computer was among the many items taken. Curiously, the father and brother of Hollie never even had their computers checked, which is standard police procedure when individuals are accused of serious sexual offences.
It tok sixteen months of evasions before Grampian Police provided a copy of the search warrant, to find that it had been signed by Sheriff Patrick Davies, a close associate of one of the accused.
My arrest was authorised by Elish Angiolini, the personi had earlier publicly exposed for malpractice whilst holding the office of Lord Advocate.
Sheriff Davies went on to officiate at four subsequent hearings, including one closed session on 30th April 2010, denying me the opportunity to campaign as candidate for te Aberdeen South constituency by making a provably inaccurate statement in one of his reasons for doing so.
On 13th April 2011, in open court, Procurator Fiscal Anne Currie misled Sheriff Valerie Johnston regarding witnesses she falsely and deliberately stated were suffering from trauma, in an attempt to procure a miscarriage of justice against me. She is currently subject to an official investigation as a result and has continued to lie to the investigator about the content of her statement.
Around this time, the Scottish Legal Aid Board were persistently attempting to deny me Legal Aid. A member of the Board is Douglas Haggarty QC, a convicted sex offender, who had been apprehended in a public toilet in Glasgow with a 17-year-old male prostitute. Such is the calibre of those in whose hands my freedom depends.
On the afternoon of 14th November 2011, six hours after the trial had begun, I was told that the prosecution had suddenly produced sixty-one witness statements, none of which had been disclosed to me and I have still yet to see.
Now we have the highly suspicious incident that took place on 15th November 2011, after my Senior Counsel had unexpectedly and inexplicibly suggested that I change my plea to guilty, just hours after being led to believe that the Crown`s position was hopeless.
Given its obligations to objectivity, balance and impartiality, do you think the Crown Office is fit to prosecute me?
http://scottishlaw.blogspot.com/2011/12/ex-lord-advocate-elish-angiolini-to-be.html
The reporter in question in the article is from the Scottish Sun.
Many similar instances of malpractice in this case have occurred, beginning with my exposing Elish Angiolini`s established misconduct in 2009 and 2010 as highlighted in previous blogs.
On 4th December 2009, Procurator Fiscal Stephen McGowan made a false statement about the involvement of Elish Angiolini in the Hollie Greig case. He has since made a false statement to an official investigation in regards to his statement in open court on 18th August 2011. Despite being asked to remove himself as chief prosecutor by my defence lawyers, he still refuses to go. He has also been served a citation to appear as a key witness for the defence. A further hearing at Stonehaven about this sole issue will take place on 21st December.
On the 12th and 13th February 2010, I was arrested and charged in Aberdeen and had my home in Cheshire raided, in which my entire defence was stolen and has not yet been returned to me. Of course, my computer was among the many items taken. Curiously, the father and brother of Hollie never even had their computers checked, which is standard police procedure when individuals are accused of serious sexual offences.
It tok sixteen months of evasions before Grampian Police provided a copy of the search warrant, to find that it had been signed by Sheriff Patrick Davies, a close associate of one of the accused.
My arrest was authorised by Elish Angiolini, the personi had earlier publicly exposed for malpractice whilst holding the office of Lord Advocate.
Sheriff Davies went on to officiate at four subsequent hearings, including one closed session on 30th April 2010, denying me the opportunity to campaign as candidate for te Aberdeen South constituency by making a provably inaccurate statement in one of his reasons for doing so.
On 13th April 2011, in open court, Procurator Fiscal Anne Currie misled Sheriff Valerie Johnston regarding witnesses she falsely and deliberately stated were suffering from trauma, in an attempt to procure a miscarriage of justice against me. She is currently subject to an official investigation as a result and has continued to lie to the investigator about the content of her statement.
Around this time, the Scottish Legal Aid Board were persistently attempting to deny me Legal Aid. A member of the Board is Douglas Haggarty QC, a convicted sex offender, who had been apprehended in a public toilet in Glasgow with a 17-year-old male prostitute. Such is the calibre of those in whose hands my freedom depends.
On the afternoon of 14th November 2011, six hours after the trial had begun, I was told that the prosecution had suddenly produced sixty-one witness statements, none of which had been disclosed to me and I have still yet to see.
Now we have the highly suspicious incident that took place on 15th November 2011, after my Senior Counsel had unexpectedly and inexplicibly suggested that I change my plea to guilty, just hours after being led to believe that the Crown`s position was hopeless.
Given its obligations to objectivity, balance and impartiality, do you think the Crown Office is fit to prosecute me?
Monday, December 5, 2011
Elish Angiolini DBE
On the 16th January, my trial is due to resume in Stonehaven.
I intend to call Elish Angiolini, former Lord Advocate, as a witness for the defence. Angiolini has been a central figure in the Hollie Greig since she decided, in 2000, as Procurator Fiscal , to quash any attempt at an investigation after Hollie had named prominent members of the Aberdeen establishment among her attackers.
Moreover, when later challenged about her involvement in 2009, when she was Lord Advocate, she lied about her connection, which was clearly established by documentary evidence held from the relevant period.
Angiolini`s misconduct did not end there.
Later in 2009, Angiolini, using Peter Watson, of private law firm Levy & McRae in her personal capacity, threatened organs of the media both in Scotland and beyond, if they should mention details of her earlier involvement in the case. When challenged as to how Levy & McRae had been paid for its services, Angiolini refused to respond. Clearly this led to a strong suspicion that Scottish taxpayers` money had been misappropriated for the Lord Advocate`s personal use and potential private financial gain.
This suspicion was compounded when the Freedom of Information Commissioner took up the case in November 2010. Until Angiolini`s departure from office on 5th May 2011, this important issue remained unresolved due to her continual failure to answer,
On the 4th July 2011, the eminent Ian Hamilton QC, as reported in The Drum magazine, objected to Mrs Angiolini being accepted into the Faculty of Advocates, stating "Although holding the public office of Lord Advocate, she persistently refused to answer questions put to her under the Freedom of Information Act."
Such conduct from the head of the justice system is transparently unacceptable and against the public interest. In fact, having successfully exposed Angiolini, it was she who was responsible for my being arrested and charged on 12th February 2010, a blatant case of a conflict of interest, furthermore reasonably indicating a possible motive of personal retribution against me.
It will be most interesting to observe how the former Lord Advocate behaves under cross-examination, where it is hoped that the truth about her conduct will be publicly established.
It should not be overlooked that it is largely due to the failings of Elish Angiolini that has led to the existence of the Hollie Greig campaign. If she had initially carried out her public duties properly, the matter would have been dealt with appropriately and all concerned, whether victims or alleged perpetrators, would have been treated fairly under the protection of the law.
I intend to call Elish Angiolini, former Lord Advocate, as a witness for the defence. Angiolini has been a central figure in the Hollie Greig since she decided, in 2000, as Procurator Fiscal , to quash any attempt at an investigation after Hollie had named prominent members of the Aberdeen establishment among her attackers.
Moreover, when later challenged about her involvement in 2009, when she was Lord Advocate, she lied about her connection, which was clearly established by documentary evidence held from the relevant period.
Angiolini`s misconduct did not end there.
Later in 2009, Angiolini, using Peter Watson, of private law firm Levy & McRae in her personal capacity, threatened organs of the media both in Scotland and beyond, if they should mention details of her earlier involvement in the case. When challenged as to how Levy & McRae had been paid for its services, Angiolini refused to respond. Clearly this led to a strong suspicion that Scottish taxpayers` money had been misappropriated for the Lord Advocate`s personal use and potential private financial gain.
This suspicion was compounded when the Freedom of Information Commissioner took up the case in November 2010. Until Angiolini`s departure from office on 5th May 2011, this important issue remained unresolved due to her continual failure to answer,
On the 4th July 2011, the eminent Ian Hamilton QC, as reported in The Drum magazine, objected to Mrs Angiolini being accepted into the Faculty of Advocates, stating "Although holding the public office of Lord Advocate, she persistently refused to answer questions put to her under the Freedom of Information Act."
Such conduct from the head of the justice system is transparently unacceptable and against the public interest. In fact, having successfully exposed Angiolini, it was she who was responsible for my being arrested and charged on 12th February 2010, a blatant case of a conflict of interest, furthermore reasonably indicating a possible motive of personal retribution against me.
It will be most interesting to observe how the former Lord Advocate behaves under cross-examination, where it is hoped that the truth about her conduct will be publicly established.
It should not be overlooked that it is largely due to the failings of Elish Angiolini that has led to the existence of the Hollie Greig campaign. If she had initially carried out her public duties properly, the matter would have been dealt with appropriately and all concerned, whether victims or alleged perpetrators, would have been treated fairly under the protection of the law.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Meeting at the House of Commons
The event was most interesting, attended by a wide range of experts in the field of ritual abuse as well as a number of distinguished guests and fellow speakers, which included two young but extremely efficient police officers from South Wales, who have recently brought to justice members of a satanic paedophile ring operating in Kidwelly. If only there had been officers of similar calibre in the Grampian area, then the whole Hollie Greig campaign would have been unnecessary, as I have no doubt that the proper investigations that Hollie, Anne and the Aberdeen public are entitled to expect from its police force would have been carried out.
A number of members of the Commons and the Lords attended the meeting and the level of potential support and interest in Hollie`s case was extremely encouraging. I was very grateful to be given the opportunity to address a meeting of this kind and every effort will be made to build on these important contacts.
Thank you again for the kind messages of support I received prior to the event.
A number of members of the Commons and the Lords attended the meeting and the level of potential support and interest in Hollie`s case was extremely encouraging. I was very grateful to be given the opportunity to address a meeting of this kind and every effort will be made to build on these important contacts.
Thank you again for the kind messages of support I received prior to the event.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)