Thursday, January 26, 2012

Justice?

I would like to take this opportunity to bring everyone up-to-date regarding recent events but would first like to thank again all of you who have offered their support and expressed their objection to Sheriff Principal Bowen`s personal decision to convict me on a Breach of the Peace charge.

Especially I cannot really find appropiate words to express my thanks to those of you who came to the court, day after day, to witness what I believe to be another unacceptable incidence of bias against me by the Scottish justice system. Those of you in Scotland who have so gallantly stood by me represent the true face of Scotland - brave, loyal, fair-minded and thoroughly decent and compassionate.

I have no doubt that my prospects of a successful defence were impaired unacceptably by the Sheriff`s decision to deny me the testimonies under oath of two key defence witness who had both been formally cited, Procurator Fiscal Stephen McGowan and former Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini.

As events progressed, it became clear that the integrity of the trial was compromised by the fact that McGowan, leading for the prosecution, was himself being protected from having to answer pertinent questions about his own conduct and influence.

In the case of Angiolini, in many ways the central figure whose failings led directly to my being charged, she would have had to face some telling questions on oath had our citatation not been blocked by Bowen`s intervention. Under Scottish law, it would not have been necessary for her to answer questions that may incriminate herself, but it would surely have been in the interests not only of the defence, but for Scotland in general as to how she would respond to the matter of who paid Levy &McRae for her private legal actions, a question she has persistently failed to answer to a formal request from a senior public official, the Freedom of Information Commissioner, Mr Kevin Dunion.

As we were denied Angiolini`s opportunity to speak on this specific topic, amongst others, I formally made a complaint yesterday at the police station in Dunblane, where she resides, having been invited to take this course of action by a letter from Lothian and Borders Police. The constant evasions by Angiolini in responding to a perfectly simple official question would strongly indicate, in my view, that a serious criminal offence has taken place, which I have been given to understand should be termed the misappropriation of public funds.

Regardless of opinions on the Hollie Greig case or on mine, surely no one can reasonably take a view other than that the former Lord Advocate has conducted herself in an unacceptable manner leading to the gravest suspicion of her culpability over the likely criminal misuse of public funds.

One of the most important facts to emerge from the trial was that following Hollie`s lengthy interview with PC Lisa Evans on the 8th September 2009, which I witnessed, not one of the named alleged perpetrators, not one of the alleged victims, nor any of the expert medical witnesses whose reports completely supported Hollie`s allegations were ever questioned by Grampian Police. Of course, contrary to police procedures in such cases involving the sexual abuse of children were the computers of the alleged perpetrators seized or examined. One of the main reasons for this is that whilst rape is inevitably a complex issue as far as proof is concerned, the downloading of child pornography is not. It is a known fact that abusers generally avail themselves to this type of crime and given the sheer number of those named by Hollie, there can surely be no rational explanation for Grampian Police`s failures.

As we have said so often, Hollie`s competence and honesty has never been in any doubt, as admitted by Grampian Police themselves. The condition of Down`s Syndrome leads to those who have the condition to describe past events exactly as they have experienced them, without the facility to fabricate or embellish. Hollie Greig is therefore the best type of witness one could have in acase such as this, unlike any of her alleged attackers.

Thanks to extra information alluded to or gleaned during the trial, particularly from witness Rosemary Murray, someone certainly not involved in the abuses, I have every reason to believe that two specific witnesses in particular, committed perjury during the course of the trial.

Naturally, I have always stressed that my chief objective in the campaign is to secure a proper public inquiry into the repeated failures and obstructions of the authorities in dealing adequately with all the allegations and other matters, including the death of Robert Greig.

Indeed, if any proper police investigation had taken place it would have exonerated those who professed to be innocent in court long ago.

I must attend Stonehaven Court on 17th February at 10.30 hours for sentencing.

I shall just end by repeating these facts.

Following Hollie`s indescribably brave conduct and precise allegations on 8th September 2009 to DC Lisa Evans relating to most horrendous crimes, the police took no action whatsoever.

In January 2010, when I circulated a letter highlighting the police`s failure in this matter and the potential danger to the public, Grampian Police interviewed no fewer than 61 witnesses within five weeks and I was thus arrested and charged.

Justice?

30 comments:

  1. Robert,

    One tiny bit of advice for you, and everyone else who is passionate about ending these disgusting abuses. Matthew 7v7

    Nothing is impossible with God, so keep the faith, brave man. xxxx

    ReplyDelete
  2. Justice will overcome evil Robert ,the truth will come out ,i myself feel you are an honest,trustworthy person a true gentleman and think of the poem fotprints ,when your at your lowest one step of prints cause god will carry you threw ,never dought your belief,we will keep on siupporting you xx brenda(mumsy)

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's the secret meetings. I tried to warn you, but I feel like that swan beating wings on the window in the 3rd Act of Swan Lake. That's why I said to glue yourself to your solicitor, not let him out of your sight, but my post got took down. They always do it like that, with secret meetings, the only thing you can do to stop them is represent yourself. You have to watch like a hawk, it's terrible but thats what you have to do. There will be a paper trail though, as the judge will have covered himself, so you need to get hold of that. Don't give up hope, but just be more alert.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Also, another golden rule - NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER let anyone else - not even someone you feel you really really trust - take over your blog. Can't stress this enough. You be the judge of what is published in your name. If you are short of time, better to put your blog on hold and not publish any comments at all than to let someone else do the editing for you. Stuart Syvret has got it right in this respect.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Three years ago I would have thought you were crazy and this was fiction. Today I'm living through the corruption and I'm reading this broken.

    Thank god you are still fighting, bloody disgraceful what is going on in this world.

    My blog is twisted swords.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  6. Robert, You have a secret army out here, we await your call. What I would like to see is a 'family tree' and 'time line' of all the connectivity in this case. Perhaps something that can bring newcomers up to speed, and flexible enough to be altered as and when new info comes to light.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Rather than taking this case down a 'conspiracy lane' -- as I understand it the brave Mr. Green has in fact now established it as an UNCONTESTED FACT in court that Grampian Police DID NOT investigate HG's allegations.

    This one fact alone IS UTTERLY INCREDIBLE!

    I also think the Clydeside TV blog should apologise to Mr. Green. It has in effect crossed a line and defamed him by insinuating he in the future will be make money from this case by doing some sort of 'conspiracy theory' lecture circuit. As far as I am aware Mr. Green has not received a penny from campaigning in this case, and is in fact presumably quite heavily out of pocket, and I actually feel quite embarrassed on Mr. Green's behalf in pointing that out. A public apology therefore is very definitely in order from Clydeside TV.

    Before the wild-eyed witch-hunt crowd take aim and muddy the waters though I would like to state that the Clydeside TV blog makes a very good point when it says that it is unhelpful for supporters of HG to make wild statements and insinuations about 'peripheral characters' in this case.

    With regard to Eilish Angiolini, as the Lord Advocate she claimed to have no knowledge of the HG allegations whilst she was prosecuting in Aberdeen, again, according to my understanding. That she later did come to be apprised of them is proved by the fact that, whilst as Lord Advocate of Scotland, she employed legal firms to issue notices to the media ordering them not to print aspects of those claims, instead of ordering an investigation into them. As someone who was at the time Scotland's chief prosecutor this can only be viewed as being a strange course of action to take.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "What I would like to see is a 'family tree' and 'time line' of all the connectivity in this case. "

    YES! I think that is something that really needs to be done as well.

    ReplyDelete
  9. There will be no apology Aptl; I stand by my comments - And I have not defamed Robert Green... If he thinks I have, like Greg Lance-Watkins, he's welcome to sue me!

    What I ACTUALLY wrote was -

    "Where is Hollie Greig now Robert? Where is Anne? Do you really have free unfettered access to them? Are you sure they're safe and secure where they are? Not likely to be exploited? Not likely to get hurt? – questions to which we both know the answers I suspect!

    As recently as a few days ago there was a piece almost ready to go to press in the mainstream about your case. It was thwarted because one of your idiot supporters started plastering names and allegations over the internet again... Not the first time that has happened either! It’s almost as if some of these people don’t want Hollie’s case to receive mainstream attention; it would spoil their little ‘conspiracy theory’ games...

    IS the agenda here REALLY justice for Hollie Greig? Or are we to shortly expect a film a book a DVD and a lecture tour all accessible at an inflated price from some conspiracy theory website?"

    That closing comment was as much for Robert himself to reflect on and consider as anyone else. And I do in the circumstances have to ask the question as to his motives.

    The cold hard FACT is there are now certain individuals interested in Hollie's case - NOT necessarily under Robert's control - who have spent many years attempting to make inroads to the highly lucrative Conspiracy theory circuit.

    Robert's handling of his defence was ill advised - And there are two possibilities - Either he is being set up yet again as the 'fall guy'(Echos of Greg Lance-Watkins' involvement) or he himself is attempting 'martyrdom' witha view to entering that conspiracy theory circuit himself...

    I don't know which it is - If pushed my 'money' is actually on other and as yet not-well-known 'hopefulls' in the 'conspiracy industry' who are basically using Anne, Hollie and particularly Robert for their own ends...

    What I CAN tell you that the case has come within hours of breaking in the mainstream press several times now - and on each and every one of these occasions that has been thwarted by the re-publication of material that shoves the whole thing back into cranky conspiracy theory again!!!

    Matt Quinn

    ReplyDelete
  10. I don't know if you ever offered to advise Robert, although you seem quick to pull out his weakness.:(

    ReplyDelete
  11. I had no involvement in the case until around the time of the Tony Legend show, where we were caused to start investigating WATKINS rather than the Hollie case. - His activities gave us cause for concern across a range of issues and we believe there is a 'tangled web' of grubby little men who, for some reason, were acting to protect the two particular individuals we can be quite certain did abuse Hollie...

    This web crosses some surprising and disturbing paths. PROVING that is another issue and where the hard work lies. Slowly slowly catchee monkey!

    Had Robert encountered me early on instead of Watkins you would probably not know Hollie's name - only the allegations laid by 'Miss G' against certain high profile individuals. And we probably would now be some way to obtaining the investigation of Hollie's case that is needed. the case would certainly have received press attention.

    Unfortunately by the time I did become actively aware of the case it was 'quite far gone' down the conspiracy theory route and rendered unreportable. And my objective was to try and light 'pathways' through which Hollies case could be approached obliquely and safely by the mainstream press...The 'Can or worms' blog constitutes a linear record of what my position, public and private, on the case has been all along... And it highlights in detail why what Watkins did damaged the case

    Robert is his own man; and does his own thing. But he WAS directly advised by me to get a copy of McNaes and study it... And to operate within the law.

    My hope was that Robert would quickly realise the constraints under which all journalists in the UK must work; and the sound and legitimate reasons behind them. And also the nature ant the extent of the damage Watkins had done – particularly in terms of an online kangaroo court.

    To run a name and shame campaign requires a high level of legal support and a standard of proof far higher than that required for a conviction - it is essential that the case is 'bombproof' to the degree that press coverage cannot possibly influence the verdict... Whilst I personally remain convinced of many of Hollie's claims; that level of proof is not available. And in fact all we can safely pursue are the allegations on which Criminal Injuries Compensation were paid out on. – Even those are EXTREMELY difficult to prosecute at this stage.

    The best we might achieve is a public enquiry as to why Hollie’s allegations were not properly investigated. And an investigation into ‘these two men’ and others that opens up ‘the can or worms’ they’re a part of. Justice for Hollie may be an indirect matter sadly. – But that other children might be protected is a positive result.

    With regard to the trial Robert received legal advice from professional lawyers which, I believe, could not possibly have deviated very far from the perspective I have given as to the mechanistic nature of the process used to convict him...

    I know better than to don the mantle of 'legal advisor' - Lay or otherwise - without the essential credentials. - In any case; if he was prone to ignoring the likes of Donald Findlay what hope would I have...

    At the end of the day he was ‘done’ for ‘scaring the horses’ – NOT for naming anyone. Time to regroup, lick wounds and learn lessons.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Matt, I don't think you understand what it is like to have your access to the justice system snatched away, to feel you don't have any rights at all.

    I am also a survivor of institutional abuse, just like Hollie. I dont have the communication problems that Hollie has got, because I havent got Downs Syndrome, but I can tell you that all the dirty tricks that have been played on Hollie are being played out all over the country on other institutional abuse victims.

    I am sorry that you had a piece ready to publish and decided to pull the plug on it. I can assure you that people are passionate about this cause not for monitary reasons at all - the idea of that is too ridiculous, if making money from book sales was the motive I think we would have chosen a much more attractive subject to spin a yarn about than child abuse that people would actually want to read about instead of looking the other way!

    I am used to being called a "golddigger", as anyone who complains about the abuse they suffered in childhood gets labelled so.

    I suppose I could be accused of exploiting Hollie Greig, in the sense that many of us who were abused in care do look up to Hollie as a symbol of the atrocious way we were treated.

    We can't lick our wounds and slink away, because there is nowhere to go away to. Once children are abused institutionally they have the mark of Cain upon them. My solicitor (now dead) said that the Pindown victims were being deliberatly criminalised, he was getting people out of prison, they were being persecuted so as to try to justify the abuse "THEY WERE NO ANGELS" one newspaper said. Some of us were only in "care" because we were in danger at home, what a vile thing to say about young rape victims!

    I think you need to think about what you are saying Matt. Perhaps you don't mean to offend people, but you've upset me with what you have said.

    ReplyDelete
  13. As far as Donald Findlay goes, it's a pity for Theresa Riggi's children that he refuses to speak up about Parental Alienation Syndrome (invented by the paedophile Richard Gardner), but I suppose we cannot expect everyone to be as brave and public spirited as Robert.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Zoompad - I don't mean to be harsh; but if you're upset by what I've said I really can't help or take responsibility for that... Sometimes the truth really is inconvenient and upsetting.

    Unlike many of my colleagues I do not consider my job to put a 'spin' on things. For the record it was not me who had the piece ready to roll nor was it the author who pulled it...

    And also for the record - I have made it clear MANY times that there will be NO monetisation of the Hollie Greig case on my part; No film, no book no TV programme and no newspaper articles! -

    Just prior to publication a post appeared on one of the websites directly connected to Hollie's campaign. It (yet again) named a name and laid an allegation - Legally, no legitimate journalist can put themselves in a position where they're seen to give a 'lead in' to that sort of nonsense... It's doesn't get past the 'legal audit'...

    THAT is why the piece was pulled - And it's not the first time this sort of thing HAS happened!!! Which leads me to susect there is an agenda afoot to keep Hollie's case where it is - Hidden in plain sight!

    I'm afraid it is FACT also that cases like Hollies are the stock-in-trade for the conspiracy theory industy. I am not at liberty to disclose the exact nature of my concerns; but I AM worried about Hollie in this respect... And No, they don't directly concern Robert Green for the sake of clarity.

    As for your other comments - Most often in life 'other people' set up the table, define the rules and dole out the cards. They also define the rules and occasionally 'fix' them to their own ends... If you move outside those rules; that gives them the excuse they need to hang you out to dry!

    - Sometimes you need to let the shed burn down to save the house. Sometimes you need to let a house burn down to save the street - There is no point in geting 'killed' yourself when tomorrow you might have an entire village to firefight for...

    As you say; the victims of abuse are struck with the mark of Cain as you put it - Which is why these days victims are entitled to lifelong anonymity - CanI remind you that right has been compromised in respect of Hollies alleged co-abused?

    Similarly it is ESSENTIAL that when brought to trial there are no loopholes through which abusers can escape. I've written at length about things like the Barry George case and Peter Tobin's appeals - not to mention the monster who was implicated not only in the Baby P case but the rape of a toddler - and attempted to wriggle out of it BECAUSE of the notoriety various internet campaigns had 'won' him...

    Now; after all that has happened in THOSE cases, after all the pointers to where some education in the subject can be had, and after all that has happened in Hollie's case - ARE those still 'naming and shaming' and thwarting every effort to get her case 'back on track' Mad, Bad or just plain stupid?

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Sometimes you need to let the house burn down to save the street"

    Sorry if this offends you, but that's a very pagan thing to say. I'm a Christian and don't believe that the Lord likes us to have that stumbling block. The Lord knows where every feather is on every sparrow.

    You claim to be concerned over Hollie Greig's welfare. Sorry, but if you are that concered you would take a lot more care of who you advise her protectors to go for for legal advice. I don't consider a lawyer who tries to get his client off murder by making offensive allegations about the victims sexuality is a reliable source for Hollie's friends and family to get legal advice.

    Why are you not at liberty to desclose the exact nature of your concerns? Without naming names, I don't understand why you are unable to give a brief outline, if you truly are concerned about Hollie?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Peter Tobin, or rather Peter Britton Tobin, he was the chap that fled to one of the Jesus Fellowship houses to hide from the police. I was a member of the Jesus People, before it became the Jesus Army, in the 80's, so I remember that very well.

    It's funny, because there's a Peter Britton involved in the Haut de la Garenne child abuse/perhaps murder cover up. I don't suppose it can be the same man, I hope not. Although when you have people like Nigel Oldfield able to run paedophile web sites from a prison cell, well, it makes you wonder.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Firstly Zoompad; I can't account for everyone else in the world's iconographical points of reference.

    I deal in cold hard facts here on earth; the next world I'll worry about when I approach it... I happen to come from a Catholic background; I follow no religion for very good reasons - Pagan or otherwise. And that doesn't make me Atheist either. - Your beliefs and traditions are your business; not my concern.

    Unfortunately knowing every feather on every sparrow is doesn't help when you've presented film of a paedophile feeding drink to a 12-year old girl then starting to touch her up - in the STREET - in front of the girl's house; and the local Police and council try to 'close ranks' in order to kill the story... Curiously a notorious name you mention pops up there too; a relative we believe...

    Fortunately they haven't 'killed' many of the cases in-between; and a few of the injelitant scum have been taken out the frame along the way; and yes I DO bear grudges and carry old scores for decades in necessary - we'll be coming back to that shed in due course.


    Secondly; I didn't advise Robert to go to Findlay. However - If you do the legwork you'll find Findlay's position is that if he tries every trick in the book to get someone off and they still get convicted then he has done his job - For he has facilitated the evidence being tested beyond reasonable doubt...

    Thirdly - You seem not to comprehend the open and trivial nature of the internet. - I have concerns; and it is enough that the people who ring those little alarm bells know that.

    Peter Tobin - If you do a little legwork you'll find that the Catholic Church where he was holed up is VERY close to my 'stamping ground'. And yes; he rang 'little bells' with many people - most of whom's roles in his demise will never be known because they were quite deliberately not recorded - His demise was something of a 'community' effort... Often these people are brought down by stealth.

    I agree about Oldfield - his 'human rights' apparently facilitate this freedom he has; strangley I'm more inclined to protect the rights of a young girl not to be fed booze and touched up by an associate of one of his sick relatives...

    ReplyDelete
  18. Sorry, but I don't really understand that last remark about Oldfield, would you explain it a bit better? Who is being fed booze and touched up by an associate of one of whose sick relatives?

    ReplyDelete
  19. "you've presented film of a paedophile feeding drink to a 12-year old girl then starting to touch her up - in the STREET - in front of the girl's house; and the local Police and council try to 'close ranks' in order to kill the story... Curiously a notorious name you mention pops up there too; a relative we believe"

    You've lost me with this. What do you mean?

    ReplyDelete
  20. About 12 years ago we placed a particular area under surveillance...

    Among other matters, an associate of a man, whom I believe to be a relative of Nigel Oldfield, was filmed by me getting a young girl drunk, then touching her up...

    This was in an area where the abuse of drugs, drink and children was so endemic it was taking openly place in full public view. I've witnessed teenagers 'rutting' against doorways... 'Parents' handing bottles of Buckfast to 10-year olds - One character, a taxi driver was dealing 'grass' to his primary school age Grandson's mates...

    Most in the area were a part of the problem. Those who weren't were too scared to speak out...

    The local council were using the area as a 'dumping ground' for these 'types' as it was a village with one road in, one reoad out... When presented with this material they 'closed ranks' and a cover up ensued. The council and Police turned on US!

    We had a pieces run in (of all places) "The Sun"; and quietly ended a few people's careers - But an entire community where such activities are condoned and part of the culture is beyond redemption - Which actually is one reason why the Police and Council had adopted an unofficial policy of tacit containment.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I told Stafford Police about the strong smell of cannabis coming from the playground of a Staffordshire school at playtime as I walked past it, they didnt get back to me but I heard it through the local grapevine that an ice cream man had been providing the kids with something a bit more potent than a 99.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Nigel Oldfield was one of the gang who was bullying me on the Mothers for Justice website, because I found out about Richard Gardner and Ralph Underwager. I was going through the secret family courts at the time, and just didnt know why the courts were able to do what they were doing, so I asked Jesus to help me, and Jesus led me to a website all about Richard Gardner and I read the Paidika interview Ralph Underwager had done in horror. I tried to tell other people about it and they all ganged up on me, and I didn't know who Nigel Oldfield was at the time, but he was one of them, they had all gone on Mothers for Justice to wreck it. I had a big enormous row on that site that went on for two years over Richard Gardner.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Ice-Cream vans have been notorious as drug outlets since the 1960s - if you do a little research on the Glasgow Ice-Cream wars you'll get a bit of perspective; and it went on in many places...

    Yes; Oldfield, the slobbering ball of blubber that he is, an absolute bully - Unfortunately a highly articulate one. It's interesting you describe Oldfield's technique as - "they had all gone on Mothers for Justice to wreck it" - EXACTLY the tactic used to bring down the original 27,000 strong 'Hollie' group on facebook...

    You may find the following informative... Though I suggest a quick paryer to gather strength may be in order before viewing the videos.

    http://the-can-of-worms.blogspot.com/2010/11/sk-h408-chris-wittwers-criminally.html

    ReplyDelete
  24. I had a look at the link and could see from the little frozen picture on the bottom video enough to realise that I didnt want to watch the video.

    So, this Greg Lance Watkins, who works for MI5, are people saying that he is Nigel Oldfield? It wouldn't surprise me, as both seem to be completly above the law, and both are odious crafty creeps.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Greg Lance-Watkins doesn't work for MI5 (sigh!) He's just a dirty old man...

    And No he's not Nigel Oldfield either; though in my opinion he may well know Oldfield. Watkins was a 'book' dealer... I dare say Oldfield has bout the 'odd' book every now and again...

    ReplyDelete
  26. Greg Lance Watkins does indeed work for MI5, as does David Rose.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I used to think MI5 was like James Bond films, with the agents being handsome fit men like Sean Connery, but the reality is that a lot of MI5 agents are more like Rab C Nesbitt.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I was very impressed by this post, this site has always been pleasant news. Thank you very much for such an interesting post. Keep working, great job! In my free time, I like play game: superfighters2.net. What about you?

    ReplyDelete
  29. great article, I was very impressed about it, wish you would have stayed next share
    www.baixar-whatsapp.com.br

    ReplyDelete