Why Are Accused Child Abusers and Abettors Hiding Behind the Skirts of Lawyers and Apparently Receiving Protection and Immunity from Prosecution from the Scottish Government and Legal System?…..
By Mark Goode
A highly disturbing case of child abuse is being slowly dragged into the daylight in Scotland concerning the horrific abuse suffered by Down syndrome girl Hollie Greig.
From the age of six, Hollie was serially raped and abused by a ring of paedophile swingers in Aberdeen, Scotland over a period of several years. Her abusers were identified by her as including her father Denis Charles Mackie, a senior Scottish Sheriff, a policeman, social workers, a nurse, a solicitor, an accountant, a fire officer, and married couples among others. A number of the rapes were allegedly carried out at the homes of the said individuals. Other children were drawn into the situation, including those of the abusers.
In 2000, and after 14 years of silence, Hollie finally informed her mother Anne about the events which had taken place. Although formal statements were made to Grampian Police, with the exception of her father, none of the 15-strong ring of those implicated as participants in connection with the serial abuse of the children involved were arrested or subsequently questioned in any manner. A curtain of silence appeared to fall over the case at the behest of the Scottish legal system.
The office of The Lord Advocate of Scotland, Elish Angiolini, which regulates and controls all criminal prosecutions in Scotland, decided not to pursue this case, due to “insufficient evidence”. Corroborating evidence by independent researchers and investigators indicates that other than Hollie and her father, none of the 25 perpetrators and victims has ever been interviewed. This would appear to shadow initial events in 2000, when only her father was spoken to by the authorities.
It also came to light that Hollie’s uncle, Robert David Greig, had disturbed Hollie and her father whilst they were engaged in sexual intercourse in 1997, after which a confrontation had taken place and threats were made against him. Within weeks, the remains of Robert Greig were discovered in a burning vehicle. No official inquest was convened to determine the factors surrounding his death. Although the cause of death was initially attributed to smoke inhalation, this finding was brought into severe doubt when the official post mortem report finally came to light several years later, and listed a variety of previously undisclosed physical injuries to Mr.Greig’s person, including skull fractures, 2 broken ribs and a broken sternum. A large quantity of alcohol had also been apparently forced down his throat. It is therefore not beyond the realm of possibility that Mr.Greig had been intercepted by persons unknown, beaten, murdered, and his remains placed in the burning vehicle in an attempt to destroy evidence of his unlawful death.
The UK Column has reported that Hollie received £13,500 compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority in April of 2009, even though no formal charges had been brought or complaints upheld by the authorities. The UK Column has also been in receipt of legal threats on behalf of Levy & McCrae, a Scottish legal firm, who have insisted that the organisation remove all references to Scottish Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini and her connection to the Hollie Greig case from its website. Why has the leading legal official of Scotland felt it necessary to resort to taking legal action, and in what capacity is she being represented, as a private individual or Lord Advocate? Additionally, no information seems to be forthcoming as to whether Angiolini or Scotland’s taxpayers are footing the bill for the legal costs that have been incurred. Why has the Lord Advocate not made a personal statement in order to clarify irregularities or wrong-doings in this case, in order to clear the air? Surely, if there is nothing to hide then there should be no conceivable obstacle in this regard. Meanwhile, only silence.
In September of 2009, Hollie was re-interviewed by two officers from Grampian Police in a special facility near Shrewsbury, in the UK country of Shropshire. The details conveyed to the officers were entirely consistent with other information that Hollie had supplied on previous occasions. It is also understood that a representative of Grampian police, a detective inspector, described Hollie as “a truthful witness to the best of her ability and an entirely innocent victim”.
An advocate of Hollie’s case, Robert Green was arrested in Kafkaesque circumstances by Grampian Police on February 12, 2010 on an alleged charge of “breaching the peace”. Mr.Green had previously spoken openly and at length about the circumstances surrounding her situation, and had travelled to Aberdeen from his home in Warrington, Cheshire in order to distribute information to the public pertaining to the case. He was arrested by two plain clothes CID officers just off of Union Street in the city centre of Aberdeen, and was subsequently held virtually incommunicado until the following Monday morning, when he was transported by police to a court in Stonehaven, Scotland where he was almost unbelievably charged in a secret hearing behind closed doors.
Grampian Police were deluged over the said weekend by e-mail enquiries and telephone calls pertaining to Mr Green’s plight, most of which were generally rebuffed by a terse and brief two sentence statement, and with the phone calls in question being rapidly terminated. Robert’s bail apparently and again includes a highly unusual condition for a charge such as a breach of the peace; additionally, he must also report to a local police station in Warrington several times a week.
This case begs an answer to a very simple question. Why has a man who as acted in good faith on behalf of one of the most vulnerable members of society been treated in such a callous and despicable manner by the Scottish police and legal system?
It is apparent that great steps are being taken in an attempt to erase this case from public attention and scrutiny, and also to intimidate others from taking independent action in order to bring a greater focus on Hollie’s case and the corrupted culture which has permitted such abuses to apparently occur in broad daylight, and under the protective wing to the Scottish establishment. Scottish newspapers have been threatened with legal action if they publish details of this case, and allude to any individuals who have apparently sought to cover-up and cloud the situation.
Mark Daly, Cathy Long and Liam MacDougall from the BBC Panorama program met with Hollie and her mother for several hours, along with Robert Green, in connection to a program that they were intending to produce in connection to her story; the journalists were all entirely satisfied with the veracity of Hollie’s story. It subsequently transpired that the said journalists were informed by senior BBC figures that they were to drop their investigation, and although they fought their corner, the three were told that serious repercussions might result if they did not relent. What positive motive would the BBC possess to silence a story and issue of such great public interest? Indeed, the media silence, even within England has been thoroughly deafening. The potential for political scandal, abuse of office and damage to the Scottish government is immense, yet details which could open the floodgates of public derision and scorn for those charged to protect society from the vile activities indicated in this article, and that could potentially bring down the Scottish government remain untouched by the mainstream media. All Scottish members of parliament and local Aberdeen politicians have been made aware of details pertaining to this case, and again, a conspiracy of silence is apparently seeing to it that nothing is said or done.
When the machinery that is supposedly designed to protect us from the predatory inclinations of perverts and abusers is directed against those that are attempting to bring some manner of justice to bear in this and other cases, fundamental questions arise as to quite who is or will be protected; the young and vulnerable, or a tightly protected and apparently prosecution-immune group who appear able to feed on the former at their leisure?. The truth will out.