“None so blind as those that will not see.”

Contrary to popular belief, this is not a quote from the Bible but a saying popularized by Matthew Henry’s ‘Commentary on the Whole Bible’ of 1708. – In Hollie's case it describes well those that will not see; those who refuse to engage with reality...

My Agenda all along it has been to try and help gently ‘steer’ Hollie’s case away from the madness of the conspiracy theory camp into the mainstream. I am, as a media professional, in an unusual position. Unlike many of my colleagues, I enjoy the luxury of not having to worry about where my next commission comes from. I have no editor to ‘keep sweet’, no corporate policy that must be observed... So I could afford to raise my head above the trench on this one...

From that position, it was hoped, I would be able to provide a clear ‘lead in’ to the case. - To negate some of the damage done by the likes of Greg Lance-Watkins leading the case into the non-credible realms of conspiracy theory. Watkins' motives in my opinion, were maliferous; he knew that once thrown to the mad-dogs of the conspiracy theory world, Hollies’ case would be consumed rabidly...

Recovery was never going to be easy; few people reckoned on it being made impossible thanks to an entrenched madness.

On several occasions now I have become aware of pieces relating to Hollie , directly or indirectly, being within a very short time (often hours) of publication in the mainstream press. And on each and every one of those occasions that publication has been thwarted... Invariably by the publication of yet another 'piece of madness' openly naming names and laying allegations and riding a coach and horses through the law - No legitimate journalist can or will give a lead-in to that.

It strikes me that someone with an ear to media, and currently close to the ‘campaign team’ has an interest in Hollie’s case staying firmly in Mockingbird Lane. It has become apparent that other maliferous agenda are now in play. - At the heart of matters now I believe are people who wish to make money out of Hollie’s tragedy. The conspiracy theory magazines, books, DVDs, conferences lecture tours... Expect them all in the coming months and years.

Today, thanks to the people behind these thing, I must abandon Hollie Greig’s case altogether as a completely lost cause. -

I am aware of at least one character who has been trying to 'get a slice of David Icke's market' for some twenty or so years. I'm not a particularly religious person; but can only echo the prayers offered by some that Hollie and Anne are not hurt - emotionally or indeed physically - when certain individuals, tired of toying with them, eventually reject them and they are left to the streets...

In my view there is now simply nothing any legitimate media professional can do to bring matters safely to a head – to obtain justice for this young woman as she is now.

For Hollie’s case is now so embroiled with the mad, the bad and the downright dangerous that it seems to me beyond rescue... Which is tragic. Frankly; the lunatics and conspiracy theorists that are now sniffing around the case are no better than the perverts who originally abused Hollie; or for that matter the officials who have failed her. They're doing just exactly the job Greg Lance-Watkins set out to do.

For clarity and the record I have said all along that I refuse to profit from Hollie's tragedy. There will be and were never going to be any films, any TV or radio interviews.

I imagine now there will be nothing more added to this blog.... And you can expect the tragic case of Hollie Greig to stay forever lost in the smoke and mirrors of conspiracy theory.

Scaring the Horses...

Consider for a moment what Robert Green hasn’t actually been prosecuted for...

He breached the peace by causing certain perfectly respectable law abiding citizens to become fearful for the safety of their family. – I’m thinking here about (for instance) the chap who sat in the court and related his fears for the safety of his Grandchildren...

Does anyone here really think Robert Green set out cause a man to worry about the safety of his Grandkids? - That he sought to cause fear or alarm or distress in the households of innocent people?

Unless you think Robert Green is attention-seeking for his own nefarious commercial ends, that seems quite absurd. And a logical defence would have been to challenge the basis on which the prosecution assert mens rea in such instances. – Robert’s intent clearly was to warn people in their own interests...

He went about it completely the wrong way of course! And a logical defence was never presented. So, it is on this fragile basis Robert Green was convicted

- What he wasn’t prosecuted for is naming anyone....

- What he wasn’t prosecuted for is recounting events with which these people were allegedly associated...

- What hasn’t happened is that the allegations relating to the Hollie Greig cases have been proved or disproved...

-What hasn't happened is that the people implicated in Hollie's abuse have been 'cleared.

For those tempted to ‘craw’ about how the verdict in the Robert Green trial proves anything or clears anyone I suggest you ‘haud yer wheesht’... The allegations made by Hollie Greig and supported by Robert Green haven’t gone away’ - not to any degree. – If anything, suspicion grows daily that all this smoke indicates a huge blaze is afoot and the half-million-pound mirrors deployed to deflect attention reflect incompetence, dishonesty and ultimately corruption.

Robert Green himself has acknowledged the dis-service this does to those against whom the allegations have been made. - If these matters had been properly investigated in the first place, none of this would have happened!

And like people caught in quicksand - the harder they have struggled to keep that first failure 'under wraps' the deeper they have sunk...

If anything, prosecuting Green in this manner suggests, in my view, that someone somewhere really didn’t want all this stuff looked at too closely and hoped that Green’s conviction would obfuscate the issue. However, as the gentleman who was so badly frightened said to the court “ until it was either proven or disproven, you never know about these things, do you?”

NO you don’t – that’s perfectly true. And that was always the real point...

Hollie Greig’s quest for justice is damaged by repeatedly naming names and making allegations all over the internet. It is damaged by a flow of un-redacted documents entering the public arena. The whole case is rendered un-reportable by it being associated with what most people perceive as ‘fairy stories’ about Witches and Satanists and Masons...

Greg Lance-Watkins, given his claimed ‘campaign credentials’, clearly knew this when he drove the case along that direction – I believe his agenda in doing that is clear and it has been exposed and explored in this blog...

The fact that there are still people within the campaign group naming names and plastering allegations all over the internet (especially when a mainstream piece is on the cards – as has happened several times now) tells me that group is either infested with brain-dead idiots, people with nefarious commercial interests in conspiracy theory or has yet again been infiltrated by someone like Watkins...

As I said a long time ago; it was just never going to be that Hollie’s case would get any kind of examination in the trial of Robert Green for breach of the peace... And that is why this relatively trivial trumped-up charge was used in my view.

Those behind his prosecution knew full well that, being a relatively minor offence it would be tried by summary process – That is no mere nicety or technical triviality. The whole point of summary process is that it is a form of mechanistic process that can almost be prosecuted by flowchart or algorithm.

Summary process is used for things like speeding tickets – did you exceed the speed limit or not? Answer yes and the verdict can’t be anything else but guilty unless a statutory defence is entered... Did you wilfully leave a shop with unpaid goods in your possession? Answer yes and you’re guilty of theft... A whole tale about being late for your Grandma’s funeral or stealing the Champagne because you needed to impress someone on which your financial future depended ( both, incidentally stories that have been laid before courts) – these things don’t alter the facts as entered by the prosecution...

I asked you at the beginning to consider what Robert Green wasn’t prosecuted for. – And he wasn’t prosecuted for anything more serious that Breach of the Peace. A charge that would ensure no Jury were present and that the Sheriff presiding over the case would be constrained within that process – that he is obliged by law to disallow matters not directly relevant to the matter of countering the prosecution’s evidence...

Robert Green foolishly played into their hands by attempting to circumvent that process. Legally, the Sheriff simply could not allow that to happen. And it seems to me obvious that somebody somewhere wants to make sure that the issues are never looked at closely enough for that to happen. – That is in my view; just in case the 'Arkell Vs Pressdram' response is unclear with those now sending lame emails thretening to sue me...

As one who lays the severest possible criticism at Robert Green’s feet in terms of his conduct and tactics I would highlight the following; making no apology for the repetition...

- What he wasn’t prosecuted for is naming anyone....

- What he wasn’t prosecuted for is recounting events with which these people were allegedly associated...

The allegations relating to the Hollie Greig cases have neither been proved or disproved. – In fact one FACT that emerged, and the solitary positive thing to emerge from the whole fiasco is that the Police investigation into Hollie’s claims was indeed wholly inadequate. In this respect, those behind this persecution, this abuse of power, must be hopping mad; shot quite squarely in the foot!

- As has been the case all through the persecution of Robert Green; all that has been achieved is to cause the light of suspicion burn more brightly towards the faces of those implicated in the Hollie Greig case – And we must consider particularly those in authority who seem to have had a hand in this..

In terms of his conduct and tactics Robert Green may be a bloody fool...

“But the fool on the hill,
Sees the sun going down,
And the eyes in his head,
See the world spinning 'round.”

- And those corruptors of justice behind his persecution, behind the waste of public money and resources, behind the failure to serve Justice for the victims of sexual abuse, behind the actually failure that might cause us to become fearful for our children...

They would do well to pay heed to what the fool is pointing at...

Justice? – Yes; summary justice. Take a telling Robert!

This post is a direct reaction, a response of sorts to the entry today in Robert Green’s blog – his first entry since being convicted of Breach of The Peace... So in part I will address my remarks directly to him, on this public platform for the record.

Robert’s blog entry is here for those who have thus far missed it...

http://holliedemandsjustice-robertgreensblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/justice.html

...Quotes in yellow are from it.

...”Sheriff Principal Bowen`s personal decision to convict me on a Breach of the Peace charge.”

Aside from the horrific suffering she experienced at the hands of her abusers, the thing that has done Hollie most damage is ‘spin’ and dishonesty... From both sides! The thing with ‘wrongs’ is; no matter how many of them you stack up, they never amount to a single ‘right’. – The truth is often inconvenient.

“Personal decision” ...Seriously? You call yourself (among other things) a ‘Lay Legal Adviser’ - Did you make absolutely no effort to try and understand the mechanism into which you had been thrown? Do you not understand the precarious position you are still in? – Or are you actually trying to ‘get yourself hung’ in order to play the Martyr... Time you grew up mate! There just aren’t ‘bogey men’ around every corner!

Robert – face the facts - you were convicted via a summary process. That is by definition a mechanistic process, and if you had presented anything which placed a reasonable doubt over the veracity of the claim that what you did caused alarm and distress to members of the general population then you simply could not have been found guilty. – It really is just as simple as that.

Your trial, as you very well know was never going to be about Hollie Greig or her allegations. It was never going to be about whether you were justified in your actions, or whether you were being targeted for speaking out. Breach of the Peace Robert - did you scare people?

And on the evidence that was presented, set against your so-called ‘defence’, your own Mother, sitting as Sheriff and doing the job as they must, would have been obliged to stop the trial when they did and convict you!

I don’t say your conviction is right or just... But you were fed into the mincer; don’t blame the blades for inevitably whirling round regardless and automatically cutting you to shreds. Especially since instead of trying to climb out all you did was tilt at the people who had thrown you in there!

- These people know the system; and you were never ever going to drag them in with you! – Only a complete bloody idiot would think otherwise! What did you ever imagine you were going to achieve?

I stress again that summary process is essentially mechanistic in nature; if that mechanism has not worked properly then anyone with the appropriate level of knowledge should be able to highlight the flaws in the verdict; you have a right and opportunity to challenge the decision. And if you feel an injustice has been done I urge you, in the strongest possible terms to do exactly that.

Have a legal expert go over the trial records Robert – you lost numerous highly credible professionals of the utmost integrity from your defence team because you simply would not take their advice and left them with absolutely nothing to work with.

Personal feelings? – the scope for personal judgement for or against you Robert is yet to come into play; you face sentencing on February 17^th, and for the sake of your family and friends who need you around would do well to remember that – Any ire Sheriff Bowen might have is yet to be expressed...

I hope for your sake Robert that Sheriff Bowen is a religious man and is familiar with Luke 23:34!

“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.”

Then Sir you are seriously deluded and/or misinformed... The solitary issue addressed in your trial was whether or not you Breached the peace. Nothing more nothing less and you acknowledged this at the beginning of the trial. What is about that you do not understand or are (possibly) trying to obfuscate?

Again I stress; I do not say that the action against you was justified – quite the reverse – but you were brought to court on one issue and convicted because instead of addressing that issue you attempted to use the court as a platform to pursue another agenda – that was simply never going to be allowed to happen.

Regular readers will recall that some considerable time ago I made the point that had Sheriff Buchanan et al brought you to court in a Civil defamation action you would have had the opportunity to bring much of the evidence surrounding the Hollie Greig case into court records.

– I would have expected you to defend such a case with Veritas Robert; and I have formed the opinion that certain individuals have something to fear from that happening. However there is, as you were doubtless told many times by your numerous legal advisors, no defence of either veritas or (in most circumstances) justification against Breach Of the Peace... The nearest we get to justification as a defence is where life, limb or property are in immediate danger...

- Coming back to the point I made all those great many months ago Robert; do you seriously imagine the high level legal professionals you’ve been crawing about citing wouldn’t know they’d NEVER have to appear at your BOP trial? - Did it not occur to you that this might be part of the reason for them taking that particular route to prosecute you?

As the trial is now over Robert I’m sure the general public would be obliged if you will explain exactly how the testimony of Stephen McGowan and Eilish Angiolini was ever going to help you refute the notion that your actions scared people? - Serious question Robert – not rhetorical...

Never mind all the stuff about how bad and corrupt they are and how they’re all in the Masons and have cauldrons and pointy hats in their garden sheds...

What the hell has Angiolini have to do with a member of the public sitting in a court saying in effect your letter had caused him to fear for the safety of his Grandchildren? What could she possibly have said to contradict that?

Sheriff Bowen had no alternative but to disallow these witnesses. The man is legally obliged to keep trials on track and absolutely relevant to the matters in hand. And again, a little elementary education in the workings of the court would have made this obvious... Again it would not have mattered one jot if Sheriff Bowen had been your best friend and biggest supporter

– Angiolini could never have been allowed to take the stand unless she possibly had something to say about the actual events referred to in the charges... She simply didn’t! - Eilish Angiolini and Stephen McGowan may well be nasty, dishonest corrupt people. They may well have it in for you. They may well have colluded to see you jailed as punishment for crossing them. The thing is though; none of that matters a jot when it comes to the question of whether your actions caused people to fear for the peace and security of their community... Not one jot.

Clearly Robert your agenda with regard to Angiolini was to have her address on record the allegations over her misconduct – What were you thinking? What part of the point you yourself acknowledged - that your trial was about a single issue – did you imagine would not apply in this instance?

The bottom line Robert – and this is FACT not opinion - is that you were convicted of Breach Of the Peace simply because you did absolutely nothing to refute the prosecution’s case against you. Instead of dealing with the matter in hand.

One would have hoped Robert you would have learned something from being duped by Greg Lance-Watkins. One would have hoped you’d have picked up the book I recommended, read it, and worked out for yourself why he endorsed and lead you down directions that placed you in conflict with the law...

In my opinion you were prosecuted on this BOP charge precisely because it was a way of criminalising and discrediting you yet at the same time ensuring that what you wanted to come out in court could not possibly do so...

In that respect it was a battle that could not be won – it would have been better to admit the BOP – recognise the error of naming names – regroup, re-strategise, and take the whole Hollie Greig campaign down more credible and coherent routes that would not have lead to the ‘car crash’ the case has become...

As it stands the Hollie Greig case remains unreportable. Your trial Robert, received no press attention because your ‘tack’, despite all the showboating, was completely and utterly ludicrous. Your conviction was inevitable on the evidence – and you made no cogent counter to it...

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?

- Hollie Greig has many supporters in the mainstream press; almost all have given up hope of ever being able to break the story - And these conspiracy theory antics are ENTIRELY to blame for that! As I say - Take a telling Robert!

The Dunblane Connection.

It’s funny how all roads seem to lead to Dunblane...

As it happens I know the City of Dunblane quite well as I do the quaint little Police Station. Like all Police stations of the era it’s a bit of a rabbit warren – straight out of ‘Heartbeat’ almost... There is a small public area and interview rooms downstairs, offices upstairs including a rather modest but very comfortable conference room spanning the front of the building above the main door. – Not at all what you’d expect for a city (Dunblane’s not a town!) with such a high profile. - We have actually used the place to film community safety videos for the Police in case you’re wondering; and I rather fancy the building for conversion into a house and studios!

I can imagine the professionalism with which Robert’s report must have been received by the young Constable he describes. And I can confirm, having worked for them in the past, that Central Scotland Police are a fine and highly credible force.

But I wonder why Robert chose to make his complaint about Angiolini in this manner?

Surely it would be more appropriate to compile a coherent dossier comprising all the various documentary evidence and published material which indicates there is a problem with this woman? Then to pass that dossier directly to a senior figure at CSP? Dunblane is just a small ‘satellite’ Police station open 9-5 ... The force’s main office is at Randolphfield in Stirling – where someone with more seniority might have been in a position to listen and probe a little further...

My guess is that Angiolini’s ‘crew’ will simply close ranks and Robert’s complaint will be dismissed as that of a crank angry at his perceived mistreatment. Still, it’s a move in the right direction. And perhaps someone else will ensure that coherent dossier reaches Randolphfield eventually...