To offer a critique of events in the Robert Green trial is to stick one’s head very much in the firing line. The case is legally ‘active’ of course and a very fine speculative line must be walked.
To a degree this is true of Hollie’s allegations too. This is a matter of sexual assault; and whilst we take the view that on balance Hollie is capable of understanding and waiving her right to anonymity others may oppose that. Certainly we feel it would be better if Hollie’s name were not known and the general public know only of the ‘Miss G’ case or some such...
That is normal practice in UK reporting for a number of reasons.
1) It is long since recognised that one of the barriers to recovery from sexual assault is the stigma of having been violated. The option of anonymity is therefore a self evident human right for people in that position. Only the victim has the right to decide that they wish to be named.
2) Lynch mobs and trial by media have no place in a civilised society or the work of the legitimate press. Exposing the evidence in a criminal case compromises the prospect of a fair trial. This is particularly true where the crime is of sufficient seriousness that it will be tried in front of a Jury.
3) The rights of an alleged victim of a sex crime to anonymity is protected by law. The same law in fact that puts sex offenders in jail; because the violation of the right to anonymity is a violation of the person in much the same way as the assault itself.
If you’re foolish enough to doubt any of this then I suggest you do not simply take my word for it and just educate yourself. Any of the legitimate organisations that support sexual assault victims will be glad to enlighten you – and relate tales of how people’s lives have been damaged as much by becoming known as a rape victim as they were by the rape itself. I warn you it is harrowing stuff which will leave you with nightmares.
We remain absolutely against the naming of Hollie’s co-abused. This is a moral outrage of which those responsible should be deeply ashamed. It is also a breach of the law; and if there are moves made to take action against those responsible for that publication we would support them...
‘Citizen Journalism’ is all very well. - Ignorantly and stupidly causing harm to someone who is already a possible victim of crime in simply not defensible or in any way remotely acceptable.
Sex offenders we naturally have no sympathy for. However it has to be recognised that people are often falsely accused of crimes they did not commit. And for that reason a system of justice exists where in a criminal case, guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt. (Woolmington v DPP 1935). – This is a fair principal. And an onerous one that results in a system where a high standard of evidence is required and even once tried is generally open to appeal...
No-one pretends it’s a perfect system. Guilty men often walk free and innocent men are still sent to jail. Take the case of Barry Michael George... A man convicted for a murder he did not commit because he was vilified and hounded by the press...
Trial by tabloid...
The case is now taught to many television and journalism students at an early stage of their studies. He was convicted of murdering Jill Dando because it was simply not possible for the jury to have avoided the venom directed at him by the media. The papers had decided he was guilty; he stood no chance of a fair trial, and he didn’t get one...
- Barry George was one of those faces who hung out on the edge of the BBC crowd. Apparently he’d been on some sort of ‘scheme’ as a postboy or something at TVC and this was how he knew people... Pretty much unemployable because of his obvious mental disability, he spent his days hanging around in the crowds at various events and in the various ‘press bars’ around the city. In 1980 (my first year down in London) Barry was ‘done’ for impersonating a Police Officer; notable because he appeared in court dressed in ‘Glam Rock’ costume and claiming to be Gary Glitter! – He popped up again a few more times in the 80’s. He served time for attempted rape and was I think found stalking Prince Charles in the grounds of one of the Royal Palaces...
I was on vague nodding terms with Jill – I served my apprenticeship as a cameraman in London and I vaguely recall Jill working for a local newspaper down in Devon. Both in our late teens/early 20’s she wanted into TV even back then... I ran into her a few times at various courses. Later, once I’d moved back to Scotland, our paths crossed once or twice, by which time of course she was a well known face on TV. Jill was a nice person. I’ve never heard anyone speak a bad word about her. And it’s understandable that those who served their time on the same paper and actually knew her well were angry and upset and wanted ‘a body’
When I heard Barry George had been arrested I was shocked but believed it credible. – His profile just ‘fitted’. He was a creepy nasty wee man, and it seemed entirely possible he had taken the life of the perfectly pleasant ‘girl next door’. Most people I know in the media were sad and angry. And when reports from the London papers started to vilify him I didn’t turn a hair. I assumed the evidence against him was more than watertight...
But of course it wasn’t. – It was a black day for journalism. The worst of it being that whoever killed Jill is still walking about as free as air...
Barry George isn’t a pleasant man. But he is a wronged one; and the media need to learn a lesson from that. Even after he had been released though, the ‘Daily Fail’ continued to abuse and vilify the man... To what end? The Press card is a frighteningly powerful weapon; and there are some people who should not hold one... Nobody’s interests were served by hanging the wrong man out to dry. Not those of justice. Not those of the press. And not Jill’s.
There are comparisons to be made in Hollie’s case...
Let’s start with the man I believe to be directly to blame of this ‘showtrial’ Robert Green is facing. Sheriff Graham Buchanan – a man known from his track record to be somewhat ‘soft’ on sex offenders; as too many judges are these days. A man whom, it seem Anne Greig has some cause to hold a grudge against. A man in fact whom many people might feel they have cause to hold a grudge against. – I will be blunt in saying I simply don’t like the cut of his jib. I don’t like his beady little eyes and injelitant gaze; and I just ain’t buying his story as to why he did not act immediately against David Icke and others when these allegations against him first surfaced... I am caused to be suspicious of him because of the treatment Robert Green has received and because he has allowed Greg Lance-Watkins to go unfettered...
Of Graham Buchanan I am left wondering what is it that is wrong about him? Has Greg Lance-Watkins got some ‘hold’ over him? Or is he simply ‘dodgy’ enough to arrange for the public purse to pick up the tab for what should be a civil matter pursued from his own pocket? Either way the man just isn’t fit for office in my view.
However, inconvenient as it is, the fact remains that whoever was identified to Hollie Greig as Graham Buchanan – it just wasn’t him! And, just as in the Jill Dando case, the real offender walks the streets free, easy and unidentified...
Of others named as abusers – there are indeed some very ‘odd’ links and odd bits of behaviour. Odd stories about each one. Only yesterday I received a copy of a document written by a certain named person. It was written to a child with whom they had a professional relationship; but in terms that I have to say I find most ‘odd’ and inappropriate. Others still, it emerges, seem to have been keeping some pretty dodgy company – you lie down with dogs and you get up with fleas!
In ‘digging in’ to the matter of Roy Greig’s death a certain name emerged; one heard, according to a totally reliable source, a decade or more ago on the other side of the world – the matter being the alleged assault and battery of a prostitute – others (local to him) have related this same name to a ‘family you don’t mess with’. – Not pleasant people!
Will I name any of these people? Not a chance! Because if they come before the court at any time it is essential they have no opportunity to play the ‘Barry Michael George’ card!
It is essential the jury that attend upon their prosecution are clearly unbiased. Ideally they will face trial well away from home, with luck Glasgow or Edinburgh, where nobody knows them nobody cares about them and their petty-thug reputations carry no fear or favour... That is why it is absolutely wrong to name Hollie Greig’s alleged abusers. All that it is achieving is to make the prospects of a successful, safe prosecution all the more remote...
Even if convicted these people will have the right to appeal; and one of the main grounds they are being provided with by sites like “Hollie Demands Justice” is that of the prospect of a fair trial being made unavailable to them...
If you doubt this; well there is the Barry Michael George case of course – justifiably if inconveniently overturned.... Then there is the Nat Fraser case; Peter Tobin... - Or the man responsible for the death of ‘Baby P’ who appealed against his conviction for raping a two-year-old girl; his lawyers claimed that his right to a fair trial, set out in Article Six of the Human Rights Act, was breached.
Then there is the other side of the coin... We came close to another ‘Barry Michael George’ case very recently in the matter of Chris Jeffries... What if Vincent Tabak was still walking the streets? What if Jeffries was rotting in jail? Where is the justice in that?
Where is the Justice for Hollie Greig in condemning the wrong people for her rape? Where is the Justice for Hollie in creating loopholes and ‘get out of jail’ cards for those who did rape her?
The stupidity, ignorance and pig-headedness of those still openly naming people implicated in the case beggars belief – but there is a more sinister aspect to all of this...
Make no mistake; conspiracy theory is BIG business! From the largely harmless and transparent ‘Fortean Times’ to the dodgiest of underground cults – people make money out of this!
I’ve been clear from the outset that we’re making NO film about Hollie Greig. There will be NO radio or TV interviews given by me, no paid articles written and no material sold on the case – Despite the money (ungrudgingly) spent investigating the matter my position is that I refuse to profit from this child’s tragedy; there’s nothing noble in that – I simply have the need to be able to look myself and others in the eye!
However, Hollie’s case now DOES attract certain ‘hangers on’; and we’re now deeply worried by the involvement of certain individuals. Robert Green, I suspect may about to be ‘sold down the river’ quite shortly... Anne and Hollie; in a year or two’s time when certain parties have finished toying with them... Oh; they won’t realise it now, but sadly they will come to mark these words.
Tragedy heaped on tragedy!
- A few links for your consideration...
http://enemiesofreason.co.uk/2011/01/02/chris-jefferies-and-trial-by-media/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-13534802
