The facts behind Robert Green’s conviction are that he faces a possible jail sentence entirely because of his own actions. Those actions have also resulted in a very real and very disturbing case of child rape being left virtually unreportable and almost certainly unprosecutable.
The fact is Robert Green has screwed up all hope of justice for Hollie Grieg. He has played straight into the hands of those who work to protect Paedophiles. And straight into a justice system that failed to do its appointed work in pursuing justice for a victim of serious crime.
- His error is one of omission... Instead of defending the charges against him, he went off on some wildly ill-informed 'tack' whereby he attempted to utilise his trial to pursue aspects of Hollie's case on public record. There was never any possibility that was going to be allowed to happen. Indeed legally, the Sheriff presiding over the trial was obliged to ensure it didn't! - And of course those behind the 'railroading' of Robert Green along this direction would know that perfectly well... This is, we speculate, part of the reasoning behind that action...
Do we say his actions were malicious? No; all things considered we think it highly unlikely Robert has any maliferous agenda. Though, to remain balanced we must acknowledge that possibility. Do we think the man has acted stupidly - yes! And we wonder what influences have his ear that might cause such serious errors of judgement...
Breach of the peace is a relatively trivial charge – which is why it is a summary cause to be called to court and the case is heard by a Sheriff, without a jury. Typical types of crime heard at this level include; minor assaults, property offences, theft etc... It is Summary Justice - based on the principal that if cold hard facts can be established there is no ‘judgement’ needed or involved or actually really possible in the mechanism of justice...
Cases are judged on an almost mathematical, logical basis purely on established facts and points of law. Prosecutors need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that an offence took place. Defence counsel need to refute the specific points of proof made by the prosecution to establish reasonable doubt. It is a very technical and quite rigid process. My own view of which is that it really does provide very little scope for ‘judgement’ anywhere in the process other than in sentencing
Robert Green is either a very foolish and naive man who has become bound to fantasy in preference to fact – or a deeply dishonest one with an agenda to become rich through martyrdom to the conspiracy industry... There being several obvious examples of people adopting David Icke’s highly lucrative business model. – If he is the latter expect to see Green ‘dining out’ on his conviction for years. If the former, and he carries on this direction, expect to see him talk himself into a psychiatric ward before too long... Either way, justice for Hollie Greig just won’t be obtained this way!
Robert Green was convicted at Stonehaven Sheriff Court for one main reason – he chose not to actually address the matters in hand and did not counter the evidence produced against him; choosing instead to pursue a different and ill-advised agenda...
There is, as I wrote some time ago, no ‘veritas’ defence to breach of the peace. Green’s assertion then that his actions were somehow justified because his claims are, he believes, true and in the public interest, is completely irrelevant. Likewise any notion that those disturbed by his actions were not reasonable people - it being well established in law that; someone who thinks ill of another for doing their lawful duty is not a reasonable person. – Even if it can be proved that some of the complainants are indeed ‘not-reasonable people’, all it takes is the possibility that someone who is a reasonable person was alarmed to prove B.O.P.
In truth, a great deal of the court’s time and public money was wasted by the irrelevant cross examination of witnesses in an apparent bid to establish these pointless things. Quite where Green though he was going with this line, what his agenda was and what he hoped to achieve (for he simply must have been duly advised of the futility of what he was doing) by these actions really is not apparent.
Although, it is indeed an ill wind that blows no good; and one important and useful fact does seem to have been ‘proven’ to a useful degree – the Police’s investigations into Hollie’s allegations were far from adequate. – Not that establishing that was in any way shape or form useful to Green’s position; but it is the only positive thing to come out of the entire half-million pound farce.
Green’s showboating, prior to the trial over the high profile witnesses he intended calling was frankly ridiculous! And he was in fact very lucky not to face additional, far more serious charges in respect of comments he made online to the effect that certain witnesses might face psychological assessment as part of the trial process. There was of course never any serious prospect of this; but sane readers will appreciate that many people would find that prospect intimidating. – Had the prosecution been of a mind they could easily have pursued this.
Regular readers will recall from the days before Greg Lance-Watkins was ‘taken out’ of the picture that he was pushing the notion Green’s conviction would prove all of Hollie’s allegations and the related claims false. I negated his stance and pointed out that the only issue to be tried at Stonehaven would be the question of whether Robert Green had breached the peace. - Green himself acknowledged this principal at the beginning of his trial.
The notion then that the likes of former Lord Advocate Eilish Angiolini or Procurator Fiscal Stephen McGowan were somehow ‘key witnesses’ to the defence is quite frankly comical. With no ‘justification’ or ‘veritas’ defence available against this charge – how exactly we wonder were these two going to help Green refute evidence from an ordinary, reasonable, otherwise uninvolved member of the public to the effect that he feared for the safety of members of his family?
From all reports the prosecution’s case against Green was by no means cut-and-dried. I am of the opinion that, given the opportunity, a good defence counsel would have made mincemeat out of the prosecution’s case; but there’s the rub! A logical defence to the charges would not have provided Green with the opportunity to ‘showboat’ over issues that are not relevant to the charge...
Ironically, although it would have ultimately lead to a longer journey, a rational defence would have opened up many of the questions left unanswered by the Robert Green Trial. – I am still of the opinion that this was a persecution rather than a prosecution. And in support of that view I contrast and compare the brutality used against Anne Greig and Robert Green in raiding their homes with the absolutely unfettered and untroubled time enjoyed by Greg Lance-Watkins.
What hold is it Watkins has over the Scottish legal establishment? The Stolen Kids blog published to the world the very allegations that caused so much upset to a handful of people in Aberdeenshire... The Stolen Kids blog published the names of Hollie Greig’s alleged co-abused – A breach of the Sexual Offences Act; really quite serious... The Stolen kids blog was even used against Green in court; even though he never had control over it...
As for Green’s ‘Masonic Court’ claptrap... Masonic Court? Seriously?
“After the usual formalities at the start, Robert was asked to confirm his name. He replied that he would be happy to do this after the presiding Sheriff and members of the prosecution team declared, under oath, that they are not ‘Accepted Freemasons’. This appeared to stump the Sheriff and, after some debate, most declared they were not. However, Sheriff Principal Edward Bowen, the one and only man presiding over Robert’s fate, ‘REFUSED’ to confirm or deny if he was an Accepted Freemason! “
Or maybe he just ‘REFUSED’ to compromise the dignity of the court by answering a stupidly irrelevant question! And was somewhat insulted by the inference that his personal integrity was questionable!!
Masons? An antiquated form of social networking. Robert may as well have asked who among the prosecution owned a model railway or collection of garden gnomes for all the relevance it had... For all I know the Sheriff could spend his entire leisure time knee deep in mortar and have the uncanny ability to put a brick-shit-house up in two hours flat without even pausing for a cup of tea... Masonry? Oh dear oh dear oh dear...
IT JUST DOES NOT MATTER!
The fact is a summary trial is, as I said at the beginning of this piece, quite a ‘mechanistic’ process –it is summary justice! Green is entitled to have the trial records examined by legal experts; and if they can find a point at which that mechanism did not tick over as it should have, another mechanism exists where he can challenge the verdict...
Fact is the prosecution presented (somewhat weak in my view) evidence and, instead of making a logical rational challenge to it when he had the opportunity, Robert Green had his counsel address a completely different set of issues. – It’s his own fault he was found guilty! He simply refused to ‘operate the mechanism’ of the court properly...
I leave you with a link to an issue just as pressing, just as credible and just as Masonic as the verdict on Robert Green...
http://cantuar.blogspot.com/2008/12/hokey-pokey-is-anti-catholic.html
Robert may be putting his left hand out, his right hand out, his handcuffs on and getting to shake them all about on February 17th 2012 when he returns to Stonehaven for sentencing.
