The Hollie Greig Case... And the people behind it sinking...

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

2012-01-29T22:07:00.006Z

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...

2012-01-28T11:47:00.008Z

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!

2012-01-26T14:46:00.004Z

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.

2012-01-26T14:45:00.001Z

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...

Cover up tight kiddies...

2012-01-25T20:42:00.024Z

Who is trying to cover up what in the Hollie Greig case?

Face it; there is a cover up going on with regard to the Hollie Greig scandal. Victims of crime have been failed. Worse still they have been ignored, bullied, abused brutalised. And not just by criminals, but by the very systems and agencies that are there supposedly to protect them. Approaching half a million pounds or thereabouts was spent by the state in order to ‘punish’ Robert Green. ...For what exactly? ...Stupidity? It seems so!

Half-baked childish tales of mystical societies can and should be discounted; the corruption we seem to see evidenced is the product of a culture of injelitance, dishonesty and well... The general 'cover up and close ranks' poison that our public services have become sodden in. You would be angry at a child who didn't 'fess up' and try to correct their mistakes. Yet when a public service organisation screws up that is exactly what the managers are basically forced to do - some don't mind of course; injelitant culture promotes the dishonest and incompetent and the bullying. - Spin rather than service, abdication of responsibility rather than fixing mistakes...

But of course there is evil afoot... Life's liars and cheats have had their hand in this... It's simply that there is nothing magical or mystical or 'high fallutin' about it. The evil is meted out by grubby little men living grubby little lives in grubby little places... That is the power of it; it is so dull so ordinary so work-a-day that it passes you by on the High Street without being noticed...

At the root of the Robert Green fiasco stands the twisted evil that is Greg Lance-Watkins. Watkins is the man who deliberately infiltrated the campaign under the false flag of being a seasoned and experienced rights campaigner. With his cut glass accent and (it later emerged) ‘Walter Mitty’ tales of glory Greg Lance Watkins is the man who duped Robert Green...

It is notable – and in my view evidences that there is indeed something very wrong and very corrupt going on within the Scottish Justice system – that much was made in the case against Green of material published on the ‘Stolen Kids–Hollie’ Blog... Greg Lance-Watkins was the man with sole and absolute control over that blog, it was he who actually published to the world not only the names of Hollie’s alleged abusers but of her alleged co-abused...

It is a criminal offence to publish (without their consent) the name of anyone who has been, or is alleged to have been, the victim of a sex crime - BASIC knowledge any campaigner or media worker would have! The sad, shambling wreck is crawing about Robert’s conviction claiming...

'Robert Green of Hollie Greig notoriety was found guilty in Stonehaven Court today – vindicaping [sic] my stance on the issue totally.'

“It IS a criminal action to announce at a public meeting the names of claimed abusers even with proof - Robert Green and Stuart Usher named innocent men and women claiming they were abusers.”

With proof or otherwise there is currently no criminal law preventing the public naming of alleged sex offenders. There is as I have often repeated one against naming alleged victims – and it’s to be noted that Greg Lance-Watkins broke it!

By way of example I quote from the South Wales Argus of January 22^nd 2012...

“A NEWPORT man accused of raping a pregnant teenager before stabbing her to death was "fixated" with her, a court heard yesterday.

Carl Whant, 27, of no fixed abode, is on trial at Newport Crown Court charged with murder, child destruction, rape and arson. He denies all the charges. “

Is the editor of this paper about to face the same treatment as Robert Green? – Of course not!

Let’s be VERY clear about this - Robert Green was NOT prosecuted for naming anyone - he was prosecuted because his claims supposedly placed members of the general public in a state of fear and apprehension for the safety of their family.

Had Green taken proper advice – instead of pursuing the utterly mad conspiracy theorist agenda he did - there is every possibility the Procurator Fiscal would have been forced to drop the case long before it got near a court...

But the very fact they went down this strange 'Breach Of the Peace' route rings alarm bells with me. Remember; both Green and the Greig Ladies had their homes trashed by officials. Photographs reveal levels of damage far beyond anything that could be warranted. They had computers and other documents siezed.

- WHY was Greg Lance-Watkins left alone? I've often said that the defamation route would have been the correct one for those allegedly upset by all this. Equally well though there is the breach of the Sexual Offences act to consider; in respect of which Watkins' made the names of alleged sexual assault victims available to the world on a 24/7 basis...

In my view a Police raid on the Chepstow hovel would have been most productive! - But how come this clearly dangerously disturbed felon is immune from the brutality easily meted out to a disabled woman, her Mother and a misguided bumbler who is only trying to help them?

Far from being ‘vindicaped’ [sic] or even vindicated – Greg Lance-Watkins’ position is falling apart just like the fabric of lies his Walter Mitty back story is woven from. SERIOUS questions now need to be asked of the authorities why this man – who is evidently a serious danger to society given is macabre fascinations – is apparently immune from prosecution.

In my opinion, serious credible inroads to the web of corruption that has lead to the conviction of Robert Green, the mal-treatment of Anne and Hollie Greig and possibly a host of other ‘issues’ may well be made by exploring and discovering what ‘hold’ Greg Lance-Watkins has that immunises him from prosecution...

For the avoidance of any doubt I am laying squarely at the feet of Greg Lance-Watkins the allegation that he breached Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 and the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 (as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1988) by publishing on an internet site, under his sole control, the names of persons who are allegedly the victims of sexual assault. - This actually is a criminal offence.

Remember WHAT sort of animal we're talking about here - This is the man who once entered a primary school with the intention of KILLING the headmaster - This is the man who boasts of his track record of firearms offences - This is the man who infiltrated the Hollie Greig case and ran it off the rails... This is the man who duped Robert Green... This is the man who intimidated Anne Greig online with images of a grotesque funerial-style 'Birthday' cake and chilling messages from the people she says raped her child... This is the man who until quite recently was still canvassing for other abuse victims to 'come to him' so as he could 'help'...

If YOU as an individual are actually serious about doing something credible to help Hollie Greig - and abused children in general - You may care to make enquiries with your local police as to why that matter has not been investigated.

PRATT ABOUT WITH SILLY STORIES ABOUT SAD OLD MEN WHO SPEND THEIR EVENINGS PONCING ABOUT IN APRONS IF YOU LIKE - BUT HERE IS A CLEAR, PRESENT AND VERY VERY REAL DANGER. - THE MAN ADMITS TO PLANNING A MURDER - THE MAN ADMITS TO SALTING AWAY FIREARMS... REAL DANGER OR IMAGINED DANGER? ARE YOU MORE WORRIED BY A SADDO WITH A FUNNY HANDSHAKE OR NUTTER WHO THINKS HE'S RAMBO AND HAS BEEN KNOWN TO KEEP MERCURY TIPPED BULLETS HANDY?

The Robert Green Trial... A Post Mortem.

2012-01-25T13:01:00.006Z

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.

The Robert Green Trial – Day 6 Defence? What defence?

2012-01-24T17:05:00.002Z

The first news, received early this afternoon from Stonehaven was that Sheriff Bowen had upheld the prosecution’s view that calling Eilish Angiolini to the witness stand is irrelevant... No doubt the mob will be crying ‘foul’; but it is no surprise and, to be honest a perfectly reasonable position...

Late this afternoon the news reached us that Robert Green has been found Guilty - In my view he is entirely the author of his own misfortune since, instead of trying to mount a cogent and logical defence, instead of trying to bring the Hollie Greig case back on track - he ignored all professional advice.

Instead he pursed a mad agenda - spurred on by non-educated conspiracy theorists. An agenda constructed more from fantasy and fiction than ANY understanding of the law or acceptance of reality...

Never mind! We have the cannonisation of 'St Robert of Green' coming to an internet site near you soon - The people behind this travesty are just too bound up in their imaginary world to feel shame at the devastation they have caused!

From the outset Green's so-called defence was doomed to failure...

Who instigated the action had absolutely nothing to do with the matters in hand. And really it is all this nonsense about Angiolini, Masons, Satanists and Uncle Tom Cobley and all that has exhausted the patience of the court, made Robert Green's position non credible and forces Hollie's cause to drift further and further out to sea!

Sources close to Stonehaven Sheriff Court have expressed pity for Andy Lamb, Q.C. – sent to the slaughter in terms of having (it’s said) been press-ganged into defending Green at the 11^th hour. I say that because Lamb has had to present Green’s ludicrous and ill-advised line of defence... Credible reports from Stonehaven tell of a man obviously rather embarrassed to be doing what he has to do! Quiet... “Squirming almost” to quote one observer...

Day 5 of the trial had concluded with the prosecution having constructed what is to my mind a fairly weak argument to satisfy the fairly normal Breach Of the Peace mens rea and actus reus ; no precedents were harmed in the making of this mockery! - It seems members of the general populous of Ferryhill were rendered fearful for the safety of their families thanks to Green’s efforts. And certainly there was somewhat inflammatory material presented that we had been previously unaware of ... NOT I stress the massively conclusive evidence we had been forewarned to expect; but enough...

As previously reported much of the prosecution's case relied on the contentious material that was published naming Hollies alleged abusers and more troublingly her alleged co-abused. As regular readers are aware we, have clearly stated that this action is not defensible; particularly with regard to the alleged co-abused. However we have also made it clear that the correct remedy lies in the Defamation Act and the Sexual Offences Act...

Likewise it is fact that Green’s efforts were actually of very limited effect – his wee piles of leaflets, ‘round robin letter’ and public pronouncements seem to have reached a few flocks of sheep, a random tile fitter, a Collie dug and a wee man in a flat cap who mistakenly thought the mobile library was in town!

24/7 worldwide coverage of the material was provided though by Greg Lance-Watkins via his Stolen Kids Blog. Frankly piss-poor ‘evidence’ was presented to paint Robert as the author of the troublesome blog. Which, from extrapolation of current figures, had probably had 30,000- 40,0000 ‘hits’ at the time of Green’s arrest.- but of course there is no way Green actually was the author! It seems odd to us that Green is so readily hounded for reaching at most maybe two hundred people with his claims – Yet Greg Lance-Watkins’s efforts are into the tens of thousands, and he suffered no raids on his house, no seizing of his notes and computers...

And you would reasonably think that discrediting the prosecution’s claims would be the main tack taken in defence – sadly no...

Green recognised that (quote)...

“Robert would like it stressed that it is very important to keep in mind that this trial is not to determine whether those accused by Hollie of abusing her or assisting and/or facilitating in the abuse, were guilty. It is simply to determine if Robert’s actions have caused the accused some level of harm or distress. Nothing more, nothing less.”

Actually the prosecution didn’t need to prove harm and they did need to prove something rather more serious than mere distress; but otherwise yes; the trial was about one issue only. Breach of the Peace... “Conduct which [presents] as genuinely alarming and disturbing, in its context, to any reasonable person” (Smith v Donnelly 2001 SLT 1007 at [17])

Why then Robert Green imagined for a moment he would be allowed to present a load of spurious matters not directly relevant to the charge into the court record by way of defence is simply beyond imagining! It was MADNESS from the outset!

- don't doubt for so much as a second that his legal team made this perfectly clear to him. He lost counsel after counsel for the plain and simple reason; no one wanted to be the one to have to present this tosh to a court...

To be fair the somewhat bizarre line of questioning in cross examination by the defence has established some fairly useful facts on record. The matter of the Police investigation in relation to Hollie’s allegations is now on balance proved as claimed by Green... Great though that is it doesn’t really help his case!

- But a sane defence was not ever on the cards here. By rights Green should have been refuting the prosecution’s evidence on the basis of his behaviour not being of a nature that was genuinely alarming or disturbing to reasonable people... He should have been pointing out to the court that it was another party who was primarily responsible for disseminating the contentious material...

Is that what’s happened? – Nope!

As I have tried to get through many times – it simply didn’t matter, in terms of a defence to the charge, whether Green was justified in his actions... Not one jot! It didn't matter who exactly was behind the prosecution... And there was never any prospect of him being allowed to 'hijack' procedings to use the court as a platform for his own ends...

Perhaps, since he’s on the North East Coast, home to much of Scotland’s fishing fleet, he imagined herrings of the finest scarlet are the order of the day? Doing himself up like a right Kipper is the notion that springs to mind – or should that be a Smokie?

- At the moment I reckon he’ll get 3 months suspended for the breach and will probably get another 3 inside for the Bail offences...

However; take a direct warning Robert - Given the tack you have just taken, given the nonsense you have spouted, there is a REAL possibility of the court formally challenging YOUR mental health.! - Sure, that will play just great with the crowd; but they won't be the ones facing the real-life consequences! - They'll be sitting in their nice cosy homes key-tapping and tut-tutting away as usual!

For the sake of your family if no-one else Robert ... When you return to Stonehaven to be sentenced ensure you do so having sought, and taken proper legal advice.

End of the Line; This train don’t go near Justice for Hollie...

2012-01-24T16:36:00.000Z

Hollie Greig, well beyond the balance of probability, was sexually abused by at least two, possibly three and quite-likely many more Paedophiles. That is fact. – Fact as confirmed in a top psychologists report, fact as accepted by the establishment to the extent she was paid Criminal Injuries Compensation for her suffering...

It cannot honestly be denied... Morally should never be denied... And ethically places a duty on the Scottish justice system to relentlessly pursue those who raped her in which it has failed spectacularly.

It is my belief that had this happened, a web of perversion, corruption and dishonesty would have been untangled. - There is hope that to some degree it might still. But the recent conviction of Robert Green places a yet another impediment in the way of obtaining justice for Hollie Greig.

The conspiracy theorists cry ‘foul’ at the mainstream press for not reporting on the Hollie Greig case. Yet they place every obstacle in the way of the reporting they crave, by driving the issues further and further down the road of madness. Often breaching the law themselves so that any legitimate reporter who provides a ‘lead in’ to their nonsense faces all sorts of professional risk...

Competent fire-fighters don’t rush unprotected into burning buildings. And sometimes have no alternative but to stay back for the sake of their own survival, on which rests the outcome of many other future disasters...

For what seem like an age now I’ve tried to steer the Hollie Greig case free from the destructive flames of conspiracy theory. The man who first orchestrated that being Greg Lance-Watkins. He was exposed for a fraud and liar. - An incendiary keg leaking non-credibility over the tragedy of Hollie Greig’s case; he was taken out, opened up and hosed down... Neutralised.

I had hoped Robert Green would have learned from that. .

Re-focusing strictly on the core allegations (i.e. - those on which the criminal injuries payment were based), and acknowledging and perusing the role of Greg Lance-Watkins in driving the case along this mad ‘conspiracy theory’ direction would have allowed both Hollie’s case and the authorities’ persecution of green to be exposed in the mainstream press.

I had hoped that Robert Green would see sense. That he would pick up the book I recommended, read it, learn from it; see where he had gone wrong... I had hoped his eventual defence of these trumped-up charges would be lucid, logical, compelling...

-Not to be

Einstein defined insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”. Once free of Watkins malicious misguidance what did Green do? He just kept on jogging down Mockingbird Lane...

Most people – most sane, sober sensible people that is – they don’t believe in fairies!

That a relic of Victorian social-networking still exists and still has a little influence is not doubted. The Masons have lasted a lot longer than Facebook will in my estimation; but still, I can’t take a really rather childish ‘secret society’ that isn’t actually much of a secret - complete with its funny handshakes, rolled up trouser legs and stories of bare breasted men in aprons at all seriously...

Membership of the Masons is more likely to see the individual ‘blackballed’ as a ‘bit of a loon’ than give them much in the way of influence. Having been brought up by a Roman Catholic Grandmother I can say the same of all the other quasi-religious superstitious claptrap organisations that once held sway when the general population had no proper education... Relics all...

Nor for that matter do I take seriously Facebook, Twitter or any of the other utterly worthless shite that occupies the empty space between the ears of those with nothing of substance going on in their lives these days ...

Satanists you can throw into exactly the same basket as the Westboro Baptist Church, Ralph Stair, or any other saddo-religious- cult. They’re simply nutcases who have built their lives around fairy tales. Often you’ll find their leaders and figureheads make quite a nice living out of their activities – normally by exploiting people with some degree of mental illness and/or limited intellect.

Non-credible though most of these groups are it has to be acknowledged some tread squarely over the line so as to be nothing short of sinister.

Perverted and criminal activity does take place in the name of some of these organisations; and that must be readily challenged. It is a mistake though to grant them any quarter as any kind of ‘force’. – These people are just nutters! Dangeous nutters maybe – but relatively disparate, small in number and fearful of discovery.

Though often falling into the outraged and concerned category themselves – more dangerous than any of the above are conspiracy theorists. More dangerous because it is they who lend credence to and fuel the fires of credibility which keep the nefarious groups and individuals going... Conspiracy theory allows real scandals to be hidden in plain sight. – It is also big business!

Fortunes are often made by those walking the conspiracy theory stage. Books, lecture tours and DVDs are but a few of the products that monetise the field. People with something to hide – for example governments, banks major corporations and the military – are known to ‘seed and grow’ conspiracy theories; ‘in plain sight’ being a great hiding place!

The irony of a conspiracy of conspiracy theories does not escape me. Half of what you hear from these people may be true. The question is which half?

Those with a serious and honest interest in getting to the truth need to walk an knife-edge of objectivity – not afraid to upset apple carts pushed by often volatile and at times vulnerable people. – and so, here we are with the Hollie Greig case. For my part I have no book or DVD to sell. There will, as I’ve often said, be no TV or Radio interviews. There will be no Hollie Greig film or TV programme made by me for sale...

Sadly though, it seems Hollie Greig’s tragedy may be firmly in the grip of those who do! - have something to flog that is... I am not going to comment on the circumstances of Hollie and Anne themselves save that I can only hope they remain shielded and can live as normal and as peaceful lives as might be possible in the circumstances...

There is talk among journalists who have waited in the wings desperate to start exploring the Hollie Greig case that it might be ‘rebooted’. There are very legitimate concerns at the lengths gone to and the money spent to chase down Robert Green – Especially so since Greg Lance-Watkins, an obviously dangerous and disturbed individual was far more culpable in his action, yet let go unfettered...

This battle may be lost – the war goes on!

Trial by Internet... The courts fire a warning shot...

2012-01-23T19:04:00.002Z

Via Press Association Wires... For the benefit of those who try to dismiss the warnings about compromising a fair trial.

A juror who "deliberately disobeyed" repeated instructions not to seek information on the internet about the case she was trying has been given a six-month jail term for contempt of court.

Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, used the case of "highly intelligent" academic Theodora Dallas to send out a warning that the misuse of modern technology by jurors would almost inevitably land them in prison.

Attorney General Dominic Grieve, who prosecuted Dallas, 34, for contempt of court, said the case sent out an "important message".

Mr Grieve said: "It is central to the fairness of our trial process that only what is heard in court should determine the jury's verdict."

But concerns were raised by the Prison Reform Trust over the adequacy of the guidance given to jurors "and the effectiveness of the use of imprisonment as a deterrent to others".

Dallas, a Greek national who came to England at the age of 19, caused the trial of Barry Medlock at Luton Crown Court to be abandoned last July after she discovered on the internet that Medlock, who was accused of assault occasioning grievous bodily harm with intent, had been previously charged with rape - an offence of which he was acquitted.

Lord Judge said Dallas had struck the court as "a highly intelligent woman, extremely articulate in English" who had described being "overwhelmed by the honour" of being summoned for jury service. But her fellow jurors were "extremely disturbed" when she discussed the rape allegations.

Lord Judge, sitting with Lady Justice Hallett and Mr Justice Openshaw, said Dallas had denied contempt. However there was "no doubt" that she knew "perfectly well" that the trial judge had directed her and the other members of the jury "in unequivocal terms" that they should not seek information about the case from the internet.

There was also no doubt that she "appreciated that this was an order" and that she "deliberately disobeyed the order".

He rejected pleas from Charles Parry, appearing for Dallas, that she should be shown mercy and given a suspended jail sentence.

Stupidity returns to the Hollie Greig case.

2012-01-23T17:15:00.012Z

Before reading this I’d like you to consider the following quote from an article, published in 2009, in relation to the “Baby P” case... The article was concerned with the facts behind those responsible for the slaughter of this child trying every trick in the book to abdicate responsibility for their actions...

“Defence lawyers for Baby Peter's mother and her boyfriend had argued before the case that the pair could not receive a fair trial because of their notoriety over his torture and death. “

Prior to a report on Day 5, complete lunacy is what fills the pages of “Hollie Demands Justice” today as we enter week 2 of the Robert Green Trial... It’s high time the crank behind this idiocy faced the simple truth that what she’s doing is stupid and dangerous and DAMAGING the prospects of Hollie ever obtaining justice... Consider this (redacted) quote from the site...

"Conspicuously absent from the line-up of 22 civilian witnesses last week (yes, the same number as Hollie’s alleged former abusers, yet these included others than on that particular list) were XXXXX and XXXX XXXXXX, Hollie’s XXXXXX and XXXXXX who are somewhere in Portugal or possibly Brazil, doubtless still busy tormenting children. The case against them is cast-iron, having being confirmed by police expert and medical evidence."

I’m actually treading dangerous ground legally by even quoting the above piffle in redacted form! -such is the damaging nature of it to Hollie's objectives! However...

Personally I am convinced of the case against these two; but my mere opinion won’t put them behind bars. Nor will yours. – The opinion of a ‘Police Expert’ won’t convict them either. It’s for a court to decide; to prove that beyond any reasonable doubt, those two men raped Hollie Greig. And unlike the relatively trivial summary charge against Green, the matter of rape will be heard before a jury. There is a big problem with that...

Whilst in a summary trial one can expect a professional judge to be ‘immune’ to public opinion, press reports or other sources of bias; juries are drawn from the ranks of the ordinary. The people sitting on them have no legal training and are not immune from personal bias... And it was on that basis that Baby Peter’s Mother and her Boyfriend sought to appeal...

Of course; in that particular case the evidence actually was damning and wide-ranging – yet still these individuals sought to appeal. In Hollie’s case it’s spectacularly stupid and completely dishonest to describe the case as “cast iron”. Let alone lay further allegations in this manner. Even at the time it was reported to the Police it would have been a “tall order” to prosecute Hollie’s case based on what evidence there was available.

If you’re honest, and you’ve any idea how the law works, you have to admit that the one eye-witness there might have been is dead - killed in deeply suspicious circumstances; but still very much dead! The assaults were many years ago – it would take a miracle to obtain forensic evidence to support the case. And the subject, the victim of this crime, is a very vulnerable witness...

– That is the reason why, in my opinion ( and for me to offer the following without making it clear it is mere opinion and not fact is actionable ) – in my opinion the Officer in charge binned the case to save their budget and to save their stats... It was just going to be too much like hard work!

Even very strong, well educated sharp-minded women are ‘broken’ by the often vicious defence counsel engaged by rapists...

I’ll quote again here from the Daily Mail article where it relates to us the reality of how defence lawyers may treat a vulnerable witness. In this case a four-year-old girl who had been brutally raped by this man two years previously...

“The little girl's shocking testimony was at the centre of the trial, and she was forced to endure cross- examination so severe that she called the room where she gave her evidence the 'evil room'. “

“Her rapist's defence team is now considered 'certain' to launch an appeal against that conviction, a legal source revealed. The source said: 'They consider the verdict to be almost inconsequential. They intend to take the case straight to the Court of Appeal.' “

Defence counsel Bernard Richmond, QC claimed...

“There comes a point where, with respect, one bends over far too far for a child witness to get a fair trial.“

My opinion of Richmond for coming out with this is very low; he is little better than a rapist himself for saying that or putting a tiny child through what he did! But it illustrates well the mentality of these people and the reality of prosecuting such a case. And this is just a taste of the reality of what bringing Hollie Greig’s rapists to book means...

Hollie of course is a young woman with a mental age somewhat comparable with a child in her early to mid teens; as such far more robust than a four year old. But, as the Father of a fifteen year old myself, I am only too aware of the vulnerability of a child that sort of age... Hollie’s bravery is astonishing.

But “cast Iron”? Seriously? You can’t get more dishonest than painting the roses red, and it serves no legitimate end. – As I’ve already made clear; it’s exactly this sort of thing that makes it IMPOSSIBLE for the mainstream press to get near Hollie Greig’s case!

And not for the first time work done in an effort to clear the way for mainstream coverage has been thwarted - This piffle, coming as it did just hours after my public appeal for mainstream colleagues to attend to the case, was brought to my attention by a colleague forced to ABANDON a piece he had hoped to run in one of the better-known Scottish papers tomorrow!

If anyone's curious about why the mainstream press aren't covering this case it's because they CAN'T! - They can't thanks to stupid stupid people like the author of that idiotic article on 'Hollie Demands Justice today! This isn't the first time an mainstream piece has been 'blocked' this way; and I'm honestly beginning to wonder if we don't have history repeating itself with another 'GLW' masquerading as a campaigner for justice when all the time they have a hidden and malicious agenda!

...As if there were not enough barriers and obstacles to bringing these rapists to court . that damn bloody fool of a woman who writes this tosh insists and insists and insists in her pig-headed stupidity and ignorance-spawned arrogance on naming names when she must by now be fully aware of the consequences!

ARE YOU TOO STUPID TO PICK UP A COPY OF McNAES, READ IT AND STUDY WHAT THE LAW IS ON THESE MATTERS? - OR IS IT SHEER ARROGANCE? - IT IS FACT MADAM - PROVABLE FACT THAT CAN BE VERIFIED BY ANYONE - FACT THAT YOUR ACTIONS ARE SEWING THE SEEDS FOR HOLLIE GREIG'S RAPISTS TO PLAY THE 'BARRY GEORGE' CARD!

THE FACT IS, IF THESE MEN WALK OUT OF COURT LAUGHING UP THEIR SLEEVES AT THOSE WHO ARE WORKING SO HARD TO BRING THEM TO ACCOUNT THE RESPONSIBILITY WILL REST FIRMLY IN YOUR LAP!

What's worse is that if her assertion that they continue in the abuse of other children is correct, and if it becomes possible to bring them to book for any of that - she may still be creating for them the sort of 'notoriety' that facilitates them 'bleating' about being unable to get a fair trial!!! - Not happy with screwing up one rape victim's chances of justice she's wrecking that of others...

As for the matter in hand – Robert Green is on trial for Breach of the peace! As he was highlighting himself at the beginning of the trial; it’s not about any other issue! The idiot who writes this claptrap would do well to consider if she might be helping to tighten the noose around Robert Green’s neck – As well as creating ‘get out of jail free’ cards for Hollie’s rapists!

The original article about Baby Peter's abuser is here...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1176968/Baby-P-killers-human-rights-outrage-sadist-set-appeal-rape-conviction-girl-2.html

The Robert Green Trial. Week 2 – Are you sitting comfortably?

2012-01-22T13:50:00.012Z

Robert Green returns to Stonehaven Sheriff Court for week two of his trial on Monday the 23^rd of January 2012. This article is being written the day before in anticipation of... Well frankly God-knows what!

I'm going to strongly suggest to my mainstream colleagues that now might be a good time to be actually seen to be flittering around this one. - I've explored at length the reasons why Hollie's case has been rendered 'untouchable'. But something does stink to high heaven here... There is just no getting away from that.

I stress that we are not a firm of lawyers, though we do have ready access to one. We are however pretty experienced media professionals, and readily acknowledge the ‘wrongs’ (in terms of reporting) that have been perpetrated in the name of Hollie Greig. Those ‘wrongs’ are the result of bungling amateurs ‘messing about’ in a field they know nothing about; and worse still refusing (for the most part) to educate themselves in...

These are people who do not realise or understand that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing! The sort of individuals who probably think wrapping a fuse in cigarette paper,or replacing it with a nail constitutes a safe repair! - That somehow they know better than the professionals. The truth being of course that if they actually understood the harm they’re doing, they wouldn’t be doing it!

We’ll examine the reasons why people become so driven and misguided at a future date...

More worrying though are the professionals who have bungled things here. – The Scottish Justice system; one begins to wonder with all this gunsmoke and mirrors the presence of Sheriffs in our courts is actually indicative of our overlords having watched “Carry on Cowboy” once too often...

As stated at length – From what we can find of Robert Green’s behaviour we struggle to see how the Procurator Fiscal plans to establish mens rea and actus reus in relation to the charge. Green was certainly wrong to act as he did; but his ‘offence’ is a matter for the civil law (defamation) and the private purse... And nothing we have received by way of contemporous reports from the court causes us to modify that view in any way.

At this point much of the prosecution’s case seems to centre around how upset people were by the ‘Stolen kids’ Blog – Authored, published and run entirely by Greg Lance-Watkins. This was the primary, world-accessible source, of information relating to the Hollie Greig case including many non-redacted documents that carried material which breached the Sexual Offences Act...

The prosecution seized Robert Green’s and (if I recall correctly) Anne Greig’s computers; acts which of course are associated with unwarranted and over-aggressive raids on their homes where serious and unnecessary damage was done. – With no insult intended to either; Anne Greig and Robert Green each have a level of I.T. literacy similar to that of a primary school child. Neither would have the technical know-how to run a blog. (it seems they both struggle to keep a laptop even charged up properly!) And I am yet to hear of any cogent evidence that supports the notion that they might have had any susbstantial control over 'Stolen Kids'...

In fact it is a matter of record that Anne reached a point with Watkins where she felt he was such a 'loose cannon' she insisted he was sacked from the case... At which point Watkins turned his guns (the Stolen Kids blog) on her and Robert and anyone else who supported Hollie!

So why the big deal over their computers? Watkins' machines are the obvious place to look!

There is (I am told) some notion of documents existing on Robert’s computer that ‘evidence’ his responsibility as author of ‘Stolen Kids’. Utterly ridiculous on a few points...

1) At the time of publication Green was under the influence of Greg Lance-Watkins who had duped him into believing he was an experienced campaigner who ‘knew the ropes’. It is quite beyond any reasonable doubt that Watkins would have canvassed for and (from a position of misplaced trust) received these documents from Green.

–For his part Green would have had no cause to doubt that the material was to be used in a lawful and reasonable manner.

– I’d point out here that Watkins makes much of his ‘press contacts’ and experience with the media. - Green's actions then would have seemed reasonable with no intent of malice; rather he thought acted in the interests of justice - mens rea anyone?

2) Watkins is very much in the habit of constructing his blogs from large amounts of material ‘cut and pasted’ from other people – He reproduced articles of mine in full; and the text of “Dunblane Unburied”! His current material is largely regurgitated articles ‘stolen’ from the internet...

3) One report cites an assertion by the prosecution that proof of Green’s authorship and control of that blog lies in the analysis of its punctuation which is supposedly Green’s... Well it would be if huge great chunks of it were simply ‘pinched’ by the real publisher – Greg Lance-Watkins!

4) What is more, the rest of the blog is written by someone I would suspect of being Dyslexic to some extent. – Robert Green’s writing shows absolutely no such signs ! - Greg Lance-Watkins is virtually semi-literate!

5) I’d point out here that Blogger, the platform which supports the ‘Stolen Kids’ blog will hold records of exactly when and from where the Blog was edited. And I believe the evidence in that respect will point squarely to a certain hovel in Chepstow!

- I’m left wondering here why Greg Lance-Watkins didn’t have his hovel raided and his computer seized? And I do hope the defence pursue this point for it is pivotal. My very firm opinion is that raiding this dirty old cur’s ‘home’ and examining what he had salted away would have opened up a particularly rotten can of worms. – And not just in relation to the Hollie Greig case!

-Which brings us back to the very serious question of why a self-admitted firearms offender and would-be murderer, with a grotesque fascination for the details of child abuse cases is apparently immune from prosecution?

Personally I do not accept that publication of the Stolen Kids blog – or the handing out of leaflets do satisfy the actus reus of Breach of The Peace. But let’s play Devil’s advocate here for a moment . The prosecution seek to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Robert Green caused the people named publically - primarily in the ‘Stolen Kids’ blog; which is a world-accessible platform – that he caused these people alarm such that the actus reus of Breach of the Peace was met...

Why then is Greg Lance-Watkins not also in the dock?

The man who boasts of his firearms convictions, and how he never paid the penalty for them. The man who boasts of having once entered a primary school with the intent of taking a man’s life. The man who applauded Anna Lindh’s murder and was investigated for doing so. The man who downloaded bestiality videos then tried to defame a Police Officer who wouldn’t rise to his attention seeking...

Hollie Greig was raped... ‘The system’ acknowledges that. Her rapists got away Scot free. Misguided and foolish in his action he may be; but Green is simply trying to right that wrong. – Why is HE being targeted when a dangerous bloody nut case with a fascination for firearms is left unfettered?

The prosecution have to prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt. And key elements of their argument pivot on authorship of the Stolen Kids Blog. – Fact is though, that in the same way as Sheriff Graham Buchanan just doesn’t have a Sister – Robert Green just wasn’t the man who published that allegedly disturbing blog...

We hope to learn soon that the defence will produce expert witnesses to refute the prosecution’s assertions with regard to that blog – both to challenge the technical analysis and the text-analysis the prosecution seem to be relying on!

And why they’re about it; perhaps they will also challenge the Police in open court as to why Watkins was spared having his home trashed? - In my opinion such a raid might well have been worth the spend to the public purse as it might have revealed much about many things!

Why is Greg Lance-Watkins apparently immune from prosecution?

Beyond the firing line.

2012-01-21T15:17:00.002Z

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.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2011/12/05/jill-dando-murder-scottish-gangs-linked-to-killing-of-tv-presenter-12-years-after-she-was-gunned-down-86908-23611248/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/barry-george-i-am-not-angry-certainly-not-at-society-but-i-would-use-the-word-disgustedrsquo-1987499.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1076331/Obsessed-visiting-Jill-Dandos-grave-acting-erratically-Barry-George-man-edge.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-13534802

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1176968/Baby-P-killers-human-rights-outrage-sadist-set-appeal-rape-conviction-girl-2.html

http://www.amazon.co.uk/McNaes-Essential-Journalists-David-Banks/dp/0199556458/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1327159210&sr=1-1

Signs of sanity? Day 4 of the Robert Green showtrial.

2012-01-20T19:00:00.000Z

For around eighteen months now I have been labouring two points..

1) From what we know of precedent in Breach of the Peace cases and of Robert Green's actions and behaviour; there is nothing to suggest that either the mens rea or actus reus of that charge are met.

2) The correct course of action for anyone who feels aggrieved by these allegations would be to seek redress through a Defamation action. And I point out that action would really need to be directed at Greg Lance Watkins as well as Robert Green.

In practice Defamation actions often don’t come to court. Defamation is an unusual ‘charge’ (it’s actually a civil matter; not really a ‘charge’ as such) in that the defendant in essence has to prove their innocence - i.e. that what they claim is true.

Normally, in the first instance where this is not possible the defence to a defamation action is an offer to make amends... Apologise, withdraw the claims and perhaps compensate the victim...

Green’s assertion that Sheriff Buchanan was involved in Hollie’s abuse falls swiftly on the claim that Buchanan is the brother of one of the women named as an abuser. – We are expected to accept that a man, his sister and her husband all share the same surname! -This Elephant in the room was discussed a few entries back; so I won’t go too far into it again...

On the basis of what we know of the matter; Green would need to be pretty stupid to try and defend the allegations he makes against Buchanan... On the face of it then, Buchanan’s case against Green is ‘open and shut’. The man is a senior lawyer – in the trade so to speak. Just as an electrician would not break sweat installing an extra socket at home, Buchanan is an individual particularly well equipped to utilise the legitimate process of law...

You have to ask then why he wouldn’t act to secure the public retraction and apology that a Defamation action would almost-certainly secure?

Green would have no basis for a defence ; and would probably be forced to defend himself as he wouldn’t get legal aid... Although it has to be noted that if he did, much of the material he has on the Hollie Greig case would be examined and entered into a court record such that it became to an extent ‘proven’ on the balance of probability. – That’s not good enough for a criminal prosecution of course; but it may be enough to make a more thorough investigation into Hollie’s allegations unavoidable.

But then that is mere speculation – why would an innocent, defamed man have anything to fear from such events? It’s a serious question. Quick, easy, banged-to-rights... Why not?

Is this whole Breach of the Peace fiasco perhaps the result of Buchanan using his influence to get the public purse to do his dirty work? Were a few wee strings pulled? Perhaps Buchanan and his cronies have (we speculate) pulled this sort of ‘flanker’ many times? Perhaps they thought this would just ‘kill’ the whole issue quietly? – Perhaps Scotland’s Sheriff Courts see people before them on a daily basis who are actually the victims of official bullying and abuse of position?

- A situation that the rest of the Justice system might well ‘close ranks’ to cover up!

There remains, at this point in Green’s trial, absolutely no sign of the evidence that would prove mens rea and actus reus in respect of the Breach of The Peace charge. – It may come, but we are frankly mystified; because try as we might we can certainly find nothing to indicate Green has in any way incited, endorsed or encouraged any act that might disturb the peace of the general population. Was Green’s conduct ‘severe enough to cause alarm to ordinary people and threaten serious disturbance to the community’? - Well where is the prosecution’s ‘ace’ in that respect?

- And on the subject of what cannot be found we’re willing at this stage to indulge in a little speculation as to what won’t be found by the forensic examination of either Robert Green’s or Anne Greig’s computers...

Much of the prosecution testimony thus far seems to hinge on people being distressed by what was appearing on various websites; notably the ‘Stolen Kids’ blog written by Greg Lance-Watkins. – And that’s the point! It was written by Greg Lance-Watkins, not Robert Green! - Green, it seems, is merely the face in the frame; and clearly it was Watkins who gave this material world-wide exposure...

It would be foolish to suggest Green had ‘nothing to do’ with this... But hope the prosecution seize on the absence of evidence that Green was the publisher of this material that (apparently) has caused so much harm and distress. While they’re about it we would be interested in learning from the Police why they did not submit the real publisher to the same treatment Robert and Anne ‘enjoyed’?

All the evidence we have indicates that Green was deceived by Watkins into believing he was a highly experienced rights campaigner. Green was therefore misadvised – I prefer the term duped – to believe that his actions were all of sound, reasonable and legal. – That makes him a bloody fool; not a criminal!

In fact, Greg Lance-Watkins is quickly and easily proved to be a liar and a fantasist – a real life Walter Mitty. Disturbingly one with self-admitted firearms convictions who, in a chilling pre-echo of the Dunblane Massacre, once entered a Primary school with the stated intention of killing a man! - Exactly the sort of dangerous looney that the public would want protection from.

We’re happy to speculate that the forensic examination of Greg Lance-Watkins’ computers and premises might have turned up a great deal of ‘evidence’ and truly opened up a ‘can of worms’. – And wonder, as we frequently do, what makes Watkins apparently immune from persecution?

– So why is the hapless, bumbling, foolish but utterly non-aggressive Mr Green in the frame for this? - Shouldn’t they be ‘hunting down’ the nutter with a fascination for guns, murder and the soiled contents of a rape victims’ laundry basket?

Green’s biggest fault is that he hears what he wants to hear, believes what he wants to believe - And very often that’s at odds with what needs to be taken on board. That doesn’t make him a bad man – just an unwise one; which isn’t cause enough to crucify him!

In his blog today Green writes....

“Perhaps a very pertinent and basic question that is arisen as to why I have been prosecuted at all for a Breach of the Peace, which is intended to protect the public in general, not a specific number of individuals who have been identified by letter of other means of communication. Virtually all of the civilian witnesses brought by the prosecution who claim to have been upset by me comprise some of those named as alleged abusers or victims by Hollie.

A perfectly adequate legal remedy exists for those concerned - defamation.”

Quite so... Green quite simply should not have published what he did the way he did. He shouldn’t have been taken in by Greg Lance-Watkins. And once Watkins was exposed, he should have taken the opportunity to educate himself as to the error of his ways. He should recognise the enormous damage he has done to the prospects of putting Hollie Greig’s rapists away... And he should be facing a defamation action; but not alone... For the man more culpable in all this is Greg Lance Watkins...

We don’t say a Breach of The Peace action is warranted against Watkins or Green. This is a matter of defamation. And in that respect Green writes...

“No-one, either individually or collectively has chosen to take this logical civil route that would have the most appropriate one, at no cost to the people of Scotland. Instead, even prior to the trial, an estimated half a million pounds of taxpayers` money has been spent on prosecuting me on a simple summary charge. It is an issue of possible misuse of much-needed public funds that may justifiably be put to the Scottish establishment, including leading politicians.”

There is no “possible” about it in my opinion.

The Scottish ‘Justice system’ continues to piss your tax money up against the wall on Monday the 23^rd of January at Stonehaven Sheriff Court.

Robert Green's blog entry, summing up his perspective on the trial to date can be read here:

http://holliedemandsjustice-robertgreensblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/stonehaven-trial-so-far.html

Desperate.

2012-01-20T18:56:00.002Z

As regular readers know, hacking is a common tactic that has been used to try and stop Hollie’s case emerging. Readers will recall the hacking of the Palestine Telegraph and indeed this blog has been attacked a couple of times...

Although I have grave reservations about the site; I believe it to be something of a ‘loose cannon’ and dangerously counter-productive in terms of reporting the Hollie Greig case -The Hollie Demands Justice site is a well known feature of the landscape surrounding the case.

This evening, it carries the following message...

“This site came under sustained hack attempts overnight in what was clearly an attempt to interfere with its good working.

In particular there were 39 Attacks, by 11 attackers using 21 separate IP addresses. All failed. In the main it was an attempt to corrupt the Share buttons on each post, and in particular the Facebook share.

One can only assume that the reporting of the Trial of Robert Green is causing much consternation amongst the powers that be, and that they have tried to limit the spreading of the reports. That the MSM have been largely silenced is witness to this.

Our response has been to harden our site security, update and make more widely available the share facility on this site, and you will notice that the share options now appear on a floating sidebar as well as within the posts themselves.

We have also made the content available via mobile phone, which we can see a good number of you have already made use of.

The truth will eventually come out, but in the meantime the interest in this story of an attempt to silence the messenger of a heinous crime that still remains to be properly investigated is growing daily. We will continue to report, whether that is liked or disapproved of or not.

Justice is for all.”

We can confirm that between around 7am this morning until approximately 10:00am the ‘HDJ’ site was unreachable...

We have a simple question for those behind this hacking...

Do you not realise that such tactics just make the light of suspicion burn brighter and brighter and brighter? Kiddy-fiddling scum! - Thick as well as bent!

Robert Green Trial - Day 3 - Where is the corpus?

2012-01-19T11:48:00.008Z

On several occasions now we have examined the essential nature of the Breach of the Peace charge... The issue of mens rea and actus reus... If these terms baffle you then simply trawl through this blog – From an early stage we have taken the view that these two essential elements for a criminal conviction are not met in the case against Green; that the charges, from what we know, seem to fly in the face of legal precedent. A persecution rather than a prosecution!

We take the view that annoying, irritating and inappropriate though Robert Green’s behaviour undoubtedly was, there is no evidence that we know of which would take it over the line into breach of the peace territory... At the time of Green’s arrest the interdict taken out against him by Sheriff Buchanan was not in force as it had not been properly served. Had that been the case then the case against Green would be cut and dried and the charge somewhat different!

With no interdict in place an arrest on suspicion of Breach of the Peace was possibly appropriate as a quick way of getting him off the street; ‘BOP’ is often used this way by the Police as an expedient way of clearing the streets of mouthy drunks and angry people... Scotland’s own ‘one size fits all’ charge!

But Green wasn’t, as far as we know Angry or mouthy; quite the reverse. In fact we have no solid evidence of his endorsing any kind of violent act let alone inciting one... So whilst arresting him ‘on sus’ was a fair cop, for the Prosecutor Fiscal to persist with the charge seems wholly unreasonable...

It has been put to us that facts may emerge to the effect that people were alarmed to the extent they reported their concerns to the Police; that the charges relate to a persistent course of behaviour that resulted in people fearing for their personal safety. And if that is the case we may expect to hear of these reports from the Officers involved. - It has been put to us that the crown may present some evidence of Green inciting or endorsing violent acts against those named in the allegations -

These are ‘early days’ but as yet the reports from Stonehaven indicate nothing of that nature...

In respect of securing the mens rea and establishing the actus reus we would expect to hear that Green had previously been officially warned about his behaviour. – That he had been advised he was potentially ‘seeding’ a situation where others could be provoked into compromising the peace and security of those he was accusing... And that the flagrancy of Green’s actions is an element of the prosecution’s case...

But no; not yet at least...

Again; I must stress we’re treating reports from Robert Green’s cohorts with some degree of caution. A cogent analysis of the Robert Green showtrial will only be possible once the verdict is in and the judgement can be read. Equally well though; we have no information from Stonehaven that substantially discredits or contradicts what Green’s team is reporting...

There is no shadow of doubt that Green has behaved like a bloody fool. There is no doubt that the nature and extent and the embroidery of the reports from the court are problematic even dangerous. There is no doubt that Green’s perspective on the case is riddled with holes you could drive a bus through but.... Where is the body?

Where is the corpus of the prosecution’s case? In terms of precedent where are the mens rea and actus reus?? Where is the ‘ace’ that caused numerous past council to walk away in despair?

The plain fact is the prosecution have the wrong man in terms of the problematic information circling the globe. That’s as big an elephant in the room as is the issue of Sheriff Buchanan’s identification as an alleged Paedophile... We were promised (figuratively) ‘jet boots’ in the form of an ‘ace’ piece of evidence that would satisfy the mens rea and actus reus of Breach of the peace – Well where the hell it it?

Sure; we have a body of people who are annoyed, upset, stressed... But none of that is enough to satisfy what we know of how B.O.P. is prosecuted.

As many people will know; I am in the luxurious position of not giving a flying-fart about editors, commissions or the ‘policies’ of certain broadcasters. From that position I am able to act as a ‘head above the trench’ in terms of interacting with mainstream colleagues...

The fact is that by rights both Robert Green and Greg Lance-Watkins should be in court facing a defamation action, and the question remains why Watkins is so-easily let off the hook while Green is hounded. But excitement mounts as the possibility of legal precedent being overturned looms...

Excitement because the overturning of a precedent is something that needs to be reported - And of course once the trial is ended and it will be possible to comment on certain testimony given within the case.

The persecution of Robert Green has already evidenced one thing; the investigation into Hollie’s allegations was far from adequate. And whilst he has gone about it in completely the wrong way he has surely exposed fundamental problems in the Scottish justice system.

An Account of the events of Day 3 can be found here...

http://www.facebook.com/groups/hollieg4justice/permalink/10150535467088955/

Day 2 of the Robert Green Trial

2012-01-17T22:35:00.005Z

Facebook tonight (the 17^th of January 2012) carries an account of Day 2 of the Robert Green Trial at Stonehaven Sheriff court... interesting stuff.

http://www.facebook.com/groups/hollieg4justice/permalink/10150533250488955/

After a rather silly start yesterday where Green, for some bizarre reason refused to give his name until a pointless question as to the Sheriff and others’ membership of the Masons had been addressed, the trial finally got going today...

Presumably someone must have given him a shake last night! It’s worth noting that Robert now acknowledges a reality we highlighted when Greg Lance-Watkins was rattling like a tin drum full of pebbles about the trial basically clearing the names of those accused of abusing Hollie... Which it won’t...

Fair enough! “Nothing more, nothing less” ...The trial is (save for the matter of Green having breached bail conditions) about a single issue.

Thus he seems now to acknowledge that matters such as whether people support what he has done or not are irrelevant; which rather seems to justify our doubts as to whether one of his previous QCs had encouraged him to canvass for letters of support a few months back as he did... Perhaps he is finally grasping reality again?

– The question then is basic; did Robert Green conduct himself in a manner which would cause a reasonable person to fear that the peace of the immediate neighbourhood would be broken in the sense that a serious disturbance would ensue?

We have already commented at length as to the nature of the Breach of the Peace charge; and in particular noted the cases of Smith v Donnelly and Jones v Carnegie. It is established in precedent that Conduct which presents as merely embarrassing, annoying, irritating or inappropriate will not be of sufficient gravity to satisfy breach of the peace. The prosecution will need to show something rather more than just ‘harm’ or distress... Green’s conduct will need to be shown to be of a level and nature such that a reasonable person would have been alarmed to a serious degree. Anything less and Green’s conduct is simply not sufficient for breach of the peace (Jones v Carnegie).

- So far we seem to have several witnesses claiming to have been embarrassed , annoyed and irritated. And it is certainly inappropriate that Hollies alleged co-abused were ever named. I have often said that by rights you probably shouldn’t even know Hollie’s name...

But embarrassment, irritation and annoyance are matters dealt with via interdict in the first instance and ultimately the Defamation Act.

At the point of Green’s arrest there was no interdict in force; besides which breaching a court order is a different offence from that he is on trial for! As for the inappropriateness of naming Hollie’s alleged co-abused; that is a question addressed in the Sexual Offences Act... Breach of the Peace is a very different thing.

As we’ve said before; based on what we know, the prosecution’s case seems to defy all precedent; one would imagine there would not be the slightest difficulty in defending it; this should not even have got to trial. And yet Green has lost a number of QCs. And generally the parting advice has been that he simply put his hands up and change his plea to guilty...

At this stage I remain of the opinion that the prosecution must have something on Robert Green; some ‘ace’. A slip that Green has made that moves his conduct across a certain line... That aside, I also remain of the opinion that this whole farce amounts to an unjust abuse of process and waste of public money... But those are just opinions based on what may prove to be partial information...

Assuming (and it may prove to be a dangerous assumption) that the reports we have from Green’s camp are accurate, the prosecution’s case seems to have got off to a weak start. If prosecuted by evidence of that calibre then I believe the grounds for appeal would be obvious; as would the question marks over those who ‘walked’ away from defending such an obviously weak case . And of course those who pursued it in the first place!

Interestingly, and apparently on record, an admission has, it is claimed, been made which reflects on and testifies to the inadequacy of the Police investigation into Hollie’s claims. If this proves accurate then at least this showtrial will have achieved something useful.

I'll close tonight with a quote from the account of day 2 at the "Hollie Demand Justice" site. This it has to be said is a site I don't endorse. Even in tonight's piece it drives a coach and horses through the rules on what can and cannot be published in terms of evidence and allegations - and does immense damage to the prospects of bringing Hollie's rapists to book... For that reason I'm not providing a link to it. However, of the prosecution witness testimony it says...

"Much was made of their being distressed by articles on websites and blogs that were controlled not by Robert but by Greg Lance Watkins and Tom George. An explanation is required as to why these other 2 individuals have not been charged, as it could be argued that their blogs have caused more ‘alarm and distress’ than anything put out by Robert. "

Quite so...

This Blog has been focused on Greg Lance-Watkins for some time. It has exposed him, discredited him and repeatedly pointed out that Robert Green had no control whatsoever over the "Stolen Kids Hollie" Blog... That blog published the allegations to the world; and breached heavyweight legislation such as The Sexual Offences act...

I believe it is also the case that Watkins deliberately mislead Green into believing his actions were defensible in law. - Ignorance of the law is no excuse of course; however this does explain and mitigate to some extent Green's actions...

As much as I believe that the crown acting as it has against Green is nothing more than a vicious abuse of public funds and of the law, a very fair question remains... If Green has breached the peace by his action then clearly Watkins is equally if not more liable - why isn't he in the dock?

The right place for all of this of course is a civil court in a defamation action paid for by Buchanan out his own well-lined pockets... And I think there is much evidence to say the wrong man is in the dock! I make no apology for repeating the question I've often asked in respect of the failure to chase Watkins down...

WHAT HOLD DOES GREG LANCE-WATKINS HAVE OVER BUCHANAN ET AL THAT ALLOWS HIM TO GO SCOT FREE WHILE ROBERT GREEN IS HUNG OUT TO DRY?