To: Mr David Leask
Copied to: Editor, Mr Richard Walker
Dear Mr Leask,
Having read your article in the Sunday edition of the Herald Scotland, I have the following comments to make, which I present to you as a challenge to:
A) publish and
B) amend your report accordingly.
In fairness to you, I should point out that this email, as you can see, has been C/Ced along with a number of Blind C/Cs. Also, it has been published on Facebook.
Firstly, the title: “22 tarnished lives, seven children labelled victims, a business forced to close, a nation’s reputation tarnished, millions of internet hits …one devastating fantasy”. Rather sensationalist, wouldn’t you say, Mr Leask?
Especially given the numerous crucial facts that were omitted in your report, such as Grampian Police`s forensic medical expert Dr Frances Kelly`s confirmation on 20th May 2000 that Hollie Greig had been a victim of sexual abuse rather than any other type of sexual activity? Why didn’t you mention that, Mr Leask?
I cannot see the relevance of ‘millions of internet hits’, so I will leave that up to you and your Editor, Mr Walker, to explain why the pubic was given irrelevant information to start the article.
In respect of ‘a business being forced to close’, this I directly challenge you on. The only time this was made public knowledge, was during the unlawful trial (I use the word unlawful correctly as it is highly relevant here) of ROBERT GREEN. This claim was made in Open Court during Mr Green’s trial by Mrs Major who provided no supporting evidence and was not requested to do so.
In other words, hearsay was accepted as fact in Her Majesty’s Open Court. Therefore, as this is currently an unsubstantiated claim in law, why did you refer to it?
‘One devastating fantasy’: Oh really?
Your evidence is somewhat lacking Mr Leask. Further, if the claims of Hollie Greig are ‘fantasy’, as you publicly state they are, why have the Police not arrested Hollie Greig for, at the very least, wasting Police time and continuing to do so?
Is it, by any stretch of the imagination, because she would have the chance to present her evidence in Open Court, for all to see, if the Police went down that route? Could that be, one has to wonder, why the accused have not taken a ‘Class Action’ against Robert Green, Anne & Hollie Greig or any of the campaign supporters? Is it because the risk of the evidence becoming known is too high?
Personally, if I had been accused (publicly or privately) of such a disgusting thing, I would have dragged Mr Green through every Court in the land!
You have made quite a powerful statement, Mr Leask, I wonder if you might care to elaborate on it? Anne Greig has been examined by psychologists and Hollie has also been assessed. There is nothing in any of those reports to suggest they are prone to flights of fancy, attention seeking, or anything else that could constitute a reasonable ‘motive’ for making false allegations. So I find it odd that you should forget to include those facts in your report, Mr Leask.
Now I turn to some of the more noticeable points in your report, both the ones you chose to mention and the ones you strangely omitted, for which I would appreciate your explanation.
In respect of the first sub-heading entitled: THE CAMPAIGN (and I summarise here), you state that the Crown Office has called Hollie Greig’s claims ‘unfounded allegations’.
Well, of course they are!
All allegations are unfounded until properly investigated, something that Grampian Police and the Crown Office have repeatedly failed to do due, in part, to ‘Dame’ Elish Angiolini using a private law firm to silence the mainstream media after they received PUBLIC FUNDS to secure their services.
You will be quite familiar with the law firm in question, as they are the same one used by The Herald! Their name is Levy & McRae Solicitors. Your comments on this fact, Mr Leask, are eagerly awaited?
You also mentioned that 22 people in and around Aberdeen have been accused of being paedophiles by the campaigners. In the absence of a full Police investigation (it was confirmed in Open Court during Robert Green’s unlawful trial by Grampian Police that NO INVESTIGATION was ever carried out and none of the alleged victims were ever spoken to (another fact you omitted) and the removal of the corruption to cover-up the facts and protect the named, I personally can see no issue with the people taking matters into their own hands when all legal avenues have been exhausted and closed and the system has failed the people.
For campaigners to simply rely on a corrupt legal system, there is no other option open other than ending the failed route with a shrug of the shoulders and saying, “Oh well, I gave it my best shot”.
Mr Leask, if your children had been repeatedly attacked by a number of adults and sexually violated over a number of years and then, after the police did nothing (confirmed in Open Court) you find out that the Procurator Fiscal (and subsequently Lord Advocate), Elish Angiolini was actively promoting the cover-up into your child’s abuse to protect the reputations of her friends and associates, what would you do?
Would you say to your little boy/girl, “Sorry darling, daddy can’t help because daddy thinks the legal system is the only option open to the people, even though daddy knows that Common Law demands that justice be done. So you’ll just have to put it behind you son/daughter and hope that those nasty people don’t come after you again or any other little children”.
I ask you, Mr Leask, what would YOU do for your children?
In respect of the ‘prominent Sheriff’ you mentioned and his ‘sister’, this is something that a public enquiry could easy establish. Why are NONE of the accused calling for a public enquiry?
If mistakes have been made by the alleged victim, Hollie Greig, why has the Sheriff in question not taken legal action against her, whether that be for mistakenly thinking a woman was his sister (which could have been presented to Hollie Greig as fact during her alleged abuse – I don’t know, as I wasn’t there) or, indeed, the accusations levelled against him personally?
As you are no doubt aware, Mr Leask, when children are traumatised, irrespective of the cause of that trauma, their minds become highly suggestible, due to the ‘compartmentalisation’ that the brain engages, in order to cope with the trauma. This is a natural coping mechanism and a matter of scientific and medical fact. So I have to wonder why this was not addressed in your sensationalist report because a balanced and fair report is what the British public expect from their newspapers, unless that paper is being controlled by Levy & McRae, which would explain an awful lot in your report.
Is the Herald controlled and/or influenced by Levy & McRae, Mr Leask?
You mentioned that: “a clear breach of laws designed to protect victims of sex crimes, another seven people have been named as rape victims along with Hollie.” So where are the charges against Hollie Greig, the alleged victim, her mother Anne and their lay legal advisor Mr Green? Does this not sound to you like the Police have not done their job? You are certainly implying that.
But, given that the Police in question are Grampian Police Force, who have been shown to have actively worked to cover this matter up, I have to ask you; is it any wonder that there are no charges? Someone facing such charges would have to be allowed the chance to present their defence in Open Court, and it would seem that is something that the accused and those protecting them do not wish to do.
Do you know why that might be, Mr Leask?
You stated that: “Two police investigations have resulted in no charges.” If you can call speaking to Hollie’s father and then, two years later, her brother, investigations, then I would have to agree with you. However, there are two things to point out here, which I feel sure you already know (so I have to wonder why you made such a comment in the first place):
1) NO VICTIMS were ever spoken to and, apart from Hollie Greig’s father and brother, none of the accused were ever spoken to, a fact that was established in Open Court!
2) Hollie was re-interviewed in 2009 by Grampian Police, at the insistence of Robert Green. NO ONE, contrary to your comments, was interviewed at all as a result of that interview.
If they were, Mr Leask, who were they?
You also seem to have forgotten that the WPC who interviewed Hollie on that occasion in 2009, was also present when Robert Green’s home was raided in 2010 and his documentation pertaining to the case was stolen by the Police, some of it is still to be returned. Hollie has been confirmed by the POLICE (and another source) as a credible and reliable witness.
So, again Mr Leask, I have to ask you; why did you make such a comment when you knew it to be false? Why the lack of established and documented FACTS in your report to the paying public?
Now I turn to a point you made which, I have to say, really made me laugh. You stated that: “Only one person has been convicted in connection with Hollie Greig: a 66-year-old campaigner from Warrington called Robert Green.”
First of all, you are absolutely correct in that comment, well done. Unfortunately, you omitted the important point of Robert Green’s arrest being instigated by Elish Angiolini and that his arrest was totally unlawful due to the incorrect serving of papers on him (he first received his papers whilst in Police custody after being arrested for breaching the instructions listed on those papers, which he never had a chance to comply with because he didn’t know they existed!!!).
Therefore, it is a matter of fact in law, whether Common or Admiralty, that Robert Green was unlawfully arrested, unlawfully detained, unlawfully suffered curfew restrictions, unlawfully had his human rights denied in respect of travel and speaking freely, unlawfully tried and convicted and unlawfully incarcerated. Other than for those factual omissions, you were quite correct, so well done to you.
You then went on to claim: “He was jailed earlier this year for harassing those he falsely accused of paedophilia.” I challenge you, Mr Leask, given there has been no investigation to establish your assertion, to explain to your readership exactly how you ‘know’ the allegations of paedophilia attacks on little children and vulnerable young adults are false.
Over to you, Mr Leask.
You then went on to insult members of the public, such as David Icke, which is something for them to address with you directly, so I will not comment on that.
Your second sub-heading was entitled: ‘the targets’. You suggest, apparently based on the statement by an anonymous source, that the accused adults are actually the real victims. In respect of the quotes you provided by Silvia Major, I ask you again, did you receive ‘evidence’ of the closure of her business being related to this campaign? If so, please present it as she failed to do so whilst in Open Court. If not, why did you mention unsubstantiated claims? Your report is clearly in favour of Silvia Major’s stance.
Therefore, purely from a journalistic point of view, your report is simply propaganda and a misuse of the media at the public’s expense, both intellectually and financially.
However, as you are so clearly in support of the accused (and yet to be exonerated through a proper investigation or public enquiry) I have to ask, is the Herald willing to fund a legal case against Robert Green, Anne & Hollie Greig? You certainly seem to ‘feel’ for Silvia Major and media outlets have openly funded such matters before.
If you are that convinced of the innocence of the accused, why has your newspaper not applied pressure on Grampian Police Force to properly investigate the original allegations and interview all of the accused and alleged victims under caution, in the same way any other Police investigation would be carried out?
Would that not be the sensible approach, the responsible approach, the balanced approach? Why does the Herald seem to feel that ‘DUE PROCESS’ is not required in this case? Surely, if your stance is to be vindicated, due process would totally exonerate Mrs Major and the rest of the accused, no?
Does it not strike you as odd that she and your anonymous source are using the media (The Levy & McRae Herald) to rally public support, rather than take a far more substantive legal approach to clear their names by bringing a Class Action?
Now I shall turn to your sub-section entitled: ‘THE ‘COVER-UP’
Whilst I have an issue with the biased tone of your report overall, the general points covered there, whilst not entirely accurate, appear acceptable so I will leave that as there is plenty of opportunity for people to see the facts at www.holliedemandsjustice.org.
And so we come to your section entitled: ‘the mother’
Mr Leask, you stated that: “The Sunday Herald yesterday approached Greig for comment through Green, but she did not respond.”
So, your newspaper approached a lady CURRENTLY UNDER A GAGGING ORDER from the High Court, via her representative and gave her LESS THAN 24 HOURS to seek and obtain legal advice (at the weekend) and get back to you with a formal response. Why did you not allow Anne Greig time to respond accordingly, such as waiting another week before publishing your biased report?
To that end, I would be interested to learn how much time you allowed your various sources for your report to consider what they wanted to say to you. Again, the Herald does not seem to be very interested in obtaining a ‘balanced’ view of this case, does it? Now why would that be, Mr Leask?
You highlighted the ‘sectioning’ of Anne Greig in your report. Why did your highlighting of that fact not go on to explain to your readers (those paying your salary through the purchasing of your newspaper) that the sectioning was ILLEGAL and that all of the paperwork ‘vanished’ and, shortly after that unlawful and illegal sectioning, Anne obtained a legitimate assessment of her mental faculties and passed with flying colours (the final point you did allude to)?
Again, Mr Leask, these are not rhetorical questions that I am putting to you, I would like to know why you have presented such a slanted and clearly biased report in favour of accused paedophiles who have yet to make any legal attempt to clear their names?
I appreciate your comment about English Social Services being: “worried about the family. The local council is currently involved in complex legal proceedings involving Hollie” as this directly contradicts the Council’s response to me in reply to my Freedom of Information Act request. I will be sure to point this out to them the next time we speak, so thank you for your assistance in that area by showing that Shropshire Council has, yet again, lied!
As far as your sub-section entitled: THE ‘ARMY’ DESERTERS goes, I am struggling to see the relevance of this section as it refers to third parties, such as me, all of whom are responsible for their own actions, unless that was just background information. Perhaps you could clarify that in your public response to this public email?
In your sub-section entitled: THE REPORTERS, you mentioned Mark Daly and said he looked into the case. This is true, he did. I can’t speak for the obscene and threatening comments you refer to as I haven’t seen them and would agree that, if those comments were made to him, it is not appropriate.
However, I noticed that you didn’t report (again) on the correspondence Mr Daly sent to Mr Green in respect of this case AFTER having seen ALL the evidence. Now why would you leave such a solid and damning piece of hard provable evidence like that out of your report, Mr Leask?
Is it because you know that it clearly states he is firmly on board and wanted to break the story nationally? Remember, this was sent to Robert Green AFTER Mr Daly has reviewed all of the evidence. It is, therefore, safe to say that the comment given to the Herald for publication by Mr Daly was not entirely accurate, was it Mr Leask?
As you know, it was after that email that Robert Green received the call from Mr Daly stating that he and his team had been threatened to back off from the case of Hollie Greig and any other case pertaining to paedophilia in Scotland. Am I correct in assuming that Mr Daly forgot to provide you with the email in question? That might explain your omission of this fact.
After all of the omissions referred to above and the glaring pro-accused stance of your report (rather than impartial and balanced) you then proceed to state: “A Grampian Police inspector told the authority that “on the balance of probability” the young woman had been the victim of abuse at some point in the past, but said there “was never a sufficiency of corroborative evidence to make a prosecution viable”.”
You continued to stated: “The police told the CICA the allegations from Hollie’s mother that a “large number of people” had been involved in the abuse “were difficult to find evidence for”. I have to ask, Mr Leask, assuming you would have known by the time you wrote your report that the Police did not investigate the allegations made by Hollie Greig (confirmed in Open Court during Robert Green’s trial) why did you not report on that fact at all and point out that a lack of further evidence would always be the case until the allegations are investigated? It isn’t difficult to understand, Mr Leask, it really is as simply as 1+1=2.
An investigation is the ONLY thing that the campaign is calling for. Is that really too much to ask for, Mr Leask, when a young lady says “I’ve been raped”? Do you not agree, Mr Leask?
I won’t even begin to dignify your comments with a response about the so called suicide of Hollie Greig’s uncle.
Mr Leask, even someone with no knowledge at all of this case would understand that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority would not pay out public funds to anyone simply on the basis of having had sex with an unknown person! Prior to the publication of your report on Sunday, you were provided with copies of Dr Boyle and Dr Harding`s statements that were used to support Hollie`s claim, as well as those from Dr Carter and Ruth Beckmann. However, you made no mention that those first two documents, a glaring omission as they both confirmed that Hollie had been the victim of sexual abuse and that Dr Harding`s had identified four alleged perpetrators, including Mrs Major and her late husband.
Mr Leask, why the omissions on these points? Inquiring minds want to know!
Mr Leask, I await your full and detailed reply with keen interest, as I’m sure many others do, not least those who purchase the Herald newspaper.
Yours, thankfully no worse off financially for purchasing your newspaper,