The following is published on behalf of Ian McFerran. Hollie Demands Justice is not responsible for any of the content, questions or answers presented in this post, it being a direct copy of the report published on Facebook.
Please find below my personal response to the answers given by the ‘Hoax’ group.
I appreciate Anne & Hollie are being gagged at the moment, so I am not looking for a response to this. Initially, I was not going to bother addressing the answers provided by the opposition,but a few people asked me to to look at them because they were not happy with them at all, neither was I.
So, bowing to their wishes, I have published this response online, which you are welcome to publish as well, if you wish.
To balance the scales (regarding the Hollie Greig ‘Hoax’ group interview).
After a very public campaign to try to motive the legal system and the relevant authorities to do what they are paid for and investigate the claims made by Hollie Greig to Grampian Police Force in the year 2000, a lot of information has made its way in the public arena, including the names of these two ladies. Therefore, a group calling itself The Hollie Greig Hoax, which includes two of the ladies who stand accused, approached Freedom Central, requesting a chance to put their side of events forward and to answer any questions that the public may have for them. This was granted and the show was aired on 22nd July 2012 at 6pm UK time.
Freedom Central provided a public platform for two ladies, Mrs Sylvia Major and Mrs Wyn Dragon-Smith, who stand accused by Hollie Greig of either being involved with or directly taking part in the sexual abuse of Hollie, to have their say on the matter. A few days before the show was due to be aired live online, it was indicated to the public that questions could be submitted to Freedom Central for the ladies in question to answer on the show. At no time where the public informed that they would be cross-examined or have questions put to them.
As one would expect, a lot of time was given over to the guests as they had a lot they wanted to say after all this time. As a result, not all the questions could be answered on air. So, at the end of the show, the host, Mel Ve, offered her guests the chance to take the questions away and respond to them at another time. This offer was accepted and, ten days later, the group published their response to the list of 39 questions that I had submitted, compiled from various people, including my own. I am assuming that the other questions submitted to the show were variations or duplications of the ones submitted below as these are the only ones that the group replied to.
An additional question was submitted by me, when it became known that there was an intention to record the group again, the following Saturday (28th July 2012), answering the questions on air. Unfortunately, it transpired that one of the ladies was unable to attend that recording, so it was cancelled and left to the group to publish their answers in due course. I note that the group have not responded to that final question.
This response is being presented at the request of a few people who were not happy with the detail of some of the answers provided and the evasive nature of some of them. I shall try to respond as impartially as I can.
Please also keep in mind that Mel Ve was asked by me to ensure that the two ladies were not being asked to speculate. If they didn’t know an answer, they only had to say so. These questions were not presented or intended to trip them up, simply to make use of the chance that they themselves had afforded the public to put questions to them. (For the record, some of the public’s questions originally presented were not forward to Freedom Central as they were either ‘leading’ or somewhat insulting). It is also important to keep in mind that only Hollie Greig has ever made formal allegations of paedophilia & rape, as no one else has ever been in a position to do so. Therefore, when the answers given by the ‘accused’ appear defensive, I would suggest that they should have kept in mind that the campaign is only calling for, and has only ever called for, an open public enquiry and is not nor can it directly accusing them of anything. Speculations and views are one thing; legal due process is something quite different.
I have copied the questions and answers below but, simply for ease of reading, I shall address all the points here. I will begin the preamble submitted by the group…
Whilst none of the preamble has any bearing on the facts of the case or the reason for the campaign existing in the first place, it is interesting to note that, near the end of the show, the group said that they were happy to come back to answer more questions and even went as far as stating they would like to debate with some supporters of the Hollie Greig campaign. However, in reply to the list of 39 questions, they state in their preamble “…we will not be answering further questions…”. The reason given was that the points have been covered elsewhere. This seems to nullify the reason for letting the public put questions to the accused ladies.
So, whilst this means that the public will not be able to address the inaccuracies any further with the accused or those who supported them on the show, I shall now try to add some balance to the answers they provided…
- Question 1: A direct question and a direct answer.
- Question 2: In fairness, a ‘comment’ was asked for. What was provided was self-publication and avoidance by issuing a website address, copy/paste of some of the material on that website, and instructions to call the CICA. Not exactly what was being asked for, but a comment, nonetheless.
- Question 3: Initially, confirmation that all of the documents have been viewed by the accused. That would answer the question. However, they go onto ask questions of me, apparently forgetting that the public were putting the questions to them, not just me. The reason for asking question 3 of the accused was to establish that they knew of the accepted documents which state Hollie had been raped and abused. This has now been established by their answer.
- Question 4: Another very specific question, but an answer lacking in detail. Medical qualifications of the accused are not mentioned, yet they are contesting the content of the documents. Whilst ‘ supporters’ on both sides of the divide have seen or have access these documents, their opinions & views are irrelevant, only those of the accuse matter here.
- Question 5: Again, this was an ‘open’ question, allowing the accused ladies to speak freely. The first sentence is absolutely correct. After that, there is more self-publicising to form their comment. I can’t speak for the rest of the public, but ‘copy/paste’ is not exactly what was being asked for.
- Question 6: Now we come to some rather interesting information! It is a matter of fact and public record (although the public are not allowed access to these records at the moment and neither is Robert Green’s legal team) that DC Lisa Evens, of Grampian Police Force, swore on oath, that Grampian Police Force had not interviewed anyone named by Hollie Greig, whether they be the accused perpetrators or alleged victims, except for Hollie’s father and, two years later, her brother. Therefore, the reply by the accused, both of whom were in Court and gave evidence, is factually wrong – or, all of those who confirmed Grampian Police Force had not questioned them and Grampian Police Force itself have committed perjury and the trial of Robert Green must be declared a mistrial. You can’t have it both ways.
- Question 7: Another interesting response…
- Firstly, it is direct avoidance – “Ask Anne”. No, the public were asking you, ladies!
- Secondly, if what the ladies say is true, then it is surprising that they have not taken legal action against the Police
- Question 8: Here it would seem that there has been a misunderstanding of what the question relates to. The question is pertaining to the abuse of Hollie Greig and the non-investigation (for over 12 years) of any of the accused… not the 60+ people that Grampian Police Force managed to interview in just THREE WEEKS in respect of the pending trial for Robert Green. It is important to recall that Sheriff Bowen made it perfectly clear at the start that the trial of Robert Green had nothing to do with the alleged abuse of Hollie Greig.
- Question 9: The public learns here that the reason Mrs Major attended during Anne & Hollie’s hearing at the High Court in London was out of ‘concern’ for Hollie. I will refer back to this point shortly…
- Question 10: A closed and direct question with an appropriate answer. Thank you.
- Question 11: As explained above in question 8, the trial of Robert Green had absolutely nothing to do with the claims of Hollie Greig, as was made clear by Sheriff Bowen at the start. The level of ‘investigation’ carried out by Grampian Police Force has already been established to have been grossly inadequate and confirmed as such by the answer given under oath by DC Lisa Evens – a statement that has received no challenge or appeal by Grampian Police Force or the accused. Therefore, to suggest that two investigations (assuming we are all in agreement that investigation is abbreviation for: thorough investigation) were carried out, especially when Grampian Police Force have stated on oath in Open court that no such relevant or thorough investigations were ever carried out, is simply wrong… (unless the ladies meant there had been two inadequate investigations, then I would have to concur). However, another interesting point is raised in their answer, the last sentence states, in part, that “…all the children were interviewed”. No time-frame was given to support this incredibly important statement. If it was referring to the 2010 investigation, that would not be an investigation in the allegations made by Hollie Greig, but rather, an investigation to gather as much information as possible to convict Robert Green for exposing the failings of the case in the first place along with the persistent failings of Grampian Police Force and others since 2000. If this is not what is being referred to, then the public will never know, as they are not prepared to discuss this anymore.
- Question 12: This clarifies the matter. It seems that when Mrs Major stated on the YouTube interview that everyone had been interviewed, it was in respect of the allegations against Robert Green and not in respect of the allegations made by Hollie Greig.
- Question 13: This question was partially answered. We now know that Mrs Major was not planning to close her shop. However, the most important part of the question, relating to the requirements of the Court for ‘evidence’ and what was supplied as evidence, was not addressed in Mrs Major’s response. Obviously, a statement as strong as that, which could have destroyed Robert Green and seen him spending considerably longer behind bars than one year, would, under normal circumstances, be able to be supported with evidence. As there is no answer to that part of the question, the public can only guess at what the answer is. Naturally, if the Court did not ask for evidence but accepted such a damning comment at face-value (hearsay) then Robert’s trial must be declared a mistrial. Hopefully the Court transcripts will be in Robert’s possession shortly and this matter can be cleared up that way.
- Question 14: The public will have to accept Mrs Major’s comment here, even though the public appeared to think it was relevant, due to them asking the question. Given the issue surrounding question 40, such a question as 14 may well have been relevant. Again, the public may never know.
- Question 15: Clearly evasive! Again, Mrs Major and Mrs Dragon-Smith, I remind you that the public was asking you, not Anne. Avoiding the public’s questions, when it was you who wanted the public to submit them, is rather insulting to say the least. It is also illogical to ask the public to ‘ask Anne’ when Anne, Hollie and Robert are all subject to varying degrees of gagging orders – a fact well known by the accused.
- Question 16: A direct answer and one that only the people concerned will really know the truth about.
- Question 17: Ignoring the snide remarks at the end of the answer, the accused ladies remain confident that due process was legally sound during Robert Green’s trial.
- Question 18: This clarifies that the accused are not in possession of copies of the transcripts, only their lawyers. The accused claim to be willing to make enquires. Given the evasive nature of some of the answers provided, one can only hope that this does not mean they will simply make a phone call and leave it at that but will endeavour to obtain a copy for Robert’s legal team… in the interest of fairness and due process.
- Question 19: Another interesting response. The media has been silent on this case for years due to Levy & McRae threatening them but suddenly the Scottish Herald runs a two page spread promoting the unproven case for the accused and ignoring fundamental facts and this is seen as not being relevant to the core issues of the case – those core issues being a cover-up involving, in part, the media. After ten days to ponder your response, something more substantial than this was expected.
- Question 20: An identical answer to question 19. So an identical response is issued here.
- Question 21: Here we come to a rather serious matter indeed. I must contest the view taken by Mrs Major here that the question is ‘not relevant’. Mrs Major stated that her late husband was a ‘civilian’ serving in the Police Force, Grampian Police Force to be exact. However, Mr Major’s published obituary seems to contradict this, as can be seen here: http://www.thisisannouncements.co.uk/4681703. Also, in a document available online, entitled: ‘The Fingerprint Inquiry Scotland Witness Statement of Gary Dempster’, (an inquiry in respect of the Shirley McKie case) from paragraph 19 onwards, Mr Dempster refers to Terry Major as: “Chief Fingerprint Officer at Grampian Police”. It would appear that Mr Major has not been candid with the public on this point.
- Question 22: The answer here helps to clarify the relationship between the pathologist and Mr Major. The rest of the question does not appear to have been addressed in respect of the specific points raised in it. Whilst I accept that the ladies are not going to address these questions anymore, I feel it is important to offer some clarity here… The ladies, in replying to the question, asked where Grampian Police admit that there was no investigation. Keep in mind that by no or an inadequate investigation, it can more than reasonably be inferred that enough time was allowed (12 years so far) for evidence to be removed. The answer to their question is: Grampian Police Force admitted this (and the implications that stem from it) on 18th January 2012, whilst under oath during the trial of Robert Green at Stonehaven Court.
- Question 23: This will be something for Anne Greig to address. However, due to the legal restrictions (gagging order) placed on her and Hollie; this is going to be very difficult for her to do.
- Question 24: A perfectly acceptable answer, followed by a rather unusual twist at the end that isn’t elaborated on.
- Question 25: As already proven above, in question 21, Mr Terry Major was the Chief Fingerprint Officer for Grampian Police during the Shirley McKie case. During a public inquiry, he was directly linked to the Shirley McKie case by one of his subordinates, Gary Dempster. Therefore, Mrs Major is incorrect, leaving the issue of ‘withholding evidence’ unaddressed.
- Question 26: Not much can be said here other than the hospital records do not record 99 calls, only the emergency operator.
- Question 27: Hospitals are not holiday camps! Only those who require monitoring for medical reasons are kept in over-night. This is partly for financial reasons but mainly to ensure that people that really need that extra care get it. If people are able to walk and are not a risk to themselves or others, they are discharged to free-up the bed space for more deserving patients. Therefore, if Anne Greig was kept in over-night, it is fair to say that she was indeed in need to medical attention. If that is what Mrs Dragon-Smith means, then I concur.
- Question 28: A clear answer.
- Question 29: Another clear answer.
- Question 30: As no personal information was being asked for, this is somewhat evasive to a perfectly reasonable question, given that the case revolves around an alleged ‘gang’ of people. The question clearly indicates that no personal information was being sought.
- Question 31: I now draw your attention back to Mrs Major’s answer for question 9. The public were told in her reply to that question that the reason Mrs Major made an effort to get to London a day earlier than she had originally planned was to attend Court out of her concern for Hollie Greig. However, in answering question 31, about where she sat, Mrs Major stated: “That is the only time I saw them in court. When the court started they must have moved along the bench and then the judge adjourned for lunch and we all left the courtroom.” We already know that Mrs Major has known Hollie and Anne from the time Hollie was a baby. Also, no one, including the Judges, would have been in that Court room at that time and on that day if it were not for the fact that Hollie Greig and her mother were attending. Therefore, everyone there, including Mrs Major, would have known who Hollie Greig was and what she looked like. Let’s face it, on that day Hollie was, in effect, the star of the show with supporters outside the Court entrance waving images of her all around. So, to suggest that she did not know where Hollie was sitting and didn’t even know where she was as the case got underway is simply unbelievable!
- Question 32: It is well known that the opposition do not like the fact that the campaign has the ability to allow the public to donate funds if they show choose. This appears to be the irrelevant referral to a ‘PayPal’ button. More specifically, the accused did not answer the question directly although they have not ruled it out as a future possibility.
- Question 33: Depending on the speed of ones internet connection and the search engine being used, finding out what a ‘Class Action’ is would take an estimated 5-10 minutes of checking online, usually something like Wikipedia. Therefore, after ten days, this response must be viewed as evasive.
- Question 34: Ignoring the irrelevant insults directed towards Anne, it would appear that the answer to this question is ‘no’.
- Question 35: It is agreed on both sides now, that Hollie Greig has no motive to make false allegations. However, the other part of the response indicating that Anne is coaching Hollie is something for the legal team for the campaign to address through the correct legal channels.
- Question 36: Ignoring the insults and assumptions, it is now very clearly established in writing as well as verbally on the Freedom Central show, that the campaign and the accused are now singing from the same song-sheet and both desire a public enquiry. This is very encouraging for anyone seeking the truth! As for the comment about ‘accounts’, that is something that the group will need to take up with whoever runs that part of the campaign.
- Question 37: As their answer refers the public to the previous answer, I have to do the same.
- Question 38: This answer appears to be at odds to their statement on the show that a public enquiry is needed and their written answer to question 36. The question was presented to allow the accused the best opportunity to build bridges and resolve this matter. However, it now seems that the accused wish to have Anne go through more ‘assessment’ and for Hollie to be separated from her mother, which is an extremely concerning development and in direct contradiction to what one of the group supporting the accused said on air. Again, this is something now for the legal side of the campaign to address through the correct channels. The accused cannot expect the public to believe they think Hollie should stay with her mother but also be removed from her mother. As previously stated, you can’t have it both ways.
- Question 39: Here we have confirmation that the Court transcripts will be obtained and passed to the alleged victims. Therefore, if Robert Green does not receive a copy of the transcripts but the alleged victims do, something is not right with this answer to the public’s question.
- Question 40: Question 40 was submitted after the show but not responded to by either Mrs Major or Mrs Dragon-Smith or their supporters, so, in fairness, cannot be addressed here. For the avoidance of unnecessary doubt or suspicion, question 40 would not have been submitted at all if it were not for the fact that the supporters of the accused ladies had raised an irrelevant point pertaining to the case of Hollie Greig, that being the tenancy of some of Belinda McKenzie’s past lodgers. This has no bearing on whether or not Hollie Greig was abused. Question 40 referred to the tenancy of a lodger who stayed with Mrs Major and is of immense relevance to the case of Hollie Greig as this individual is one of the 22 accused people! However, as there has been no publication of an answer to that question and it did not form part of the original set, it is being left out here.
This concludes my redress of the answers provided by the two ladies who stand accused and their supporters.
By Ian McFerran
THE REPLIES FROM THE ACCUSED AND THEIR SUPPORTERS
We are answering these questions in the public interest and as a direct favour to Mel Ve for hosting us on her radio show.
Many of them have been answered previously by us and we recognise this as the modus operandi of the Hollie Demands Justice campaign ie; not listening, doing no research for themselves and cherry picking only those facts that fit Anne’s story.
Robert Green did no investigation of this case and basically repeated what Anne told him, Belinda McKenzie did the same but used the HG story to prop up her other conspiracy fantasies and to further the idea that the entire country of Scotland was completely corrupt and run by masonic satanists.
Robert Green was encouraged by various people with vested interests to embellish the ‘satanic’ abuse angle and found it within himself to ‘spin’ it.
Belinda McKenzie also has some serious questions to answer surrounding Iran Aid.
Bearing this in mind we will not be answering further questions; we have fully covered all the aspects to this case on our website, youtube, facebook and elsewhere.
The attitude of Ian McFerran asking these questions is pompous, self serving and not in the interests of finding the truth but only to promote his own status as a defender of this campaign built on lies.
We believe most of these questions came from Anne as they are of a personal nature that others would not know about, with that in mind we would invite Anne to discuss this with us further personally, and not on the internet if she wishes.
We would like to bring this matter to a close as further discussion of the lies and personal lives of Anne, Hollie, and the innocent people named is neither helpful nor dignified and is a huge distraction to those who wish to genuinely
support vulnerable children and campaign for justice,
Wyn Dragon-Smith, Sylvia Major and
The Hollie Greig Hoax group
1. As I have never heard either ether of these two ladies openly confirm or deny abusing Hollie Greig, I would like to ask them both to respond to this question first: Have either of you, at any time, ever acted in a way that could be construed or misinterpreted as abusing Hollie Greig?
1 Absolutely Not.
2. No less than FIVE independent professionals support Hollie Grieg’s claims of abuse! ALL of these professionals have provided documents to support the fact that Hollie was the victim of sexually assault and rape. Therefore, my question to the two accused ladies is whether they would care to comment on these documented that have already been accepted as fact by the CICA, convincing them to award Hollie £13,500 in compensation? It is a matter of established fact that the following professionals have all testified and provided documentary evidence stating that Hollie Greig was the victim of sexual assault and it is important to keep clearly in mind that words like ASSAULT and RAPE were used by these professionals to support Hollie Grieg’s claims. The professionals are:
Dr Eva Harding
Dr Jack Boyle
Dr Paul Carter
Ruth Beckmann (of the Down`s Syndrome Association)
and Grampian Police`s own forensic medical officer Dr Frances Kelly
2 These Questions have been answered on the website http://www.theholliegreigcoverup.net
However if still in doubt, Tel. CICA They will explain.
The following is a summary of the broader answers that can be found on the website.
Dr Eva Harding.
Dr Harding was not a medically trained Dr. She was not even a psychiatrist! She was a 68yr old individual who had links with other individuals that were obsessed with ritual abuse. The interviews consisted of two 1hr sessions with half hour sessions with ANNE beforehand. It is not difficult to come to the conclusions she did after hearing a very well coached Hollie Greig, and having a biased viewpoint via an obsession.
Dr Jack Boyle, Dr Paul Carter & Dr Frances Kelly.
You state these individuals “support” Hollies claims. This is simply incorrect.
If you read the documentation it does not support anything.
It states that Hollie was not a virgin – and that’s all.
None of these individuals were aware Hollie had a boyfriend so on the grounds she was not a virgin and she is classed as a vulnerable adult, along with her mother claiming she was abused and Hollie confirming such because she would do anything for her mum, the conclusion they came to was one of abuse. Ask Anne how she continually supported Hollie having boyfriends – she had a number of them.
3. Has either of the accused ladies ever had sight of the numerous documented evidence, publicly referred to by Robert Green and others, which support Hollie’s claims of repeated abuse? If so, what is their view on them?
3. Yes we have seen them all. Have you read the “numerous documented evidence” publicly referred to by Robert Green? He, along with Brian Gerrish claim all sorts of rubbish but they never let you see any of it! Why don’t you ask to see all the documents Ian?
4. Given the accepted credentials of the five named professional who gave statements and evidence in support of Hollie Greig’s claims of sexual abuse, would the two ladies explain why it is they feel that all of these professionals are wrong and also state their own medical qualifications?
4 Answered above and in the website. With the exception of Eva Harding, the documentation does not say or confirm what you allege.
5. Mrs Major and her late husband are both named in the documents that have been accepted by the CICA as credible evidence in support of Hollie’s claims, as having sexually abused Hollie Greig. Would Mrs Major care to comment on this?
5 CICA COMPENSATE BASED ON THE INDIVIDUALS INJURIES NOT THE CRIME THAT IS ALLEGED. It is obvious to us from your question that you have no idea how CICA operate. The following is taken from our website for your convenience.
“It was only in 2000, when the News Of The World courageously broke the story, concentrating on the hitherto unheard of fact that Hollie had received payments from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority for crimes that have not even been investigated.”
This is also untrue which you can clearly see if you have read the PCCS report. Anne was extremely angry when this report became a public document. This document explains that ALL of Hollies claims were investigated. Denis and Greg Mackie were interviewed and released as there was no evidence against them. Is it possible that a young man could withstand the questioning of the Police on such a matter if he was guilty, and give them no grounds for suspicion? How could the police interview the Sheriff’s sister when he doesn’t have one? How can the police interview the Sheriff’s sister – in – Law when he doesn’t have one? The police found Hollie to be an unreliable witness so why should the police incriminate innocent people? As far as the CICA (Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority) payment is concerned, if you read how/why the Authority pay out, this is perfectly understandable although in our opinion not justifiable as it is public money.
Quote: The criminal injuries compensation scheme (the scheme), which is set by Parliament, compensates people based on the injuries they sustain not the crime of which they were a victim.
When they make a payment they state that the payment is not a sign of guilt on behalf of the accused and should not be taken this way. Given the medical evidence, Hollie showed no abuse or physical injury. Therefore we have concluded that Hollie received her payment based on 2 things.
1. Mental Injury.
2. Two or more attackers.
This is based on CICA’s pay-out scale. The following is from THE CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION SCHEME (2008)” found at:
Compensation will not be payable for mental injury or disease without physical injury, or in respect of a sexual offence, unless the applicant:
(a) was put in reasonable fear of immediate physical harm to his or her own person; or (Qualified)
(b) had a close relationship of love and affection with another person at the time when that person sustained physical and/or mental injury
We wonder if the authorities were aware that Hollie had a boyfriend?
When you have a woman screaming that her daughter was abused, the daughter agreeing, and medical evidence saying she was not a virgin, we believe that this would be more than enough evidence for CICA. History has shown many false payments were made by CICA.
6. It was established in Open Court, during Robert Green’s trial, that the police never interviewed a single alleged VICTIM in this case. Do you know why that is?
6 Totally wrong. The police interviewed all alleged victims.
7. It was established in Open Court, during Robert Green’s trial, that the police did not investigate the computers or bank details of the father and brother of Hollie Greig when they had the chance in 2000 and 2002. Does either of the ladies know why the police did not carry out a full investigation?
7 Ask Anne – she removed Denis’s computer along with most of house contents while Denis was abroad working.
8. It was also established in Open Court, during Robert Green’s trial, that the police did not interview any other alleged PERPETRATORS. Does either of the accused know why this might be?
8 They interviewed all accused in 2010.
9. Whilst under oath, all of the alleged perpetrators who were questioned during the trial of Robert Green stated that they had been ‘traumatised’ by Robert’s campaigning. Would Mrs Major please state why she went to London, a day earlier than she had planned, to attend such a traumatic event as the Court hearing?
9 A major part of my reasoning was out of concern for Hollie, but my life has been irrevocable changed by this. Although I hold no malice towards Anne, why shouldn’t I attend?
10. Was Mrs Major’s late husband involved any aspect of forensics on the body and/or car of Anne’s brother, Roy Greig?
10 No idea.
11. How do both of these ladies feel about Grampian Police Force not investigating Hollie’s claims and, as a result, allowing their names to become public knowledge? I ask this question based on the fact that Robert Green exhausted all legal avenues before he went public.
11 Grampian Police investigated at least twice, In 2000 and 2010. It was Robert Greens fault that our names became public knowledge, by posting letters all over Aberdeen naming us. He did no investigations. It is simply not true that the police never investigated….how do you explain the PCCS report for one? And all the children being interviewed for another.
12. Whilst in Open Court, during Robert Green’s trial, Mrs Major stated, under oath, that she had never been interviewed about the case pertaining to Hollie Greig. For the purpose of clarity, would Mrs Major confirm who it was that had interviewed her, when and why?
12 Again you seem to be confusing the year 2000/2002 when Denis was interviewed. When Green was arrested for posting the letters, in 2010 the case began. That was why and when we were all interviewed. The Police investigated TWICE! Regardless of your continued accusations of no investigation.
13. During the aforementioned trial, whilst still under oath, Mrs Major stated that she had lost her business due to the campaign (this was, she alleged, due to no one wanting to work for her). Could she please state if the Court requested evidence from her to support that statement? If the Court did request evidence, what evidence did she provide? This question is asked as a result of some speculating that Mrs Major simply closed her business due to the fact that she had reached retirement age. Is that true?
13 Both girls working in my shop left as a direct result of Green’s circulated letters. No was not planning to close shop.
14. Was Mrs Major’s business sold? If so, when?
14 Not relevant – private matter.
15. In the YouTube interview, Mrs Major stated that: “Anne cut herself off from the family”. I understand that Anne and Denis Mackie (as they were known at the time) lived in Polmuir Road, just down the road from Sylvia and Wyn in Ferryhill. Could the two ladies explain what they mean by “Anne cut herself off from the family”?
15 Ask Anne why she cut herself from family.
16. Did Mrs Major or her mother ever attend Birthday parties with Anne’s family at ‘The Fife Arms hotel’?
16 Visited once when Hollie was about 1 year old. Then never saw them again till Hollie was about 18 years old.
17. Given the established professional and personal relationships between Dame Elish Angiolini, Sheriff Bowen and Sheriff Graham Buchanan, are the two accused ladies confident that their own sworn evidence remains ‘legally sound’ and that there was no breach of ‘due process’ during Robert Green’s trial, as a result of the compromised positions of the said three individuals which, as a result, may bring their own evidence into question if re-examined and more rigorously tested?
17 Yes we are quite confident. And we do not agree in your conspiratorial nonsense regarding “professional and personal relationships.” You and the campaign have been wrong in so many of your theories that you will struggle to get anyone to believe what you say ever again
18. It is widely known that the prosecution team was provided with a full transcript of the Court’s audio records but these records were denied to Robert Green and his legal defence team. Are the accused in possession of these transcripts? If so, in the interest of fairness, are they willing to hand over (or somehow obtain) copies for Robert Green’s legal defence team?
18 We are not in possession of these transcripts. We can enquire about getting them.
19. Mrs Major and the reporter for the Herald Scotland, David Leask, are openly linked on the social network site Facebook. Please would Mrs Major confirm when this Facebook link began?
19 Not relevant to the core allegations.
20. Could either of the ladies, please explain who contacted them about the intention to run a report in the Herald Scotland newspaper, when that contact was initiated and by whom?
20 Not relevant to the core allegations.
21. To continue with the matter of the Herald Scotland’s report, Grampian Police fingerprint officer, Gary Dempster, at the Shirley McKie investigation, described Terry Major (Mrs Major’s late husband) as the “Chief Fingerprint Officer for Grampian Police”! Would Mrs Major please clarify what exactly was her late husband’s role whilst working for Grampian Police Force and what was the highest rank he achieved?
21. Not relevant but will oblige. Terry was a civilian employee. He was a finger print expert and that is all.
22. Following on from the previous question, it is an established fact that no forensic examination was ever carried out in the family home of Anne and Denis Mackie. In fact, the Police NEVER even bothered going to the home at all. Denis Mackie was allowed, via non-police investigation, to remove ‘mattresses’ from the family home. This is called “Spoliation of Evidence” and a criminal offence in and of itself by anyone who carries it out. Grampian Police have admitted this. This fact was not covered by Mrs Major in the YouTube interview, nor was the fact that the pathologist who did the report on Roy Greig’s Autopsy was a close friend and colleague of her late husband. Would Mrs Major wish to comment on this established fact as it pertains to ‘a ring’?
22 Anne removed most of the house contents while Denis was abroad. Dr Greive was a colleague of Mr Major just like many others. But contrary to your continued allegations there WAS an investigation but no evidence – therefore how could there have been a “Spoliation of Evidence” as you suggest? Please show where Grampian Police have “Admitted” this..
23. Please ask Mrs Major why Dr Grieves, the pathologist her husband was friends with, will not give Anne Greig the toxicology report on her brother’s blood? Anne is Roy’s ‘next of kin’ and has a legal right to this.
23 Anne went to see the Procurator Fiscal and was given the toxicology details then.
24. Dr Grieve is also refusing to release photographs from the autopsy of Roy Greig. Does Mrs Major know why this is?
24 No idea but not surprised.
25. Terry Major was involved in The Shirley Mckie case and WITHHELD evidence. Please ask Mrs Major if she knows why her late husband did that.
25 Mr Major was not involved in the Shirley McKie case therefore did not withhold evidence.
26. This question is directed at Wyn Dragon only… who called the ambulance on the night Anne Greig claims Denis Mackie threw the Vacuum cleaner at her head? Before Wyn Dragon answers, it is important to remember that ALL emergency ‘999’ calls are recorded.
26 I don’t recall ringing 999 and would think that was for real emergencies. Check with the hospital records.
27. If no such incident occurred, why does Why Dragon think Anne was kept in hospital over-night after the 999 call was made?
27 I expect kept in overnight as a normal procedure.
28. Was Wyn Dragon made aware at any time that Anne was ASLEEP when the vacuum cleaner was thrown at her?
28 Not heard that before.
29. In 1998, Greg Mackie (Anne’s son, one of the accused) was charged with ‘Lewd and Libidinous behavior’ in Aberdeen, for exposing himself in public? After three court appearances he was convicted. His father (Anne’s husband) then got a different lawyer… and the Judge admonished him. Was Wyn Dragon aware of these facts when she stated on camera, during the YouTube interview… “Such a nice family”?
29 I was not aware of this at the time and will repeat, they were a very loving family.
30. Did Wyn Dragon ever use Dr Palin (who was the psychiatrist who was in charge of Anne’s Case at Cornhill hospital) to try to get her own son sectioned? I ask this in respect of establishing links between the same medical names that keep coming up in this case. I am NOT asking about the authenticity of Mrs Dragon’s son case.
30 Personal and not relevant.
31. It is photographically established that Mrs Major was seated behind Hollie Greig throughout the morning segment of the Court Hearing in London. Would Mrs Major explain why she stated on camera that she was not seated behind Hollie?
31 I was seated in the courtroom 2 hours before the court started. Anne and Hollie came in and went to the far end of the walkway in front of me and sat down on the bench and spoke to Mrs McKenzie . That is the only time I saw them in court ,.When the court started they must have moved along the bench and then the judge adjourned for lunch and we all left the courtroom. I did not return and heard the decision from a court official.
32. Would the two accused ladies please explain why no charges have been brought by either of them against Anne & Hollie Greig or Robert Green?
32 If we had a paypal button too we might but it is still not out of the question.
33. Would the two ladies please explain why a ‘CLASS ACTION’ has not been brought against Anne & Hollie Greig or Robert Green?
33 Don’t know what is meant by this.
34. Regarding the legal issues currently facing Anne & Hollie from Shropshire Council, one of the hearings of which was attended in London by Mrs Major, and given that both ladies stated on camera that they still care for Anne and especially Hollie, have either of them presented themselves in Hollie’s defence or even privately offered their services to them, should they be needed by Anne & Hollie?
34 What would be the point under the circumstances. Can’t think that would be welcome. We feel incredibly sorry for Hollie but Anne is unwell and needs help and we do not condone upholding a mentally ill woman’s fantasies.
35. Assuming the two accused ladies are telling the truth, do they know what ‘motive’ Hollie Greig herself might have for allegedly making false allegations and repeatedly sustaining her claims for more than a decade? I ask this because they have had over 10 years to consider why they have been named in these events.
35 We are telling the truth. Hollie would have no motive at all. She has been coached over the years by Anne.
36. If the children of these two ladies had made such allegations to them about people that they knew, would they want a full and proper investigation, concluding with a trial that was open to the public or would they be happy with a similar outcome as Anne & Hollie have at the moment?
36 Hypothetical question and there has already been a full investigation. However we would welcome another as we are confused how you are going to be able to get allegedly abused children that have already made public statements saying they were not abused and didn’t even know Hollie until much later in life to admit they WERE ABUSED? This is just one of many, many inconsistencies and lies that have been told. Although we would welcome this – we do not believe the public should pay for it just to satisfy yours, Brian’s and Belinda’s irrationality. So could you fund it please from the many donations you, Anne and Belinda have received? If you haven’t received that many why not show some transparency and show the accounts?
37. Personally, I would like to know if either or both of the accused ladies desire a public hearing, or a criminal case, to be heard in Open Court, in order to clear their names publicly once and for all?
37 Answered above
38. Do the two accused ladies think this matter can ever be resolved and, if so, how?
38. By Anne being mentally assessed and all the evidence being put to her. Hollie put in respite, then probably the truth would come out. The law is quite antiquated in some respects in this case. We believe certain individuals should be jailed. There is no monetary value that can be placed upon the fact that decades from now when my grandchildren grow up and Google my name they will be horrified by what appears. If we take any legal action, any monetary award would be donated to the Down Syndrome Association. We would like all the videos removed and all information about this taken down.
39. Someone requested the following to all of the alleged ‘victims’… Is it possible that they would place pressure on the authorities to release the Court transcripts to Robert Green’s legal team? Therefore, my question is, would Mrs Major and Mrs Dragon please pass on that request to the alleged victims, on behalf of a member of the public?
39 If we obtain them we will let you know.
Fascinating study in the psychology of their answers………..
Another question which may still be put to them in the Public Interest and in the pursuit of truth :-
Q. Would they agree to take a polygraph analysis by a professional practitioner?
If so, let’s arrange for this at the earliest possible juncture?
If not, why not?
A polygraph is no substitute for a Judicial Enquiry which is what this campaign requires and is calling for.
I must support the last comment.
A full Judicial or Parliamentary Inquiry is the way forward, as this must encompass the transparently obvious failings of Grampian Police in this case and others who are integral parts of the justice system in Scotland.
Moreover, it is clear that the conduct of such bodies in Scotland have subsequently had a bearing on events involving Shropshire Council.
The time for any private engagement with individuals named by Hollie is surely now past. Though such future connections should be best made on an official basis, it is encouraging that at least a few of those individuals appear to be at last indicating agreement with the campaign`s consistent and fundamental request for a proper inquiry, which must be in the best interests of all those who have nothing to hide.
I honestly can’t be bothered reading all their waffle.
Their answers are an interesting mixture of cunning, stupidity and deceit.
Clearly, neither of them are very bright, and while trying to spin their way out of it, they are simply digging a much deeper pit to fall into.
Only a full and OPEN public inquiry can clear up this horrendous case – but given the deep corruption within the Scottish Government, the chances of that are small indeed.
For a solution I would urge Hollie’s supporters to concentrate on Westminster and the media at large.
Oh dear! Don’t the guilty like to waffle and avoid PROPER ‘Straight-forward’ replies?
A person who is born with DOWNS SYNDROME – IS NOT AN IDIOT – THEY ‘TELL IT AS IT IS’! They DO NOT know devious, cunning – they do NOT understand WHY anyone else would possibly LIE –
HOLLIE DESERVES JUSTICE – not only DEMANDS it! THE GUILTY WILL be brought to account – and I hope soon for Hollie’s sake – they have damaged her enough – AND YES, it IS THE PERPETRATORS who continue to damage her by continuation of lies and more lies.
KEEP STRONG ANNE, HOLLIE AND ROBERT THE TRUTH WILL OUT!