FAQs 2011

 

Q. What are the aims of Hollie’s campaign for justice?

A. 

1. To secure a proper investigation into the abuse Hollie claims she and other children suffered at the hands of a paedophile ring in the years 1985-2000 and prosecutions against those found guilty, preventing them from having any further access to children, especially disabled children. Top of the list of those to be prosecuted is Hollie's own father Denis Mackie who not only raped Hollie throughout her childhood but stole all her mother Anne Greig's family money;

2. To secure an inquest into the death in suspicious circumstances of her uncle Roy Greig, Anne Greig’s brother in 1997;

3. To secure an independent inquiry into the mounting number of breaches of the law and of their professional codes in the handling of her case by the Scottish police and authorities, including the unwarranted and unlawful sectioning of her mother to a mental hospital in 2000 which the English authorities continue to use as an pretext for harassing Anne and trying separate Hollie from her;

4. To secure reparation for the damage caused to her and her mother’s home last year and the return of property seized in the unwarranted raid, and the same in respect of Robert Green’s home;

5. To secure the removal of restrictions imposed on the Greigs and on Robert Green by the court/s in 2010 & 2011, impeding their freedom of travel and association. 

 

Q. What evidence is there supporting Hollie’s allegations that she was abused?

A. After years of Hollie’s medical notes being withheld from her, when finally Anne laid hands on them in October 2009 she found amongst them two important items of evidence, both dating back to the early ‘90s, when Hollie was a pupil at Beechwood Special School in Aberdeen: 

1. Memo from Dr Paul Carter, Beechwood School Doctor, to Dr S J Wilson, Grampian Health Board Community Services, 5 July 1990, indicating that Hollie then aged 10 had contracted perianal warts, a sexually-transmitted condition, and referring to her as an ‘at risk’ child;
2. Letter from Dr Paul Carter, then Senior Clinical Medical Officer at Grampian Health Board Priority Services Unit, Community/Acute Services Division, to Dr James Maitland, Hollie’s GP, 3 February 1992, “giving a little background on Hollie”, eg., Hollie had been suffering from pain on passing water and lower abdominal discomfort for 2 or 3 years and had been exhibiting signs of having had sexual experience. However she had never disclosed to him, Dr Carter, any details of this. [This was because she had been terrorised into silence about the abuse she was suffering]. 

It should be noted that neither of the above doctors were named by Hollie as abusers but her head teacher was, and Dr Maitland is certainly implicated in the cover-up. Dr Carter (now retired) when questioned recently about what had gone on at Beechwood School and in particular with Hollie expressed mortification that his attempts to alert the school and family had failed.

Anne suspects that the medical records are not complete and that even more damning (to the paedophiles) evidence could have been removed. 

As well as this ‘historic’ evidence, there is forensic evidence dating from an examination carried out on Hollie on 20^th May 2000, shortly after Hollie and Anne first began reporting the abuse at Bucksburn Police Station. The examination took the form of an internal examination conducted by Dr Frances Kelly, forensic medical examiner to Grampian police (semi-retired) who found “evidence of previous penetration of Hollie’s private parts”. At the time Hollie had only so far mentioned her father and brother as the perpetrators of the abuse.  The examination by Dr Kelly is referred to in a letter from DI Iain Alley, Criminal Investigation Division, Aberdeen Police to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, 24 September 2003. 

There are also 2 reports dating from 2001 and 2003 respectively written by well-known and eminent experts in the field of clinical psychology, both of whom interviewed Hollie and came to the same conclusions that a) she was a truthful girl and not making anything up and b) she had indeed been abused and that in their professional opinion it was plausible and probable that her abusers had been multiple. 

1. Dr Jack Boyle B.A., B.Sc (Econ), M.Ed., PhD., A.F.B.Psy.S., C.Psychol.  Assessment of Hollie  5 October 2001
2. Dr Eva Harding C. Psychol., A.F.B.Psy.S. Psychological Report Hollie Mackie [Greig] 22 February 2003

 

Q. Is there any evidence supporting Hollie’s allegations that she was abused in all by 22 people?

A. Hollie first began reporting her father and brother in May 2000, then in August she began naming the 20 other members of the paedophile ring and over the years she has continued to be very consistent and insistent that she was abused by a whole string of people, women as well as men, and that they knew each other socially. They included a Sheriff, a senior police officer and his wife, a doctor, two social workers, a nurse and the headmaster of the school she attended from 1984-1992, Beechwood Special School.

The only member of the ring to have been interviewed by the police is Denis Mackie, Hollie’s father, however no prosecution has been brought even against him and he is now thought to be residing in Portugal or possibly Brazil, along with Hollie’s older brother Greg (whom Mackie initiated into abusing his sister).  Greg was also interviewed by police but in connection with another sexual misdemeanour, not about the rape of his sister.

In 2010 Robert Green collected a large number of witness-statements from ex-pupils, families and staff connected with Beechwood Special School which throw considerable light on what went on there. For example, a former staff said that the headmaster would take children into his study and close the door, but that because he was a jovial and popular figure, although it was against accepted practice no one thought to question this. Hollie has also described being taken by minibus from the school to gatherings for sex and other practices in the house of Jack and Evelyn Buchanan, along with 7 other children whom she has named.

The statements from many members of the public given for the moment in confidence will be revealed in the course of an official inquiry. 

 

Q.Hollie has named 7 other children as fellow-victims of the abuse, have any of these come forward to testify?

A. The other children were all sons and daughters of members of the paedophile ring. Albeit now adults they may remain too fearful to speak out about their abuse, but it is hoped that during the course of a properly-conducted inquiry they will feel able to do so.

 

Q. Have the police questioned any of these other victims?

A. No

 

Q. Why did Anne fail to realise all those years that Hollie was being abused?

A.  While some of the abuse Hollie endured took place in her home at the hands of her father and older brother, the more significant abuse implicating the wider paedophile network took place in the context of Beechwood Special School. Anne could not possibly know the extent of what was going on at the school in relation to her daughter and several other children and has been profoundly shocked and upset to find out only years later. Nevertheless she did at the time realise there was something wrong, as Hollie was continuously complaining that her ‘bum hurt’. So she took her to the family GP Dr James Maitland who said these kinds of symptoms related to her general medical condition. Hollie was also examined at the school by the School Doctor, Dr Paul Carter who did identify definite reasons for concern. However his communications on the subject/Hollie’s medical notes over several years were withheld from Anne by the headmaster of the school and Dr Maitland. The first sight she had of these notes dating back to the early 1990s was in October 2009.

 

Q. How could Hollie have been abused within the home without Anne realising?

A. Anne was a hard-working businesswoman and suspecting nothing she regularly left Hollie at home with her husband who worked on an oil-rig. There were therefore long periods when he was either away or solidly at home, one month on, one month off, during which time he looked after Hollie. Paedophiles are notoriously devious and take meticulous steps to cover their tracks. Mackie had a narcissistic personality disorder and was also an aggressively violent man, who when he did not get his own way terrorised Anne, at times severely beating her, resulting in black eyes and bruised ribs. On one occasion he threw a vacuum cleaner at her as she lay in bed, splitting her head open which required hospitalisation and was reported to the police. Anne also discovered that he had terrorised Hollie into keeping quiet by beating her with a belt and threatening to kill her beloved dog, her mum, or even her if she breathed a word about what was going on. It was not until Anne finally fled the family home with Hollie in May 2000, after yet another beating from Mackie, and that they’d been in the hostel two weeks that Hollie at last summoned the courage to tell her mother what had been happening continuously since she was 6, for all those years.

 

Q. Why was the death in suspicious circumstances of Hollie’s uncle Roy Greig not investigated?

Good question. First there was NEVER an inquest into Roy's death. On 17th November 1997, Roy was discovered dying in a burning car parked in a lay-by off the Old Aberdeen Road, the A90 outside Aberdeen. Anne who was Roy's next-of-kin did enquire of Roy’s solicitor why there was not going to be an inquest? having at this point no idea of the extent of his injuries since she hadn’t been permitted to see the autopsy report. The verdict given as the cause of death by the coroner in November 1997 was “smoke inhalation” although the motivation was not clear. Anne however was suspicious from the start about what was hinted by others at as ‘suicide’ which she felt to be quite out of character for Roy. She also realised that taking one’s life by fire is notoriously painful and so rare as to immediately require investigation because of the possibility of foul play. However she was unable to pursue her suspicions because the autopsy report, which should have gone to her as next of kin, was withheld from her for 12 years by the Procurator Fiscal for Aberdeen. She had not even been permitted to see her brother’s full body, only his face through a glass panel in the mortuary.  When his body was released to the funeral directors, they refused her request to open the coffin.  It was only with Robert’s help and thanks to public pressure she did at last lay hands on the autopsy report, on 31^st December 2009. This confirmed her suspicions that her brother had been murdered. Roy had been found in the burning car with a quantity of whisky in his stomach (he hated whisky) and with broken ribs to the front and back of his body and broken sternum (the strongest bone in the body!) and a cracked based skull with a haematoma. These injuries are not consonant with sitting in a parked car! Moreover Hollie had not felt safe to tell her mother that shortly before her Uncle Roy’s death, he had stumbled on her father, Denis Mackie raping her and that her father had threatened to kill Roy…

We can speculate therefore as to why this highly-suspicious incident was never investigated and why rectifying this anomaly is very much part of Hollie’s campaign now. It is noteworthy that Craig Oliver, the son of the chief officer of Grampian police Ian Oliver who was in charge of what passed as an inquiry in 1997, became David Cameron’s Head of Communications, prior to being dismissed for failing to deal with another paedophile case which had resulted in the murder of a 9-year old boy.

 

Q. On what grounds was Anne suddenly sectioned to a mental hospital in 2000?

A. It was in August 2000 that Hollie at last managed to tell her mother about the abuse she had suffered not just from her father but from a full-blown paedophile ring of which her father was a member. On 25^th of that month she and Anne went to make a further report to the Aberdeen police, naming at the time 16 abusers as well as 2 fellow-victims, the children of her (Hollie’s) social worker who were part of the ring. More names were added to the list subsequently. A few days later, on 5^th September, on the instruction of social services and psychiatric consultant Dr Alastair Palin, 12 people arrived at the hostel where the Greigs were living temporarily in order to section Anne. When Anne protested they pinned her down, and there and then, in full public view, pulled down her pants and injected her in the buttocks with a combination of anti-psychotic and sedating drugs. She came to in the mental health unit of Cornhill Royal Hospital, Aberdeen. She was able to extricate herself a few days later by obtaining a second opinion on her mental condition from psychiatric consultant Dr M.A.E. Smith of Glasgow who pronounced her mentally sound. On 13^th October her solicitor, Yvonne McKenna of Glenrothes wrote to the Scottish Mental Welfare Commission to request a copy of the warrant whereby she had been sectioned. On 1^st November a letter came back from Yvonne Osman of the SMWC stating that there was “no record of the warrant”.  Dr Palin was subsequently forced to acknowledge that there was nothing wrong with Anne.  Note: while Anne was being held in Cornhill Hospital Hollie was handed back to her abuser father Denis Mackie.

From all of this it has to be construed that there was no good reason to section an able woman in her right mind to a mental institution, except to thwart her from doing something certain people in high places did not like.

 

Q. Have there been other anomalies in Grampian police’s handling or mishandling of the case?

A.  Grampian’s official stance is that they have investigated Hollie’s allegations and found there to be insufficient evidence to substantiate them, nevertheless they do accept she was abused by her father Denis Mackie and her brother Greg. However with the exception of Mackie and Greg (although Greg was only questioned in relation to a separate sexual misdemeanour), they have never interviewed any of the 20 other parties named by Hollie as abusers, nor any of the relevant medical experts, nor of the 7 children again named by Hollie as fellow-victims of the abuse.  Then, from the start they have been in breach of normal procedures regarding cases of rape. When Hollie first presented at the police station 18^th May 2000 to name her father and brother as abusers (she hadn’t yet told her mum about the 20 others) no swabs were taken, although she was given an internal examination on 20^th May by Dr Frances Kelly, forensic medical officer to Grampian police (semi-retired). Dr Kelly found evidence of sexual penetration in the form of vaginal scarring. That alone should have sent the police straight round to Mackie’s home (which by that time Anne and Hollie had moved out of) to hunt for further forensic evidence on his computer, the bedding etc. Although great importance is normally attached to forensic processes in Scotland, the police did not however visit the home and by the time Anne got back into it a few days later she found that Mackie had changed all the mattresses! It should be noted that the head of Grampian’s forensic team at the time was PC Terry Major who along with his wife Sylvia, Mackie’s cousin was one of Hollie’s named abusers. Major was later implicated in the withholding of evidence in the widely-known Shirley McKie case. 

The interview at Bucksburn police station on 25^th August 2000 when Anne and Hollie began to report the other abusers was likewise very unsatisfactory. They were interviewed separately so Anne had no means of knowing what might be being said to Hollie. When Hollie eventually emerged from her interview she was crying and disorientated, with dilated pupils, Anne recounts. To cheer her up Anne took her to McDonalds but for once she wouldn’t touch the burger and chips. She then told her mum she had been injected in the leg by one of the two who had interviewed her, social worker Nicola Foote.  Nevertheless Hollie had managed to name 16 of her former abusers and 2 fellow victims.

Grampian police also withheld critical documentation from both the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority who examined the case in 2003, and the Police Complaints Commission Scotland in 2006-7, following a complaint lodged by Anne about Grampian’s mishandling of the case. Cutting past the issue of Grampian’s breaches of normal procedure not to mention disregard for the law, the PCCS arrived at a verdict of “insufficient, credible evidence for Hollie’s allegations”. This is the stock phrase with which senior Scottish officials such as Frank Mulholland, Solicitor General for Scotland continue to parry enquiries from MPs and the public in 2011. It is surprising that the PCCS Inquiry did not vigorously pursue the unexplained departure on the part of Grampian police from normal investigative procedures, for example, Grampian’s DS Innes Walker informed the inquiry that he had not interviewed any of the alleged abusers, medical experts or named victims. The excuse he gave was that he couldn’t find “any connection between these people”, an extraordinary statement given that several of them are married or otherwise related to each other while the other victims named by Hollie are their children!

 

Q. On what grounds was Hollie awarded £13,500 by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority?

A. Despite no crime having been recorded and although as Anne discovered later, the historic evidence of Hollie’s abuse having been withheld from the CICA by Grampian police, the Authority was persuaded of her eligibility for compensation by 2 privately-obtained reports by experts in the field of child sexual abuse: 

1. an Assessment written by the eminent clinical psychologist Dr Jack Boyle, dated 5 October 2001 in which Dr Boyle stated “Hollie’s speech is describing sexual abuse…”. Dr Boyle is an expert witness, see http://www.psychologist-scotland.co.uk/about.htm

2. a Psychological Report written by respected clinical psychologist Dr Eva Harding dated 22 February 2003, where Dr Harding states unequivocally that in her professional opinion based on years of familiarity with cases of child sexual abuse and having interviewed Hollie she had concluded Hollie was “being truthful” and that she had indeed been abused “by her father and brother and very probably by others who had access to her.” 

The award came in 2 instalments: £8,500 was given in 2006, then when Anne submitted a FOI request to the CICA to determine what medical evidence they had been working to? she discovered that certain bits of Dr Boyles’s report had been taken out. Also at that time also Hollie was receiving counselling for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. So on both counts Anne asked for the case to be reviewed, with the result that Hollie received a further £5000 from the CICA in 2008.

 

Q. Is the former Lord Advocate of Scotland, Elish Angiolini complicit in covering up the affair?

A. When the case began to come to public attention in 2009 and early in 2010 Angiolini’s first reaction was to try to conceal her involvement by lying that she had known anything about it previously (see letters to The Firm magazine and the UK Column). However letters dated 27 October 2000 and 28 November 2000 from Brian Adam MSP to Mrs Angiolini, then Procurator Fiscal for Aberdeen, also from Richard Lockhead who is now a leading member of the current Scottish government, then a letter dated 12 July 2001 from Mrs Angiolini to Anne’s solicitor Yvonne McKenna, all show clearly the former Lord Advocate’s awareness of the case right from the outset. She had herself in her previous capacity as Procurator Fiscal for Aberdeen written to the national press and media to inform them that the case was not being pursued further. It is significant also that when the investigation into Hollie’s issues reopened in Shrewsbury (under Grampian conditions) in September 2009, following what was perceived as an attack on Anne and Hollie’s home during August, once again none of the alleged perpetrators of the crimes, fellow-victims nor medical experts were questioned. When Robert Green phoned the Crown Office on 19^th December 2009 to enquire why this was so, he was told by Catherine Harper QC that Mrs Angiolini did not wish to pursue the case. In fact from November 2009 through early 2010, Mrs Angiolini used a private law firm, Levy & McCrae in a personal action against members of the Scottish media, eg. The Drum which she threatened with closure. She also threatened the UK Column and wrote to prominent internet websites such as Google, warning them not to publicise anything whatsoever to do with her involvement in the Hollie Greig case. She has since consistently evaded questions, including an FOI request to reveal whether she used public funds to pay for these private actions. See http://www.thedrum.co.uk/news/2010/08/06/15079-did-scots-lord-advocate-spend-more-on-her-reputation-than-a-girl-got-for-being-raped-/

     

Q. Why was Robert Green prevented from campaigning as an electoral candidate in Aberdeen in 2010?

A. The reason given for Robert’s arrest in Aberdeen at 10.30 am on Friday 12^th February 2010 was that he had committed a ‘breach of the peace’ for being about to leaflet on the Hollie Greig issue outside Marks & Spencer in the centre of Aberdeen. He had not even reached the venue before police intercepted him and took him to Bucksburn police station where he was held throughout the weekend and only released on bail on the Monday morning. The warrant for this action had apparently been delivered to his house in Warrington during the preceding Thursday night. His bail conditions included his being banned from entering the city of Aberdeen or Aberdeenshire, making it difficult if not impossible to campaign effectively. 

These bail conditions were reinforced and new ones added in a de novo hearing at Stonehaven Sheriff Court on 26^th January 2011, meaning that once again standing as an Aberdeen candidate in the Scottish elections in May 2011 will be impossible – he still has to report to his local police station in Warrington three times a week, draconian conditions that are not imposed even on murderers or terrorists! This was, in the very words of the prosecution, to prevent him from “sloping off to Aberdeen”.

 

Q. Does the above action breach electoral law?

A. (answer pending) 

 

Q. There have been a number of damaging police actions against Hollie, Anne and Robert, who/what courts authorised these?

A.  Despite strenuous efforts to obtain them, no complete warrants have been disclosed authorising:  

1. The sectioning of Anne to Cornhill Royal Hospital Mental Unit Aberdeen on 5^th September 2000; the only thing that has been produced is an A1 form for admission, without a medical recommendation! 

2. The arrest of Robert on Breach of the Peace charges in Aberdeen on 12^th February and his re-arrest on 14 April 2010. He was held overnight on both occasions, in direct contravention of European Union Human Rights legislation;

3. The raid on Robert’s home in Warrington on 13^th February 2010 by officers of Grampian police, with Cheshire police in attendance. Privileged documents belonging to Anne as well as Robert were taken. No inventory of the personal property seized, which included Robert’s computer, was however provided and no items have been returned over a year later and still no warrant has been produced;

4. The raid on Anne and Hollie’s home in Ruyton, Shrewsbury on 3^rd June 2010, where again no warrant has been disclosed for the action and again personal effects were seized with no inventory of those and have not so far been returned, with the exception of Anne’s laptop. The damage to the home on this occasion was considerable and has rendered it uninhabitable pending repairs being carried out which are beyond the Greigs’ means.  Since the break-in to Anne and Hollie’s home, Shropshire Council have also taken the liberty to ban Anne and Hollie from attending public meetings.

 

Q. Why was Anne & Hollie’s house raided?

A. The official reason given at the time was that there was concern about Hollie being a ‘missing person’. Shropshire Social Services reported Anne and Hollie missing to the Shrewsbury police under the pretence they were missing persons (which was a lie) and that Hollie was under the care of Shropshire Social Services (another lie). Shropshire Council have acted throughout and to date on lies from Scotland. Under Freedom of Information Shropshire Council have been found to be lying and are now under investigation from the FOI Commission. The original source of this rumour that Hollie was ‘missing’ was a certain Mr Greg Lance Watkins who is known to have contacted Shropshire Social Services to that effect. At 13.30 on 3^rd June, DC Bates of West Mercia police phoned Robert Green to enquire about Anne and Hollie’s whereabouts.  Robert assured him that as their official representative, both ladies were fine and well and there was absolutely no concern for their welfare but they were taking a little holiday. Nevertheless within an hour and a half, the raid on their house, for which the official reason given was to try to find them, went ahead that afternoon. It was clear from the length of time the police and officers of the Council were on the small premises, 3 ½ hours, that this was more than just a search for alleged missing persons. Anne’s laptop and personal papers were removed and the house was trashed in a particularly vicious manner, causing hundreds of pounds' worth of damage, suggesting that the raid was calculated to cause maximum distress to Anne and Hollie. 

To date, neither Shropshire Council or West Mercia police have accepted liability or compensated Anne for the extreme and unnecessary damage done to their home which is still uninhabitable. See the photographic evidence of damage on this website. Do you think this is “reasonable and necessary” damage to a disabled woman’s home, to quote West Mercia police?

Q. Who is this Greg Lance Watkins and what part does he play in the story?

A. In 2009 Greg Lance Watkins (GLW) made contact with Anne Greig by telephone and appeared supportive of Hollie’s and her campaign. He set up a website in order to promote the campaign called Stolen Kids–Hollie blogspot. After a few months however Anne began to have suspicions about GLW whom she’d never met, for one main reason – the manner in which he tried to force her to request money from people, which she did not want to do. Despite her unwillingness, he went ahead and set up a PayPal account. Hence in April 2010 Anne severed relations with him. GLW then began to show his true colours by publishing unfounded and abusive material defaming Anne, Robert and other key Hollie supporters on the Stolen Kids website and generally seeking to undermine the campaign. Although we cannot determine his motives, from his conduct it seems reasonable to suppose that GLW is a disinformation agent of some kind. There is proof that he works off a government network.  Minimal further research has revealed a very shady track-record: GLW is a self-confessed felon charged with firearms and GBH offences and has also boasted of having threatened to kill the headmaster of the school he attended in his youth. It is clear that Shropshire Council in colluding with this known criminal were out to cause maximum alarm and distress to Anne and Hollie and it should be noted in that regard that it was on GLW’s Stolen Kids website that Anne and Hollie’s personal family photographs stolen in the 3^rd June raid raid appeared 3 days later.  He continues to put out disinformation pretending to be Anne’s son – Anne says “we’ve caught him out with a question put to him through Brian Gerrish which he could not answer”.It was later discovered, through intelligence research, that GLW had fellow cohorts operating with him such as blogger alias Anna Racoon (solicitor and former employee of the secret Court of Protection) and alias Tom George, a man with more identities than a Russian doll, found to have worked out of an EU Government building in Paris.

 

Q: Why should people believe that Hollie is telling the truth about what happened to her years ago?

A:  Because there is medical evidence supporting her allegations, as well as the fact that the State itself in the form of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority has accepted Hollie’s story to the tune of £13,500 compensation. People also need to take into account the fact that Hollie is Down’s Syndrome. While this particular disability made her particularly vulnerable and unable to defend herself as a child, ironically it is one of the strongest elements in her defence now. As anyone who works with or is close to DS people knows they are unable to lie or make things up, they can only recount what they have actually experienced. They have photographic or you might say cinematic memories, although some may have difficulties in physical communication.  By the same token some find it very hard to ‘blot out’ or ‘seal off’ unpleasant memories, which is why Hollie who is particularly bright still clearly remembers everything that happened to her, including names and places and other details, and continues to be tormented by events in her childhood that by now so-called normal people might have been able to suppress. Although she has the usual handicaps suffered by DS people including poor sight and hearing loss and an enlarged tongue making it difficult to articulate syllables, she is able to communicate everything she is thinking and feeling, with or without the help of her mother.  It should be noted that Hollie has the ability to use ‘Makaton’ (sign language) and when the police interviewed her they confirmed she was not ‘incopax’ and declared her a very credible witness.  Moreover TWO Psychological Assessments by eminent clinical psychologists Dr Jack Boyle in 2001 and Dr Eva Harding in 2003 confirm that Hollie’s account of her experience, despite “sparse’ language was entirely plausible and did not lead to the conclusion that she had lied or invented anything. Dr Harding’s report ends thus: “It is undoubtedly the case that Hollie was sexually abused by her father and brother over a long period from childhood and probably by others who had access to her. This report is given in soul and conscience.”

 

Q.  If they are innocent, why don’t any of the 22 people Hollie has named as her abusers sue her for defamation?

A.  It is a remarkable fact that none of the 22 named by Hollie have so far taken any steps in law to redress the damage to their reputations, with the exception of Sheriff Graham (Graeme in Scotland) Buchanan who is suing Robert Green for certain expenses incurred in the period November 2009 to April 2010 inclusive for the purpose of protecting his reputation, although this is not a defamation case as such. The costs include preparing a Summons and obtaining an ‘interim interdict’ (injunction) from the court prohibiting Robert from publicising Buchanan’s alleged association with Hollie Greig or involvement in the death of Roy Greig; writing to Google and YouTube to ask them to remove "offensive material" from their websites and a range of other sundry costs of meetings, phone-calls and letters. In March 2011 Simpson & Marwick’s bill remains unpaid. Link to file follows

 

Q.  Hollie is OK now and has been compensated, so why carry on making such a fuss about these events in the past?

A. This is the kind of question people who lack sensitivity tend to put forward and fortunately we are not asked it very often.  

OK is a very flippant word, a word that should not and cannot describe the aftermath of anyone who has suffered abuse.  

It cannot be stressed strongly enough just how traumatic Hollie’s whole life experience over 26 years has been. Hollie is VERY angry! First there was the horrendous abuse going on throughout 16 years of her childhood. Then there has been the 10 year + battle with the police and authorities to get justice which still hasn’t come, and at the same time she and her mother have had to put up with unending harassment and intimidation which at times has been nothing short of terrifying for Hollie. Money cannot compensate for her feelings of anger, terror and hurt, compounded by the fact that her handicap does not enable her to go through the normal adult processes of ‘coming to terms’ with her experience or developing a ‘philosophical approach’. In TV dramas which she much enjoys, the baddies are invariably caught and punished and the goodies/their innocent victims win, but this is not happening in her case and she can’t understand why. Hollie wants justice, not money, furthermore she does not want this to happen to anyone else… pure and simple. 

Anne too wants justice before money; as she puts it, “our lives were devastated on MANY levels!” When Hollie told her the bitter truth… the reality of what was REALLY going on in her life – behind her back, she was so filled with disgust, betrayal and utter devastation, words cannot describe just how she felt and still does at being told such heinous revelations by her daughter.  Anne left Denis Mackie to go into a hostel because he had physically and mentally abused her over many years; his violence towards her in May 2000 was very much the last straw. Of course Hollie came with her and at last, two weeks after they’d moved to the hostel, she managed to tell her mother that her father had been sexually abusing her since the age of 6.  No one can prepare one for such horrors, Anne says, especially when Hollie revealed the wider abuse she’d suffered from all kinds of other, supposedly responsible people. And then, when she tried to get help and support for her daughter, instead of getting any help she was stalked and hunted by the authorities keen to silence her, [unlawfully and illegally] diagnosed with mental illness and sectioned. For the past 10 years she has had to live under the stigma of mental illness which is still being used against her right now by Shropshire authorities, as a ploy to separate her and Hollie. She and her daughter are being discriminated against, their human rights and rights to justice have been denied by a huge cover-up, assisted by a corrupt police force and judicial system.

Then, aside from Hollie and Anne’s own trauma, on the public front, for as long as Hollie’s multiple abusers remain at large, CHILDREN ARE STILL AT RISK FROM THESE PAEDOPHILES.

Top of the list named by Hollie is of course her father Denis Mackie and brother Greg who could be terrorising children in Portugal where we think they now reside. Mackie has also been seen in Brazil – see http://www.chris-uk.org/worlds-largest-paedophile-ring-uncovered

Also of particular concern is another on Hollie’s list, Andrew Young, until April 2010 headmaster of Beechwood Special School, where Hollie was a pupil from 1988-1999. Young was prematurely retired in April 2010, coincidentally as Hollie’s campaign was gaining momentum (he was originally due to retire in July 2011). According to Hollie, Young abused her and other children in his study and also took her out of the school in a minibus to sex-parties with other members of the paedophile ring. Since his retirement Young has been working as a tour guide at Crathes Castle in Banchory, west of Aberdeen, where he still comes into regular contact with children. In December 2009 Young was interviewed on the telephone by Robert Green, to whom he admitted that he had lived for a time with 2 others of Hollie’s named abusers, PC Terry Major (now deceased) and his wife Sylvia who is a cousin of Hollie’s paedophile father, Denis Mackie.  At that point Young apparently panicked and hung up on Robert. It should also be noted Andrew Young conspired to hide, along with Holle’s GP, the fact the school doctor, Dr Carter reported TWO medical conditions which indicated sexual abuse. Neither Young nor Hollie’s GP reported this and it was withheld from her mother and was only discovered upon requesting Hollie’s medical notes in 2009, when Grampian police interviewed Hollie again, this time in Shrewsbury.

Let it not be forgotten either that A MURDER HAS NEVER BEEN PROPERLY INVESTIGATED, HENCE A MURDERER/S IS/ARE STILL AT LARGE:

The autopsy report on Roy Greig’s death in 1997 only came into his next-of-kin, Anne’s hands on 31^st December 2009, after 12 years of continual requests to release the document. The authorities even tried to fob her off by sending the report to a doctor who, they said would “explain the report” to her. Eventually the document was released under pressure from Robert Green. It showed clearly that, as Anne had always believed, Roy could not have ‘committed suicide.’ It should be noted that Roy’s death certificate states the cause of death as ‘smoke inhalation’, despite his extensive injuries in a parked car. The injuries to his body obviously preceded his perishing by fire in his car and are consistent only with having been very badly beaten up. These include broken ribs to front and back, fractured base of skull with a haematoma and broken sternum. Strong suspicion falls on Denis Mackie or on Hollie’s brother Greg as participants in the foul play, suffice to say there must have been at least 2 people at the scene, possibly more, since according to the police story Roy wasn’t quite dead on being discovered and attempts were made to revive him after pulling him from the burning car. The rescuer was thereafter awarded for his bravery by Grampian Police, again implying there must have been a witness/ witnesses. Upon investigation, it was found that this ‘rescuer’ had a history of GBH on a woman in Hong Kong. The second witness has never been identified, albeit supposedly a nurse. The rescuer maintained he saw smoke from the motorway which led him to the scene. Upon investigation, photographs taken of the topography proves this was impossible. The car was found in a secluded area behind a 30-foot embankment with tall trees, on a memorable night of high winds and torrential rain, 17^th November 1997. It is claimed the catalytic converter caught fire which has also been proved to be not true, being virtually impossible. Furthermore, how could a fire be sustained in such weather conditions? Last but not least – WHY WAS THERE NEVER ANY INQUEST?!

See the following link http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-12733255. This case also involving murder by fire took place in 1994, also in Aberdeen and was never investigated. It involved the same pathologist, Dr Greive, the same fire brigade, the same police force. The article states “A traffic policeman also told the court that after going to senior officers to voice concerns about the crash in 1994 he was telephoned and told a line was to be drawn under the case. David Allan, then a sergeant, said: "I was told to move on and tell my colleagues to do so as well." Was this the same scenario with Anne’s brother’s death?

The article also states: “Dr Grieve told the court that he found no injuries consistent with a high speed crash, but the jury heard that her body had been extensively damaged in the fire.” Yet, Dr Greive ignored the extensive injuries to Roy’s body found in a parked burning car. Why was this?

There is also a direct link to the Shirley McKie case. Shirley McKie was a successful police woman until February 1997 when she was accused of leaving her fingerprint at a crime scene and lying about it. This all happened in the line of duty when she was part of a police team investigating the vicious murder of Marion Ross in Kilmarnock, Scotland. Terry Major, one Hollie’s abusers and relative of her father withheld vital evidence to clear Shirley McKie. Major was Chief Fingerprint Officer and head of forensics for Grampian Police. (Major is now deceased).

After Hollie reported her abusers to Grampian police, including Terry Major, on 25^th August 2000, 10 days later on 5^th September, TWELVE people turned up unexpectedly and without any REASON to illegally section Anne Greig.

http://www.shirleymckie.com/

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/justice1/reports-07/j1r07-03-vol2-01.htm

The submission from John McGregor in the attached link seems to suggest that Terry Major, Chief Fingerprint Officer for Grampian Police, had established in 1999 that Shirley's print did not match those found at the murder scene and that this had been communicated to Chief Constable Andrew Brown. For reasons unknown, these prints remained locked in Mr Major's desk until 2005 and were only recovered as a result of his long-term absence with terminal cancer.

Andrew Brown, in addition to his role as Chief Constable of Grampian Police, was Chairman of the Scottish Criminal Records Office (SCRO). [He wrote] “I understand that you are extremely unhappy with the role which the SCRO played in Shirley's case.”

Terry Major was one of a number of people accused by Hollie Greig of raping her. These allegations were made in August 2000 at which time Andrew Brown was Chief Constable of Grampian Police. Hollie’s father, Denis Mackie, is the cousin of Terry Major's wife Sylvia. Within two weeks of the allegations being made Grampian Police had instigated the sectioning of Hollie's mother (this is stated in a Police Complaints Commission report). No investigations into Hollie's allegations were carried out, on the grounds that none of the alleged abusers appeared on police systems.

 

Q. Given that Denis Mackie, Hollie’s father now lives/has lived in Portugal has there been any contact with the McCann family?

A. Certainly there has. When news broke on 3^rd May 2007 that a little girl, Madeleine had been snatched from her bed in Praia de Luz Portugal Anne lost little time in alerting Shrewsbury police to the fact of her own paedophile husband’s residence in Portugal, albeit at 1 hour’s distance from Praia de Luz itself. Contact thereafter with the McCann Inquiry team revealed that Shrewsbury police never passed this message.

 

Q. In 2010 Robert Green was banned from public campaigning about Hollie and in January 2011 his bail conditions were reinforced pending trial possibly in June. Does this mean the campaign cannot continue?

A. Of course not. According to the ruling of Stonehaven Court Aberdeen on 26^th January, Robert is banned from entering Aberdeen/Aberdeenshire, from speaking to any of Hollie’s alleged abusers (of which he has no intention, this is a job for the police, he says) and from speaking publicly about Hollie and Anne. However, everyone else is fully at liberty to do any of the above and there is still plenty of work for Robert to do on other fronts, for example in Shropshire where the Council instigated an unlawful and very destructive raid on the home of Anne and Hollie, 2 innocent and vulnerable local residents, causing them great distress and damage beyond their means to put right. And again, in respect of the raid on Robert’s own house in Warrington, Grampian police who led that have not produced a warrant nor returned the property seized.

 

Q: Why are so many people interested in Hollie and her story?

A:  As most know, child-abuse in all its ugly forms has gone on for thousands of years and in practically every society throughout the world. This fact is often used as an excuse or get-out for not doing anything about it – “Oh paedophilia, yes it’s horrible but it’s always been going on, seems to be part of human nature, there’s nothing much we can do about it!” or, “I know it goes on but it’s just so awful I absolutely don’t want even to think about it!” You’d expect then that reactions to the Hollie story would be similarly dismissive or evasive, but very remarkably this is not the case. Ever since the news broke in February 2010 that Grampian Police had arrested Hollie and Anne Greig’s lay legal representative Robert Green for campaigning publicly on their behalf in Aberdeen the story has spread like a bush-fire around the internet. The public imagination seems to be fired by this fairytale-like scenario of diminutive and handicapped yet ultra-determined Hollie, aided by her devoted mum and their knight in shining armour Robert squaring up to the dark forces in the form of the Scottish establishment. There is a huge amount of sympathy and support for the valiant trio and everyone is on tenterhooks to see what will happen next. However the final chapter is going to be written by YOU and ME – WE will determine how this story ends by all of us joining in with it. For this campaign you don’t have to be clever or knowledgeable, you just have to have a good heart, a strong sense of right and wrong and a love of children. If enough people like that get involved this story is going to have a happy ending. 

 

Q. Why does Hollie stand a better chance of bringing her abusers to justice than other victims of child-abuse?

A: Very few if any child-abuse victims are able to report the abuse during their childhood because, as in Hollie’s case, their abusers usually threaten them with terrible consequences if they breathe a word. Even if they manage to tell someone they are unlikely to be believed, nor will any action be taken against their alleged abusers if these happen to be close family members, still less as in Hollie’s case ‘respectable’ people including public figures. Abuse tends to run in families – Hollie’s father first abused Hollie’s older brother who then abused Hollie, and very possibly Hollie’s father was himself abused as a child. Then when a person is older it is even harder to get the abuse dealt with retrospectively, as by then there will be no evidence. Paedophilia is a nasty cycle which it seems almost impossible to break, especially where it interweaves with the culture of the establishment as in Scotland.  

Fortunately however Hollie and her mother do seem to have a number of winning cards in their hand:

• They are both people of more than usual courage, determination and intelligence;
• Hollie being Down’s Syndrome is a credible witness;
• Hollie is lucky to have a mum who is devoted to her and equally committed to her cause;
• Hollie and Anne have strong evidence to substantiate every part of the story;
• The authorities have made a number of errors along the way which have played into the Greigs’ hands;
• Hollie and Anne have found a terrific person to help them, Robert Green;
• Robert has collected corroborating testimony of other victims which in due course will be revealed; 
• We the public are outraged at what has happened and are fully supportive of Hollie, Anne and Robert;
• There is a rapidly-growing anti-child abuse movement in the UK which began to come together in 2010 to tackle this perennially-neglected problem and continues to gather momentum in 2011.

 

Q. Isn’t all this raking over of the past painful and distressing for Hollie?

A:  In 2010 in a TV interview Hollie was asked exactly this question, wasn’t it difficult for her to keep going back into all this painful stuff from the past? She thought for a moment, then replied simply “I want to fight!” In fact her mother says that until this campaign formed around her Hollie was a very frustrated and angry young woman but she’s much happier now she knows there are so many people on her case helping to bring the criminals who abused her and the other children and who killed her uncle to justice. Hollie is a very kind, loving person, she cries when she hears other victims of abuse telling their stories and she wants to help all the children still going through what she suffered as a child.

 

Q: There seem to be several ‘Hollie’ websites and Facebook sites claiming to be the main or ‘official’ sites, how can people identify those which are genuinely promoting Hollie’s cause?

A: At this point in time only www.holliedemandsjustice.organd Facebook sites approved by HDJ have Hollie, Anne and Robert’s full endorsement and we ask that people distance themselves from sites claiming to be the ‘official’ site, using specifically that word. They may have started off championing Hollie’s cause a few months back but they are now showing their true colours and appear to be out to undermine Hollie, Anne and Robert and generally muddy the waters. In fact one such site which unfortunately still comes up when anyone googles Hollie Greig seems to be rapidly degenerating into a kind of rant, with a lot of foul language directed particularly at Robert Green.  It turns out the individual running it has a history of disrupting organisations. Questions might likewise be asked of the convener of the erstwhile main Hollie Facebook site who suddenly pulled out, dumping 27,000 supporters – a classic example of how Facebook can be used to destroy groups.  

Nevertheless a certain amount of healthy questioning is desirable in any campaign. So how do you tell whether someone apparently trying to pick holes in Hollie and Anne’s story is doing so genuinely in the interests of truth and/or in the best interests of Hollie, as he or she might claim, or if he or she is simply out to make mischief? The following tests might be applied: 

If the answer is ‘no’ to all or most of the above we may conclude assume this person is on some kind of mission to break up the campaign and muddy the waters, so we can simply ignore his/her rantings.

 

• Has this critical person ever actually met and talked with Hollie and Anne face-to-face?
• Is he or she in contact with Hollie, Anne or Robert now?
• Has this person made any attempt to get to know other key people in the campaign?
• Does this person use his/her own name or does he/she lurk behind an avatar?
• Does this person have factual evidence and documentation to back up his/her assertions?
• Is this the first time this person has been disruptive in a group?
• Is this person able to remain civil and gracious at all times like Hollie, Anne and Robert themselves? 

Q:  Is Hollie being ‘used’ for some kind of publicity drive? What is Hollie’s own view of this increasingly public campaign growing up around her, is she comfortable with that?

A: We must make it quite clear that Hollie herself is the driving force behind this campaign, very much seconded by her mother who has often said she would not want any other child or mother to go through what she has gone through; their fight is for all mothers as well as children. They are both highly motivated by what they feel is their duty to prevent other children being abused. Everything that we in HDJ do and write on their behalf therefore is checked out with Hollie and Anne themselves. Until July 2010, when they were banned by Shropshire Council, they were often at public meetings and we have met and talked with them on many occasions privately too and are in regular touch with them and with Robert by telephone and email. There is no doubt in our mind that they wish us to continue with this campaign until the desired result is obtained, a proper investigation leading to prosecutions for the abuse Hollie suffered throughout her childhood and for the murder of her uncle Roy.

 

Q: Would it have been better for Hollie and her mother to have kept quiet and not to have gone public, for their own safety?

A:  Actually no, it was safer to go public… they had no choice. They had tried the normal route where one expects the police to investigate and charge the criminals.  This did not happen. There was NO investigation. It is a complete fabrication that an investigation was carried out. Having been denied justice, Anne and Hollie were left with no recourse except to go public.

Challenging the authorities is not easy, they are a law unto themselves; our common law has been subverted.  There are many other cases where women have fled their paedophile husbands and instead of the authorities prosecuting the husband, they hound, harass and, as with Anne, section them using psychiatry – a tool for social control. Please see Psychiatry EXPOSED!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b30iwhEw9ho

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPUHUpfDVgY&feature=related

http://psychiatricnews.wordpress.com

Hollie, Anne and Robert are speaking the truth, which is surely the reason why they – the authorities masquerading as protectors of the people, have been severely harassing them. Why are they doing this and whom are they protecting? Certainly not Hollie or Anne. There is no doubt that when Hollie was given £13,500 by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, the message to her was “here, take this money and shut up!” They obviously had little idea whom they were dealing with – the last thing Hollie wants to do is shut up!

 

Q: Why has a parliamentary campaign been chosen as a way of securing justice for Hollie?

A: Some people question whether this drive to get the MPs involved is the most effective way of campaigning for Hollie, particularly since the moral degeneracy of the MPs has been shown up through the recent expenses scandal. For this very reason however this might be a very good moment to approach the MPs, many of whom are serving for the first time. Engaging in a campaign on behalf of a victim/victims of child-abuse is an excellent opportunity for MPs to reclaim the moral high ground and redress the negative image the public has of them as being a greedy, conniving and immoral lot of people.

 MPs need to be made aware that the issue of child-abuse is coming out from shadows, to which it has been relegated for far too long, thanks to the trail-blazing work of such as Chris Wittwerwho has compiled a database of paedophiles, including a world-wide ring with 70,000 members http://www.chris-uk.org/worlds-largest-paedophile-ring-uncovered! So how many children will have suffered at the hands of these perverts? The population needs to wake up to the extent of this crime and the people involved at the top.

If Hollie cannot get justice after-all this publicity, what chance does any other boy and girl have? This subject has been taboo for too long. It’s time it was it was warned about in schools, and for the authorities to act in defence of the victim rather than protecting the perpetrators.

MPs are citizens of this country like everybody else and most share our fundamental moral values of justice, compassion and decency as well as love of children. We have faith that even though they may initially try to wriggle out of supporting Hollie viz. “Hollie is not my constituent” “this is a matter for Holyrood, not Westminster” we will be able to persuade at least a significant number of them to act to do the decent and moral thing, rather than just toeing the party line or sticking within their constituency/parliamentary boundaries. We have requested all three Party leaders to allow their members to respond to the Hollie issue according to their conscience rather than the customary protocols.   

There are a number of practical reasons why a parliamentary campaign is an excellent way of publicising an issue widely and getting the required action:

• There are 649 constituencies spread all over the country, the campaign can reach all corners of the UK;
• Working on your MP together helps build a little group of activists in each local area;
• A parliamentary campaign is itself a news story and will get the press and media interested once it grows;
• There are dozens of mainstream press & media people embedded in Parliament looking for news to report;
• Most people’s first thought when they have a serious problem is to try to get help from their MP;
• MPs are at the heart of the ‘establishment’ so if we are challenging that they provide a good way in;
• A group of MPs publicly challenging their senior colleagues on a moral issue can be very embarrassing;
• MPs are experienced public campaigners with loud mouths, we need them working for Hollie!
• MPs make the laws in our country so theoretically they should wish to see those laws are upheld; 
• There are in Parliament a number of officials whose remit specifically covers issues of child-abuse, administration of justice, law-enforcement and Scottish affairs. Rank-and-file MPs who say sorry they can’t do anything can be persuaded into writing to one or any of the following: Children’s, Schools and Families Minister (Michael Gove); Home Secretary (Theresa May); Justice Minister (Ken Clarke); Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore); First Minister of Scotland (Alex Salmond)
•  We should be aiming to set up an All Party Parliamentary Group on Child-Abuse to be on permanent watch against paedophilia in Parliament so we need to identify ‘good’ MPs willing to be part of such an APPG

Of course, running a parliamentary campaign doesn’t exclude other methods of campaigning, ie. via the children’s charities – there are 180,000 registered charities and a fair proportion of those deal with children’s issues; or via a respected journalist/newspaper if we could find one to champion the cause; or via a high-profile celebrity with the danger that the celebrity might be threatened or bought off which would be very damaging; or via the faith groups as a spiritual fight against the ‘satanic’ forces, or via the mums’, dads’, parents’ grandparents’ & womens’ networks.  HJD has considered all these possibilities but has opted for the traditional method of using the MPs, at least in the first instance, for the reasons listed above. MPs are closest to the source of the evil we are addressing, the senior public figures who abuse children and who then use/abuse their powers to cover up their crimes or who cover-up for colleagues.  With Hollie’s and the MPs’ help we are going to break this vicious cycle.