Hollie Greig UK media blackout will not hold back the truth

Originally posted by COMMA
on hearing that his daughter was raped the father went to Portugal with his son ,who has a dubious past, leaving his disabled daughter with a mad woman.

the father and son did not immediately flee to portugal. please state what date anne first started making her claims and then provide the date that the father and son moved there.

they owned a property there and the family had plans to move there already - even ann says this herself. the father's work took him there.

it should also be mentioned that anne contacted the police in portugal claiming her husband was a pedo and involved with the madeline mcann story when the father moved there. their property was, if i remember correctly, overt 150 miles away from where madeline disappeared.

please address the many times that anne abandoned both her children when she ran away from the house.

from this times article of two years ago...

Whitehall A huge backlog of requests under the Freedom of Information Act has built up in the Whitehall department with overall responsibility for the legislation. Between January and September last year, the Ministry of Justice received 1,798 requests under the legislation. It admitted to The Times that it had responded to only 1,200 on time. In spite of intervention by the information watchdog in March, the department is still unable to deal with hundreds of applications. Many e-mails and telephone calls about the progress of applications have gone unanswered by the ministry.

full article

could it possibly be that not much has improved since then, that the department is understaffed and unable to fulfil every single foi request?

are all unanswered foi requests conspiracies also?

it's always good to look for alternative explanations of why something might be.

www.youtube.com...=36

Mr Daly at his best , he has recently been criticized for his Sheridan trial and the tapes he used of the Sheridans interviews.


If only I had the time to trot out all the links but I am sure if you are interested you will find them

please address the many times that anne abandoned both her children when she ran away from the house.


ha ha no , that has no bearing on wether Hollie was raped and if there was a cover up.

see Mr Salmone is coming under scrutiny

Peter Adams tweeting about the missing records :-)

kirkcaldyukip Peter Adams
First Minister in missing records riddle over Hollie Greig abuse allegation is.gd/obsiom. Is he still trying to protect Angiolini?
16 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply

its so insignificant its front page of the Firm

First Minister in missing records riddle over Hollie Greig abuse allegations

The Scottish Government is refusing to disclose whether it has lost or destroyed communications records relating to the Hollie Greig case which may indicate when the First Minister Alex Salmond became aware of allegations of sexual abuse, which Ms Greig claims was carried out against her over many years whilst resident in the Aberdeen area.

Last month the Scottish Ministers were compelled by the Information Commissioner to address a series of questions put to the First Minister in correspondence in relation to the case in January this year, the first of which was: “When did you first become aware of the allegations made by Hollie Greig about her being abused by members of a high-ranking paedophile ring in Scotland?”

www.firmmagazine.com...

Mod Note: IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS - Please Review This Link.

Originally posted by COMMA
www.youtube.com...=36

Mr Daly at his best , he has recently been criticized for his Sheridan trial and the tapes he used of the Sheridans interviews.


If only I had the time to trot out all the links but I am sure if you are interested you will find them

strange that you post a recorded tape of mark daly saying there just wasn't evidence. please ask robert for his agreement to allow mark daly to release the tapes of his recorded conversations with him.

i don't think ats is going anywhere in a hurry so there is plenty of time to provide links. if you can't provide links to back up what you say then i'm not interested in chasing them up for you

Originally posted by COMMA
please address the many times that anne abandoned both her children when she ran away from the house.


ha ha no , that has no bearing on wether Hollie was raped and if there was a cover up.

it does have bearing on anne's mental health and willingness to run away when she felt like it.

but to address your point - please discuss the doctors letter i provided that found no proof of sexual abuse and where her parents were asking for contraception for hollie.

reply to post by COMMA


again, please refer to my post as to an alternative explanation of the foi requests not being met, and how when he first heard of the story has any relevance to anne's claims that hollie was abused?

lets say for example that he first heard about it in january last year. what will you do with that information?

can you state here whether he ever responded to any letters regarding the hollie story and what he said in reply?

reply to post by COMMA


as i already proved, the firm don't exactly check any of their information and have already had to retract a hollie story and issue a public apology.

who are 'the firm' anyway? are they a newspaper, an officially accredited organisation or just an online group of law people who write stories?

taken from this site - link is a letter robert green wrote about the aftermath of the show that mark daly appeared on which i previously posted transcripts of part of.

As a result of last week`s Tony Legend Show, in which Mark Daly was a participant, I would like to clarify certain points as I know that there have been some concerns expressed by those who wish Hollie well. I have been away from home much of last week, including two days in Scotland for another Court appearance.
When participating in the programme, I understood that the basis be that Mark Daly wished to offer his explanation for the BBC`s sudden decision, on 10th June last year, not to proceed with the commissioned programmes. I thought that this was entirely fair, in view of the public criticisms I have made. Mark deserved a chance to speak.

As the programme progressed, however, it seemed that the prime reason was not so much to defend the BBC`s position, but to make a more general attack on the credibility of Anne and me.

Mark highlighted a number of facts that he considered were incorrect. Notwithstanding that we may well dispute these issues, it is significant that at no time during the seven weeks that the BBC held all the documentation did Mark or any of the BBC team every query any aspect of the information placed before them. It is reasonable to suggest that if there were any errors, which would have been made entirely in good faith, the BBC would have queried them at the time before sending down three investigators from Scotland to Shropshire to spend five and a half hours inteviewing Anne, Hollie and me on 4th June last year.

Moreover, at the end, Mark gave an unequivocal assurance that the commissioned programmes would go out in August or September and that a camera crew would come down to complete the requirements. At no time was any doubt ever expressed over the facts, nor about the competence or integrity of Hollie and Anne. We were categorically assured that everything was “in the bag”.

That said, one point brought up by Mark on the programme was the question of the relationship between one of the women named and the sheriff. The woman was a close friend of a relative of Anne`s who described her as the named sheriff`s sister. Anne had therefore always accepted this in good faith, having no reason to query it. Unfortunately, we do not have the vast publicly funded resources of Mark and his team, but our investigations since allude to the woman being the sheriff`s sister-in-law. Certainly Hollie, in her interview with the police on 8th September last year which I witnessed, told them that the woman`s husband was the sheriff`s brother. Much of this interview centred on the home of the woman and her husband, which appeared to have been used as a centre for much of the sexual abuse. I had assumed that Hollie meant brother-in-law.

However, this relationship question cannot possibly be central to the nature of the offences committed.
We were puzzled by Mark’s query about the ages of some of the children, which appeared to be another attempt to muddy the waters. Again it would seem that any question of this type should have been dealt with when the BBC had the documents. Most of the victims, like Hollie, are now mature adults.

It should also be remembered that the commissioned programmes were not just about Hollie, but other cases of paedophile crime in Scotland that his team had discovered, according to Mark. He told us about one defenceless girl in the Glasgow area with Down’s Syndrome who was being repeatedly raped. What has happened to this and other cases as far as the BBC is concerned?

Mark attempted to ask me about the victims I had made contact with. As an experienced investigator, he knew full well that I could not possibly discuss such an issue on air.

Of all the issues brought up, by Mark, nothing could have revealed his black propaganda agenda more than discussion of the death of Roy Greig. As this issue was simply not on the table when our discussions with the BBC took place as we did not receive the autopsy until more that six months after the BBC had left the scene, Mark’s attempts to cast aspersions about this had nothing whatsoever to do with the planned programmes and could only be described as deliberately malicious.

However, I should clarify that Roy’s suspension at the time was not a cause for any significant concern and was not a worry for Roy. He talked to Anne about it and because of the nature of Roy’s position of bar manager, responsible for stock and a numbers of staff, this type of action is far from uncommon in Roy’s trade. He had also been given support and assurances from his union that he had nothing to worry about. What is significant is the discovery by Roy of Hollie being sexually abused by her father just a few weeks before his death.
Mark suggested that Roy’s bone fractures may have been caused by attempts at resucitation. Roy was a strong, healthy middle-aged man. The sternum is one of the strongest bones in the body. To break that is virtually impossible in the circumstances and is only possible had the victim had, for example, been very elderly with brittle bones.

Furthermore, how could Mark Daly engage in detailed comments about a document he had never seen?
The autopsy is a highly confidential document belonging to Anne, who had to battle for twelve years to obtain it.
Finally, Mark was extremely selective on the new “facts” he claimed to have unearthed. He made no reference to the financial irregularities surrounding the considerable wealth of the family estate following Roy’s death concerning the solictor, later to be named as one of the ring and Hollie’s father. It is a matter of public record that Anne won a case over this with the Scottish Law Society. Mark seems to have missed this. Perhaps it just did not fit in with his agenda.

Investigations into this financial fraud continue with the help of Anne’s specialist in this field.
I do hope that this will clarify matters for those concerned and trust that the forces of distraction do not succeed in their attempts to deny justice and protection for Hollie and the other defenceless victims in this horrifying case.
Thank you all for your wonderful support throughout on behalf of Hollie, Anne and myself.
Robert Green

i'll comment on this letter in the next post

mark daly and the bbc found after 7 weeks of investigating that there was not any credible evidence to prove the story and that there were too many inconsistencies with it. they also deemed anne would not make a reliable witness in court. mark daly and the bbc were not threatened or d-noticed or anything of the sort. their lawyers did however point out that they would be in for massive lawsuits if they chose to run the story as the would for any story that wasn't provable and was libellous to the accused.

i personally have spoken with mark daly about the whole thing and believe he genuinely wanted to cover the story originally until he realised after investigation that it just didn't add up. he also withheld other information because he didn' want to damage anne any further and felt it was inappropriate.

mark daly told of (some) of the fact checking his team did. this included going to the births, deaths and marriages section of the council and finding out that not only did the sheriff not have a sister as claimed, but that two of the named children were not even born when the abuse is alleged to have taken place. when presented on air with these findings, it transpired that anne had been 'told' that it was the sister and soon became obvious that robert had checked very, very little of anne's story for credibility.

he says in the letter "we do not have the vast publicly funded resources of Mark and his team, but our investigations since allude to the woman being the sheriff`s sister-in-law." now, while they admittedly do not have vast resources to investigate, it does actually cost nothing to look this information up and mark even encouraged robert to do so. even presented with this information - robert does not check it out but says "our investigations since allude to the woman being the sheriff`s sister-in-law". the dictionary definition of the word 'allude' means to hint at or suggest. did they just ask another friend then? had robert green actually checked up on what mark daly claimed then he would know for definite and wouldn't have to allude to anything! same also for then named alleged victims ages - did robert check any of this before or after? no he didn't

"Mark attempted to ask me about the victims I had made contact with. As an experienced investigator, he knew full well that I could not possibly discuss such an issue on air." he could of course tell people that he hadn't ever interviewed or investigated any of the witnesses but that would show how little he did to verify anne's claims. mark daly did both.

think about this everyone - robert green has publicly named a load of people and called them pedos and victims of pedos without one shred of proof that they even existed.

i'll leave it at that for now.

Roberts mad Annes mad ,Harding who is dead might say something new , Mark Daly didnt change his mind , the police report saying Hollie was abused doesnt count there was no payment due criminal acts on Hollie there is no cover up , Alec salmone did not ignore a direct legal requirement . Is is just me but ......

reply to post by COMMA


again, i ask you to please provide the police report you keep referring to or any documentation about the compensation.

please comment on the real and official police complaints commission report that i provided that found no truth in anne's allegations.

perhaps if they are getting no answers for foi requests on 'alec salmone' it might be because his name is 'alex salmond'.

reply to post by justyc


Typos really , I think you will find that the people doing it will take more care than I.

You have proved nothing as far as I am concerned , no more than Robert Green or Anne Greig in fact , thats why I want it investigated ,properly without fear or favour, and taken out the hands of sleuths and those with an axe to grind,its really not to much to ask.

Originally posted by COMMA
reply to post by justyc

 

Typos really , I think you will find that the people doing it will take more care than I.

You have proved nothing as far as I am concerned , no more than Robert Green or Anne Greig in fact , thats why I want it investigated ,properly without fear or favour, and taken out the hands of sleuths and those with an axe to grind,its really not to much to ask.

it has been investigated by many people including professionals and the facts (which i have provided and some of which came directly from their own evidence and their own mouths) speak for themselves. annes complaints to the pcc have twice been investigated and found to have no basis in truth)

even 'the firm' who you keep mentioning don't get their facts straight - in this article they can't even get the name of who is defending green correct (it was gerard sweeney who defended him, not donald finlay) read here

you have yet to discuss any of the facts or documents i have placed here and have ignored all my requests to provide the reports you keep referring to.

i can't help that you so blindly choose to ignore the wealth of information that there is available and refuse to believe anything other version than the official one regardless of all other proof to the contrary. it doesn't matter what someone tweeted or when someone first heard about hollies story.

green is finally in court in september isn't he? i ask you this and hope you answer it - will you abide by their decision if he is found guilty of breach of the peace or will you claim they all must be in on the conspiracy also? remember - i have asked to see green's bail conditions and the amended conditions (still yet to see them) and if what he claims is true, then he has broken them on many proven occasions. if it's not true then he must be lying about them.

adding to the above paragraph - if you deem the court unfair to robert should he be found guilty how can you want a trial by a court you don't trust? even if it did ever get to court - the evidence wouldn't hold up, the witnesses aren't credible and you would still call it a conspiracy when the case is found against their claims.

isnt it true that robert green was already under interdict from edinburgh PRIOR to his arrest in feb 2010? please show what was this for?

Even Daly said Hollie was abused

just read this


Point is though it doesn't matter a jot if Anne is as mad as a box of bats! Likewise it doesn't matter than Robert Green has gone about this all the wrong way - which he has! FACT is there IS evidence Hollie was abused; now whether it happened once or a thousand times just doesn't matter... this all boild down to some fairly simple facts...

A little girl WAS raped (even Daly acknowledges this) - her rapists have got away with it - and various people in authority have gone to the strangest lengths to 'bury' her demands for justice. End of story!

Robert IS in the wrong for the way he went about things - but a CRIMINAL charge being used to silence him? Really? - A fundamental attack on democracy? The CIC payment? The way "The Firm" has been treated?

90% of Anne's claims could be complete bunkum and it would matter not one single jot! ALL Buchanan had to do was sue for defamation... That's all... What was it he wanted to avoid coming out in the 'absolute privilege' environment of a court? - Even a civil one?

I don't doubt Salmond was kept in the dark and fed on BS and to that extent he's as much a victim as anyone... - He's now trying to evade the issue because politically it would show him up as unacceptably weak in the post of First Minister. If he had any brains/balls he would open up the can of worms himself! If he doesn't and it comes down about his head well...