Cutting through the Rubbish

Hollie Greig and the Petrol Station Incident

2010-07-21T18:58:00.003+01:00

@6:36

Interviewer: Yeah, tell me about that story about Hollie and the petrol station incident thing

Belinda McKenzie: Well, this is, this happened several weeks ago, probably sort of about the end of May, erm, and sort of just one of the things that happened which sort of adds to the whole sort of sinister and package of nasty things that have been going, going on with Hollie and Anne since they’ve been going public, and they were in a petrol station and obviously filling up the car and er, Anne went in to pay basically and left Hollie in the car by herself, and when she came out and came back to the car, Hollie was in floods of tears and very upset and apparently some policewoman had come and banged on the window and had shouted abuse at Hollie through the window and told...threatened Hollie basically you know, we know what you’re doing and we’re not going to put up with it and whatever she said, Hollie was completely horrified and upset by it

Interviewer: What did she say?

Belinda McKenzie: Well, I haven’t actually heard what, what she actually said, but it was bad enough to really upset Hollie so if it’s a question as to whose upsetting Hollie then I have to say it’s the official people who are upsetting Hollie, not the campaigners, which is really, you know, the message we’re trying to get across is that this campaign and what we’re doing to defend Hollie actually makes Hollie feel a lot better and happier. What doesn’t make her feel happy is when the official people tell her they want to kill her, get rid of her and shut her up and separate her and all that....

I have no doubt that Belinda McKenzie believes what she has apparently been told by Anne Greig, but there are a couple of things which strike me as odd about her statement.

The question asked by the interviewer “what did she [the policewoman] say?” Why did Belinda McKenzie feel the need to fill her reply with an explanation that it is not the campaigners who are upsetting Hollie? And when did any official tell Hollie that they want to kill her, get rid of her, shut her up or separate her?

A police person entering a petrol station will no doubt attract attention from other customers at the fuel pumps, therefore it is likely that if this incident had taken place then there would be numerous people who witnessed this odd behaviour by the policewoman, especially as she was apparently banging on a car window and shouting abuse at a passenger.

Petrol stations have CCTV covering all their pumps, so no doubt there will be video coverage of this odd behaviour by said policewoman.

After this announcement to the public there has been no follow up from either Anne Greig or Robert Green, at least as far as I am aware. Surely this would the scoop of the year for a couple who have tried hard to collect information on the ‘cover up’ of Hollie’s case.

If it turns out that Hollie had not told this story to her mother and that Anne had in fact invented the scenario, then it would certainly place a question mark over anything else that Hollie has supposedly said in the past.

David Icke's unfounded and dangerous article: Greg Lance-Watkins

2010-07-10T14:00:00.012+01:00

David Icke to be sued by Greg Lance-Watkins?

I am a regular reader of StolenKids-Hollie site, which happens to be run by Mr Greg Lance-Watkins. The reason I read his site is because it seems he is one of the few who is currently questioning the official Anne Greig/Robert Green scenario.

Today I read something which is cause for concern. It seems that David Icke has, in his infinite wisdom; decided to print information on Mr Lance-Watkins from what he states as a “solid gold source.”

If David Icke is wrong in this instance, then it brings into question how much of his previous information is also incorrect. After all, it seems that he has taken this “solid gold source” at his or her word rather than doing the correct thing by double checking the information before going to print. Perhaps it would have been wiser to contact Mr Lance-Watkins for his side of the story, if only to provide a balanced report.

The cause for concern in David Icke’s article is this sentence in particular:

“The army reports state that Rifleman Watkins was discharged early from National Service in July 1960 as unsuitable because of his sexual preferences and subversive comments.”

It seems that Mr Lance-Watkins is seriously considering suing David Icke for libel (details below) and I can fully understand why. It seems that David Icke’s “solid-gold” fountain has sprung forth some cheap brassy speculation, specifically (according to StolenKids-Hollie site) by someone who calls himself/herself Butlincat:

very interesting about "GREG LANCE-WATKINS" "sexual preferences" = children?

The above example shows how internet whispers can turn incorrect information into downright unfounded and speculative comments which may circulate quickly through the internet grapevine as fact. Being wrongly accused of paedophilia is probably one of the worst crimes that can be imposed on a person. We only have to look at the news to see how some, who have been wrongly accused of such atrocities, have drawn sever and undeserved attack from individuals incapable of discerning fact from fiction. This is an extremely dangerous and explosive mix and we all need to exercise a degree of common sense.

I am posting David Icke’s article followed by the corrections provided by Mr Lance-Watkins and also an email Mr Lance-Watkins received from someone who knew him during his short army career.

To read the original article please goes to StolenKids-Hollie

To read the original email please read "Mr. David Icke and others banged to rights it would seem"

Finally, to read the article by David Icke, please to go his Headlines page (beneath the subheading “oh yes, and one other thing...from a solid-gold source”) :

Article by David Icke

Oh, yes, one other thing ... from a solid-gold source:

'Information from Ministry of Defence Army records reveals that a Rifleman Gregory Lancelot Watkins was born in Clifton, Bristol. He joined what was then the Kings Royal Rifles in December 1959 as a clerk and was posted to Royal Military Academy Sandhurst in a clerical post until May 1960.

The army reports state that Rifleman Watkins was discharged early from National Service in July 1960 as unsuitable because of his sexual preferences and subversive comments.'

Reply from Mr Lance-Watkins:

FORTUNATELY I HAVE A SCREEN CAPTURE - THIS COULD COST THOSE INVOLVED OVER £1/2 MILLION + costs!

I reserve my right under law to take such action as I may find expedient against all who have been party to this gross and defamatory Libel.

Now even Mr. Fruit Loop himself has jumped on Hollie Greig to get a piece of the publicity.

Let us look at the facts:

• I was born in Frenchay Hospital in Bristol NOT Clifton.
• I was born 26-Jan-1946
• My Mother Winifred Beatrice Watkins nee Ferris, was registered at 10 Hedwick St., St. George, Bristol at her parent's home.
• My Father Desmond John Watkins was still on active duty as a fighter pilot in the RAF.
• I was christened Gregory Lance Watkins NOT Lancelot.
• I effected the hyphenation of my name on all legal documents from approx 1960 by way of differentiation as I knew 3 or 4 other Greg Watkins.
• I have maintained the style to date.
• I joined The Regular Army in about 1964 NOT when I was 13 or 14 in 1959!!
• I joined The Royal Green Jackets at Peninsular Barracks Winchester in the Ox&Bucks LI
• I was NEVER a clerk in or out of the Army.
• I went to The Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, as an Officer Cadet, after completing basic and a course at Beaconsfield.
• The course at RMAS was a two year course.
• I was not Commissioned as I purchased my discharge on two issues of principle, primarily, immediately prior to my Commission.

Is it any wonder these little nurds all hide behind idiot names! Butlin Cat can't be much older that 17 or 18 at a guess and is an inadequate little creep with a vocabulary like an open sewer.

I've taken the liberty of addressing the posting by the fools as a separate posting and in view of the despicable dishonesty of the filth that are posting such malicious lies like David Icke, Brian Gerrish, Paul Drockton, Belinda McKenzie, Butlin Cat Litter and their like I would appreciate anyone reposting my comment in full anywhere they can on the internet to show just what liars have gathered around promoting the lies surrounding the Hollie Greig 'STORY'.

Thank You - to those who are decent enough and have the integrity to ensure my post is widespread.

SHOULD I DECIDE TO ACT FOR DAMAGES:

• I will set aside: 20% of my net compensation to reward those who provide NEW screen captures of the defamation against me with details making it actionable with a screen capture of each site on which they have posted this entire message.

• 10% for a British Charity caring for abused children. 10% for a British Charity caring for abused women.

• 10% in full or by proportion to anyone assisting in funding my case - they will be refunded all contributed funding by those who have defamed me when they lose as clearly they will.

We have at least a year in which to decide if we wish to act from the last date on which the defamation remained and I'm not entirely sure that that is not 6 years - I'll check later today.

Thank YOU for your support. We set out to establish the truth and ensure Justice would be seen to be done - it is interesting that for all their self righteous and self promoting endless sordid religion we see people like Brian Gerrish befouling the internet with lies as is Robert Green, Anne Greig, Stuart Usher, Belinda McKenzie, Butlin Cat, Matt Quinn, Sandra Barr, Paul Drockton, Sandie Fox, Ian McFerron, Adam Alden, Christopher Harrison, Shauna McDonald, Keiran Marlow, Barbara Richards, David Icke and others!

Don't forget you can get a part of the 20% for a screen capture of a new instance of defamation of me with details and a copy of a screen capture of your having posted this entire message on a web site or blog.

Thank YOU for YOUR help in shutting down the filth and lies on the internet surrounding Anne Greig's 'STORY'.

May I also suggest that individuals like Liam Ball, Gabe Nelson, Paul Phillips, Dawn? Westwood, Tom George, Susan Keenan, Lesley McLaren and others who have been defamed might care to contact me and I will retain their details and when/if I proceed I will include them in my claim using my very clear, open and shut case as the lead for the Lawyers.

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

PS: Now shall we return to establishing the truth surrounding the Hollie Greig 'STORY' and ensuring Justice is seen to be done and that Anne & Hollie Greig receive the hands on care and attention they clearly need to prevent their further exploitation.

Greg_L-W.

Email to Mr Lance-Watkins

9th July 2010

Dear Greg,

My attention was drawn, by others who knew you those many years ago, to an article on the website of David Icke.

The detail is very unpleasant and purports to come from a 'solid gold source'.

You will remember that we first met at the Royal Army School of Education, Beaconsfield in September 1964. From memory you were in the Royal Green Jackets and I think the 43rd and 52nd (Ox. & Bucks.) which I believe became the 1st Bn. Like myself, you had only served a very short time before being sent to Beaconsfield.

Amongst others you will remember was David Purley who later became a well known Formula 1 racing driver. Mr. Icke seems to have confused you with a person who he says served in the KRRC and who was conscripted as a National Serviceman. National Service ended some 4 years before we joined. Indeed the last National Serviceman, a 2nd Lt, presumably after a Short Service Commission, left, I understand, in 1963.

Mr. Icke seems to think that you were posted to the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst as a clerk. When I know that you were my next door but one neighbour as an Officer Cadet in New College, Gaza Company, Intake 38.

Mr. Icke's other assertions don't bear thinking of. He seems to have decided to launch a vicious and malicious attack on you for no clear reason. His words appear totally unrelated to the headline under which they appear. What could have possessed him to make such ridiculous and unfounded but potentially damaging allegations?

Does he write this stuff himself or rely on someone else to get things wrong for him?

Regards and best wishes,

NAME REDACTED

(End of email - Comment by Mr Lance-Watkins follows)

I trust the letter makes the case totally clear and will be happy to provide numerous retired Army Officers, with whom I served, to Court to attest to just how gross and how damaging this gratuitous defamation and libel has been to my reputation in circles that could well make Mr. Icke and his despicable pals a little dizzy!

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

Email to Mr Lance-Watkins from Tim Collard

2010-07-05T22:10:00.005+01:00

Having read an email from Tim Collard to Mr Lance-Watkins on the StolenKids-Hollie site I’m curious. Mr Collard has, apparently, been instructed by Mrs Justice Pauffley to inform Mr Lance-Watkins that he “should not, under any circumstances, reveal any further information regarding either Hollie (and in particular her medical details) or the Court proceedings, via the internet or indeed through any other medium.”

If Anne Greig and Robert Green are so certain that Hollie’s medical records and other photocopies/scans of official letters/documents given to Mr Lance-Watkins prove that Hollie was abused and that there has been a huge cover-up by those in authority, then why are they afraid of any further information regarding Hollie being made available to the public? Surely these are only letters that they are quoting from which they say proves their case? If so, then why do they want to hide their 'evidence'?

Or perhaps what has been released in the past has been selective? It makes a person wonder what, exactly, is in the letters which they seem fearful of reaching the public domain.

Full article below (original article can be read here)

SK-H287 - G.L-W. REPLY to COLLARD SSS 05-Jul-2010

IN THE INTEREST of CLARITY, TRANSPARENCY & JUSTICE BEING SEEN TO BE DONE in search of and to establish the FACTS & TRUTH to ensure better and more responsible treatment and support of Anne Greig & her daughter Hollie.

From: Greg Lance-Watkins
eMail: Greg_L-W (Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com)
Tel: UK: 01291 – 62 65 62

FOR THE ATTENTION OF:

>>Tim Collard
Head of Adults and Children Law
Legal and Democratic Services
Shropshire Council<<

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Sir,

Thank you indeed for taking the time to eMail me a personalised version of your circular.

May I take the liberty of acquainting you with a few facts that may help you increase the accuracy of such circulars in future. To that end I take the liberty of a line by line response to the circular as follows:

>>Dear Mr Lance-Watkins,

You may be aware that High Court proceedings have been issued by Shropshire Council in respect of Hollie Greig.<<

No I was not aware who had issued proceedings – I presume they were rather belatedly to protect Hollie Greig & her mother Anne from further exploitation by Robert Green, Brian Gerrish, Peter Eyer, Paul Drockton and their ilk. Also I presume very late in the day you had made the decision to put a stop to the very apparent abuse of Hollie by parading her around public meetings and broadcast facilities like an exhibit in a Victorian freak show.

Perhaps the abject failure of the authority to have taken steps to prevent this earlier can be an object lesson to you and perhaps since you are looking for savings those responsible may well feature on that list.

>>These are being heard in private.<<

Minded of the bad publicity that this case has engendered and the need to ensure Justice should be seen to be done do you feel this was an appropriate action, particularly minded of the number of self publicists who were in the Court and the many and very prompt leaks that have ensued.

>>The case came before Mrs Justice Pauffley yesterday and she expressed serious concern generally about the nature of much of the material published on the internet about Hollie.<<

Not before time did she express this and I trust she admonished Anne Greig and Robert Green for putting so much material into the public domain – both through meetings, articles published by Brian Gerrish’s ‘The UK Column’ and the many broadcasts and interviews given by Robert Green and Anne Greig.

>>I appreciate that you are not solely responsible for this,<<

I do not believe sir that you will find I am remotely responsible, as up until the 30-Apr-2010 I posted material on a blog clearly stating it was fully approved by Anne Greig, Hollie Greig & Robert Green as it clearly was. I had absolutely no access to source documentation save that which was put in my hands by Robert Green and Anne Greig and re-publication of interviews and articles written or given by Anne Greig & her associate Robert Green. I acted in good faith and no item was posted there other than that which had apeared elsewhere already – save copy correspondence and reports that Robert Green & Anne Greig had launched into the public domain.

>>but the Learned Judge<<

It does not sound as if Mrs Justice Pauffley is in fact particularly learned in this matter though that may be through no fault of her own. If in dereliction of your duty you have permitted her to deduce a position other than the fact that I acted in good faith to seek to establish the truth and obtain justice – I would ask you to make good your error and return immediately to that Court to apologise for having misled the good lady.

>>directed me to write to you to explain that you should not, under any circumstances, reveal any further information regarding either Hollie (and in particular her medical details)<<

As you are aware I have no access to Hollie’s medical details or further details save those made public by Anne Greig & Robert Green, Brian Gerrish, Peter Eyer, Paul Drockton, Matt Quinn and many others who since the 30-Apr-2010 have been in contact with the source. It has not been I who has exploited Hollie nor abused her right of privacy by parading her around as an exhibit!

It is also an indisputable fact and a matter of public record that I was sufficiently concerned about this matter that I wrote in detail to your social services department with a copy to YOUR CEO as I believed that you were being dilaterious in your duty of care to these two very vulnerable women.

>>or the Court proceedings, via the internet or indeed through any other medium.<<

As I was not present in the Court clearly I can only report on the many orchestrated leaks that have materialised on the internet and YouTube already. IF you are seeking to imply that anyone’s freedom of speech is curtailed in discourse of facts in the public domain – May I submit this is a leap too far on your part and forefend Mrs. Justice Pauffley would have acted Ulta Vires.

We are not as yet fully subsumed in the undemocratic and corrupt EU and thus not bound by Corpus Juris and nor ostensibly is this a Police State, though at times one might be justified in thinking otherwise!

>>Your website clearly confirms that you are no longer authorised by Ms Anne or Ms Hollie Greig to release information about them.<<

May I take the liberty of bringing it to your attention that it is I who has made the ownership and management of the weblog in question very clear and unlike the overwhellming majority of weblogs and web sites on the internet not only have I made my name well known and obvious but also my eMail address, street address and phone number.

May I also bring it to your attention that as a resident of these United Kingdoms I enjoy a right of free speech within the framework of the laws of the land and therefore I neither need nor require the permission of Anne or Hollie Greig nor most certainly your good self or Mrs. Justice Pauffley to publish facts placed in the public domain nor discussion of due process of law, in any context.

May I also bring to your attention the fact that it has been my express and stated intention to establish the truth, seek that Justice is seen to be done, particularly in the case of those who have been so liberally defamed by particularly Anne Greig and Robert Green as murderers, in collusion in murder, paedophiles and pederasts and involved as victims of sexual abuse.

I have also done all I can reasonably be expected to do to ensure action is taken by your good selves to provide a safe haven and the needs of Anne & Hollie Greig in the long term safe from exploitation and abuse. Perhaps you could advise what exactly you have done to achieve this aim during the last few years and precisely what you will be doing in the future to acquit your duty for it ill becomes you as a public servant to exceed your function and presume to either lecture me or make implied threats.

>>At this stage there is no injunction against you.<<

I should bloody well hope not.

>>However, failure to heed this request could result in such an order being sought.<<

May I ask if you have had the timerity to mislead Mrs. Justice Pauffley and imply that I have EVER at any stage acted in a manner that is other than cautionary and seeking to establish the truth, open and visible Justice based on material put in the public domain by Anne Greig and her appointed agent Robert Green. IF you have may I request you promptly and comprehensively address an apology to Mrs. Justice Pauffley.

>>I would strongly advise you to comply with the terms of this email. The case has been reserved to Mrs Justice Pauffley and she will expect to be informed if the Council, or anyone else, becomes aware that you may have been involved, directly or otherwise, in the continued disclosure of such
material.<<

I reject you impudent inferrence out of hand and demand that in future you ensure you advise the courts with a great deal more attention to the truth than to your convenience.

>>Please be aware that I am unable to discuss any other aspect of this case with you.<<

I do not for a moment expect you to discuss the matter merely take my instruction and issue a very prompt apology to Mrs. Justice Pauffley as it would seem you have not only been dilaterious in your duty of care regarding Anne and Hollie Greig but would seem to have misled her in the matter of their weblog, as it was, until I refused to act further for them on the 30-Apr-2010, and all subsequent material is clearly compliant with the rights of free speech enshrined in British law.

>>Yours sincerely,
Tim Collard
Head of Adults and Children Law
Legal and Democratic Services
Shropshire Council<<

I look forward to your expeditious corrections and apology and assurance that you have corrected any misleading information which may have been put before Mrs. Justice Pauffley regarding myself.

Good day to you Sir,
G. Lance-Watkins

Transcript of Tony Legend Show with Mark Daly (BBC) Part 4

2010-07-04T19:12:00.009+01:00

Tony Legend Show: BBC's Mark Daly v Robert Green

View Part 1
View Part 2
View Part 3

Fourth video (transcript beneath):

MD = Mark Daly
RG = Robert Green
AG = Anne Greig
TL = Tony Legend

MD: Let’s talk about that Robert.

RG: And the medical records of Hollie I’m empowered to talk about now which confirmed that a doctor Carter examined Hollie in 1990 and found that she had a sexually transmitted disease.

MD: Sure

RG: These are the kind of people that the Scottish establishment are trying to cover up for

MD: Sure. Look Robert I think you’ve heard me say already that I’m....what I said ..I’ve said several times tonight already that I think that there are strong grounds for backing up the suggestion that Hollie was abused probably by someone by...who had access to her. Yes, that’s not in dispute as far as I’m concerned Robert it never has been. Let’s talk about the autopsy. Now, the autopsy, I guess the listeners don’t know, this is Anne’s brother, now erm, Anne’s brother allegedly erm killed himself and I think that Robert now insists that ...it’s suggested by Robert and the campaign team that this was murder because the brother, Mr Greig, had seen Hollie being abused. Now, what I’ve managed to find out Robert and I don’t know whether you as your, erm, your role as a senior investigator in this case whether you did but two days before Mr Greig was found dead he had been suspended from his job for financial irregularities, okay, and he was then...

AG: Can I just butt in here?

MD: Sure Anne, sure

AG: That, that’s not...he was suspended but er, he’d already spoken to his union meeting, er, leader about it and it was a minor thing, he had to go down to Glasgow and to speak to them, er, it was absolutely ...it was a stock take problem right

MD: yes he was suspended on the suspicion of stealing money, that’s what he was suspended for....so he ...er...

AG: You think my brother took his life because of that? Is that what you’re trying to say?
MD: Sorry?

AG: so who gave him the fractured skull, the broken sternum? And the broken ribs?

MD: Well, can I just come to that? I’ll just come to that. He didn’t have a fractured skull, he had some damage to his head yes, but not a fractured skull. Now what happened as far as I understand is that he fixed a pipe to the exhaust and attempted to kill himself and...

AG: Not attached

MD: ...and something went wrong and the car went on fire, there were two people passing, dragged him out of the car and were attempting...

AG: They were passing? I don’t think so

MD: Now the injuries that you’re talking about Anne, a broken sternum, a broken ribs, these are all injuries which are consistent with CPR. Now did anybody...

AG: Nooo! Not at all

MD: Has anyone on this panel ever done first aid?

AG: Not at all

MD: Has anyone done first aid on this panel...

AG: We’ve had experts look at the autopsy

MD: Anyone who’s done first aid will tell you that the damage (can’t hear a few words because of Anne Greig’s raised voice) ...consistent with CPR

AG: You are not medically qualified to state anything about my brother’s autopsy because you are not medically qualified. Now we have had experts look at my brother’s autopsy right

MD: I’m just telling you that this again is something else that would not stand up as far as a journalist is concerned from a news organisation (can’t hear because of Anne Greig’s voice drowning out Mark Daly’s.)

AG: So you’re telling me that the ambulance service knocked my brother’s .... you know fractured my brother’s skull?

MD: Well I’m lead to believe that there was no fractured skull...there was damage but there was no fractured skull and again it was at the back of the head and it was consistent with injuries while delivering CPR

AG: That’s absolute tummy rot...

TL: Alright, ha ha...we’re almost out of time folks. Anything else Mark that you’d like to say?

MD: Well I just ...yeah, yeah I would actually. Now I don’t know whether what I’ve said tonight will make any difference to this campaign or to what they think about the BBC. What, what is interesting is that Robert has refused to give permission for the secretly recorded conversations to be broadcast, now I wonder what his thinking behind that is...but the one thing I would say, and ...I know, Anne is obviously getting hostile against me now and I can understand why, but ..the one thing I’d say here is that this case, I can’t ever see this case getting to court unless some new evidence comes forward. But like I said before, the one allegation that did hold any water has been washed in a deluge of these other, slightly fantastical, allegations and I just wonder that when this fever and the emotion dies from this campaign, when no success is attained, when no newspaper will publish, that when the steam eventually runs out, who’s going to be looking after...who’s going to be looking out for Anne and Hollie then? Will Robert Green still be?

TL: Well er...
MD: Tony Legend? David Ike?

AG: I’m a fifty-eight year old woman for God sake you know?

RG: There’s no question about that Mark. I shall be here right to the end and I don’t agree with your analysis of that. And one other thing I would like to mention to you as well, is that the opposition, the solicitors representing the sheriff, who I am not going to name right now, representing him in this case, have already accepted that Roy Greig was murdered, that is the other side

MD: Oh Robert that’s just not true.

RG: Oh it is. We’ve got it. We’ve got the document.

MD: Robert, Robert ...you are...

RG: It’s a legal document in the public domain, you can go look at it...

MD: Robert, Robert ... ...Truth Ninja, I don’t think you would know the truth if it was karate chopped across your neck Robert I wish...

RG: You should know that

MD: ...I wish you good luck in your campaign for Parliament okay. And I think that erm, I hope that some of the things that have been said by the more sensible people listening to this program will be taken on board and considered properly, before people start turning up and demonstrating outside organisations, before people start making allegations, the most serious allegation anybody can make about someone to call them a paedophile. People should maybe have a little bit of, people should have a pause and really genuinely think about what it is that you’re doing here Robert, about the seriousness of what you’ve done. What you’ve done is an affront to free speech, it’s an affront to it, it’s not a demonstration of it, it’s an affront to it and it’s disgraceful. And you’ll have to live with that. Tony thanks very much for having me

RG: He, Mark I have no trouble in living with myself over this, it’s the cowards you try to cover and that included you.

TL: No worries er Mark I do appreciate you coming on and you’ve done a good job of giving your side of the story and I understand that, obviously it’s a hot topic, but the bottom line is that, as we can all agree, Dennis Mackie has a lot to answer for. He’s still free, he’s not hiding, he’s a free man so maybe we should go and door knock him or doorstep him as you would put it and see what he has to say on the matter, but I do appreciate your time, you’ve been a good guest and thank you very much for er giving us your time and coming on the show tonight.

MD: All the best Tony

TL: Alight, no worries, thanks very much. There he goes folks, Mark Daly ...alright we’re going to go to a track. Ten minutes to ten ....that was KRS one. Robert did you like that?

RG: Err It gives me nightmares

TL: Ha ha, I’m sorry I couldn’t resist it

RG: Nooo, you should be ashamed of yourself

TL: The last time I spoke to you, this was before you got arrested...er, rearrested, I played that song and sure enough the police came up for yer

RG: Ohh..they’re probably listening right now. They’re probably on their way as we speak.

TL: Well listen folks, we’re all friendly and we all just want to fight corruption and I think that any er law enforcement officer should be fighting for law enforcement and there’s a lot of stuff that’s gone on which is absolutely ridiculous and I think deep down in their hearts they know what’s really gone on and just think that maybe a few more of them should maybe have to take a pay cut or lose their salary and just go on and er fight for freedom and fight for justice, but anyway don’t let me rant here...we’ve got Lorraine on the line. Lorraine welcome to the tony Legend Show.

(Goes into listeners phone in chats )

Transcript of Tony Legend Show with Mark Daly (BBC) Part 3

2010-07-04T19:02:00.009+01:00

Tony Legend Show: BBC's Mark Daly v Robert Green

View Part 1
View Part 2
View Part 4

Third video (transcript beneath):

MD = Mark Daly
RG = Robert Green
TL = Tony Legend
AG = Anne Greig

The video repeats itself by starting at Mark Daly’s sentence “Now this sheriff who is one of the ringleaders...” but I’m cutting straight to where the last video ends off.

[It gets a bit manic here with both talking over the other]

MD: That’s not what I’m talking about, I’m talking about Tony program...

RG: Ah! No, no, no! I invited you to that meeting and I was going to give you a platform and

MD: Really? I don’t, don’t recall that...If I have Robert then ...

RG (really starts raising his voice over Mark Daly’s now): There was your chance!
(Mark Daly in the background apologising, he must have missed the email, Robert Green still talking over Mark who is now asking Robert to please continue...)

RG: No! Because you had a chance to speak. You’re only on here now because you’re getting your collar felt. You’re probably under orders from somebody ...(something about the BBC mentioned during Robert’s rant but can't make it out)

MD: No actually. No, no.

RG: I’m not going to let you off the hook.

MD: Tony, can you mediate this properly please?

TL: Yes, yes. I’m trying to. Go ahead, yes.

MD: Tony now...er...as part of this paedophile ring, the ringleader is the sheriff, he’s also involved with his sister and his sister’s wife. Now Robert being an investigator, Truth Ranger as he’s been called, will of course have made sure that these relationships exist. The truth Tony, is that this sheriff has no sister, therefore has no brother-in-law. Okay. So you know, these are the main people of the paedophile ring and two of them don’t exist. Okay. Now, shall I move on?

TL: Yeah, I’d just like to ...Anne, would you like to say anything to that?

AG: That’s not true at all

MD: Well these things as you know are checkable through the register of births, deaths and marriage, marriages and er ask Robert to maybe have a look at that. Now next...

AG: I think you must have the wrong sheriff there

TL: sorry, say that again there Anne

AG: I think you must have got the wrong sheriff

MD: No I don’t have the wrong sheriff Anne I’m afraid, I don’t. Now, if I can just continue

TL: Yeah, continue

MD: It’s been said, well firstly, the allegations were made at first in 2000 and many of the allegations were said to have... some of the abuse was said to have taken place in the sheriff’s house in Aberdeen. This sheriff...

AG: That’s not true

MD: Well Anne, I’ve seen some of the allegations and it is true

AG: Ah that’s not true, that’s not what we told you.

MD: He didn’t live in Aberdeen until 2000. He didn’t live in Aberdeen until 2000

RG: We never said that

MD: He only lived there in 2000. These are the kind of things...

AG: We never said his house. At all. We never mentioned his house at all

MD: It has been said Anne. It has been said. These are the kind of things that investigators investigate to see whether or not they can proceed with a story. Now can I move on?

AG: That was never said at all that it was at his house.

MD: Okay, well I think you have, have said that. That allegation has been made Anne.

AG: Hollies’ here, do you want to speak to Hollie and ask her?

MD: No I don’t Anne. I think that would be inappropriate.

AG: No, no I didn’t think you would.

RG: We never said it was the sheriff’s house. (unintelligible) so I’m afraid this another lot of nonsense you’re coming out with.

MD: Robert

RG: I could...

MD: Robert, you know those other seven children you’ve named?

RG: Sorry?

MD: you know the seven other children that you’ve named?

RG: Yes.

MD: Two of them weren’t born at the time of these allegations.

RG: I think that is...I think you’re absolutely wrong there Mark.

MD: Have you spoken to any of these people?

RG: I’m not making any comments on them.

MD: Have you spoken to any of the people that you’ve said have had any part of this paedophile ring? Have you spoken to any of the other victims that you’ve named? Because I can tell you they’re all (unintelligible) about it

AG: (raising her voice) These children that you are speaking about are all adults now

MD: Sorry?

AG: These children that you’re speaking about are adults

MD: No there not. Two of them are ten years old and were not born at the time of the allegations.

AG: (shouts) they’re all adults

MD: Shall I move on?

TL: Yep yep, continue if you want yeah

MD: Now it’s been said that your son was erm, well he faced a charge for lurid behaviour I think or some sort of flashing offence, but the sheriff in question helped him to get off with it, okay, I don’t think that’s in dispute at all.

AG: No, no that’s not what I said at all.

MD: And that his business card was found

AG: That’s correct

MD: The business card ....

AG: Now it wasn’t a business card for..it was for a lawyer, not a sheriff

MD: okay, the allegation as I was told is that the lawyer is the same as the sheriff and that was the sheriff who helped him get off, but in fact he didn’t get off. He was convicted of that offence.

TL: Well Mark, if I can come in there for a minute, I, obviously we’re getting to the ins and outs here which is...
MD: yes, but Tony, but it’s important because I’m telling you the reason that a story like this can’t be published or broadcast, because when it comes to it, when you look at the allegations, when you look at the evidence, I’m afraid that many of the allegations just don’t stand up.

TL: But...I mean just for a minute...maybe you’ve called me naive for thinking this before, but surely a court of law but the place to have these sort of discussions and not on er the Tony Legend show? A court of law would be a much more ideal place you know...hands on the bible and swear and stuff...

MD: tony, you know, you’ve got a great point there and the point here is that the one allegation that had any legs – the one allegation that should have been brought in front of a court, in front of a judge, had been washed in a deluge of other allegations, which I’m afraid don’t stand up. Now if Robert, this lead investigator, had taken the time to perhaps go and speak to any of the other victims that he’s named, to any of the people that he’s accused of being a paedophile, he might have been able to get a little closer to the truth himself. But, you know, two of the people in this...two alleged victims were not born at the time. Two were in their late teens, almost in their twenties, does that ring true?

AG: That’s not true at all. I’ve...

MD: What kind of investigation have you done Robert?

AG: That is not true at all.

MD: Two of the people have said that they only met Hollie once or twice. Now these are all things that are very easily checkable. None of these things has Robert done - none of them. These are the, these are the types of things that an investigator does, and Robert has done none of them. And these are the reason I’m afraid Tony, Anne, these are the reasons why the BBC cannot broadcast a story like this, because the allegations, the wider allegations, I’m afraid do not stand up. And the one allegation that did....could possibly have stood up has been washed amongst the rest of them.

RG: I’m going to give you one ...

MD: And on who’s conscience will that be on Robert?

RG: I don’t...yours as much anyone's I think Mark, but one thing I will do and I might make one concession to you and the BBC, I...that three documents came forward after the BBC dropped the story and to give...to be fair to you, I think had you got those documents I think even the BBC would have stood up to whoever is threatening them...the three documents...

MD: You’re still insistent you’re not going to drop this story...

RG: No, no, no. I’m going to tell you what the documents are and then you can perhaps have a think about it and perhaps come back and tells us if you think you would continue to the story had you had access to these documents.

MD: Okay, carry on.

RG: Firstly the document from Alisa Angolini claims she had no connection with the case whatsoever, in fact as you well know because you’ve seen the documents we have a letter from James ..er..from Brian Adams MSP dated the 25th er 27th October 2000 writing directly to Mrs Angolini asking her directly how she’s getting on with the case...

MD: What does that prove?

RG: ...we’ve got a document ...No I’m telling you the documents we’ve got now

MD: What does it prove?

RG: It proves that the Lord Advocate was lying about it

MD: It proves that the Lord Advocate you know, may have mislaid a letter...so what?

RG: Oh no! No, no Mark there’s a letter here that you saw because it’s in the documents, you saw this letter, it stated the 12 July 2001 it’s from the Procurator Piscal’s Office headed Alisa Angolini at the top of it and writing here to Anne’s solicitor at the time to Eyvon McKenna actually discussing the case and this is the case that Mrs Angolini had no knowledge off...or no involvement. You have that document.

MD: I’m afraid that’s a bit thin Robert, if you are the journalist you claim to be then you’d know that. Why don’t you tell me what the next document is.

RG: I think you’re a weak journalist because you knew the Lord Advocate had been lying but you didn’t want to take them on in case anything happens to you.

MD: Why don’t you tell me what the next document is Robert

RG: And also, the other document we had as well you didn’t have and I have to say again I think the BBC might even looked at it slightly differently was the autopsy report we finally got hold of...

MD: Ah! Okay. Yes, let’s go for it

RG: ...we finally got hold of on the death

END Of video 3 (Next video in next video above)

Transcript of Tony Legend Show with Mark Daly (BBC) Part 2

2010-07-04T18:47:00.010+01:00

Tony Legend Show: BBC's Mark Daly v Robert Green

View Part 1
View Part 3
View Part 4

Second video (transcript beneath):

Continued from first video (previous article)

MD = Mark Daly
TL = Tony Legend
RG = Robert Green
AG = Anne Greig

MD: (continued) would lose my job, the first thing I would do would be to resign and to go freelance and tell the story myself. Now does it really ring true to you Tony? Does it?

TL: Well, if this was the BBC maybe twenty years ago I would take it on but for me the BBC has lost a lot of credibility and respect.

MD: Listen, I’m not here to defend the BBC, er, BBC has its problems er, it does, but I’m here to talk to you tonight about my role in this and I’m asking you Tony, do you really think that rings true?

TL: Well, I let Robert come in because he wants to say something to you there...Robert go ahead.

RG: Yes I do Mark. Now Mark ...

MD: Hello Robert

RG: Hello Mark, now I maybe regards a little old fashioned but I believe in chivalry. It’s not only because you refuse to do the story that distresses me enormously and we can talk about that, I’m not going to talk about it unless you give me your assurance on this. You are not only in the situation where you did not run the story, but you insulted a lady and that lady happens to be my client Anne Greig. You made serious aspersions in writing about her mental state. They were heartless, cruel, they were groundless and more over you knew they were groundless and unless I get an unconditional apology to you right now, Anne is here at the studio, I will not talk to you any more about this.

MD: Right, okay. Robert I ...to be honest I’m actually surprised you actually came on the program tonight to, to, to speak to me and I think, you know, it would be rather cowardly of you if you were to suddenly hang, or suddenly walk out of the studio and not take any further part in the debate. Now what I will say about what you’ve just said is that Anne passed me, erm, details, medical details about her. Now if you think I’m going to talk about somebody’s personal medical details on air, I’m just not going to do it, what I will do, what I will do is this, from the notes, from the evidence, from the documents that I was given by Anne, it was very clear to me in my opinion, in my opinion that had I to rely on, in a court, defending allegations I had made about somebody, a paedophile (unintelligible) that I would not be able to rely on her in court. That was the conclusion I reached, that was the truthful conclusion I reached, that was what I believed and that’s what I said to Anne in a private letter Robert, and I’ve no wish to talk about, erm, Anne’s mental health on air, you know, with hundreds or thousands of people listening. Okay. Now, if you still don’t wish to discuss these issues...

AG: hang on a second.

MD: Okay Anne.

AG: Right, this is my, you know, er, medical things that we’re speaking about here and I have got absolutely nothing to hide.

MD: Okay. I still, you know, Anne I...

AG (shouts over MD): Okay!

MD: Anne, I’ll be happy to talk to you, erm, about this issue if you like on a personal note...

AG (interrupts): Okay!

MD: on a personal...

AG (interrupts): the documents I gave you, the documents that I gave you proved that this was a paper chase right. Three...well, not even three months after I was sectioned the whole case was dropped. Everything.

MD: Okay Anne

AG: And this is now how many years down the line? Right? So don’t, don’t you say that you had this thing about me because that is really highly insulting

MD: I’m sorry that you were. That you took as it insulting Anne. I was giving you a genuine appraisal of my opinion of the situation. However, Anne, there are many, many more reasons why I was unable to continue with this story and now, if Robert agrees and if you agree, I will talk to you about that conclusion that I reached at some point and I’d be happy to, but I’d like to move on to the many, many other reasons which meant that this is not a story that I or the BBC or for that matter, any other reputable, any other reputable news organisations can ever publish...

AG: Mark, I’d just like to say to you, are you medically qualified?

MD: As I said to you Anne, it isn’t, it was my opinion that, my opinion only...

AG: Yeah, your opinion

MD: ...that...hang on...

AG: but you’re not medically qualified are you?

MD: no and I don’t claim to be, but it was my opinion that had I had to rely on you in court then I thought that your credibility would have been impaired...

AG: What did you think I would have done in court like?

MD: Anne, I’m sorry that was the conclusion I reached at...

AG: What do you think I would have actually done in court?

MD: what do you mean? It’s not what you would have said in court Anne, that’s not, that’s not what it was about and I took great pains to explain to you and to Robert the reasons behind my decisions related to the documents that you passed me

TL: Now can I just come in for a wee second folks. Now Mark I respect that this, this is tension all round in all angles here but erm, I’d like to move on a second because at the end of the day it’s not about Mark Daly, it’s not about the BBC, It’s not about censorship or any who said...who said what....the bottom line is that we both agree that Hollie was abused by her dad and so I would like to focus on that.

MD: I’m not saying anything like that, but I’m saying to you is that I think that there was probably some strong evidence that Hollie was abused ...yes...and I’m not saying...

AG: Mark, as far as I’m concerned I just say the loop

MD: Can I just move on...

AG: No! As far as I’m concerned I could be the loopiest person on this planet and that does not distract from the fact that my daughter was abused.

MD: It does not Anne, it does not, absolutely not so..

TL: So erm...

MD: Can I, can I just come in a minute please

TL: Yes

MD: Robert, in ...there are various things online, you’ve said online. You’ve said things online, you’ve said things to radio stations, to anyone who would listen really, erm, you’ve named this paedophile ring, erm, you have...at the bottom of everything you’ve said all these names, al l known to me as a result of my extensive investigation and I believe them to be true, so you investigated all these allegations Robert, is that right?

RG: Mark, I want an unconditional apology to Anne right now. (gets angry, raises his voice) I’ve just told you. I’m not talking to you again until you behave like a gentleman. This is you and me, man to man. Have the guts to apologise your disgusting remarks about Anne’s mental state, have no bearing on the case anyway and you knew to be false.

MD: Tony, can I just suggest to you that, I don’t think Robert is going to erm, engage in anything to do with me tonight because he knows that what I’ve got to say, erm, is going to be slightly problematic for him. So if you can just try and mediate the situation Tony because....what I will do is say that I’m very sorry that Anne was offended by comments that I made. I am sorry about that, but there’s nothing I can do about the fact that was my opinion and I’d like to say I’m sorry Anne was offended by that, but Robert, if you can please move on and just answer the questions.

TL: I would just like to say, I mean obviously I’m not a medical expert either but after meeting Anne for even after five minutes I could realise that she’s very articulate and very well spoken and not in any way crazy and the way I perceive this when she was sectioned, that, that just looked to me like trying to discredit her and it seems to have worked.

MD: Okay, well, if we can agree to move on Tony please.

TL: Alright...Robert...

MD: Robert, would you answer the questions please

RG: Well no. Have you, is that an unconditional apology to Anne? Will you withdraw everything you said and admit that what you said was groundless? It was based on lies and you knew it to be false. I want you to say that on air now.

MD: No, I’m sorry, I can’t Robert, no...

RG: You’re not getting off the hook that easily, you lied.

MD: Sorry, I can’t say that Robert .. Robert look..
.
RG: Well in that case I’ve got nothing more to say to you Mark, that’s the end as far as I’m concerned

MD: Tony...okay..

RG: You are not a gentleman

MD: Tony, why don’t you come in here, just try and take control of the situation please.

TL: Alright. We’ll move on Mark. What else would you say here live, because I know this, this...

MD: Tony, I’ve had months of this without ever being asked to give my side of the story, even this program Tony, erm, not once was I asked to come on and put my side of the story. I wasn’t asked for a right of reply. I had to ask to come on this program, okay...so, if you don’t mind I’d like to say my piece...

TL: Okay. Yeah. If that’s...go ahead you have the floor.

MD: Now, Graham...er Robert, you’re saying that you’re an investigator, you’re saying that all these allegations have been investigated and their known to you to be true, now let’s start with the sheriff. Now this sheriff who is one of the ringleaders of this ring, the sheriff’s sister is also involved and the sheriff’s brother-in-law....Am I right?

TL: yeah, continue that.

MD: Robert, am I right?

TL: He’s er, he’s busy writing. Sorry .. we’re caught up here...you said something there Mark about er..

RG: Yes, you’ve just said another untruth Mark. You, as you well know, I emailed you about the public meeting that was held on the 3rd October at the Quake Hall in Edinburgh.

MD: What? What’s that got to do with this?

RG: It’s got everything to do with because you said you weren’t invited to give your part side of the story. I invited you to ....

End of 2nd Video (3rd video with transcript in next article above)

Transcript of Tony Legend Show with Mark Daly (BBC) Part 1

2010-07-04T18:41:00.007+01:00

Tony Legend Show: BBC's Mark Daly v Robert Green

View Part 2
View Part 3
View Part 4

First video (transcript beneath):

TL = Tony Legend
MD = Mark Daly

TL: This is Manchester video online dot com. Twenty-five minutes to nine right now. that was Junior Kelly with Corruption. Alright then, I’m joined now by Mark Daly from BBC Scotland ... and Mark, I appreciate you having the guts to come on and tell your side of the story so I’d like to first of thank you for your time and thank you for coming on the show tonight.

MD: Hi Tony, how you doing? Well yeah, thanks for having me on the show. Erm, I guess by way of an opening statement I just like to say that I didn’t have any intention of coming onto a program like this to justify my actions or the BBC’s actions. I have no wish to compound what is already an extremely tragic and very sad situation. However, over the weeks and months I’ve been, you know, a victim of a sustained barrage of abuse about mine and the BBC’s decision to drop this story, erm, which we did, no question about it, we did look at this story and we did drop so tonight I’ve come onto the program to explain my reasons for doing that.

Erm, I don’t...you know, there are some things I’m going to say tonight which probably won’t be that easy for some of the people in the studio to hear but I feel that my hand has been forced. I just hoped that erm, you Tony, erm give me a fair hearing and I’m very pleased that Mr Green is on the program as well to join in with the debate.

TL: Alright, let’s just start at the beginning if that’s alright. How did you first hear of Hollie Greg?

MD: Well, the story was passed to me and I’ll summarise very quickly how my involvement in this story began. I spoke to Robert Green and I spoke to Anne, and erm, I had a few conversations over a a few days and I asked for a selection of paperwork to be sent to me. I was told that there was a massive bundle of paperwork which is always good for guys like me. So I asked for this to be sent to me and it was sent, and on the face of it there was an extremely powerful story what you had was, erm, some (unintelligible) very serious allegations.

Now at the time we were looking to do a program about justice and how people with learning disabilities have problems accessing justice for precisely the kinds of reasons that you people are campaigning, that their not viewed as credible witnesses. This is an extremely important issue and one which the BBC thought that we would have a look at. What Hollie would have been was probably our chief case study. So on the basis of the evidence which we had, erm, it looked like there was some strong grounds to support Hollie’s allegation that she’d been abused by ... probably by somebody in her family. That was supported by a letter from a senior police officer and the fact that she had received compensation despite no charges being brought.

So on that basis alone there was a very strong program there. There were some other allegations about a wider paedophile ring, now ...I’ve been a journalist for a lot of years, erm, I’ve done programs about many things, paedophiles is one of them. I did a program called “Britain's most wanted paedophiles,” I’ve chased five ‘on the run’ paedophiles around Europe for months until they were finally back in police custody. I know quite a lot about the subject and I know that these things do happen and I know they happen in Britain and I know that some times they happen under our own noses, so I was prepared to...to...believe that these allegations could have some grounds, but the basis on the initial allegations, about the initial abuse carried out by somebody in her family – those allegations looked like they stood up. I some opening conversations with our lawyer about whether or not I would have enough evidence to confront this person and it looked like I probably did and on that basis I was given a provisional commission to make two programs, TV, half hour for Scotland and er, radio, half hour for Scotland.

Now you must understand that journalists look into dozens and dozens of stories every year. Some make it, most don’t. Some get commissioned and some get dropped mid way through a commission because maybe a story isn’t there or it’s not what they thought or other things come up, that’s just part of television.

So, what we then did...and you know, Robert you read the email out on this very program Tony, so erm, I’m not debating I never have done about the fact that there was a provisional commission to make a program on this case, so what next happened, I and my team travelled down to see Anne and Hollie, Robert Green was also there and, erm, we spent four or five hours talking to the family who, like I said at the time, I like very much and sympathise very much er...particularly all the paperwork which we’d asked for worked very very quickly, in fact almost as soon as we came out of the house we knew that there were problems, but you know, in a week or two we came to the conclusion that this was not a story that we could proceed with.

We knew that the vast majority of these allegations were unprovable and we were not in a position to pick and choose which allegations we wanted to believe, so we dropped the story. Now, Anne’s response, as was Roberts....now this is before you come back with questions, I’m sure you’ve got a few ...I took the precaution when I phoned up Anne, to erm...when I was telling her about this, er, my reasons for dropping the story, I took the precaution of secretly recording... not secretly...recording the conversation for (purposes?) and also recorded the conversation with Robert Green for not taking (purposes?) and with the BBC you can do that but you’re not allowed to broadcast that material, it’s just to protect you, for example if the case comes to court or something like that.

Now, as you know, both Anne and Robert have alleged that I told them that I had to drop this story because I was forced to by my bosses, because of pressure from the government, pressure from a legal company...a legal firm called ‘Levan McCray’(?) and that I was in fear for my job, therefore I had to drop this story. Now, that conversation did not take place. Those words were not spoken and I’m afraid that I have the recorded evidence to prove it. However, that didn’t stop Robert and Anne going around the country, going on various satellite television channels, online video stations and writing that in fact I had been forced to drop the story, that I was a journalistic coward and I was in fear for my job. Now I’m afraid that isn’t, that just isn’t true because I’m not in the business of shying away from big stories, these stories are what I do. I’ve taken on some of the biggest institutions in the country, government, police, erm..I do investigate paedophile stories, if I thought I could run this one I would have done and the suggestion that I or the BBC would have walked away from a story because it’s too big or we were too scared, it’s fanciful, it just is. It’s misguided and insulting, er if this story was what er I was told it was I would’ve been all over it and I’m afraid the evidence did not support it.
Now, I’ve got many, many other things that I want to say but I want to give you or Robert a chance to come in and er asked something.

TL: Well, I’ll just like to go...I’ve got an email here from Marcus Ryder, now Marcus is your editor, is that correct?

MD: That’s true

TL: Now, I’ve got a letter here, it’s to Mr Green, that’s Robert Green, it’s from Marcus Ryder, now he says in the middle of this: When Mark Daly told Anne that he could lose his job if he were to broadcast this story, clearly (?) behind this is that it would be careless and unprofessional to broadcast allegations which could not be proven – careless and unprofessional workers rarely keep their jobs and I understand that and that’s fair enough...

MD: That’s exactly what I said and then at the end of my conversation I said, look, if I was the kind of journalist that went around broadcasting allegations which I knew were unprovable, which I knew I could never find the evidence to back it up then, journalists like that won’t stay journalists for very long. Now, somehow in that explanation it’s gone from that to me being in fear for my job because I’ve been pressurised by my boss, the government and levy McCray, now those two things don’t just tie up Tony. Now I ask you Tony, as a journalist which you told me you are, does it ring true to you that a journalist who’s done the kind of work I’ve done would suddenly decide to walk away from a story because he was scared? If I’d been told by the BBC or the government that I must drop this story that I...

End of first video (second part in article above)

Robert (Roy) Greig Embezzlement

2010-07-02T10:52:00.007+01:00

It seems that the Palestine Telegraph (see article below ) may have combined artistic licence with fact.

The Palestine Telegraph tells us that Anne Greig was apparently “abused by her husband after she commenced checking the background to her brother Robert’s mysterious death and the money paper trail that he had left behind.”

The “paper trail” seems to be correct; however it was not while Anne was checking her brother’s “mysterious” death as PT would have us believe. According to a letter from Dr Elizabeth Henderson to Dr S. Wilson: A couple of weeks prior to Anne leaving her marital home Anne had found out that her brother, Robert (Roy) Greig, had embezzled her of some money. Since finding out about the embezzlement Anne had been preoccupied with investigating the source of the financial misdemeanour and her time had been consumed by this activity.

The letter goes on to say that Anne had seemingly built up an elaborate scheme, whereby her husband, son and Dr Wilson (to whom the letter was addressed) are all involved with a conspiracy against her and collaborating to prevent her from discovering the true misdemeanour of her brother’s embezzlement. Interestingly, it is now a conspiracy to prevent any justice for Hollie’s apparent abuse.

It appears that between the year 2000 and 2009 the story has changed from embezzlement to a “mysterious” death, although when the change of story actually took place is uncertain, but we do have a clue in the form of Robert Green’s talk currently on Youtube: Vid 1 and Vid2 where he states that:

@ 9:32 “Anyway, just to round up that particular part of the story, when I became involved in it about 18 months ago after we sort of, er, obviously we were concentrating very much on what happened to Hollie, but we did actually start to look at the death of Roy as well, and I approached the Crown Office to see if we could have a copy of this autopsy, you know, 12 years ago...

Continued on the next video:

...they repeatedly refused this very important documentation and it was by this time that Anne felt her brother had been murdered because of the incident involving Mackie. Er, the Crown Office told both Anne and myself that erm, yes they have got the document there but they didn’t...it wasn’t the normal procedure that’s passed onto the next of kin.”

His comment is confusing. First it seems that he and Anne only started looking into Roy’s death when Robert Green became involved 18 months ago, but then seems to contradict himself in the next part of the video: “...it was by this time that Anne felt her brother had been murdered...” By what time? By the time Robert Green became involved in the case or when the Crown Office refused to relinquish the autopsy 12 years ago?

Of course we have no idea whether or not Anne Greig truly did attempt to get a copy of her brother’s autopsy report; we only have her recent word on that. However, the official letters seem to indicate that Anne had initially believed Robert Grieg’s death was suicide so it does seem unlikely that she had made any attempt at receiving a copy of the report. If she had not, then we can assume that Roy’s death being deemed as murder may have occurred only when Robert Green became involved around 2009.

Perhaps another observation to note is that in the same letter, dated 3 May 2000, it explains that Anne is convinced that her husband was having an affair with a nurse (Anne’s cousin) who was giving her husband drugs which enabled him to poison her. I say another observation to note because this later changed to Anne stating that her husband had been poisoning Hollie and having her followed (source: letter to Ms Dinsmore from Dr Fiona Palin, dated 24 December 2003). So it appears that in the space of three years (2000 – 2003) the story had altered slightly from her husband attempting to poison her, to her husband poisoning Hollie. Incidentally, in Dr Smith's psychiatric report, Anne had repeated the allegation of her husband having an affair with her cousin but had omitted the part about her cousin passing poison on to her husband. Considering Anne was trying to show that she is of sound mind at the time of Dr Smith's analysis then perhaps it is of no surprise that she may have chosen to omit this detail.

It could be said that all these doctors are lying and as Anne says; that they are all conspiring against her. But it could also be as likely that Anne may have altered the story as time went by. At the moment, and without evidence, the reason why can only be speculated.

But what about the apparent embezzlement? According to Anne, her brother had no reason to commit suicide and that he had no financial problems. If this is true then why would her brother steal money from her?

The National Archives of Scotland has a record of an R. Greig who had gone into bankruptcy between 1 April 1994 and 31 March 1995, only two years prior to Robert (Roy) Greig committing suicide. Is this Anne’s brother? Going by the embezzlement it may well be, but just as equally the name may belong to another person and the date is coincidental.

Whatever the truth behind these apparent discrepancies there is one thing for certain, to get to the bottom of things then perhaps these details need to be investigated further, especially as these discrepancies may leave a question mark as to how many times the story has altered (if at all), over what period of time and to what degree.

Photocopies courtesy of StolenKids-Hollie.

Clearing up a couple of details

2010-06-28T17:51:00.017+01:00

There is some misinformation floating around the internet regarding Anne Greig leaving her marital home in 2000 and what was involved. This is unfortunate considering it is misleading for anyone who is trying to unravel the truth of the Hollie Greig case.

The Palestine Telegraph (3rd paragraph after the letter to Mr Green from John Logue) reports that:

In 2000 Anne was violently abused by her husband after she commenced checking the background to her brother Roberts mysterious death and the money paper trail that he had left behind(these aspects were covered in the last article). As a result of this outburst and the injuries sustained by Anne she decided to take Hollie and move into a hostel..

While an article from Spreading the Word (under the heading “Cement Gang”) states:

Hollie's father was violent to Ann. That night a spat flared up between Ann and Hollie's father and he beat her up. Ann had to get her daughter away from the house. They went into a hostel. Hollie got hysterical and demanded to be taken back to the house to get her dogs, the two Bichons, because, Hollie became terrified that her father would kill them.

Note: I have to say that the article "Cement Gang" is an eye-opener regarding how 'those in power' apparently become entangled in the sordid world of abuse.

But that aside and back to the points.

Both the report by the 'Palestine Telegraph' and the article by 'Spreading the Word' are factually incorrect – well they are if we are to believe the account Anne Greig offered to the consultant psychiatrist Dr M.A.E Smith (the psychiatrist with whom Anne sought help in testifying that she is of sound mind):

Dr Smith report/analysis (last paragraph)

Marriage
“Met her husband (an electronic engineer) when 21 “I fell in love with him.” Married in 1974 – against her mother’s advice, her mother felt he was marrying her for her money. She described him as a womaniser – he was always having affairs 5 years ago, considered leaving him. She described her marriage as “a farce – it became a nightmare." She left him April 2000 after discovering he was having an affair with her cousin. She described somewhat dramatically subsequent events. She said her husband threatened her and was violent towards her.”

Later in the same report (click here to read the photocopy):

“4. Husband – he frequently works away – he is an electronic engineer – In April 2000 there was a crisis when she found out that her son had been charged with lewd and libidinous behaviour.

At the same time she discovered her husband's affair with her cousin - "there was a big row - he physically assaulted me - I fled the house in bare feet - I went to a friend's - my husband informed the police that I was missing - he kept phoning the police - I thought it was a joke - I went home the next day - my friend had advised me to return and get Hollie - but he wouldn't let her out of his sight - he refused to let Hollie go with me - he went out and returned drunk - I called the police and they removed him from the house - I got myself organised and in July (July is crossed out and replaced with May in the side column of the report) I moved into a hostel - I found I was being watched by the staff - it's all on the video - it's in my medical notes - Holly and me - we were out everyday - I found a flat, 2 bedroom - I have redecorated and refurnished it - we're still there at the above address."

So where did the 'Palestine Telegraph' and 'Spreading the Word' get their details from? Did the author of Spreading the Word and the reporter for the Palestine Telegraph (Peter Eyre – Middle East Consultant) invent their versions, use artistic licence, or were they merely reporting what Anne had relayed to them?

Whatever the reason behind the misconstrued report/article respectively, it is evident from the dialogue given by Anne Greig to Dr M.A.E Smith that the violent argument between herself and her husband ensued after she discovered he was having an affair with her cousin, fled their marital home (leaving Hollie behind!) to a friends home and did not return to collect Hollie until the following day and only after advice offered by her friend.

Photocopies of Dr Smiths psychiatry assessment courtesy of StolenKids-Hollie. Incidentally, the Stolenkids-Hollie site has a collection of scanned/photocopied letters from various authorities involved in the case.

Robert (Roy) Greig suicide or murder?

2010-06-26T23:47:00.008+01:00

I am sure most people are aware of who Roy Greig is by now but if not then please Google his name.

I am not going to beat around the bush or fill this article with ifs and buts, there is enough of that floating around the internet.

I have taken a look at the evidence, listened to Roy’s sister Anne Greig during the interview hosted by Theo Chalmers (On the Edge - links at the end of this article) and drawn together the facts of the case.

1. The death certificate of Roy (as he’s known to family and friends) states he died of smoke inhalation.

2. His pathology report, as stated by Anne, shows he had 3 broken ribs; broken sternum; fractured skull (which turns out to be a contusion to the back of the head); multiple bruising; brown liquid in his stomach, which according to Anne was whisky.

3. At the end of the pathology report it states that he was two and a half times over the limit and that melted plastic had dropped onto his legs.

4. Anne tells us that because her brother was found in a burning car and that he never drank whiskey, they are signs that he was murdered. Reason: because he apparently walked in on his niece (Anne’s daughter) while Hollie’s father (Anne’s husband) was abusing Hollie.

5. Anne tell us that she had experts look at the pathology report and was apparently told that the indications are consistent of being beaten up, alcohol thrown down his neck and then tossed into the car which was then set alight to destroy any evidence.

6. Anne Greig and Robert Green go further by suggesting that the person who attempted to rescue Roy from the burning car is probably the murderer.

7. Anne explains that the police told her it was the catalytic converter on Roy’s car which started the fire.

8. Anne states that there was a hose found on the ground but was not attached to the car exhaust or through the car window.

(All underlined titles are links)

Fractured ribs and sternum frequent complications of CPR:

Objective: Fractured ribs and sternum are frequent complications of thoracic compression during CPR in adults. This study was conducted to determine whether findings of plain chest radiography (CXR) correlate with post-mortem findings in patients who underwent cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Methods: CXR findings and autopsy results of CPR-related chest injuries comprising rib and sternum fractures were compared prospectively in 19 patients. Results: Fractures were diagnosed in nine of 19 patients by means of radiology and in 18 of 19 patients by autopsy (rib fractures in 6/19 versus 17/19, P=0.002; sternum fractures in 5/19 versus in 9/19, P=0.227). The total number of isolated bone fractures detected by CXR was 18 (12 rib and six sternum fractures) and by autopsy 92 (83 rib and nine sternum fractures). The majority of rib fractures was located in the anterior part of the thoracic cage. Sternum fractures predominantly occurred in the lower third. Eight of 19 patients received either thrombolytic or antithrombotic treatment during CPR but no major bleeding complication associated with CPR was detected by autopsy. Conclusions: The findings of this study indicate that fractures associated with CPR are underreported in conventional radiographic investigations. No major bleeding complications related to CPR-associated fractures was detected.

Learn CPR – Broken ribs common

Frequently ribs are broken with the pressure CPR places on the sternum. Some studies quote up to 30% of cardiac arrest victims have broken ribs as a result of CPR. This happens more frequently the older the victim since the cartilage is less compliant and the bones more easily crackable. But remember, it's better to have a cracked rib than be dead.

Catalytic Converter

An important part of your vehicle's emission system is the catalytic converter. It is tasked with reducing harmful emissions that pollute the atmosphere and it has been a part of nearly every passenger vehicle built since the mid 1970s. Unfortunately, the catalytic converter can also run very hot and, at the same time, spark ignition of anything that it comes into contact with. In Bob's case, it was his 2005 Volvo that was parked directly over a small leaf pile that started the fire that destroyed his XC90.

When parking your vehicle, take care to make sure that no debris is on the ground directly underneath your car. Even a small pile of dried out leaves can be just enough fodder for a fire. In the case of a high profile vehicle, such as the XC90, the clearance between the bottom of your vehicle and the ground is higher, meaning you many not notice anything underneath when backing into an empty parking space.

Hundreds of vehicle fires every year are attributed to motorists who park their cars over leaves; unfortunately this practice almost always results in the total loss of the vehicle due to excessive fire damage.

Roy and the whiskey question

In the video 6/10 of Theo Chalmers interview with Robert Green and Anne and Hollie Greig (near the end) Theo questions Anne about Roy’s drinking habits. The autopsy report apparently showed brown liquid in his stomach and was, according to Anne, whiskey which she says her brother never drank. Robert Green appears adamant that Roy never drank whiskey even though he never knew Roy and yet after a little pushing from Theo, Anne admits that her brother did drink whiskey occasionally.

RG = Robert Green
AG= Anne Greig
TC = Theo Chalmers

Video 6/10

RG: I think it’s also important to say that Rob...Roy never drank whiskey like most Scots..he hated whiskey didn’t he
AG: Yeah, he didn’t like whiskey
RG: He wasn’t a whiskey drinker anyway
AG: He drank, he drank white spirits, he likes a drink
RG: He likes a drink but not ...
AG: But being a bar manager you know, you’ve got to, yeah, you know
TC: He didn’t like whiskey?
AG: No, no.
TC: He never drank whiskey?
AG: Occasionally he maybe did but not on the whole, no, he was a white...Bacardi or what colour...

To me it seems quite feasible from the evidence and quotes from Anne Greig and Robert Green that:

Roy intended to commit suicide by carbon monoxide poisoning; that Roy had consumed alcohol before his suicide and that he may have been unconscious from carbon monoxide poisoning by the time the catalytic converter (see example above) ignited the fire which consumed the car.

The rescuer (who Anne and Robert Green have suggested wasn’t a rescuer but the murderer) was on a busy motor way, saw the fire on the opposite side and rerouted to investigate. Why this would be seen as an indication by Robert Green and Anne as being a murderer is beyond me. God only knows that I would do the same in the year 1997 when mobile phones were not widely available.

There was a hose found on the ground beside the car (not connected to the car exhaust or window), isn’t it possible that on seeing the body in a burning car that the rescuer pulled the hose away and dragged Roy out, found he was not breathing and attempted CPR? I know I would, even if I was not qualified or only had an inkling of what I was doing – the guy isn’t breathing, what is there to lose?

I have checked the medical sites (see notes above) and even CPR administered by experienced medical teams has resulted in broken ribs and/or sternum, so it is quite feasible that Roy’s broken sternum/ribs was as a consequence of inexperienced CPR.

The pathology report states that Roy was two and half times over the limit and melted plastic had dropped onto his legs. It's seems quite possible that he was unconscious from carbon monoxide poisoning by the time the car went up in flames (catalytic converter) and that Roy did indeed die of smoke inhalation.

If the rescuer was indeed just a rescuer (as the points above seem to indicate) then it seems a crying shame that he’s been weaved into a conspiracy that may not be true and bandied about the internet as a murderer.

My article is not meant to discredit Anne Greig in any shape or form – It is possible Anne has come to believe her brother’s suicide was murder. But to my mind and taking the evidence into account, it seems that Robert David Greig’s death was indeed suicide and that he had died from smoke inhalation.

I will post the Theo Chalmers interview with Robert Green, Anne and Hollie Greig when I get half the chance (I’ve also written out the transcripts which I’ll post with each video). For now you can view the interview directly on Youtube:

Video 1/10
Video 2/10
video 3/10
Video 4/10
Video 5/10
Video 6/10
Video 7/10
Video 8/10
Video 9/10
Video 10/10