Tuesday, 29 October 2013
SCOTTISH JUSTICE SYSTEM ON TRIAL – ABERDEEN,th and 5th NOVEMBER
On the face of it, Timothy Rustige (Rusty) is on trial, jury denied as usual in these parts, for allegedly upsetting Elish Angiolini. However, it is not Rusty who will really be on trial , but the integrity of the entire Scottish justice system.
Rusty, a gallant human rights campaigner from Prisoners of Conscience International faces prison – for what – allegedly criticising, from his home in England, the suitability of Angiolini`s publicly-funded appointment to a college at Oxford University. Thus, Rusty could be incarcerated by a regime notorious for its utter contempt for human rights, this time on the say-so of one of its worst practitioners, described as such by Ian Hamilton QC in his interview on BBC TV. Angiolini and her associates were also severely reprimanded by Lord Hope of the Supreme Court for continuous human rights abuses, exemplified by the Peter Cadder case. Furthermore, Elish Angiolini was not only prepared to lie to the whole world in the Lockerbie case about both the conviction and true reason for Mr Al-Megrahi`s release, but also displayed cruel disregard for his basic human rights. What kind of person would state that it was contemptuous, as Angiolini did on 8th September 2009, for a terminally ill man wrongly imprisoned far from his home country, to appeal against a conviction that she already knew was completely unsustainable?
Following the recent posts articles exposing Alex Salmond`s involvement in the Hollie Greig abuse case, here is yet another headline from The Firm magazine`s edition of 1st October 2010:-
The article says that she is stepping down as Lord Advocate but had declined to provide a reason for doing so. It goes on to state that it understands that “she is presently facing further action in respect of a failed appeal against a decision by the Information Commissioner not to disclose whether she used her own or taxpayers` funds in legal actions against the media”.
This refers to her action, implemented by Levy & McRae in 2009, to stop the media from reporting her connection with the Hollie Greig case.
The answer to this obvious public interest query has never been revealed to this day, but I have a letter from the Crown Office confirming that the query from the Commissioner was ignored until Angiolini had left office – but who is there fit to investigate?
Angiolini`s lawyer is Peter Watson of Levy &McRae. Professor Watson also represents Alex Salmond and the Scottish Police, as well as most of the Scottish media, so they are all taking advice from the same lawyer.
If Scotland was run fairly and properly, such a situation demonstrating such blatant conflicts of interest would never be allowed to exist. Moreover, Levy & McRae boasts on its site of employing former senior police officers. Therefore, it could be surely reasonable to suggest that Peter Watson, the firm`s senior partner, has the Scottish police in his pocket. If the professor thinks such an assumption to be unfair, then I should be glad to publish his comments on this site.
When Rusty faces the sheriff, whoever he or she may be, it may be interesting to reflect on the extraordinarily lenient treatment offered to one of Angiolini`s former deputies, Stuart McFarlane.
McFarlane was initially arrested when discovered having sex with a female prostitute in a public place in Glasgow. McFarlane became violent with the two arresting police officers to the extent that both required hospital treatment. I think anyone would expect that any individual causing such injuries to police officers in the course of their duty would face a custodial sentence, but Angiolini`s Crown Office came to McFarlane`s rescue, deciding that it was “not in the public interest” for such a violent sex offender to be jailed. This left McFarlane free to subsequently be arrested again for possessing 15, 000 child pornographic images, some of a horrific nature, according to police sources. Surely, this time, he must be imprisoned, you may well say.
Well no, with an ally like Elish Angiolini, you can get away with anything in Scotland. McFarlane is still at large. It is only those of us who are prepared to expose sex offenders like McFarlane, such as Rusty and me, who must be locked up “in the public interest”. The words of the recently deceased but highly respected Jock Thomson QC come to mind when he described Scotland as a “banana republic” and the Crown Office as “institutionally corrupt”.
So what gives this institutionally corrupt banana republic the right to jail foreigners whose only “crime” it is to stand up for Scottish rape victims and to expose those who protect the perpetrators?
May I again ask for the maximum possible support for Rusty in Aberdeen on 4th and 5th November and for anyone who can attend to be there to bear witness to what may occur in the Scottish Court, as I know from my own experience that it is shamelessly capable of the most disgraceful acts of corruption.
This is not just about the Hollie Greig case, shocking though it is. It is about fundamental human rights, justice and decency. It is about freedom of expression and freedom of the press in a country where such concepts are not allowed to exist.
May the eyes of all those committed to belief in true democracy, civilised behaviour and protection of our most vulnerable citizens from sexual abuse be focussed on Aberdeen and Tim Rustige on 4th and 5th November.
Posted by Robert Green at 13:15 1 comment:
Saturday, 26 October 2013
CHILD RAPE? NO QUESTIONS ASKED IN SCOTLAND
I am awaiting a response from First Minister Alex Salmond to my letter, enclosing key documents supporting Hollie`s case, to his constituency secretary of 3rd October. Mr David Woods, from Mr Salmond`s Edinburgh office, has courteously advised me that a reply will be sent.
It is to be hoped that Mr Salmond will not allow himself to be so ill-informed as to suggest that a “thorough investigation” into Hollie`s allegations has already been undertaken.
No investigation that could possibly be described as such has ever taken place.
However, I have informed the First Minister that the overriding priority is that a full inquiry into Hollie`s case and those connected to it should be proposed. Despite everything that has happened, I am willing to offer my full cooperation and support in a spirit of goodwill should this course of action be taken. I am not especially interested in vengeance or recrimination as long as justice is seen to be done for Hollie Greig and that Scottish children and the disabled receive the state`s protection from sexual abuse to which they are entitled.
If readers would like to be reminded of the evidence Mr Salmond has before him, much of the most salient information can be viewed during my interview that takes place 47 minutes into the show:-
One could only describe the investigation as being thorough if one believes that a) those accused of paedophile rape need never be questioned, b) their computers need not be examined and c) there is no need to check possible forensic evidence. None of these criteria have been met following Hollie`s formal complaint made to DC Lisa Jane Evans, in my presence, on 8th September 2009.
Mr Salmond is also in possession of the Commissioner`s report confirming that Grampian Police withheld crucial evidence supporting Hollie`s claims from the Prosecutor.
The utter inadequacy of Grampian Police in this regard was established on oath during my trial in January 2012. Ten prosecution witnesses testified to this, including DC Evans herself. When questioned by my Counsel, Andy Lamb QC, she confirmed that not one of those identified by Hollie had even been questioned by the police.
The other nine brought forward by the prosecution to testify against me were among those identified by Hollie, although significantly, there was no complaint from the two individuals against whom the evidence was the strongest, Denis Charles Mackie and Greg Mackie, both known to the police prior to Hollie`s initial allegations in May 2000.
First of those named was Sheriff Graham Buchanan, who stated that he thought there could be no possibility of truth in Hollie`s claims as she was supported by David Icke. Thus, he was prepared, purely on the basis of his opinion of Mr Icke, to dismiss entirely the expert witness reports of Dr Jack Boyle, Dr Eva Harding, Dr Paul Carter, Dr Frances Kelly, Grampian Police`s senior forensic medical specialist, D.I. Iain Alley and his fellow officers, Ruth Beckmann and Susannah Seymann of the Down`s Syndrome Association, specialist solicitor Nicola Smith and the entire panel of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority who had decided the weight of evidence sufficient to grant Hollie a financial award.
This came from someone whose solemn public duty it is to dispense justice impartially having considered all the evidence.
What more can one say?
Others named who gave evidence were Carol Low, Ann Royal, Win Dragon, Ian and Helen Macdonald.
Jillian Mackie, sister-in-law of Denis, had recently been a key witness at the trial of Malcolm Webster, convicted of murdering his wife, Claire. Mrs Mackie had been a friend of the murderer.
Mrs Webster died in a very similar circumstances to those of Hollie`s uncle, Robert (Roy) Greig, in a blazing stationary car. The pathologist, who initially saw no reason to suspect foul play in either case, was Dr James Grieve, another of those called to give evidence against me, although I must stress that he was not named by Hollie.
Drew Young, former head of Beechwood Special School, perjured himself when questioned by Mr Lamb about Dr Paul Carter`s reports, the second of which stated that staff at the school had drawn his attention to the likelihood that Hollie was “at risk” sexually. Mr Young told the court he knew nothing about this as he had left the school in July 1992.
Dr Carter`s report was dated 3rd February 1992.
Moreover, Dr Carter had earlier stated to me that Mr Young had definitely been informed.
Sylvia Major, when questioned by Mr Lamb, confirmed that Mr Young had at one time lived at her home.
Mr Lamb asked all nine if they had ever been questioned by the police about Hollie`s allegations. All answered in the negative.
I am aware that many of you have been given dismissive replies when you have approached your MPs or MSPs when you have approached them to assist in the Hollie Greig case. May I again suggest that you then file a complaint with the constituency chairman, attaching copies of the evidence and pointing out that other politicians have had the courage to speak out, including David Ruffley, Andrew George, David Ward, David Anderson, John Hemming, David Mowat, Nigel Farage and Lord Monckton.
Finally, please support and attend, if possible, the trial of Rusty (Timothy Rustige) in Aberdeen on 4th and 5th November. Rusty, a fearless human rights campaigner is facing charges in a country that has been frequently described, even by eminent Scots, such as Jock Thompson QC, Ian Hamilton QC and Lord Hope as having an appalling human rights record.
Witnesses are important as Sheriff Principal Bowen, at my trial, after making a racially offensive remark about me, has subsequently attempted to pervert the course of justice by having the audio record falsified by having his comment deleted.
I expect to give evidence in Rusty`s defence.
Posted by Robert Green at 09:26 10 comments:
Wednesday, 23 October 2013
HOLLIE GREIG – ALEX SALMOND IN THE FIRING LINE
Thank you for all your messages of support following the Court of Session hearing, which provided me with an opportunity to discuss vital evidence about Hollie`s case in open court and to quote examples of Angiolini`s appalling record in public office, including her lies over Lockerbie and lack of compassion towards a dying man who ought never have been convicted.
Now it is time for Alex Salmond to face questions over his extraordinarily baffling conduct towards the Hollie Greig case and its overwhelmingly supportive expert witness evidence, including that indicating police corruption, all of which is in his possession.
Let us first go back to The Firm magazine`s headline of 3 June 2011, which read:-
Exclusive: Information Commissioner forces Government response to Hollie Greig inquiries.
The Commissioner has ruled that the Scottish Ministers have failed to comply with their obligations under sections 10(1) and 21(1) of the FOI Act. If the Ministers fail to comply with my decision the Court of Session can treat this failure as a contempt of court.
In the event, the entire Scottish Government came within 24 hours of facing potential criminal charges relating to the Hollie Greig case.
Front page news, overwhelming public interest, surely?
No, Mr Salmond`s personal solicitor, Peter Watson of Levy & McRae, boasts with a good deal of justification that he can keep his clients off the front pages. Good for Professor Watson and good for Mr Salmond, but is it consistent with public interest, freedom of expression and freedom of the press?
Also, the Scottish people must not be made aware of the Hollie Greig case. It must be concealed from the public at all costs, just as the disgusting activities of Jimmy Savile and Cyril Smith were in England.
On 11 July 2011 came another headline from The Firm:-
First Minister in missing records riddle over Hollie Greig abuse allegations.
The First Minister`s Private Secretary Terry Kowal told The Firm, “I have established that we do not have a record of when the First Minister became aware of the allegations. Therefore, the information you require is not held by the Scottish Government.”
This is a statement of extraordinary inaccuracy.
Apart from the major questions about Hollie`s case posed by the FOI Commissioner, Mr Kevin Dunion, on 28 January 2011, the Crown Office, in its letter by Andrew McIntyre to me of 23 July 2009, referred to my email to Mr Salmond of 20 June 2009 giving details of Hollie`s case and which asked him to intervene. On 1st May 2011, I handed all the key expert witness documents to Mr Salmond in Perth. He undertook to take a look at them after our brief conversation about the case. Then we have the letter from his office to Anne Greig of 2nd October 2007, written by Julie Muir, which says ” Mr Salmond has asked me to thank you for your letter and asked me to reply on his behalf.”
When one considers this terrible case of the uninvestigated rape of a disabled girl in the neighbouring constituency in Aberdeen, how could it be that Mr Salmond remembered nothing about it and given the evidence that he must have known about it, why did he then not take action?
So just how then could his Private Secretary in July 2011, still claim that Mr Salmond had no information on Hollie`s case?
Some might say that Mr Salmond is a busy man and had become inexplicably confused.
Some might say that Mr Salmond has been suspiciously evasive.
Others might even say that the First Minister has lied.
After contacting Alex Salmond`s constituency secretary, Mr Neil Bailey, enclosing again all the main documents, I invited the committee to ask their MSP why he had done nothing to resolve this blatant injustice. I received a letter of acknowledgement today from David Woods from Mr Salmond`s government office in Edinburgh. It reads simply “I am writing to acknowledge your recent letter to Alex Salmond regarding the case of Hollie Greig. A reply will be sent to you as soon as possible.”
Of course, despite everything, the prime objective is for a thorough investigation into the Hollie Greig case and those connected to it to take place. I have offered every cooperation to Mr Salmond should he finally decide to take this obvious and honourable course of action, in the public interest.
Please remember that Rusty (Tim Rustige), of Prisoners of Conscience, faces trial by a single sheriff in Aberdeen on 4th and 5th November. He needs as many members of the public to witness the trial as possible. I expect to give evidence on his behalf. His real alleged crime – exposing the rapists of Aberdeen and their high level protectors in the Scottish establishment.
Finally it should not be thought that all of these dreadful coverups take place in Scotland. In Wales, where my background is, there are a number of cases as shocking as Hollie`s in some ways, one of which is the case of Linda Lewis. Linda is fortunate to have a splendid and brave champion in Kevin Edwards. Details of the case can be seen 52 minutes into UK Column`s show of 10th October. Please take a look and offer any support you can to Kevin and Linda.
Posted by Robert Green at 21:53 11 comments:
Saturday, 19 October 2013
ANGIOLINI – EDINBURGH
Thank you all for your wonderful support yet again and to the gallant Scottish, English and Irish people who made the journey to the Court of Session. Also, I would like to thank all of you who sent messages of support. It means a lot to me and I`m sure it does to Hollie and her devoted mother who has had to endure so much. Thanks also to those who spread the word, including the televised messages put out by UK Column Live.
Dame Elish Angiolini, on the other hand, was conspicuous by her absence, as usual.
Roddy Dunlop QC, of Axiom Advocates, requested that Lord Bannatyne issue a perpetual interdict on me to prevent me criticising the great Dame. Of course, I could not defend this proposition on equitable grounds, being denied the level of legal representation to which I am entitled. In previous hearings, Lords Glennie and Stewart have made this point perfectly clear, but Lord Bannatyne disagreed with his fellow Lordships, which poses yet another interesting question for the Scottish legal establishment.
Lord Bannatyne did reserve judgement, but I do not think he should have even considered such a motion by the pursuer with my being deprived of adequate means of defence. Mr Dunlop`s legal points were, of course, unintelligible to me.
However, I was permitted to read out a copy of my letter of 12th September 2013 to the Court of Session. This was said in open court with no restrictions, so its contents can be reported on freely.
I will not go through the whole letter, which will be published, but here are some of the most salient points.
Excerpts included my disappointment that Angiolini had refused my offer to cooperate in calling for a proper and adequate investigation into the Hollie Greig case. Interestingly, during his submission, Mr Dunlop did refer to all right-thinking people being opposed to the sexual abuse of children, but perhaps wisely, did not specifically include his client among that number.
I was able to list the severe public condemnations of Angiolini by Professor Robert Black QC, Ian Hamilton QC in his BBC interview, the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Hope of the Supreme Court, amongst others. I believe there is a valid argument for submitting that Angiolini`s record as Lord Advocate was so appalling that it would be difficult for anyone to defame her in that regard.
I went on to describe Angiolini, on 8th September 2009, publicly criticising Mr Al-Megrahi`s attempt to clear his name as being contemptible. It was actually Angiolini who displayed contempt, both for the law of Scotland and for the basic human rights of a dying man, falsely imprisoned far from his home and family. She knew at that time that his conviction was unsound, yet was prepared to lie to the whole world, presumably to protect the interests of the CIA. It is quite possible that Angiolini knows the true identities of those who were responsible for the Lockerbie bomb and that may offer a possible indication of why the Scottish establishment will go to such extraordinary lengths to protect and cosset her. It may well be that she knows too much.
I then referred to the information that Angiolini had even tried to deceive her own legal team in this particular case, as I discovered from Mr Dunlop and Balfour & Manson`s Mr Tyler after the 1st May hearing. She had led them to believe that she had not been cited as a defence witness at my trial, a blatant untruth. She was indeed cited by my Counsel, Andy Lamb QC to appear, but refused to be cross-examined under oath, If she had nothing to hide, why avoid being questioned in open court.
Moving on, I was able to present details from expert witness statements, including that of Dr Eva Harding, one of those accepted by the CICA for Hollie to be granted an award. It was also one of the documents concealed from the Prosecutor by Grampian Police. I said that Dr Harding`s findings concluded unequivocally that Hollie`s father and brother, Denis Charles Mackie and Greg Mackie, had sexually abused her from childhood and that she was probably abused by others who had access to her. Among those named was a cousin of Denis Mackie, Sylvia Major and her police officer husband, who was Terry Major, Chief Fingerprint Officer for Grampian Police. Is it any wonder that rogue elements within the police force did not want the Prosecutor to see this evidence?
Of course, despite the police holding this overwhelming supporting evidence, not one of the individuals named by Hollie to the police in my presence in September 2009 was so much as questioned.
Although I did not discuss this at the hearing, Alex Salmond is up to his neck in the Hollie Greig cover up.
The Firm`s article of 11th July 2011 is headed “First Minister in missing records riddle over Hollie Greig abuse allegations”. It highlights Mr Salmond`s failure to answer a FOI request made to him of 28th January 2011, which eventually led to the entire SNP government coming within 24 hours of being held in contempt of court. It appears that Mr Salmond was initially trying to give the impression that he knew nothing about Hollie Greig, but The Firm pointed out that the Crown office`s Andrew McIntyre, in a letter to me of 23rd July 2009, had referred to an email that I had sent to the First Minister on 20th June that year. I also hold a copy of a letter dated 2nd October 2007 to Anne Greig from Julie Muir, of his constituency office, in which she states “Mr Salmond has asked me to thank you for your letter and to reply”.
That is not all.
On 1st May 2011, in Perth, I personally handed over the expert witness documents to Mr Salmond, explaining briefly what they contained. He took them and said “I`ll take a look at them”.
There is an important event taking place in September 2014 to resolve the question of Scottish independence. If Alex Salmond does not think that the unchecked sexual abuse of Scottish children and the disabled by paedophile gangs is sufficiently important as to warrant his attention, then he should say so- publicly!
The SNP`s office number is 0131 525 8900, if you would like to know the First Minister`s views on this specific topic are and an explanation for his conduct over the Hollie Greig case.
Finally, thanks must go to Tim Rustige`s MP, Graham Brady. After he had contacted the Prime Minister, having been given full details of Hollie`s case, a letter to Mr Brady from 10 Downing St states “The Prime Minister has asked for a Minister in the Home office to reply to you directly”. The letter also refers to the Prime Minister`s awareness of the request for a Parliamentary level National Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse coverups.
Perhaps this may be a tangible official step towards untangling and exposing the corruption involved in the horrific case of Hollie Greig and protecting others from such ordeals.
Thank you all again for staying with us throughout this battle for justice.
Posted by Robert Green at 10:11 17 comments:
Tuesday, 15 October 2013
PETER WATSON AND LEVY & McRAE
Thank you first to the UK Column Live show today for asking for support, at the start of the programme, for me in Edinburgh on Friday. It is greatly appreciated, given that I have been denied Legal Aid and am opposed to one of Scotland`s most highly qualified QCs , Mr Roddy Dunlop, of Axiom Advocates. Clearly, I am at a great disadvantage, especially in a foreign country whose laws I do not know nor am I obliged to know.
My quest for Legal Aid has not been helped by the fact that one of the Board`s most senior officials, Douglas Haggarty, is himself a sex offender, being caught performing a sexual act with a boy in a toilet in a large store in central Glasgow where families were shopping. Haggarty`s brother Gordon, a clergyman, was convicted of raping an eleven-year-old girl. Anyone doubting the sheer scale of corruption that exists within the Scottish legal hierarchy need surely look no further for an example.
Many people outside Scotland ask why there is not more negative publicity about Elish Angiolini, given that her career has been extremely chequered, to put it as kindly as I can. The most obvious reason for this lies with her solicitor, the well-known Professor Peter Watson, of Levy & McRae.
Here is what the good professor`s firm says about itself.
“We represent the biggest names in print and broadcast media. Included are Channel 4, Channel 5, Granada, Scottish Radio holdings, Sky, SMG and Trinity Mirror.”
Is it any wonder that not one of these organs dared mention “Justice for Hollie Greig” when it was prominently daubed on Jimmy Savile`s highland cottage. Goodness, the Scottish people might well be tempted to try to discover more about Hollie`s case. Levy & McRae can`t possibly allow the Scots to be aware of this, can it?
It may embarrass some of Professor Watson`s high profile clients. The much greater interests of the general public can be disregarded – the ordinary Scots cannot be counted on to remain silent should they uncover the truth about the rape of children and the disabled in their country.
Then “We aim to keep our clients off the front page.”
Levy & McRae are unquestionably good at this, beyond doubt.
Peter Watson personally represents Alex Salmond and Elish Angiolini, with Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill being a former colleague at the firm.
Levy & McRae represents the Police Federation for the whole of Scotland. It also states that it employs former senior police officers. Would I be alone in being concerned about the latter, in particular?
Is there not a temptation for current senior police officers to abandon impartiality if it means risking the prospect of “a nice little earner” at the end of their police service?
Alistair Bonington, legal head of BBC Scotland, said “The test of our courts is to ask whether the decision taking process is being carried out openly and impartially, given the number of conflicting interests represented by Levy & McRae.”
One glaring example of this was when former Glasgow Council leader Steven Purcell was being represented by Levy & McRae when he was subject to a police investigation, the firm was also acting at the same time for the local police chief!
A conflict of interest there, do you think?
Would it be unreasonable to suggest that Levy & McRae `s sheer range of influence compromises the concepts of freedom of the press, freedom of expression and the impartiality of the police and justice system in Scotland?
If Professor Watson, who, I understand, is a regular and loyal reader of this site, feels that my summary is in any way inaccurate or unfair, I shall be glad to publish his comments accordingly.
Finally, Rusty`s (Tim Rustige) trial in Aberdeen has been confirmed for 4th and 5th November. May
I ask for all possible support for Rusty, who deserves it for his unquenchable bravery and integrity?
Of course, following the debacle of the kangaroo court in Stonehaven in my case, it will not be Rusty who is really on trial, but the Scottish justice system. The world will be watching for any further attempts to cover up the Hollie Greig case by persecuting those brave enough to stand up for Scottish children and the disabled against the Scottish establishment which collaborates in protecting their tormentors.
Posted by Robert Green at 14:20