4. No evidence?
Not “no evidence”. We do however have to be very clear that
there is insufficient evidence to ever
convict anyone of the rape of Hollie Greig – and all the bluster, wailing and
gnashing of teeth in the world cannot possibly change that. Is that a
‘satisfactory’ state of affairs? No! Not by a long-chalk! But reality is often very unjust; people sometimes do ‘get
away with murder’! Really the wider question has to be asked; why is there insufficient evidence to convict anyone
of the rape of Hollie Greig, how did the system come to fail her? And there lies one of the most curious
dichotomies in this case...
Suspicions were raised at or around the time Hollie was being
abused. And yet those suspicions were actively
guided along the most-innocent explanations – partly by individuals that might
ultimately have been implicated in that abuse - but also by another who is now
screaming ‘injustice’ from the rooftops.
Notably, there is neither contemporaneous
criminal complaint nor consequent forensics relating to Hollie’s abuse. If there has been any ‘cover up’ in the case of
Hollie Greig then the evidence – such as it is – suggests that it actually has
its roots in a time long before any authorities were alerted. That aspect of
the case alone means that, prima face,
the Hollie Grieg case as it is presented by the key protagonists just doesn’t
hold water. And this is essentially why
it cannot be prosecuted...
Not, I emphasise, “will not” but cannot be prosecuted...
That is not to say no crime was committed; merely that the
law is rendered impotent and the likely perpetrators are consequently
‘flameproof’. And I will be clear here in
repeating that those individuals are so ‘flameproof’ even naming them is not a
legally sound option.
Turning to the ‘Hollie Hoax’ group and recalling that their
tactics have included trying to discredit the CICA; what could possibly
motivate a raggle-taggle collection of social misfits, non-professionals and
non-experts in any serious field to
set themselves up as quasi-journalists, detectives and medical experts? A “bizarre
little knot of people” as Robert Green quite fairly described them; what drives
these people to debunk that which was
established after a proper professional examination by people who are the ‘real deal’? And in whose interests do they operate?
I’ll highlight again here that these people aren’t satisfied
with simply debunking Anne Greig’s ridiculous tale of a high level paedophile
ring, or even clearing the names of those who are merely ‘bit players’ in that
particular story. For clarity, those
who have been defamed in these extended allegations do have the clear option of
legal remedy. And, ironically enough, it is in the interests of all innocent
parties connected to the case that the official review of Hollie’s case that
Robert Green is calling for is carried out… For surely such a review can only clear the names of the falsely
accused in an irrefutable way?
But of course it is equally likely to also endorse the position
of the CICA - leaving the elephant of Hollie's abuse in the room - and yet again I am forced to ask why anyone would seek to rob a
victim of a sex crime of the simple
dignity of society’s woefully inadequate acknowledgement of their suffering.
Why promote the myth that there is no evidence Hollie Greig was ever abused?
What particular need is there to ‘absolve’ those who are implicated in Hollie’s abuse?
Don’t misread me here; it is perfectly reasonable to debunk
Anne Greig’s ludicrous claims (for they are hers)
of a high-level paedophile ring – in fact they fall apart with the simplest
cross-checks. But it would take a particular level of stupidity, incompetence
and dishonesty for anyone ‘close to the case’ to be categorically promoting
these claims one day and claiming with vehement certainty that Hollie was never abused the next… And yet this
is exactly what happened! What could
possibly have driven this shift in agenda? What was so ‘particular’ about
Hollie’s case that it had to be
discredited in its entirety and by
such desperate means?
For instance, ever-anxious to draw the ‘heat’ away from the
harsh realities of the case, those who walk the walk of Queen Gertrude claim
that the poor girl ‘had a boyfriend’ and that he is responsible for the fact that medical evidence supports the
view that Hollie had been violated. This
quite frankly seems to be as much a ridiculous fantasy as anything Anne Greg
came up with. But playing Devil’s advocate for a moment and accepting this to
be the case then the issue only gets more serious…
Either this ‘boyfriend’ had the requisite mental capacity to
know what he was doing and took advantage of Hollie’s lack of capacity to consent
to sexual intercourse, thus this alleged boyfriend is Hollie’s rapist.
Or he
himself was so mentally challenged that he did not understand the gravity
of this act and the responsibility for her violation falls upon the people who
should have been supervising and protecting them both.
We are seriously expected to accept as
‘mitigation’ for the evidence that Hollie has been violated the notion that not
one, but two mentally challenged people were abused by being neglected such
that they had the time, place and opportunity to become sexually intimate?
Does it not occur to the proponents of this theory that it
would indicate some very serious failings in the systems of child protection
and that of vulnerable adults?
Does it not actually dawn on these people that there is
another possible can of worms that does in
itself justify a full a thorough investigation into the Hollie Greig case?
Does the penny not drop with them that whilst on the one hand
they’re claiming the poor girl has the mental age of a child – a toddler - the
very fact that she is that and not virgo
intacta is inherently clear evidence of sexual abuse? Their position cannot
be said to be logical!
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, and as much as we must question those who seek to deflect
from Hollie’s suffering we do need to question what inspired Anne Greig to come
up with this ridiculous fairy story of hers in the first place. By their very
nature, Anne Greig’s extended allegations must, have some nefarious purpose and
motive. What possible purpose though? Why not just tell the awful truth and
perhaps fight for changes in the law?
Doubts have been cast over Anne Greig’s mental state – and
these doubts do have firm foundation.
The view has been taken by some
journalists that the case should not be pursued further because of the doubt
over her ongoing mental health and her role as Hollie’s carer. As such, this is
not an unreasonable view, and it has
guided me in falling silent – at least in public – on the matter for the
past few years. However, the ongoing persecution of Robert Green, his jailing
and the dubiety over his treatment as contrasted to others means that I have
kept a weather-eye on what has been happening.
To some degree mental illness may well mitigate Anne Greig’s
actions in developing and promoting this line of malreason. The question I have to ask then is what train of thought,
what disturbing experiences, lead Anne Grieg to develop this particular fantasy?
It is clear that those named by Anne Greig have been placed
into the firing line have been placed there for the purposes of ‘revenge’ of
some sorts. Somehow they have all ‘offended’ her at some point in her
life… And the story does have many of
the hallmarks of a paranoid delusion. Why such a tale along such particularly warped lines though?
What environment might lead someone to travel on such a train
of thought?
And there may be your answer – Anne Greig may not be the product of a normal
environment.
We know for instance that both survivors and secondary perpetrators
of sexual abuse often develop dark fantasies; sometimes even warping into full
blown abusers themselves in the struggle to ‘normalise’ their own backgrounds. Could
such unfortunate experience sit in Anne’s past? Clearly this must at least be a
possibility as there is historical evidence
of her playing her part in deflecting from the authorities’ concerns over
Hollie’s sexual development.
It is also fact that Anne’s late brother – who she claims was
murdered as part of the cover up of her daughter’s abuse – swam in the murkiest
waters of Aberdeenshire. Far from being a man with no motive for suicide, the
unfortunate Roy Greig was, at the time of his death, in very serious trouble –
probably about to be arrested for embezzlement – and had ‘crossed the line’
where certain of Aberdeen’s ‘worthies’ are concerned!
Anne Greig is very well aware to what deep water her Brother
was in… So she is absolutely lying through her teeth when she says he had no
reason to kill himself. And, more relevantly, clearly lying about the sort of environment and circles her family moved in.
My views of Anne Greig have
changed over the years. Once I was convinced by the character of the
not-very-bright but determined and outraged heroine. The benefit of the doubt
was given to her… How could a mother come up with such a warped story
after all?
But an ugly and inescapable truth emerges when you objectively analyse
the material Anne has put ‘out there’ in her attempts to paint certain
pictures. Hollie was abused it’s true.
And, when she was a child, the professionals that were involved in her care did
develop concerns and did raise the alarm. But the main reason the matter went
no further was that they were deflected from that path by both of Hollie’s parents – not just her father.
Anne Greig has hinted at coercion in this. But I can find not
the tiniest grain of evidence – anecdotal or otherwise to support the notion
that Anne Greig lived her married life under the cosh. I can then only conclude
that she participated in this diversion of her own free will.
For the record, my own view now is that Anne Greig operates with quite a high level of
Machiavellian intelligence. I don’t say that she is a particularly intelligent
person overall – for the story she fabricated is created from the weakest tissue and really utterly ridiculous - but
I don’t for a moment believe that she is under any illusions as to its
veracity. Although her fantasies are clearly the product of a dark and twisted
mind, it strikes me more likely that, like a lot of stupid and uneducated
people, she simply assumes the rest of the world is as stupid, uneducated and
gullible as she is! And will ‘fall for’ any old crap!
The main reason I now take that view is that she has been
given the benefit of the doubt and the opportunity to place her daughter’s case
on a credible basis too often; and too often she has refused the benefit of
that opportunity – indeed I will go as far as to say I believe she has
deliberately thwarted efforts to put her daughter’s case on solid grounds on
more than one occasion. That, I think, would not be the case if she were
sincerely seeking justice for Hollie.
As for her mental state?
It’s understandable that certain
experienced journalists should be convinced the woman is simply “off her
chump”… I think I see beyond that mask though…
Certainly for Hollie’s sake there is no doubt Anne is the best person to be her carer –
when all’s said and done Hollie loves her mother and that is where she feels
most secure and has the greatest continuity in her life. Recognising this, there
can be no serious doubts that the authorities will have assessed the situation,
examined Anne Greig and found here ‘capable’ in terms of looking after Hollie.
Pragmatically speaking it seems highly
unlikely that the authorities would leave Hollie in the care and control of someone
in such a dangerously delusional condition that they actually believed the fantasies they were promoting.
As I don’t actually believe Anne to be mentally ill per se,
and I don’t now believe it’s justice for Hollie that she seeks, the only
conclusion I can reach is that her – clearly
malicious - extended allegations were designed to draw the light of
suspicion onto certain individuals against whom some evidence of some other
wrongdoing might exist – not
necessarily in respect of Hollie – but with regard to other equally disturbing
matters.
In other words, although most of what she has said is a
ridiculous smokescreen, she hoped to exploit the principle of ‘no smoke without
fire’ in the thinking that at some level the authorities would drill deeper
into the lifestyles and background of those most credibly implicated in the
abuse of her daughter. She was setting certain individuals up…
Why bother with the smokescreen though? Why the fairy story?
If you knew someone to be a miscreant of some sort, and
sought revenge upon them, what might stop you going directly to the police with
your evidence unless you yourself had something you would rather wasn’t
discovered? Is it possible that Anne
Greig could not go directly to the
authorities with the full unvarnished weight of what she knows simply because
she herself would be implicated in some way? Is this some rouse to draw
attention to ‘something’ whilst at the same time creating some sort of tacit
alibi or back-story for herself?
Take this theory and set it against the desperate and
disparate attempts to paint the picture that no abuse ever took place and – by
association – that those implicated as the most likely abusers must be
exonerated at all costs.
Of both sides of this particular coin I am left with the
question of what is it they are
actually trying to hide?
