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?