- PINNED PAGES
- MY DAUGHTERS STORY UPDATE 4
- CATHY FOXES GENIUS POST
- THE DOCHERTYS
- TO ROBERTS OLD BLOG
- THE FACTS AND THE FOI
- The increasingly curious case of Robert Green
- ROBERT GREEN IN HIS OWN WORDS
- HOLLIE GREIG - A SURVIVOR'S BATTLE FOR JUSTICE by Robert Green
- ROBERT GREEN IN HIS OWN WORDS ungagged
- THE FACTS AND WHY WE BELIEVE HOLLIE GREIG’S ALLEGATIONS
- ANNE GREIGS LETTER TO ALEC SALMOND
- TWO LETTERS
- AT 4.11 ALEC SALMOND SAYS HE WILL LOOK AT HOLLIES ...
- ROBERT GREENS BLOG ALL THE POSTS
- First Minister in missing records riddle over Holl...
- SRA AND HOLLIE GREIG BARRISTER AND CAMPAIGNER WILFRED WONG TALKS ABOUT SRA
- Aangirfan Friday, 30 October 2015 'CHILD ABUSE CO...
- HOLLIE GREIG BOMBSHELL SNP GOV THROW KENNY MACASKI...
- OLD BLOG
- ADMISSION OF GUILT
- INSURANCE COMPANYS FACE PEADOGEDDAN
- Kenny MacAskill questioned by Robert Green at Port...
- HOLLIE TELLS SHE WAS ABUSED NOW REMOVED BY P AND J...
- NAMED PERSON NONCE
- MUST READ This Is What Happens When You Report His...
- LEVY AND MACRAE THE WRIT
- A QUESTION FOR ALL READERS
- The Shocking Story Of Hollie Greig
- THE DOCHERTYS FULL 5 HOURS
- SPOTLIGHT THE BLOG
- IN BELGIUM
If you want something removed just ask in the comments section or send a e mail
HOLLIE GREIGS CASE WAS NEVER INVESTIGATED
IF THEY HAD BEEN INTERVIEWED ABOUT HOLLIES ABUSE.
THEY ALL ANSWERED NO!.
HOLLIE GREIG THE QUESTIONS
HOLLIE GREIG THE QUESTIONS
when a case of rape is reported, you, as representative of the Crown Office, do not believe it is necessary for the police to question the alleged perpetrators without delay;
when a case of rape is reported, you, as representative of the Crown Office, do not believe it is necessary for the police immediately to search the homes of those named for corroborative evidence;
when a case of rape is reported, you, as representative of the Crown Office, do not believe it is necessary to seize and examine the computers of those named at the earliest opportunity;
when allegations of rape are supported by evidence from well-respected medical and psychological experts who unanimously confirm not only that systematic abuse has taken place, but go so far as to name two of the most likely perpetrators, you, as representative of the Crown Office, believe it right to dismiss their testimony and allow those named to leave the country;
when a school doctor twice reports an under-age girl to be at risk, and that girl’s headmaster - one of those subsequently named as a serial rapist - consistently fails to alert the child’s mother or to take any steps to protect her, you, as representative of the Crown Office, believe this to be the normal behaviour of a responsible, and guiltless, person;
when a case of rape is reported by a girl with speech difficulties, you, as representative of the Crown Office, do not believe it is necessary to supply her with support during police interviews, but are happy to use her handicap, in this respect, to discredit her spoken evidence;
when a case of repeated multiple gang rape over many years is reported by a young girl who also names seven fellow victims, you, as representative of the Crown Office, do not believe that, in view of the Scottish law regarding corroboration, it is absolutely essential that the police question those she has named immediately.
When an acknowledged victim of rape receives a substantial award from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, you, as representative of the Crown Office, feel justified in continuing to maintain that the allegations on which this award was based were fully investigated and found to be false.
THE FACTS CONT
Sunday, 22 January 2017
Nothing will come of this story. No inquiry worth the name - anyone see a pattern here..
It will disappear from our collective consciousness in a few days time, as if it was never published because it touches upon one of Scotland's hidden truths. (And the UK for the same reasons)
The Crown Office is irrevocably corrupt and all MSP's know this..
So, given that the Procurator Fiscal's Office say that 100% of these cases should be prosecuted and the Crown Office only successfully prosecutes 22% of these cases, what is going wrong?
Simple, a small percentage of these cases are being prosecuted by Crown Office Depute Fiscal's who are not 'minded' to prosecute the cases properly (evidence of this was that a recent Crown Office Depute Fiscal was found to be a sexual deviant - which begs the question, who is appointing these Depute Fiscal's into position?).
The remainder of the cases, not prosecuted are simply tossed into the 'Do not prosecute bin'
David Goodwillie rape victim's civil case victory sparks calls for probe into decision not to prosecute footballers
Legal bosses and politicians are calling for an inquiry into why the Crown failed to bring criminal charges against the ex-Scotland striker and his former Dundee United team-mate.
Labour and two leading lawyers are leading calls for a probe to establish exactly how the disastrous decision was reached.
Ex-Scotland striker Goodwillie and his former Dundee United team-mate Robertson were ordered to pay £100,000 damages to their victim Denise Clair.
The former Scottish Prison Service education adviser has been fighting for justice for six years.
Denise, 30, had sued the pair through the civil courts after the Crown failed to failed to bring criminal charges over her ordeal, which happened in January 2011 in a flat in Armadale, West Lothian.
Two leading lawyers, including Bert Kerrigan, who today writes for the Sunday Mail, are among those questioning the decision by the Crown.
Prosecutors had decided there was insufficient evidence but Lord Armstrong upheld Denise’s claim that the two footballers had sex with her when she was too drunk to give her consent.
Denise, who was 24 at the time of the attack, said after Tuesday’s ruling that she was pleased with the verdict but “bitterly disappointed” at being let down by the criminal justice system.
She previously told the Sunday Mail the way she was treated by the criminal justice system was “every bit as bad” as her ordeal. Nicola Sturgeon vowed at First Minister’s Questions on Thursday to get tough on sex crime.
But last night there were calls for an inquiry into why the Crown failed to pursue the case in the criminal courts.
Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale said: “Labour supports growing calls for an inquiry into the Crown Office’s decision, and a proper review of the support we give to victims of rape in the justice system.
“In Holyrood on Thursday, Labour’s justice spokeswoman Claire Baker highlighted that 88 per cent of reported rapes fail to make it inside a criminal court room. That simply isn’t good enough.
“Denise Clair’s victory in a civil case may see more women take their case to civil courts because they feel let down by the criminal court system.
“Denise Clair waived her right to anonymity to pursue a civil case, but that right and protection for victims is important. That’s why rape should always be treated through the criminal courts.”
Denise’s ordeal began after bumping into Goodwillie and former school pal Robertson during a night out in Bathgate on January 1, 2011.
She woke the next day, naked, alone and terrified, locked inside an unfamiliar house in nearby Armadale.
Goodwillie was charged and Robertson was interviewed by police but the criminal case collapsed when prosecutors decided there was an “insufficiency of evidence”.
Hours after Denise was informed of the decision, Goodwillie was selected to play for Scotland.
Days later, Goodwillie moved to Blackburn Rovers in a £2.8million transfer deal. In his ruling on Tuesday, Lord Armstrong said the evidence by Denise was “cogent, persuasive and compelling”.
The judge said he did not find Goodwillie’s evidence to be “persuasive” and did not find Robertson “credible or reliable”.
Graeme Pearson, a former police chief and Labour politician who campaigned of justice for Denise, said: “Given the clarity of Lord Armstrong’s comments, and the credibility of the witness and story she told in court, it raises questions about the original decision not to prosecute in the criminal court.
“And it will no doubt create doubt in the mind of many victims about whether or not they will be fairly treated when they make reports of rape or sexual assault. The authorities need to have a good explanation why there shouldn’t be an inquiry.
“When I met Denise, it confirmed my view that what she reported deserved a proper airing and I encouraged her to seek a civil remedy in the absence of a criminal trial.”
Pearson added: “These cases are difficult. Nevertheless, when one is presented with a young woman as credible as she was, with a story that made sense, it seemed to me that she deserved her day in court.
“The courts have a culture which is very masculine and introverted when it comes to dealing with sex crimes. It is system largely managed by men, serviced by men, with decisions taken by men of a certain age and from a certain background.
“The Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 says if a victim is drunk they are incapable of giving consent, and yet the way in which the authorities manage things often overlooks such legislation.
“What is the point of having legislation and direction if they are not followed?”
Bert Kerrigan QC, one of Scotland’s top lawyers, said the decision raised questions that only an inquiry could answer.
Thomas Ross, president of the Scottish Criminal Bar Association, said he “cannot comprehend” the Crown Office’s failure to prosecute Goodwillie and Robertson. He said: “No doubt there would be numerous grounds upon which defence counsel could have argued that the case had not been proved to the criminal standard, proved beyond reasonable doubt.
“That, however, is very different from claiming, as the Crown does, that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute.
“Along with many of my professional colleagues, I am mystified at that assessment of the evidence apparently available to the Crown.”
Last night a Crown Office spokesman said: “As Lord Armstrong stated in his judgement, the standard of proof to be satisfied was that of the balance of probabilities which is a less onerous requirement than the standard in criminal cases, which is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.
“Further, there is no requirement of corroboration in civil cases unlike in criminal cases.
“This case was looked at very carefully by Crown Counsel who concluded that there was insufficient evidence in law to raise criminal proceedings. As a result no proceedings were instructed.”
After the Court of Session judgment on Tuesday, Denise said: “I am pleased by today’s verdict. However, I am bitterly disappointed that I was so badly let down by the criminal justice system and was forced to seek a remedy through the civil court.
“If it was not for the support of my lawyer Cameron Fyfe and the team at Rape Crisis Scotland, I do not know how I could have coped throughout this long, harrowing journey.”
Simon Di Rollo QC, senior counsel for Denise, said: “It was incredibly brave of Ms Clair to have brought the action, in which, unlike in a criminal case, she did not enjoy anonymity.
“The case illustrates the importance of the 2009 Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act which clearly spells out that free agreement to sexual activity cannot be given while a person is incapable because of the effect of alcohol.
“The court accepted that Ms Clair was incapable and that anyone dealing with her would have known that.”
The Sunday Mail has campaigned for five years for justice for Denise.
She said the way the criminal justice system had let her down was “unforgiveable”.
Goodwillie, who claims he did not rape Denise, said after Tuesday’s decision that he was “devastated” and was considering an appeal.
Expert view: Bert Kerrigan QCThere is no doubt the decision of Lord Armstrong in the case brought by Denise Clair against David Goodwillie and David Robertson raises questions.
They are questions which only an appropriate inquiry into the decision of Crown Office not to prosecute can answer.
This is of significance in light of the recent definitive decision of the Appeal Court which effectively ended any chance of private prosecution in Scotland.
That decision emphasises how important it is for the Crown to get it right in deciding that no prosecution should take place.
In circumstances where there is no reasonable prospect of a conviction being obtained, a suspect is entitled to be relieved of the anxiety of facing a pointless trial.
The standard in the criminal courts is that there has to be proof beyond reasonable doubt.
In a civil court, the standard is on the balance of probabilities.
But as Lord Armstrong pointed out, even on that standard, the more grave the allegation made, the greater is the requirement that the evidence should be cogent.
Lord Armstrong had the benefit of a 10-day proof with additional expert evidence, and evidence from the two defendants – who had in the initial stages quite properly exercised their right to silence when they were charged.
Despite this, there were some basic facts which must have been apparent to the Crown before they took the decision not to prosecute.
In the light of the findings of the evidence led before Lord Armstrong, there was a much weaker case against Robertson than Goodwillie.
But the clear evidence of the drunkenness of the complainer raises acutely the question of lack of consent.
It requires objective and independent evaluation in respect of the case against each man, and jointly, as to whether there was no reasonable prospect of success in bringing a prosecution to satisfy legitimate public concern.
An appropriate inquiry is the only way to allay public concern over the decision not to proceed with criminal charges.
The cases received significant media and public attention throughout the world, especially in Canada, Ireland, and the United States. In response to the attention, members of the church hierarchy have argued that media coverage has been excessive and disproportionate. According to a Pew Research Center study, media coverage mostly emanated from the United States in 2002, when the Boston Globe began a critical investigation. By 2010 much of the reporting focused on child abuse in Europe. From 2001-2010 the Holy See, the central governing body of the Catholic Church, has "considered sex abuse allegations concerning about 3,000 priests dating back up to 50 years" according to the Vatican's Promoter of Justice. Cases worldwide reflect patterns of long-term abuse and the covering up of reports.[note 1] Diocesan officials and academics knowledgeable about the Roman Catholic Church say that sexual abuse by clergy is generally not discussed, and thus is difficult to measure. In the Philippines, where as of 2002 at least 85% of the population is Catholic, revelations of child sexual abuse by priests followed the United States' reporting in 2002.
Research and expert opinion reported in 2010 indicated that evidence does not point to men within the Catholic Church being more likely than others to commit abuse, and indicated that the prevalence of abuse by priests had fallen sharply in the previous 20 to 30 years
- Standard YouTube Licence
WHO KILLED SETH RICH? NEW EVIDENCE EMERGES AS INVESTIGATION INTENSIFIES
Murray told the Daily Mail the emails came from DNC insider with legal access to the emails who had knowledge of the corruption within the Clinton Foundation leaked the emails because he was frustrated with the DNC rigging the Democratic primaries against Bernie Sanders.
- Standard YouTube Licence