Replies to outrageous article in The Sunday Times seeking to undermine Edward Heath investigation by misrepresenting abuse campaigner Robert Green
26 May 2017
‘Jonathan Lord MP
Woking Conservative Association
Surrey GU21 4AA
Dear Mr Lord,
I am writing to you today concerning the article published yesterday in the Sunday Times 24th September 2017 by reporters James Gillespie, Rosie Waterhouse and Tom Harper:
Fresh doubt over Heath sex inquiry .
This article is a blatant attempt to undermine Chief Constable Mike Veale’s investigation into Edward Heath before his report is released and it creates a false impression of Robert Green and the Hollie Greig case by describing Hollie’s allegations as fraudulent.
I have known Robert Green for several years and have assisted him in some small capacity with his campaign. He is a gentleman of integrity who weighs the evidence carefully and has based his campaign wholly on independent expert witness documentation.
You are well aware of much of this documentation, having been provided with copies by me over the last several years. I have enclosed a copy of the email Mr Green sent to James Gillespie last night, requesting clarification and a retraction in the next edition of the Sunday Times. In this email the independent expert witnesses supporting Hollie’s allegations are listed and as Mr Green states:
One could hardly have had a more range of compelling evidence in support of a rape victim.
I, like Mr Green, have based my attempts to garner your support over the years for this case on sound documentary evidence, which is why I find it incredible that you have not given me, as your constituent, whole-hearted support in my endeavours to assist Mr Green in his campaign for justice.
Once again I request that you weigh the evidence carefully and consider how you can best act in your capacity as my M.P. to redress the wrongs promulgated in this spurious article.
Mrs. Julie Hills
(Attachment to letter to Jonathan Lord from Julie Hills dated 25th September 2017)
From: Robert Green
Sent: 24 September 2017 19:29
Subject: Today`s article on the Heath investigation
With regard to our interesting conversation today, it is a pity that I was not contactable prior to the article being published, as the true facts would have prevented the publishing of an incorrect impression about both the Chief Constable and me.
The information that I forwarded to Chief Constable Veale was not researched by me at all, but I was merely relaying matters pertinent to the investigation produced by an expert of impeccable reputation, which, I`m sure you will agree, changes the whole perspective of the article. I have never had any contact with any of those who have complained about Sir Edward.
You are quite wrong to state that Hollie Greig`s allegations are false. When I took on the case, I did so from a neutral perspective, basing the campaign on independent expert witness documentation.
All the evidence from the following was very supportive of Hollie`s claims, including Grampian Police forensic medical specialist Dr Frances Kelly, Dr Jack Boyle, one the country`s most eminent psychotherapists with expertise in assessing child victims of alleged sexual abuse, Dr Eva Harding, introduced to Hollie`s case by the leading charity ENABLE, who actually named two of those named as definite abusers, Dr Paul Carter, medical officer for the school that Hollie attended, Ruth Beckmann and Susannah Seyman, of the Down`s syndrome Association, a letter from Grampian Police, headed by the name of the Chief Constable, Andrew Brown, which stated that Hollie was truthful and an entirely innocent victim, not an alleged one. Also convinced by this impressive weight of evidence was the panel of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, who granted Hollie an award from public funds as a result of her ordeals as a victim.
All I had asked for was an adequate police investigation, nothing more. The people of Scotland did not get it.
One could hardly have had a more range of compelling evidence in support of
a rape victim, but at my trial, investigating police officer Lisa Jane Evans admitted on oath that not one of the 22 individuals identified by Hollie had even been questioned by the police!
This failure was especially intriguing given the aforementioned chief constable`s unequivocal support for Hollie.
At the time, one could only speculate on the reason for this seemingly inexplicable conduct. However, the previous Lord Advocate, Elish Angiolini, was cited to appear for the defence, on the basis that my legal team felt that she was concealing crucial evidence of her involvement in closing down the case, an involvement she repeatedly claimed had never existed. Elish Angiolini, who had held the highest legal office in Scotland, refused to face cross examination on oath in open court.
It may not be surprising that as far as I am aware, Angiolini is the only senior figure to describe Hollie`s allegations as false. Angiolini has never met Hollie, has no expertise in the relevant matters at hand, yet chose unilaterally to dismiss all the expert evidence that I have mentioned.
A likely reason for this
is a matter also confirmed in court, her long acquaintance with one of those named by Hollie.
It should be emphasised how Elish Angiolini had repeatedly denied any important involvement in the case, including in documents submitted to the Sheriff Court, the Court of Session and the Independent Press Complaints Commission. However, my helpful and supportive MP and former Health Minister David Mowat lost his seat in the June General Election and handed all his files back to me to pass on to his successor,which led to a surprising discovery.
Within the files was a letter from former Scottish Justice Minister to my MP, confirming that it was indeed Angiolini who had blocked the investigation by describing the allegations as false.
I trust by now that you will concede that my allegations were far from fraudulent as your article falsely describes them. Apart from Elish Angiolini, Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon were found by the Information Commissioner to have breached sections 10(1) and 21(1) of the FOISA, in respect of trying to cover up Hollie`s case. Both subsequently came within 24 hours facing the criminal charge of contempt of court on 11 July 2011. I also possess a letter from Mr Salmond`s office of 14 February 2014 in which the former First Minister deliberately attempts to deceive his own constituency secretary about this unlawful conduct.
This really is the Scottish equivalent to the Jimmy Savile cover up, with the mainstream media again failing to inform an unsuspecting public of likely horrific crimes and an establishment concealment of the first order.
Thus,I believe that the Sunday Times has defamed me, an issue that could have been easily avoided by some basic research as nearly all the documentation I have referred to is already in the public domain.
I expect both clarification and suitable retractions to appear in the next edition of the Sunday Times.
Regarding our conversation, it is surprising that your article does not mention that the Heath government was covertly concealing evidence of sexual crimes committed by Conservative MPs against minors, as confirmed by the Chief Whip at the time, Tim Fortescue, on the BBC TV interview of 1995, which was repeated in 2014. I wrote to the BBC`s Director General, Lord Hall, who confirmed that a copy of this film had been submitted to the IICSA in 2014.
If you would like copies of key documents, please let me know. It is only fair that you should have all the true facts and evidence before you.
for more posts put the search term “hollie greig” in the “search box” on any page to view more posts
FAIR USE NOTICE: This item may contain copyrighted (© ) material. Such material is made available to advance understanding of ecological, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed for analysis, commentary, educational and intellectual purposes. In some cases comedy and parody have been recognized as fair use.
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. For more information please visit:
NB: DISCLAIMER: Everything posted on this site conforms to the meaning of the word “alleged” as defined under UK and US Laws and Statutes.