The Hollie Greig Hoax

Here is the Full Files of Evidence for the Hollie Greig Hoax. We will add a full write up for you shortly. But in the mean time, feel free to download the evidence.

The Full File of all the evidence | All Evidenece

All Documents relating to Anns mental health | anne mental health

All info on the travel fund, set up by Belinda | travel fund

The Death Certificate for Anns brother Robert Greig


Also please read –

and this –

The Expert Witness Evidence – or Trojan Horse.

Recently, Robert posted a blog called “From Time to Time.”

In it, he mentions what he claims is “Expert Witness testimony” – namely Dr Jack Boyle and Dr Eva Harding.

Let’s take a look then starting with Dr Jack Boyle.

Dr Boyle states a total of ten times “Ms Mackie stated” – which shows that this report is full of information that Ms Mackie gave to Dr Jack Boyle.

Dr Boyle had not seen Dr Margaret Smith’s psychiatric report on Anne. Dr Boyle had not seen the Police transcripts although he did request them. Dr Boyle stated –
Ms Mackie could not give a sensible explanation for her own detainment in a mental institution???

No real surprise.

Dr Boyle had not seen the forensic medical report on Hollie which clearly showed no form of abuse, nor was he aware that Hollie had boyfriends.

In Dr Boyle’s report, Ms Mackie stated that her husband Denis had no particular interest in pornography, was not sexually abusive to her, and did not seriously abuse illegal substances.

Ms Mackie stated that there was little in Mr Mackie’s behaviour towards Hollie that caused her any concerns.

Surely this cannot be construed as a ‘damning’ report?

Dr Boyle finishes by saying that Hollie is describing sexual abuse.

Of course she is – she has been coached to do so, even naming none existent people. If these people don’t exist, how can Hollie have ever known them – and so how can Hollie be telling the truth.

And that’s all.

Moving to Dr Eva Harding’s report, Robert states:

Dr Eva Harding stated that “it is undoubtedly the case that Hollie`s father and brother have sexually abused her over a long period from childhood and probably by others who had access to her”.

Dr Harding interviewed Hollie twice – each for around one hour, and after speaking to her mother Anne for half hour before hand.

It’s important to appreciate that Dr Harding was a psychologist, not a psychiatrist.

Like Dr Boyle, Dr Harding had not seen the forensic medical evidence nor was she aware that Hollie had boyfriends. She based her opinion solely on Hollie’s testimony therefore she was woefully uninformed and completely unqualified to make such a statement.

We have had these two reports looked at by our own County Council trained Appropriate Adult and in his opinion these reports do not qualify as “Expert witness evidence.”

Just like the CICA payment, when you examine the detail there is no evidence of anything.

Robert also points to an early Police document stating:
This is a document that can be seen in full her on our website concerning a communication to CICA.

Robert fails to explain in a correspondence dated 24th September 2003, from D.I. Alley to Ms Smith:
All the police had to go on was Hollie’s testimony and the fact that she was not a virgin – there was no other conclusion they could come to but one of “probability.”

In the same correspondence “In March 2003, Mrs Mackie, through her solicitor, alleged that two children of a former carer of Hollie’s had also been abused by the adults previously named. This was found not to be the case and a further allegation that these children had abused Hollie was made. These children had been previously included in a list of persons alleged to have abused Hollie. This was re¬investigated but also found not to be the case.”

Of course nothing was ever investigated according to Robert Green and his conspiracy cohorts.

Also, Robert has failed to show you a correspondence dated 23rd July 2003 from Nicola Smith to D.I. Alley stating: “I enclose a note from Aberdeen Social Work files we received from Catherine Mason, Senior Social Worker of the Community Health Team. I would, in particular, draw your attention to paragraph two. This is a note of a telephone conversation with one of your officers, Leanne Davidson. She apparently confirmed that Mrs Mackie is continually making allegations to the police about people abusing Hollie. She is adding to this list of people all the time. Leanne feels that Mrs Mackie is putting words into Hollie’s mouth though the police will continue to investigate. The police can find no substance to the allegations of being followed and her husband poisoning her and Hollie.”

Robert also fails to show you the PCCS report where the Police and appropriate adult state they have serious concerns about a long list of abusers Hollie names.

Of course Robert makes other ludicrous claims like we are backed by Peter Watson, of Levy & McRae.

No Robert – you seem to have forgotten, we originally supported your campaign – until we examined the evidence that is.

But it would seem you would prefer to think we are just attacking you….rather than protecting innocent people from your vile and abusive allegations.

We have noticed however that recently you keep attempting to exonerate yourself by saying you are only going on what Hollie has said and the evidence.

Trying to blame a disabled girl is a new low – even for your Robert.

the end