Sunday, 4 July 2010

Transcript of Tony Legend Show with Mark Daly (BBC) Part 3

Tony Legend Show: BBC's Mark Daly v Robert Green

View Part 1
View Part 2
View Part 4

Third video (transcript beneath):



MD = Mark Daly
RG = Robert Green
TL = Tony Legend
AG = Anne Greig

The video repeats itself by starting at Mark Daly’s sentence “Now this sheriff who is one of the ringleaders...” but I’m cutting straight to where the last video ends off.

[It gets a bit manic here with both talking over the other]

MD: That’s not what I’m talking about, I’m talking about Tony program...

RG: Ah! No, no, no! I invited you to that meeting and I was going to give you a platform and

MD: Really? I don’t, don’t recall that...If I have Robert then ...

RG (really starts raising his voice over Mark Daly’s now): There was your chance!
(Mark Daly in the background apologising, he must have missed the email, Robert Green still talking over Mark who is now asking Robert to please continue...)

RG: No! Because you had a chance to speak. You’re only on here now because you’re getting your collar felt. You’re probably under orders from somebody ...(something about the BBC mentioned during Robert’s rant but can't make it out)

MD: No actually. No, no.

RG: I’m not going to let you off the hook.

MD: Tony, can you mediate this properly please?

TL: Yes, yes. I’m trying to. Go ahead, yes.

MD: Tony now...er...as part of this paedophile ring, the ringleader is the sheriff, he’s also involved with his sister and his sister’s wife. Now Robert being an investigator, Truth Ranger as he’s been called, will of course have made sure that these relationships exist. The truth Tony, is that this sheriff has no sister, therefore has no brother-in-law. Okay. So you know, these are the main people of the paedophile ring and two of them don’t exist. Okay. Now, shall I move on?

TL: Yeah, I’d just like to ...Anne, would you like to say anything to that?

AG: That’s not true at all

MD: Well these things as you know are checkable through the register of births, deaths and marriage, marriages and er ask Robert to maybe have a look at that. Now next...

AG: I think you must have the wrong sheriff there

TL: sorry, say that again there Anne

AG: I think you must have got the wrong sheriff

MD: No I don’t have the wrong sheriff Anne I’m afraid, I don’t. Now, if I can just continue

TL: Yeah, continue

MD: It’s been said, well firstly, the allegations were made at first in 2000 and many of the allegations were said to have... some of the abuse was said to have taken place in the sheriff’s house in Aberdeen. This sheriff...

AG: That’s not true

MD: Well Anne, I’ve seen some of the allegations and it is true

AG: Ah that’s not true, that’s not what we told you.

MD: He didn’t live in Aberdeen until 2000. He didn’t live in Aberdeen until 2000

RG: We never said that

MD: He only lived there in 2000. These are the kind of things...

AG: We never said his house. At all. We never mentioned his house at all

MD: It has been said Anne. It has been said. These are the kind of things that investigators investigate to see whether or not they can proceed with a story. Now can I move on?

AG: That was never said at all that it was at his house.

MD: Okay, well I think you have, have said that. That allegation has been made Anne.

AG: Hollies’ here, do you want to speak to Hollie and ask her?

MD: No I don’t Anne. I think that would be inappropriate.

AG: No, no I didn’t think you would.

RG: We never said it was the sheriff’s house. (unintelligible) so I’m afraid this another lot of nonsense you’re coming out with.

MD: Robert

RG: I could...

MD: Robert, you know those other seven children you’ve named?

RG: Sorry?

MD: you know the seven other children that you’ve named?

RG: Yes.

MD: Two of them weren’t born at the time of these allegations.

RG: I think that is...I think you’re absolutely wrong there Mark.

MD: Have you spoken to any of these people?

RG: I’m not making any comments on them.

MD: Have you spoken to any of the people that you’ve said have had any part of this paedophile ring? Have you spoken to any of the other victims that you’ve named? Because I can tell you they’re all (unintelligible) about it

AG: (raising her voice) These children that you are speaking about are all adults now

MD: Sorry?

AG: These children that you’re speaking about are adults

MD: No there not. Two of them are ten years old and were not born at the time of the allegations.

AG: (shouts) they’re all adults

MD: Shall I move on?

TL: Yep yep, continue if you want yeah

MD: Now it’s been said that your son was erm, well he faced a charge for lurid behaviour I think or some sort of flashing offence, but the sheriff in question helped him to get off with it, okay, I don’t think that’s in dispute at all.

AG: No, no that’s not what I said at all.

MD: And that his business card was found

AG: That’s correct

MD: The business card ....

AG: Now it wasn’t a business card for..it was for a lawyer, not a sheriff

MD: okay, the allegation as I was told is that the lawyer is the same as the sheriff and that was the sheriff who helped him get off, but in fact he didn’t get off. He was convicted of that offence.

TL: Well Mark, if I can come in there for a minute, I, obviously we’re getting to the ins and outs here which is...
MD: yes, but Tony, but it’s important because I’m telling you the reason that a story like this can’t be published or broadcast, because when it comes to it, when you look at the allegations, when you look at the evidence, I’m afraid that many of the allegations just don’t stand up.

TL: But...I mean just for a minute...maybe you’ve called me naive for thinking this before, but surely a court of law but the place to have these sort of discussions and not on er the Tony Legend show? A court of law would be a much more ideal place you know...hands on the bible and swear and stuff...

MD: tony, you know, you’ve got a great point there and the point here is that the one allegation that had any legs – the one allegation that should have been brought in front of a court, in front of a judge, had been washed in a deluge of other allegations, which I’m afraid don’t stand up. Now if Robert, this lead investigator, had taken the time to perhaps go and speak to any of the other victims that he’s named, to any of the people that he’s accused of being a paedophile, he might have been able to get a little closer to the truth himself. But, you know, two of the people in this...two alleged victims were not born at the time. Two were in their late teens, almost in their twenties, does that ring true?

AG: That’s not true at all. I’ve...

MD: What kind of investigation have you done Robert?

AG: That is not true at all.

MD: Two of the people have said that they only met Hollie once or twice. Now these are all things that are very easily checkable. None of these things has Robert done - none of them. These are the, these are the types of things that an investigator does, and Robert has done none of them. And these are the reason I’m afraid Tony, Anne, these are the reasons why the BBC cannot broadcast a story like this, because the allegations, the wider allegations, I’m afraid do not stand up. And the one allegation that did....could possibly have stood up has been washed amongst the rest of them.

RG: I’m going to give you one ...

MD: And on who’s conscience will that be on Robert?

RG: I don’t...yours as much anyone's I think Mark, but one thing I will do and I might make one concession to you and the BBC, I...that three documents came forward after the BBC dropped the story and to give...to be fair to you, I think had you got those documents I think even the BBC would have stood up to whoever is threatening them...the three documents...

MD: You’re still insistent you’re not going to drop this story...

RG: No, no, no. I’m going to tell you what the documents are and then you can perhaps have a think about it and perhaps come back and tells us if you think you would continue to the story had you had access to these documents.

MD: Okay, carry on.

RG: Firstly the document from Alisa Angolini claims she had no connection with the case whatsoever, in fact as you well know because you’ve seen the documents we have a letter from James ..er..from Brian Adams MSP dated the 25th er 27th October 2000 writing directly to Mrs Angolini asking her directly how she’s getting on with the case...

MD: What does that prove?

RG: ...we’ve got a document ...No I’m telling you the documents we’ve got now

MD: What does it prove?

RG: It proves that the Lord Advocate was lying about it

MD: It proves that the Lord Advocate you know, may have mislaid a letter...so what?

RG: Oh no! No, no Mark there’s a letter here that you saw because it’s in the documents, you saw this letter, it stated the 12 July 2001 it’s from the Procurator Piscal’s Office headed Alisa Angolini at the top of it and writing here to Anne’s solicitor at the time to Eyvon McKenna actually discussing the case and this is the case that Mrs Angolini had no knowledge off...or no involvement. You have that document.

MD: I’m afraid that’s a bit thin Robert, if you are the journalist you claim to be then you’d know that. Why don’t you tell me what the next document is.

RG: I think you’re a weak journalist because you knew the Lord Advocate had been lying but you didn’t want to take them on in case anything happens to you.

MD: Why don’t you tell me what the next document is Robert

RG: And also, the other document we had as well you didn’t have and I have to say again I think the BBC might even looked at it slightly differently was the autopsy report we finally got hold of...

MD: Ah! Okay. Yes, let’s go for it

RG: ...we finally got hold of on the death

END Of video 3 (Next video in next video above)

No comments: