Thursday, 28 June 2007

SCCRC Liars And Cover-Up Merchants

Megrahi Appeal Cover-up I have never read so much Bull in my life as what SCCRC have found.

No evidence Fabricated No evidence Missing No witnesses told lies No adverse findings at-all.

Not surprised it was Robin Johnston that found all these facts, The same Robin Johnston that is on my latest video (Voice Recording) You Tube.

The same man that lied to me after i repeatedly asked him if he had sent shaw a copy of his own ID Parade report, Which was only sent to shaw after i complained about Robin Johnston and WHICH was after they had concluded my case. Hear the tape now:

I am afraid to say I predicted such outcome at 4.15 am last night and posted such on the Scotsman below.

Lets face it we all knew SCCRC would not find any adverse findings against:

Crown Office: Lyndsey Anderson, whom they sit with and discuss policies etc.

High Court: Tom Higgins, Appeals Manager, Who They also sit with and discuss policies

Justice Department: Clark Pearson who also sits to discuss policies

And lest we not forget Strathclyde Police Jannette Joyce who also sits with SCCRC to discuss.......................... "Yes policies"

The SCCRC do not look independently at cases at-all they infact look with the blinkered view of how they can UPHOLD any and every conviction. Some cases are fully investigated whilst others are simply cast aside and not even answered.

Three Key parts of my own trial are

1. Forensic evidence not called at trial "Defective Representation" SCCRC have never answered me on this issue?

2. David Livingstone said the driver was forty with Brown Hair and a moustache. I was identified twice but was only twenty with black hair and no moustache. My defence i claimed had this evidence at the time of my trial and never called it. I of course did not find out about him until Keegan handed me all my case papers to conduct Appeal. SCCRC never seen this as new evidence and rejected this to cover Taylor's Defective representation of me

3. Like Gauci The other witness to identify me (Ashford)His evidence he contradicted Himself and Taylor at the time even tried to use Muldoon at trial. The trial Judge said his evidence was not reliable and Robin Johnston Blanked this out but i managed to get an old copy from Arnott McWhinnie (Reporter) Which i had given to him ten years or so earlier and Bobin Robin was not allowed to blank this out( If that was not suspect then nothing was ) This was why i taped phone calls with SCCRC. like Above.

Any way there are other crown witnesses who never gave evidence, and had they, their evidence would also have contradicted Ashfords but between his evidence and the charge to Jury and his statement are all contradictory, SCCRC found nothing adverse about this. He said in court he was round the corner and saw car coming towards him and pass him, Nothing suspicious and nothing to attract his attention to it but he wrote down the number. All the other witnesses said he ran into Raeburn Rigg, and his own statement now says he ran into Raeburn Rigg and someone was shouting to stop the car. Material changes from the evidence lead in court Yet SCCRC found nothing adverse in this either.

See prediction on Scotsman last night. 4:15am 28 Jun 2007 Allegations of Collusion and fabrication of evidence will not be found to be true. SCCRC recieve a large number of defective representation grounds of Appeal and as yet have still to find in favour of any of them.

Im Sure a FOI request will provide the exact amount?

I think if anything Megrahi will win his appeal on new evidence and this will allow our Courts to not even have to look at the Defective representations etc etc.

There is one drawback though: When the SCCRC refer a case back to appeal the Applicant can then.

1. Ask that old grounds be re-considered even though they were argued before.

2. Ask for any ground to be considered not only the ones upon which SCCRC has referred the Appeal.

3. Lodge any ground he feels SCCRC has omitted. Their only task is to consider if they think a Miscarriage has occurred and if so refer the case. They have no further part to play.

Some cases have waited up to 7 years once SCCRC have referred before actually being heard at appeal (Stuart Gair)

Tuesday, 26 June 2007


SCCRC Liars and Cover-Up Merchants

Please find enclosed link to latest you-tube video

This video is conclusive proof that SCCRC tried to cover up what my grounds were, They assured me they had sent Solicitor (Shaw) a copy of his own ID Parade report but from the video you can hear Shaw say he never saw it.

I was not afforded the same Enquiry by SCCRC that Megrahi Has. Quite the contrary It was because i was complaining about his QC that my case was covered up by SCCRC. This video exposes them for what they are "Cover-Up Merchants"

I firmly believe that my case was suppressed by SCCRC because like Shirley i have the Lockerbie link. Taylor QC they have tried to paint whiter than white.

Sunday, 24 June 2007

Lockerbie Appeal To SCCRC

Having appealed to these cowboys myself since 2001 & having produced more evidence than some cases they have referred, I have real fears that the Lockerbie appeal will be another whitewash to cover up all the collusion between Brittain and America to frame Libya, (Not Just Megrahi).

I really dont think the decision, is to be what everyone expects, in the face of the evidence produced.

SCCRC will i know for sure do everything in it's power to hide and Incompetence's within Scotlands Legal Justiciary.

They do not look at cases indepently, They look Politically. And what better case is there for them Politically than this one?

I fear though that the huge amount of pressure heaped upon them by our Justiciary and Government interventions will rob Megrahi of the fair hearing he Craves.

If Megrahi is set free it would seem that Scotland would have to pay back £1.4bn in compensation that Libya has already paid out

Clearly Megrahi's defence team Knew of evidence which would have cleared him yet they never called it and went to trial without contradictory evidence.

Clearly his defence team have many questions to answer, Though in this regard i doubt if SCCRC will have asked them Vital Questions, as they did with my own case, and SCCRC will not find any fault with Taylor QC who once was one of their own Members.

It would seem that in my own case it has now emerged that SCCRC can Interview witnesses and insert their own Interpretation of what these witnesses are in actual fact saying. see:

Mr Keegan and the Law Society agree that SCCRC when they took a statement from Keegan the Author was mistaken.

Keegan is now claiming his statement to SCCRC is at best, only one persons interpretation of what he said at:

Blatant Anderson Appeal

The following i posted on our Forums today.

Re, Lockerbie Decision By SCCRC

As i have said for a long time SCCRC took three years to investigate my case which only lasted two days at trial.

They only interviewed a handful of witnesses and refused point blank to hear new witness evidence.

They refused to answer me when i claimed my defence team were negligent for the following Reasons:

1. They never interviewed 16 defence witnesses Before during or since my trial.

2. They never called Crucial Crown Evidence saying the driver was forty years old with brown hair and moustache.

3. They never called crucial key Forensic Evidence.

4. They never answered me in my Muldoon Argument in regards to Ashfords evidence.

5. They agreed the judge misdirected my Jury and still refused to refer my case.

6. They agreed what happened at my ID Parade was not acceptable by today's standards. But still refused to apply their Current Law Policy and refused still to refer my appeal.

7.They refused to interview my brother who told Keegan he had brought one of the hammers to my house only the night before i was arrested, My defence team failed to see the significance of this evidence and did not call it at trial.

8. They assured me they had sent Shaw a copy of his own ID Parade report which said the police had identified me without turning to view Parade. Shaw has said he never seen it and only after i produced a copy of the tape did they send this to Shaw. Which was after they had concluded my appeal and decided not to refer.

Mr Shaw has now told SCCRC that his big Impression was that the policeman knew prior to coming into the parade room exactly which position i had adopted.

Still the SCCRC refuse to refer my case.

What more do they need?

Cases like Kidd And Gair referred on only one statement being withheld by Crown and even in the Gair case it was agreed there was still sufficient evidence from two police to allow the conviction to stand The appeal was allowed. Shocking.

SCCRC had argued that there was a discrepancy given in the height by the two police
Yet in my case the evidence withheld states the driver was forty when i was only twenty and i had black hair and never had Moustache either. SCCRC do not agree this was an arguable point.

I firmly believe it's not what you know it's who you know in SCCRC and it depends on who you are complaining of.

I also firmly believed when i put my application into SCCRC that they were never going to allow my appeal as it Discredits the Competence of Taylor who went on to Get Megrahi Found Guilty too.

Taylor i feel SCCRC wanted to remain Whiter than white. I had no chance when Taylor still sat on the Board of SCCRC whilst my case was investigated yet resigned to allow them to remain Independent and Impartial in Investigating Megrahi's appeal.

There are supporting documents for all my claims on the following flickr site which i will link.

In all that i have said above makes me fear for Megrahi. His life is in the hands of Incompetent and negligent Imbeciles who can do and say what they want without redress.

There is absolutely no one to whom you can complain about their conduct.

I see on their web site that this Megrahi Decision is at the moment over 800 pages, my god there is usually only about four when referring a case.

Saturday, 2 June 2007

Jim Keegan Solicitor Is A Liar

Jim Keegan (Solicitor) told SCCRC that at the time of my trial Crown would not have released Crown Witness Precognitions infact Crown are still quite cagie about releasing such statements now.

Then when i complained to Law Society claiming Keegan had lied about this, as he gave the statements to me in 1982 after i sacked him.

There is the mention of the exact date in my letter to High Court Dated 24-06-1982 which SCCRC managed to obtain from National Archives, ref No JC34/34/225.
This letter claims i recieved the documents from Keegan on 15-06-1982 and it was asking to submit further grounds after recieving these papers.

Of particular interest besides this date etc is the mention at page two and three of the witness Livingstone. Why would i be asking to have this evidence heard after recieving these papers from Keegan? Answer: Simple, this was the first time i had seen his Crown Witness Precognition. Handed over by Keegan.
Clearly this is a crown Witness Statement.

Mr Keegan then Claimed to Law Society that if he handed me these documents then the witnesses must have refused to co-operate and Crown must have supplied some copies.

I told the Law Society that this was not the case and called Keegan a Liar again, Claiming: That at the time of my trial Mr Keegan did not even try to interview 16 of 19 of my defence witnesses in effect Defectively Representing me. They said this was not Defective Representation and was not Misconduct but was a service issue that they (Law Society ) could not deal with. What a Joke eh? The Law Society took no further action against Keegan who has also been subject to the same allegation now by Wullie Gage.

The Law Society in effect cannot, nor will not, deal with complaints of Defective Representation levelled against Their Members.