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.
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=424574582&size=l

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.
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=526629510&size=l
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=526629504&size=l
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=526629500&size=l
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.
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=425979872&size=l
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.
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=424574586&size=l

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.

3 comments:

hady said...

{allah Say: He is Allah, the one. Allah, the Eternal, Absolute. He neither gives birth, nor is He born. And there is none like unto Him} (112: 1-4)

the islam is religious of allah

no god except allah

mohammad is massenger of allah

go to allah = go to islam

Peter Cherbi said...

Yes, it's about time the SCCRC were pulled up on your case, William, as well as some long needed reforms to its mode of operation bringing in transparency & accountability which so far haven't been present much in the Scottish Justice system ..

Hi William

Well its going to be very interesting what happens to the Megrahi case, now that Marcello Mega has leaked some of the details of the SCCRC report, it will be hard for Alex Salmond's Executive to leave the issue alone :
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=986842007

Thing is though - they can't look at the injustice in the Lockerbie case without looking at the legal profession & the judiciary and how they functioned in that case .. bringing into question their conduct on other cases .. so an inquiry which should happen, will have to be wide ranging and have proper powers - otherwise it will be yet again another whitewash .. and we don't need any more of that, as Alex himself is now finding out :
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=986872007

William Beck said...

Both comments above appear to have come from the same IP Address.

Strange they are from Different people though.