Monday, 2 July 2007

SCCRC Liars and Cover-Up Merchants.

Shocking Lockerbie Facts

I find it Deeply Shocking, Disturbing and Offensive that in their short statement of reasons on referring the case of Megrahi (Lockerbie Bomber) They find no fault with his Defence Team, Crown Office and those that sought to deceive us by not gathering evidence and duplicating evidence.

Most alarmingly though is their unwillingness to accept the evidence of Ex Police like the Golfer referred to and evidence that he was defectively Represented by his defence not asking Pertinent Questions nor calling Key evidence to Clear him.

SCCRC instead of enhancing Public confidence in our Judicial system does nothing but totally discredit Itself.

They referred a case of Ronald Neeson on three key witnesses (after many years keeping quiet) saying they overheard, Yes Overheard ,someone say he was to change his story.

One of these witnesses Alex Hardie SCCRC knew to have a long list of convictions for Robberies yet they put him forward as a Credible and Reliable Witness. And in Megrahi's case they find nothing like this despite ex Police coming forward with new and key evidence and it is simply rejected.

To add even further insult to SCCRC they referred the case of Jamie Orr where his Sister claimed to have overheard a conversation on a bus of one of the witnesses that gave evidence against her brother.

SCCRC saw this as enough evidence to refer his case to High Court and the High Court overturned his conviction on this flimsy evidence of his sister.

SCCRC clearly show their Loyalty to Bill Taylor QC Who was once one of their Board Members not only in the Lockerbie Case but within their statement of reasons in my own case now available on my flickr site at:

Robin Johnston who also investigated Both cases can be heard at the following Telling Blatant Lies:

To be published later is my submissions to SCCRC where everyone will see that Shaws evidence was Highlighted to Robin Johnston yet SCCRC refuse my appeal without seeking and indeed sending Shaw a copy of his own ID Parade report.

Sunday, 1 July 2007

Lockerbie Decision and Impact

Lockerbie Decision and Impact.

Page 7 Paragraph 3, A substantial number of allegations were made to the commission regarding the manner in which the applicant was represented by the Legal Advisers who acted for him at his trial and his appeal against his conviction. the allegations were wide ranging and covered failures to prepare and present the applicants defence and to advance legal arguement on his behalf. "As part of its investigations" regarding these claims, The commission conducted lengthy interviews with several members of the applicants former defence team. However, Applying the tests which have been set down by the high court in previous cases dealing with such matters, the commission did not consider the allegations to be well founded.

The above really bothers me, To start with there is no mention of having interviewed any one else apart from his defence team in regards to this, They done the same with my own case . I told them my defence team never interviewed 16 of 19 of my defence witnesses and could provide addresses for most of them. SCCRC never even asked my defence team about this never mind failing to ask the witnesses themselves.

If they never interviewed them then how did they manage to prepare a proper defence then? SCCRC answer this one? My defence team also failed to call the following.

Vital Forensic: which did not match anything to me.

Vital Crown witness: who said driver was forty year old with brown hair and moustache

Vital ID Parade evidence: Which said police had number 2 out his mouth before turning to view parade. Taylors reason for not calling this was "He Did Not Want To Be Seen To Be Calling The Police LIARS" - Thats what he told me in 1982 and this was one of the foundations of my complaints against him then.

He failed to see the significance of the two arresting officers participating in the ID Parade when they should not have been near it At -All.

Failed to call my brother.

Failed to dispute vital ID Evidence although he applied "Muldoon"

I am curious to see exactly what cases the SCCRC are referring to here when they say previous cases Dealing with these issues. The case is clearly "Anderson" Oh and "Hemphill" I hope SCCRC have considered both very clearly. SCCRC recieve a large number of Anderson complaints and as yet have still to favour any.

This would suggest that they are not interested in Investigating such Grounds. Anyone wanting to submit a FOI request asking how many Anderson appeals they have recieved and refused can do so at this link.

The impact of their failure to investigate my grounds along with Megrahis will have on their credibility will be huge.

For instance,

Why did they not ask these questions

Why did they not interview the witnesses

Why did they not ask Crown office if they released the crown statements at the time of my trial, Instead they chose to accept Taylor saying they would not have been released at my trial.

Keegan Now Claims if they were amongst the documents he gave me then The witnesses must have refused to Co-Operate and crown released them, Therefore I was defectively represented.

I told SCCRC that this was a lie from Keegan and still they never asked him about my allegations . Was this because it reflected badly on their Friend and Co-Worker "Taylor"