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.
http://www.sccrc.org.uk/accesstoinformation.aspx
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"
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.
http://www.sccrc.org.uk/accesstoinformation.aspx
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"
No comments:
Post a Comment