Wednesday, 30 January 2008

SCCRC Wrongly Interpret Grounds (Deliberately)

Having told SCCRC that My lawyer should have obtained a copy of a second ID Parade report as: The Policeman that wrongly identified me had also wrongly identified someone at the second ID Parade.
Evidence Lawyer knew of second ID Parade is here in his own writing:

Every witness mentions attending the second Parade but they failed to identify anyone except that is Nigel Muckle, Policeman.

The suspect was an old freind of mine David Martin whose interpretation of what happened is:
At the parade someone was picked positive. (I informed SCCRC of this)
SCCRC refused to interview Mr Martin but did interview Nigel Muckle to allow him to say he was 100% positive of his ID of me, and that he was sure he never picked anyone at the second ID Parade.
I would suggest to allow them to remain independent and impartial it would be imperative that they should have interviewed Mr Martin, But they never.

From the Solicitor James Keegans Notes
It is confirmed by his notes that he knew of the second ID Parade and that it was possible there was a positive ID made at this second ID Parade Yet the Solicitor did not ask for a copy of this Parade Why?

See Notes Here:
Mention of Second ID Parade By J. Keegan.

SCCRC have interpreted this complaint as one of Muckle not being able to Identify the Accomplice which can be seen here: At (69)
Martin & Muckle Second ID Parade

Yet there is no evidence whatever to suggest that Muckle saw any of the robbers other than the driver for which he had already Idendtified me.

this totally undermines the SCCRC version that they have investigated fully my grounds.
They have taken the interpretation of their Legal Officer Johnston for fact of what the evidence was and who has put his own version of events and not the proper facts of my ground.

My complaint was simply this:

If he Identified someone at the second ID Parade he could only have identified him as the driver as according to his own statement the only person he saw was the driver and he had already identified me as the driver days before.

This would severely undermine his evidence if Mr Martin is right and Muckle Identified someone at his Parade.
This was the whole reason why SCCRC failed in their duty to investigate independently by only interviewing Muckle and not Mr Martin.

SCCRC Liars.

Quite clearly SCCRC asked Crown Office to furnish them with copies of all ID Parade Reports held in relation to my case and this can be seen by their letter here:

Letter from Crown to SCCRC dated 18th June 2002

Quite clearly at number 2 Crown Sent copies of all ID Parades yet here SCCRC state quite clearly they: Have not been able to obtain any documentation in relation to the second ID Parade:
SCCRC Statement of reasons dated 14 Dec 2004 page 11 at (67) Here:

Martin & Muckle Second ID Parade

If Further Proof is needed of cover ups here then one only has to look at what SCCRC asked Crown Office for in regards to ID Parades here at number 2.

Letter sent to Crown by SCCRC

Evidence that when they asked Crown they clearly asked for two ID Parade Report.
which going by the reply from Crown all copies were sent in relation to my case.

Quite clearly one of the two are lying or the other scenario is this:
They are now colluding with each other to cover up the fact i am right and Muckle Identified someone else other than me as the driver of the stolen car thus rendering his Identification of me totally unreliable and certainly enough to cast doubt on his evidence.

SCCRC Employ Double Standards

SCCRC Employ Double Standards
George McPhee 6 Dec 2005 Case No.2005HCJAC137
The SCCRC told me i had already had an appeal despite there being no opinion available, Despite me telling them that i was dragged out of the appeal court screaming at the judges and never got finishing my arguments.
Despite me also producing letters to verify that my application to the High Court was only for leave to appeal.
Their decision here makes a laughing stock of them.

Conclusive proof if ever it was needed that SCCRC employ double standards and it is not what you are complaining about but Who you are complaing about that decides your case.

Unfortunately for me i complained of one of their Colleagues who for the avoidance of doubt was still a memebr of their board and remained on their board while they investigated my complaints of his Misconduct and Defective Representation of me, Yet he resigned when Megrahi appealed to allow SCCRC to remain Independent and Impartial of both the defence and crown aspects of the case.
Taylor Resigns from SCCRC

Again conclusive proof of double standards within SCCRC.

With only there not being any decision, in this McPhee case they refer it saying: We infer from such records as there are that the appeal was refused in "Summary Fashion"

[23] There was an appeal on the grounds that the verdict was perverse and unreasonable and that the trial judge misdirected the jury. The appeal was heard on 24 June 1986 and refused. The case is not reported. There is no Opinion of the Court in the records of Justiciary Office. We infer from such records as there are that the appeal was refused in summary fashion.

McPhee's appeal can be found here:

What I was told by SCCRC can be found here:

Wednesday, 2 January 2008

Iain McKie On Justice System

Iain McKie on criminal justice
In The Scotsman today, Iain McKie (former police officer and father of Shirley) has an op-ed piece expressing grave concern about criminal justice in the United Kingdom, with particular reference to forensic scientific evidence. He writes:
“The Omagh bombing, the World's End Murders, the Templeton Woods murder and the SCRO fingerprint case have all shown that previously infallible evidence is indeed fallible and finally the prosecution system is being forced to review its whole forensic strategy.While this is bad enough, Lockerbie and other cases have also revealed evidence of police and Crown Office incompetence, political intrigue and a court and legal system struggling to cope.A system where justice takes forever and at a prohibitive cost. Slowly the realisation is dawning that we are faced with a justice system no longer fit for purpose. A system where there is very real danger of the innocent being found guilty and the guilty escaping punishment. Instead of the usual face saving 'first aid' aimed at preserving the power and privilege of those within the system, the time is long overdue for broad ranging public and political debate aimed at creating an open, accountable and accessible system.”

Comment here: