Sunday, 3 February 2008
Lockerbie Investigator Liar Says Keegan
Mr Keegan Solicitor Advocate has confirmed my suspicion that SCCRC were not independently investigating my grounds of appeal.
He has said that the Author of his statement is “mistaken” and even suggests that the statement is only one persons interpretation of what he was trying to say.
This came from a complaint i made to Law Society claiming Mr Keegan had lied to SCCRC when he said the Crown Precognition's would not have been available to him at the time of my trial.
Allegedly this is what Robin Johnston has claimed Keegan said to him.
The crown Precognition's would not have been available to him at the time of my trial, infact crown are still quite cagey about releasing such documents now. See Here:
Mr Keegan Now States to Law Society.
If Crown precognition's were revealed to him he can only assume that the witnesses refused to co-operate and Crown released them to him.
Should statements taken by members of SCCRC not be signed in future?
Did Robin Johnston above attempt to mislead SCCRC over this matter? so it could be said that his Colleague Mr Taylor did not look Incompetent and Negligent in his handling of my case.
He was taken off m case and Michael Hanlon put onto it after my complaints of him in my further submissions of Jan 2004.
I must say the impression i got from Michael Hanlon was that his hands were tied and he was being coerced by Sinclair what way to investigate my case, In other words his words were not his own.
When i mentioned political decisions being made in my case and that there was enough grounds to refer my case without the need to discredit Taylor, Hanlon got me an urgent meeting with him and Sinclair the next morning just days before christmas 2004 which i attended with my wife.
Sinclair said he would check with Crown to see if they released Crown statements to my defence, He Lied, This has never been done, How do i know? Because i have copies of ever letter between SCCRC and Crown Office under the FOI request i made, Most of which can be found on my flickr site
Certainly SCCRC came to a decision based solely upon what Mr Johnston and Sinclair laid before them.
Mr Sinclair and Johnston
Friday, 1 February 2008
Robin Johnston Of SCCRC above, Assured me he had sent Donald Shaw "Solicitor" a copy of his own ID Parade Report (Which was essential in refreshing his memory ofter 23 years)
When i phoned Donald Shaw and enquired if he had seen his own report he said quite clearly he hadn't.
Indeed SCCRC never actually sent Shaw his own report until i submitted a copy of the recorded telephone call, which i must add was well after they had concluded my appeal to them.
Mr Johnston and Shaws calls can be heard here:
Where quite clearly it was put to Mr Johnston a number of times asking was he shown his own ID Parade Report.
What Mr Johnston sent to Donald Shaw was documents that meant absolutely nothing to him ie: My charge sheet, Police ID Parade Report (Which was 100 pages, as apposed to his two page report) and the Judges Charge to the Jury.
All documents he had never seen as his only part in my case was to attend my ID Parade.
I am puzzled as to why the man that investigated Campbell and Steele's case was so misleading in my own .
I would at this stage also point out that after i submitted my further submissions in January 2004 Mr Johnston was taken off my case and i was allocated a new Legal officer, A rare event as once a legal officer is allocated to a case they must see it through to the end.
I did complain of him in my further submissions and even told SCCRC that he hadn't sent Shaw his own ID Parade, Gerard Sinclair,
The Cheif Executive did not like being told this and refused further to send this to Shaw and like i said it was only sent after they had concluded my case.
I wonder if all members on the board were aware of this fact.
Proof that SCCRC where aware of the fact Shaw should have been sent a copy of his own ID Parade Report can be found in their statement of reason here at page 11:
So Why did they not send this to him until after they had concluded my case and only after i submitted a copy of the tape recording as proof that Johnston had assured me this had been done as heard above on you-tube?