SCCRC Liars and cover up Merchants

admin · SCCRC Liars and cover up Merchants

Video You Tube

It is my contention that SCCRC tried to cover up for their friend William Taylor QC when they investigated my grounds of Appeal.
They blatantly assured me they had sent the Lawyer Shaw a copy of his own ID Parade report (I taped this)
I then phoned Shaw (Which I also taped) and he confirmed that he had not been shown his own ID Parade report with his writing on it.
SCCRC concluded my Appeal to them without ever doing this and only and i mean ONLY after i produced a copy of the following tape was Shaw actually sent a copy of his own ID Parade report:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DP-ACuK1w0I
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=424531923&size=l

The report can also be viewed along with his statement to SCCRC Telling them his BIG Impression was that the Police knew prior to coming into the Parade room Exactly what position i had adopted.

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=425979884&size=l

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=424609023&size=l
Even Taylor conceded That the evidence of Shaw would raise a large question mark over Muckles, But....... He tried to deny that he ever knew about Shaws evidence despite......... Shaw being on the Witness List and his ID Parade report being available.
View Taylors statement to Dean of Faculty and read No 8 on his points:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=424593705&size=l
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=424593741&size=l
SCCRC thought this conduct was acceptable and took no further action in my case

admin · SCCRC Liars And Cover-Up Merchants

Megrahi Appeal Cover-up

I have never read so much Bull in my life as what SCCRC have found.
No evidence Fabricated
No evidence Missing
No witnesses told lies
No adverse findings at-all. Not surprised it was Robin Johnston that found all these facts, The same Robin Johnston that is on my latest video (Voice Recording) You Tube. The same man that lied to me after i repeatedly asked him if he had sent shaw a copy of his own ID Parade report, Which was only sent to shaw after i complained about Robin Johnston and WHICH was after they had concluded my case. Hear the tape now:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DP-ACuK1w0I

I am afraid to say I predicted such outcome at 4.15 am last night and posted such on the Scotsman below.
Lets face it we all knew SCCRC would not find any adverse findings against:
Crown Office: Lyndsey Anderson, whom they sit with and discuss policies etc.
High Court: Tom Higgins, Appeals Manager, Who They also sit with and discuss policies
Justice Department: Clark Pearson who also sits to discuss policies
And lest we not forget Strathclyde Police Jannette Joyce who also sits with SCCRC to discuss.......................... "Yes policies"
The SCCRC do not look independently at cases at-all they infact look with the blinkered view of how they can UPHOLD any and every conviction.
Some cases are fully investigated whilst others are simply cast aside and not even answered.
Three Key parts of my own trial are
1. Forensic evidence not called at trial "Defective Representation" SCCRC have never answered me on this issue?
2. David Livingstone said the driver was forty with Brown Hair and a moustache. I was identified twice but was only twenty with black hair and no moustache. My defence i claimed had this evidence at the time of my trial and never called it. I of course did not find out about him until Keegan handed me all my case papers to conduct Appeal.
SCCRC never seen this as new evidence and rejected this to cover Taylor's Defective representation of me
3. Like Gauci The other witness to identify me (Ashford)His evidence he contradicted Himself and Taylor at the time even tried to use Muldoon at trial. The trial Judge said his evidence was not reliable and Robin Johnston Blanked this out but i managed to get an old copy from Arnott McWhinnie (Reporter) Which i had given to him ten years or so earlier and Bobin Robin was not allowed to blank this out( If that was not suspect then nothing was ) This was why i taped phone calls with SCCRC. like Above.
Any way there are other crown witnesses who never gave evidence, and had they, their evidence would also have contradicted Ashfords but between his evidence and the charge to Jury and his statement are all contradictory, SCCRC found nothing adverse about this.
He said in court he was round the corner and saw car coming towards him and pass him, Nothing suspicious and nothing to attract his attention to it but he wrote down the number.
All the other witnesses said he ran into Raeburn Rigg, and his own statement now says he ran into Raeburn Rigg and someone was shouting to stop the car. Material changes from the evidence lead in court Yet SCCRC found nothing adverse in this either.
See prediction on Scotsman last night.

4:15am 28 Jun 2007 Allegations of Collusion and fabrication of evidence will not be found to be true.
SCCRC recieve a large number of defective representation grounds of Appeal and as yet have still to find in favour of any of them.
Im Sure a FOI request will provide the exact amount?
I think if anything Megrahi will win his appeal on new evidence and this will allow our Courts to not even have to look at the Defective representations etc etc.
There is one drawback though:
When the SCCRC refer a case back to appeal the Applicant can then.
1. Ask that old grounds be re-considered even though they were argued before.
2. Ask for any ground to be considered not only the ones upon which SCCRC has referred the Appeal.
3. Lodge any ground he feels SCCRC has omitted.
Their only task is to consider if they think a Miscarriage has occurred and if so refer the case.
They have no further part to play.
Some cases have waited up to 7 years once SCCRC have referred before actually being heard at appeal (Stuart Gair)

admin · SCCRC Liars

Having spent the day and last night perusing Lockerbie and linked cases like Shirley McKie i have concluded that SCCRCs Findings are another whitewash, They need investigated with imediate effect and sack some of them like Robin Johnston who was asked repeatedly if he had sent documents to a lawyer and he sought to decieve the applicant by telling him :Of course that was the whole allegation you put Of course he was sent it.
Plenty of opportunity to reflect and change his mind yet he stuck to a blatant lie. Get him out now. Resign Mr Johnston.
Even the lawyer called into question the methods of Robin Johnstons Statement taking and accused the author of such as being Mistaken. Both statements can be viewed at the following links and compare the evidence written in regards Crown Witness Statements Again Involving Johnston from SCCRC. How is he still in a job?

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

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

admin · Lockerbie Appeal

It would seem that Prof Robert Black wants Megrahi to continue his defective Representation gounds of Appeal.
As i have said before Megrahi can now submit any grounds he wants to and is not limited to what SCCRC say.

Lockerbie bomber's lawyers press on with claims of tampered evidence
RICHARD ELIAS

LAWYERS representing Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi are to press ahead with claims at his appeal that evidence was tampered with.

As revealed in Scotland on Sunday last week, the defendant's legal team have gathered numerous examples of what they claim is clear evidence of missing or altered statements.

They claim Megrahi's conviction is fatally flawed and that evidence against him was tailored to fit a politically driven case against Libya.

Last week, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), which spent three years looking at new evidence submitted by the defence, agreed there may have been a miscarriage of justice and recommended the case go back for a second appeal. But it said it had found no evidence to support allegations of tampering with evidence.

The SCCRC concentrated on apparent contradictions in evidence relating to clothing said to have been wrapped around the bomb and inconsistencies in statements by the seller of the clothing, Maltese shop owner Tony Gauci.

Gauci told the original trial in the Netherlands that he had sold the clothing to a man he eventually identified as Megrahi. This evidence proved to be the cornerstone of the Crown's case and without it most experts agree the prosecution would never have succeeded.

However, yesterday the Scottish legal expert who first suggested the Lockerbie trial could take place in a neutral venue said the fabricated evidence claim remained crucial to the defence.

Professor Robert Black has been an outspoken critic of the way the hearing, held in Camp Zeist, was conducted and has repeatedly cast doubt on Megrahi's guilt. Yesterday he said: "I am pretty sure that the defence will be sticking to their guns over the issue of alleged fabricated evidence. Despite what the SCCRC said, I do not think there is any way that Megrahi's team will either be derailed or forget about these evidential issues."

Black said one of the most compelling comments made by the SCCRC was that it cast serious doubts on the claim that the clothing recovered from the wreckage could be directly linked to Gauci and his shop. He said: "That is absolutely shattering. It destroys the whole prosecution case."

Black also dismissed earlier stories that a man, initially named as prime suspect for the tragedy, had received immunity from prosecution after testifying at the original trial.

In the immediate aftermath of the bombing, American intelligence sources identified Egyptian Mohammed Abu Talb as their number one suspect.

He was linked to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command, a Syrian/Iranian-backed group believed to have targeted Flight 103 in response to the downing earlier that year of an Iran Air Airbus by the USS Vincennes, which killed all 290 passengers.

admin · Shocking Decision

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.
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:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/big-wullie/page3/

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

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DP-ACuK1w0I

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.

admin · More shocking Lockerbie facts

This site is definately worth a view for Lockerbie Supporters.

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/pbrooke/p&t/Lockerbie/appeal

admin

Vital role of Crown’s secret dossierLUCY ADAMS, Chief Reporter October 02 2007
Comment | Read Comments (3)
LEAVE TO APPEAL: Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi
Three months ago, the long-anticipated and most high-profile decision of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission was published. It stated that the Lockerbie bomber should be granted fresh leave to appeal.

The commission's verdict, after a three-year investigation, was to prove highly embarrassing for the Crown Office team which, until then, had been highly lauded for successfully bringing the case against Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi seven years ago.

The public statement said there were no fewer than six grounds on which Megrahi might have suffered a miscarriage of justice. Only four of those grounds, most of which focused on the unreliability of the Crown's key witness, were revealed to the public.

The Herald can now reveal the fifth: the Crown failed to disclose a top secret document with vital information about the timer which allegedly detonated the bomb.

advertisement
Even now, the Crown is still refusing to show this highly confidential information to the defence, a decision all the more startling considering the current legal position on disclosure.

In 2005, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the highest criminal appeal court, quashed the convictions of two Scots on the grounds that the Crown had failed to disclose vital documents and said that this breached the European Convention on Human Rights.

The judges ruled that the trials of James Holland, who had been convicted of two charges of assault and robbery, and Alvin Lee Sinclair, who was convicted of assault to severe injury, were in breach of Article 6 of the convention, the right to a fair trial. Statements, the judges said, should be made available as a "matter of course".

In Mr Holland's case, the prosecution was criticised for using a witness to identify the accused while in the dock, despite her failure to do so in a police line-up. There were also concerns raised about the Crown's failure to disclose outstanding criminal charges against witnesses.

In Mr Sinclair's case, the Crown failed to disclose a police statement which was inconsistent with the evidence given by a witness in court.

Since then, a number of high-profile convictions have been overturned on the grounds that important or inconsistent information was not revealed to the defence.

Last year, Stuart Gair was cleared of murdering a man in Glasgow after protesting his innocence for 17 years. Lord Abernethy, the judge, said a failure to disclose witness statements to his lawyers deprived the defence of a "powerful argument" on identification.

Next month, Nat Fraser, who was convicted of murdering his wife, Arlene, will have his appeal heard partly on such grounds.

However, two years on from the Privy Council's decision, legal experts say the problem has not been fully resolved and that miscarriages of justice are occurring as a result.

In Scotland, it has been up to the Lord Advocate and Crown Office to decide whether to allow the defence to see certain material, including information about previous convictions of witnesses.

The Crown Office has recently improved its system of disclosure and issued a practice statement setting out its aims to provide lists of witnesses within 14 days of first appearance and copies of witness statements within 28 days. The Crown is now obliged to disclose witness statements and previous convictions or outstanding charges against intended prosecution witnesses but it claims it also has to protect the human rights of witnesses.

In practice, lawyers say the system has been speeded up but key information is being omitted because the Crown says it is not in the "public interest". As one lawyer said: "It is as if the Crown is playing cards with a stacked deck."

Last month, a review on disclosure commissioned by the previous Scottish Executive said prosecutors should be legally bound to provide full information to defence lawyers in advance of a trial.

Interestingly, Lord Coulsfield, who chaired the review, was one of three judges who presided at the Lockerbie trial in the Netherlands. He called for legislation requiring the prosecution to have regard to "the over-riding requirement of a fair trial".

In relation to Lockerbie, the Crown is expected to argue that the top secret document relating to the timer cannot be disclosed for reasons of national security.

As Lord Coulsfield said, though, the ultimate question is whether Megrahi has had a fair trial and whether the Crown will release the documents for a fair appeal.

SCCRC Liars and cover up Merchants

SCCRC Liars And Cover-Up Merchants

SCCRC Liars

Lockerbie Appeal

Shocking Decision

More shocking Lockerbie facts