Justice For Wullie Beck

A new version of Wullie Gage's book is now online as a free download, is www.free4allbooks.com and we are looking to get as many people on there as possible,

Tenth Anniversary Conference Of SCCRC

My Sole purpose in attending this SCCRC conference was to beable to ask Kenny MacAskill to investigate Malpractice, Misconduct and Dereliction of Duty within the ranks of SCCRC

Wednesday's tenth Anniversary Conference of SCCRC started for me parking our car in Robertson St, and walking to the doors of the SAS Radison Hotel, Argyle St, Glasgow with posters and leaflets to meet Scotkaz and her husband Frank, who I cannot thank enough for joining my Wife, Children, Brotherin-law Joe and Kevin My Daughters Boyfriend in standing to show support of my wrongful conviction in 1982 of Assault & Robbery charges,  holding banners and handing out leaflets.

They quickly ran out of leaflets as unexpectedly the public wanted to know much more than we had anticipated about why people were out ont he streets with banners, They were very supportive and wanted to know more than the banners could ever reveal.

In Particular they wanted to know where Solicitor Jim Keegan came from (Possibly to make sure they avoid him) and why he never done his job properly, The posters explained a few faults with my defence but not as much as the leaflet, so it was a great boost to see people wanted more info.

This was a great boost for all concerned and shows thepublic want to know more about these cases and will become involved more than people think, "Campaigners Please Take Note"

The Photos are now on the site here for all to see

http://justiceforwulliebeck.webs.com/apps/photos/album?albumid=5400436

I entered the building to be met by Ed Milne, another campaigner for justice, but got the feeling that all eyes were upon me.

I left leaflets beside Teapots on Chairs and Tables which were quickly snapped up, Which was a great boost in itself. It was also great to see people sitting reading my leaflet instead of just throwing it down, They took them with them in their folders too.

The Conference started with the chairperson Jean Couper and quickly moved on to Kenny MacAskill who said the following

He "would" change the Law so that when the SCCRC refer a case the Appellants will only be allowed to argue the referred grounds bySCCRC, (Very Oppressive)

 Does this mean then that the Appellants will have no say in what Grounds are Lodged ? and that SCCRC must lodge grounds on behalf of Appellants ?

So much for SCCRC not representing Applicants and Appellants!

Why change something that has worked well for over a decadeI ask.

He also said that all miscarriages need to be treated equally. (Not something he practices)

After his speech he ran out the door without giving anyone a chance to ask any questions.

I had paid £102 to go and ask Mr MacAskill to investigate the corruption within SCCRC and was not impressed with him running out the door without doing the question and discussion which was advertised.

I immediately ran out the door after him to present him with a dossier of cases calling for an enquiry into the conduct of SCCRC for failing to ensure that these cases were adequately investigated by SCCRC.

They include the cases of 

William Gage

Edward Milne

John (Jocky) Robertson

The Fernieside Three

As well as references to Neeson and Megrahi etc and Professor Tim Valentine.

I asked him to read my dossier and then get back to me, so lets wait and see what happens.

If he is as good a Lawyer as Justice Secretary then he cannot fail to see the matters I have raised which include 

SCCRC claiming DNA evidence was not available which years later turns out not to be true.

SCCRC claiming CCTV evidence was not available while it clearly was.

SCCRC failing to interview pertinent witness's.

SCCRC asking for expert opinions in some cases and not in others, When the same expert clearly backs others.

Using "Edited" versions of experts evidence when reaching decisions.

£102 and not able to ask the question I had prepared.  Oppressive I Say

They knew myself and Ed werecoming because they had a full list of delegates printed into their brochure.See Delegates list here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/26453069@N02/

You will note that not a single member of the General Public were at this conference, which is strange considering it is the public it was aimed at, to enhance their confidence in the ability of SCCRC to cure Miscarriages.

Some questions need to be asked why none of the public were invited ?

Why all delegates were from the legal profession ?

Professor Peter "Duff"

He claimed the SCCRC had refused to refer a "stone-walled" certainty of an appeal because they (The Commission) knew the appellant wasguilty.

This goes against everything SCCRC stands for and their claims that it is dangerous for them to consider if people are guilty or not.

Their test is simply to see if, on the face of it, it appears that there has been a miscarriage of justice.

If there is a certainty that any appeal will be a success then surely they must refer this case ?

Peter Duff showed great arrogance by smirking while Professor Zellick was describing how the CRRC in England had allowed single Commissioners to decide cases and how they do not give in to Campaigners, which was a dig at me.

His contempt for Miscarriage victims was almost unbearable yet he used to be a Commissioner.

He further thought it really funny that Zellick  (A Loony in my opinion)  describe having digs at campaigners for moret han one MP writing to the commission regarding applicants (He failed to see that this might show that there are some concerns if more than one MP was taking an interest in a case) Zellick said basically he would only correspondt o one MP and the rest would go in the bin.

He smirked uncontrollably every time Zellick made a snide remark like the little terrified schoolboy looking up to the big bully and smirking at his every comment.

He acted no less than a spoilt Sycophant

Duff in my opinion, should never have been allowed near a commission like SCCRC never mind sitting on their board.

I wondered about Zellicks motives, and then the penny dropped:

He sat on the board of CRRC and was the person who also ignored my e-mails Raising Concerns over their use of Peter Swann as a fingerprint expert.

CCRC actually phoned me yesterday Friday 1st may enquiring into how they never got my e-mails and I will be re-sending them.

"Looks like Zellick Binned them too the same as he never replied to MP's letters"

Once again Zellick showed his contempt for Victims and used Incompetent and Disgraced experts despite the evidence of such in Shirley McKie's case.

These people do not like being told by people like us that they are doing anything wrong and have nothing but utter contempt for the likes of us. (Who are we to question their degrees)

The morning session finished with John McManus raising his hand at the first session of questions and discussions and he was rudely cut ofby the Chair Jean "Rudely"Cowper.

I then raised my hand as no-one else seemed to want to ask questions, Wonder Why?

Ms Couper seemed to have blinkers on and could all of a sudden not see to her right hand side, However someone else shouted to her and the mike found its way to me.

The anger at what she had done to John McManus welled up inside me and I knew I was not going to be allowed to ask the questions I wanted to.

I was right !

I got nothing but interference during my question (Like We cannot discuss individual cases) which put me off what I was going to say and resulted in my question of why is there no consistency within referrals when some cases are referred while others with the exact same grounds are refused but then again "Duff" had already answered my question by saying that even if they new a case was a certainty to be success at appeal they will and do refuse to refer such cases.

These questions which took all but a few minutes ended what was supposed to be a 15 minute question and answer session.

Ms Couper could not end the session quick enough

Donald Findlay spoke about Miscarriages and in my opinion done really well.

He admitted he was only human and made mistakes. (unlike the Commission who would never admit to such deeds)

He also said that the ultimate person to decide if they give evidence or not was an accused person.

Then he shocked me by claiming that had Shirley McKie not paid for experts to come from America then justice might not have been done in her case, He questioned whether or not Legal Aid would have been granted for such experts to travel from America and the Netherlands.

He also showed his Shock at the case of Sean Hodgson andsaid we should all be ashamed.

His stay was cut short because he needed to dash to visit aprisoner in Barlinnie, but unlike Kenny MacAskill Mr Findlay was willing "early"  to take any questions raised before he dashed off.

No-One took up his offer, but then again if one looks at the Delegates list most where from the Judiciary and Justice departments.

The second Question and Answer session came along andsomeone from the Law Commission asked a question, A single question.

No-one else seemed interested and so instead of wasting whatwas supposed to be a 15 minute session I raised my hand again.

Again Jean Couper (Chair) seemed not able to look to her right hand side, Again someone pointed out I had a question to ask, she eventually reluctantly looked over, Saw it was me and said No I Would RatherSomeone Else Ask A Question.

Quickly and from out of nowhere Robin Johnston (Senior Legal officer) asked his own colleagues a simple question to divert the attentionf rom me. How Fitting ?

The arrogance of Jean Couper was astounding and shockingly appalling and noticed by all delegates, some showed their disgust by shaking their heads others remained quiet.

At this point I decided I was not going to listen to anymore Corruption from Couper and showed my disgust by slowly putting on my coat and leaving before her final speech was over.

I have never in my life met someone as Arrogant and Ignorant as Jean Couper, but then again I wonder how much pressure was placed upon her to keep our serious questions at bay ?

I would highly recommend anyone campaigning to attend thesebig functions by all the legal establishment to get their points across, It obviously disturbs them when confronted by people like us and they will do their damndest not to allow us to ask our serious questions, the more the merrier though.

SCCRC will attend this Gerald Gordon Lecture

I hope to see more members of the public and in particular Victims at the Ceremony in Honour of Sir Gerald Gordon CBE QC LLD who has been a member of SCCRC since its inception in 1999.

Friday 12th June 2009, Playfair Library, Old College, University of Edinburgh, 6.15 pm

The lecture is public and free of charge and will befollowed by a wine reception.

Registration Not Required

www.law.ed.ac.uk/conferences/gordon.

If nothing else it will be a great opportunity to hand out leaflets about the many cases of injustice and what better chance to speak directly to Kenny MacAskill and the likes who are present.

At least he would not get the chance to ignore people like he did at the Silent Walk.

E-Mail sent to Graham Zellick at CCRC and ignored

From: wulliebeck@hotmail.co.uk

To: complaints@ccrc.x.gsi.gov.uk

Subject: Peter Swan

Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 03:54:48 +0000

FAO 

                  Professor Graham Zellick:Chairman

CCRC

It has been brought to myattention that the self acclaimed fingerprint expert Peter Swann has claimed on his CV to have actually worked for the Commission.

I would like to bring to your attention firstly that he also claims to have retired 21 years ago therefore has sat no recent competency tests and is not accredited with any IAI certificates.

Despite his claims in theShirley McKie and David Asbury cases he has been discredited by worldwide experts.

Mr Swann claims to have 48 years experience yet retired 21 years ago.

His claims in the Mckie case concerns me greatly for the following reasons:

1.   He claimed it was Shirley McKie's left thumb print when the SCRO said it was her left.

2.   Heclaimed he took her print from the Daily Mail and his was the best one of all.

3.   He claimed that he had no idea how SCRO would say only a non expert would use the top part of Y7 as he found similarities on the top section.

The top section according to SCRO was unusable because it was smudged

4.   As I said above he has been discredited by experts worldwide including Pat Wertheim of America and Arie Zeelenberg of the Netherlands who continues to assist the new SCRO, The SPSA

I am concerned that since hemade "Two Major Mistakes" in Scotland he iscapable of doing the same if he continues to work for your Commission and that instead of getting a fair, independent and impartial expert you are getting one who claims all his experience was gained from the police service, Not fingerprint service.

An expert who has been retiredfor 21 years, in my view is not competent to give evidence now, and his opinion should not be sought.

Compilation videos have been made and can be viewed at the following links of Peter Swanns evidence to the last enquiry held at the Scottish Parliament:

They can also be requested in full from the Scottish Parliament.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeqkQNvc7UQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jh-YH5IbUrs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkxp3MAnP1Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuYPNQ9xUZA

Could I be so bold as to askthat any work done by Peter Swann for the Commission be checked again independently to allay fears that he might have erred again since Shirley McKies case.

Can I also suggest you pay some attention to his CV as I can see nothing within it that states he has ever sat any exams as a fingerprint expert.

Yours Faithfully

William Beck

1 Above should have read:

He claimed it was a left thumb print while the SCRO claimedit was a right thumb print:

See video here of Pauline McNeil asking him at the Enquiry(white wash) years ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeqkQNvc7UQ

http://www.flickr.com/photos/26453069@N02/3489326961/

Today was the 10th Anniversary Conference in Glasgow for the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission. William Beck who has been fighting for 28 years for justice, had to pay £102 to go to this conference just so that he can ask questions of the Justice Minister and others at this conference. Wullie will have his own report on how things went for him from inside the conference. See: www.justiceforwulliebeck.webs.com Ed Milne was also inside at the event to ask his own questions, as well as John and Cathy from MOJO, whom we met with outside the venue. Outside the venue, me, Frank, (my husband) Louise (Wullie's wife) His two daughters and one of their boyfriends, plus Louise's brother stood outside with placards and leaflets to hand out to the public. We were a small gathering but a very effective one. It has given us a much needed boost to continue to go out to the public with Wullie's case and other cases too. We will be doing leaflet drops again soon. We met Chris Shead and other lawyers and officials. We saw so many people we recognised. Many of them took the leaflets Wullie had made, which was brilliant. Cars hooted their horns to show support. Most of all we met the public, who I have to say where extremely supportive. We had no problem at all of getting rid of the leaflets. In fact people were coming up to us and asking for them. When we ran out of leaflets, we gave people Wullie's website to look at. Several people actually came back to tell us they had already looked at the site and were appalled at what had happened in Wullie's case. We did take pictures and they will be added to the site very soon. Louise handed Kenny MacAskill a leaflet, and he took it and thanked her. We saw him and many other official looking people reading the leaflets. Wullie actually had to come out and ask us for some leaflets to hand out inside as people were asking for them. Members of the public came up to us with their stories of injustice and also to say they knew injustice did happen. People were genuinely interested. Take note documentary and news media, the public are indeed interested in these stories and want to know more. We spoke to Scottish, English, Irish, Norwegian and Dutch people about miscarriage of justices. We even saw Frank McGarvey, an old Celtic and St Mirren player, who came round to have a look at the placards. A member of the Norwegian Criminal Case Review Commission came down and spoke with us and took photo's also As did some photographer from inside the event. An editor came along and spoke with us and went to her office, looked at the site, then came back to take photo's of us all. She said she admired the fact we were standing up for what we believed in. What was particularly nice was the fact that Wullie's own family were all there, and watching his wife and daughters tell people who asked all about their fight for justice, was particularly humbling. Meeting the public and talking to them about Wullie's case and many other cases too was absolutley brilliant. We had quite a gathering of people at times and they never stopped coming in the 5 hours we stood on our peaceful, but information issuing day. It really has made me and the others want to do more of the same, not protesting as such, but telling people face to face about what is happening to people. It really was an effective day and so many more people now know about Wullie's case. We have already had many hits on his site with people looking to see what it is all about. I hope the next time we do this, that others will become involved. Today was a sort of experiment to see how things went, and we couldnt believe how quick many hundereds of leaflets went. And not once did we find one lying around on the streets. We met many kind and funny people today and it restored my faith that there are people who do care and who do want to help. They just do not know how to help. With our help, then maybe just maybe they will learn how to help miscarriage of justice victims and their families. We will have photo's online soon for anyone who wants to see them. Below is some of the information we managed to get out to people. It is not acceptable that witnesses are not interviewed in EVERY case. In cases where it is glaringly obvious that something is very wrong, every remedy should be taken to ensure that the whole case is looked at. This is not happening. The SCCRC are not investigating all cases as they claim they are. We believe that this conference is simply a back slapping exercise which will not highlight what they have not done for people. We aim to highlight the injustice being inflicted on those who have applied to the SCCRC. It is time that the Scottish public are told what their hard earned taxes are paying for. People want to believe the system is working for the good of all. No one wants to see innocent men and women being imprisoned and unjustly treated. Yet this is what is happening with their money and in their name. It is time to take a stand and say, “NOT IN MY NAME” The SCCRC is supposed to be impartial. Experience tells us this is not true. They can refuse to refer cases when competent and proper grounds exist. They ask for expert opinions in some cases and not in others. They do not give every case the same standard of probity despite their claims to do so. YOU CANNOT COMPLAIN ABOUT THEIR CONDUCT. They are answerable to NO ONE! Not even the High Courts. The Chief Executive can deal with complaints about himself. They do not represent appellants They hold all their meetings in secret. They cover up for the colleagues. They do not investigate defective representation. They do not investigate their own. They do not always ask Crown for all evidence they hold. They lie about who, and what evidence is gathered. They can release juror’s details, with no one being held accountable. In some cases, they interview NO witnesses at all. Some cases are referred while others with the exact same grounds are rejected. 95% of their staff are from the legal profession. Some even sit as judges and at appeals. The Chief Executive holds 4 jobs within the establishment His jobs : a lawyer, a judge, a Solicitor and he sits on Law Society Committee’s.

Contact Details: Karen Torley

Email  Scotchedjustice@gmail.com

Website: www.justiceforallinnocents.webs.com

We will be outside the Radisson Hotel to let people know what the SCCRC will NOT Tell the public at 9am on Wednesday 29 April 2009,  at The Radisson Hotel, Glasgow. Anyone who believes in openness and justice are welcome to come along.

William Beck who has been fighting for 28 years for justice, has had to pay £102 to go to this conference just so that he can ask questions of the Justice Minister.

See: www.justiceforwulliebeck.webs.com

We will be handing out leaflets and letting the public know what the truth is about how things are handled by the SCCRC..

On the 29th April 2009, the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission will host a conference to highlight how ?well? it has done for people asking for a review of their cases. They will highlight successes but not their failures, which are many.

Their conference will be to tell the public and the media how well they have done in the ten years they have existed. 

While we are aware of the need for such an organisation to be in existence, we are also aware that they should be held accountable for their actions and inactions at times. This is not happening.

It is not acceptable for some cases to be referred and others not, when the cases all have the same grounds to appeal.

William Gage is still waiting to hear about his case, despite the SCCRC saying it takes 18 months maximum to get a decision.  See: www.williegage.blogspot.com and www.whygage.com

It is not acceptable that witnesses are not interviewed in EVERY case.

In cases where it is glaringly obvious that something is very wrong, every remedy should be taken to ensure that the whole case is looked at. This is not happening. The SCCRC are not investigating all cases as they claim they are.

We believe that this conference is simply a back slapping exercise which will not highlight what they have not done for people. We aim to highlight the injustice being inflicted on those who have applied to the SCCRC.

It is time that the Scottish public are told what their hard earned taxes are paying for.  People want to believe the system is working for the good of all.

No one wants to see innocent men and women being imprisoned and unjustly treated. Yet this is what is happening with their money and in their name.

It is time to take a stand and say, ?NOT IN MY NAME?

The SCCRC is supposed to be impartial. Experience tells us this is not true.

• They can refuse to refer cases when competent and proper grounds exist.
• They ask for expert opinions in some cases and not in others.
• They do not give every case the same standard of probity despite their claims to do so.
• YOU CANNOT COMPLAIN ABOUT THEIR CONDUCT.
• The are answerable to NO ONE! Not even the High Courts.
• The Chief Executive can deal with complaints about himself.
• The do not represent appellants
• They hold all their meetings in secret.
• They cover up for the colleagues.
• The do not investigate defective representation.
• The do not investigate their own.
• They do not always ask Crown for all evidence they hold.
• They lie about who, and what evidence is gathered.
• They can release juror?s details, with no one being held accountable.
• In some cases, they interview NO witnesses at all.
• Some cases are referred while others with the exact same grounds are rejected.
• 95% of their staff are from the legal profession.
• Some even sit as judges and at appeals.
• The Chief Executive holds 4 jobs within the establishment

His jobs :  a lawyer, a judge, a Solicitor and he sits on Law Society Committee?s.

BACKGROUND TO WHAT IS HAPPENING!

The SCCRC will be hosting a conference to mark its 10th Anniversary. This will be an opportunity for the Commission to reflect on its first 10 years and to consider some of the issues that may impact on both the work of the Commission and the criminal justice system in the future. The results of the Commission?s first research project on referred cases will also be presented.

SCCRC 10th Anniversary Event
Wednesday 29 April 2009
The Radisson Hotel, Glasgow

Time 9am

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission is a public body which was established by statute in 1999.  It is responsible for investigating alleged miscarriages of justice in Scotland and has the power to refer appropriate cases to the High Court.  The Commission is funded by the Scottish Government and is accountable to the Scottish Parliament for those funds.

The Commission?s review of cases is completely independent of the Parliament, the Scottish Government, the courts, the Crown and the Defence.  All cases accepted by the Commission are subjected to a thorough, impartial review before a decision is taken on whether or not to a reference to the High Court should be made.