|Posted by justiceforwulliebeck on August 24, 2011 at 12:40 PM||comments (7)|
There is more to be added to this site.
The years around the turn of the twentieth century provided a more notorious case of mistaken identity than Dr Hessel. Adolf Beck was arrested on two occasions, in 1896 and 1904, after female victims of fraud wrongly identified him in the street. The frauds all had a distinctive method whereby a man, purporting to be a member of the aristocracy, would approach women, invite them to go sailing with him, and present them with a cheque (which bounced) for the purchase of clothes. He, in turn, took one or more of their rings as a sample of their finger size, saying that he would go to a jeweller's to buy a better ring. The man then disappeared, having pawned the victim's ring.
The culprit, a German named Weiss, was convicted in 1877, but Beck was picked out in the street, and at identification parades in 1896 and convicted, despite dubious evidence from a handwriting expert. After his release he was again picked out in the street, and convicted again of more incidents of the same method in 1904, but whilst in prison, awaiting sentence for his second wrongful conviction, the real offender played the same trick on two other women and, by good fortune, was immediately arrested. Beck at last had a cast-iron alibi because this time he was in prison, and the identity of the other man could be established.
Beck was prosecuted because of the peculiar and consistent method of the frauds, his similarity in appearance to the real offender, the opinion of a handwriting expert named Gurrin, and a succession of female victims who identified him for two prosecutions. The recollections of the women may have been at fault, but they were in good company. Elliss Spurrell, the police officer who had originally arrested Weiss, alias John Smith in 1877, gave evidence at the magistrates court that Adolf Beck was the same man, and the prosecuting counsel at the Old Bailey in the 'John Smith' case was the trial judge, Sir Forrest Fulton, who dealt with Adolf Beck's first trial in 1896.
The credit for resolving this miscarriage of justice lay firstly with the 1904 trial judge, Mr Justice Grantham, who had lingering doubts about Beck's guilt and had delayed concluding the case despite apparently strong prosecution evidence and procedures. It was in this period of delay, before being sentenced, that the crucial arrest of the real offender took place. Much credit is also due to Inspector John Kane for his action in making a series of formal reports to investigate William Thomas thoroughly, and to establish that he was the same man as the John Smith who had been convicted in 1877.
Kane had been in court during Beck's 1896 trial and knew that it had been accepted on both sides that the handwriting in the 1877 and the 1896 frauds was identical. The issue was whether the handwriting expert Gurrin was right to claim that the writing was Beck's being disguised. Kane examined the writing of the recent prisoner William Thomas and found that it was strikingly similar to the letters on which Beck had been convicted. Beck was Norwegian, and claimed that the fraudster was a German. John Kane established the real identity of the original John Smith (and hence also of the recently arrested William Thomas) as a German, or Austrian, named William Weiss. He brought three witnesses who had identified Beck to an identification parade, and they unhesitatingly picked out Weiss as the culprit. This proved Beck's innocence, and he was awarded £5,000 compensation for the miscarriage of justice he had suffered.
|Posted by justiceforwulliebeck on August 24, 2011 at 12:10 PM||comments (0)|
30 years on convicted thief is desperate to clear name
Published Date: 19 August 2011
By Christine Lavelle
A MAN jailed for the armed robbery of a postal van is still fighting to clear his name almost 30 years after he was convicted. William Beck, 50, from Glasgow, spent four years in prison after a jury found him guilty of the robbery involving a hammer in Livingston in December 1981, when around £21,000 in cash was stolen from two postal workers. But the father-of-two has always maintained that he was 40 miles away in Glasgow when the incident took place. He claims his conviction in March 1982, when he was 21, was based almost entirely on "unreliable" eyewitness identification, and says he is the victim of a miscarriage of justice. Mr Beck claims only two of the five witnesses identified him in an identity parade. The other three are said to have picked out a volunteer. Leave to appeal the conviction was refused in 1982 after his defence lawyer is alleged to have said he had no grounds for appeal. Mr Beck claims his defence team called none of his witnesses during the trial at the High Court in Edinburgh, giving him "no chance". He said: "I had a number of people who had seen me in Glasgow that day. My wife, who was my girlfriend at the time, was called and she gave evidence that I had been with her all day." Mr Beck, who lives with his wife Louise in the Dennistoun area of the city, added: "All I want is to be allowed an appeal, I just want to clear my name. "I did not commit that robbery, and it is something that has now taken over my whole adult life." The University of Bristol Innocence Project (UoBIP) has taken on Mr Beck's case and today submitted a response on his behalf following two rejections by the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission to review his case. UoBIP said eyewitness misidentification has been accepted worldwide as a leading cause of wrongful convictions. It says around 75 per cent of post-conviction DNA exonerations in the US are attributed to eyewitness misidentification.
Man seeks justice over 1981 robbery
(UKPA) – 16 minutes ago A man locked up for the armed robbery of a postal van is still fighting to clear his name almost 30 years after he was convicted. William Beck, 50, from Glasgow, spent four years in prison after a jury found him guilty of the robbery involving a hammer in Livingston, West Lothian, in December 1981, when around £21,000 in cash was stolen from two postal workers. But the father of two has always maintained that he was 40 miles away in Glasgow when the incident took place. He claims his conviction in March 1982, when he was 21, was based almost entirely on "unreliable" eyewitness identification, and says he is the victim of a miscarriage of justice. Mr Beck claims only two of the five witnesses identified him in an identity parade. The other three are said to have picked out a volunteer. Leave to appeal the conviction was refused in 1982 after his defence lawyer is alleged to have said he had no grounds for appeal. Mr Beck claims his defence team called none of his witnesses during the trial at the High Court in Edinburgh, giving him "no chance". He said: "I had a number of people who had seen me in Glasgow that day. My wife, who was my girlfriend at the time, was called and she gave evidence that I had been with her all day. But when it came down to it the jury had to decide whether or not to believe us, even though I know there were more people who could have been called on my behalf. "I sacked the defence team immediately after the trial. They didn't try to prepare anything on my behalf, they gave me no chance." Mr Beck, who lives with his wife Louise in the Dennistoun area of the city, added: "All I want is to be allowed an appeal, I just want to clear my name. I did not commit that robbery, and it is something that has now taken over my whole adult life. I just want a chance to prove my innocence." The University of Bristol Innocence Project has taken on Mr Beck's case and has submitted a response on his behalf following two rejections by the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission (SCCRC) to review his case. The SCCRS is an independent public body set up to review alleged miscarriages of justice.
Review call on William Beck robbery conviction
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has turned down the case twice before A new assessment has been made of the evidence which convicted a man of an armed robbery carried out 30 years ago. Researchers at the University of Bristol Innocence Project (UoBIP) concluded that evidence against William Beck had "low probative value". Mr Beck was convicted of robbing a post office van in Livingston, and sentenced to a jail term of six years. The UoBIP has prepared a submission which will be made to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. William Beck was 20 when he was arrested in 1981. Of five eyewitnesses to the robbery, only two picked out Mr Beck at an identity parade. The team at Bristol concluded that it was not possible to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that a miscarriage of justice did not occur. Mark Allum, one of the Bristol researchers, said: "Mr Beck's conviction was based primarily upon identification evidence part of which the trial judge referred to as unreliable and part of which he suggested the jury should treat with great care. "Recently the courts have become increasingly reluctant to base convictions solely upon eyewitness testimony especially since studies have exposed the fallibility of such testimony. "Were this case to come before the courts today it is highly likely that the trial judge would dismiss it." The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has twice before refused to send Mr Beck's case back to the Appeal Court. Mr Beck, who lives in Glasgow, said the fight to prove his innocence meant he had spent a lot of time learning the law. "My two daughters have had to grow up with virtually no father for 20 to 30 years because of this case," he said. "It is something that never leaves me. "Even when I'm having a conversation with family or friends, it always comes round to my case."
9am Briefing: Armed robber to fight conviction 30 years on
Published Date: 18 August 2011 A MAN locked up for the armed robbery of a postal van is still fighting to clear his name almost 30 years after he was convicted. William Beck spent four years in prison after a jury found him guilty of the robbery involving a hammer in Livingston, West Lothian, in December 1981, when around £21,000 in cash was stolen from two postal workers. The father of two has always maintained that he was 40 miles away in Glasgow when the incident took place. The University of Bristol Innocence Project has now taken on Mr Beck's case.
Rough justice plea on robber jailed for four years who still protests his innocence
Aug 21 2011 Marion Scott, Sunday Mail
A legal expert has slammed Scotland's court watchdogs for refusing to back a highprofile miscarriage of justice claim. Dr Michael Naughton, of Bristol University's Innocence Network UK, believes the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission have got it wrong over the Willie Beck case. Dad-of-two Beck, 50, from Dennistoun, Glasgow, has spent more than 30 years protesting his innocence over a 1981 post office robbery in Livingston, West Lothian. Dr Naughton says there is an overwhelming need to "right mistakes that were made". Beck was convicted mainly on identification evidence which the Bristol researchers say was flawed. Dr Naughton said: "The SCCRC contend that ... it is not possible to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that a miscarriage of justice has occurred. Eyewitness misidentification has been accepted worldwide as a leading cause of wrongful convictions." The SCCRC have twice rejected Beck's plea to refer his case to the Appeal Court. Beck, who was jailed for four years, said: "I'd like to think Dr Naughton's findings will change the SCCRC's mind but I'm not holding my breath. "I've been let down by the criminal justice system and blighted by this conviction for the whole of my adult life." The SCCRC said: "We do not comment on individual cases."
Sunday Email [email protected]
|Posted by justiceforwulliebeck on August 24, 2011 at 12:05 PM||comments (0)|
Press release issued 19 August 2011 William Beck was 20 when he was arrested for an armed robbery of a post van in Livingston, Scotland on 16 December 1981. Nearly three decades later, after serving six years of imprisonment for a conviction based exclusively on eyewitness identification, he continues to maintain his innocence. The University of Bristol Innocence Project (UoBIP) has taken on Mr Beck’s case and has today submitted a response on his behalf following two rejections by the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission — the independent public body set up to review alleged miscarriages of justice. Although Mr Beck claims that he was in Glasgow the entire day at the time of the robbery, some 40 miles away from where the crime occurred, he was convicted on the evidence of five eyewitnesses, only two of whom identified Mr Beck in an identity parade. The other three witnesses picked out a volunteer. Eyewitness misidentification has been accepted worldwide as a leading cause of wrongful convictions. Around 75 per cent of post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States are attributed to eyewitness misidentification. In addition, a report by eyewitness identification expert Professor Tim Valentine highlighted various problems with the identification parade procedure and concluded that the evidence against Mr Beck had ‘low probative value’. The UoBIP took on Mr Beck’s case earlier this year when the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission issued a provisional Statement of Reasons stating that they were not minded to refer his conviction to the High Court of Justiciary. Mr Beck’s case was assigned to postgraduate law students Mark Allum and Ryan Jendoubi at the University’s Law School, who produced the response to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission on behalf of Mr Beck. Under the guidance of Dr Michael Naughton, founder of the UoBIP, the students had seven months to get to grips with the facts of the case and issue a response to the provisional decision of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. Their twenty-page response argues that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has applied an unduly high standard in rejecting Mr Beck’s case. They contend that when his conviction is assessed as a whole, it is not possible to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that a miscarriage of justice has not occurred. Mark Allum said: “Mr Beck’s conviction was based primarily upon identification evidence part of which the trial judge referred to as unreliable and part of which he suggested the jury should treat with great care. Recently the courts have become increasingly reluctant to base convictions solely upon eyewitness testimony especially since studies have exposed the fallibility of such testimony. Were this case to come before the courts today it is highly likely that the trial judge would dismiss it. Ryan Jendoubi said: “Mr Beck's case underlines important problems in the way the justice system currently approaches cases of alleged wrongful conviction.” Dr Michael Naughton added: “Ironically, Mr Beck shares the same surname and was arrested on the same day and month as the notorious miscarriage of justice victim Adolf Beck (16 December) who was twice wrongly convicted on mistaken eyewitness identification evidence in 1896 and again in 1901. The case of Adolf Beck led to the establishment of the Court of Criminal Appeal and the introduction of compensation for victims of miscarriage of justice. Over a century later, it seems history may be repeating itself and eyewitness identification evidence is again in the dock.” http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2011/7866.html
|Posted by justiceforwulliebeck on June 12, 2011 at 4:13 PM||comments (0)|
|Posted by justiceforwulliebeck on June 12, 2011 at 7:35 AM||comments (0)|
Cleared robber George Davis won't rest until 'getaway driver' is found innocent
Jun 12 2011 Exclusive by Marion Scott, Sunday Mail
THE victim of a famous miscarriage of justice has backed the fight to clear post office heist getaway driver Willie Beck.
George Davis, 69, last month overturned his conviction for a 1974 armed robbery after a highprofile campaign.
Now he has lent his support to Beck, of Dennistoun, Glasgow, who has spent the past 30 years protesting his innocence.
Dad-of-two Beck, 50, is adamant that he was wrongly jailed over a post office robbery in Livingston in December 1981.
Londoner Davis, who famously won the support of The Who's Roger Daltrey who wore a "George Davis is Innocent" T-shirt on stage in 1975, said: "I hope Willie is allowed to have his case reviewed by the Appeal Court.
"That way, there can be a full and public examination of his case. He will need to be persistent and determined.
"In my case the support of my family and friends helped keep me at it."
Beck has chained himself to buildings, protested across Scotland and posted on YouTube to proclaim his innocence.
Back in 1981, two axe-wielding thugs wearing balaclavas attacked delivery men carrying £21,000 and fled in a Ford Granada.
A witness who saw the driver's face described him as in his 40s with a moustache. He did not identify Beck, who was just 20 at the time and clean shaven.
Two other people - one an off-duty police officer - fingered Beck as the driver.
But a note made by Beck's solicitor stated the officer made the identification "without even looking down the parade".
Beck also claims another man was identified at a second parade and that information was withheld from him.
The second suspect was said to be in his 20s but witnesses said he never removed his balaclava.
Beck - who claims he was told the names of the real robbers during his four years in jail in the 80s - said: "All I want is to clear my name and I'm just as determined as George has been. I'm extremely touched he's backing me. I was convicted of being the driver after two people wrongly picked me out of an identity parade.
"I was in Glasgow at the time of the robbery and look nothing like the description given by eyewitnesses.
"There were inconsistencies and evidence and information has been withheld.
"I've never been allowed an appeal and I've been denied legal aid to clear my name.
"For years, Lothian and Borders Police told the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission they didn't have photographs and crime reports dating back to the incident.
"But in 2005, the police sent me items they assured SCCRC they didn't have.
"Those photographs would have helped an eyewitness expert make a proper determination in my case."
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission have twice refused to put Beck's case to appeal but he has asked them to reconsider.
Lothian and Borders Police said: "Inquiries will be made in order to establish the circumstances of this case."
|Posted by justiceforwulliebeck on May 14, 2009 at 7:50 AM||comments (0)|
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,
|Posted by justiceforwulliebeck on May 9, 2009 at 12:26 PM||comments (10)|
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:(
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
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:
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
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: [email protected]
Subject: Peter Swan
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 03:54:48 +0000
Professor Graham Zellick:Chairman
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.
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.
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:
|Posted by justiceforwulliebeck on April 30, 2009 at 8:32 PM||comments (0)|
|Posted by justiceforwulliebeck on April 29, 2009 at 2:02 PM||comments (0)|
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.
|Posted by justiceforwulliebeck on April 28, 2009 at 1:20 PM||comments (0)|
Contact Details: Karen Torley
Email [email protected]
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.
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.
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.
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
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.