|Posted by justiceforwulliebeck on May 9, 2009 at 12:26 PM|
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: