shirleymckie.myfastforum.org

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1149 Location: Glasgow

Watched this on the news earlier and heard this girl had contacted Ross's defence team at the time of trial but she heard no more.

This certainly calls into question the actions of Donald Findlay and he has refused to comment.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7740160.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/7739341.stm

Edited to include this link to the herald with a little more detail:

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/n..._killer_in_Orkney_murder_case.php

It is also worthwhile to note he has had successful Defective Representation cases against him proved in court.

John Hemphill being the most prominent here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1300889.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1694198.stm

The other was named Brian Kelly and referred by SCCRC to appeal:

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/XC458.html

http://www.scotsman.com/scotland/DNA-flaws-set-to-clear.2481141.jp

Then The Glasgow trial went through three Juries and culminated in two people getting the biggest sentences ever handed out in Scotland from Lord Hardie.

They accused Donald Findlay of incompetence and there was talk that they threatened to take out contracts on him:

http://blogs.notw.co.uk/newsofthe...land/2008/05/real-story-of-s.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7379654.stm

Now this case shows the defence never bothered to interview competent Key witness's

Anyone thinking of hiring Mr Findlay should always do a background check like the link below:

http://news.google.co.uk/archives...n&ned=uk&sa=N&start=0

Some prominent cases he has lost are:

Luke Mitchell.
Nat Fraser.
Glasgow Garage Murders.
John Hemphill.
Brian Kelly, Ex Police.
Patrick Docherty.
Michael Ross.
Kim Galbraith.

His name has popped up a few times with Lord Hardie in circumstantial cases which he has lost too.

Angeline · Joined: 02 Oct 2008 Posts: 148

I'm almost speechless after reading this post (I did say almost!!!)

A witness in the Luke Mitchell case who came forward at the time claims he was dismissed again and again by Luke's own defence team.

When Luke designated a person as Power of Attorney, because he could not get satisfactory communication with his defence team, and they refused to communicate with his mother, Findlay refused, point blank, to have any communication with the Power of Attorney, even though this was Luke's express instruction.

There are several questions arising from DNA evidence which has lain on this boy's file for 5 years, evidence which, on reading the other case posted here, would most certainly raise very serious doubts - none of this went before the jury, and it seems the original team simply sat on it.

We really do need to find a way of making these legal people accountable, whether it's solicitors. QCs or judges.
_________________
As long as one heart still holds on, then hope will never really be gone

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1149 Location: Glasgow

Hi Angeline

I am not surprised at these claims at-all.

Don't forget I have been saying the same about William Taylor QC for coming up 27 years.

He came to my case on the Friday because Kevin Drummond let me down at the last minute, and my trial started on the Monday.

Mr Taylor has stated in my case he was unaware of certain evidence, coming to a case with just a weekend to prepare would explain his comments yet SCCRC do not even bother to look at my claims that my defence team never bothered to interview 16 of 19 of my defence witness's.

They never interviewed any of the witness's I put forward including my Father, Brother, Cousins and aunt.

My Defence Lawyer (Keegan Same as Gage) has since claimed the witness's must have refused to co-operate and Crown Supplied their statements, though SCCRC claimed Crown Precognitions were not made available to my defence team in 1982. Who is right SCCRC or Keegan ?

If true then my defence team went to trial without first taking any precognitions. "Serious Massive Defective Representation"

This is not the first time Mr Findlay has been brought to everyone's attention and he needs investigating by the Dean Of Faculty.

They should all complain.

After all they investigated his singing antics which in my view were not as serious as these allegations.

If what you say is true then I do not think Mitchell should have used Findlay for his appeal.

You do know he can revoke the "Nobile Officium" of the court with a Defective Representation Ground Of Appeal ?

This would allow him back into the appeal court without the need to go to SCCRC or Europe.

If his defence team refuse to apply for this Nobile Officium he can do so himself or someone else can do so on his behalf.

It is sent just like an application for leave to appeal to the High Court only addressed as an application to Nobile Officium.

I am sure his Solicitor (whom I know) is aware of this option.

Luke Mitchell's case is one I am not entirely comfortable with as with the Wullie Gage case.

There is also the option of going to the Innocence Project which has just recently started in Scotland.

If anyone needs an application for this project then please send me a PM and I will send an application form to them which they will be able to download, sign and send if to Bristol University.

This option I would suggest is only available for people who have had appeals rejected but the sooner the application is in, the better chance of being allocated to a student.

Defective Representation is not widely accepted as a ground of appeal by our courts yet John Hemphill won his case on forensic evidence alone not being called at the time of his trial which exonerated him.

Best wishes

scotkaz · Joined: 28 Aug 2008 Posts: 527

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Findlay

Some very interesting details on Findlay.

He was fined £3,500 by the Faculty of Advocates.

See above link

Angeline · Joined: 02 Oct 2008 Posts: 148

He was fined £3,500 - from his salary of £350,000. That'll teach him!

Wullie, I am aware of the things you've posted here, but it's good to have them posted for anyone else who might not know. Thanks anyway.

One thing that really puzzles me about Findlay, though, is how he's come to be seen as Scotland's top defence QC, when so many of the people he defended are in jail! It seems like the old story - repeat an untruth often enough (especially in the media) and it somehow becomes a truth.

Given his apparently suicidal feelings over the media pursuit of him, you'd think he'd have had some understanding of the pressure a kid like Luke Mitchell was under, yet this is the man who refused to listen to the boy, and went ahead and did exactly what he wanted to do.

There's always the danger of the exclusive nature of positions like Findlay's causing them to lose touch with reality (look at the decisions of some of our judges), and it's terrifying to realise just how much power Findlay and those like him hold.

When Wullie said, above, Luke could have used someone different for his appeal, sadly, for many people in that position, they don't know or realise that until it's too late. Even having lost the case, they still trust their defence team to be "doing the best they can" - it's only later, when it all goes even more horribly wrong, that it finally dawns on them. I know for certain in the LM case, it wasn't until they changed teams that it started to become apparent just how badly they'd been let down.

I'd say to any innocent person facing serious charges, keep asking questions, and keep demanding answers - don't let your "team" tell you what to do, especially if you don't undertand why. Remember, they're just playing a game - it's your life that's at stake.

_________________
As long as one heart still holds on, then hope will never really be gone