shirleymckie.myfastforum.org

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1141 Location: Glasgow

Agent Marquise is now telling us something I have said for years about SCCRC:

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman....-agent-slams-review-of.5251821.jp

Where have we heard this before:

david · Joined: 01 Mar 2009 Posts: 52 Location: edinburgh

Hopefully this kind of critisism will make people more aware of the SCCRC's incompetence regarding their investigatory skills.

They are a complete joke and bring shame to this country.

David

http://www.freewebs.com/ferniesidethreecampaign/

Pat A. Wertheim · Joined: 23 Apr 2007 Posts: 71 Location: USA

Okay, I'm going to stick up for the SCCRC on this one. The purpose of the defense filing an appeal is to bring new information before the appellate authority on behalf of the convicted person. The appellate authority is not supposed to re-hear all of the prosecution evidence. If they approve the appeal based on new evidence from the defence, then there is supposed to be a retrial. That's where the prosecution gets to put Agent Marquise on the stand again. For the SCCRC to have called on him and relied on his evidence in deciding whether to grant an appeal for Mr. al Megrahi would have been the greatest injustice of all.
_________________
Pat A. Wertheim
foridents@aol.com

david · Joined: 01 Mar 2009 Posts: 52 Location: edinburgh

I agree the SCCRC got the megrahi decision correct in referring the case to the Appeal Court but my concerns arise from the fact there is a blatant clear picture of witnesses not being interviewed who should be interviewed relating to other cases.

For example - they obtain expert opinions on some applicants cases, but at the same time fail other applicants who have the same grounds by not obtaining the same expert opinions..

In my case I was convicted of rape yet the complainer's mother intimated to a member of the Scottish Parliament and a Sunday Broadsheet journalist that her daughter may have made the whole story up. This was clearly fresh evidence important to the question of the complainer's credibility, which was the cornerstone of the case. The SCCRC did not investigate this fresh evidence or interview the MSP, Journalist or the mother.

They are not only expected to investigate everthing that is submitted to them. They can use there iniative and investigate other avenues not submitted by the defence in the interests of justice. Re- HMA v Graham Gordon. Every avenue should be pursued in the interests of justice but the SCCRC are coming up short by not fully utilising their investigatory powers.

They give some cases more of their time and budget whilst others are being poorly investigated.

David

David

Pat A. Wertheim · Joined: 23 Apr 2007 Posts: 71 Location: USA

Hi David

Actually, I think you help to make my point. The appellate authority (in Scotland, I believe that must be the SCCRC) should hear all of the new evidence presented by the defence to decide whether there should be a new trial. The prosecution should have only a very limited right to argue against the appeal.

But the appellate authority should hear every scrap of new evidence the defence wishes to put on. If the scales are to be tipped to the side of the innocent man, if the measure is "better a guilty man go free than an innocent man be convicted," then the scales must be tilted in favor of the defense. In the case of an appeal, that means that the defense should be granted broad right to present evidence while the prosecution is restricted in presenting witnesses.

To have interviewed Agent Marquise in considering whether to grant an appeal would have been a gross violation of this concept. To recall him to testify at a new trial if an appeal is granted is entirely proper.
_________________
Pat A. Wertheim
foridents@aol.com

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1141 Location: Glasgow

I agree with david here,

SCCRC profess to give every case a High Standard Of Probity, Impartially and Independently which quite clearly in some cases is nothing but uttter lies.

Like in Megrahi Tim Valentine was asked for his opinion on Gauci's evidence yet the only evidence against me was two Dubious Identifications and Professor Valentine is not approached.

I had to beg him to do a report Pro-Bono after the SCCRC refused to refer my case.

This cannot be seen to be Independent nor Impartial and certainly shows they give more High standards of Probity to some cases while not to others.

Not once have any experts ever been asked their opinion of David's case either despite the evidence of the Forensic Expert being open to challenge.

It is a bit like Shirley McKie, if she had not had the money to pay for your opinion, Scotland would not have granted her legal Aid for it.

Infact I think Shirley ended up paying a fortune in legal bills, did she not ?

There is a severe reluctance even within SCCRC to pay for expert opinions.

David's case clearly shows the police had the injuries down as "Minor" yet the expert used by the Crown at Trial claimed it was the worse case she had ever come across.

She also claimed she had never examined someone who had had sex with three men before, so how could she give her expert opinion in this case then.
How can she say what the results of Sex with three men would be on a Womans body ?

Some serious questions need to be asked why in some cases experts are used, yet in others they are never asked.

I am very surprised agent Merquise was never asked his opinion because most of the cases I have looked at from SCCRC, they have decided them on the Crown's evidence without looking into the defence case.

Which is totally opposite from Megrahi

_________________
http://justiceforwulliebeck.webs.com/index.htm

http://williambeck.blogspot.com/

http://williambeck.wordpress.com/about/