| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Big Wullie
Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1149
Location: Glasgow
|
Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 11:10 pm Post subject: Sunday Post Article Regarding Disclosure |
|
|
I have been reliably informed that there is to be a story about my case in the Sunday Post today, and in particular regarding the corruption within Crown Office with their reluctance to reveal key Material in my case.
You are going to have to buy the paper if you want to read it or you can wait till later when I get a chance I will link it for all to see.
Best Wishes
Wullie Beck
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
scotkaz

Joined: 28 Aug 2008 Posts: 527
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
allan mcleod
Joined: 10 Jun 2007 Posts: 157
|
Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wullie
Just got Sunday Post. I really feel for what you and your family have had to put up with over the years from those at the highest levels within the Crown office.
I note the comment from the Crown spokesman," The Crown has rigorous procedures in place for complying with all its obligations in relation to the disclosure of evidence". Aye we all know what that procedure is - Never ever disclose this evidence.
We also know this 'Rigorous Procedure' in the case of my nephew Kevin Mcleod from Wick, regarding a prisoner we believe was on weekend release and involved with Kevins death.
The Crown continue to state that its not in their remit to investigate the movements of this prisoner.
This is what were up against Wullie in our fight to get truth and justice.
A corrupt to the core Scottish Justice System.
All the Best |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Lydia
Joined: 06 Nov 2008 Posts: 82
|
Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 1:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well done Wullie and Craig Robertson _________________ We are the parents in Scotland denied justice for our children who had illegal post mortem's or had organs removed illegally at post mortem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Big Wullie
Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1149
Location: Glasgow
|
Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 1:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sunday Post Article 5th April 2009
For a larger more easier, readable version see here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26453069@N02/3416669222/sizes/l/
Once again thanks to Craig Robertson for highlighting these problems I have had for years with Crown Office refusing to release documents pertinent to my case.
My friend DM was placed on an ID Parade directly after me in 1981.
Two years later I met him in Peterhead Prison and he informed me that someone at his Parade was picked Positively.
I can now say with confidence that the Policeman "Nigel Muckle" must have been the person that Identified this person, and given his evidence was: | Quote: | | He only saw the drivers face then he has Identified someone else as the driver of the stolen car |
DM's evidence was capable of totally discrediting the evidence of the Policeman Muckle.
Both ID Parades were sent to SCCRC who now claim they only received the one for which I attended despite Crown's letter enclosing "ALL" ID Parade Reports from my case.
Crown Office are now claiming this second ID Parade report is missing but not destroyed and they never kept copies of what they sent to SCCRC.
Quite clearly as Allan points out it is Never Disclose that will be written on my file, the same as happened with the Birmingham 6.
If they have nothing to hide then what are they afraid of by releasing the ID Parade Report.
DM also gave the police a statement saying he saw me on the day in question 12th December 1981, This statement has never been disclosed to me and as far as I know it wasn't revealed to my defence team either.
The big question now is does anyone think the story will make a difference ?
This will remain to be seen |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
scotkaz

Joined: 28 Aug 2008 Posts: 527
|
Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 12:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wullie
I think the fact that this story is now in the public domain just might make people in "power" re think what they are doing with your case. I live in eternal hope anyway:)
Was just wondering how you can say for sure that the policeman identified someone at the second ID parade?
Was your lawyer aware of this second ID parade? If he was why did he never mention it in court? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
david
Joined: 01 Mar 2009 Posts: 52
Location: edinburgh
|
Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 12:12 pm Post subject: publicity - wullie beck |
|
|
Wullie,
Thats the ball rolling, so get on to as many journalists, press assosiations as possible. Any publicity is good publicity.
Non-Disclosure of your requested documents because the Crown state its in the publics interests is perverse and simply oppressive. There is only one reason you are not obtaining these documents and that is because you were fitted up. The Crown are protecting the people responsible for this injustice and the SCCRC should be ashamed of themselves too. They simply didn't give you the light of day.
Keep up the fight wullie. You certainly have the ammunition.
David |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
scotkaz

Joined: 28 Aug 2008 Posts: 527
|
Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I cannot quite get my head around this "Its not in the public interest" theory that the Crown use to refuse disclosure of evidence in your case or any case for that matter.
What about your interests? Surely everyone has the right to know what is being said about them and what they are accused of doing?
If not then how is this an even playing field? How can someone defend themselves if they do not have all the information against them or information that may be helpful to them?
I have as most know campaigned for many years, mostly in US and the differences I am finding in getting basic information in this country is amazing. I am gobsmacked.
I have suitcases of court documents in my home from the Richey case.
I got trial transcripts, depositions, witness statements, exhibits, affidavits, appeals the defence made, appeal denials. Even the expert reports. I had photographs, in fact the whole lot and it is all public record.
In fact I was watching a US documentary on Kenny's case recently on Sky and even the film makers had more information about the case than most of the people on this forum get in their own cases. They had the taped interviews of Kenny when he was arrested.
I spoke to a few lawyers in US recently and they told me that the defendent gets a copy of their trial transcripts. If they cannot pay then the government pays it. Why can't we have this too?
I am finding what happens in this country so frustrating. I do not know why they feel the need to be so secretive with everything.
I can only but imagine what it must feel like for you guys who are trying to get the information you so badly need and is yours by right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Big Wullie
Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1149
Location: Glasgow
|
Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Scotkaz
| Quote: | | Was just wondering how you can say for sure that the policeman identified someone at the second ID parade? |
With a great deal of searching I discovered after my friend told me that someone was picked Positively that every single witness speaks of either attending or not attending an ID Parade EXCEPT for the Policeman (Muckle) so if DM is correct and someone was picked Positively then it must have been Muckle that picked him.
SCCRC refused to interview DM but interviewed Muckle to allow him to say he never picked anyone at the second parade but why not interview both if as they profess they act Independently ?
David
You are absolutely right in your assertion of SCCRC because now it looks as if they are colluding with Crown Office to hide this second ID Parade which they deny ever seeing.
I must post their letters soon for all to see.
Scotkaz you also asked:
| Quote: | | Was your lawyer aware of this second ID parade? If he was why did he never mention it in court? |
According to the notes I have found with the lawyers own handwriting he seems to have been aware that someone was picked at DM's Id Parade Positively see note below:
If he wasn't aware of it then he failed in his duty to fully represent me to the best of his ability because as I said every witness apart from Muckle mentioned a second ID Parade
Though I do not know if he ever asked for this second ID Parade report or not but it is not amongst the documents he gave me after I sacked him in 1982
From the Forensic report obviously DM was a suspect too, see here:
They went to the bother of taking hair samples from him too.
Though this evidence was never heard either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
scotkaz

Joined: 28 Aug 2008 Posts: 527
|
Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wullie
I note it says the hammers came back negative for blood and hair. Also so did the jackets.
So it is safe to presume neither of these things were involved in any robbery.
Surely that should have been the end of that!
I take it they found nothing in their search for weapons etc?
I just do not get how they could use these things as evidence of guilt when they actually do the opposite.
At the end of the day it seems all you were convicted on is some dodgy eye witness testimony. mmmmmm! It stinks to the high heavens
My other question is if they had you "banged to rights" in their eyes, then why the need for a second ID parade anyway?
Your lawyer really did a bad job of lawyering in your case. With friends like him who needs enemies.
_________________ Great Spirit, grant that I may not criticize my neighbor until I have walked a mile in his moccasins." - Old Native American Indian Prayer that my dad taught me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|