shirleymckie.myfastforum.org

Iain McKie · Joined: 08 May 2007 Posts: 263 Location: Ayr, Scotland.

ISSUES FOR JUDICIAL ENQUIRY

In the lead up to the judicial enquiry I intend to highlight some issues that I hope the enquiry will investigate. While I have every confidence that the enquiry under Lord Chief Justice Campbell and his team will finally reveal the truth I am also aware that before any evidence is taken there is a massive amount of sometimes contrary information to understand and assimilate. My ongoing analysis of the thousands of documents I have been able to access has revealed a number of important issues that I hope the enquiry will turn its attention to and I intend to highlight some of them in the coming weeks and months.
………………………………………………………………………………………………

‘Two mistakes were made by SCRO’

While the fact remains that the SCRO and their supporters have never been supported by a single independent enquiry over 11 years they will doubtless continue their policy of seeking to pull the wool over the eyes of the Judicial Enquiry in the way they did with the Justice 1 Enquiry.

At this latter enquiry the fact that we are not looking at one mistake but two – the so called ‘Shirley McKie (Y7) and ‘Marion Ross’ (QI2) prints - was studiously avoided. The sub-judice rule was misused by the enquiry, the SCRO experts and the Crown Office to avoid having to face this fact and allowed the SCRO experts and their supporters to propagate the fiction that there was a genuine ‘difference of opinion’ between experts.

The separation of these mistakes over the years by the Crown Office however points to a separate agenda that has little to do with who murdered Marion Ross and ascertaining the truth and more to do with covering up the lies and mistakes within every level of the Scottish justice system.

For the judicial enquiry to do its job it is my contention that both mistakes must be examined. This is clearly allowed for in the remit as the QI2 ‘mistake’ was revealed as a ‘consequence’ of the revelation that print ‘Y7’ was wrong.

Some issue to come:

• Admission of mistakes

• Misuse of the sub-judice rule.

• Why no prosecution of the SCRO experts

• Why are experts who support the misidentification still working within the SPSA

• The Lockerbie link.

• The issue of ‘difference of opinion’.

kevin donald · Joined: 29 Oct 2007 Posts: 198

Iain

All i can say is i hope the murder of Marion Ross is reopened.
That is the only way Justice can be done for Shirley and all concerned.

Good luck with the enquiry.

Nought Justice · Joined: 27 Feb 2008 Posts: 39 Location: Edinburgh

just some questions
best wishes for the inquiry
do you have any timeline for kick off
do you think that lot will ever admit their mistakes
any ideas yet for the venue
can anyone attend this inquiry
what has lockerbie to do with shirleys case

Iain McKie · Joined: 08 May 2007 Posts: 263 Location: Ayr, Scotland.

Dear Nought Justice,

Thanks for highlighting the need for enquiry into the Police investigation of the death of Marion Ross. The killer has apparently never really been pursued since Shirley was acquitted in 1999 and the evidence that led to the conviction of David Asbury was thrown out. There have been insinuations, even at Lord Advocate level, that if only other evidence the police obtained had worked out then he would still have been in jail and Shirley would have been convicted of perjury. It is time to hear that evidence because while the enquiry cannot retry anyone it can probe the reasons leading up to the misidentification of the two fingerprints that were so important to the police in bringing charges.

We have no start date or venue for the enquiry although it is anticipated that there will be preliminary hearings this year. While I anticipate it will be held in Edinburgh there are a number of valid reasons for it coming to Glasgow.

As far as I am aware the enquiry will be open to the public although there is provision for private sessions should the judge so decide.

It is of course absolutely essential that all witnesses are under oath when giving their testimony. This is the best hope we can have of the truth being heard.

The ‘Lockerbie connection’ has been well covered in the media and on shirleymckie.com

http://news.scotsman.com/shirleym...into-Lockerbie-link-to.3291677.jp

http://www.google.com/search?sour...Aen&q=Shirley+McKie+Lockerbie

While I have faith in the up and coming enquiry to get to the truth it is important that potential issues are identified and discussed in a sensible and objective manner. This is not to pre-judge anything but to ensure that the enquiry has every piece of relevant information at its disposal to allow a fair and just decision to be reached. It is also the opportunity for those who have suffered injustice to voice their opinions on just what they would like to see examined.

Best wishes,

Iain

Iain McKie · Joined: 08 May 2007 Posts: 263 Location: Ayr, Scotland.

Issues of Criminality

The MacKay Report ended:

kevin donald · Joined: 29 Oct 2007 Posts: 198

Iain i still cannot think that there is not a link between Marion Ross and Margaret Irvine.

Was it the same officers or could they not get the latter wrong with Shirley in the background.

Think about it 2 old ladies killed on there patch and for a long time them running in circles.

If anything that comes out the enquiry it should help the families of both woman.

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

What a great quote from MacKay above.

But what are the chances of them finding Criminality this time Iain when they have this damn culture to cover up, at all costs.

It appears they have a greater fear of the public opinion of them, than to come out and admit they got it wrong.

Why this lot have been able to continue to deny any wrongdoing for so long beggars belief.

Will the whole MacKay report ever be made public do you think ?

Surely the Lord Advocate would have been better to just have sacked this lot, At least then they might have been able to recover some dignity and credibility.

I really hope Ms McBride loses her unfair dismissal claim because I feel they deserve no better, and they should all have been sacked.

As for Lockerbie
I do not think they wanted any dispute over fingerprints until after their trial for the same reason SCCRC never investigated my Grounds.
How can people like us bring them into disrepute ?

Lets face it every aspect of Incompetence in my trial comes back to the QC who conducted my trial, and then went on to defend Megrahi.

We all know who he is.

Bring on the Enquiry

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

Hi Iain

I was sent the following link and feel compelled to link it with the following comment:
When will there ever be this kind of enquiry into Shirley's case and all the others this lot at SCRO where involved in ?

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,109568,00.html

Surely after one reads this article they can only conclude the same can be said of SCRO who wrongly identified Two Prints, Shirley's and Asbury's, Why no large scale Enquiry into all their past cases ?

Why no large scale Appeals ?
_________________
http://justiceforwulliebeck.webs.com/index.htm

http://williambeck.blogspot.com/

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

Iain McKie · Joined: 08 May 2007 Posts: 263 Location: Ayr, Scotland.

An announcement is expected in the next few days re the enquiry website being established to inform the public on enquiry related matters. We also expect to hear the date of the first session and the arrangments being made to obtain evidence.

Iain McKie · Joined: 08 May 2007 Posts: 263 Location: Ayr, Scotland.

ISSUES FOR JUDICIAL INQUIRY

In the lead up to the judicial Inquiry I intend to highlight some issues that I hope it will investigate. While I have every confidence that the inquiry under Lord Chief Justice Campbell and his team will finally reveal the truth I am also aware that before any evidence is taken there is a massive amount of sometimes contrary information to understand and assimilate.
..................................................................................................................................................................................

’Why no prosecution of the SCRO experts?’

As our enquiry team carries out it’s analysis of thousands of documents, reports and statements collected over the past 11 years a fascinating trail of evidence is being revealed explaining why the Lord Advocate decided not to prosecute the experts after their criminality had been identified in James MacKay’s 2000 police enquiry report.

We could never understand why this decision was taken in the face of an overwhelming mass of evidence pointing to the SCRO experts being wrong. Unfortunately at the Justice 1 Enquiry two major witnesses who could have cast light on the decision were never called to give evidence despite a plea to the convenor Pauline McNeill to do so.

The latest analysis reveals that the then Procurator Fiscal, Mr William Gilchrist, who carried out his own enquiry on behalf of the Lord Advocate and Harry Bell head of the SCRO possibly worked hand in hand to ensure that the experts never faced a court and were driven more by self interest and the needs of the Lockerbie prosecution than by any desire to reveal the truth. As with the experts the only other explanation is total incompetence – not something they were guilty of in the past.

We have also discovered that statements made by the Lord Advocate and other Crown Office officials in relation to Mr Gilchrist’s enquiry were inaccurate – whether purposely so remains to be assessed by the coming inquiry.

In addition the Lord Advocate’s decision to grant the experts immunity from prosecution in 2001 looks shakier as time goes by and it appears that even now these experts could be prosecuted if evidence is revealed of a concerted effort to hide the truth and thus pervert the course of justice since they were granted immunity.

While the Inquiry will not have the power to examine such claims directly it will be empowered to refer any such matters for further investigation.

Some issue to come:

• Why no admission of mistakes?

• Misuse of the sub-judice rule.

• Why are experts who support the misidentification still working within the SPSA?

• The Lockerbie link.

• The issue of ‘difference of opinion’.

• How many police/experts were aware of criminal behaviour?