Man who treated rape case as 'joke' fights to clear name
Date: 27 January 2010
By Brian Horne
A CONVICTED rapist who boasted about his sex life while being questioned by detectives yesterday continued his eight-year fight to clear his name.
Former golf professional Graham Gordon, 49, even pinched a policewoman's bottom during the 2002 investigation and asked her what she did with her handcuffs at weekends. He later admitted assaulting a police officer.
In the main trial a jury found him guilty of forcing himself on a 43-year-old mother after picking her up at an Aberdeen nightclub and taking her back to his flat in Bridge of Don.
Gordon has been protesting his innocence ever since the incident in August 2001. He was freed after serving four years of a five-year sentence but is continuing to appeal against his conviction with the backing of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which investigates possible miscarriages of justice.
At the trial in September 2002 the complainant said Gordon had pulled her on to his living room floor, pulled her clothes off and had sex with her, ignoring her protests. Gordon insisted the woman was a willing partner – but a jury rejected his claims and found him guilty.
The court heard that Gordon had treated the investigation as "a huge joke" and said he could not remember what had happened because he had bedded 15 women in the previous fortnight.
At the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh yesterday, Gordon – conducting his own defence – claimed that Grampian Police had held back forensic evidence that would have helped his case.
The appeal before Lady Paton, sitting with Lords Carloway and Philip, continues.
David has an interest in this case because the SCCRC actually used this guys appeal to refuse their appeal.
Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 8:55 pm Post subject: graham gordon
I know Graham was represented by a solicitor from Glasgow who has a bad reputation. Obviously he disposed of his services. I don't believe he would defend himself voluntarily although he is highly intelligent and knowledgeable of the Law. I suppose that is hardly a substitute for an experience legal practioner. He is wrong in representing himself. There has been problems in this case with judges who are not happy at the amount of time and adjourments that have taken place. Graham told me that after judges sanctioned release of documents from the crown to the defence, the crown were still playing hard ball. Two years passed and the documents were still not disclosed.
The non-disclosure in this case is frightening. The investigatory report by Northern Constabulary against Grampian Police's handling of the case is alarming. The police have done everything to block its publication. Freedom of Information Commissioner has sanctioned some of the report for release. I wonder why the whole report has not been released?
I believe this case will assist many people who have had their human rights breached by non-disclosure. Medical evidence also contradicts the complainer who has admitted lying previously. I hope he wins.
Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 9:56 pm Post subject: Re: graham gordon
I've read about this case and it appears that there is a lot of discrepancies from Crown/Police.
It appears to be highly unfortnate that he had to represent himself, but from what I hear, he did not have an option.
This man appears to be continuing his fight for justice, even after completing his sentence, therefore it makes you think that, he is not trying to 'get out of jail' to reduce his sentence, but purely to clear his name for something that did not happen.
It appears that this is an extremely hard battle and that you have to have the legal profession who have 'balls' to stand up for him, or like what happened, he represented himself. In the interest of fairness, where does representing yourself appear when you're trying to prove a miscarriage of justice!!
Here is a press release in Graham Gordons case which has just recently been brought to my attention.
____________________________________________
MEDIA RELEASE - FOR IMMEDIATE PUBLICATION - Graham Gordon v HMA
*** Without Prejuice ***
It is a material fact that Grampian Police Force lied to the Gordon Family for a period of 2 years that forensics were never done in this case and an unreserved apology for their incompetence with regards to the sub-standard level of investigation in this case following the findings of an independent police investigation does not suffice. Some of the excuses for Grampian Police Force's unacceptable performance in this rape case involved a lack of supervision, procedures needing reviewed, training and counselling when this involved experienced offcers specialising in this area plus there were very clear guidelines from the Scottish Executive and Standing Orders in place which is at complete odds with the 'independent?' police report.
This Force has one of the poorest records of any force in Scotland and it is in the public interest that the standards that are being applied in rape cases are not good enough, plus cost and resources should not be a factor. Their solution for lying on oath, suppressing evidence, wilful conduct and failure to carry out their statutory duties is fast-track promotion for DS to DI Innes Walker and DC to DS Ian Scott Thomson whilst still the subject of serious complaints. The Crown refused to look at transcripts which proved lies were told on oath by these officers and whilst breaches of the Police Conduct Regulations have been identified the force's modus operandi is to unlawfully exercise discretionary powers not to hold such gross misconduct accountable - police are not above the law, they are there to uphold and comply with the statutory provisions like the rest of the community.
This particular case involves a women who admitted fabricating several stories, with the final version being 5 miles away & indoors as opposed to outdoors. Does the Crown not have a special duty of care in light of such revelations to proceed with caution when the accused claims his black clothing (offered but not taken on a search warrant after it was clearly visible there were no fibres) was never on a beige woolen floor OR SHOULD THEY HIDE things that do not support their ever changing theories? which started off with a date rape theory, then use of force which was not supported by way of medical evidence and then resulting to melodramatics from the A.D Drew McKenzie who launched an attack on character which no relevance to the henious crime libelled. This A.D had in his possession The Hindmarsh Report as a production which confirmed the complainer was mildly intoxicated and proceeded to lead evidence that the women was drunk & vulnerable and they had not done forensics, when work was commissioned by the Crown to the contrary - is this oppressive and immoral?
What does the Crown do when the Police suppress, lose and destroy material to compromise a right to a fair trial? When these garments are unearthed, which were not disclosed by the Crown for trial, does the Crown have a duty of care and as a matter of fairness to ensure that such garments are removed from any contact with this body who are mentioned in the grounds of appeal; are part of an independent Northern Constabulary Report with 20 serious and significant acts and omissions; and are part of the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission referral? OR DO YOU ALLOW GRAMPIAN POLICE, the same body to hold these in their safe custody when they have a convenient habit of losing and suppressing evidence in the case and forgeting/ remembering the same things, and when the Crown has been made aware that this Force lied for 2 years about the non-existence of this crucial evidence? An undertaken was given by Supt Mike Kelman at Grampian Police Force that ALL such evidence would be retained until the Graham Gordon appeal was heard.
The Media might be able to establish from this organisation or the Lord Advocate howcome these garments were lost? Contact details for GPF Chief Constable are Colin.McKerracher@grampian.pnn.police.uk
The Crown allowed this body to take custody of two pieces of evidence - one e mail goes missing that confirms wilful and malicious conduct on the part of DI Innes Walker at Grampian Police Force relating to the suppression of a charge made against Graham Gordon's complainer and the second relates to MISSING CLOTHING.
As a Dad, with a grown-up son and daughter who both go out socialising, are you ready for what should be a matter of serious public concern to every woman and man out there - cost and time were the identified elements in not doing medicals and forensics (blatant lie). This total fabrication was issued in the name of Grampian Police Force by DS (now D.I) Innes Walker who was the subject of a complaint and decided to write back to the Gordon Family with an illegible signature and no role identification on the letter, when as a Sergeant at the time, he had no locus to do so. He said the Professional Standards Dpt said it was okay, but there is no record and he conveniently once again cannot recall the name of who authorised this. This is the same operation who through CI Ian McGrory, Head of their Professional Standards Department threatened my elderly mother to "back-off" when making law-abiding enquiries after taking legal counsel - they then conjured up some implausible story to discredit my elderly mother. The Information Commissioner found such spurious allegations to be neither credible or plausible and ruled against them. The Head of Professional Standards, who has a full realisation of what is permissable under such legislation, was found to be in breach of the Data Protection Act by disclosing private data without the knowledge or consent of the data subject. This is clearly defined as misconduct under Police Regulations but no action has been taken & it is now subject of Independent Police Commissioner investigation.The mendacity at Grampian Police Force is so engrained it is endemic. What sort of CORRUPT operation is this?
The Rape Crisis Units and the likes of Des Utley who was recently found on the 10th December 2009 after a 6 1/2 years struggle (having been the subject of a similar false rape accusation) with forensics confirming what he said was true. Do we have the right to ask what is going on when the rape conviction rates are so low, resulting in genuine women not being treated seriously enough and men getting wrongly convicted without full use of forensic science? Is this not surprising when these are the standards rubber stamped by the Lord Advocate in her past and present role. The Lord Advocate was responsible for prosecuting this case when she was PF in Aberdeen and is now accountable for full disclosure of evidential material that has gone missing and is covered within the attached Devolution Minute.
In terms of my case, you may feel the likes there similarities in the McKie and Al Megrahi cases and now Lord Advocate has failed to disclose forensic evidence and the garments that goes to the heart of the case have now went missing? See the Lord Advocate's position in this regard by reference to the McDonald case on disclosures which is nothing more than rhetoric on her part. Graham Gordon has been waiting since October 2007 to get a full disclosure and now they wish him to go ahead with his appeal when he is not ready to table serious forensic revelations.
An independent Professor's Report states verbatim, "For example, confirmation that fibre tapings had actually be taken was only obtained within the last week, despite specific requests stretching back to 2008 at least. The nature and content of the responses to these requests from the Crown office gives the impression of being deliberately obstructive and has not been helpful to the Defence or the Court"
Does this sounds like another Al Megrahi and Shirley McKie Scottish Criminal System cover-up where the 'System' just cannot be wrong, but also cannot be seen to be wrong? The Crown and Police must be the only business organisation which does not make mistakes and are not held accountable and the lack of case law apart from Johnston & Allison is an indictment of such facts.
I have tried to quietly get matters dealt with some dignity after being at liberty for a considerable period of time after having served 3 years and 4 months in prison and still continue to be harassed by Grampian Police Force who lost this material evidence to be used at appeal stage.
The Crown have purposefully hindered this Appeal and may wish this to be dealt with as low key and watered-down as possible but it will not be happening. Please find attached a Devolution Minute served on the Lord Advocate which may be the subject of discussion at the High Court of Justiciary on Tuesday, 26th January, 2010. Justice does not just need to be done, it needs to be seen to be done.
I currently await confirmation of whether the Court is going to make me go-ahead in the full knowledge of the serious content of this forensic report which will require additional grounds of appeal to be formulated to expand upon the SCCRC referral which has not suitably and sufficiently addressed the question of forensics and oppressive conduct of the Crown. The delay of this appeal, as the independent Professor of Science has identified, lies with the Crown not the Appellant. The Appellant has a reliance on a three part test from the Privy Council as a matter of fairness on the 'authorities' major contribution to such delays. Since such matters may have to go the Supreme Court and ECHR, I invite you along to report on what is debated at the High Court of Justiciary on Tuesday, 26th January, 2010.
Information on these legal proceedings can be obtained from jmoyes@scotcourts.gov.uk who has been very helpful in the administration of Justice.
Regards
Graham Gordon, the subject of a Miscarriage of Justice
------ End of Forwarded Message
______________________________________________
If successful I believe this case will highlight the extremes the judiciary as a whole will go to in trying to increase rape convictions no matter if one is innocent.
Another case where a so called rape victim has lied continuously but has been supported by the police and the Crown. Another case where evidence has went missing.
If Graham is successful at the Appeal Court then I believe the Police and the Crown will be in big trouble. Hopefully he also pursues Perjury charges against the complainer.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
