shirleymckie.myfastforum.org

freethekillie2 · Joined: 27 Apr 2007 Posts: 309

ANOTHER CASE OF FIT UP IN OUR POLICE FORCE!

http://www.myspace.com/freewilliegage

http://www.mojoscotland.com/william_gage/william_gage3.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4650868.stm

HOW MANY MORE HAS TO BE DENIED JUSTICE?

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

William Gage and SCCRC.

It has been brought to my attention now that SCCRC have refused to refer the case of William Gage to Appeal Court, Bringing the total of complaints to SCCRC against ....MODERATED.... to three now.
It now beggars the question: Is ....MODERATED....above reproach within SCCRC.

It would appear that while SCCRC spent over 1 Million investigating Lockerbie they are unwilling to investigate defective Representation Grounds by anyone.
Not surprising considering that 95% of SCCRC are from the Legal Establishment like Lawyers and Procurator Fiscals.
When set up under section 194 of crime and punishment act 1997 they were supposed to be independent of Judicial system, A test that seems to have been forgotten.
One third only were meant to be Legally minded and from the legal establishment and two thirds independent see here at section 25 on the left under Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission Sections 194.(5) & (6):
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1...n/ukpga_19970048_en#pt2-pb1-l1g20

I believe William Gage's case to be very similar to mine in the respect of being Defectively Represented by his defence team and i can relate to his complaints as i have complained of the same lawyer since 1982.
Mr gage has said in the following article: Considering his lawyer was working for the other side:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4650868.stm

This is not surprising either as he seemed totally oblivious to the evidence in my case and never interviewed 16 of 19 defence witnesses.

I am also aware that the case of the Edinburgh three charged with rape also complained to SCCRC about the conduct ....MODERATED....and can be found here:
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2006CSOH112.html

And on SCCRC web here:
http://www.sccrc.org.uk/viewfile.aspx?id=181
I find it very strange that SCCRC chose to name these three people when the High Court only used their intitials, considering the SCCRC have a non disclosure policy when not referring cases.

I understand though that this decision by SCCRC is not their final one, Mr Gage has time to submit further submissions (Usually 21 days) but can be extended for months if need be.
Lets hope they will find in favour, but please don't hold your breath ....MODERATED....sits on too many Judicial committees including law Society and High Court.

Edited today Saturday Jan 19th to include the following Petition:

http://www.gopetition.co.uk/petitions/free-willie-gage.html

Iain McKie · Joined: 08 May 2007 Posts: 262 Location: Ayr, Scotland.

The issue of the ‘reluctance’ of the SCCRC (and the appeal courts) to face up to the issue of ‘defective legal representation’ is I believe a very serious one providing further evidence of an incestuous and unjust legal system.

While I believe that the SCCRC mainly consists of well meaning individuals I believe it shares a culture with the other main legal institutions that values the survival of the current system above all else.

I can well see if you allow every accused to claim defective representation you could open floodgates that the guilty would seek to exploit to their advantage. This said there must be a balance and in the cases of Wullie Beck, William Gage and even Lockerbie there appears clear prima-facie evidence that for whatever reasons the witnesses and evidence needed to prove innocence was not brought before the courts. The old argument that this was mainly defence tactics will not wash as anyone reading the appeal judgements and other papers will quickly realise.

Willie Gage’s case in addition to throwing up questions about the objectivity of the SCCRC and defective representation also throws up serious doubts about the importance placed on DNA evidence and in general expert evidence by our courts, juries and lawyers. While the Gage case is complex the only evidence that had the potential to convict him was the DNA evidence found in the burning car. I am sure this swayed the jury and eventually the appeal court.

It is clear to me that he was convicted because the DNA evidence was accepted as infallible by the court and because his defence fell far short of what he could have expected.

The identification evidence is a total shambles and consists of vacillating witnesses one of whom speaks of being able to identify the accused by his eyes and his eyes alone when a considerable distance away and under street lighting. The evidence of what the killer was wearing is also inconsistent and the conditions under which some of it was gathered should have been challenged.

How the contradictory evidence by reluctant witnesses about different makes of car and descriptions of the killer was not more effectively challenged remains a mystery and frankly at times it appears as if the defence were ill prepared and did not really understand their brief.

The whole problem is that given the poverty of the supporting evidence (that was very cleverly presented by the prosecution) all you are left with is smoke and mirrors and the DNA evidence found in a car abandoned only 500 yards from a police office and set on fire in a manner that virtually guaranteed that the fire would quickly burn out through lack of oxygen.

The integrity of this evidence now becomes crucial and yet it seems this was hardly challenged by the defence.

On any objective analysis the performance of the defence appears at best ineffective and at worst negligent.

MSP Alex Neil is taking a close interest in the Gage case in terms of a successful further appeal and establishing what the case says about the effectiveness of the SCCRC - an organisation that apparently is totally unsupervised and unchallenged.

As I have said before it is not my role to decide on anyone's guilt or innocence. What I do know however is that an increasing number of convictions do not stand up to critical examination. My worry is if I can see this why can the legal system not acknowledge its imperfections and move to change?

PeterCherbi · Joined: 23 May 2007 Posts: 167 Location: Edinburgh

#Big Wullie & Iain McKie

The SCCRC of course, as all institutions embedded into the legal establishment, suffer from a lack of transparency or accountability - and they seem to be demonstrating these negative values in the Gauge case very well.

Iain points out very well that most or all of these institutions are concerned more with self preservation than actually taking a stand on issues that are supposed to fall within their remit.

I think with the problems of the DNA evidence and the lack of an effective challenge by the defence as I read matters, the SCCRC has to be more open about what it will look at and consider. However, I don't believe the SCCRC as it currently stands, can be modifed to do this job properly.

What people need when it comes to dealing with appeals and issues of law, is an organisation which will give substantive answers supported at every turn by evidence, a basis or point of law - adherent to ECHR - not simply refusals to look at anything or excuses to do nothing, simply based on the unsaid reason the case may be 'too hot to handle' or might 'bring in a flood of similar cases later on'.

The Gauge case should be heard, but that will depend on more political support, and a decent legal team to do the work.

In the meanwhile, people should really be turning their heads to what must replace the SCCRC, as there are simply too many questions over its function which should not be.
_________________
My blog on issues of injustice in Scotland A Diary of Injustice in Scotland by Peter Cherbi

Injustice Scotland Campaign website : Injustice Scotland

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

Found this here :

2. Gangland killing.
William Gage has been convicted of murder. A gunman was lying in wait for the victim when he returned home. Hearing the shots outside her home, the wife of the victim saw the gunman, wearing a hood and a scarf over his lower face, fleeing the scene at night from a distance of about 11m. The witness said in her statement that she would not be able to recognise the man again. Several witnesses gave consistent descriptions of the jacket worn by the killer. Subsequently the police unexpectedly showed the victim's widow a manikin dressed in clothing linked to the accused, but which differed from the clothing described in some significant aspects. The prosecution relied on a dock identification by the victim's widow during the trial. Valentine Moore Associates examined the identification evidence in the case at the request of the Miscarriages of Justice Organisation. Subsequently Professor Valentine was interviewed on camera for a BBC Scotland documentary on William Gage's unsuccessful appeal ("Beyond Reasonable Doubt?").

http://www.valentinemoore.co.uk/recent.htm

World renowned Professor Valentine calls into question the Verdict in the Gage Case.

Much reliance was placed on a white SAAB being the car used in the commission of this murder.
There was DNA linking Gage to this SAAB but no evidence it left Easterhouse in the East end af Glasgow Travelled to Cambuslang and Back to Easterhouse
When i say no evidence i mean there was absolutely no evidence, No CCTV Footage and no eye sightings which one would expect.
The evidence at Trial taken at it's highest related to at best to a White Maestro, Metro, Volvo 440 and one witness saying the car he saw was "Not A SAAB"

The Judge in this case directed that the Jury must find Gage Guilty of the second charge to have enough evidence to convict for the murder.
The Jury found him not Guilty on the second charge and guilty of Murder.

Absolutely shocking verdict because it shows not only did the jury not listen to the judge in Law issues such as no proof but they totally went against all the judges directions.
The first charge the judge said did not have sufficient evidence he even described the evidence of the Wife as Uncorroborated and Extremely Contradictory.
Basically the judge was saying there was no evidence of the murder if the car could not be tied to it.
The judge was therefore wrong to allow this case to proceed.

No case to answer should have been submitted but despite all this evidence Mr Gage's Solicitor Advocate agrees at his appeal there was a sufficiency of evidence.

No points for Guessing who his advocate was then -------------- Yes the very same one i have complained about for twenty six years now.

Lets hope SCCRC agree with Professor Tim Valentine that the evidence of the wife, after giving five previous statements all of a sudden changes her evidence to describe clothes the police showed her on a Tailors dummy which totally contradict her five previous statements.

Her evidence at best and taken at it's highest was only that Gage had the same eyes, No wonder the judge described it as contradictory and uncorroborated Yet Gage lies in Jail awaiting the outcome of SCCRC investigation to see if he will be able to appeal.

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

Wullie Gage's Appeal.

Having said all the above it is worth a read of the actual appeal here:

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2006hcjac7.html

[20] The ambit of section 106(3)(b) has been discussed in several decisions. In King v. H.M. Advocate, 1999 J.C. 226, at pages 228G to 229A, the court observed:

"In seeking to formulate the appropriate test we begin with the words of section 106(3)(b). If we ask in what circumstances there may be the kind of miscarriage of justice which the provision covers, then it is obvious first of all that the jury will have returned a verdict convicting the appellant, since section 106 as a whole deals with appeals by persons who have pled guilty or been convicted by a jury. So the verdict to which section 106(3)(b) refers is a guilty verdict. The miscarriage of justice therefore arises where the jury return a guilty verdict which no reasonable jury properly directed could have returned. The test is objective: the court must be able to say that no reasonable jury could have returned a guilty verdict on the evidence before them. Since in any case where the provision is invoked the jury will ex hypothesi have returned a guilty verdict, their verdict will have implied that they were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty. What the appellant must establish therefore is that, on the evidence led at the trial, no reasonable jury could have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty ... "

Quite clearly Gage has been defectively represented here and his defence should have argued no case to answer.

At best the evidence from Acacia way was by their own admissions not 100% sure
my understanding of this means the accused should benefit from any doubt and that evidence must amount to beyond reasonable doubt.

I cannot for the life of me take in just how the Appeal Court are still infering evidence from the witnesses about the car be taken into account when none of them identified the actual car and in any case he was found not proven of having had anything to do with the car.

Much reliance was also placed on the car travelling along a road which lead from Westburn to Easterhouse.
There is no such direct route to Easterhouse from Cambuslang at Westburn, Carmyle Avenue i am sorry but the last time i used this road leads to Tollcross and Shettleston, It is not a direct route to Easterhouse as inferred in this case and can lead back to Cambuslang through the industrial estate.

The evidence of the phone is inconclusive and Crown did not prove Gage had such phone, no evidence was produced.
_________________
http://justiceforwulliebeck.webs.com/index.htm

http://williambeck.blogspot.com/

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

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

More Press Coverage Of Gage's Case.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20070401/ai_n18784340

http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/pla...0000/newsid_4449000/4449176.shtml

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

The SCCRC should be shut forever it is full of cowboys mostly from crown office.
there is no evidence in this case atall to link gage and plenty of evidence in his favour yet despite the judge directions the jury went against him when he said there was no evidence

An absolute diabolical case wher his defence never fought atall

wonder if his defence owed the favour to crown and thats why he never fought a proper case for gage he might have even won another case in return.

lawyers dont want to fight each other this is clear in all trials in this country

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

Extracts From Appeal Of Gage

Extract
Since Stephen Madden had only seen the passenger in the white car from a front view, someone with hair in a pony tail might look like someone with short hair. The assessment of the evidence of Stephen Madden and Agnes Edgar was entirely a matter for the jury. It would not be surprising if the jury decided to pay little or no attention to their evidence,

Stephen maddens evidence was relied upon for conviction, At best his evidence was he saw a White Metro Or Maestro and he did not identify Gage.
Both Madden and Edgar were reluctant witnesses but for a judge to claim it would not be surprising if the jury decided to pay little or no attention to their evidence is shocking.
Is this because their evidence supports Gage's case ?

Extract
Turning to the evidence of Charles Bowman, the Advocate depute submitted that Mr. Bowman's evidence vouched the proposition that the car recovered from Easterhouse was at least similar to the one which Mr. Bowman had seen in Newton Station Road. Contrary to the trial judge's view at page 12 of his report, Mr. Bowman's evidence, if accepted, was consistent with the abandoned Saab being the getaway car.

Mr Bowman claimed to have seen a white Volvo 440 and only after being shown the white SAAB did he say it was similar.
Apart from leading this witness the police tactics in showing him the White SAAB which was recovered from Easterhouse severely taints his evidence.
At its highest his evidence is capable of showing it was a Volvo used and not a SAAB.
Besides this evidence there is the witness Kearns who doesn't seem to have been heard at appeal.
His evidence supports the car not being a white SAAB and his reason for remembering it was not a SAAB was because he had once owned a SAAB and he would have remembered if the car in question had been a white SAAB.
This evidence supports Gage and not as suggested at his appeal the Crown case

As for SCCRC being shut down, In some respects i would tend to agree but they have done some good starting with the Campbell and Steele cases.

The general consensus between the press i have spoken to is that SCCRC are just a talk shop.

In Gage's case taken with my own it shows a severe reluctance within SCCRC to investigate Lawyers In particular a certain Lawyer who it can be said sat on the Law Society at the same time as the Chief Executive of SCCRC hence it can be said they are reluctant to investigate their own

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

Wullie Gage

Found the following petition at go petitions:

http://www.gopetition.co.uk/petitions/free-willie-gage.html

It would appear to have been on the go since 2006.

I have sent a message to the author asking they make the signatures available for all to see.

Maybe we can resurrect it and give it more support, Though it will need to be changed to take out Joke McConnell's name