Archive for shirleymckie.myfastforum.org To allow readers to post comments on current issues related to the Shirley McKie case
 


       shirleymckie.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> Test Forum 1
Big Wullie

A Dock ID If Ever I Have Saw One.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0...9Z0pjZ2poUU5Jazg/edit?usp=sharing

Quote:
I think prior to trial the police or someone from the procurator fiscal's office told me that I would be asked to identify someone in the dock. I think it was when I was being told generally about what would happen in court so I think it was the procurator fiscal who told me this. I think the fiscal told me that, in general, it was possible that the accused person might have changed appearance, that this could happen, that for example the person might have grown a beard or changed their hair, and the fiscal told me that if I could not recognise the person in court I should just say so and I might be asked further questions. I think I was told that if the person had changed appearance another witness might come in to give evidence and say that the person was clean shaven at the time of the incident.


Quote:
I have been asked again about speaking to the procurator fiscal before the trial. I remember that I went to Linlithgow procurator fiscal's office to do so. It was on this occasion that I was told generally how the process would work and that I was told about the possibility that the person's appearance might have changed. I am sure the example was given that the suspect might have grown a beard since the incident, and I was told if I could not recognise anyone in court I should say so, and that if the person had changed their appearance a police officer or someone from the prison could give evidence to say that the accused was clean shaven at the time of the line up but had since grown a beard.


In other words, at all costs, identify the person in the Dock regardless.
Big Wullie

Another Crown Witness William Horn (Postman) said in his Crown precognition, that he thought the person at number 5 on a second ID Parade (Not attended by me) might have been the person that robbed and assaulted him.
I was never asked to attend any second ID Parade and did not know of this evidence pre-trial.
It was only after my trial Jim Keegan gave me all the statements.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/big-wullie/2359409073/


https://www.flickr.com/photos/big...25979886/in/photostream/lightbox/

I did however ask the Lawyer to look into the second ID Parade to see if anyone was identified Positively and he failed to do so:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/big-wullie/488992396/

This is his own note of what I said in regards to David Martin being placed on a second parade when he visited me in Saughton.

Clearly he was instructed to check if anyone was identified at David Martin's parade positively.
Big Wullie

Lord Carloway relied upon the partial identification of me by this postman who said the following when asked if he could see the person that robbed and assaulted him.

His reply was no at my ID Parade.

When asked if he could see anyone that resembled the person that assaulted and robbed him he said number 2 (Me)

When asked in what way I resembled his reply was:

I do not know it is just a feeling I have.

Lord Carloway thinks this is a positive identification upon which the crown can rely.

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2013HCJAC51.html

Quote:
[46] The third instruction is the cautionary one of not trespassing into the jury's territory by, in essence, expressing a personal view on the evidence. However, it may be helpful in certain cases for the jury to be directed upon where they can find the testimony upon which they would be entitled to convict. This is what the judge did here, and he did so in a manner which was very arguably favourable to the appellant in its effective dismissal of what the jury might well have regarded as significant evidence of identification. This is particularly so in relation to the evidence of the postal worker WH, who had stated at the identification parade that the appellant resembled one of the robbers. WH had described how he had seen a significant number of the robber's facial features at the time to enable him to make that statement. He had said that he thought that the appellant had been one of the robbers. This was potentially significant evidence, which the jury could have used at least as corroboration of one or other of the positive identifications (Ralston v HM Advocate 1987 SCCR 467). Yet the judge directed the jury that it was "not very satisfactory" because the witness had said that he had picked out the appellant because of "just a feeling I had". The latter is often just what identification is. Similar, but weaker, considerations apply to the identification of the appellant as resembling one of the robbers by Mrs C and to the reference to the anorak by the other postal worker.


Lord Carloway is a nutcase to suggest someone who claims to identify someone by a feeling is strong evidence despite the same witness claiming in his Crown Precognition the person at number 5 on the second parade might have been the person who assaulted him.

Strange how Carloway does not mention his Crown Precognition nor its contents despite Sinclair being set aside on such contents at the privy Council in 2005..
Karen

Re: A Dock ID If Ever I Have Saw One.

Big Wullie wrote:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0...9Z0pjZ2poUU5Jazg/edit?usp=sharing

Quote:
I think prior to trial the police or someone from the procurator fiscal's office told me that I would be asked to identify someone in the dock. I think it was when I was being told generally about what would happen in court so I think it was the procurator fiscal who told me this. I think the fiscal told me that, in general, it was possible that the accused person might have changed appearance, that this could happen, that for example the person might have grown a beard or changed their hair, and the fiscal told me that if I could not recognise the person in court I should just say so and I might be asked further questions. I think I was told that if the person had changed appearance another witness might come in to give evidence and say that the person was clean shaven at the time of the incident.


Quote:
I have been asked again about speaking to the procurator fiscal before the trial. I remember that I went to Linlithgow procurator fiscal's office to do so. It was on this occasion that I was told generally how the process would work and that I was told about the possibility that the person's appearance might have changed. I am sure the example was given that the suspect might have grown a beard since the incident, and I was told if I could not recognise anyone in court I should say so, and that if the person had changed their appearance a police officer or someone from the prison could give evidence to say that the accused was clean shaven at the time of the line up but had since grown a beard.


In other words, at all costs, identify the person in the Dock regardless.


How blatant can they get?  The guy you identified was clean shaven. The one  we have is not clean shaven but he probably grew a beard and changed his hair, we have people who will say this is true.   OMG

       shirleymckie.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> Test Forum 1
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Sincere thanks to all those who have supported Shirley and challenged miscarriages of justice on this forum.