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

Michael Ross Second Escape Attempt

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/s...ape-bid-during-hospital-trip.html
nugnug

im not surprised he must of been gutted by the decision.

probely thinks its the only way he will ever get out of prison.

though i am sure the are further options for clearing his name.
Karen

I can understand the guy is frustrated and upset at the decision but he is doing himself no favours trying this again.
It didn't do him any favours the first time he did it either.

How would he get away anyway since he would be chained and cuffed to the guards ?


I don't know an awful lot about the case but does he suffer from some form of mental illness?


What options does he have nugnug?
nugnug

mind you this is the sun so it might not even be true.
Karen

nugnug wrote:
mind you this is the sun so it might not even be true.


Well that is true lol

What options has this guy got now? UK Supreme Court? or appeal to the SCCRC?
nugnug

well the ssrc ihas refused to refer there could be a juridical review of that or the could approach the sccrc agian if they had new evidence.

i suppose they could aprouch the supreme.
Karen

Nugnug is there an appeal decision online on this case?
All I can find is a sentencing statement http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/michael_ross.pdf
nugnug

i dont think it got to apeall i think the sccrc dident refer it let me just check.

no it dident get reffred.

http://justice4michaelross.wrongl...rkney-gun-killer-loses-legal-bid/
Karen

No I meant an appeal against conviction at High Court.  I am guessing he had an appeal and lost it prior to asking to be referred to SCCRC?

I have searched  and can find newspaper reports on his appeal being denied in 2012 but no decsion.


Lord Hamilton, who is also issuing a written judgment in the case, told Ross: "For the reasons that are expressed in it, the appeal is refused."

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news...sniper-michael-ross-loses-1118396
Karen

I DIDN'T MURDER ORKNEY WAITER: Convicted Black Watch soldier writes from his prison cell



Michael Ross, who was found guilty of shooting a Bangladeshi waiter in a restaurant, declared: “I did not kill Shamsuddin Mahmood and had nothing to do with his murder.”

Ross, 35, who did not give evidence at his trial in 2008, has dramatically outlined his version of events in a letter from prison to supporters.

It comes in advance of a decision by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) on whether or not he should have a new appeal against conviction.

In the letter, obtained by the Scottish Sunday Express, Ross talks about his sympathy for Mr Mahmood’s family and says claims he is a racist are “ridiculous and offensive”.

The former Black Watch platoon sergeant and sniper was 15 when the victim died in the Mumutaz Indian Restaurant in Kirkwall, Orkney by a man in a balaclava.

In his 1,000-word letter from Shotts Prison, in Lanarkshire, Ross writes: “Before finding out that Shamsuddin had been murdered, I had no knowledge of him and had never encountered him.

“I sympathise with his family. It would be terrible to lose a loved one in this way and I feel for Shamsuddin and his family as they have still not had justice.”

He says it is painful to be apart from his wife and two daughters, aged 11 and nine.

He also laments the rare opportunities to see his parents, Eddy and Moira, who live in Orkney.

Suspicion fell on Ross after his policeman father, a firearms specialist, revealed to superior officers that he possessed the same ammunition as was used in the killing.

Ross, who was an army cadet at the time, was identified as a man seen wearing a balaclava in woods around two weeks before the murder.  

He claimed he was waiting to confront another boy who had physically abused a local girl.

Ross writes: “I realised it was serious when I was taken away from school one day by the CID and detained for six hours.”

He was not charged but rumours over his possible involvement in the murder continued to dog him.

He recalls: “Over the years, the Mumutaz murder would be in the news from time to time and very often I would be mentioned in relation to it. This felt like a form of harassment to me and my family. When I first met my wife I explained to her about me being accused of murder.

“I have always been open about it all to friends and people who have asked.”

His father, Eddy, was convicted in 1997 of attempting to pervert the course of justice and served two years of a four-year jail sentence, but the family maintains he, too, was wrongfully convicted.

Ross joined the Army and in 2005 he was mentioned in dispatches  following two improvised explosive attacks in Iraq.

However, the police still had him in their sights.

He recalls: “In 2006, when I came back from Iraq, there were stories  in the papers saying there was more evidence and the Army asked me if I wanted a lawyer. I said ‘no’ because I knew it would be more rubbish.”

The evidence came from local man William Grant, who told police he had seen Michael Ross on the evening of the murder wearing a balaclava and handling a gun in toilets near the crime scene.

Mr Grant also said he witnessed Ross shouting racial abuse outside the restaurant weeks before the murder, but did not come forward until 12 years after Mr Mahmood’s death, claiming he had been afraid.

Judges at Ross’s subsequent appeal described Mr Grant as a “less than satisfactory witness”.

Ross adds: “The police suggested that the motive for murder was racism and that I was racist. I am not racist and never have been.

   This felt like a form of harassment to me and my family. When I first met my wife I explained to her about me being accused of murder

   Michael Ross

“They say I was racist because of silly little scribbles in school jotters and inappropriate comments I made as an immature boy. I am embarrassed at these things, but it was just me as an adolescent trying to fit in with the other boys.

“The suggestion that I am racist based on adolescent scribbles and remarks is offensive to me.

“I never gave evidence at trial. Some people may think this strange or that I was being evasive.

“The prosecution lawyers are trained to rip apart what has been said and I watched them continually trip up and turn around or spin what other witnesses were saying, so I would not have been confident talking at trial.

My QC advised me not to and I did not know any better.

“If I had the chance again, I would give evidence.”

Ross dramatically leapt from the dock when he was convicted in October, 2008 and was overpowered as he tried to flee from court.

A hire car he had left in a car park, stocked with a “survival kit” and weapons, was later found.

In his letter, he says: “I have simple hopes for the future. All I want is to be back home with my wife and children, to spend time with my family and get a job and work for a living.

“I hope the SCCRC can bring my case back to court to be looked at properly. So far, we have had nothing but false hope from the legal system.

“I want my case taken back to trial to be examined by unbiased eyes and this should allow me to go free and help in getting closer to justice for Shamsuddin Mahmood and his family.”

http://www.express.co.uk/scotland...ldier-writes-from-his-prison-cell
Karen

Series 1 - Episode 4: The Schoolboy Assassin


http://www.channel5.com/shows/murder-files/episodes/episode-4-450
nugnug

is there anyway you can get hold of a sccrc report could you do with an foi request.
Karen

nugnug wrote:
is there anyway you can get hold of a sccrc report could you do with an foi request.


I wouldn't think so.

I am not looking for the SCCRC report. Its the appeal from the high court which I cannot locate. They are usually on Scot Courts site and I cannot see it.  Do you know where I can see a copy of that appeal decision?
Big Wullie

Karen wrote:
Nugnug is there an appeal decision online on this case?
All I can find is a sentencing statement http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/michael_ross.pdf


Hope this helps Karen:

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/sear...586a6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
Big Wullie

I do not understand why his defence team did not ask the UKSC directly to hear this case under reference to Cadder and Salduz.

The ECHR as Salmond told us all, cannot open prison doors.

The ECHR of cannot overturn any decisions in our Domestic or Civil Courts.

All they can do is compensate you.

What is the point.

Look at the case of Granger V UK

Then look at Grangers Nobile Officium hearing.

He is still convicted, despite Campbell & Steele having their convictions overturned.

If they were not guilty, this backs up Granger saying the police beat him and made him sign a confession against Campbell & Steele.

This sadly is not the way the courts look at matters in Scotland.
Karen

Thanks Wullie that is what I was looking for.
Big Wullie

Nugnug, do you think Michael Ross is Innocent ?
Big Wullie

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scot...rth-east-orkney-shetland-28753643

Orkney killer Michael Ross 'tried to escape from prison van'

The man convicted of murdering a waiter in a Kirkwall restaurant 20 years ago is believed to have tried to escape while being taken to hospital.

Michael Ross had been travelling from Shotts prison to Monklands hospital in North Lanarkshire when the incident took place on 6 August.

It came after Ross failed in a bid to have his murder conviction re-examined.

He had previously tried to escape following his 2008 conviction for the murder of Shamsuddin Mahmood.

Mr Mahmood was shot in full view of a room full of diners, including families with children, by a masked gunman in Orkney in 1994.

Ross was found guilty of the murder after a trial at the High Court in Glasgow in 2008.

When the verdict was delivered, he fled from the dock before being caught by a court official and police.

Security van

The former Black Watch sniper had a cache of arms hidden in a hired car parked less than a mile away.

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission announced last week that there was insufficient evidence to have Ross's murder conviction re-examined.

In the latest incident, the security van which had been carrying Ross had come to a halt when it is believed he tried to escape.

A spokesman for the security firm G4S, which had been transporting Ross, confirmed that an incident took place but said no members of the public or medical staff had been at risk.

Police, who were immediately called to the scene, are investigating.
Karen

I heard he tried to cut either his own hand off or the guards. Dunno how true it is though.
Big Wullie

Karen wrote:
I heard he tried to cut either his own hand off or the guards. Dunno how true it is though.


He sounds like someone with mental health problems yet reading the appeal he tried unsuccessfully to lead expert evidence to say he was not a psychopath.
Big Wullie

Big Wullie wrote:
Nugnug, do you think Michael Ross is Innocent ?


Well nugnug do you think he is innocent ?
nugnug

im not convinced ether way.
Karen

you say you are not convinced either way nugnug.
however a web search shows you keep promoting this case as you have several others. I know you may have done this for discussion purposes.

I have tried to see where this guy might be wrongly convicted but in this case I cannot see any evidence that he may be innocent.
I think in this particular case, unless startling new evidence suddenly appears then you are flogging a dead horse in this case sadly.
Orkney

Am not that used with forum posting, so forgive me for any errors. My name is Karen and I am from Orkney where I grew up and have spent most of my life. I lived in Orkney at the time when Shamsuddin Mahmood was tragically murdered. It didn't feel to anyone that it was real. What has happened since has been the most utterly bizarre scenario, and it's becoming more and more obvious to people that live in Orkney that there are grave doubts over the safety of the conviction of Michael Ross.

I'm just an ordinary islander, living in what I feel is the safest community in the world. Like many here, I watched from the outside as a miscarriage of justice unfolded before my eyes. There are literally hundreds of us that feel the same way. I started actively campaigning for Michael 2 years ago. Nothing drove me to do this other than a deep seated feeling that a terrible injustice had occurred and an even more worrying feeling that the 'system' could not be trusted to put it right.

At this time I didn't know either Michael or his family, but now of course  I am very close to them.

In response to the SCCRC outcome, this is a press release we (the campaign group) released after the decision:

On behalf of the ‘Justice for Michael Ross’ campaign group, I would like to say how disappointed we are with the decision by the SCCRC not to refer Michael’s case back to the court of appeal. However we are not unprepared for this outcome.

Michael’s case had been accepted by the SCCRC in September 2012 on application from his then legal representatives. ‘Justice for Michael Ross’ then submitted various points to the SCCRC from October 2013 to January 2014. These points were primarily in relation to concerns about the information released to the public in the years prior to trial, concerns about the standard of the police investigation and the dubious methods used to bring Michael to trial 14 years after the crime for which he is now convicted and serving a 25 year sentence.

Our efforts come from the perspective of a campaign group and the SCCRC are set up to accept information from any source. Towards the end of the review, we were set a deadline for our submissions by the SCCRC of 10th February 2014, by which point we were already in possession of more information. A decision was then made by Michael to allow the review to conclude which would also allow us time to analyse the information we now have and construct further points to submit to the SCCRC in the event of a refusal.

The SCCRC have given us 28 days in which to challenge their decision and submit more information with the possibility of an extension of a further 28 days in exceptional circumstances. The way forward for us now will be to query the response of the SCCRC to some of the points we raised, ask them why they did not respond to other points and to submit more information that will strengthen the case already made that Michael Ross is the victim of a miscarriage of justice.

We are confident in our efforts and we hope that the SCCRC will accept our points and conduct further investigation. In any event however, we are committed in the long term to do everything possible to bring to light serious concerns about the conviction of Michael Ross.


We now have a committed team working on providing further information to the SCCRC. This will mean that time to spend on forum activity will be limited until such time as our submission is ready. We have already had indication that an extension of 28 days will be given. This takes us to 23rd September.

In response to the people that have queried mental illness in respect of Michael. He is just a very ordinary guy. He doesn't have any type of mental disorder. What Michael does suffer from is heartbreak at being away from his wife and children. From what I've heard, his two little girls of 4 and 6 at the time were his two sidekicks before he was convicted. He has missed so much and the thought of missing more has (I believe) led him to desperate measures.

The truth of this latest escape attempt will no doubt come out when he's taken to court, and I have no doubt that the Crown will make an absolute meal of it when it happens. The sensationalist reporting is not new to Michael. You may remember the sensationalist reporting of a dug up gun. We are now aware that the gun in question was very obviously a revolver and this was known at the beginning. The gun that murdered Shamsuddin Mahmood was a sem- automatic pistol, and yet the police kept this from the press and said they had it away for forensic tests (which apparently took 7 months). This type of misleading information is symptomatic of everything that went before for the 14 years between the crime and the conviction of the wrong man (then boy).

The truth will come out but, because of the stage of current proceedings, it can't be now. Keep looking out though, because we will never stop until this is rectified. We are bigger and stronger every day with a huge amount of interest in this case far and wide.

Thank-you for reading and sorry for going on!
Big Wullie

Orkney

I am yet to be convinced of innocence in this case.

What really disturbs me is the fact the father was charged and convicted of hiding the fact about the bullets.

If memory serves me rightly he said he only had one unopened box which he could account for but the person who supplied them said he supplied two boxes of which one was opened.

Michael Ross according to the material I have seen admitted he destroyed a balaclava and tossed a gun into the sea.

Michael Ross was identified as having shown people a gun, is this true ?

Please feel free to correct me if I have said anything that is not true.

As Yet I Am to be convinced this case is a miscarriage of justice.
nugnug

he admitted to getting rid of a balaclava ive never heard anything about him admitting to getting rid of gun.
Big Wullie

nugnug wrote:
he admitted to getting rid of a balaclava ive never heard anything about him admitting to getting rid of gun.


did he not admit to having a gun ?
nugnug

not to my knowledge he dident where did where did you read it.
Big Wullie

I am sure I read somewhere he had been identified as having a gun or waving a gun about at the woods nugnug.

I might be wrong can you veryify ?

I definitely read the father had access to the same calibre that killed Mr Mahmood.

Would it not be fair comment that if the father had access to such calibre then so did the son ?

The father could not account for the bullets.

So what happened to the bullets unaccounted for nugnug ?

I will search again nugnug but I am sure I saw some reference to Michael Ross being at, or near the woods with a gun, whether he admitted it or not.
Big Wullie

Talking about the father in the appeal nugnug:

Quote:
He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Police enquiries in early 1995 also disclosed that Ross had in about 1989/90 received at least one unlicensed handgun from a local arms dealer.


What happened to this handgun ?
Big Wullie

On the issue of the balaclava nugnug.

Why would anyone throw such a thing into the sea with a stone to weigh it down ?

Why not simply put it in the bin ?
Big Wullie

Quote:
[8] A line of enquiry being pursued by the police from a relatively early stage was the sighting on the afternoon of 19 May 1994 of a male in Papdale Woods, Kirkwall, wearing a balaclava and otherwise dressed similarly to the killer in the restaurant. A schoolgirl, Lynn Railston, and a friend, had noticed this individual crouching behind a wall by the Woods as they walked home. When Lynn Railston reached home she mentioned this sighting to her mother, Margaret Railston. Both Miss and Mrs Railston watched the individual from their home for about twenty five minutes. Lynn Railston watched him through binoculars. They observed him also as, towards the end of his activities there, he removed some of his clothing, including the balaclava and a distinctively patterned white coloured T-shirt. He had with him a rucksack or similar item. He ultimately left the scene in a purposeful manner. Lynn Railston subsequently prepared an E-FIT of this male and a sketch of the T-shirt. The description revealed a striking similarity to the killer as described by the witnesses in the restaurant.

[9] On 8 September 1994 Lynn Railston advised the police that she had just seen again the male she had sighted in Papdale Woods. He had walked into the shop where she was working. Later that day she pointed out in the street an individual as resembling the person she had seen in Papdale Woods. Her mother, who was also present, confirmed to the police that identification. That individual was subsequently identified as the appellant.


Even his father admitted he had such a t-shirt nugnug:

Quote:
[10] Later PC Ross told DI Chisholm that the appellant had a T-shirt of the distinctive pattern of that worn by the male in Papdale Woods.


His Alibi was not supported either:

Quote:
He said that about 6.30pm he had left home and cycled into Kirkwall, where he had cycled about in the Papdale East housing scheme; at about 7.00pm or shortly thereafter he had met two schoolmates, Ingrid Watson and Hayden Hourston, and spoken to them for about five minutes; he had then cycled home; he was nowhere near the restaurant at any point; as he was cycling home he had heard the sound of emergency vehicle sirens; he had arrived home at about 8.00pm. At the conclusion of this interview the appellant left the police station.

The appellant insisted that on 2 June he had been at Papdale East and had spoken there to Hayden Hourston and Ingrid Watson. He had gone there for a bit of exercise. He gave an account broadly in line with his earlier accounts - other than that he accepted, as he had earlier, that he had been in Papdale Woods on 19 May. He was unable to explain why Hayden Hourston and Ingrid Watson were unable to support his account of being in the Papdale East estate on the evening of the murder; but suggested that Hayden's brother might have seen and remembered him. At the conclusion of the interview, which lasted about 42 minutes, the appellant was released from detention and taken home.



It would be fair comment to suggest he was seen in the woods at the relevant time which he initially denied but later admitted when confronted with the evidence and that his alibi witnesses did not support his contentions nugnug.

I am for the above reasons finding it difficult to see how this case can be said to be a miscarriage of Justice.
nugnug

Big Wullie wrote:
On the issue of the balaclava nugnug.

Why would anyone throw such a thing into the sea with a stone to weigh it down ?

Why not simply put it in the bin ?


i admit its suspicious but then  again he dident have to tel the policel he had done i doubt if they would of found it.
nugnug

Big Wullie wrote:
I am sure I read somewhere he had been identified as having a gun or waving a gun about at the woods nugnug.

I might be wrong can you veryify ?

I definitely read the father had access to the same calibre that killed Mr Mahmood.

Would it not be fair comment that if the father had access to such calibre then so did the son ?

The father could not account for the bullets.

So what happened to the bullets unaccounted for nugnug ?

I will search again nugnug but I am sure I saw some reference to Michael Ross being at, or near the woods with a gun, whether he admitted it or not.


if you watch documentry none of the witness say he was waving a gun about in the woods just that he was acting oddly.
Karen

Murderer brought to justice after fourteen years

On 20 June 2008, fourteen years after committing a ‘savage, merciless and pointless’ crime, 29-year-old Michael Ross, a soldier, was found guilty of the murder of Bangladeshi waiter Shamsuddin Mahmood in Orkney in 1994. Police, despite extensive enquiries, were unable at the time to find enough evidence to link Ross to the murder. All that was known was that on 2 June 1994, a 15-year-old boy walked into the Mumutaz restaurant in Kirkwall, Orkney and, without speaking a word, shot 26-year-old Shamsuddin Mahmood at close range in the face and then calmly walked out. Orkney police, who could find no motive for the murder, carried out one of their largest investigations in attempts to find the culprit.

Shamsuddin or Shamol as he was known friends had only been working at the island’s only Asian restaurant for seven weeks after visiting the island and being offered a job. He had moved from Southampton, where he had stayed with his brother after arriving from Bangladesh.

Schoolboy Ross was able to evade justice, with the help of his policeman father, Constable Eddie Ross, who withheld information from his colleagues investigating the murder. Michael Ross went on to join the army and became a decorated soldier, guarding the Queen and had completed tours in Northern Ireland and Iraq.

Following the murder, police officers were drafted in from the mainland and every person going in and out of Kirkwall was identified and every house visited. Eddie Ross guarded the murder scene and identified the type of bullet (9mm) used in the shooting. However, he failed to mention that he owned bullets similar to the one used in the shooting – which were highly unusual. Ross was tasked with checking all the 9mm weapons on the island; he concluded that none would be capable of firing the fatal shot. Then, two months after the murder, Eddie Ross approached the senior investigating officer and told him that he owned a box of the bullets of the type which were used in the shooting. He claimed he had only one box, however, James Spence, a former Royal Marine, claimed that he had given Ross two boxes of ammunition.

Michael Ross became the main suspect and a search of his home found a balaclava and a notebook in his bedroom with a swastika and SS symbol on it. But Ross alleged that he was in another part of Orkney when the murder took place. Ross was questioned and released as police did not have enough evidence to charge him.

On 13 March 1995, Eddie Ross was suspended from duty and in May 1997 was found guilty of attempting to pervert the course of justice and sentenced to four years in prison. At his trial, his son was officially named as the main suspect in the murder of Shamsuddin Mahmood.

The case was reopened two years ago after an anonymous letter was handed in to police identifying the killer. The writer was traced and persuaded to give evidence. William Grant said that he had seen Ross in a public toilet with a gun and a balaclava on the night of the murder. He had failed to come forward earlier as he had been scared. A former girlfriend claimed that he had told her had taken a gun from his father’s gun cabinet. Other witnesses came forward to say that prior to the murder they had seen Ross in woods wearing a balaclava carrying out military exercises.

After the six-week trial at Glasgow High Court Ross was found guilty of murder (on a majority verdict) and guilty of trying to defeat justice by disposing of the murder weapon. He will be sentenced on 11 July 2008.

In court the murder was called a ‘cold-blooded assassination’. However the defence argued that the murder could not be the work of a 15-year-old boy. Michael Ross was a sergeant in the army – a sniper in the Black Watch regiment – and inherited his passion for guns from his father (who also served in the army) who gave him a deactivated sub-machine gun as a gift.

But the court was also told how Ross was known for his racist views, and that while an army cadet had been overheard saying ‘Blacks should be shot’. Detective Inspector Iain Smith, Northern Constabulary’s senior investigating officer, commented that ‘in all probability’ the murder was racially motivated.


Sinister killer attempts to escape

As Ross was being led down to the cells after the verdict, he attempted to escape by jumping over the dock and running from the court, but was tackled by a court official and police officers.

After the trial, a car that Ross had hired, but failed to return, was found a few miles from the court in a supermarket car park and police are alleged to have found in it a cache of arms including a machine gun, rifle, grenades, knives, camouflage clothing, bullets and binoculars.

http://www.irr.org.uk/news/convictions-in-three-black-murder-cases/
Big Wullie

Quote:
William Grant said that he had seen Ross in a public toilet with a gun and a balaclava on the night of the murder.


Not just a gun but a gun and balaclava nugnug.

There was also evidence from an ex to the following effect:

Quote:
A former girlfriend claimed that he had told her had taken a gun from his father’s gun cabinet.


Two witnesses he had a gun on the night is sufficient for a conviction, but I believe there is a plethora of other evidence like his alibi not being supported by the people he said he had been with or had seen that night.

Add to this the fact his Father lied about the amount of bullets he had and there is a very strong case

I concede however there is a difference between the toilets and woods.

Did the Father have a gun or guns that Michael Ross could access ?

Why toss a balaclava into the sea weighted down by a stone ?

Why not simply put it into the bin ?

I accept that he did not need to tell the Police nugnug but that was not the question.
nugnug

Big Wullie wrote:
Quote:
William Grant said that he had seen Ross in a public toilet with a gun and a balaclava on the night of the murder.


Not just a gun but a gun and balaclava nugnug.

There was also evidence from an ex to the following effect:

Quote:
A former girlfriend claimed that he had told her had taken a gun from his father’s gun cabinet.


Two witnesses he had a gun on the night is sufficient for a conviction, but I believe there is a plethora of other evidence like his alibi not being supported by the people he said he had been with or had seen that night.

Add to this the fact his Father lied about the amount of bullets he had and there is a very strong case

I concede however there is a difference between the toilets and woods.

Did the Father have a gun or guns that Michael Ross could access ?

Why toss a balaclava into the sea weighted down by a stone ?

Why not simply put it into the bin ?

I accept that he did not need to tell the Police nugnug but that was not the question.



willam grant dident come forward untill 12 years after the murder.

acording to rosses supporters grant knew the investigating officer.
Big Wullie

Quote:
acording to rosses supporters grant knew the investigating officer.


Are you suggesting because he knew the investigating officer he lied nugnug ?

In such a small community he probably knew many officers.

What about all the other evidence I pointed out ?
nugnug

he probably did which makes it all the more strange that he waited 12 years to talk to them.

i except theirs a case against ross but i don't think its as strong as we have all ben led to believe.
Big Wullie

So if it is fair to suggest he lied because he knew the investigating officer, would it also be fair to suggest Michael Ross's father would lie because he knew his son was in trouble ?

After all the Father was convicted of perverting the course of Justice was he not ?

There could be a whole number of reasons why someone might not come forward nugnug, not least he was afraid of the high position the father held within the police.

I think you are jumping the gun by suggesting the reason was, he was a liar.

Quote:
i except theirs a case against ross but i don't think its as strong as we have all ben led to believe.


OK lets see:

Alibi not supported.
Spotted near the woods.
Girlfriend said he had gun on the night.
Father told lies.
Father attempted to get others to lie.
Dumped Balaclava in sea.
Spotted with gun and Balaclava on night.
Father had same calibre bullets at home.
Father gave him decommissioned Sub Machine Gun as a present.

Besides this when he attempted to escape his car was full to the gunnels with weapons and left at Tesco in Springburn.

He has since tried to escape and assaulted a prison officer.

I think personally there is a strong compelling case of Guilt.

I understand the courts have in the past not accepted evidence at appeals because the witnesses did not come forward at the time and I would agree that if that is the case then the person coming forward after 12 years should be rejected.

The question however then remains this:

Without that evidence was there sufficient for a conviction.

I think there was for what it is worth.

I am yet to be convinced of Innocence.

Sorry.
nugnug

im yet to be convinced of innocence but at the same time i not convinced of guilt ethere.

most of the evidence used against seems to come from his father so i dont see how they can say his father covered up for him.

his father identified the bullets in the first place he also admitted that he owned the said bullets the guy he got off dident come forward he came forward.

which suggests he was ether incredibly stupid or he thought he had nothing to hide.

i mean he could of just got rid and there would no proof he had them in the first place.
nugnug

the reason im not convinced of guilt is this if you see the orignal description of the killer on the crimewatch appeal.

http://justice4michaelross.wrongl...media/original-crimewatch-appeal/

and heres what he looked like at the time.

http://justice4michaelross.wrongl...org.uk/media/family-video-age-15/
Big Wullie

Quote:
most of the evidence used against seems to come from his father so i dont see how they can say his father covered up for him.

his father identified the bullets in the first place he also admitted that he owned the said bullets the guy he got off dident come forward he came forward.


Are you saying that Michael Ross's father told the police right away he had a batch of similar bullets at his house the minute he identified the one at the Scene nugnug.

As for the links you put up I am sorry I do not do these type of sites.

If you want to put a youtube link I will probably look at it.

I am also very well aware he could have disposed of the bullets nugnug, but the other scenario is he thought he could get the person to tell lies, and I am afraid a jury have already decided that one and found the father guilty.

For what it is worth nugnug it is not what people say in any programs (Which in any event are edited) or anywhere else that counts because the only evidence a jury proceeds upon is the evidence before them.

Sadly I have read too many appeals in which this is exactly what the appeal court judges are saying.

The only evidence that matters is the evidence presented in court.

It matters not one iota what they say beforehand.

Surely the defence would have been aware of this at the time of trial therefore had an opportunity of using it for their defence at the time.l
Big Wullie

I have seen the photo from the video you are talking about here nugnug but it is a bit blurry and doesn't really show his physique or build.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/...oldier-convicted-of-Orkney-murder



Unfortunately it also doesn't show what he would look like in the type of clothing the suspect was described as wearing or with a balaclava.

In any event I doubt if someone would be able to describe someone who wearing a balaclava.
JusticeforMichaelRoss


Click to download file

I previously posted under username Orkney, but can't remember my password and have tried to get a reminder sent to no avail. I wanted to share the attached PDF document with you all. It's Michael's campaign 'Timeline' and it contains a great deal of information, the majority of which is already in the public domain.

Hopefully this will work, but if not, the file is a recent attachment on the Facebook Page: Michael Ross is Innocent.

If you take the time to read the document - then I thank you. If you feel that you can share it in order to promote Michael's campaign, then I thank you even more.

We are currently working hard on the response to the SCCRC Statement of Reasons with a deadline of 25th September.

If anyone has any questions or suggestions, please feel free to email us on justiceformichaelross@hotmail.com
Big Wullie

Anyone wanting to raise serious concerns about the Michael Ross case knows how to reach me.

       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.