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

Worlds End Retrial (Or Persecution) Starts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-29598224

My Interest in this case is to see the other overwhelming evidence that must have just come to light to enable a re-trial.

The last prosecutor Allan Mackay did a runner before the judge threw out the case due to a lack of evidence.

http://scottishlaw.blogspot.co.uk...e-stress-of-worlds-end-trial.html

Quote:
But perhaps the most difficult thing was that Mr Mackay knew there had been more evidence the police had gathered against Sinclair - evidence that he had chosen not to lead.


It could not have been much comfort to Mr Mackay that the judge wanted the weekend before he announced his ruling. It just meant more time for him to worry. And come Monday, he was in such a state that he went AWOL, and was not there to hear his fear become a reality.


We can see that the time of the last trial fresh evidence had come to light but the prosecutor chose not to lead it.

For a fresh trial now other overwhelming evidence must have resurfaced which was not available at the last trial.

I have seen absolutely no fresh evidence.

How many bites at the cherry are crown going to be allowed without providing evidence that was not available at the last trial.
Big Wullie

Of Course the prosecutor that will always be remembered for the one that ran away, was also the prosecutor that prosecuted the Miscarriage In Wullie Gage's case.

http://scottishlaw.blogspot.co.uk...cted-lawyer-disappears-after.html
Big Wullie

https://www.flickr.com/photos/big...68476680/in/photostream/lightbox/

Part two:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/big...68475042/in/photostream/lightbox/

How many chances are Crown going to be allowed before they get it right ?

As far as I am concerned there should not have been a re-trial simply because Crown failed to call evidence they previously had.

For permission for a re-trial there must be fresh evidence that was not available at the original trial.

I see nothing in this case that Crown did not already have.

I am by no means saying I think this guy is Innocent.
david

Hundreds of years of Scots Law has been changed in pursuit of this conviction.

Hopefully the victims families get justice.


Will be very surprised with anything other than a guilty verdict.  

Don't think Franky Mulholland will require his running shoes after the verdict.
Big Wullie

david wrote:
Hundreds of years of Scots Law has been changed in pursuit of this conviction.

Hopefully the victims families get justice.


Will be very surprised with anything other than a guilty verdict.

Don't think Franky Mulholland will require his running shoes after the verdict.


I would not bet on it David.

All I am hearing in the news from the experts is they cannot be really sure.

Today talking about knots, the expert could never tell if Gordon Hamilton was capable of tying two different knots.

Yet he voices an opinion they were tied by two different people.



Listening to the experts it will be interesting to hear how the judge directs the jury in regards to their evidence
Big Wullie

Finding the experts evidence confusing to say the least:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scot...s-tied-up-by-two-people-1-3579744

Witness Roger Ide said the findings indicate the victims had been tied by two different people - although he explained it did not represent strong evidence to that effect.

Discussing the conclusion of the report, he stressed that his findings should not be overstated.

My concern is that everybody watches CSI programmes and they see forensic scientists provide conclusive evidence, he said.

I dont want to overstate the strength of my evidence... But I think its likely that the two were tied by different people, but I cant be sure about that.


If experts are not sure their evidence should be dismissed as per Kimberly Hainey V HMA.
Big Wullie

Is this not a conflict of interest ?

Quote:
The jury returned their verdict on November 14. Mulholland said: I was just so relieved and pleased that the two families, who I had got to know well and had so admired, finally had closure.


http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news...clair-first-serial-killer-4724949

I have always believed Crown did not represent victims, let alone victims they have come to admire.
Big Wullie

Seems the police gave Sinclair a free run:

Big Wullie

It is appalling that the police went to the lengths of setting up Thomas Ross Young and even more appalling the cover ups continue with the rejection of Mr Young's appeal after referral by SCCRC.

In my opinion his case was one that should have been set aside.

       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.