shirleymckie.myfastforum.org

scotkaz · Joined: 28 Aug 2008 Posts: 527

Wullie

It wouldnt have been hard to frame a man like George sadly. George should have had a responsible person with him during all of this interogation because it is clear he did not understand what was happening to him.

I took this from Peter Hill's very informative site on the Beattie Case.
http://www.btinternet.com/~peter.hill34/bg.htm

He was below average intelligence - generally accepted as slightly backward and somewhat immature for his age. When he was about to move up to the secondary school at the age of ten there had been a suggestion that he should be sent to a special school. But nothing had been done.
George had frequently been absent from school because of childhood illnesses. He was a hopeless scholar who played no games and made few friends. He was also a natural target for bullies because he would never fight back. Some parents thought that his mother was a little too over-protective. George was big enough, they said, but he just "didn't have the guts".

Five years later, his education, or lack of it, hardly equipped him to defend himself against the more normal hazards of life - never mind the power of a murder investigation led by Chief Superintendent Muncie.

George's eldest brother William saw George as a day-dreamer. " He fantasised a lot," he said. "He could go for a walk and lose himself just going down into the woods, looking at the stars, the trees. "

William had heard George telling "whoppers" and thought this tendency to exaggerate came from having four older brothers.

Beattie is found to "return abnormally high confabulation scores. After a 6 week gap he returned three times more confabulatory responses than accurate material." In other words, Beattie has a strong tendancy to tell tall tales and after a while even believes them.

At the Lanarkshire steel works Beattie had a reputation for telling tall tales. The man who shared a locker with George, Colin McClair, said that George had a reputation for making up fantastic stories which nobody believed. Another brakesman, William Campbell, said that George often exaggerated about his drinking habits. " But we know they are all lies," he added.

Beattie had been given a tour of the scene of crime by two officers on the 10th - two days before he made the admissions and described the scene. This tour was a timing exercise of the route he took on the evening of the murder. This trip was a timing exercise which was not completed. It ended at the scene of crime because it was raining ( according to the police)

The police claimed he had "special knowledge". Beattie had revealed his guilt during two interrogations on the night of the Wednesday after the murder. Then he had shown them these secret locations on the Thursday morning.

What the police "forgot" to tell anyone was that there was a third interrogation on the Wednesday night - during which Beattie was "fed" all this information.

This was the man who was put under such intense interrogation by the police at Carluke that he had something of an epileptic fit - and was given no medical help at all when he suffered that fit. Words were put into his mouth without him realizing it - and then taken down again as he repeated them. He had no benefit of attorney during this period. He had to fend for himself against police officers who believed they could prove a case of murder against him.

The jury took just 35 minutes to find Beattie guilty - and the rumour emanating from the room was that it was on a 7 - 8 majority. An English jury, under less pressure to jump to a rash decision, might well have worked out over several hours of discussion that there was something badly wrong at the heart of the prosecution case. No doubt some jurors now repent at leisure over the fate of George Beattie. American jurors may well have told us why such a decision was formed. Scottish jurors can hide their shame beneath their anonymity.

scotkaz · Joined: 28 Aug 2008 Posts: 527

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

Scotkaz

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

I have noticed from the appeal in this case there is no mention of the following:

The police could not produce his black book in court when asked to do so.

The police in question later took advice from a Solicitor and burned his black book in woods.

There has also never been any later modern tests done on the blood they claimed to have found on tissues in Beatties pocket with the blood samples taken from the victim.

Why would SCCRC who spent £1.8 Million on investigating Megrai's case not carry out such simple test, On second thoughts they took the word of L&B Police that no biological samples existed but they have since turned up at Aldermaston in the case of "Jocky Robertson"

I also note with great dismay the appeal court have ruled against his ground he did not get a fair hearing when Two Experts evidence that no Human Blood was found on the knife was not disclosed to the defence prior to trial (Holland & Sinclair) None Disclosure.

Surely if the Jury had heard experts claim there was no "human blood" on the knife or soil it was found in then: Their verdicts would have been different and their verdict returned in it's absence is perverse and should be quashed.

John Hemphill won his appeal on the exact same point here:

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/82_67.html

It was treated as an Anderson appeal basically just because his defence failed to call Potentially Exculpatory Evidence in the following terms.

[17] Miss Scott then turned to consider the basic principles which should be applied in the present case under reference to Anderson v. HMA 1996 JC 29: Mackintosh v. HMA 1997 SCCR 389: Keating v. HMA 1999 SCCR 359: Wright v. HMA 2000 SCCR 638 and Garrow v. HMA 2000 SCCR 772.

John Hemphill BBC News found on the Innocent site:

http://www.innocent.org.uk/cases/johnhemphill/index.html

I notice however no such ground of appeal was lodged on behalf of Beattie

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

The following is Oppressive for many reasons:

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

Our appeal Courts have an agreed policy with SCCRC in Toamszewski that they would only refer cases on the Law as it is Today

The Law as it is today USES section 6 of EcHR which gives you the right to a fair hearing so our Appeal courts cannot backtrack on their agreed policies.

We must also look at the Tomaszewski case referred by SCCRC and conclude that if the courts can deal with a 1948 case with the current law as it is today then they can also deal with Beatties in the same way as it was a 1973 case 25 years after Tomaszewski's

See agreed policy on the site of SCCRC here:

http://www.sccrc.org.uk/sccrcthecurrentlaw.aspx

The SCCRC and Current Law

david · Joined: 01 Mar 2009 Posts: 52 Location: edinburgh

Wullie

One jury member in our case actually visited the locus during the trial which breached his jury oath. The SCCRC refused to refer on this ground due to their presumption that their was a lack of prejudice. They referred the O'Rourke case on a similar point when they admit that no prejudice could be affirmed in that case.

One jury member also phoned my solicitor intimating her dissatisfaction at the guilty verdict and she also conveyed to my solicitor of her sleepless nights ever since the verdict. I was represented by a solicitor who couldn't make time to pursue this matter. Shambolically represented considering we were already pursuing one jury ground.

Everyone knows that it is a criminal offence to investigate what occurs in a jury room during deliberations. The SCCRC are also bound by this law, so how can they properly investigate any jury grounds thoroughly if they are prohibited from investigating the deliberations.

Do you feel this law surpresses evidence that would clear innocent people, and further, do you feel this law breaches ones right to a fair hearing under Human Rights legislation.

David