shirleymckie.myfastforum.org

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 456 Location: Glasgow

Below is a private message from Allan McLoed which i feel must be shared by all viewers of this forum.

To: Big Wullie
Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 8:54 am
Subject: Re: Injustice's In Scotland
Hi Wullie, I feel very sorry for what you have been put through within the corrupt Scottish justice system. My family and I know only to well how you and others on your site feel as we too have been fighting for justice for 10 years. But believe you me, "You Aint Seen Nothing Yet"!!
.The case of my nephew Kevin Mcleod who was found in Wick harbour in 1997 I can "assure" your viewers has it all Corruption, Collousion, Conspiracy and Cover-up at the Highest levels. The reason- To protect those who we suspected from the outset Murdered Kevin. After 10 years people are eventually beginning to talk and very soon we believe the truth will be exposed as to, "Who Killed Kevin"!! This I believe will also like Shirley Mckies case be National Headlines,and will cause public outrage throughout Scotland.
Kevin did not sustain his massive abdominal injuries by falling onto an ornamental street bollard. Kevin was KICKED TO DEATH, then probably thrown in the harbour to make it look like an accident.The police informed the family "prior" to the recovery of Kevins body that they could "assure us" there was "no suspicious circumstances". The Procurator fiscal instructed police to launch a Murder Inquiry which was then investigated by 2 junior detectives and 1 pc plod who then ignored Every Single Police Procedure,WHY? They failed to ask for extra resources, failed to conduct door to door enquiries, failed to cordon off the locus, failed to search the scene, failed to trace a possible named suspect and witnesses, failed to inform the Patholigist that Kevin had been in an earlier altercation, they then immediately destroyed his clothing, and failed to have it forensically tested, WHY??? the list is endless.Who Killed Kevin???Watch this Space!!!

allan mcleod · Joined: 10 Jun 2007 Posts: 77

TO READ IN MORE DETAIL THE CIRCUMSTANCES RELATING TO KEVINS CASE LOG ON TO www.asearchforjustice.co.uk website.

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 456 Location: Glasgow

Please read the following from Allan McLeod

Hi Wullie,
My Family has a meeting arranged in Wick for Tues 26 June with Scotlands Newly Appointed
" Independent " Police Complaints Commissioner Mr Jim Martin.
We hope he will give us the answers that Northern Constabulary and Central Scotland Police Forces refused to release over the past 10 years,which related to the Initial Murder Enquiry into Kevins death, being, Why did they blatantly ignore every police procedure in the book.Then blatantly ignore our 26 complaints.
Time will tell if Mr Martin really is "impartial and Independent" ( I doubt it ). A. Mcleod
17 JUNE 2007

Dear Mr Martin,
I Read with great interest you letter of 2 April 2007 addressed to the then Justice Minister Cathy Jamieson.
Having read the second paragraph regarding your ambition to Support Police forces,Police authorities and Policing agencies, I reached the conclusion that your Credibility Integrity your policy of Direction, Openness,Transparency, also of being "Impartial and Independent" is without doubt very suspicious indeed.
What about supporting the complainers, the victims and the familys who for years and years have been fighting a losing battle against corrupt police forces and justice system.?
Until Scotland has similar to Northern Irelands Independent "OMBUDSMAN" anything other will be treated with much suspicion.
History dictates to my family and hundreds of other Scottish families fighting for justice that agencies that claim to be " Impartial and Independent " are not to be trusted,and that the whole justice system in Scotland is Corrupt and rotten to the core.
However should you prove to my and other families in Scotland that you truly are" Impartial and Independent" then and only then will the people of Scotland have trust and faith regarding your position as " Independent " Police Complaints Commissioner.

Yours Sincerely
Mr Allan Mcleod.

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 456 Location: Glasgow

Family's quest for justice over death of Kevin
Published: 08 June, 2007
SIR – We refer to the letter by Dr Neville Jones in last week's John O'Groat Journal under the heading "Blatant destruction of forensic evidence in Kevin McLeod case". Dr Jones's opinion and wise, kind words are welcomed and valued by the family.

We, the family, suspect that the apparent incompetence by police was nothing less than perverting the course of justice.

We informed the two junior detectives at the outset that they were out of their depth in investigating Kevin's death and requested they invite in the big boys with experience in this field – to which they replied: "We have experience." Aye, right.

A local diver discovered Kevin's body on Sunday, February 9, 1997, but police informed the family prior to the recovery of the body that they could "assure" us there were "no suspicious circumstances". Strange, when Kevin's body was still in the harbour.

Then on Monday, February 10, the pathologist Dr Rankin contacted the procurator fiscal Mr MacDonald regarding her preliminary findings at postmortem. She informed Mr MacDonald that the injuries Kevin had sustained were consistent with a kicking received several hours prior to Kevin having entered the water, and that the injuries themselves would inevitably have proved fatal.

The procurator fiscal then instructed police to launch a murder inquiry – the phrase used by him was "the full works". So was Wick then flooded with police officers to investigate this murder? No – just two local junior detectives and one PC Plod, who then ignored every police procedure. Why? They failed to ask for extra resources. Why? They failed to conduct door-to-door enquiries, failed to cordon off the locus, failed to search the scene for evidence, failed to trace a possible named suspect and witnesses, failed to inform the pathologist that Kevin had been assaulted in an earlier altercation, and failed to conduct proper recovery procedures – instead, without any dignity, compassion or respect, they put a rope around Kevin's body and dragged him out of the water, up against the harbour wall and onto the quayside. They then immediately destroyed his clothing, having failed to have it tested forensically. Why? The list of serious failings is endless. And this apparently was "the full works" in a murder inquiry.

Within 24 hours, and prior to two pathologists completing their postmortem examinations, one of the junior detectives and the one PC Plod concluded their murder inquiry – their conclusion being that Kevin had been walking home "at speed" and had tripped and fallen onto a 35-inch ornamental street bollard, which caused his massive abdominal injuries.

Les Brown, a retired Glasgow murder detective who had investigated over 250 murders, agreed along with numerous independent eminent pathologists that this bollard conclusion by police was utterly ludicrous and that Kevin's death was a "missed homicide".

The other so-called inquiry six months later, as police stated, was due to media attention, and was no doubt a smokescreen to try and cover up the serious failings of the initial inquiry. Also, five years later, the then theory of Kevin having fallen onto a lobster creel was without doubt another ludicrous fabrication to try and fob us off.

We asked the deputy chief constable to highlight Kevin's case on the BBC Crimewatch programme, only to be told: "No, we want this case kept local." Why?

The family then wrote to Northern Constabulary with 26 complaints regarding their serious failings at the initial murder inquiry. In Chief Constable Andrew Cameron's secret report he concluded that "a check of the complaints against the police register maintained by Northern Constabulary has revealed that the complaints received were not recorded in the register and therefore had not been lodged as complaints". Why not? Did they go in the bin?

With regard to Kevin's clothing being destroyed, Mr Cameron concluded: "Despite interviews being undertaken with all officers who had a connection with the property of Kevin McLeod, this inquiry has failed to establish where, when and by whom the clothing of the deceased was destroyed. The failure of the force to seize, retain and submit for examination the clothing worn by Kevin McLeod at the time of his death remains inexplicable."

With regard to Kevin's injuries, Mr Cameron stated: "It is the inquiry's view that had the existence and significance of the injuries been properly recognised and assessed by detectives at the time of the first inquiry, the investigation may well have been directed differently." The report added: "It has to be acknowledged that the inquiry which followed the postmortem findings lacked objectivity, clear accountability and ownership and crucially supervision and direction." (In other words, Northern Constabulary is clueless.)

It's little wonder that four high-ranking officers suddenly retired during Mr Cameron's investigation and that Chief Constable Latimer refuses to meet with the family. To this day Mr Latimer continues to state that police found no evidence of criminality. The reason is crystal clear – because they did not look for evidence of criminality. Their conclusion as to how Kevin died had already been reached while Kevin was still lying in the murky waters of Wick harbour. Why?

Sheriff Cameron, in his "open verdict" determination at the fatal accident inquiry, also concluded that Kevin's injuries were compatible with having been assaulted with great force such as by kicking or kneeing by a person(s) unknown.

We find it curious and puzzling why every single witness that has come forward has then apparently (as police stated) been either colluding, lying or unreliable. But we, the family, know and suspect who really is unreliable, colluding and lying.

Kevin did not die by falling onto either an ornamental street bollard or a lobster creel. Kevin was without doubt kicked to death – murdered.

The public, like the family, know that something sinister happened to Kevin that fateful night which will haunt those evil, sick, twisted people responsible, and those who know what happened, for the rest of their living days. How anyone can protect these scum by remaining silent beggars belief.

Kevin's case, we believe, has it all: corruption, collusion, conspiracy and a cover-up at the highest level. But be well assured, with the public's continued support, we will continue in our quest until justice prevails and the truth is known. Only then can the family move forward and Kevin will finally be able to rest in peace.

Anyone with information regarding Kevin's death, however insignificant it may appear, is respectfully requested to contact in complete confidence the family solicitor at John Macaulay & Co, Solicitors, 46 London Road, Glasgow G1 5NB (telephone 0141 552 2831).

Kevin McLeod's family, Nicolson Street, Wick and Firhill, Alness.

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 456 Location: Glasgow

Blatant destruction of forensic evidence in McLeod case
Published: 01 June, 2007
SIR – For the past 10 years the family of Kevin McLeod have struggled against the odds to uncover the truth concerning Kevin's likely murder and to obtain justice against those who might have been involved with either Kevin's death or with the possible subsequent cover-up and subversion.

A few months ago most of a report produced by an "independent" chief constable, Andrew Cameron, into Northern Constabulary's handling of the Kevin McLeod case was made public. Credit to Hugh, June and Allan McLeod for successfully challenging Northern Constabulary's strange refusal to release this report (a report that took six months to produce and that cost a staggering £292,000).

As observed by another correspondent to your newspaper, high-ranking police officers can be uncharacteristically willing and able when it comes to avoiding criminal proceedings by means of retirement or sudden alleged illnesses. In view of this sort of General Pinochet effect, just how objective and independent can we expect an inquiry into Northern Constabulary's "investigations" into Kevin McLeod's death to be, when the author is the chief constable of another force?

This question is posed only for the purpose of stimulating consideration. Without access to the full report, and the source material that it is based upon, we can only speculate as regards an answer. It is certainly remarkable that such an outrageously expensive report should produce so little information. However, despite what appears to me to be little more than an attempt to deflect public attention towards an apparent rebuke of Northern Constabulary for being "insensitive" to the McLeod family in their time of grief, something highly significant does indeed lurk within Mr Cameron's document.

Sweeping away the diversionary smokescreen, we see that the author, who would naturally be sympathetic to the genuine shortcomings of another force (not unlike his own), is nevertheless unable to dismiss a deliberate and, in my opinion, criminal act: the destruction of Kevin McLeod's clothes.

This was no simple mistake, for normal procedure is for property held by the police to be returned to the victim or, as in this case, the next of kin. On the contrary, this must have been a conscious and quite deliberate act. So, why were the clothes destroyed, who destroyed them, and who gave the orders to destroy them?

As to why Kevin's clothes were burnt (or otherwise disposed of), that is surely clear. A deliberate act like this is governed by motivation and the consequence of the action is designed to satisfy that motivation. Here, the result was the blatant destruction of forensic evidence.

If Kevin McLeod was viciously attacked, grabbed and thrown into the harbour, then what would almost certainly have been present on his clothes?

Kevin was a fit and strong young man, whose blood/alcohol level indicated the consumption of merely two pints of beer that night, so he would probably have offered serious resistance. Blood, hair (possibly) and tissue or nail fragments from his attacker(s) would almost certainly have been present on his clothing. Who would know this? The person who authorised the disposal of Kevin's clothes would know this. So why did they issue such an order? This is for the criminal justice system to determine – a criminal justice system that, in failing Mr and Mrs McLeod, has failed us all. All, that is, except the wicked and the corrupt.

I admire Mr and Mrs McLeod for their ceaseless striving to expose the truth and for trying to obtain some form of justice for their son. There must be times when they become very weary. (Kevin's uncle in Alness, too, deserves credit.) Their efforts and dedication are to the benefit of all decent people.

Let us therefore not remain silent over this disgraceful episode any longer.

Dr Neville Jones, Old Bruan Schoolhouse, Mid Clyth

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 456 Location: Glasgow

Kevin McLeod

Kevin's family say cover-up claim justified as report criticises police
By Iain Grant
Published: 07 February, 2007
NORTHERN Constabulary's treatment of complaints about its handling of the Kevin McLeod case has been criticised in an independent report carried out by the head of another force.

The report also highlights shortcomings in the way Kevin's unsolved death was investigated by the police.

Though completed in 2003, the report was only released on Friday after a successful appeal to Freedom of Information Commissioner Kevin Dunion by Kevin's uncle, Allan McLeod.

Mr Dunion sanctioned its publication subject to some sections of the 284-page dossier being blacked out to comply with the Data Protection Act.

Mr McLeod and Kevin's parents, Hugh and June McLeod, claim the findings justify their long-held belief that the force has been involved in a cover-up.

They insist the battery of criticisms are so damning that Northern Constabulary's Chief Constable Ian Latimer and his deputy, Garry Sutherland, should resign.

The £292,000 report was carried out by And-rew Cameron, Chief Constable of Central Scotland Police.

Mr Cameron pulls no punches in acknowledging that the family's complaints were not properly dealt with and says they are due an apology.

None has so far been forthcoming from the force. However, it maintains it has acted on Mr Cameron's recommendations to improve its complaints-handling process.

In the report, Mr Cameron reveals that part of his probe was handicapped by Alasdair MacDonald, who was procurator fiscal in Wick at the time of the death, being "unavailable" for interview.

Northern Constabulary has found no evidence that warrants charges being raised following two investigations into the death of 24-year-old Kevin on February 8, 1997, at Wick harbour.

His family's suspicions that he had been the victim of foul play were aroused when they learned the results of a postmortem examination after Kevin's body was recovered from the bottom of the harbour.

A prominent US pathologist deemed that the severe internal injuries Kevin sustained were consistent with a beating savage enough to prove fatal.

In a foreword to his investigation, Mr Cameron acknowledges the ongoing mystery surrounding the events leading up to the tragedy.

He states: "To this day, the circumstances in which he died remain the subject of controversy and his family's campaign to prove that his death was not an accident continues unabated."

In reviewing how the force dealt with the family's long list of complaints, he outlines both individual and corporate failings on the part of Northern Constabulary.

He singles out former Deputy Chief Constable Keith Cullen and his then deputy, Chief Superintendent Ramsay McGhee, for criticism. Mr Cameron recommended that misconduct proceedings be considered for each of them.

The McLeods regularly complained that the force did not follow up new information supplied by them and kept them in the dark about what was going on.

Mr Cameron said that Mr Cullen consistently failed to record formal letters of complaint and investigate them properly. The deputy chief constable was also wrong not to consider the complaints as potentially amounting to misconduct through a neglect of duty.

Too often his replies focused on references to the findings of the fatal accident inquiry into Kevin's death.

The report states: "Both criticism and praiseworthy comments made by the presiding sheriff concerning the conduct of the force during the investigation were quoted extensively in an attempt to justify taking no further action in any or all of the areas of complaint."

Mr Cullen is criticised for misleading replies he gave about the outcome of his probe into the complaints to both MSP Maureen Macmillan and William Taylor, then Chief Inspector of Constabulary in Scotland.

Mr Cameron reflects criticisms made during the fatal accident inquiry into the conduct of the initial police inquiry.

He says the force failed in a number of areas after postmortem results upgraded the investigation to a potential murder inquiry.

These included:

q The lack of door-to-door enquiries.

q The destruction of Kevin's clothing.

q The failure to put an inspector in charge of the investigation.

q The belated interviewing of potential witnesses and a person who allegedly assaulted Kevin on the night.

Mr Cameron describes the failure to retain the clothing as inexplicable and "a substantial error of judgement".

He concludes that insufficient account was originally given to Kevin's death not being accidental. Had the death been properly assessed as suspicious, he said the above shortcomings would have been addressed.

He states: "While it is debatable where such a major crime response was ever realistically envisaged (due to assumptions favouring accident), this inquiry concludes that the circumstances requiring its initiation clearly existed as soon as the postmortem injuries were discovered."

Mr Cameron says it is not necessarily possible, nor indeed helpful, to blame any particular officer for the shortcomings.

But he adds: "It has to be acknowledged that the inquiry which followed the postmortem findings lacked objectivity, clear accountability and ownership, and, crucially, supervision and direction above the rank of detective sergeant."

Mr Cameron criticises the force's then policy of not examining a body prior to the postmortem. He says this can handicap the inquiry through time delay and the loss of potentially vital evidence.

The force is also taken to task for its recording and analysis of photographs of the injuries.

"The poor performance of the force in these areas is significant and has remained central to many of the complaints made by the family," the report states. "The situation would have been exacerbated in the event of any criminal proceedings arising."

Communication with the family is another area where the force did not come up to scratch, according to Mr Cameron.

Many of Allan McLeod's letters did not get a response, while the family learned that police were concluding an investigation into an alleged fresh lead after reading an article in the John O'Groat Journal.

Mr Cameron refers to an "inconsistent, confused and fragmented" approach to communication with the family at all levels within Northern Constabulary. He concludes that the family deserves an apology over "the patent lack of communication" in respect of their complaints.

Mr Cameron is similarly critical over the force's general interaction with the family.

He says: "Northern Constabulary failed the McLeod family in not more actively pursuing the delivery of an appropriate level of information commensurate with the developing circumstances and the family's interpretation of the events surrounding the death.

"A singular lack of communication and interaction with the family has exacerbated the whole situation."

He adds: "Against the backcloth of a family who are clearly of the view that Kevin McLeod was murdered, it is the view of this inquiry that a much more sympathetic and compassionate approach should have been adopted, albeit the family became increasingly aggressive in their attitude towards the force and its individual members."

Increased face-to-face contact would have been of great benefit, Mr Cameron concludes.

Mr Cameron believes Mr Cullen was wrong to depend largely on the findings of the fatal accident inquiry in his responses to the McLeods. Had he fully investigated complaints, he could have found issues which "could have inferred misconduct on the part of his officers".

In his examination of his treatment of a complaint from Hugh McLeod, Mr Cameron says: "It is apparent that Mr Cullen's overall approach to the matter and his letter of response served to alienate the McLeod family further from Northern Constabulary."

Mr Cameron claims that much would have been achieved had Mr Cullen adopted an early stance of "apology and explanation".

His report also examines four allegations of criminal conduct on the part of police officers – all said to be below chief officer rank.

At the outset, all were given immunity from formal action unless serious misconduct was revealed. The outcome of this probe is among the sections of the report kept confidential.

Mr Cameron recommends a review of procedures into how the force investigates sudden deaths, while recognising that new guidelines were published in 1999. He also advocates an overhaul of the force's outdated, paper-based complaints-handling system and improvements in its communications with relatives.

The force has since introduced a computer system to administer complaints, and – like all forces – now has family liaison officers.

Hugh and June McLeod, of Nicolson Street, Wick, and Allan McLeod, of Firhill, Alness, claim the report is a shocking indictment of how the force responded to the family's complaints.

Hugh, a 56-year-old welder, says it supports their long-held view that the police have been guilty of "a massive cover-up".

He said: "We're disgusted by what we have read but at the same time it reinforces everything we have believed in the past.

"Ian Latimer keeps talking about the integrity of his force. I think this report totally undermines that belief, and we think he and Mr Sutherland need to go now to help give integrity back to Northern Constabulary.

"It seems the only way of regaining the confidence of the people in the Highlands in the force."

Hugh said the family would not rest until Kevin's killers are brought to book.

"Kevin was murdered. He didn't die on his own account and we're determined the truth will come out in the end," he said.

Allan McLeod described the report as "horrendous". He received just 15 replies to his 82 letters "It beggars belief that our complaints were not recorded or logged," he said. "Mr Latimer says our complaints were dealt with rigorously and vigorously, but they were put in the bottom drawer.

"The report also fully backs up our concern about the very serious shortcomings in what was a potential murder inquiry."

Allan added: "I think the senior officers involved should be hanging their heads in shame. After viewing the report, we now know why Mr Latimer refused to meet with the family and why three high-ranking officers involved with the case retired during Mr Cameron's investigation."

Mr Cullen resigned shortly before he was due to appear at a misconduct hearing.

The McLeods plan to take legal advice as part of their efforts to have the case reopened.

The family also plan to step up their campaign to have an independent police ombudsman appointed to investigate complaints against police.

The report was commissioned by Northern Joint Police Board, which previously sought to keep it confidential.

Speaking after its release, board convener Janet Home said: "The board is satisfied that the recommendations made in the report have been implemented and were validated by HMI in his last inspection in 2003.

"We are satisfied that the complex issues which arose as a result of the investigation have been dealt with."

In a prepared statement, Mr Latimer said Kevin's death had been tragic. "This was indeed a heartbreaking loss for the family. However, numerous investigations including a fatal accident inquiry concluded that Kevin's death was a tragic accident.

"In the intervening years, recommendations made by Mr Andrew Cameron in his report have been implemented."

Mr Latimer says it is unfortunate the report is not able to be released in full because of data-protection requirements.

He said: "It is the opinion of Northern Constabulary that the investigation by Mr Cameron in 2003 drew to a close outstanding issues of the criticisms made by Mr and Mrs McLeod into the handling of complaints made by them over a number of years.

"It is therefore our position that all complaints made by the McLeod family were rigorously and independently investigated some years ago.

"The allegations made in the report were not tested in a misconduct hearing and, as chief constable, I cannot make comment on behalf of officers who are no longer serving in this force and who retired some years ago."

He says both he and the Highland area procurator fiscal Andrew Laing remain satisfied that the report does not point to any new line of inquiry or evidence to substantiate any criminality in Kevin's death.

Mr Latimer again rebutted charges that there had been any cover-up or conspiracy.

"The report clearly states that my officers have been subject to a series of allegations which have been shown to have no basis in fact, and, on examination, do not have any credibility," he said.

"Every allegation with regard to any issues surrounding the investigations into the death of Kevin McLeod or the investigation of the complaints made by the family have been rigorously probed.

"Each aspect of the investigation into the death has been considered and endorsed by the Crown and scrutinised by the independent procurator fiscal. Every complaint made by the family has now been subject to independent investigation and is concluded."

Mr Latimer did acknowledge some of the complaints could have been handled in a more professional manner.

But he added: "Some 10 years on, lessons have been learned and changes have been made in the way complaints are dealt with by all forces."

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 456 Location: Glasgow

No other grieving family should have to endure this
Published: 09 February, 2007
SIR – May we, through your columns, express our sincere gratitude to all those who have telephoned and sent cards or letters of support for our "Justice for Kevin" campaign.

The recent release of the report by Andrew Cameron, Chief Constable of Central Scotland Police, proves beyond any doubt whatsoever that Northern Constabulary dramatically failed from the outset to properly investigate both Kevin's horrific death and our subsequent complaints. Their incompetence, failings and dereliction of duty, and also their disrespect and lack of remorse shown to Kevin's body and thereafter towards the family, is totally unforgivable. We sincerely hope that no other grieving family has to endure what we have suffered at the hands of Northern Constabulary over the past 10 years in trying to obtain truth and justice.

Those police officers and other authorities involved in this case should be hanging their heads in disgust and shame, knowing what they were part of. How they can look themselves in the mirror or sleep at night beggars belief.

A special thank-you to former murder detective Les Brown, Bryan Davies from "A Search for Justice", also investigating officer Alison Davies and the commissioner from the Freedom of Information office for all their professional assistance and advice; and to the editor of this newspaper, reporter Iain Grant and the hard-working team who have highlighted Kevin's case from the outset.

Finally, a million thank-yous to the person who has continued to work tirelessly and who has dedicated much of his own time over the past 10 years to proving that Kevin's case was indeed a massive cover-up by Northern Constabulary: Kevin's uncle, Allan McLeod. Without his determination and hard work, this case would no doubt have been hidden deep in the dark vaults of the Northern Constabulary.

The McLeod Family, 7 Nicolson Street,

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 456 Location: Glasgow

This along with the above posts are PMs sent to me by Allan McLeod but he wishes me to post in open Forum.

LETTER TO NEW POLICE COMPLAINTS COMMISSIONER.

170 Firhill
Alness
Ross-Shire.
IV17 ORX.
10 JUNE 2007.
REVIEW OF COMPLAINTS.

Dear Mr Martin,
With regards to my familys meeting with you later this month, We strongly object to meeting with you "prior" to you meeting with Mr Latimer and the board.
We believe that it would be more appropriate and beneficial for you to meet with the family after your meeting with Mr Latimer.
As you will no doubt be aware Kevins Case is a High Profile, Highly Publicised case, therefore, please be assured that we have professional bodies at the ready to heavily scrutinise your remit and role in this particular case, to ensure that you are not favourable to Scottish Police Forces and that you are indeed "Impartial and Totally Independent".
Therefore should we have any concerns or doubts that this is not the case, again please be assured we will let our concerns or doubts be known to the Scottish Press and Media also in the fourthcoming Sky Television Documentary due to screened later this year of which you declined to participate.
We would also welcome and hope that you will forward a "written report" to the family regarding your review findings including your views and any recommendations.
We look forward to meeting with you later this month to discuss your review.

Yours Sincerely

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 456 Location: Glasgow

Hi Wullie, any chance of putting this press release on the site, also wait till you see letter from pf which i will forward later (talk about corrupt!! & police investigating police.)
Regards Allan.
Commissioner requires release of information from Wick Harbour death report

News Release: 16 January 2007- for immediate use
Commissioner requires release of information from Wick Harbour death report
The Scottish Information Commissioner today (16 January 2007) has issued a decision requiring Northern Joint Police Board to release a substantial proportion of the information contained within a report relating to the death of Kevin McLeod at Wick Harbour in 1997.
The report considers the manner in which Northern Constabulary dealt with complaints made by the McLeod family regarding its investigation of the case. The report, commissioned by the Board, was produced by Andrew Cameron, the Chief Constable of Central Scotland Police.
Kevin McLeod’s uncle, Allan McLeod, requested a copy of the report findings from the Board under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). The Board refused this request, arguing that FOISA permitted the report to be withheld under various exemptions. Mr McLeod subsequently appealed to the Commissioner.
Following investigation, the Commissioner found that, while some of the information contained within the report could be withheld, the majority of the information - approximately two-thirds of the report - should be released.
Kevin Dunion, the Scottish Information Commissioner, said:
“Clearly this case involves sensitive matters. It has not been the practice for such reports to be put into the public domain. However the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act means that authorities have to justify withholding information. The Board argued that the entire content of this report fell within the scope of the various exemptions cited. However, the report covers a range of information, relating not only to complaints about the actions of individual officers, but also to Northern Constabulary’s general policies and procedures when investigating complaints of this nature. “
“I have found that most of the information which relates to the concerns the McLeod family raised with the Police should be disclosed, along with that information relating to the manner in which their complaints were handled. Release of some of this information will promote Northern Constabulary’s accountability.”
The Commissioner added:
“While this decision may have a bearing on whether similar reports should be released in the future, each case has to be reviewed on its individual merits, and a decision reached only following careful consideration of the specific circumstances involved.”
The Commissioner required the information to be disclosed to Mr McLeod within 45 days.
Ends

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 456 Location: Glasgow

Below is a copy of e-mail from Allan McLeod which he wishes to be placed on the forum for everyone to see.

Having studied Central Scotlands Chief Constable Andrew Camerons much redacted 284 page report regarding his fingings into Northern Constabularys investigation and handling of Kevins case also my familys subsequent 26 complaints, My family was suspicious as to weather or not the Procurator Fiscal Mr Macdonald had been interviewed by Mr Camerons Enquiry team, after all he was the man who issued instructions to police to launch a "Murder Inquiry"."
Mr Cameron in his report stated that Mr Macdonald had been "Unavailable for interview"
We wrote to the Procurator Fiscal Mr Macdonald to ask if he had been approached or interviewed by Mr Camerons enquiry team, below is the Procurator Fiscals letter of reply dated 16 February 2007.- (Talk about a Cover-up.) Read on--

Dear Mr & Mrs Mcleod,
Further to my letter of 12 February I Regret that my enquiries have failed to provide any answers. Whilst I have no wish to add to the controversy that surrounds this matter-- I fear I must do so. I cannot imagine upon what possible basis I could be described as
"unavailable" for interview.
Apart from the usual absences for annual leave etc; and a period of absence due to illness in May and June 2002 I have, as a public servant, always been and remain contactable through my office in Tain and willing to assist in any way possible.
Despite researches neither my office manager nor I have any record or recollection of any contact by or on behalf of the author of this report to provide assistance to his inquiry and I can only therefore reply that the reference to which you have drawn my attention remains a complete mystery to me.
Yours Faithfully
A N MacDonald
Procurator Fiscal.