| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
david
Joined: 01 Mar 2009
Posts: 52
Location: edinburgh
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 12:56 pm Post subject: sccrc |
 |
|
The complainer did state she was screaming in my friends flat and his next door neighbour testified in court that she heard nothing and her dog usually barks when their is noise. The dog did'nt bark that night. The neighbour also intimated that the walls are very thin and therefore she would have heard something if an attack was occurring.
They also used the police surgeon's testimony as corroboration when infact it is impossible for the police surgeon to suggest the complainer did'nt consent.
John Carroll submitted an Opinion to the SCCRC criticising the Police Surgeon's testimony in as far as she could not in any way convey an opinion that the complainer did'nt consent. He referred to a case in europe where a man consented to have a part of his body eaten by another man. These actions were recorded on video and Mr Carroll stated that no professional party would have ever intimated that the man was consenting if it had not been for the video. The SCCRC were not interested in contradicting any Crown evidence in my case. They looked at the evidence from the CROWN'S PERSPECTIVE and didn't question any of it.
When one is "fitted up" and serves years in prison, the majority of the time it is the Crown or the Police who have contibuted to the injustice. The SCCRC should be evaluating all evidence in any cases they take on. I personally know of cases where the SCCRC didn't even bother to look at the Crown evidence. They just took it as gospel and took the easy option and non-referred. I even know of a case where they did refer but only after being directed by an applicant who done investigations himself after being advised by the SCCRC that certain evidence didn't exist. The evidence did exist and they had to refer in the end. I even know of the SCCRC investigating cases that have similar arguments yet the SCCRC only obtain an Expert Opinion relating to one of the cases and don't bother with the other one. Where is the thoroughness and consistency in that?
A new legal challenge is contemplated and the case has been accepted by the Innocence Project. Hopefully my case will be allocated to one of the Innocence Project's Universities expediently.
the fight goes on
David
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
scotkaz
Joined: 28 Aug 2008
Posts: 526
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 11:50 pm Post subject: Re: sccrc |
|
|
| Quote: | | The complainer did state she was screaming in my friends flat and his next door neighbour testified in court that she heard nothing and her dog usually barks when their is noise. The dog did'nt bark that night. The neighbour also intimated that the walls are very thin and therefore she would have heard something if an attack was occurring. |
I read the first statement the accuser made and she said she was screaming. Seems weird that no one in that entire block of flats heard anything. Is even weirder that the dog who barks at anything heard nothing.
So much for corroboration on accusations! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Wullie
Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 1149
Location: Glasgow
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 3:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
David
Did any of your defence teams refer to the following case, referred by SCCRC to appeal court ?
Jerzy Boncza Tomaszewski
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/C158_00.html
I note with great interest that the person who defended Tomaszewski represented the crown in your case, "Targowski QC"
I also note the material differences of opinions from the same leading Judge, The Lord President.
In Tomaszewski his appeal was allowed because the judge misdirected the jury in the following terms:
| Quote: | | but I direct you that, so far as 11, 12. 18 and 19 are concerned, there is sufficient corroboration if you accept the evidence of Dr. Dorward and Dr. Conacher. |
His conviction was quashed on the following Misdirection:
| Quote: | | They were directed that, if they accepted the evidence of the two doctors and could fit it in with the complainer's evidence, then the doctors' evidence would provide the necessary corroboration not only of the complainer's evidence that she had been assaulted in the manner specified in the various items, but also that it had been the appellant who had done the acts in the relevant items of the indictment. |
| Quote: | | the direction to the jury that there was sufficient evidence if they accepted the evidence of the two doctors was a misdirection on a critical point. |
It seems to me that this applied to your case too though the issue at hand in your case was whether there was proof she consented.
I note in your appeal the Judge also directed the jury that they could use the evidence of the expert for proof of corroboration which is wrong:
| Quote: | The Judges Directions:
In that connection she gave them directions as to the circumstances in which distress could provide such corroboration. In the course of these directions she said:
She directed them further that another potential source of corroboration was the evidence of Dr. Hiremath |
Dr Hiremath's evidence was not capable of proving she did not consent
Nor was it proof of Corroboration that anything untoward happened in the house.
If this is a misdirection in Tomaszewski's case then it is too in your case.
I am just wondering how SCCRC can refer one case then reject another with the exact same grounds.
Tomaszewski's case was the very first referred by SCCRC so they would have also been aware of the same Misdirection ground in your case.
Though SCCRC seem to have totally ignored this very significant case when deciding not to refer your own it might be worthwhile to lodge another application and quote "Tomaszewski"
There was no need for John Carroll to refer to the German case, perhaps you should give him a call and discuss these new issues.
You could also lodge an appeal against the decision of your judicial review under special circumstances that your defence team told you you were at the end of the road for appeals.
My understanding of any Judicial Review from a single Judge is that it can be appealed to Three Judges, but that this is not the information you were given.
Quotes from your appeal were taken from here:
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/c885_00.html
Very best wishes |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
david
Joined: 01 Mar 2009
Posts: 52
Location: edinburgh
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 9:25 pm Post subject: corroboration |
|
|
wullie
In our case the judge directed the jury that there was corroboration from Dr Hiremath in as far as that in her OPINION the complainer wouldn't have consented. This Dr Hiremath was a sort of Mystic Meg. The same Dr Hiremath conveyed to a jury that the complainer had injuries that were the worst she had seen, when infact I obtained the Police Report under the Data Protection Act and her injuries are recorded as MINOR. Not sure if my legal team were aware of this report, so I will have to pursue this relating to non disclosure.
The judge also directed the jury that they could use distress for corroboration. Police said she was distressed. Complainer's friend said she was fine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Wullie
Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 1149
Location: Glasgow
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi David
Thanks for a look at the charge to the jury.
What I notice and it sticks out like a sore thumb is the lack of mention of any of the defence evidence.
Besides that there is a clear misdirection at page 17 (1-5) where the judge directs the jury they could use the doctor "Hiremath's" evidence for corroboration just like the case referred by SCCRC and used as a test case "Tomaszewski"
SCCRC should have seen this.
The prosecutor in your case "Targowski" defended Tomaszewski 2 years previously and should have seen the same Misdirection.
But the buck doesn't stop there because it would appear the same Judge presided over the same two cases and should have also noticed the same Misdirection.
The lord Justice General presided over both appeals.
Tomaszewski Misdirection:
| Quote: | | but I direct you that, so far as 11, 12. 18 and 19 are concerned, there is sufficient corroboration if you accept the evidence of Dr. Dorward and Dr. Conacher. |
Your Misdirection:
Taken from your appeal:
| Quote: | | She directed them further that another potential source of corroboration was the evidence of Dr. Hiremath |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Wullie
Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 1149
Location: Glasgow
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
David
I also notice they used art and part in the charge against you.
I do not see how they can hold you art and part in someone else's house for their actions.
There is also evidence this girl came to the house voluntarily and not against her will.
Art and Part would only apply if you all became involved in this "alleged" crime, and my understanding is that only the other two admitted to having actual intercourse is that right ?
If so I do not see how the art and part could have been employed against you because there is no proof you went to a house with any intentions of having sex with someone never mind rape.
This would be a bit like saying if you are standing in a shop and someone you know comes in and robs them, then because you are in the shop to buy fags then you acted art and part.
If any act of rape was committed by two persons without you joining them, in one of their houses, then because you were there does not mean you acted art and part.
You did not go to this house with the intention of watching them have sex either.
Your case stinks, and again it boils down to the same defence Lawyer I have complained of since 1982.
Wonder how many other cases similar to ours will turn up later.
His lack of challenge to the Crown witness Hiremath is appalling, He should have called another expert to counteract her evidence.
Now I understand why SCCRC will not refer his cases, They all stink of cover up after cover up to protect this Lawyer who represents the Law Society at meetings like this one.
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/criminalcourtsrulescouncil/index.asp
And here:
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/crim...council/docs/Minutes23April07.pdf
This explains why SCCRC are reluctant to refer any complaints against Keegan for Defective Representation when he represents the Law Society at these meetings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Wullie
Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 1149
Location: Glasgow
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
David
Some facts about your Lawyer can also be found here:
http://www.sacl.info/rogues.htm#edinburgh
| Quote: | Solicitor Advocate – former Temporary Sheriff – Law Society Council member Convicted Crook – Self-confessed Liar
In 2000 the DTI prosecuted Jim Keegan. The Court of Session ruled he was 'involved in fraudulent conduct' and banned him from being a company director for 3 years. He was involved in other shady business dealings and on one occasion was forced to admit, under oath, that he “did not always tell the truth”.
But here's the rub: Throughout this time the Law Society did absolutely nothing about Keegan. This is hardly surprising as Keegan was a Law Society Council member at the time! |
Seems he is untouchable eh ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Wullie
Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 1149
Location: Glasgow
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 2:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
David told me the last time I spoke to him that a material Crown witness SB did not turn up at court despite being cited by Crown Office and our Courts.
Nothing was done to try and trace this witness in time for the trial starting and he was still residing at the same address.
His evidence was capable of proving that the Alleged victim Miss ----- had left him at the entrance (I Think) which would have been able to contradict her saying she went to their house looking for him (SB)
I find it hard to comprehend why this man was not arrested and his defence team did not ask for an Ajournment until such times as he was arrested and brought to court.
If it was the other way round Crown would have asked for an Ajournment until he was arrested, Of this I am sure
Surely David would have a fresh evidence appeal now but I would like to see Crown Explain to the Courts why this evidence was not heard at the original trial and why no warrant was sought for this witness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scotkaz
Joined: 28 Aug 2008
Posts: 526
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Wullie
Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 1149
Location: Glasgow
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Scotkaz
Some of the comments are very colourful on the article above and show the general public normally will not find someone guilty on such flimsy evidence.
Though in the Fernieside Three they got it drastically wrong.
I have also heard that the alleged victim stayed at the house of - - and showed no signs of any trauma nor having been the victim of rape that weekend at-all.
So much for the forensic evidence of this being the worst case she had ever seen.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
