| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Big Wullie
Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 1149
Location: Glasgow
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:24 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Scotkaz
I knew nothing of this Forensic report till after my conviction and this was another one of my complaints that SCCRC chose to ignore completely.
They did not answer me when I said my defence team defectively represented me.
Nor did they ask any of my defence team why they failed to call this Exculpatory evidence which would have proven that the hammers they took from my house were not used for any Assault & Robbery.
Strange considering Bill Taylor must have been in very close Proximity having an office near Sinclair inside SCCRC.
But then again I think we can all agree that when they fear the answer the question is never asked.
Here is what SCCRC said about DM and Muckle:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/big-wullie/2231626992/sizes/l/
Paragraph 69 is great fun because SCCRC taken at its highest even assuming muckle did identify a stand in as "The Applicants Accomplice"
My recollection of Muckles evidence was he could only Identify the Driver because he was the only one not wearing a Balaclava under his hood and he was the only one that took his hood down.
Every other witness has said they both had Balaclava's on under their hoods.
The last person to see the car near Newbridge before he lost sight of it said he could not identify either Robber as they were still wearing their Balaclava's.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Big Wullie
Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 1149
Location: Glasgow
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Scotkaz
Take Paragraph 67 above and compare it to this:
Clearly at number 2 here All Identity Parades were sent to SCCRC yet they deny this here at Page 11 of their statement of reasons dated 14th December 2004
Bigger clearer picture:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/big-wullie/423643211/sizes/l/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scotkaz
Joined: 28 Aug 2008
Posts: 527
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 8:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Seems to me that neither of them can get their stories straight Wullie.
| Quote: |
"Even assuming that Muckle did indentify a stand in.............the Commission does not accept that this neccesarily invalidates Muckles ID in relation to the applicant himself" |
They seem to be missing the point totally. Perhaps deliberatley on purpose.
Mr Muckle said he could only ID the driver since the driver was the only one not wearing a mask, according to only him and not other witnesses I may add.
So did the 2nd ID parade take place with only masked men to ID? How can they try to identify someone whose face was totally covered?
Seems logical to me since according to Muckle the other guy had a mask on. Everyone else said the driver and the passenger had masks on too.
And if he said the only person he could pick out was the driver and he picked you, then surely there was no need to have a 2nd ID parade in the first place.
If I recall correctly, the policeman was the one who came into the ID parade and said Number 2 before even looking up.
The whole case stinks to high heaven Wullie.
The fact that those hammers were tested and came back negative for blood or hair, should have been highlighted in court.
They obviously never recovered the actual weapons used in the attack which I believe they said were axes anyway.
There is a big difference between a hammer and an axe. Which you can see below. The only similarity is the handle and if people said it was an axe then thats what was probably used.
Here is your run of the mill hammer
And the average Axe.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
