shirleymckie.myfastforum.org

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

http://www.freewebs.com/ferniesidethreecampaign/

What I have been reading about this case is absolutely appaling.

Here are some facts:

The Alleged victim admitted to lying 56 times

The alleged victim never appeared for the start of the trial and had to be brought to court by the Police.

Only after being dragged out of a house 5 Days after saying she was raped in a stairwell did she change her story and claim she was raped in a house.

The story change was only because CCTV footage showed otherwise, It showed she entered the house of her own accord and she was never in the stairwell

She admitted entering a house with three strangers but only after CCTV showed this was the case.

She is on record as being a "Previous Victim" but one would have to wonder if "as previous victim would she have enetered a house with strangers"

SCCRC have told the three accused that no CCTV evidence exists from the Back door of the block of flats but clearly the Police report says otherwise.

She also admits in her police statement to saying she had already had three men at the same time.

Their defence teams did not challenge her evidence.

They did not challenge the forensic evidence at-all.

Their defence teams called no expert evidence to refute the claims of the police expert leaving me in no doubt they failed to try and never asked any experts if her evidence was challengable.

Clearly if she changed her statement so materially and admits to lying 56 times her mentality is questionable.

Read for yourselves

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

What SCCRC say regarding CCTV:

What Police say regarding CCTV:

See enlarged versions here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/35803767@N04/3315441442/sizes/o/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/35803767@N04/3314450595/sizes/l/

It is also apparent from the SCCRC document above that SCCRC used the Gordon case as an excuse for not referring this appeal but SCCRC have just recently referred the Gordon case back to our appeal courts:

http://www.sccrc.org.uk/conviction.aspx?start=9

Name:Graham Gordon
Date Referred to Court:30 March 2007
Offence:Rape
Date of Conviction:5 September 2002
Appeal Outcome:not yet determined
Date of Appeal Outcome:not yet determined
Judgment:not yet determined

Their reasons for doing so can be found here:

http://www.sccrc.org.uk/viewfile.aspx?id=290

Should SCCRC not now review their decision not to refer in the Fernieside 3 case ?

Regardless of what reasons SCCRC refer a case it is open to the appellant to lodge any grounds he wants to and they must be treated as if they have passed the sift process.

http://williambeck.blogspot.com/

scotkaz · Joined: 28 Aug 2008 Posts: 526

caldem · Joined: 01 Mar 2009 Posts: 2 Location: dalkeith

The sccrc's antics in the edinburgh case are corrupt and definitely stink of friends covering up for each other.

As far as the commission using viz Gordon V HMA in support to non refer the edinburgh case- when infact they have recently referred the Gordon case- I feel this totally destroys the public's confidence in them. Who are these idiots.

If the sccrc have done this in the fernieside 3 case then I bet they've done it with other cases too.

Caldem
_________________
don't let the crown get you down

scotkaz · Joined: 28 Aug 2008 Posts: 526

I have been reading all the information on this case and it is appalling that anyone would get away with changing their version of a story so many times and still be believed.

The thing that gets me is that this woman can say she was attacked and robbed in her first statement. Then in her second statement she says she was raped in the stairway by three UNKNOWN men. Then when she is told that the CCTV footage does not back her up, she admits that these statements are lies.

How any jury could convict people on this kind of evidence I do not know. And that stuff is just for starters in this case.

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

The fernieside three case is unbelievable and a total cover up regarding a political crime and I should know because I am one of the accused.

All arguments submitted to the so called "truth seeking Body" SCCRC in relation to my case would individually or collectively pass any sifting judge in scotland yet the sccrc are continuing to decide these matters for themselves which is a power that wasn't remitted to them by parliament.

The laughable so called independant Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.

1. Jury member going on a "frolic of his own" therefore breaching jury oath and breaching the criminal procedure 1995 Act. Jury member visiting crime scene and conveying his findings to fellow jury members during trial which constituted bringing evidence into court outwith he presense of the accused. The SCCRC admit this was irregular behaviour and a breach of his juror oath yet decide that the evidence didn't prejudice the accused so therefore they would not refer this point to Appeal Court. Part of our argument also stated that a jury member is infact a JUDGE and when judges have acted irregular during trials, the convictions have been quashed. The SCCRC looked for prejudice in relation to deciding whether to refer the juror point in our case but in the O'Rourke case, in which they referred, they could not find prejudice but still referred it in the interests of justice. This so called truth seeking organisation lack consistency. How can the the SCCRC conclude that there was no prejudice when infact they didn't interview any other jury members and aren't permitted by law to investigate what occured in the jury room during deliberations.

2. Many friends of complainer state that the complainer confessed to making false allegations against us. The SCCRC conclude these people are'nt reliable- but decide in favour of a female rape liar who submitted 4 different statements to police. The credibility or reliabilty of a witness is not for the SCCRC to decide. It seems the PF continue to use convicted murderers etc as crown witneses and these are deemed reliable and credible. Laughable. It is for the courts to decide. When refusing the fresh evidence, the SCCRC don't even use the the correct guidelines used in determining miscarriages of justice. They make no reference whatsoever to what any jury would make of the fresh evidence. They decide this matter for themselves which is unlawful. The SCCRC were also submitted with a petitition consisiting of hundreds of names in support of this case but decide it is not in the intersts of justice that this case be referred. The Court of Session decided they didn't apply the proper guidelines relating to the fresh evidence point when I Judicial Reviewed them -but still decided in their favour. Friends and all that.

The SCCRC didn't even bother to interview the complainer's mother who had stated to a MSP and Sunday Broadsheet that her daughter had lied. That is not very truth seeking.

I believe our case was decided before any investigations took place. The repurcussions of a referral to the Appeal Court would have been devastating to the people responsible for this injustice. The Crown and particularly , the Advocate Depute ( who is a judge now - Lady Smith) would have had serious questions to answer. The Police and their over zealous and corrupt officers would have had serious questions to answer. The most important of them all -the Scottish government and country as a whole would have had serious questions to answer. How can a girl give four different statements alleging rape and be considered reliable and credible. If that doesn't amount to doubt- a necessity in any aquittal then I don't know what does. Take our convictions out of the year 2000 and I wonder what the conviction rate for rape was that year ?

The SCCRC used the Gordon case in support of a non referral in my case. They also used it in support of non-referral in the Singh case. They referred the Gordon case to the Appeal Court in 2007. I state in my letter, (case file mojo scotland website 2005) that they were using the Gordon case for reference and support not to refer cases, including mine, but they were infact investigating the Gordon case and treating it as an alleged Miscarriage of Justice at the same time.. Lo and behold they referred the case in 2007.

Regards

David

scotkaz · Joined: 28 Aug 2008 Posts: 526

David

I have been reading through your case and documents and I really feel for what has happened to you.

I hope that one day very soon your case is re opened and investigated fully.

Too many things went so wrong in this case. So many things were not investigated,and lies went unchecked it seems to me.

The SCCRC should be looking at this case properly and doing what they are there for which is to inverstigate and review all the evidence and interview witnesses etc.

I wish you well in your quest for truth justice and openess.

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

I shall continue to fight that non independant truth seeking organisation which calls itself the SCCRC.

Fernieside Three

Our case would have brought embarassment to the Justiciary, Goverment and the Police if our convictions were heard in the Appeal Court. I firmly believe that is why our case was not referred by the so called indepentdant SCCRC. We have an Advocate Depute who pursued our conviction sitting as a High Court judge now. We have police encouraging a complainer to submit four fabricated statements claiming she was raped. We also have officers fabricating evidence in stating they heard us bragging about this made up crime whilst they were listening through a letter box. We have the police charging us of rape within a flat when infact the complainer stated she was attacked in stairwell. We have a police surgeon stating in the High Court that the complainer's injuries were the worst she had seen when infact police records show the so called injuries to be minor. ( No physical marks whatsoever) We have four friends of the complainer stating that the complainer admitted lying. The complainer's mother conveyed to a member of parliament and the sunday herald that the complainer may have lied. All of this would have made a complete mockery of the Justiciary and Goverment.

The government are in a full blooded pursuit to convict rapists and have made it easier to convict men. This is dangerous ground. We all have simpathy for real rape victims and feel the deviants who commit these crimes should be locked up - but there should be a bit more balance and more consideration to the very high numbers of false allegations that the public don't hear about.

We are up against a state that fails real rape victims, as statistics suggest - but at the same time they locked up three innocent young men for 18 years for a crime that was never committed. Shame on them. They will never admit they were wrong and have the benefit of the SCCRC to do all their dirty work.

the fight goes on

David.

My case is extraordinary like most Miscarriages of Justice.

scotkaz · Joined: 28 Aug 2008 Posts: 526

David

I have been reading this info on the Rape Crisis Centre

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

David

The following case extremely contradicts the stance of SCCRC in your case.

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/C158_00.html

(I am absolutely appalled that none of your defence teams used this case for reference at appeal or your judicial review since it was a recent decision, 2nd June 200, your appeal was 2002 I believe)

Once again this points to a lack of consistency within SCCRC in their referrals

In this case they say the Judge misdirected the jury by claiming they could use the experts testimony as corroboration.

In your own case the SCCRC are saying the total opposite.

The crucial point boils down to corroboration and the way I see it, It was three to one that she consented with no corroboration she didn't consent.

The experts cannot testify to what she agreed to in the house.

David can you confirm that your neighbour said she heard nothing and her dog didn't bark but yet barks at the slightest noise normally ?

This alleged victim did claim to have screamed, Am I right ?

If true then this evidence only adds credence to your case rather than hers.

It would seem, even to a lay observer like me that there was an insufficiency of evidence for the judge to allow the case to go to the jury and the case should have fallen.

I hope you will take your case to the Nobile Officium or the Innocence Project will take it up soon.