shirleymckie.myfastforum.org

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 486 Location: Glasgow

Iain and Pat

Your comments above are much needed to those fighting Injustice not only in this country but worldwide it would seem.
No matter where, it is all dealt with the same by the police and Authorities, Once they have made up their minds of your Guilt they will Fabricate and lie their Ar-es off to convict that person, Even it would seem when they have a confession From the real Perpetrator
The main question in this case is how that Confession was treated.............. for example....... Was any part of the confession investigate to see if there was any truth in it At-All, or was it just simply cast aside from the begining??
I sincerely hope that the African People can see what their police tactics actually mean to the way people will view their Country in future.
The case of Missing Maddie McCann recently highlighted in todays press.
Portugal Police tried to induce the mother to confess to killing her with the promise of a light sentence, Even though there is no proof that she is dead.
Shockingly now there is another couple who it has emerged also lost a child in Portugal, and had the same person Investigating their case.
They now claim they were beat up by this high Ranking Policeman and have produced photos to prove this.
Appallingly there is no public outcry over the conduct of the Animals in Police Uniform perpetrating these crimes against these people.
Wakey Wakey people, Please support these people that are fighting corrupt Justice Systems Worldwide.

Iain McKie · Joined: 08 May 2007 Posts: 173 Location: Ayr, Scotland.

For those who do not know of Pat Wertheim he is a Texas ‘cowboy’ - or so he was described by the SCRO as they fought to rubbish his expert evidence following Shirley’s trial in 1999. As usual they only compounded their ignorance by not realising that to a Texan ‘cowboy’ is a term indicating skill, dedication and expertise. There are other aspects to his nature that fit this description however as he shoots from the hip and doesn’t suffer fools gladly.

These qualities so evident in the Scottish high court are now in demand worldwide and along with Dutch expert Arie Zeelenberg he testified in South Africa at the Fred van de Vyver trial.

http://www.shirleymckie.com/docum...ExpertevidenceSouthAfrica2doc.pdf

As I have stated before I do not see the purpose of this forum to ascertain guilt or innocence – that is the job of the courts – but to ensure that wherever possible the individual has a voice and access to support and advice to fight their case. I can however respect commentators like Big Wullie who after 25 years of fighting for justice is a bit more direct in expressing his discontent.

This said however in cases with international dimensions like Lockerbie and those more local in their effect like Fred’s, Big Wullie’s, Alan McNamara’s, and others it is difficult to sit on the fence while at the same time aware that there are massive problems with the prosecution evidence and sometimes with the very organisations charged with ensuring equity and justice.

While we in the UK come nowhere near to experiencing the atrocities visited on victims across the world too often our much-vaunted advanced democracy lets people down. I believe that the real sign of a country’s advancement and democracy is how often known injustice is allowed to exist without being righted. On that basis the UK has a long way to go.

Now the internet has given 'victims' the voice denied them by the system. Increasingly public opinion worldwide is being shaped through the internet and it is through this medium that many people make judgements on a country’s justice system.

While the verdict is still to be announced and my thoughts are with Fred, his family and friends at this anxious time I hope that the South African justice system will prove equal to the task facing it.

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 486 Location: Glasgow

Iain

You are absolutely right on the internet Issue.
In my own case i have recently E-Mailed An Identification Expert who has averred: There is possible Mistakes and flaws in the Identification of me.
Anyone who knows me knows that i have been fighting and debating with SCCRC since 2001 six years.
In all the time they claim to have investigated my grounds of appeal not once did they ask for expert opinions on Identifications or timings etc etc.
At this time in 2001 i did not have a clue about internet.
Now with an impending Judicial Review of SCCRCs decisions the internet has allowed me to contact experts that where out of my reach years ago.
It has also allowed me the chance to put my points to the world for their opinions and not just the Scottish People.
I must therefore highly recommend that anyone fighting for justice use this Tool. There are plenty of courses open to people that cannot use it.

I will finish by saying that the proof is in the pudding, When we have experts like Iain McKie and Pat Wertheim voicing their opinions here.
This must give people hope.

Pat A. Wertheim · Joined: 23 Apr 2007 Posts: 35 Location: USA

All testimony in the trial in South Africa was completed a couple of weeks ago and closing arguments were scheduled for October 1. The prosecutor gave closing arguments yesterday and rested. The defense attorney began closing arguments but did not finish and was set to complete his closing this morning. However, when the court convened, the judge announced that even though the defendant's alibi was corroborated by the testimony of two other witnesses, the fact that the defendant exercised his right to remain silent meant that his alibi did not have much weight in the eyes of the court.

At that point, the defense moved to reopen testimony so the defendant could testify. The judge then closed the session by saying he would rule on that motion in a fortnight.

http://www.thepost.co.za/?fSectio...icleId=nw20071002213327925C603820

What happened to the right to remain silent? If the judge can infer self incrimination from the fact that the defendant relied on other witnesses to prove his case for him, what rights does one have in such a system? In the US, that type of announcement on the part of a judge might even be grounds for removal from the bench. If a defendant declines to testify, a judge here will admonish the jury that no inference can be made from the fact that the defendant did not testify.

Is there a penalty to remaining silent in Scotland? It would appear that in South Africa, there is.

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 486 Location: Glasgow

Pat

Although no penalty could be attached to you for remaining silent, In some cases the Jury will make their own inferences, and that is the way it should be.
The Judge should be removed from the Bench with Immediate Effect.
Judges are not allowed to even have an opinion of cases never mind infer any evidence is weaker than others, Although in my own case, The judge told the Jury to consider the Police's evidence with great care Because: He was an Off-Duty policeman with 4 years service.
He also suggested that witnesses could Have Mistaken Hoods as Balaclava Helmets, yet there was never any dispute about the Balaclavas except by the two witnesses that identified me, They were the only two that said they were not wearing Balaclavas.
Even the Two Postmen that were assaulted said they were wearing Balaclavas.
I do not think Judges should even be allowed to Address Juries unless an Argument arises on legal issues.
I am sorry but the last thing a Jury always remember is the Judge Saying: Ladies and Gentlemen There Is Enough Evidence For A Conviction, and in 99 out of 100 cases the Judge has the habit of re-counting all the Crown Evidence but never does the same with the Defence Evidence.
Judges should not be allowed to comment on Evidence Ever.

Pat A. Wertheim · Joined: 23 Apr 2007 Posts: 35 Location: USA

The difference is that in South Africa there is no jury system. A single judge hears all the evidence and renders the verdict. In major cases such as this, a judge can appoint two assessors whose duty it is to help the judge understand the evidence. The assessors can not render legal opinions nor advise on points of law, only on the evidence itself. This judge has appointed two assessors to advise him on the scientific evidence. But the advisors cannot address his comments regarding his position that the alibi did not matter because the defendant did not testify. That would be a point of law. And my shock is because if a defendant has a right to remain silent, then that "right" ceases to have any meaning if the judge can decide guilt based on whether the defendent remained silent. In other words, if what the judge did is legal, then remaining silent is tantamount to confessing and there is no realistic "right to remain silent."

As to the alibi, the defendant was at work all day, over an hour's drive from the scene of the crime. All of the following was introduced into evidence: The defendant was in a business meeting at the time of the murder (testified to by two of his coworkers); the defendant's computer showed that he was receiving and sending emails during the afternoon; the defendant's cell phone log showed that his cell phone was being used during the critical hours from the cell in which his office building was located; the office building security cameras showed him arriving several hours before the murder and leaving after the murder, with no possibility that he sneaked out and back into the building. So for the judge to deny all of that evidence on the grounds that the defendant himself did not testify is the travesty. When the judge said that because the defendant didn't testify, his alibi could not be cross examined, he was out of touch with reality. Every bit of the alibi evidence was introduced by witnesses who were vigourously cross examined.

My worry is bias on the part of the judge. I'm sure Iain will keep us updated, either here or with links on the home page. I will continue posting, too, as new developments occur.

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 486 Location: Glasgow

Pat

My Ignorance of the Court system in SA obviously shows in my last comment.
For instance i did not know the Judge decided the whole case, Here it is only Summary cases that a judge can be final arbiter over. Murder would never be allowed to be tried in a lesser Court other than the High Court under Solemn Cases.
I agree with you on the evidence though, It shows he is being used as a Scapegoat.
Reminds me of the many cases coming to light here and in particular the Lockerbie case, Although no evidence to support a conviction three of Our High Court Judges found him Guilty.
We must come to terms with Political Decisions in this Country as more and more cases are later turning out to be Politically Motivated

Iain McKie · Joined: 08 May 2007 Posts: 173 Location: Ayr, Scotland.

Like Pat I was amazed at the judge’s alleged comments regarding Fred’s right to remain silent.

While I remain absolutely convinced of Fred’s innocence and in the culpability of some of the prosecution witnesses I would urge some caution in criticising the judge.

That the South African justice system is different from ours is a fact and for this reason I have been extremely careful in being overly critical.

This is a legal system forged during an era of indescribable pain and suffering and I cannot believe that it has not emerged with justice as its firm focus.

I have noticed in following the testimony that some very serious allegations have been made against prosecution ‘experts’. These amount to charges of lying and dishonesty. I feel it is right for the judge to challenge such claims strongly and demand the very highest standard of evidence to support them.

For the moment I am willing to give the judge the benefit of the doubt in the belief that Fred will be cleared and the guilty indicted.

If this does not happen then and only then should the spotlight be turned on the judge and the system. Given the high profile of the case this will surely happen.

Meanwhile my thoughts and prayers are with Fred and his family in their struggle. My thoughts are also with the family and friends of the murder victim Inge Lotz whose memory demands that justice is done and is seen to be done.

Iain McKie · Joined: 08 May 2007 Posts: 173 Location: Ayr, Scotland.

As news of the Fred van der Vyver trial in South Africa continues to spread across the world the court proceedings are reaching a critical stage.

After what to UK eyes were some strange comments by Judge Van Zyl related to Fred’s right to silence his legal team has asked the judge to allow him to give evidence. A decision is expected on 16 October.

http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.a...ing_news/breaking_news__national/

A side issue we have discussed on this forum is the importance of avoiding offensive statements and innuendo particularly about named individuals. No matter how strongly we feel about an issue such postings tend to alienate the objective reader and reduce the impact of the poster’s argument. Debate after all is more than a one-way diatribe of bias and prejudice but a reasoned discussion in which your opponent’s points are listened to and then countered with courtesy and intelligence.

A South African forum on the case makes this point rather well and although some of the debate is in Afrikaans it becomes clear that no amount of reasoned argument is going to dissuade some of the often anonymous posters from their poisonous ways.

http://www.blogsouthafrica.net/20...rder-11th-hour-surprise/#comments

Iain McKie · Joined: 08 May 2007 Posts: 173 Location: Ayr, Scotland.

At the last court hearing in the Fred van der Vyver trial, following the judge's comments that Fred's decision not to give evidence might be held against him, his legal team asked permission to call him.

The prosecution have now challenged this request. To the casual observer this appears a strange decision and only adds further intrigue to this already controversial trial.

It is now up to Judge van Zyl to resolve the issue and given some of his previous decisions it becomes increasingly hard to follow his logic.

As ever my thoughts are with Fred and his family and the family of the murder victim Inge Lotz as they are forced to undergo further trauma in the pursuit of the truth.

http://www.blogsouthafrica.net/20...der-state-opposes-defence-motion/