Defence Calls Witness To Discredit My Evidence

My Solicitor was instructed to take a statement from a Mr Hamilton from Barlanark Glasgow who lived above my house at 31 Barlanark Place.

He did not bother to interview this witness (But Cited him) so my wife asked Mr Hamilton if he could recall seeing me on the day i was supposed to have committed this Robbery 12/12/1981 to which Mr Hamilton said he did recall seeing me.

Some time passed and my wife again spoke to Mr Hamilton at his van.

This time he informed her: That the police had been out and interviewed him regarding seeing me on 12/12/1981 and he told my wife this: The police have said if i go to court as a witness for wullie then the police have said they will Fuc- up my Criminal Injuries claim.

This Man was cited by my defence team specifically to ask him about what the police had said to him.

In evidence this man was allowed to say he never saw me on the date in question at his van without any redress from my defence team.

For instance he was never asked if the police had spoken to him never mind threaten him with his criminal injuries.

At the very least he should have been asked exactly what he had said to my wife.

The reason why this was never done was because my defence team did not want to be seen to be calling the police liars.

SCCRC have now ascertained that Mr Hamilton did indeed have a claim in to CICB at the time she said he told her. (This backs what my wife has always said) and the only way she would have known if he had a criminal injuries claim in would have been because he told her about it, as she said he did.

Why my defence team never asked Hamilton about his criminal injuries claim and what the police had said to him is beyond me.

Why they called this man to allow him to discredit my evidence without at least making some challenge on him is beyond belief

Likely Judicial Review Of SCCRC

My Fight For Justice

Having asked SCCRC to refer my case to Appeal Court and them point blank “Refusing” to fully investigate my Grounds, I now intend raising the following issues at a Judicial Review.

 1. My defence team did not interview 16 defence witnesses before my Trial

2. My defence team never called crucial Forensic evidence.

3. My defence team never called crucial Identification evidence (A Crown witness saying the driver was Forty Years old with brown hair and Moustache)

4. My defence team failed to challenge “unreliable” and “Contradictory” Identification evidence From Witness “Ashford”

5. Crown “Failed” to disclose key evidence at time of trial.

6. Police showed “Photos” before my ID Parade, When they Ought not to have done.

7. The two “Arresting” Officers were involved in the running of my ID Parade, With one “Assisting” with Witnesses, When they ought not to have been involved “At-All”

8. SCCRC “Assured” me they had sent the lawyer that conducted my ID Parade a copy of his own ID Parade report, When “Clearly” they “hadn’t”  Evidence of this is available on you-tube under SCCRC Liars.

9. SCCRC refused to interview my witnesses “saying” Their evidence was “Hearsay”

10. Witnesses said in court they were shown Photos of me, Thus allowing the Jury to know i had previous police involvement. This should never happen.

11. The judge “Misdirected” my jury on a few occasions:

A, He told the Jury they need not be absolutely sure of Guilt they only had to be reasonably Certain.    B, He told them only to consider eveidence of myself and Louise Morris as she was the only person to see me between 1-6pm, This was not true witnesses spoke of seeing me in Glasgow at 5.15pm.    C, He told Jury to consider “Muckles” Evidence with great care because he was an Off-Duty Policeman.     D, He inferred that witnesses might have mistaken anorak hoods as Balaclava Helmets, Thus voicing his “own Opinion”.     E, He directed that: Ashfords Evidence was “Unreliable” Yet did not direct Jury to Disregard it. SCCRC did not find any fault with any of these complaints even thought in the Gilmour case (Same Judge) The Court “conceded” the very same Misdirection was a Misdirection thus “Undermining” SCCRCs Findings in my case

 

 

 

Shocking SCCRC Findings

I told SCCRC that i was arrested on another charge this is backed by the Arresting officers statements.
Because i was arrested for another charge with no Warrant for Assault & Robbery, I claimed: Any items taken from my house for the other charge Should and Could not be used to support any Robbery charge, Certainly at the time the Law Was Quite Clear on these issues: If it was not related to the warrant it could not be used as productions for other charges.

SCCRC refused to even check if the Warrant used to arrest me was a Search warrant or arrest Warrant.
The police when they entered my house at 31 Barlanark place Glasgow Never showed anyone in the house the Warrant.
When i asked to see it, The paper was flashed in front of me.

Regardless of all this, The Police statements “support what i was saying” I was arrested on a Warrant for another charge so Police had no warrant to search my house.
Maybe the SCCRC could have checked with Crown or the Arresting officers, Would this have been too much to ask them to do. (After All, It took them three years to give me an answer)

SCCRC are the biggest bunch of Cowboys i have ever come across in my entire life.
They are not investigating proper Legal Grounds of Appeal but looking at cases to see how they can Uphold the Convictions.

All documents will be linked later

Wullie Beck

Abuse By Police And SCCRC

Having been arrested for another charge, I was placed on an ID Parade at livingston Police Station on 16th Dec 1981.
After being picked twice Positive i was charged with assaulting Two Postmen and Stealing thousands of Pounds in cash and some Cheque’s.
Looking over old press articles i have found some very interesting items from the following:

My original charge read: Did strike them on the head and body with an Axe or Similar Instrument.
All of a sudden it read:

Did strike them with AXE’S What a Joke

Lockerbie Bombers QC Is A Liar

Mr Taylor QC defended me in 1982 on a charge of Assault & Robbery.
The solicitor that conducted my ID Parade noted witness No 11 had Number 2 out his mouth without turning to view the parade which can be seen here:

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=425979884&size=l

His statement to SCCRC in this regard can be seen here:

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=424609023&size=l

Mr taylor told me in 1982 that the reason he did not call Shaws Evidence was because he did not want to be seen to be calling the Police Liars.
I went ape and sacked him and Keegan, Though Mr Taylor now has no memory of ever being sacked now.

When my grounds were reviewed by SCCRC Mr Taylor sat on their Board.

He has now tried to convince SCCRC that he did not Know Of The Lawyers Evidence and he averred this to The Dean Of Faculty also, which can be found here: At No 8,

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=424593705&size=l

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=424593741&size=l

Mr Taylor is a Liar.

It should be noted here also that: SCCRC never asked Mr Keegan about this ID Parade Report from Shaw, nor why Taylor never called Shaws Evidence.
Though Mr Taylor has been quoted as saying:
It Would certainly Raise A Large Question Mark Of Muckles Evidence (The Police That Identified Me)
So Why did Taylor not call the Evidence of Solicitor Shaw?

Mr Taylor also said to the Dean of faculty: That he has never called a witness without the Accused persons Permission and any witness who were or were’nt called would have been done so with My and Keegans involvement, SCCRC Accepted this as Gospel without Asking Myself or Keegan.
As a result of my complaining to Law society Mr Keegan now says:
At the bottom paragraph That it was Mr taylor who decided which witnesses to call and not to call.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/big-wullie/424574586/

Clearly Counsel Exercised that approach in the Beck trial is his words.
SCCRC did not question this and again took Taylors word as Gospel.

Mr taylor has done nothing but try and cover his Rs for the mistakes he made in my case.
SCCRC has colluded with Taylor to do so by not sending Shaw a copy of his own ID Parade Report when assuring me they had listen to the following and decide yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DP-ACuK1w0I

Please leave your comments here after viewing and say if you think Taylor is a Liar……….

Should MPs and MSPs Be More Accountable

I was shocked and Horrified to watch this pragram last night Thursday 11 October 2007 and find that MSPs And MPs cannot be charged with telling Lies.
Clearly they have a duty to the Electorate to express any concerns they have.
Clearly they are employees of the Electorate.
How come then people like Ed Milne etc are finding it extremely difficult to find MSPs to represent their interests.
How come people like Ed a 69 year old pensioner is being Ignored by his local MSP?
The sad case of Ed can be found here:
http://edmilne.blogspot.com/

I done some articles on MSPs on the BBC web a while back and they can be found at the following:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/F1601640?thread=3821538?s_returnto=c1669

Six years of my life taken by injustice in the Scottish Courts

After 25 years of fighting the injustice of being framed by Lothian & Borders Police, for a crime I did not commit, I’m still battling against the lack of transparency & accountability in the Scots justice system to have a fair hearing.

Here is my story from the News of the World:

News of the World November 16 2003

I was robbed of 6 yrs of my life

FURY OF SCOT JAILED ‘BY MISTAKE’ OVER ARMED RAID ON POSTAL VAN

BY JAMES MULHOLLAND

A Scots dad claims he lost six years of his life after being wrongly jailed for a vicious armed robbery.

William beck has spent 21 years trying to clear his name after accusing his legal team of failing to spot he was being framed.

The dad-of-two maintains he was mistakenly convicted of a violent raid on a post van.

He’s now handed his case dossier to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which probes miscarriages of justice.

And the 42-year-old from Glasgow, blasted: “I’ve been stitched up and now I want something done about it”

Jobless William claims cops investigating the original crime :

ONLY arrested him because he was a petty thief

TOLD vital witnesses to keep quiet

INFORMED the cast-iron alibi he gave them, and

HANDED round a snap of him before a crucial identity parade.

His nightmare began in December 1981 when raiders attacked two Post Office workers with hammers escaping with 21,000 pounds.

William was arrested four days later.

He told us “The cops needed to get somebody and I was an easy target as I had previous convictions for stealing motors.

“But I’m not a violent guy – I had no record for assault at all”

He said one witness told cops the robber was aged around 40 and had a moustache.

But in the ID parade, the man picked clean-shaven William, then 20.

He blasted : “The people who witnessed the raid were supposed to come along and point out the guy responsible.

“But before the parade, officers showed them a photograph of me and said , “This is the man we have in custody”

“How can you then rely upon their evidence ?”.

William originally told officers he’d been talking to a mobile grocer called Robert Hamilton outside his Glasgow home at the time of the raid.

But cops said Hamilton refused to confirm it.

And when the case came to trial at the High Court in Edinburgh the following March, William’s legal team did not query their claim.

He was then sentenced to six years in prison.

He told us “I was absolutely horrified”

“I can remember being dragged away kicking and screaming.

“I was really angry at my defence team, which had been led by QC Bill Taylor – he also represented Lockerbie bomber Aldelbaset Al-Megrahi.

“I had witnesses who would have put me in the clear but Taylor didn’t call them”

In prison, William continued to maintain his innocence and even REFUSED parole – since he believed accepting it would be an admission of guilt.

And on his release in 1988, he began working to clear his name, swotting up on Scots Law and reviewing the evidence.

in 1993, he visited Hamilton and was shocked when the grocer told him he’d been warred by the cops to keep quiet.

William told us “I am really angry about it – this has ruined my life”

A SCCRC spokesman said last night “We are considering this case”

SCCRC In Conflict With Courts

The decision Of Our Court Of Appeal in the Raymond Gilmour Case.

In a nutshell.

His Misdirection in the form of what constitutes proof beyond Doubt was accepted as a Misdirection even the Advocate depute conceded this and can be seen at :
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1392970087&size=l
http://www.flickr.com/photos/big-wullie/1394240878/

With the Exact same Judge and comment in my appeal to SCCRC i was told by Gerard Sinclair Of SCCRC this was not a Misdirection.
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1393862612&size=l

Quite Clearly SCCRC should have referred my case to Appeal courts on this Misdirection.

Their failure to do so adds credence to my claim that they have made Political decisions in my case because it reflects badly on William Taylor QC.

Remember he sat on the Board of SCCRC whilst they (Allegedly) investigated my Grounds of appeal which consisted of an Anderson ground against Mr Taylor.

Every aspect of my case reflects on his Bad practise and Misconduct, Certainly it can be said my whole Grounds were not before the Jury at the time of Trial.

It was also Taylor that told me he did not want to be seen to be Calling The Police Liars.

Gerard Sinclair Should resign Without delay.

Watch Flickr site for more complaints against SCCRC to Surface.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DP-ACuK1w0I

SCCRC Gerard Sinclair Flasher

Apparently Our Justice Minister thinks it is alright for SCCRCs Chief Executive to lift his kilt and Flash his Private Parts:

His opinion is here:

S3W-3572 – Bill Kidd (Glasgow) (SNP) (Date Lodged 21 August 2007) : To ask the Scottish Executive whether allegations about Gerard Sinclair, Chief Executive of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission and temporary sheriff, that were published in The Sun on 14 August 2007 have been authenticated and, if so, whether it considers him to be a suitable person to continue to hold these posts.

Answered by Kenny MacAskill (4 September 2007): The reported incident occurred in 2001 at a private function attended by Mr Sinclair in a personal capacity while he was in private employment. Mr Sinclair has been Chief Executive of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission since 1 July 2003 and has held an appointment as a part time sheriff since 1 July 2006. I believe he is an entirely suitable person to hold both posts.

Although Mr MacAskill has said the above i will now be writing to Law Society and complaining about his conduct. Their response will also be posted here.

Not only is Sinclair the Chief Executive of SCCRC He is also a part time Sheriff and sits on the Law Societies Criminal Justice Committee.

I will also be raising the Conflict Of Interest here in this Instance

Bill Kidd should have been asking if SCCRC knew of Sinclairs Flashing Incident when he was appointed Chief Executive of SCCRC.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/big-wullie/1119457278/

SCCRCs Toughest Ever Task

Gerard Sinclair Caught Flashing his Manhood.

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1119457278&size=l

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1119704228&size=l

Their Biggest or shortest depending how one looks ha ha Task.

How do they deal with someone within their ranks caught flashing …

Will they try and cover this up as they do with most cases or will they ask the pervert to resign?

We will have to wait and see how they try to play this one eh.

My opinion is this: His actions are appalling and crude, not what one would expect from a man in his position with two daughters.

I hope he is asked in no uncertain terms to resign his post in SCCRC, His credibility, If he had any is now diminished with his actions.

Lets hope Mr MacAskill will now ask him to resign with immediate effect, Don’t pass go on your way out Sinclair.

I’m also sure the likes of Stephen Hendry will not be wanting his photo associated with this carry on either.