University of Bristol Innocence Project asks: Is William Beck a victim of mistaken eyewitness identification?

Press release issued 19 August 2011

                                William Beck was 20 when he was arrested for an armed robbery of a post van in Livingston, Scotland on 16 December 1981. Nearly three decades later, after serving six years of imprisonment for a conviction based exclusively on eyewitness identification, he continues to maintain his innocence.

The University of Bristol Innocence Project (UoBIP) has taken on Mr Beck’s case and has today submitted a response on his behalf following two rejections by the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission — the independent public body set up to review alleged miscarriages of justice.

Although Mr Beck claims that he was in Glasgow the entire day at the time of the robbery, some 40 miles away from where the crime occurred, he was convicted on the evidence of five eyewitnesses, only two of whom identified Mr Beck in an identity parade. The other three witnesses picked out a volunteer.

Eyewitness misidentification has been accepted worldwide as a leading cause of wrongful convictions. Around 75 per cent of post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States are attributed to eyewitness misidentification. In addition, a report by eyewitness identification expert Professor Tim Valentine highlighted various problems with the identification parade procedure and concluded that the evidence against Mr Beck had ‘low probative value’.

The UoBIP took on Mr Beck’s case earlier this year when the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission issued a provisional Statement of Reasons stating that they were not minded to refer his conviction to the High Court of Justiciary.  Mr Beck’s case was assigned to postgraduate law students Mark Allum and Ryan Jendoubi at the University’s Law School, who produced the response to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission on behalf of Mr Beck.

Under the guidance of Dr Michael Naughton, founder of the UoBIP, the students had seven months to get to grips with the facts of the case and issue a response to the provisional decision of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. Their twenty-page response argues that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has applied an unduly high standard in rejecting Mr Beck’s case. They contend that when his conviction is assessed as a whole, it is not possible to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that a miscarriage of justice has not occurred.

Mark Allum said: “Mr Beck’s conviction was based primarily upon identification evidence part of which the trial judge referred to as unreliable and part of which he suggested the jury should treat with great care. Recently the courts have become increasingly reluctant to base convictions solely upon eyewitness testimony especially since studies have exposed the fallibility of such testimony. Were this case to come before the courts today it is highly likely that the trial judge would dismiss it.

Ryan Jendoubi said: “Mr Beck’s case underlines important problems in the way the justice system currently approaches cases of alleged wrongful conviction.”

Dr Michael Naughton added: “Ironically, Mr Beck shares the same surname and was arrested on the same day and month as the notorious miscarriage of justice victim Adolf Beck (16 December) who was twice wrongly convicted on mistaken eyewitness identification evidence in 1896 and again in 1901. The case of Adolf Beck led to the establishment of the Court of Criminal Appeal and the introduction of compensation for victims of miscarriage of justice. Over a century later, it seems history may be repeating itself and eyewitness identification evidence is again in the dock.”

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Review call on William Beck robbery conviction

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has turned down the case twice before

A new assessment has been made of the evidence which convicted a man of an armed robbery carried out
30 years ago.

Researchers at the University of Bristol Innocence Project (UoBIP) concluded that evidence against William Beck had “low probative value”.

Mr Beck was convicted of robbing a post office van in Livingston, and sentenced to a jail term of six years.

The UoBIP has prepared a submission which will be made to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.

William Beck was 20 when he was arrested in 1981 Of five eyewitnesses to the robbery, only two picked out Mr Beck at an identity parade.

The team at Bristol concluded that it was not possible to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that a miscarriage of justice did not occur.

Mark Allum, one of the Bristol researchers, said: “Mr Beck’s conviction was based primarily upon identification evidence part of which the trial judge referred to as unreliable and part of which he suggested the jury should treat with great care.

“Recently the courts have become increasingly reluctant to base convictions solely upon eyewitness testimony especially since studies
have exposed the fallibility of such testimony.

“Were this case to come before the courts today it is highly likely that the trial judge would dismiss it.”

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has twice before refused to send Mr Beck’s case back to the Appeal Court.

Mr Beck, who lives in Glasgow, said the fight to prove his innocence meant he had spent a lot
of time learning the law.

“My two daughters have had to grow up with virtually no father for 20 to 30 years because of this case,” he said.

“It is something that never leaves me.

“Even when I’m having a conversation with family or friends, it always comes round to my case.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-14582866

http://www.youtube.com/user/Scotkaz?blend=2&ob=5#p/u/0/DVHozGy2pQs

http://www.youtube.com/user/Scotkaz?blend=2&ob=5#p/u/0/Jb17tCMeL9s

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

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

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

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

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……….

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

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”

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
]]> http://williambeck.wordpress.com/2007/09/18/sccrc-in-conflict-with-courts/feed/ 0 williambeck