The Ferris Conspiracy Forum
Sign up  |   |   |  Calendar
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 2      1   2   Next
lollli60

Registered:
Posts: 304
Reply with quote  #1 

Today i thought i would take my ever faithful and much loved pooch for a long walk, as we passed a derilict job centre , on the shutters was  a web site address, http://www.freeneilmurray.com, when we returned i decided to check it out ,  and there it was another another young man  in prison for a crime he didnt commit , CHECK IT OUT FOLKS sad very sad ,,,,


__________________
trust.....
Admin

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 3,165
Reply with quote  #2 

Hi Lollli60... thanks for your post and the heads up regarding another miscarriage of justice.  I will be sure to check out the website, and I hope that others will too.  The more that we learn about these cases, the better informed we will be all be.  I'll be interested to know what feedback others give if they check out the website.


__________________
I'd rather be hated for what I am, than loved for what I am not".
________________________________
lollli60

Registered:
Posts: 304
Reply with quote  #3 

dose anyone know anything about this case ?


__________________
trust.....
Admin2

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 9,064
Reply with quote  #4 

Hi lollli60, I have contacted OUR TEAM to see if we can find anything or to highlight Neil Murray's case.

 

We cannot promise anything but we will do our BEST and thank you for the post.

 

 

 

APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY

 

Lord Osborne

Lord Abernethy

Lord Carloway

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[2006] HCJAC 10

Appeal No: XC760/04

 

OPINION OF THE COURT

 

delivered by LORD ABERNETHY

 

in

 

APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION

 

by

 

NEIL DANIEL MURRAY

Appellant;

 

against

 

HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE

Respondent:

 

_______

 

 

 

Appellant: D. Finnieston, Solicitor Advocate; Balfour & Manson, Edinburgh

Respondent: Ms. A. Grahame, A.D.; Crown Agent

 

1 February 2006

 

[1] The appellant is Neil Daniel Murray. On 15 September 2004, after a six-day trial at the High Court in Glasgow, he was convicted by majority verdict of murdering Duncan Stirrat Harrison on 3 April 2004 in a motor vehicle then parked in Greenend Place, Springboig, Glasgow by discharging a shotgun at him and shooting him in the head and neck. On the same date he was sentenced to life imprisonment, backdated to 14 April 2004, with the punishment part set at 18 years.

[2] The appellant has appealed only against his conviction. The Note of Appeal contains four grounds of appeal as follows:

"(1) That the learned Trial Judge erred in repelling a submission under

Section 97 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.

(2) That the learned Trial Judge erred in his assessment of the

aforementioned submission in that he failed to properly examine the quality of the various adminicles of evidence which formed the strands in what was an entirely circumstantial Crown case.

(3) That the learned Trial Judge misdirected the Jury in so far as he failed

to give the Jury a specific direction that the evidence of Crown Witness Michelle McCreery had to be accepted as credible and reliable before a conviction could follow.

(4) That the learned Trial Judge misdirected the Jury by failing to give

adequate directions as to the nature of circumstantial evidence and the approach to be taken to such evidence in order to find corroboration in the Crown case."

[3] At the close of the Crown case Mr. Finnieston, solicitor advocate for the appellant, made a submission of no case to answer in terms of section 97 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. That submission was repelled by the trial judge. The first two grounds of appeal are directed at that decision.

[4] In his submissions to this Court Mr. Finnieston took these two grounds together. He reminded us that at the trial there was no dispute that the deceased had been murdered as alleged in the charge. The issue was whether the Crown had proved that the appellant was the culprit. In regard to that issue the Crown case was a purely circumstantial one; there was no evidence directly implicating the appellant. Mr. Finnieston then reminded us of the various pieces of evidence by reference to the trial judge's Report. They are fully set out in the Report and are as follows:

" On 3 April 2004 about 6 or 6.10p.m. the deceased, Duncan Harrison, left his home in Dalton Street, Parkhead, Glasgow where he lived with Michelle McCreery. He was driving a silver Mercedes, registered number V920 HLS. Shortly before 7.30p.m. he phoned Michelle McCreery at Dalton Street and said: 'I'm wi' Neil in Barlanark' Michelle McCreery understood that he was using his mobile phone from within the motor car. That is what he usually did. Harrison said he would return home to eat about 9.00p.m. He did not however return. Michelle McCreery said that the only Neil she knew and to whom she thought the deceased was referring, was the appellant, Neil Murray. She was, however, positive that Harrison had said that he was on his own when he made the phone call, and that she had told the police that. The relationship between the deceased and Neil Murray was nothing but fraternal. They were in each other's company quite a lot.

Between 7.15 and 7.45p.m. on the same day the deceased's car was driven up Greenend Place in Springboig and parked opposite number 28 at the end of that road. The car had only two occupants, one in the driver's seat and one in the passenger seat, according to two eye-witnesses, Allison Wynn and Rose Ronald, who were respectively in numbers 15 and 21 Greenend Place. Miss Wynn looked out from the front bedroom window on the first floor and Mrs Ronald looked out from the ground floor sittingroom at the front of the house. Their evidence did not entirely coincide. Both however heard a bang which Miss Wynn thought was a shot. Miss Wynn said that it was some minutes after the car had stopped that she heard the shot. She clearly identified a man in his twenties, six foot or so in height and of thin build getting out backwards from the front passenger seat of the car. That description coincided with the appearance of the appellant in the dock of the court. The jury, of course, could see his height and build when he stood up every time the case was called.

Mrs Ronald could not say from her angle of view whether it was a man or a woman since the figure was coming out of the car backwards. The two witnesses agreed about what the figure was wearing, namely, a blue top with a hood. Both said that the person ran away down the road.

The car remained where it had come to a stop. About 8.50p.m. Mrs Ronald's partner went across to the car and discovered the victim, Duncan Harrison, seated upright in the driver's seat, but apparently dead. The police were then summoned and arrived about 9.15p.m. D.S. Mateer opened the driver's door and determined that life was extinct.

Greenend Place is a cul-de-sac. The occupant of number 28 is one Francis Romeo. He gave evidence that he had lived there for twenty one years. For the last six or seven years he had been in a relationship with the accused's mother, Elizabeth Murray, who stayed at 28 Greenend Place from time to time. Earlier on 3 April 2004 she had been in his house.

The deceased's partner, Michelle McCreery, who was the mother of three of his children, said that in recent weeks before his death, Duncan Harrison had feared for his life. He made reference to receiving a bullet in the back of his head for something it was said he had done. He would, she said, never have driven into a cul-de-sac like Greenend Place, unless he had been with someone he knew.

The deceased was shot in the left side of the neck. The police firearms expert, David Mitchell, was of opinion it was by the discharge of one shot from a twelve bore single-barrelled shotgun, the barrel of which had been shortened.

The pathologist, Dr McAdam, confirmed that when the weapon was discharged, the barrel was very close to the skin of the neck. She and the police firearms expert were of opinion that the person who fired the shot was in the front passenger seat or perhaps was leaning over that seat from outside the car. It was very unlikely that the shot was fired from either of the rear seats of the car. The trajectory of the shot was backwards and downwards. The person who fired the shot, if he was sitting in the front passenger seat or leaning over it from outside the car, would have received a spray of blood from the shotgun wound.

The forensic scientist, Marie Campbell, took tapings from within the car. Tapings from the front passenger seat and the upright back of that seat were taken and disclosed skin and dandruff material. On further scientific examination they revealed the appellant's DNA. In the front passenger seat area the only other traces of DNA came from John Blair, the registered owner of the car, and the deceased. The skin and dandruff would have been deposited fairly recently, according to Ms Campbell, by which she meant, within hours or perhaps a day or two, depending upon how much use had been made of the front passenger seat. The car had four doors.

On the inside of the front passenger metal door handle was a fingerprint. It could clearly be seen with the naked eye in the light of a torch. Subsequently, it was found to be identical (in respect of a minimum number of sixteen ridge characteristics) with the left middle finger of the appellant. It was not established in evidence how recently the fingerprint had been deposited on that surface.

On 6 April 2004 Michelle McCreery met the appellant at the house of Marion Broadfoot who is an aunt of the appellant. Michelle McCreery asked him if he had shot her partner and he said that he would never have done that. He went on to say further that when Duncan Harrison picked him up in the silver Mercedes in the evening of 3 April 2004, there was a strange looking man in the back. Harrison said that the man wanted to speak to the appellant about the John Blair thing (an assault and robbery in the Blair home involving Blair and his wife). When the appellant heard rustling, as from a bag, coming from the rear seat, he got out of the car and made off, leaving Harrison and the stranger in it. Thereafter he hid in all manner of places. He described his predicament to Michelle McCreery as 'being on the run'.

John Broadfoot - a cousin of the appellant - said that he had helped the appellant to move some of his possessions on 3 April 2003 from Hillview Street to his mother's house in Pendeen Street. At that time the appellant was wearing denims and a blue T-shirt. Before teatime they went home together to Calvay Street where they were to look after John Broadfoot's grandmother. He and the appellant went their separate ways that evening. John Broadfoot however let the appellant back into the house when he returned, perhaps about 12 midnight. Broadfoot thought that the appellant was wearing a white tracksuit when he returned. At some point therefore the appellant had changed his clothing.

On 10 March 2004 (it was accepted that this was an error and should be 10 April 2004) two police officers in plain clothes in an unmarked police car made a visit to a flat in Caroline Street, Parkhead. The purpose of the visit was to see David Broadfoot Wark. As they left the car they noticed, on looking up, a female at the window. As she saw them, she turned away to talk to someone in the room. Alerted by her reaction, they decided to try to cover the exits from the stair. When they did so, they saw someone running through the back courts. One of them shouted to the person to stop and also shouted 'police'. In response to these shouts the person turned round. Both police officers, on seeing his face, recognised him as the appellant. He then made off towards Edenwood Street and the officers gave up the chase.

By 6 April 2004 the appellant was aware of Harrison's death and of the police investigation. By 10 April he was fully aware that the police wanted to speak to him, which was why on 13 April 2004, accompanied by his solicitor, the appellant surrendered himself at Shettleston Police Office."

Mr. Finnieston submitted that taking all that evidence together it amounted to no more than suspicion that the appellant was the culprit. It was not sufficient to justify the appellant being convicted of the murder. The trial judge should therefore have withdrawn the charge from the jury and acquitted the appellant.

[5] In our opinion there was quite sufficient evidence in law to justify the appellant being convicted of the murder and the trial judge was therefore correct to repel the submission of no case to answer.

[6] The third ground of appeal focuses on the evidence of Michelle McCreery. She was the deceased's partner. Her evidence covered a number of matters, as recorded above. This ground of appeal, however, is concerned with her evidence in its entirety. As the trial judge explains in his Report, her evidence could not be viewed as a whole. Both the Crown and the defence relied on passages in her evidence. The trial judge's view was that it was therefore unnecessary and would have been inappropriate for him to have given the direction set out in the ground of appeal. Mr. Finnieston appeared to have accepted those comments because, before this Court, he restricted himself to submitting that the trial judge should have directed the jury that if they did not accept the evidence which Michelle McCreery gave as to what was said by the appellant in their conversation on 6 April 2004, then there was not sufficient in the rest of the evidence to entitle them to convict. Mr. Finnieston said that that piece of evidence was so important and significant that it was really at the centre of the case. If it was not accepted, the rest of the case was so weak that there was not enough in it to justify the accused being convicted.

[7] We do not accept that submission. As Mr. Finnieston acknowledged, such a direction would not have been normal in a circumstantial case. In a case such as this where there was evidence of a considerable number of relevant circumstances it is not realistic or helpful for a trial judge in his charge to go through all the many possible permutations of circumstances that the jury might or might not accept. Moreover, while we are prepared to accept that this particular piece of Michelle McCreery's evidence was important, we do not accept that it was of such importance that if it was not accepted, there was not sufficient in the rest of the evidence to justify the appellant being convicted.

[8] The fourth ground of appeal is a more general criticism. Taking us through the trial judge's charge Mr. Finnieston said that there were no specific directions as to how the jury should approach the evidence in a circumstantial case such as this when deciding whether the Crown had proved their case. There should have been such directions. Moreover, the trial judge might have assisted the jury in their assessment of the evidence. He might have said, for example, that the jury might think that some of the circumstances might not be of much significance unless they could be linked to the appellant.

[9] In response the Advocate-Depute pointed out that closing speeches to the jury by both the Crown and Mr. Finnieston had been made on the same morning as the trial judge gave his charge. In the Crown speech the Advocate-Depute had detailed the circumstances which she relied on and the inferences to be drawn from them. Mr. Finnieston, on behalf of the appellant, had in his speech detailed the circumstances that he relied on, he criticised the Crown approach and he put forward the inferences or non-inferences which he submitted the jury should draw. For the trial judge then to go into all the circumstances again was unnecessary. If he had tried to assess the circumstances in any way, that might have been dangerous. The charge was adequate and did not amount to a misdirection.

[10] In his general directions as to how to assess the evidence the trial judge said this to the jury:

"It is for you to decide what value should be attached to particular pieces of evidence. So it is for you to decide the relative importance of different pieces of evidence and it is for you to decide what inferences and conclusions you are prepared reasonably to draw from such evidence as you accept."

In the context of his directions on corroboration he said this:

"It (corroborated evidence) may take the form of only circumstantial evidence given by various witnesses where the several circumstances when taken together support the inference that the accused is guilty of committing the crime. I shall return to that aspect of corroboration later in my charge."

Later in his charge, when dealing with the Crown case, the trial judge said this:

"Now, the evidence led by the Crown and indeed the only evidence in the trial is wholly circumstantial and in that respect this case is somewhat unusual but not exceptional and circumstantial evidence, about which I have given you directions in relation to corroboration, is to be contrasted with direct witness evidence."

Then, after reminding the jury that the question for them was whether the Crown had satisfied them that it was the appellant who was the culprit, he continued:

"The advocate depute has referred to a range of circumstantial evidence; the question for you is whether you can infer from that evidence that the accused was Duncan Harrison's assailant."

[11] In our opinion apart from what might be called the standard directions which a trial judge would normally give to the jury in every case, the directions which should be given will depend on the particular circumstances of the case. In the particular circumstances of this case we are unable to say that the trial judge's directions on the matter in question were inadequate such as to amount to a misdirection. No doubt some judges might have said more as to the approach to be taken by the jury in dealing with the circumstantial evidence but we are not persuaded that it was necessary to do so here. We have only to add that we agree with the Advocate-Depute that it might have been dangerous if the trial judge had suggested to the jury that some parts of the evidence might seem of more significance to them than others.

[12] For these reasons each of the grounds of appeal fails. The appeal is refused.

 

 


__________________
FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHTS


Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #5 
Hi All, Just visited http://www.freeneilmurray.com and was again shocked and mortified about our judiciary system.  This man was put behind bars to a vote of 8 jurors Guilty against 7 Jurors Not Guilty.  I didnt know thats the way our system works.  In other countries a unanimous verdict with at least ten of the twelve jurors being convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. But in Scotland we have 15 jurors and as long as 8 of them vote for guilty then the accused gets convicted! That is absolutely horrid that a difference of one person has cost this man his life.  The evidence and statements are clearly flimsy and unjust.  Neil's DNA was the only one provided as evidence, there was easy another 8 different DNA types that forensics should have analysed.  Something is definately not right about this case.  On his website he pleas for anybody with any information to contact his team by email.  Hope justice prevails and the real culprits are caught
Bilko

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,480
Reply with quote  #6 
First off let me say that was an excellent post by Admin2, my thanks to the FerrisConspiracy.com team for making this court document available to us.

It appears to Bilko after having a swift scan over the details secured in the witness statements that this man is no more guilty of the crime than the Bilkster himself. First of it is ludicrous to suggest that a man going to commit the crime of murder on a friend would do so outside the home of his mothers lover. To suggest he would do this in full view of the occupants of the neighbours who he would have known would more than likely have known him, if not by sight then indeed in person from him visiting his mother is also ludicrous.....not only that but to murder the man by discharging a shotgun?

Knowing full well the noise of the firearm would bring all and sundry to the scene immeadiatley?......This is a nonsense, to presume one would be so foolhardy.

The police claim to have found the defendants DNA in the car......this is of no consequence whatsoever, the defendant already stated he had been in the vehicle on numerous occasions so his DNA is bound to have been in the car, he doesnt dispute being in the car.

For the police to suggest that the defendant's and the decease's were the only two DNA's to be found in the car strikes Bilko as being bizarre in the extreme. I defy any forensic expert to carry out DNA tests on ANY car and only find two sources of separate DNA......Considering how many people go in and out of any car in that cars history it's nigh impossible to find ONLY two sets of DNA. Unless of course the forensic team are those fine body of individuals tucked neatly away in the offices of the SCRO.......for 'special use'?

Let this man go free..........get the wrong un' responsible......Do your fecking jobs properly ! Bilko

__________________
Law and justice are not always the same. When they aren't, destroying the law may be the first step toward changing it. :D
hammer6

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #7 

Having had first hand insight into this tragic case I am sure that you are spot on Bilko with regards to only TWO TYPES OF DNA?

 

VERY CONVENIENT this guy had no motive and no doubt the SELECTIVE DNA was enough to sway at the very least ONE CRUCIAL JUROR.

 

THIS MAN IS INNOCENT and will have to wait for the 10 YEAR ITCH to come into play before they do a thing.

 

ANOTHER MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE! HOW MANY MORE ARE THERE?


__________________
The TRUTH is out there...........
Admin

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 3,165
Reply with quote  #8 

Hi All... thanks for the posts.  With regards to the case of Neil Murray, the DNA that was found in the car, Admin finds this highly dubious.  For the simple fact that ANY car - even a brand new one straight out the showroom, has already had several people in it.  Be it the people who manufactured the car, the person who transported the car into the showroom, employees of that showroom, any potential buyers/test drivers, to the person who ends up owning the car.  It is virtually impossible for there ever to be only one or two sets of DNA found in a car, especially one that isn't just off the transporter.

 

Another miscarriage of justice indeed.  How many more will there be?  I am sure that there are many more out there just waiting to be uncovered, and as for the 10 year itch syndrome, I agree wholeheartedly with that viewpoint. 


__________________
I'd rather be hated for what I am, than loved for what I am not".
________________________________
Bilko

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,480
Reply with quote  #9 

Exactly my point admin, plus the fact Murray already admits to being in the car, he doesnt deny it......so his DNA would be in the car anyway. Bilko


__________________
Law and justice are not always the same. When they aren't, destroying the law may be the first step toward changing it. :D
Admin

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 3,165
Reply with quote  #10 

What interests Admin, is how many samples of different DNA were actually found in that car...  was it merely convenient that Neil Murray admitted to being in the car?  Was it a case of, well he admitted being in the car, and his DNA is there, so wouldn't it be convenient to tag him as the culprit and save us a lot of work?  Or were there other samples of DNA belonging to those who the police maybe didn't want to convict???  Merely thoughts flying through one's head, but valid thoughts nonetheless???   


__________________
I'd rather be hated for what I am, than loved for what I am not".
________________________________
Bilko

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,480
Reply with quote  #11 

As you so eloquently put it across in your post admin..... there is no way on gods green earth that ANY car could be forensically searched and found to contain ONLY TWO sets of DNA......no way whatsoever!

 

The prosecution in Bilko's opinion have influenced the jury by mentioning only two sets of DNA being found, Mr Murray's and the victims. Any member of that jury who is not familiar with DNA would have surmised by this that only these two men could have been in the car. That is outrageous in Bilko's opinion....completely and utterly scandalous. Bilko


__________________
Law and justice are not always the same. When they aren't, destroying the law may be the first step toward changing it. :D
Admin

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 3,165
Reply with quote  #12 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilko

As you so eloquently put it across in your post admin..... there is no way on gods green earth that ANY car could be forensically searched and found to contain ONLY TWO sets of DNA......no way whatsoever!

 

The prosecution in Bilko's opinion have influenced the jury by mentioning only two sets of DNA being found, Mr Murray's and the victims. Any member of that jury who is not familiar with DNA would have surmised by this that only these two men could have been in the car. That is outrageous in Bilko's opinion....completely and utterly scandalous. Bilko

Hi Bilko... thanks for your post.  As I so eloquently put it?  I do try...  Anyway, on the subject of DNA, I agree with you that any jury member who is not familiar with the scientific aspects of DNA (and bearing in mind that members of a jury are ordinary people who have been plucked off the electoral roll, and who subsequently might be naive to all aspects of evidence, particularly something as scientific as DNA), would take the 'word' of the evidence produced before them, and therefore, an innocent man has been convicted of a crime he did not commit.  Completely and utterly scandalous?  So eloquently put Bilko, and I agree wholeheartedly.


__________________
I'd rather be hated for what I am, than loved for what I am not".
________________________________
hammer6

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #13 

Far too many people rely upon TV pro grammes like CSI and quite simply do not know any better and commonsense would indicate that only TWO sets of DNA = MURDERER and DECEASED.

 

And that is what the prosecution painted the picture of to the JURY and the CAR should be re-examined by his defence team to prove that the prosecution case was FLAWED at best and WITHHELD other DNA that did not match either the accused or indeed the deceased as this would have undermined the prosecution case.

 

I am sure that the SCRO have other samples from the car that were NOT disclosed to the defence team.


__________________
The TRUTH is out there...........
lollli60

Registered:
Posts: 304
Reply with quote  #14 

 EXCELLENT !!!Admin 2 just logged in  and was amazed by the info you posted , this is a shocking case indeed , convicted on a bit of dandruff , my god how low can they stoop , and what the hell was that jury thinkin of ???  at best we can support all the people who have been wrongly convicted on this wonderful site , this site truly gives them a voice on the outside to help them in their fight for justice xx


__________________
trust.....
hammer6

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #15 

The unfortunate situation lolllii60 is that this man will have to serve several years in order to allow the POLICE & THE PROSECUTION time to cover their A***S before they set him free.

 

This is nothing NEW as when one looks at ALL the MISCARRIAGE'S of JUSTICE in the UK (never mind Scotland) you will note the length of time it takes before they become FREE MEN.

 

SAD but it is a matter of FACT.


__________________
The TRUTH is out there...........
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.