The Ferris Conspiracy Forum
Sign up  |   |   |  Calendar

Note: This topic is locked. No new replies will be accepted.

  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 18      1   2   3   4   Next   »

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #1 

Why was STRATHCLYDE POLICE allowed or even asked to look at the way the case was handled by another police force that have withheld evidence in the Nat Fraser case?


I am sure that STRATHCLYDE have enough problems of their own to investigate never mind another police force.


Until there is transparency and police investigating themselves is abolished there is little or no confidence in this system as what we need is a true INDEPENDENCE with a REAL investigation as the way it is at present allows criticism before the investigation into withholding evidence begins.


Lothian & Borders Police Chief Constable recently welcomed and embraced the technologies of the 21st century and conducted a live web Q&A, which shows that there is at least, some transparency that the good people of Edinburgh had the opportunity to ask the top man in their area of policing direct questions.


The police have a duty to uphold and enforce the law and maintain the peace.The Police (Scotland) Act 1967 provides for the sharing of legal responsibility for policing between Scottish Ministers, police authorities and Chief Constables.


However, Strathclyde Police have not yet embraced the same technologies of the 21st century and in fact, they lag behind somewhere in the early 60s and should update their committment to Policing.  In light of this, and the way the Metropolitan Police have acted by creating an Anti-corruption squad, the probably reasons why Strathclyde Police have yet to announce such a body is due to the fact it blatantly denies that police corruption exists (on their patch).  Here is an example for them to follow:

The Anti-Corruption Group

The Anti-Corruption Group is a special unit that fights corruption within the Metropolitan Police Service. It was formerly known as CIB3 but has recently been re-named as part of an extensive re-organisation of the whole of the Met. The group has a worldwide reputation for excellence and its anti-corruption strategy has provided a blueprint for other forces.

Below you will find some information that was published in relation to CIB3. In due course it will be replaced by revised information about the Anti-Corruption Group, however it is being left here for the time being because much of it still applies in relation to the newly re-named unit.


For more information on the Metropolitan Police Strategy for the prevention of corruption and dishonesty please click here.




The TRUTH is out there...........

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 9,107
Reply with quote  #2 
This is yet another independent article that casts doubt upon the integrity of the evidence gatherers (police), and where exactly is this money coming from? 
Has the Executive got a bottomless pit by using tax payers money first of all with the awards being  given to both Tommy Campbell and Joe Steele (and many others), not to mention the £750K that was paid to Shirley McKie, nor indeed to mention the costings of all the trials and of all the incarcerations for the unjustly convicted who were clearly fabricated by a conspiracy to defeat the ends of justice.  And that's just the police.
Why did it take the SCCRC (Scottish Criminal Cases Review Committee) to bring these cases before the High Court, when the Crown themselves clearly knew all the evidence, just like they must have done with the Nat Fraser case.
By Bob Dow

WIFE killer Nat Fraser could be freed in weeks - and pick up a £1million compensation payout.

Nat Fraser was jailed for life three years ago for the murder of his wife Arlene in April 1998.

But the Record can reveal that TWO crucial statements made during the probe into her disappearance were never passed on to prosecutors or Fraser's lawyers.

Fraser, 47, of Elgin, will apply for bail in weeks and the Crown will not oppose his appeal.

Experts say he may get up to £1million.


Avatar / Picture

Posts: 3,165
Reply with quote  #3 

And precisely where will this £1 million be coming from??


Book hits bestseller list.(News)

Daily Record (Glasgow, Scotland); 4/29/2005

Byline: By Richard Elias

THE book about the Arlene Fraser case has become a bestseller.

Murdered Or Missing? casts doubt on claims that the Elgin housewife was murdered by her husband, Nat.

The book, serialised in the Daily Record this week, has hit the best-selling charts of online bookstore Amazon.

It was written by Glenn Lucas, 53, who stood trial for conspiracy to murder Arlene but who subsequently walked free.

His co-author, leading crime writer and Daily Record columnist, Reg McKay, said that he was delighted by the public's response.

Both authors spent yesterday doing numerous book-signings and TV and radio interviews to promote the book.

McKay also dismissed criticism of Murdered Or Missing? as something to be expected.

He said: 'We want to have an impact on the public and that is exactly what it seems to have done.

'The book is flying off the shelves and the reaction of the big shops in Glasgow and Edinburgh has been fantastic.'

Yesterday, in an exclusive interview with the Record, Hector Dick - who stood trial alongside Fraser but walked free - claimed the book was 'rubbish'.

But his comments were dismissed by McKay. He added: 'If the book was so bad then Hector Dick would not be bothering to reply.

'That is why he has come out with this continued tissue of lies'.


Here are some articles which strengthen the case for Nat Fraser:


FRASER'S RING RIDDLE APPEAL; Killer starts bid to clear name.(News)

Daily Record (Glasgow, Scotland); 8/4/2005

Byline: By Charlie Gall

WIFE killer Nat Fraser will launch his bid to clear his name next week.

A court hearing in Edinburgh will be given details of his appeal against a 25-year sentence for murder.

The move comes seven years after mother-of-two Arlene Fraser, 33, vanished from the couple's Elgin home.

Fraser became the prime suspect 10 days after his wife's disappearance when her engagement, wedding and eternity rings turned up in their bathroom.

They hadn't been seen on a police video filmed hours after Arlene went missing on April 28,1998And the Crown claimed that only Nat Fraser had the means and motive to put the rings there, which he denied.

Instead, Fraser claimed the police had placed the rings.

At Fraser's trial, it was claimed he had placed the rings there to create the impression Arlene had walked out on their marriage for good - a claim he has always denied.

Fraser was already facing an attempted murder rap for a brutal assault on his wife.

And Arlene was consulting a solicitor as she sought a pounds 250,000 divorce settlement.

The appeal is expected to revolve around the timing of the discovery of the rings.

At the High Court in Edinburgh in January 2003, Fraser's former friend Hector Dick claimed Fraser told him he had hired a hitman to kill his wife.

Elgin farmer Dick and another associate of Fraser, businessman Glenn Lucas, were originally charged with murder alongside Fraser.

But the charges against both were dropped when Dick turned Queen's evidence.

Next week's hearing will give the Court of Criminal Appeal an update on the case for Fraser's appeal.

Both his side and the Crown will be required to identify the stage they have reached in their preparations for a full appeal hearing.

A date may be set but Fraser's legal team have indicated that may still be some way off yet


Murdered or Missing The Arlene Fraser Case: ON THE RIGHT TRAIL RIGHT TRAIL; The mysterious letter from un-named cop that blew holes in the Arlene murder case.(News)

Daily Record (Glasgow, Scotland); 4/25/2005

Byline: By Glenn Lucas with Reg McKay

THE voice on the other end of the phone was male, deep, educated, confident and with a ring of authority: 'You're not going to find what you're looking for.'

I asked, intrigued: 'How do you know what I'm looking for?'

'Whatever they think goes against their case has been removed and destroyed - a long time ago.'

'Who by?'

The man, who wouldn't give his name, said: 'I just know.' Then he hung up.

At one point, I had been thinking of changing my phone numbers and going ex-directory to avoid the crank calls I'd been getting in addition to the death-threat letters.

I decided not to - if cranks called, so might someone useful. They had - but anonymously again.

Not all the letters were from cranks either. One envelope was neatly typed, like the single sheet of paper inside.

No date, no name, no address - just a postmark from the Aberdeen area.

It read: Mr Lucas, It seems to be widely accepted within Grampian Police that you are not going to give up on your quest to clear your name and that of your co-accused Nat Fraser in connection to the Arlene Fraser case. I take it that you understand that as many obstacles as possible will be put in your way to both stop and discourage you in your quest for the truth.

This opening sounded like the beginning of a threat. Polite. Decent English.

But there was something about the tone. The letter went on to list points that its writer thought I may find interesting.

You are being discreetly watched while on your visits to the Moray area.

No surprise there, since the cops hadn't exactly made a secret of it.

It is known that Hector Dick did commit perjury on the witness stand during the trial.

Now the writer had my attention. The only way they could know about Dick's perjury was by reading all the legal papers and knowing about Douglas Williamson's evidence - evidence that was never presented to the court or the public.

Witnesses who gave statements as to the possible sightings of Arlene Fraser on or after April 28 were 'persuaded'they were mistakenI knew that - but I only learned it after the trial through muckrakingWitnesses gave statements that Mr Dick suspected either his wife or his daughter of having an affair with Mr Fraser in 1997/98Now this was news to me. I knew that Irene Dick would often make comments of a sexual nature about Fraser but I had written it off as banter.

There was nothing in my trial papers to say that Dick actually suspected an affair. Whether that was true or not, all those statements should have been included. Where had those statements gone? Statements that suggested Dick had an additional motive for putting Fraser inside. Not just to save his own neck, but jealousy.

The lip-reading evidence was not used in court as it was deemed inaccurate and would have greatly weakened the prosecution case.

Bingo. I'd found a report by a Professor Summerfield of the Medical Research Council Institute of Hearing Research, Nottingham, who tested Jessica Rees's lip-reading skills.

In a test involving 820 words, she got 55 per cent correct. More worrying was that she introduced 224 words that had never been said. That about took care of her transcript of the conversation between Fraser and me in the visiting room of Porterfield Prison, Inverness, and her allegation that we were talking about 'chopping up bodies'.

It was pure tosh and I knew it but how had the writer of the letter known that the lip-reading had been inaccurate? The letter-writer must have seen the same reports I had managed to get my hands on.

There were three separate witnesses who gave statements to the effect that they saw Hector Dick driving a Ford Fiesta car in the Elgin area between 09.00 and 10.00 on April 28, 1998. These statements have subsequently disappeared.

This was new and very worrying information. If it was accurate, it meant that Dick had been driving the car the cops allege was used in abducting Arlene at the time she was known to have disappeared.

Was that why, in the early days, they were saying privately that Dick did it? But, if that was the case, why hadn't the cops acted on it?

Dick said to both Fraser and I, on separate occasions, that he had something over the cops.

Was this what he meant? Was whatever he had on the cops used to pull these statements linking him to the car that the cops reckoned had been used in Arlene's disappearance? Is that what had happenedMr Dick was given immunity from prosecution on VAT fraud in connection to the sale of duty-free alcohol.

We had worked that one out - a pounds 175,000 starting figure, according to Dick. But what I liked about this line was the phrase 'duty-free alcohol', not the 'bootleg booze' that other people might call it. The letter-writer had to be in the law-and-order business.

If you had not been acquitted along with Dick, he was prepared to implicate you in the 'crime' by claiming Mr Fraser told him of your involvement.

The letter ended abruptly, leaving me with a shiver down my spine. How close had I come to spending 25 years in jail for a crime I hadn't committed? A crime no one had proved had actually happened? Just as the letter-writer had written, Arlene's disappearance was not a crime but a 'crime'.

What did the inverted commas hint at? Was the writer a cop? Or maybe a lawyer in the prosecution service? Or possibly somebody from that part of officialdom who would really know what goes on backstage in a murder case like this?

Whoever they were, they had hit the mark on many points and had information not put in the public domain.

I'd shown the letter to a contact, someone used to such correspondence. He had said it was written by a cop and now I was waiting for John Macaulay's assessment.

He said: 'The language is right. Some of the phraseology is straight from the police vocabulary. The formality of the terms is also typical. And the writer certainly knows aspects of the case that only the investigating team and the prosecution would know.'

I asked: 'Do you think a cop wrote it?' He looked up: 'In my opinion, it was undoubtedly written by a police officer.'

John Macaulay isn't just one of Scotland's top lawyer she is also a former cop.



The Mirror (London, England); 10/19/2005

CAGED Nat Fraser is making a fresh bid for freedom in the wake of new evidence surrounding his wife Arlene's murder. His legal fight will be explored in a BBC TV documentary tonight called The Missing Evidence.

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

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #4 

This article clearly shows a need for a truly independent transparent investigation into all areas of corruption, especially within STRATHCLYDE POLICE:


POLICE corruption in Britain is now so widespread it may have reached Third World levels, according to a confidential document obtained by The Sunday Telegraph.

The document, the minutes of a meeting organised by the National Criminal Intelligence Service, which 10 of Britain's most senior officers and policy makers attended, states that "corrupt officers exist throughout the UK police service".

NCIS's director of intelligence indicated that corruption had become "pervasive" and may have reached "level 2: the situation which occurs in some Third World countries". Police are so concerned they say that drug testing and lie detector tests for detectives should be considered as options in the fight against corruption.

But the facts about police corruption are being deliberately concealed from the public. The confidential document suggests that the Association of Chief Police Officers formulates a strategy for dealing with "adverse publicity".

A month after the NCIS meeting, David Blakey, the association president, formally stated that he and his collegues believed "the true level of corruption in the modern police service is extremely low".

The NCIS minutes state that "common activities" of corrupt officers include theft of property and drugs during searches, planting of drugs or stolen property on individuals, supplying details of operations to subjects, providing tip-offs to criminal associates, and demanding money for aborting investigations and destroying evidence. It adds that "in severe cases, this also includes the committing of serious crimes including armed robbery and drug dealing, or the licensing and organising of such crimes".

The meeting decided that police corruption was so serious that NCIS should be given the role of co-ordinating intelligence on corrupt officers in every force in the country. MI5 and ACPO had both agreed to that proposal.

Regional forces should follow the Metropolitan Police and establish hot lines so that honest officers could inform on their corrupt colleagues in confidence.

The informant/handler relationship is identified as one which is frequently used by corrupt officers to disguise what is in reality a straightforwardly criminal liaison. "Many criminals believe that by becoming informants they. . . are given an opportunity to corrupt an officer."

It recommends that MI5-style security officers be appointed to oversee handlers and informants.

Roger Gaspar, NCIS director of intelligence, suggested that internal police investigation units were needed to mount covert operations against the force's own officers.

They should intercept communications, tap phones and use hidden microphones and cameras to gain evidence. At the same time they should introduce rigorous new security techniques to ensure that they themselves were not infiltrated by corrupt officers.

The task is extremely difficult because "some of the most overtly honest officers have actually been extremely corrupt".

The meeting had no doubt about the cause of the corruption crisis: the multi-million-pound drug trade. "The enormous volume of money that is available to drug dealers means that very large sums can be offered to corrupt officers," the document says. "Criminals have evidenced their willingness to pay large sums to ensure their continued protection."

Elmore Davies, the Liverpool detective chief inspector who was sentenced last weeek to five years' imprisonment for corruption, was paid by Curtis Warren, one of the wealthiest drug smugglers in Britain.

The meeting emphasised that "intelligence development to combat corruption should include investigating analysis of the recipients, brokers and sources of leaks to the media. Many officers do not regard contact with the media. . . as corrupt".

The minutes also noted, without any apparent irony, that one of the controls on corruption is "a vigorous, uncensored media".


The TRUTH is out there...........

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #5 
Further to our expose on the Nat Fraser case, here is the most recent article in relation to the murder and the withholding of vital evidence by the police:
12 March 2006
Law chiefs launch probes
By Bruce Walker

POLICE and prosecutors are under investigation over claims that evidence was hidden from defence lawyers in the Arlene Fraser murder trial.

Nat Fraser, 46, was jailed for life in January 2003 after being convicted him of murdering his estranged wife - despite her body never being found.

But, in a shock announcement yesterday, the Crown Office revealed an inquiry had been ordered into Grampian Police and prosecutors.

This comes amid serious concerns that important evidence had not been revealed to his defence team prior to the trial.

Fraser is appealing against his conviction and lawyers last night said the dramatic developments had boosted his hopes of freedom and could mean he is out on bail within weeks.

Crown Office lawyers, researching the forthcoming appeal, discovered evidence that should have been handed over to Fraser's legal team.

A spokesman for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal service said: "The Lord Advocate regards it as a matter of serious concern that this evidence was not made available to the defence prior to the trial.

"We have now provided this information to the defence as it may be of relevance to the appeal."

Glasgow procurator fiscal Catherine Dyer is to conduct a full investigation into how prosecutors dealt with the evidence.

Meanwhile, Ricky Gray, the deputy chief constable at Strath-clyde Police, will scrutinise how the Grampian force investigated the murder.

Arlene Fraser was 33 when she mysteriously vanished from her home in April, 1998, sparking one of Scotland's most notorious criminal cases.

She was last seen waving her children, Jamie and Natalie, off to school in Elgin in Moray. The missing person enquiry soon became a murder hunt.

Her husband Nat and his friends Glenn Lucas and Hector Dick eventually ended up in the dock accused of murder. But charges against Lucas and Dick were dropped when Dick decided to give evidence against his best pal Fraser.

He told the High Court in Edinburgh that fruit-and-veg salesman Fraser had hired a hitman to kill Arlene then disposed of her body himself. In January 2003, Fraser was found guilty of murder and sentenced to a minimum of 25 years.

However, since he was jailed it's been alleged in a TV documentary that Dick lied in the dock over a car, casting doubt over his reliability as a witness.

Pat Shearer, the deputy chief constable of Grampian Police, said Arlene's family had been kept informed of the new developments over evidence.

He said: "I sought the involvement of an outside force to ensure a thorough, independent and objective inquiry."

Last night, Arlene's mum, Isabelle Thomson, said they have been kept up to date on the new progress.

She said: "I can't go into details. We're not angry in any way."

There have been concerns about the case. Police claimed they found Arlene's engagement and wedding rings in her bathroom nine days after she vanished. But the rings did not appear in a police video.

The prosecution said Fraser planted them after removing them from Arlene's body to give the impression she had run off.

But a police officer later claimed the rings had been placed by another officer.

Last night lawyer Gary McAteer, who acted for Nat Fraser until recently, said he should be bailed immediately.

He said: "The Crown clearly has serious concerns."

mailfile The Arlene Fraser Case

April 1998: Arlene Fraser is reported missing from her home. Estranged husband Nat becomes suspect.

October 1998: Top cop says he believes she is dead - the victim of "something criminal".

March 2000: Fraser is jailed for 18 months for assaulting Arlene.

April 2001: Nat Fraser is jailed for 12 months after admitting Legal Aid fraud.

January 2003: Nat Fraser is jailed for life at the High Court in Edinburgh for his wife's murder. The judge, Lord Mackay, orders that he serves at least 25 years.

May 2005: Fraser launches appeal against conviction

March 2006: Crown Office orders new inquiry into the murder investigation.

The TRUTH is out there...........

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 9,107
Reply with quote  #6 

For the record, no pun intended, Tam Bagan is no supergrass.  What he was trying to do was expose the dealings between several high ranking police officers with the Strathclyde area.


However, we have uncovered new material that also pinpoints direct involvement by members of the Procurator Fiscal's Office at that time, and you would think that because Strathclyde Police are now investgating Grampian Police, why were they then allowed to investigate themselves?


This decision to have an internal enquiry rather than an outside body being brought in was made by the Procurator Fiscal's Office (how very convenient).


Here is an article that may explain why there is little, or no faith, or the absolute irony in Strathclyde Police investigating ANYBODY, when they should be subject to an investigation themselves and the previous investigation that was prompted by Tam Bagan was fundamentally flawed and should be reviewed to restore the confidence, the integrity and the trust that others who really know the story have been denied.


Supergrass probe cops in the clear; Inquiry ends after 14 months.(News)

Daily Record (Glasgow, Scotland); 7/4/1996; Hannah, Roger

Scotland's biggest police corruption inquiry has ended - and the officers at the centre of the probe are believed to be in the clear.

Strathclyde Police last night confirmed the inquiry was complete. It was sparked by corruption claims by an underworld supergrass.

But the seven officers at the centre of the probe were told they where in the clear more than a month ago.

The claims, made by convicted armed robber Tam Bagan, involved a chief inspector, three inspectors, a sergeant and two constables.

A massive 14-month investigation, headed by two senior detectives from the Strathclyde force, began days after the Daily Record passed on Bagan's allegations.

The gangland heavy broke the crooks' code of silence to claim that the detectives were in the pay of Glasgow's top gangster.

He claimed the Mr Big, known to police as The Licensee, has been giving crooked officers cash, cars, holidays, clothes and sports gear for more than a decade.

In return, Bagan claimed, they warn him of police action against him and arrest his criminal rivals.

Bagan, 40, spent a year being interviewed at Shotts maximum security prison, where he is serving 12 years for robbing a security van.

The inquiry was not just into alleged police corruption.

Bagan gave cops fresh details of more than 20 serious crimes including murder, extortion and drug dealing.

Chief Constable John Orr said: "A full report has been submitted to the procurator fiscal at Glasgow and we await his instruction."

But some say the inquiry has been flawed.

Politicians were concerned that Strathclyde held its own investigations into serious allegations about some of its own officers.

Similar probes in England are conducted by an outside force reporting to an independent body.


And just when you thought it couldn't get any worse....



Sunday Mail (Glasgow, Scotland); 8/12/2001


A CRIMINAL godfather has been accused of ordering the notorious Ice Cream Wars mass murder.

The millionaire gangster has finally been blamed for the horrific massacre of six members of the Doyle family almost 20 years after the fire attack on their home.

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has been investigating the killings and will rule in autumn.

Today, we can reveal how the criminal godfather:

Asked two junkies to torch the family's Glasgow flat the day before the Doyles died.

Ordered one of his enforcers to carry out the attack after the pair took fright.

Was protected by police officers investigating the murder because he was too valuable as an informant.

Let two innocent men go to jail for life to protect his deadly secret.

Our revelations come as the men jailed for the the infamous murders - TC Campbell, 47, and Joe Steele, 38 - prepare to renew their campaign for freedom.

Andrew Doyle, 18, brothers James, 23, and Anthony, 14, father James, 53, sister Christine Halleron, 22, and her 18-month-old son, Mark, all died after their home in Ruchazie, Glasgow, was torched. Another brother, Daniel, was taken to hospital, critically injured, but survived.

One retired officer, who was close to the original investigation, told: "The man behind the Doyle murders was highly prized as a 'grass'.

"There is no question high-ranking officers kept him out of the frame, and fitted up others to take the rap. In those days, fitting up was a way of life.

"If I had to go in the witness box and tell the truth, I'd be sweating. In a fit-up job, we never sweated because it was all planned out before we ever saw the inside of a court."

Confirming the notorious criminal's role in ordering the murders, he said: "He's like the Teflon Don - ruthless, and without any trace of human conscience.

"He has put more guys behind bars than I ever did and I was in the job for more than 20 years.

"He'd turn in rivals to the police one by one until he emerged as a main player.

"His links grew Europe-wide, but every time any attempt was made to catch him red-handed, he mysteriously seemed to know what was coming."

The former cop revealed that the gangster was desperate to remove the Doyle family from the lucrative ice cream routes in Glasgow.

He said: "He was too greedy and a family was wiped out. On the night before the fire, he approached two junkies to start the blaze. They took fright and refused.

"The day after the fire, they got a personal visit and a gun was literally held to their heads until they conveniently suffered amnesia."

Instead, Steele, a petty crook who had no convictions for violence, and Tommy 'TC' Campbell, a prominent member of the feared Barlanark Team, a gang of post office robbers, have spent most of their adult lives behind bars for a crime they swear they did not commit.

They were foot soldiers in escalating Ice Cream Wars, a vicious turf battle over lucrative runs through the housing schemes of Glasgow's East End, where drugs were sold from confectionery vans.

In the early 1980s, opposing families fought to retain their patches, earning thousands of pounds a week per van.

A key player in the turf wars was Tam McGraw, later nicknamed The Licensee.

Also a member of the Barlanark Team, McGraw was named in an indictment in May 1984.

He was accused, along with five others, of attempting to murder one of the Doyle family, Andrew, and plotting violence against him and a teenage girl who worked on one of his vans.

Shotgun bullets had blasted through Andrew's ice-cream van on February 20, 1984, as it went on its round.

McGraw, then aged 32, left the court a hated man when the Crown dropped the charges against him.

Days later, he was admitted to hospital with a fractured skull following a vicious street beating.

Today, McGraw, 49, lives in a pounds 300,000 villa, complete with swimming pool, in Mount Vernon, Glasgow, with wife Margaret. In recent years, one-time gangland ally - now sworn enemy - Paul Ferris has pointed the finger at McGraw, implicating him in the shootings of Ferris's friends, Bobby Glover and Joe Hanlon.

The pair were murdered and dumped in a car on the eve of the funeral of Arthur Thompson jnr in 1991, in what is widely regarded as a tit-for-tat hit.

After being cleared of masterminding a cannabis smuggling ring worth millions four years ago, McGraw now spends most of his time at a luxury villa in Tenerife.

A skilled and prolific robber, McGraw turned his attention to the burgeoning ice cream trade in the 1980s, his wife's redundancy money from a local cigarette factory to fund their first van.

He began running the operation in the Easterhouse area, taking over Fifti's Ices with 50 vans on the road.

McGraw got his Licensee tag when he took over infamous gangster haunt, the now-closed Caravel Bar in Barlanark.

The witness whose evidence virtually sealed the convictions of Campbell and Steele, was also known to McGraw. Drug addict and small-time crook Billy Love claimed in court he had overheard the pair discussing the Doyle fire in a pub.

It was largely his testimony that ensured they were found guilty, but Love has now admitted it was a tissue of lies.

Love claims he was forced by police into signing a statement giving false evidence against Steele and Campbell in return for quashing an armed robbery investigation.

He said: "The statement was all fabricated. There was no truth in it. There was never any conversation, and I have had to live with this on my conscience for years."

Love had twice been refused bail on armed robbery, but was immediately freed after giving his statement about TC and Joe to the police.

He got a not proven verdict on his armed robbery charge. A police source said: "A lot of us in the know were convinced he'd get off the armed robbery charge before he ever saw the inside of a court.

"It was widely held that the robbery had taken place at the same time as the alleged overheard confession. The Doyle murder team wouldn't have wanted to explain how their star witness was at two different places at once.

"There were enormous pressures being brought to bear to catch the Doyle killers. Dupes like TC and Joe Steele were easy fodder. With a bit of imagination, they fitted the picture.

"I knew Joe Steele. He was a wee softie who wouldn't hurt anyone. He'd steal lead from church roofs, but he wouldn't use violence.

"I knew his whole family well, and his mother swore that on the night of the Doyle fire Joe was in bed all night with a bad dose of the flu. I believe her."

The police insider added: "Even TC, who had a fearsome reputation in his younger days, didn't approve of violence against 'civilians'.

"The Barlanark Team were extremely proficient at robbing post offices. They even carried walkie-talkies, and cut off alarm systems with great expertise.

"One time TC was involved in a post office hold up, and was hiding in bushes with his gang, ready to make their move, when they heard a teenage girl being attacked by a rapist.

"One of the gang members alerted the others via their walkie talkies, then the whole lot of them got hold of the would-be rapist who had a teenage girl by the throat and her clothes torn from her body.

"They gave him a doing, took the girl home and left the post office for another day."

Two other Doyle trial witnesses have also said they'd lied under pressure from police.

Joe Granger and his girlfriend Lynn Chalmers claim they were forced by police to lie about the case.

Granger said he was beaten until he signed a statement saying he was the lookout man on the night of the murders, and implicating Steele and Campbell.

When he changed his story in court, he was charged with perjury and jailed for five years.

Two of the leading police officers in the case are now dead.

Detective Chief Superintendent Charles Craig, head of CID at the time, died in 1991.

Craig was also the man who arrested Raymond Gilmore, the man jailed for the 1981 murder of schoolgirl Pamela Hastie.

That case, along with the Doyle murders, are both being looked at by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Board, which just last month referred the Gilmore case back to the Appeal Court after deciding a miscarriage of justice may have taken place.

The other senior officer, Detective Superintendent Norrie Walker, was found in his fume-filled car in a country lane four years after the Doyle trial, a hose pipe attached to the exhaust.

Crown prosecutors have been accused of a cover-up after legal experts were blocked from seeing crucial papers on the Doyle murders.

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission took steps to force the Lord Advocate to hand over the files as part of their own investigation into the mass killing.

The newly-formed SCCRC, led by Professor Sheila McLean, may be Steele and Campbell's last remaining chance of freedom.

After a few short months of freedom four years ago, the duo lost an appeal, and then saw a bid to have fresh evidence heard rejected on a split decision by three judges.

But their high-profile campaign led to calls for an independent committee to look at alleged miscarriages of justice in Scotland, and the SCCRC was formed. At the Court of Session in Edinburgh, Gerard Moynihan QC, for the Commission, argued that all documents involving the Doyle case should be made available for scrutiny.

Mr Moynihan said the SCCRC had already had unrestricted access to certain police papers over the case which suggested "new lines of inquiry".

But he said that the case had been transferred to the commission "with some documents deleted or removed from the files".

He added: "In the past there have been allegations of misconduct, not just on the part of the police, but on the part of certain members of the procurator fiscal service."

He said it was an "exceptional" case and added: "The commission does consider it necessary to look at the whole background and history."

The police insider said: "It will interesting to see if Steele and Campbell finally get justice from a system that has failed them so badly."


Avatar / Picture

Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #7 

Tommy Campbell and Joe Steele eventually did get justice from a system that not only failed them so badly, they failed them also because they knew they had fitted up the wrong men, and after a lengthy fight that saw Joe Steele escape from so many prisons to highlighting the Glasgow Two Campaign, one prominent example was when he super-glued his hands to the gates of Buckingham Palace - the very heart of the Crown.


Every time that Joe Steele escaped he did so with the intention of creating media attention for The Glasgow Two (TC & Joe).  However, Tommy Campbell's campaign was to go on hunger strike and had experienced several near death experiences as a result of his refusal to eat prison food, as a way of protest.


Both these men have now been exonerated for the role in which the Crown had claimed they played in the part of the mass murder of the Doyle family.  It is probably hard for anyone to understand the anguish, the mental torture and the illegal incarceration that these men had to suffer.  They also suffered the heartache of not being able to be with their family, who were victims in all of this as well.


Thankfully, both TC & Joe got the justice they deserved, and where does that leave Strathclyde Police, Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal's office, in Glasgow, in all of this?


The following articles are in relation to their successful appeals:


Ice Cream Wars pair win freedom
Thomas TC Campbell and Joe Steele
Steele and Campbell had always protested their innocence
Judges have quashed Thomas TC Campbell and Joe Steele's convictions for the so-called Ice Cream Wars murders 20 years ago.

Three judges at the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh decided they were victims of a miscarriage of justice.

They had been convicted of murdering six members of the Doyle family at their Glasgow home in a turf war over areas served by ice cream vans.

The men always pleaded innocence and this was their third appeal.

There was a burst of applause from Mr Campbell and Mr Steele's supporters in the public gallery as the ruling was given.

Lord Gill, sitting with Lords MacLean and Macfadyan, told the men: "Your convictions are quashed and you are free to go."

However, outside the court, Mr Campbell said there was no celebration.

He said: "It's been difficult to get here and there is no jubilation, there's no happiness because I feel there are only losers in this case.

"Everybody has lost. The Doyles have lost their family, we've lost our lives in prison and for 20 years justice has lost.

The term used to describe this case will be miscarriage of justice but it was more than that, it was a malicious prosecution by Strathclyde Police
Aamer Anwar
TC Campbell's solicitor
"And the people of Scotland have lost the justice system."

In a statement read outside the court, Mr Campbell's solicitor, Aamer Anwar, said: "After 20 years of hunger strikes, prison breakouts, demonstrations, political pressure, solitary isolation, prison beatings, legal fight after legal fight, TC Campbell and Joe Steele are finally free from a life sentence.

"The term used to describe this case will be miscarriage of justice but it was more than that, it was a malicious prosecution by Strathclyde Police.

"At the heart of this case was allegations of police corruption, officers of the law who conspired for nearly 20 years to keep these men behind bars."

Mr Anwar demanded a "full independent inquiry" into the men's case and a reopening of the murder investigation. He said law officers must explain why it took so long to accept the men's innocence.

Stolen goods

The appeal judges quashed the convictions because of new evidence and because they said there had been significant misdirection of the jury by the judge at the original trial.

The latest hearing followed the intervention of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which was set up to assess alleged miscarriages of justice.

Both men had been serving life sentences for the murder of six members of the Doyle family, including a baby, after a fire attack on their home in Ruchazie, Glasgow, in April 1984.

The deaths coincided with the targeting of ice cream vans in Glasgow as a front for moving stolen goods and drugs.

New evidence was brought to the latest hearing by Professor Brian Clifford, which questioned police testimony given at the trial.

Doyle home
Six members of the Doyle family died as fire ripped through their home
The professor of cognitive psychology said the recollection of police officers at the time of the murders was "too exact."

He was referring to a sentence taken down by four officers in their notebooks which was allegedly said by Mr Campbell.

The appeal, which ran from 17-25 February, heard that police told the court Campbell said: "I only wanted the van windows shot up. The fire at fat boy's was only meant to be a frightener which went too far."

Prof Clifford said his studies "strongly suggested that it was not at all likely" that the officers would be able to note the statement "in such similar terms".

Reading a summary of their findings, Lord Gill said: "Our conclusion is that any jury hearing Prof Clifford's evidence would have assessed the evidence of the arresting police officers in an entirely different light.

"The evidence of Prof Clifford is of such significance that the verdicts of the jury, having been returned in ignorance of it, must be regarded as miscarriages of justice."

Lord Gill added: "Prof Clifford's evidence is uncontradicted by the Crown."

A spokesman for Strathclyde Police said: "We note the decision of the court and will consider the written judgement in detail before making any further comment."

The Scottish Executive said it would also study the written judgement before considering requests for an independent inquiry and compensation.


ferrisconspiracy : LINKS



The BBC's Isabel Fraser
"A 20 year fight to clear their names"

The BBC's Alan Mackay reports
"The two men became familiar faces to Scotland's appeal judges"

The long road to liberation
17 Mar 04  |  Scotland
Ice Cream Wars case inquiry call
17 Mar 04  |  Scotland
'Ice cream wars' pair await fate
25 Feb 04  |  Scotland
Ice Cream Wars duo freed for appeal
11 Dec 01  |  Scotland
New move in ice cream wars case
10 Jul 00  |  Scotland


Life & crimes of the licensee: The dogs in the street howled his name after family of 6 died.(Features)

Daily Record (Glasgow, Scotland); 8/29/2005

"JUST a wee torch job," said the man in the back of the cab. "A door. Worth twenty quid."

"Aye, no problem," replied one young man as his friend nodded.

"Later the night," the man in the cab stated.

"Sure, we aye hang about here," the young man was nodding again. "Get us any time."

The two young men watched the cab drive out of the street then took to their heels.

They might have been junkies, desperate for cash for their next hit but torching doors wasn't their style.

It was April 16, 1984 - a night of disgrace in the annals of Glasgow street life.

The Doyle family had had their flat in Bankend Street, Ruchazie, torched in the middle of the night and it looked as if most of them were going to die. Even a young baby.

Only brothers Danny and Stephen and their mum Lillian survived. Their sister, Christine Halleron, 25, and her son, 18-month-old Mark, were among the victims.

It was a horror that shook decent people everywhere. TC Campbell and Joe Steele were convicted of the murder of six of the Doyle family.

And they only won their appeals against conviction in 2004, after a 20-year fight.

The state accepts that Campbell and Steele were innocent but it leaves one question unanswered. Who did kill the Doyles?

No one knows for sure apart from the killer. But why do the dogs in the streets of Glasgow's east end say Thomas McGraw should have been investigated? Because they know what the cops already knew.

Witnesses identified the man in the taxi talking about the torch job as McGraw.

The taxi driver, who visited the junkies the next day and warned them that the conversation never happened, was fingered as a long-term associate of McGraw.

Then, of course, there'smotive.At his trial for the murders, the Crown argued that Campbell owned several ice cream vans and made pounds 15,000 on each a week. In fact, Campbell ownedone van while McGraw owned more than 15 at the time. Thomas McGraw had got into the ice cream business a few years before.

He followed the example of Frank McPhie. While McPhie was known as The Iceman, it had nothing to do with cones and raspberry ripple.

McPhie was a hitman who killed in a cold calculated way.

But he showed McGraw the way to a tidy, mainly legal, profit.

A well-stocked van serving a good area could make pounds 1500 to pounds 2000 clear profit every week.

Not bad for 1984, especially if you ran several vans.

McGraw saw the opportunity and ploughed his wife's redundancy money into the business.

Andrew Doyle had a very lucrative route and McGraw wanted it. Numerous threats had been made to young Doyle in the weeks before the blaze.

None worked.

The day before the attack, McGraw's brother-in-law, Snaz Adams, was driving a brand new Boxer ice cream van when he spotted Andrew Doyle and tried to run him off the road. But young Doyle was no slouch when it came to driving and Adams's van ended up off the road on its side.

It was an expensive clash and loss of face for Mc GrawMcGraw was one of the people originally charged and held on remand with Campbell, Steele and others. After six weeks he was freed, all charges dropped. No explanation was given.

At the appeal of Campbell, two independent forensic linguists came to the same conclusions - the cops had made up evidence and statements attributed to Campbell. Not one, not two but 11 cops.

That's not a sloppy mistake but a deliberate conspiracy.

Again, local people and street players asked what does it take to escape charges like these.

That's when they gave McGraw his name - The Licensee.

Licensed to commit crimes without fear of conviction

The TRUTH is out there...........

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #8 

ferrisconspiracy : UPDATE

  The definition of policing

The word "Police" means, generally, the arrangements made in all civilised countries to ensure that the inhabitants keep the peace and obey the law. The word also denotes the force of peace officers (or police) employed for this purpose.

In 1829 Sir Richard Mayne wrote:
"The primary object of an efficient police is the prevention of crime: the next that of detection and punishment of offenders if crime is committed. To these ends all the efforts of police must be directed. The protection of life and property, the preservation of public tranquillity, and the absence of crime, will alone prove whether those efforts have been successful and whether the objects for which the police were appointed have been attained."

In attaining these objects, much depends on the approval and co-operation of the public, and these have always been determined by the degree of esteem and respect in which the police are held. One of the key principles of modern policing in Britain is that the police seek to work with the community and as part of the community


ferrisconspiracy : UPDATE


Origins of policing

The origin of the British police lies in early tribal history and is based on customs for securing order through the medium of appointed representatives. In effect, the people were the police. The Saxons brought this system to England and improved and developed the organisation. This entailed the division of the people into groups of ten, called "tythings", with a tything-man as representative of each; and into larger groups, each of ten tythings, under a "hundred-man" who was responsible to the Shire-reeve, or Sheriff, of the County.

The tything-man system, after contact with Norman feudalism, changed considerably but was not wholly destroyed. In time the tything-man became the parish constable and the Shire-reeve the Justice of the Peace, to whom the parish constable was responsible. This system, which became widely established in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, comprised, generally, one unarmed able-bodied citizen in each parish, who was appointed or elected annually to serve for a year unpaid, as parish constable. He worked in co-operation with the local Justices in securing observance of laws and maintaining order. In addition, in the towns, responsibility for the maintenance of order was conferred on the guilds and, later, on other specified groups of citizens, and these supplied bodies of paid men, known as "The Watch", for guarding the gates and patrolling the streets at night.

In the eighteenth century came the beginnings of immense social and economic changes and the consequent movement of the population to the towns. The parish constable and "Watch" systems failed completely and the impotence of the law-enforcement machinery was a serious menace. Conditions became intolerable and led to the formation of the "New Police".


This is what the ''New Police'' did to TC Campbell, Joseph Steel and others! Pleases click on the link below to see the FULL APPEAL RULING on the SO-CALLED ICE CREAM WARS!

The TRUTH is out there...........

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #9 

If you have already read the opinion of the court then you will note its authenticity.


This is the FIRST TIME it has been published on another website other than  and we aim to adapt it to enable the readership to concentrate on relevant areas within the ruling and have a ferrisconspiracy : VIEW to each and every section that we feel is relevant.


To be denied the TRUTH is one thing but to be DEPRIVED of LIBERTY by a MASSIVE POLICE CONSPIRACY and spend nearly TWO DECADE behind bars for a crime they did not commit is another!


OUR VIEW will be posted soon and hope that we have given those a voice who where once silenced by our JUDICIAL SYSTEM an opportunity to CLEAR their NAMES on




The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2004



Regulation 3


Honesty and integrity
     1. It is of paramount importance that the public has faith in the honesty and integrity of police officers. Officers should therefore be open and truthful in their dealings; avoid being improperly beholden to any person or institution; and discharge their duties with integrity.

Fairness and impartiality
     2. Police officers have a particular responsibility to act with fairness and impartiality in all their dealings with the public and their colleagues.

Politeness and tolerance
     3. Officers should treat members of the public and colleagues with courtesy and respect, avoiding abusive or deriding attitudes or behaviour. In particular, officers must avoid: favouritism of an individual or group; all forms of harassment, victimisation or unreasonable discrimination; and overbearing conduct to a colleague, particularly to one junior in rank or service.

Use of force and abuse of authority
     4. Officers must never knowingly use more force than is reasonable, nor should they abuse their authority.

Performance of duties
     5. Officers should be conscientious and diligent in the performance of their duties. Officers should attend work promptly when rostered for duty. If absent through sickness or injury, they should avoid activities likely to retard their return to duty.

Lawful orders
     6. The police service is a disciplined body. Unless there is good and sufficient cause to do otherwise, officers must obey all lawful orders and abide by the provisions of legislation applicable to the police. Officers should support their colleagues in the execution of their lawful duties, and oppose any improper behaviour, reporting it where appropriate.

     7. Information which comes into the possession of the police should be treated as confidential. It should not be used for personal benefit and nor should it be divulged to other parties except in the proper course of police duty. Similarly, officers should respect, as confidential, information about force policy and operations unless authorised to disclose it in the course of their duties.

Criminal offences
     8. Officers must report any proceedings for a criminal offence taken against them. Conviction of a criminal offence or the administration of a caution may of itself result in further action being taken.

     9. Officers must exercise reasonable care to prevent loss or damage to property (excluding their own personal property but including police property).

     10. Whilst on duty officers must be sober. Officers should not consume alcohol when on duty unless specifically authorised to do so or it becomes necessary for the proper discharge of police duty.

     11. Unless on duties which dictate otherwise, officers should always be well turned out, clean and tidy whilst on duty in uniform or in plain clothes.

General conduct
     12. Whether on or off duty, police officers should not behave in a way which is likely to bring discredit upon the police service.


    (a) The primary duties of those who hold the office of constable are the protection of life and property, the preservation of the Queen's peace, and the prevention and detection of criminal offences. To fulfil these duties they are granted extraordinary powers; the public and the police service therefore have the right to expect the highest standards of conduct from them.

    (b) This Code sets out the principles which guide police officers' conduct. It does not seek to restrict officers' discretion: rather it aims to define the parameters of conduct within which that discretion should be exercised. However, it is important to note that any breach of the principles in this Code may result in action being taken by the organisation, which, in serious cases, could involve dismissal.

    (c) Police behaviour, whether on or off duty, affects public confidence in the police service. Any conduct which brings or is likely to bring discredit to the police service may be the subject of sanction. Accordingly, any allegation of conduct which could, if proved, bring or be likely to bring discredit to the police service should be investigated in order to establish whether or not a breach of the Code has occurred and whether formal disciplinary action is appropriate. No investigation is required where the conduct, if proved, would not bring or would not be likely to bring, discredit to the police service.
    (4) The sanctions which may be imposed on a senior officer under paragraph (3) are - 

      (a) dismissal from the force;

      (b) requirement to resign from the force as an alternative to dismissal taking effect either forthwith or on such date as may be specified in the recommendation or decision;

      (c) fine;

      (d) reprimand


The TRUTH is out there...........

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #10 

As you will have noted in previous posts, with regards to Thomas TC Campell, we have uncovered fresh material, and will be posting new material in relation to the Doyle Murder case every day this week.


What follows below is only the beginning.... EXCLUSIVE












(This is a transcript from a tape recording and forms the basis of what became ONE of the sworn affidavits of William McDonald Love).


Courtesy of John Carroll & Co Solicitors.


All four members highlighted above took part and witnessed the sworn affidavit of William McDonald Love, and participated in a question and answer session within a hotel room at the above location.


The first question put to Love was regarding his own personal safety, and the following transcript is a true and accurate account of events that were recorded that day.


LOVE: I mean, I’ve had to move house, I’ve had to move because of this haven’t I?  I mean, it all boils down to this.  If it wasn’t for all this I’d be sitting in a council home that I could call my own just now.  Do you know what I mean?


DOUGLAS: Yeah, so it’s you and your family?


LOVE: It’s me and my three kids (taped switched on and off again).


DOUGLAS: OK, em, so it’s you and your wife and the three kids?


LOVE: Yeah.


DOUGLAS:  How old are the kids now?


LOVE: Eh, I’ve got one at …. My wee boy is four, my daughter is six and the other is eight.


DOUGLAS: So what you were talking about earlier today… you didn’t….you knew Thomas Campbell?


LOVE: I knew him, I knew him… I mean, I could go and have a pint with him and talk to the man, do you know what I mean?  I maybe knew of him, and that, and could maybe talk to him like… I’ve met you and then maybe I’ve met him a couple of times.  I mean, I think honestly,  I think I met the man only three times you know.  In all that time I’ve known him, I think I’ve only actually sat and spoke to him like I’m talking to you, three times.


DOUGLAS: But you wouldn’t call yourself a friend as….


LOVE: I wouldn’t call myself a friend, no.

DOUGLAS: Did you know the Lafertys better than you knew the Campbell?


LOVE: I knew, I knew Shadda and that better and wee Joe Steele.  I knew him a lot better because I had been brought up with him.  I’d known him since he was kid, you know what I mean?


DOUGLAS: How did you know em, Shadda Lafferty?


LOVE: I knew him very well, yes, I knew Agnes as well.  I mean, like Agnes Lafferty and all that knew Agnes my sister Agnes, they were all friends, know what I mean?  I mean, it was Garthamlock, it was close, everybody knows each other.  That’s the way it is there.


DOUGLAS:  Okay.  So the war themselves – it was really as a favour to Agnes Lafferty would you say?


LOVE:  Well, I mean I didn’t, I wouldn’t say… I wouldn’t say – I would just say that they were only trying to protect themselves.  That’s what it boils down to.


LISA: What was your involvement, just tell us again what your involvement was.


LOVE: Well, my involvement really was… if anybody tried to give that one hassle, we would give them hassle, that’s the way it was.  I mean, if anybody ran up and attacked the van then we, we were there to sort it out.  We were only protecting the van.  If nobody ran up and done anything to the van then we were quite easy going about.  The girl sold the stuff out of her van and put the van away at night and went home.  I mean, she was concerned about people throwing things through her windows and all that.  Agnes, that’s what she was concerned about, know what I mean?


DOUGLAS: So, really, you just followed her about in a car?


LOVE: Really.  And I did a little bit here and there, know what I mean?  But it was mostly just following the van.  It was really the shotgun of the van.  I mean, that’s really the only…


DOUGLAS:  The major?


LOVE:  …that was the major thing, but I think that was only because….other vans were getting smashed up and Agnes was getting hassle, you know what I mean.


JOHN:  You used the term “shotgun” there.  What did you mean by that?  It could have an unfortunate connotation.  You say that there was a shotgun at the van.  What are you talking about?


LOVE:  The shooting of the van, yes, I mean…


JOHN: Are you talking about riding shotgun or using a shotgun?


LOVE:  I’m talking about using a shotgun.  A sawn-off shotgun with two cartridges in it.


JOHN: Right, OK.


DOUGLAS: We’ll come… we’ll come to that.  Who asked you to, to maybe do these things?


LOVE: Well that’s why I… I don’t want to mention any names here because if I would have done what I was going to do just now, and then the position and what I’ve been through.  I would have never mentioned any names in the first place anyway,


LISA: Right.


LOVE: Do you know what I mean mate, I wouldn’t have mentioned any names at all.


DOUGLAS:  Can we eliminate anybody? Can you say who didn’t?


LOVE:  Well, I can tell you just now that from the time of the van getting the shotgun fired through  and all the rest of it, I had never spoken two word to Thomas Campbell.  Thomas Campbell never saw me in that time or nothing.


DOUGLAS:  And he never asked you?


LOVE:  He never asked me, said to me “there’s thirty pounds and I’ll sort you out later” or “thanks for that” or “that was nice that”, nothing at all.  That man never even spoke to me.


DOUGLAS:  Prior to the shot, the shooting, he didn’t ask you to do anything?


LOVE:  Never asked me to do anything at all.


DOUGLAS: Can you tell us a bit about the shooting itself.  What exactly happened?


LOVE: Me and another man, who I am not going to name, the man was the driver.  He drove me up in the car and I drew out a sawn-off double barrelled shotgun and fired it at the icecream van.  We got back in the car and drove away.


DOUGLAS:  Did you have a mask on were you disguised?


LOVE:  We had a mask on, yes.


LISA: Did you stop the icecream van or was the icecream van already stopped?


LOVE:  The icecream van was parked at the side of the road dealing with customers and the shotgun was fired through the front windscreen.


DOUGLAS: Was there anybody… did you see anybody in the van?


LOVE: We never saw any… I saw movement when the shotgun was fired but apart from that, I didn’t see anything move,


LISA: Was there anybody sitting in the front seat of the van when you fired?


LOVE:  There was nobody sitting in the front seat of the van or nothing.  The van was empty.


DOUGLAS:  How many times did you fire?


LOVE:  Just once.


LISA:  And what was the purpose of firing at the van?


LOVE:  To frighten them.


LISA:  To frighten the people in the van?


LOVE:  But as I’ve said before, it was the wrong van.  It was supposed to be another van.  It was meant to be Jimmy Mitchell’s van that was fired at.  We made the mistake.


DOUGLAS: You really didn’t know who was in the van.  You thought it was Jimmy Mitchell’s?


LOVE:  Thought it was Jimmy Mitchell’s van.  I mean, nobody was meant to get hurt anyway, so it was supposed to be Jimmy Mitchell’s van but it turned out to be Fatboy’s (Andrew Doyle), and this is why everyone jumped on the bandwagon  and it was Fatboy that  was the bad one.


DOUGLAS: Had you, had you seen somebody sitting in the front would you have fired?


LOVE:  No, I wouldn’t have fired because I wasn’t there to hurt anybody.  That wasn’t what I was there to do, know what I mean?


DOUGLAS:  Did you check, did you have a look…?


LOVE: I checked – there was nobody sitting in the front van.  As far as I know, everybody, in fact, I couldn’t see anybody because I think they shut the door over.  There’s a little door in them or something, isn’t there, and they shut them over.  A lot of them, what they were doing at that time, I think was because of all that was happening to the vans – they were locking their doors and they had another little door, and they used to put a padlock on it or something, know what I mean?


LISA:  When did you find out that it was Andrew Doyle that was in the van?


LOVE: I don’t think I realised until a few days later until I heard, until it came back to me, you know what I mean?  The story, what was happening.


LISA:  So you didn’t know that you had got the wrong van at the time?


LOVE:  I didn’t even know at that time that I’d got the wrong van.


DOUGLAS:  So, after the shotgunning, eh, what happened, the car just drove away?


LOVE:  Right, we did the van, we…eh, I’m trying to remember the name of the street that the van was shot on.  Eh, I think it was Macelvaney Road, would that be right?


JOHN: Yes.


LOVE: Em, it was a Volvo, a Volvo the car that we used, a Volvo like a 244 type.  We shot the van, I got back in the car and we drove towards Porchester Street.  Now, when we got to the top of Porchester Street…when we got to the top of Macelvaney Road and we turned on to Porchester Street, that’s when I noticed that we had done the wrong van.  This is me just thinking back, because it’s all coming back to me now, because Jimmy Mitchell’s van was actually sitting on the corner as we came around, and that’s how I knew it was the wrong van.  And that’s when I tippled.  So it wouldn’t have been a couple of days later, I would have actually known there and then because Jimmy Mitchell’s van was sitting there.


LISA: You didn’t think about having a go then at Jimmy Mitchell’s van, you just decided…  what did you do?


LOVE: We’d already discharged a shotgun.  I mean, I know it’s Garthamlock, but we don’t get off with it that much, we’ve still got to run away, you know what I mean.  Yes, I, we didn’t bother.  The main concern was that me and the other man got away.  We drove from there, we drove on to Gartloch Road and the man dropped me off in the car and I took the shotgun with me and disappeared.


JOHN: In the, in the trial, you said that it was Thomas Gray that fired the shotgun.


LOVE:  That’s right, well that was what was meant to happen.  I was meant to say that it was him that did it.  That was part of the deal, that he got arrested for the shotgun and all that, and like, the man was going to go to prison for going to court and all that.


LISA:  And Thomas Gray wasn’t in the car?


DOUGLAS:  We never asked that…


LOVE:  I never said that.  I said that Thomas Gray never shot the van.


DOUGLAS:  Who’s car was it?


LOVE:  I don’t know.  I just eh… the car turned up and it was there, and like, it was there for a job mate, and I just jumped in the car – I wasn’t interested in who’s it was.


DOUGLAS:  Do you know what happened to it?


LOVE:  Well I heard a story that Gary Moore was running about in it or something, that night it was used and they got stopped by the police I think, and like the car was…


DOUGLAS:  What did you do with the shotgun?


LOVE:  I took it away and disposed of it.  It was put in the Clyde, so, after 8 years if they want to go and find it, they can have a go if they want.


DOUGLAS: You’ve already said that Thomas Campbell knew nothing about this, that he didn’t ask you to do anything – What was… there’s a lot of stories, as we’ve said before, about Campbell in the area… and he was this, he was that, he was the Emperor.  How much truth is there in that?


LOVE:  I mean, I only knew he was a man from the area.  Like we were all criminals, I mean, I was running about… getting arrested for armed robberies.  I mean, look at my previous convictions, I’ve been a thief all my life – we’re thieves – that’s all the man was to me.  He just made himself a bit of money and whatever he done on the side to make himself money, good luck to him.  And that’s the way it was.  It wasn’t like we were trying to build up a syndicate, whereby we were going to take over Glasgow, and if anybody got in out way we were going to shoot them and all that, like we wanted control of all the drugs and all that carry on mate – that’s a lot of crap mate.  The boy only had an icrecream van and somebody was trying to smash it up as they wanted the run.  He could handle himself.  I don’t think he was going to stand there and watch people smashing up his icecream van and his sister and all that.


DOUGLAS: To your knowledge, at that time, did he have a reputation for violence?  Was he known as a hard man?


LOVE:  The only thing he did, he was known to be able to handle himself.  I mean, there’s like, I could take you to a hundred guys that would be put in the same class as him.  A hundred guys at that time when he was arrested that would’ve…  you know what I’m talking about mate.  I mean, where’s Snaz Adams?  Where’s he and all the other ones that were all in the same league, I mean, where are they all?  I mean, they wouldn’t have even touched for it mate, know what I mean…  It was only Thomas Campbell because, they had him – whether he was guiltym somebody had to go.  The way I see it now, is they wanted bodies for the murder mate, and they picked Thomas Campbell, Joe Steele and the rest of them that they could get, and that’s the way it was.  It was just one big fit-up of a case.


LISA: It was em, in the papers… we haven’t covered this yet but in the papers there was all this about after the trial, about drugs being sold with icecream.   Ten pound bags of heroin being sold with icecream wafers.  In all of your dealings with icecream vans did you ever know of anybody to do something like that?


LOVE: Never.  I’d been in Agnes Lafferty’s van – at  night I’d sat in the van in the passenger seat, I drove around, and on my little child’s life, I didn’t see one drug in the vans, not one bit of drug dealing.  In fact, as far as I know, Tommy Campbell never even touched drugs.  I mean, I knew about him, that he wouldn’t, he wouldn’t touch drugs.  I mean, I’d been in pubs and had a few joints and that, and the man would say, no I don’t want any of that.  As far as I knew, he wasn’t against drugs.  He wasn’t into drugs at all, he wasn’t associated with drugs in any way.  Usually they have a smoke with you, and you know that they are into them, but never mate.  Never one mention of drugs.  So that was the bit that surprised me in the paper, when they started on about drugs and I was confused there.


DOUGLAS: It was all new to you when you read it?


LOVE: It was all new to me, all that.  I mean, I knew what they were talking about when they say people were ‘bumping a fiver’ and all that, but when they started coming away with all the drugs and all that, that was like, I thought maybe Tommy Campbell was holding something back on me or something, never let me know.  But there were never any drugs off the van mate, no way, you wouldn’t have got away with it anyway – it would have been too risky.  You’d have had the van turned over right away, you just wouldn’t have done it.


JOHN:  Turned over by whom?


LOVE:  The police would have just turned the van over whenever they’d have known that was happening.  They wouldn’t have gotten away with it, no way.


DOUGLAS: So you were involved in the shooting that’s and, em following around in the vans just to show a face, em, that was the subtotal of your involvement, that’s it?


LOVE:  That’s it.


DOUGLAS: So the next time you came into this story was after the fire?


LOVE: That’s it.


DOUGLAS:  Now, you were arrested, you were in prison, when…


LOVE: The fire happened.


DOUGLAS: ….the whole thing happened and everything blew up.  Why were you in prison, what … what… you were on remand?


LOVE: I was on remand.  I was remanded in custody for armed robbery and possession of a sawnoff shotgun.


DOUGLAS: And eh, can you just talk us through what happened, who was there, what events, you were sitting in remand.


LOVE: Oh you mean in Barlinnie.




LOVE:  Well I was sitting in Barlinnie, as far as I can remember it was in the afternoon – me, John Campbell, Ronnie Carlton and I think that Frances Falloon was called over as well.   We were taken over into the solicitor’s room, and we all went into individual rooms.  I was put in with a CID officer and a prison officer was standing in there, and like he started talking – well, most of it’s in the statement, and he started making suggestions to me, that I should see this one and all that, and whatever.  But like, that wasn’t very much involvement, not what he was saying.  The next day it was Norrie Walker and McKillop that came up to Barlinnie and I saw them in the Chief’s office or something – they took us over to the Chief’s office in Barlinnie, above the gatehouse right.  And like, that’s when they started talking to me, making suggestions – what I should say, what I shouldn’t say, and like, this is the way it happened and this is the way it’s going to be, and I’ve got to make certain statements implicating this one, you know what I mean?

The TRUTH is out there...........

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #11 

This is a continuation from PART 1:


DOUGLAS: You were denying all knowledge of…


LOVE: I was, right up until, right up until the stage where they started making suggestions to me, I had denied all knowledge of any involvement in shooting a van or having any association with Tommy Campbell.  You know what  I mean. 


LISA: That is…


LOVE: Not having any association.  They knew that I knew him, but as far as they were… the suggestions they were making…. I wasn’t involved in any of that, you know what I mean?  I wasn’t saying that I was in a pub in the Netherfield down in Carntyne saying that these guys were sitting around tables, discussions about lighting fires and pouring petrol through doors – it never happened. It was all put into my head to see it.


LISA:  They suggested that you…


LOVE:  They suggested, any, I don’t think, all the statement I made I don’t even think there was anything in there that was the truth.  Because everything like, part of it might be the truth, but there’s a lot of lies in it, you know what I mean?  The truth wouldn’t have been implicating anybody, it was only the lies that implicated people.


DOUGLAS:  Have you ever had a drink with Tommy Campbell at the Netherfield?


LOVE:  I had a drink with him.  I’d been down at the Netherfield and I think one night, that was maybe a few weeks before.  I meant, I have been in the Netherfield with him.  I had a drink with the man, I spoke to him.  There was no, you can do this for me and all that carry on.  I spoke to the man, like I’m speaking to you tonight.  I had a pint, sat sown, wee Joe Steele was with us, wee Dinky Moore – we sat down, eh, Tom what’s his name, Thomas Grey was with us, sat down, but there was never any discussion about hurting people – we were there as mates for a drink.  In fact, I ended up going to a party, wee Joe Steele took me to a party in Carntyne after that.  We went to a party and it was just guys out for a night out, there wasn’t any discussion of hurting people or shooting vans, or pouring petrol through anybody’s doors, ever ever in that pub in the Netherfield.  In the night in question that I’ve meant, I have been there when they made the statements, I did see Tommy Campbell in the Netherfield that day but it was a Saturday afternoon, it was at dinner time.  I went in there and had a drink and I think the man came in with his wife Liz, and it was just hello, and we went away and that was it.


DOUGLAS:  That was…


LOVE:  And that, that was the last time I saw him in the Netherfield was on a Saturday afternoon.


DOUGLAS:  Was that the Saturday before you were arrested?


LOVE:  That was the Saturday before I was arrested.


DOUGLAS:  So that was Saturday 23rd March?


LOVE: That would have been the Saturday afternoon I was in there before I was arrested.


DOUGLAS: And that was actually the day, the same day as the assault and robbery in the scrappy?


LOVE:  And that’s the same night I was meant to be in the Netherfield making that statement.  I mean, I must have had a lot of hours in my day to do all that, I’ll tell you mate.


DOUGLAS:  So if we can just recap all that.  The idea was that you were in the Netherfield Bar on the Friday the…


LOVE: No, it was supposed to be the Saturday, is that not where we’re all confused here?  Was it not supposed to be the Saturday?


DOUGLAS: No it was two days before, in court you were asked, em, how it related to the day you were arrested, you were arrested  on the Sunday and you said that you allegedly overheard the conversation two days before your arrest so that makes it the Friday night.


LOVE:  So that makes it  the Friday, OK.


DOUGLAS:  On that night, you were, where were you exactly on that Friday night?  Can you say?


LOVE:  Eh, not in the Netherfield that’s for sure.


DOUGLAS:  You were not in the Netherfield, that’s, that’s fair enough.  You, during your trial for the eh, assault and robbery you had an alibi.


LOVE: Quite an alibi.


DOUGLAS:  Complicated abibi with lots of witnesses.


LOVE: Yeah.


DOUGLAS: Em, and nowhere you mentioned the Netherfield so you can, you know you can now, you were not in the Netherfield Bar on that night.


LOVE: I wasn’t in the Netherfield mate, no.


DOUGLAS:  So the first time you were in the Netherfield was that afternoon, Saturday afternoon.


LOVE:  Saturday afternoon I met Tommy Campbell and his wife Liz – they came in, all I did was say hello and that was it mate.


DOUGLAS:  That was it.


LOVE:  Yeah.


DOUGLAS:  Right, so if we can jump forward again now to when the police were coming to see you.


LOVE: Yes,


DOUGLAS:  Who’s idea was it to say that you’d overheard a conversation in the pub, who first came up with that?


LOVE: Now, it was Norrie walker who was doing all the talking to me, he was the man.  The guy McKillop who’s, I mean, the man McKillop knew that he was going to get me murdered.  Anyway, he was wanting me to go back to Garthamlock and all that, Norrie Walker, and give him information.  So the man McKillop actually told me to get on my toes – he said, listen, get off, you know what I mean?  That was a CID officer telling me to get on my toes mate and take nothing to do with it, do you know what I mean?  But he was the one that said.  Now, Charlie Craig was in on it as well, Charlie Craig had a lot to do with it but he must have been just like Walker.  There was two of them, wasn’t there – there was Charlie Craig and Norrie Walker who were really in charge of the investigations.  After Walker, after I was out, it was Charlie Craig that was doing all the talking, do you know what I’m talking about?


DOUGLAS:  McKillop, how do you think he was reacting to this?


LOVE:  I think the man knew what was going on and I think he didn’t like it, you know?


DOUGLAS: But he never actually said that?


LOVE: Never.


DOUGLAS: Apart from telling you to, get on your toes?


LOVE:  He said, get on your toes mate, and you want to get away from that mob or you’ll just end up getting yourself killed going back to Garthamlock


JOHN: Did you ever speak to Charlie Craig or did he ever speak to you?


LOVE: Oh yes, I mean, that, that morning I got out, I phoned Easterhouse didn’t I, and I said, what’s the score with you, and he’s like that, come up and see me Bill and have a cup of tea and all that crack, so I went up to Easterhouse.


JOHN: Is that the one you got out of Barlinnie on bail for the armed robbery?


LOVE:  That was Saturday, was that, would have been Friday, well this would’ve been the Saturday, the next day I went to see him.  Well Tommy Campbell and all that were down in the cells in Easterhouse, would that be right?  They were arrested at Easterhouse anyway, I think they were down in the cells, and like, he was giving me all the rigmarole, you know what I mean – don’t worry about it Bill, we’ll give you a yacht and a villa in Spain and all that, you know what I mean.


DOUGLAS: So they offered you, what else did they offer you, what else did they promise to do for you?


LOVE: Well, the promise was right, now, the position was right, I was going to get fifteen – I was going to be charged with a lot of crimes right.  I was probably going to get fifteen years.  My young sister Agnes, who was telling the truth was going to be arrested for perjury.  My sister was going to go in and say that she saw me shooting the icecream van and it was me that did it, and they were going to arrest her for perjury.  Joe Grainger got arrested for perjury – he was telling the truth but he still got arrested for perjury.  OK.  They offer us safe addresses and would have got a job sorted out for me.  I’d have been away down the other side of the country, nobody would have known me – all that, and eh, I would, wouldn’t have got my fifteen years - I’d have been alright.


DOUGLAS:  That fifteen year was for, would’ve been for…


LOVE: Probably the shooting of the van I would think.


DOUGLAS: What did they offer you in relation to the assault and robbery?


LOVE:  The assault and robbery, they were just going to get it dropped.  The charge was just going to be dropped and that would have been the end of the story, but that’s not the way it worked out, is it?  I ended up being tried for it.


DOUGLAS: What happened?


LOVE: Got not proven.


JOHN: When you went on trial for the assault and robbery itself though, by then you had already made your precognition on oath?


LOVE: Yeah.


JOHN: Right, so basically, you were pinned to what you’d said on oath?


LOVE: That’s what I’m saying.  I was pinned to what I’d said,  Now, the problem was me, I’d given them it on oath so I knew that I’d sworn the statement in front of a sheriff, so if I went back on my statement I would have been arrested for perjury anyway.  If I’d have said, that would’ve been it, you know what I’m talking about.  I would’ve been arrested for perjury and they would have just said, well he made that statement,he said this, he said it on oath – I need to put my hands up to perjury, I can’t get out of that one, can I?


DOUGLAS:  Did they ever threaten to implicate you in the murders themselves?


LOVE: Well, they would’ve arrested me for conspiracy, that was what, see that was that I couldn’t understand. They had all first class information, they were saying things to me that were accurate.  It was as if they were getting the story and they  had already spoken to somebody about the story before they came to me, do you know what I mean?


JOHN: Accurate in what respect? Is that about the shooting of the van?


LOVE: Everything, that’s it.  They were accurate in things and then like, you know what I mean.  Saying, we’ve got people to back up your story – you say this, we’ve got any witnesses that’ll like, you know what I’m talking about.


DOUGLAS:  How did they know it was you that shot up the van?


LOVE: That’s what I don’t know.


DOUGLAS: Because you had a mask on didn’t you.


LOVE:  I had a mask on.  I wasn’t even involved with anybody.  I mean really, as far as, in fact, I was very surprised the police hadn’t turned up at my house and arrested me for the shooting.  I was expecting it.  I’d expected them for a couple of weeks, you know what I mean? But I don’t know mate, I just don’t know how they knew.


DOUGLAS: There was only you and the driver, in the car.  Eh, you had the shotgun, the shotgun was disposed of more or less immediately.


LOVE: Yeah.


DOUGLAS: Could there have been any fingerprints, could there have been anything?  Did they say anything?


LOVE: Not at all mate.  I had a pair of gloves on and there’s no way they would have got my fingerprints or anything out of that car.  I stepped inside that car with a pair of gloves on and stepped out with a pair of gloves on.  I don’t know how they knew mate, I just don’t know how they knew I shot the van.


JOHN: At one point, your sister Agnes gave a statement, em, I don’t know whether it was during the investigation or after it….


LOVE: That was after it, that was after.  I mean, Agnes wouldn’t have went through with it all unless I was doing what I was doing.  Agnes was only trying to put me off what I was doing I think, that’s really all she was trying to do, know what I mean.  But definitely a lot of information came from somebody, I mean Joe Grainger couldn’t have given them that information, you know what I mean, if he was talking the way I was meant to have went through.


DOUGLAS: So the only thing they actually came through on for you was giving you the bail?


LOVE: They never had any, they never had any evidence to convict me of anything, and I know that if I had sat there and kept my mouth shut, they wouldn’t have arrested me for any vans or nothing.  OK, they might have had a witness somewhere that’s going to say he saw me doing it, but that wouldn’t have been enough. I don’t think I would have had any trouble on any crime or, if I’d kept my mouth shut.


JOHN: Did anybody in the Fiscal’s department or the Fiscal’s office say anything to you about your involvement?


LOVE: The guy that I can remember was David Spiers right, the prosecuting fiscal.  Now, there was one time I wasn;t wanting to go through with it.  Not because of the deal - it was only because of the deal, but because I was scared of what I was doing, I knew what I was doing, you know what I mean? I knew that Tommy Campbell and all that, and wee Joe Steele, and the next day their houses were going to be raided and they were all going to be arrested and then charged with murder and all that carry on.  So like, I was saying to them, no, I’m not doing that and all that, and that’s when they started putting the pressure on me, saying, well if you don’t do it and all that, we’ve got a statement here that you’ve made, you’ve this and you’ve said that – we’ve got two police officers here that heard you saying it and all that, we’ll arrest you. You know?


The TRUTH is out there...........

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #12 

This is a continuation from PART 2:


LISA: You were saying that, we’re talking about suggestions that you, when Craig and Walker or whoever took you into a room and were suggesting things to you that such and such did this, such and such did that, can we go into a bit more detail about how it actually happened, if you can try and remember any detail like you’re in the room and they’re sitting there with you, who said what?


LOVE: Right, this is what, right this is what happened right.  We were in a little room, like we’re in a room just now, the Chief in Barlinnie brought in tea and that and we were all sitting, and the guys were talking to me matter of factly that they knew, as far as they were concerned, Tommy Campbell, Joe Steele, Gary Moore and all the rest of them were guilty of this crime, and no matter how they done it, they were going down for it, and that’s the way it was put to me.  Like, I could either cooperate with them and do what they want me to say, or I can go back into fucking Barlinnie and end up getting fifteen years, and my sister will be charged with perjury.  My wife made a statement coming out of Barlinnie one day, and they were going to arrest her for making that statement because she knew, do you know what I’m talking about?


JOHN: What statement is that, what statement….?


LOVE: My wife made a statement, something like em, he’ll not be fucking going down for any cunt, and all that carry on, you know what I mean, or something like that.


JOHN: Do you know who she is supposed to have made it to?


LOVE: She made it going out of the visiting room.  I don’t know who she made it to, but one of the screws were on to it and they were right on to the cops, you know what I mean?  And my wife was arrested at Barlinnie Prison coming out of a visit the next day.


LISA: So the police had said to you that they believed that Thomas Campbell and the others did the crime?


LOVE: That’s it.  They believed that they had done it, but everybody believed they had done it, it wasn’t only them.  I mean, people, as I say, were coming up to me saying, what do you thinkof those bastards and all that, doing that and all that, you know what I mean? But….


LISA: Why do you think they were saying that, it hadn’t appeared in the papers yet?


LOVE:  I don’t know why they were saying that, I think it was, I mean, you couldn’t imagine Garthamlock could you, after that happened.  I mean, like there were 50 cops in there every day in Garthamlock visiting people, you know what I mean? I don’t know what was going on, I mean, if they were saying that with me, what were they saying to other witnesses.  They were going to people, maybe a girl on her own with two kids and saying, you say this and say that he was here that night, and he said this to you and all that, you know what I mean?


LISA: So were suggestions being made then that these men did it to people in the community?


LOVE: I would think so, yes, I would think so.  I mean, you’ve already, Joe Grainger’s already said that he never, he only made that statement through duress and all that.  His wife said she didn’t know anything about it, and I’m saying to you that I mean what I’m saying here today is the truth.  Anyway, I don’t care if nobody believes me, but I’m going to be able to go and have a good nights sleep tonight knowing that it’s going to go ahead and that I might be helping somebody if something was done, you know what I mean? Yes mate, it was like, you know what I mean.


LISA: So the statement that you eventually gave in court in the witness box, how did, how did you come about to make that statement?


LOVE: I was told what to say, I was told what to say in the statement, how I would say it – like the meeting in the Netherfield, and this one made a remark to me and this one gave me the money, and like this one gave me the gun – you know what I’m talking about.  And what was said in the Netherfield, Tommy Campbell says, I think that’s what he’s meant to have said – Fatboy’s going to get it, and all that.  But really, at the end of the day Fatboy wasn’t even important, because he wasn’t even that important enough to come into the conversation in a pub.


DOUGLAS: Did you know the Doyles at all before that?


LOVE:  I knew the boy, I knew like , what his name was – Fatboy as they called him.   I knew him, I saw him on the vans and all that.  But the guy, he was harmless, he wasn’t a problem to anybody, you know what I mean like.  I don’t think he would have ended up getting petrol poured through his door and his door set alight just for driving an icrcream van for Jimmy Mitchell.  I don’t think, I think the way they would have rather dragged him out of his icrecream van and kicked the shit out of him if that’s what they wanted to do, do you know what I’m talking about.  I mean, I don’t think that would have been the case, you know what I mean.


DOUGLAS: But the family themselves, they weren’t criminals or anything like that?


LOVE: No, they weren’t criminals, they weren’t….


DOUGLAS: Known hard men or anything like that?


LOVE: No, no.


DOUGLAS: Just an ordinary family?


LOVE: That’s it.


LISA: Andrew Doyle didn’t take part in any of the attacks on icecream vans?


LOVE: No he wasn’t, I mean, the guy only drove an icecream van and probably got £10 a night for it.  I mean, he wasn’t, he wasn’t important enough to be, when I think of it now, he wasn’t important enough for us to be sitting in a pub and saying, Fatboy’s going to get it.  It just wasn’t that, it wasn’t, like he wasn’t that much of a worry or anything like that, you know what I mean, for anybody to sit down and say that.  I don’t think Tommy Campbell or anybody would have been stupid enough to sit in the Netherfield and say….




DOUGLAS: In your opinion….

LISA: Can I just check one thing first?




LISA: Was it the police that suggested to you the Netherfield Bar that you overheard the conversation?


LOVE: That was, because everybody knew that was Tommy Campbell’s local.


LISA: Right.


LOVE: And that’s where he drinks.


LISA: Did they suggest, did they tell you that it was supposed to have been a specific night?


LOVE: Well, that wasn’t important was it, that’s why it was left open and I couldn’t remember whether it was two days ago and all that.


LISA: It was just supposed to be a night?


LOVE: It was supposed to be a night, a Saturday night when we were all in there drinking, like we all go out for a drink in a Saturday so therefore it would be more believed that we would be together in the Netherfield, having a drink, you know what I mean?


DOUGLAS: Nobody from the procurator’s office asked to pin it down to a particular night?




DOUGLAS: They never asked you to pin it down, they just accepted that you were there at a special night?


LOVE: They accepted, just accepted that I was there that night or that night, and that was said and that was it.


DOUGLAS: In your opinion, do you think Thomas Campbell would either set fire to a door or get somebody to set fire to a door, the man that you know or knew?


LOVE: I don’t think so.  I don’t think he would have got involved in it.  The man has been in and out of the jail all his life, he’s seen things in Peterhead and all that, and like, I don’t think the man would’ve wanted associated with it – I don’t think the man would’ve wanted in there knowing that they’d murdered a little child and all that, and that a child had died.  No, I can’t see it.  It was like, you know the score, don’t you?  Nonces and sex offenders and people that do things like that get their throat cut in the jail, but he’s different.  No, I don’t think he would’ve associated himself with setting fire to doors.


LISA: Setting fire to doors, that’s usually just used as a frightener, it’s not usually used to kill anybody is it?


LOVE:  See, that’s what I’m saying.  The frightener, the frightener – this word the frightener right, I’ve never heard frightener used in Glasgow.  I  mean, I wouldn’t have, I wouldn’t have turned around and said, oh we’ll do that as a frightener.  Where did that word come from, it was made up anyway.


LISA: Right.


LOVE: I mean, it was like, as far as I see it, the cops were coming in to, like eh, arrested him, and he said to me, it was only a frightener and all that. You see how the word cropped in when its never been used and, we don’t talk like that in Glasgow – frighteners and all that carry on, you know what I mean.


LISA: But people do set fire to other people’s doors, that does happen in Glasgow and all over Britain.


LOVE: Right.


LISA: Why do people do that?


LOVE: Frighten.


LISA: But you wouldn’t call it a frightener?


LOVE: No, I wouldn’t call it a frightener.


LISA: Right.


DOUGLAS: What would you call it?


LOVE: I don’t know….


DOUGLAS: A warning?


LOVE:….a message.


DOUGLAS & LISA: A message?


LOVE: That’s it.


LISA: Right.  Knowing that you knew Tommy, was it his style to frighten people?


LOVE: No, he was, he wasn’t, I mean, he, right – I’d heard about him and that but he looked quiet to me, he was quiet and like, he wasn’t the type of man that would go to a pub and like, OK, I know he had a reputation but he wouldn’t have been the guy that would walk up to the pub and say, like I’ve seen it, men think they’re big hard men in Glasgow, and get off that seat mate, that’s for me and my woman.  He wasn’t the type of man that would do that type of thing, do you know what I mean.  Like, OK, he could handle himself and like, but he wouldn’t, like he wasn’t fucking, what you would call it, aggressive and all that like some Glasgow hard men, aren’t they, they’re aggressive, that’s how they got their name.  They just stab, put a knife in your back just for standing the wrong way at the bar mate, you know what I mean, that type of thing, but no, he wasn’t like that.


DOUGLAS: How did you feel when you were giving that testimony when you were on the stand, if you can remember, eh, how did you feel, did you feel like?


LOVE: I felt like a traitor mate, I felt like a traitor.


JOHN: Were you telling the truth?




DOUGLAS: Not one bit of truth in it do you think?


LOVE: No, I don’t think so.  There might have been a few truthy bits, you know what I mean, but like, there was no, there wasn’t any truth that was going to incriminate, the incrimination was all the lies.  The truth was, it didn’t matter whether it was the truth or not, you know what I mean.


DOUGLAS: Did you tell anybody at all that you were lying?


LOVE: I’ve never.  I told my wife the first time in eight years what really happened there, about three days ago.  And she’s the only one in eight years that I’ve ever spoke, sat down, apart from when you came down to see me.


JOHN: Were you surprised when you were believed, or apparently believed?


LOVE: Surprised, I don’t think that was the word for it.  Shocked, I think, that anybody could believe me with the character I’ve got, and take my story, and take my word for anything anyway in the first place, you know what I mean.


LISA: Did you think someone would break your story down?


LOVE: I was hoping that the men would have got out and that, they would have got a not guilty, and maybe after a few years, they, OK, they might have spent three months on remand or whatever they would have spent.  I was hoping that they maybe would have got a not guilty and I could have maybe got my result and gone to England and just, the would’ve been end of story, but that’s not the way it turned out, is it?


DOUGLAS: Did you think that somebody would, would be able to pick holes in what you had said on the stand?


LOVE: Well I though, like I didn’t think my story was like, that strong.  I thought  with the experience, I mean, when I walked in there and there was, I think, they had two, two QC’s each I think, at the trial.  I thought, if this mob can’t break me down man, what hope is there.  That somebody like me, standing there on my own and like, everything I was saying was lies, and I don’t know how many witnesses were in before me who had probably told lies as well, they could stand there and actually no pick – I thought they would have slaughtered me.  I was very surprised that they, they, they weren’t more aggressive towards me, and I think, I mean like, I would have wanted to turn around and that they would have got a little gap in it and maybe destroy me, you know what I mean mate.  I might have been arrested for perjury or whatever, but at the end of the day, the guys are out on the street, you know what I mean.


DOUGLAS: Did you think it would be the dates?  I know you can’t re….


LOVE: I thought, I thought, it was the dates that I thought they would’ve maybe like, but that’s what I’m saying, it was like the dates were mixed up weren’t they?  They couldn’t like, I mean, I was saying I was there, and was under arrest for armed robbery.  I don’t think they realised you know, that it was corresponding  to the same day as the armed robbery.  I never even realised it until you pointed it out to me here.


LISA: That was just by chance that you said it was that night?


LOVE: I didn’t.  Now this is the first time that you are talking, I mean, I’ve heard you saying before that you were in such and such but now that I’ve listened to what you’ve got to say and I’ve seen the full story and that, I didn’t realise that the night I committed the armed robbery I was meant to be in the Netherfield.


DOUGLAS: Did you know that you were going to be the star witness for the prosecution?


LOVE: No, I never. I, I mean, as far as I knew that people were being spoken to more than me, that’s as far as  I knew, you know what I mean.


DOUGLAS: What was your reaction at the end of it all you realised you were….?


LOVE: Well, I didn’t really know what was happening.  I went in and gave my evidence and I never saw anybody. I was in Perth 24 hours day protection, a screw with me all the time.  I never saw anybody else, I never saw any papers, I didn’t know what was happening, I never had  radio, you know what I mean.  I never knew what was happening.  All I know is that I was in the court that day, gave that evidence and I was whipped away back to Perth.


DOUGLAS: So you were in, you were in prison at the time of the trial?


LOVE: I was in Perth prison.


DOUGLAS: For another charge?


LOVE: For another charge, driving while disqualified.  It was a holding charge, so I never fucked it up.


DOUGLAS: And they brought you down from Perth to Glasgow High Court for that?


LOVE: That’s right.


DOUGLAS: Did anybody say anything to you at all about the trial?


LOVE: Well I mean, I had cops bring me down from Perth, like the CID that were involved in it and that, and they were like coaching me on the way down.  What was going to be said, who was doing this and who was doing that and all that, that’s the way it was happening.


JOHN: Do you know the names of any of those policemen?


LOVE: I don’t know the names there Mr Carroll.  They were like, seemed as if it was three strangers, you know what I mean.  Like before that I had, I know that I had Willie Kelly, I knew Willie Lewis and I knew that, what’s her name with the blonde hair in the serious, the Scottish Crime Squad, the woman?  You know her?  Well, it was those three all the time that used to come up before that, but at the trial, it was only them that took me down for the trial, you know what I mean.  But that would only have been because Willie Kelly and all that would’ve been a witness.


JOHN: Did any of them have anything at all with them, any documents or papers with them or anything of that kind?


LOVE: Well, when I, when I was getting shipped out, the guy Willie Kelly actually was sitting reading a statement in the car, in the front of the car, and it was my, my , my statement on sworn oath – the one that was made on precognition.  And like other police officers that actually could tell me what was said in my statement and what I was saying and all that carry on, do you know what I mean?


JOHN: Was Kelly reading this….?


LOVE: He was reading….


JOHN: Was he reading it out loud or what?


LOVE: He was reading it to himself and was sitting in the front, and the woman was sitting there in the back with me, and Willie Kelly was driving, not Willie Kelly, Willie Lewis, and like, the guy Kelly was sitting there with my precognition statement, reading through it and whatever and talking to me about it.


JOHN: Talking to you about the contents?


LOVE: Talking to me about the contact, content of the statement, eh, and other police officers that were taking bits out of my statement, but saying to me, you said this and all that, and like, you know what I mean.


JOHN: Did anybody give you any information about what was happening during the actual trial?


LOVE: Nothing at all mate.  Oh yes, I got bits and pieces – I knew, like, I was getting impeached and all that and like this one was getting called, you know what I mean?


JOHN: How did you know that?


LOVE: I knew Joe Grainger was a witness.  I knew they had got Joe Grainger and like, as far as I know, Joe Grainger was staying in a house in Ayrshire or somewhere at the time.  They got him a house in Ayrshire, him and his wife, and like he was saying a lot more, just as much as me.


The TRUTH is out there...........

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #13 

This is a continuation from PART 3:


JOHN: Who provided you with that information?


LOVE: This was the guy Kelly, he was the one doing all the talking….


JOHN: Kelly told you about Joe Grainger’s involvement?


LOVE: …Detective Sergeant Willie Kelly.


LISA: Did he tell, when did Grainger give his evidence, before or after Billy?


JOHN: Can’t remember.


LISA:  I’m just trying to find out whether he’s told you about, he said Grainger was saying all of these things, was it before or after you gave your evidence?


LOVE: That’s what, that’s what I was trying to find out.  I don’t know if Joe Grainger was seen before me or after me.


LISA: Uh huh.


LOVE: I mean, if Joe Grainger was saying the same as I said, and he was said, seen before me, then it’s only obvious that that all mine is made up then, isn’t it?  If Joe Grainger was said and asked to say it beforehand, you know what I mean.


DOUGLAS: So at the end of the trial, em, you were surprised then that….


LOVE: That they were all found guilty.


DOUGLAS: Yes, surprised that they’d accepted your word?


LOVE: Well that’s what I, that’s what I couldn’t understand – they had accepted my word and found them guilty.  I mean I thought, I thought there must have been more to it than that.  I thought there must have been fucking…. You know what I mean.


DOUGLAS: Why do you think they were after Thomas Campbell and Joseph Steele and the rest, why?


LOVE:  I don’t think they were after Joseph Steele, Joseph Steele just happened to be tied in and it didn’t matter whether he went down.  But Tommy Campbell I think was the one they wanted, do you know what I mean.  I don’t think Joe Steele and Gary Moore and me and all that were important, you know what I mean.  I think it was more or less Tommy Campbell I think was the important one.  Joe Steeele because we were running about together and whatever, you know what I mean.  And like, it was an easy way to get maybe 8 or 7 bodies off the street isn’t it, because they knew they didn’t want that.


DOUGLAS: Just as simple as that, just wanted Tommy Campbell off the street?


LOVE: As simple as that.  They just wanted bodies off the street and like, that was the best excuse for it.


DOUGLAS: Did they always say to you, did they say Tommy Campbell was guilty, he did it?


LOVE: Well that’s it, but their opinion was, you’re not fucking letting these cunts go running about out there Billy, and all that, and they’ve done this mate, you know what I mean, and all that carry on.  Well that was their attitude, their attitude is Tommy Campbell, Joe Steele, Gary Moore eh, and whoever else was arrested, all done that murder and at the end of the day, whether it be telling lies or not, no matter what, they were getting them and they were going down.  They were getting them and they were going down for it, and that’s the way it was. That’s the way I’ve always seen it all over the years.  I’ve never ever had any solid evidence in front of me to say that those guys committed that murder, never ever have I had anbody come and say to me, that one was there and I saw him doing it, never.


DOUGLAS: What about in your own mind eventually, did you say well they must be right….?


LOVE: Over the years with hearing right, the attitude that I’ve got now is how the fuck do I know?  I don’t know whether they did it or whether they know, but one thing I do know is there were a lot of lies told and if anybody went into that court and told lies against men, they’re entitled to be acquitted and let out because that’s they way it is, that’s the law.


DOUGLAS:  But at that time did you believe they were guilty?  You know like you had no evidence…


LOVE: No I didn’t believe they were guilty because like that’s not the type of person, I’ve always had doubts.  How the hell, I mean, like, if anybody came and said to me, look, that’s the reason they did it, there’s the evidence, it’s a hundred per cent, I probably still wouldn’t believe it because I would still always have doubts, because I never saw it with my own eyes, do you know what I mean mate.  I’d never do that, I’ve always had doubts all the years – I’ve always sat back and I think I can honestly say every day I’ve sat back and said, did they do it or not, I don’t know.


DOUGLAS: So it preys on your mind ever since?


LOVE: Every day mate, every day I’ve thought of Tommy Campbell and Joe Steele, and asked myself whether they did it or not, and I’ve never had an answer.


DOUGLAS: You, in 1988 you told this story for the first time, eh why did you decide then, what made you decide then to tell the truth?


LOVE: Oh that’s the time that you came down to see me and that would have been 1988, 198…


DOUGLAS: The Glasgow Herald….


LOVE: 1984 right, that’s when it happened, 1983.


DOUGLAS: In the Glasgow Herald office.


LOVE: Well it was just getting too much for me.  I’d had four years by that time and like, I just wanted to get it all out into the open man and clear my system, clear my mind, and I know that at the end of the day, I might have done wrong beforehand, but I’d put it right and I might be able to go away and settle down with my wife and kids.  I can’t do that just now until it’s all sorted – I’m never going to be able to settle with my wife and kids, and give myself peace of mind and be able to go out and have an honest job, and not be standing there thinking of an hour of Thomas Campbell and whether he be guilty and him lying in prison and all that carry on, do you know what I mean. 


JOHN: In 1989 I saw you in Pentonville Prison, spoke to you in Pentonville Prison with Mr Ashman and Mr Cobb and there was an interview then, a tape recorded interview.  After that, you sent a letter to Glasgow, to my office in Glasgow saying basically that you retracted it and, could you tell me why you did that?


LOVE: Well after I saw you right, like a liaison officer, I think that’s what they call it, is it? A what officer?


DOUGLAS: Liaison, liaison.


LOVE: They’ve got one of them in Pentonville and he came to see me, and said to me, who was it that saw you and all that, because they know all about me.  Everywhere I go Mr Carroll, I’ve got a fucking folder that high mate and its stamped right on the tope of it man, supergrass, I’m telling you mate, everywhere I go.  I told them the day, if I’m arrested anywhere in Britain mate it comes up on the computer that I’m a supergrass – I was involved in this and all that, and the cops try the naughty coming in and all that, give  us this and all that.  We he, he was, he said to me to watch what you’re doing and all that, like you know what you’re up against and all that and like, if these people get out and all that carry on, you just don’t know the half of it mate, you don’t know the half of it.


JOHN: So the liaison officer came and spoke to you…?


LOVE: Spoke to me, that was just after you left,  That was the afternoon you left, came and spoke to me and that’s what made me write the letter.


JOHN: When you wrote the letter retracting….


LOVE: Yeah.


JOHN: You, you made some reference in that letter to threats or whatever?


LOVE: Well, that’s them isn’t it?  That’s the reason, isn’t it?  But it was never any threats made against us, there never has been any threats made against me ever, know what I mean.


LISA: Liaison officer suggested that things might happen to you if you go ahead with what you told Mr Carroll?


LOVE: That’s it. That’s it.  I mean, there’s no doubt in my mind that where I’m staying just now, I’m out on bail for like, trying to murder police officers and all that in Ealin.  I mean, they don’t fucking like me just now, but when this gets out man, they’re not going to be very fucking happy, you know what I mean, know what I mean.  So like, I’m arrested for, me and my mates got arrested for murder on the Ealin, so it’s going to get hot there for us, I know the crack with them.  I mean, I’m on, I’m on the seat now and can tell you what happens and all that in cop stations and how they operate.  You haven’t been in it mate, you’re not experienced – I’ve twenty years experience with the cops in Glasgow and down here, you know what I mean.  It’s murder mate.


JOHN: Are you on to any threat just now?


LOVE: No, I’m not under any threat whatsoever just now.  I came here voluntarily – I got the bus from my house in Northolt the day in Greenford and I came over here to see you voluntarily.


DOUGLAS: Why have you decided to do it again?


LOVE: So I could come off the drugs man.  It saves me taking them doesn’t it. I might be able to have peace of mind without drugs now – it’s been a lot on my mind in eight years, it is man.  I mean, it’s alright me sitting here talking and all that, but I went through a lot in my mind, you know what I mean.  And like, it’s done a lot of damage to my relaltionship with my wife and all that, maybe sometime I get a little bit depressed and I’m sitting there and like, I’m dead….  If I start to go a bit agitated dead easy and all that carry on, you know what I mean, I never used to be like that, know what I mean never used a bit of violen… never lifted my hands to anybody in my life man, all this.   


DOUGLAS: And have you thought it through, have you thought through the implications of what you’re doing?


LOVE: I thought through the implications and I weigh them all up and at the end of the day it can’t be any worse than what it is, can it.


DOUGLAS:  You said that there’s a file with Supergrass stamped on the front, has it ever worked out in your favour that this has come up on the computer would you say?


LOVE: No, I fucking don’t think so man, I don’t think so mate.  I think their attitude will always be they can’t be seen to be helping you because their attitude is, that if they get, if you get, well Mr Carroll there gets light that they’re helping me, Mr Carroll’s in with the bite – wait a minute, you’re doing this for him and all that.  That’s why I never got my house, that’s why they never sorted me out with my house and my job and settled us down anywhere, because they couldn’t afford, they couldn’t be seen to be helping me.


DOUGLAS: Because Mr Carroll’s investigating and….


LOVE: Becau… I mean, they must of, I mean, let’s put it this way, you know what I was involved in, what would, what would you have expected them to do for us?  What would you have expected, as you know what I was up against and what I did in court, what would you have expected them to do?  Would you have expected them to sort us out with a safe address and settle me down somewhere?


JOHN: Did they ever give….


LOVE: Why did they not do it, why did they not do it, did they have something to hide?


JOHN: Did they ever give you some form of protection?


LOVE: Nothing at all mate, nothing at all.  The only protection I got was in prison and you’ve seen the protection yourself.  You could’ve walked into Perth hospital mate, and done that with a gun and shot me.  I mean, OK, you might have got 15 year and not out of Perth Prison, but you could still have done it.


JOHN: When you first saw me in Perth Prison, em, at the hospital unit in Perth Prison, what was the first thing that went through your mind?


LOVE: I wasn’t too sure.  I mean I never, I wasn’t, I mean I don’t even think my mind was fully functional anyway because like I was fucking in that tank – you saw it, didn’t you – 24 hours a day and like, the screws were animals man, fucked you about and all that, you know what I mean, but I didn’t really know what was happening, I don’t think I was too sure of what was happening, I think.  At the end of the day, I don’t trust anybody, what they did to me – it didn’t matter who came to me.  I mean, you’re very lucky, it took me a while to get to trust people again – I wouldn’t trust anybody and that’s the way it’s been for 8 years.  I’ve trusted nobody, that’s why I’ve not wanted to speak to anybody coming near me – I’ve always kept them at a distance, I didn’t want to trust them, you know what I mean.  I think actually it was, I think it all boiled down to trusting people, but they had done that, and I didn’t want to trust anybody and I didn’t want any more complications and all that.


LISA: Did the police ever threaten you if you went back on your story, on the statement that you made in court….?


LOVE: Yes, well, that was going to happen if I went back on my statement.  I would have been charged with attempted murder, conspiracy to murder and all that carry on and all sorts.  And they had the robbery sewn up as far as I was concerned – that would have been another 10 year or something for me, for the armed robbery and than that, so I probably would have ended up with maybe 20 year.


LISA: That was at that time, what about since then, like in the last 8 years since it happened, they never said to you don’t ever go back on this, don’t ever tell what actually happened?


LOVE: I’ve never really seen them, have I?  I’ve never really seen any of them, you know what I mean.  The only I’ve had is when I ended up down here after the trial, they gave us all… this is what they did.  I ended up in Dundee, I was staying in Dundee with my wife.  Now, they made all the promises.  Well what they did was they took me to Queen Street Station mate and fired me out on my toes and said, bye, and that was it – I was on my own.

The TRUTH is out there...........

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #14 

This is a continuation from PART 4:


JOHN: After the trial, after you actually gave evidence, did you ever see McKillop or Walker?


LOVE: Oh yes, I mean I was, I mean the day I got out mate, I was taken to Pitt Street Police Station where we had a meeting with Norrie Walker, who was there, Charlie Craig and all that.  All just great congratulations and all that carry on and then just blanked me.


JOHN: The day you got out of where, out of the High Court?


LOVE: That was, that was the day I was released from, the day I was actually, I gave my evidence and I was on remand as I said, in Perth at the time.  Well the day I was actually released was from the Sheriff Court in Glasgow and it was for a driving while disqualified, and I got a year deferred sentence OK, and back a year later, they gave me 12 month imprisonment for it mate.  They let me off there and then and then took me back and gave me 12 month.


JOHN: It was after you got your 12 months when you got out, is that when you saw Walker and McKillop or was it after the deferred sentence?


LOVE: No I saw them, the time I got out, well the driving while disqualified that they were holding me on in Perth before, during the time of the trial, the Doyle murder trial right, they took me down to Perth Sheriff….Glasgow Sheriff Court and appeared for it, then I was given a years deferred sentence.


JOHN: Right.


LOVE: Is that what you call it yes?


JOHN: Deferred sentence for 12 months….


LOVE: Yes.


JOHN: Were you released from the court then?


LOVE: I was released from the court,eh, that’s what I’m fucking saying mate, there was fucking screws from Perth Prison to take me down and listen to this – 8 screws man, taking me in a transit van from Perth Prison with a Serious Crime Squad car at the front of it, with a fucking car with a blue light all the way down the road mate.  We met some more police cars at fucking, you’ll not believe this man, I’m telling you, they mey two police cars at the roundabout when you come through Dunblane, you know the roundabout?  There was another two sitting there, who came onto the convoy of the van, got me to Glasgow Sheriff Court, I got a year deferred sentence, took me up to Pitt Street, gave me my train fare home to Dundee and flung me out at Glasgow Queen Street.


LISA: Is that when you phoned Mr Walker?


LOVE: That’s when I went up, I saw them, I went up and saw them didn’t I?  He took me back to Pitt Street and that, and whatever, know what I mean?  Just blanked us.  Took us to Queen Street and flung us out.  I said, what’s the score with you and that, Willie Kelly it was, and the woman said, it’s nothing to do with us and all that carry on, know what I mean?


LISA: So you had gone in there to say to them, right well I’VE KEPT MY half of the bargain, where’s my house, where’s my job…?


LOVE: Well that’s right…. They just blanked me.  They just took me in a car and dropped me off at Glasgow Queen Street and said, bye, you’re on your own mate.


LISA: So will you tell me again, who, who were the police officers that told you the story to tell in court?


LOVE:  It was the man called Norrie Walker, now…. I don’t know who the other man is but I think his name is McKillop.  I don’t know, I’m not sure, that’s only me people hearing that his name was that, I’m not sure, but like, I could recognise him again and say that was him.


LISA: Craig didn’t eh, suggest anything?


LOVE: Oh he was in on it.  He had me up at Easterhouse Police Station telling that I was to say this, and I was saying this, and everything would be alright….


LISA: So it was Walker, Craig and another officer?


LOVE: That’s it, yes.


JOHN: How many times did Craig have you at Easterhouse Police Station?


LOVE: Twice.  He had me there like, the day after I got out on bail and then a couple of days later he had me there.


JOHN: Did they ever have you at any other Police Station, or other location?


LOVE: Yes, Pitt Street.


JOHN: How many times did he have you at Pitt Street?


LOVE: I think I was at Pitt Street maybe three or four times in the, all the time that I was, I was also actual…actually at eh, the old Central Police Station, you know the Central at….


JOHN: At Turnbull Street, the Central District Court building….?


LOVE: That’s it, the Central Courts are in it…. Yes, I was in there a couple of times as well.  That’s where they used to take me when I was seeing…. Like it just depends.  I used to go to this Fiscal’s office and that or they would take me to a cop station first and like, you know what I mean.


JOHN: You were at Easterhouse a couple of time, Pitt Street


LOVE: …a couple of times, maybe three or four times….


JOHN: …couple of times, three or four times….


LOVE: Then I was at Central maybe twice or something….


JOHN: …Turnbull Street….twice.  Any other locations?


LOVE: No, no other locations.


JOHN: And was all this prior to your giving evidence in the Doyle trial?


LOVE: It was prior to me going to court and giving evidence in the trial.


DOUGLAS: When it comes up on the computers down here when you’re arrested, how do the Police in London and England react to what you’ve done?  Are they impressed?


LOVE: I mean, they’re reaction is that they want fucking more, they’re greedy cunts… they don’t know when to stop man.  Are you on the bandwagon like that, “Bill, come on now man, just sign that there mate and we’ll sort it out in the morning, you’ll get bail”.


DOUGLAS: How do they… when they find out that eh, the law in Glasgow didn’t fulfil their promises….?


LOVE: But that’s what I’m saying.  Now when I was arrested in Ealin and all that other day there right, the cops and that in Ealin because it comes up now and they contacted up the road just to make sure and all that right, that I wasn’t….  Now, the guys were sick, the guys were sick that they had to go back to that fucking address at the house in Northolt and all that and they knew what was happening because I told them.  I said, “listen mate”, I said, “see all them up the road, they’re all just dirty fucking scum mate”, I said, “I don’t want to help them”, know what I mean.


JOHN: Are you talking about the police?


LOVE: This is the police in Ealin and I’m telling them what’s going on and I’m saying “listen mate, I don’t want to help them up there”, and all that, you know what I mean, I said I’m not interested.


JOHN: Them up there, who would “they” be?


LOVE: That would be the cops in Glasgow.


DOUGLAS: Had they suggested  that you help them out up there or something?


LOVE: Oh yes.  I mean they, I mean they, they would still have had me in Garthamlock just now if they could have gotten away with it – giving them information and telling them what this is and that, you know what I mean.  I mean, they fucking had me marked, they sent me back to Garthamlock after I had Norrie Walker sent me back to Garthamlock….after Tommy Campbell had been arrested and all that.  And wanted me to go back into Garthamlock and find shotguns and drugs and all that carry on.


JOHN: Did you know anything about shotguns and drugs?


LOVE: I didn’t know anything about shotguns and drugs.  I had only seen one in my life.  That was the first time I think I had seen a sawn off shotgun in my life.


JOHN: Is that the one you used at the icecream van?


LOVE: That’s the one I used, yes.


DOUGLAS: Did you go back to Garthamlock?


LOVE: Yes.


DOUGLAS: Did you do that?


LOVE: For a day.  Then I fucked off down the road, down here with my wife and that.  Then like, I had cops…. I ended up in my stepdad’s house in Ivy Bridge Estate, that’s Summerwood Road, not that address but a different address on the same road.  And like, I actually had a fucking cop tracking me down man, I was fucking, I walked out of my fucking unc… my stepdad’s  man, and there was a big cop station there.  He says “Billy Love”, I said, “You’re fucking kidding man”.  I fucked off with the intention of just blanking them and not giving them evidence.  I was wanting to get off man, on my toes, but they tracked me down again.  And then, this is what they did.  I ended up back in Dundee and they nicked me for a driving while disqualified because they knew I was fucking off didn’t I?  I kept trying to move and all that….


JOHN: Are you saying that you were trying to avoid being available to give evidence?


LOVE: I mean, if they hadn’t of got me, I wouldn’t have given evidence in the trial, as simple as that.  I wouldn’t have turned up.


DOUGLAS: And you’re willing to sign statements and affidavits based on your previous conversation with Mr Carroll?


LOVE: That’s it, that’s it.


DOUGLAS:  And just to recap.  Nobody has threatened or offered you any inducements at all?


LOVE: Nothing at all, no.  A cup of tea, I got.


DOUGLAS: A cup of tea, yes…


LOVE: In a nice hotel room.


DOUGLAS: I think that’s it, right.  Thanks very much.


JOHN: Do you want to date that Doug….


DOUGLAS: Oh yes, its eh, Saturday the twenty second February….


JOHN: It’s nineteen ninety two and it’s my birthday.



The TRUTH is out there...........

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #15 








J.C.: Mr Love, you will recall our previous meeting in 12th December, 1988 at the Glasgow Herald offices in the presence of Mr Freeman in which you explained briefly how you came to give evidence in the Doyle Fire trial involving Thomas Campbell and others.  Do you recall that?


W.McD.L: Yes I do.


J.C: I explained then that I would have to see you again, provided you were willing, for the purpose of taking a full account and clarifying details, as required, and with your cooperation I would like to take as detailed a statement as circumstances permit bearing in mind the lapse in time since 1984 and the limited time allowed for this visit at Pentonville.


You were William MacDonald Love, sometimes known as William MacDonald?


W.McD.L: That’s right, yes.


J.C: What is your date of birth, Mr Love?


W.McD.L: 29.9.59.


J.C: And is your home address 317 Summerwood Road, Isleworth, Essex?


W.McD.L: That’s right, yeah.  Middlesex it is.


J.C: Middlesex?  Sorry.  Are you married with three children now Mr Love?


W.McD.L: Yes.


J.C: When you first saw the police, who were engaged in the Doyle Fire enquiry, is it correct that you were in Barlinnie Prison on remand for trial in relation to an alleged Armed Robbery in Glasgow?


W.McD.L: That’s correct, yes.


J.C: Were you  acquitted of that charge?


W.McD.L: That’s right, yeah.


J.C: Did that trial actually take place before the Doyle Fire trial?


W.McD.L: That’s correct, yeah.

J.C: Do you remember how long before?


W.McD.L: I think it was something about three weeks before or something.


J.C: When you were first seen by the police involved in the Doyle case, were you alone in a room with them or were there other prisoners being seen by officers in the same room?


W.McD.L: There was a prison officer standing in the room.  There was only one CID, and I saw another, there was a prison officer standing there at the same time.


J.C: How did you come to be in the company of that police officer?


W.McD.L: I don’t know.  They just came up to see me, know what I mean.  The came up to see the lot of us – me, John Campbell, Ronald Carlton and I think there was a couple of others.


J.C: And these persons you have named, were they prisoners in Barlinnie at that time?


W.McD.L: That’s correct, yeah.


J.C: Were you able, from your understanding of what was going on, able to deduce why a policeman should want to see you in connection with the Doyle case?


W.McD.L: Well I was wondering, yeah.


J.C: Did you ever come to any conclusions?


W.McD.L: No.


J.C: What, if anything, was discussed between you and this policemen in the presence of the prison officer?


W.McD.L: There was nothing really discussed, know what I mean.  He was saying that I knew all about it and all the rest of it, you know what I mean – what was happening and he said he would send somebody else up to see us if I wanted?


J.C: Then he was saying that you knew all about “it”.  Did he indicate what “it” was?


W.McD.L: Well I had an idea what he was talking about because he had already questioned me about it, know what  I mean, before that.


J.C: Roughly what was he asking you about?


W.McD.L: He was asking us about the carry on with the icrcream vans and shooting the vans and the fire and all that, you know what I mean.


J.C: And you were telling him you didn’t know anything at all about it?


W.McD.L: I said I didn’t know nothing about it.


J.C: It has been said that you asked to see a senior officer, a police officer that is, after your first encounter with the police at Barlinnie.  Did you ask?


W.McD.L: I never asked.  He was the one that made the suggestion.


J.C: Did you make any form of statement at that first meeting with the policeman?


W.McD.L: Nothing at all.  I denied all knowledge of everything he was asking me about.


J.C: How many policemen came to see you on the second occasion and who were they?


W.McD.L: Two – one of them was called Norman Walker and the other one was called McCormack or something like that.  He came from Easterhouse.


J.C: Does the name McKillop ring a bell with you?


W.McD.L: That’s the name.  Yeah, that’s what it was – McKillop.


J.C: On that occasion was there a prison officer present?


W.McD.L: No.


J.C: How soon after the first visit was it that Walker and McKillop came to see you?


W.McD.L: The very next morning.


J.C: What was said between you and the police at this second meeting?


W.McD.L: They were just asking us questions and all the rest of it, know what I mean, and I was denying it and then they started getting more friendly with us, and know what I mean, and started saying well this is how it happened, and going into detail about things and all that and started offering us bail and said they would get the armed robbery and that dropped against us if I did them a favour.  I just went along with what they were saying.


J.C: Were you able to give them any information about what is known as the “Ice Cream Wars”?


W.McD.L: I wasn’t able to give them any information  except about the shooting of the ice cream van.  That’s the only information that I could give them.  Anything else I knew nothing about.


J.C: Is that the shooting incident in which you gave evidence indicating that you had some part in it?


W.McD.L: Yeah.


J.C: The sort of things they were asking you, and you were denying, I take it from you saying, “I’m denying”, that they were in the line of allegations that were being put?


W.McD.L: Yeah, well, that’s why I denied anything because I would have incriminated myself and then they started saying “look you’re not incriminating yourself because you’re not going to get charged with this and nothing is going to happen to you for this.  You can talk to us in confidence, anything we say you will not be charged with”, know what I mean.


J.C: Was there any form of negotiation, dealing or bargaining at that first meeting you had with Walker?


W.McD.L: Yeah.  There was – that’s where mostly everything was said.  After that the meetings were just to clarify that the Crown prosecution had agreed to this and gareed to that, know what I mean.  But yeah, they did offer me – they said they would look after us, re-locate me and my family and all the rest of it, they would give us money to make sure I was alright and that I didn’t want for nothing like that.


J.C: Did you make any form of statement or provide them with information at this stage?


W.McD.L: Not at that stage, no.


J.C: At that stage, did you admit any involvement in the shooting incident?


W.McD.L: Nothing at all.


J.C: That’s at that first meeting?


W.McD.L: At that first meeting I never admitted nothing.


J.C: Was any information given to at this stage, the first meeting with Walker?


W.McD.L: Yeah, there was.  I mean, they were making hints and that about…. I mean they actually said to me there was a meeting in the Netherfield and all that and this was discussed.  Do you know what I mean.  They actually said to me that they had heard this from somebody else and they wanted me to go along and say that.


J.C: Who was putting these propositions to you, they sound like propositions, who was putting these to you?


W.McD.L: It was Mr Norrie Walker that was the one that was doing all the talking and the other man McKillop or whatever was just agreeing with him and saying that’s right and all that.


J.C: Did they write anything down or read from anything while they were speaking to you?


W.McD.L: They were writing bits down on paper, yeah.


J.C: Do you  know what they were writing?


W.McD.L: I think it was just about the meeting but I can assure you that everything that was said was not written down.  Know what I mean.  Just asking my name and date of birth and all the rest of it.


J.C: Now, were you seen again by police in Barlinnie?


W.McD.L: Yeah, they came up about three or four days later.


J.C: Are these the same two?


W.McD.L: It was the same two yeah.  That was when they put it on the table and says you’ll not be charged with this, you’ll not be charged with that.  Just do what we want you to do and we’ll look after you and all that.


J.C: Did you say they put it all on the table or they put it on a tape?


W.McD.L: They put it on the table.


J.C: Oh, you mean they put the cards on the table?


W.McD.L: Yes, they weren’t hiding anything, you know, they were just straight with us and told us what they wanted.


J.C: Now, did you give the police any information on that second meeting you had with Walker?  Were you able to give Walker any information at all?


W.McD.L: Yeah, just about the ice cream… the shooting of the ice cream van and that.  But then it went on to other things about the fire and they were wanting me to say this, that, this happened and that happened, and it never happened.


J.C: In mentioning the shooting of the ice cream van at that second meeting you had with Walker did you implicate Thomas Campbell in that at all?


W.McD.L: Yeah.


J.C: In implicating Thomas Campbell, were you telling the truth?


W.McD.L: Not the whole truth, no.


J.C: What wasn’t truthful about it?


W.McD.L: Well, Thomas Campbell did see me after it and indicate that it was through him that it happened but I mean he never ever… I mean he had never… Shadda never said to me and all that, that all the Big Thomas Campbell and all that will square you up.  That was put into my head.  That was a statement that me and the police officers sat down for maybe three or four meetings and made up.  The questions they wanted me to answer and what they wanted me to say.


J.C: I’ll come back to that later on if we can move on now.


J.C: Now, you were precognosed on oath, according to my information, on 8th May, 1984, and then on 9th May, 1984,  you called at the Sheriff Court in Glasgow, still in custody, to sign the precognition,  Is that right or do you not remember exactly the dates?


W.McD.L: I don’t remember the dates but I know that I gave the precognition on oath one day and I signed it the next day at the Sheriff Court buildings in Glasgow.


J.C: When did the idea of precognition on oath arise and who raised the subject?


W.McD.L: That was Mr Walker that raised that subject because he had offered me what he was going to do and all the rest of it but he said, what happens if we do all this for you and then you don’t do it.  So, if you put it on oath, then we’ve got it on oath and that’s what the Crown are wanting as well.  It was him that raised the subject about putting it on oath.


J.C: When you refer to Mr Walker saying if you don’t do it, I take it from that if you don’t give evidence?


W.McD.L: That’s correct, yeah.


J.C: So they wanted your evidence on oath?


W.McD.L: Yeah.


J.C: Now, was there any negotiation about getting anything in relation to that precognitionon oath?  Were you to get something if you gave a precognition on oath or were you to get nothing?




The TRUTH is out there...........
Previous Topic | Next Topic

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.