The Ferris Conspiracy Forum
Sign up  |   |   |  Calendar

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

  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 18      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next   »

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #16 

Continuation from previous post:


W.McD.L: I was to get….my family was to be relocated, I was to get a new house out of the country and I was to be given a job and put somewhere else out of the way.


J.C: You had, in relation to the alleged robbery that you were on remand for, been refused bail by the Appeal Court.  Is that right?


W.McD.L: That’s correct, yeah.


J.C: When and how did the question of bail come up again?


W.McD.L: Well, that was Mr Walker that brought that up and said that you’ll be out of here as soon as the precognition on oath is signed.  You’ll be out on bail the next day and that’s what happened.


J.C: You were out on bail the next day?


W.McD.L: Yeah.


J.C: When you were at the Procurator Fiscal’s Offices or at the Sheriff Court in relation to that precognition on oath, did any member of the Procurator Fiscal’s staff mention to you the subject of bail?


W.McD.L: Yes they did.  Yeah, Mr Speirs, David Speirs.


J.C: Did he say that before or after you gave a precognition on oath?


W.McD.L: It was before.


J.C: What did he say?  Can you remember?


W.McD.L: Well, there was a bit of a…. I mean, I wanted the bail as soon as after I signed it.  I had given it.  I was wanting bail then.  I wasn’t wanting to back to Barlinnie because I knew that Thomas Campbell and all that…. And I knew that they would have been in and I didn’t want to go back to Barlinnie and I told them, I told the two CID, because it was Norman Walker and McKillop who had come to Barlinnie and contacted me and took me to the Procurator Fiscal’s office.  I said I’m not doing this because I don’t trust you.  I didn’t trust them after that.  I just was not too keen on them.  The Fiscal turned around and told me that if I didn’t give the precognition then I would be charged with these offences and all that.


J.C: Was that Speirs?


W.McD.L: Yeah, and that once I had given the precognition and signed it, I would be given bail.  He gave me that assurance.


J.C: Did you ever mention to anyone on the Procurator Fiscal’s staff that you would want bail? If so, to whom did you mention it?


W.McD.L: No, I never mentioned bail.  It was them that made that up.  That was one of the things that they said, that I wouldn’t be left in Barlinnie, I would be given bail.


J.C: I think you have answered my next question.  How soon after giving your precognition on oath did you get bail?  But you say you got bail the day after.


W.McD.L: The day after I signed it.


J.C: When you got bail, were you simply put out of the door of Barlinnie or were you collected by anyone and if so, by whom?


W.McD.L: I was just put right out of the door.


J.C: Where did you live between the time of getting bail and giving your evidence in the Doyle trial?


W.McD.L: All over the place.


J.C: Were arrangements made by you or anybody else in relation to your living accommodation?


W.McD.L: Me and my wife had to move away myself, because I had explained to my wife what had happened, and she says we can’t stay here.


J.C: Did the police give you any assistance in moving?


W.McD.L: None at all.


J.C: Did you ever see the police between those times?  That is, in getting bail and actually giving evidence?


W.McD.L: Yeah.  When I got out of Barlinnie, Mr Walker said to me, “when you get out of Barlinnie, phone me” and I phoned him and went up but he was only using me again.


J.C: Where did you go to meet him?


W.McD.L: I met him at Easterhouse Police Station.


J.C: What was he wanting to use you for?


W.McD.L: He was wanting me to stay in Garthamlock and get information and find out where shotguns and all that were kept, but it was Mr McKillop that turned round and said to me, “don’t do that, I don’t know what’s happened here, but get on your toes, don’t stay in Garthamlock”.


J.C: Did you have a job between getting bail and giving evidence at the trial?


W.McD.L: No.


J.C: Did you get money from any other source, say, other than the state, and if so, from whom?


W.McD.L: I never got any money at all.


J.C: How did you get to the High Court in Glasgow? By car or train?


W.McD.L: I was on remand at Perth Prison at the time for another charge.


J.C: Were you taken down from Perth Prison by prison staff or police?


 W.McD.L: No, the first time I was taken down see before that, in between I was on remand in Perth, I was taken down every week or whatever to see the Procurator Fiscal, Speirs, david Speirs, and he was taking us in and he was showing me what productions, like baseball bats and asking me if I’d ever seen this in Tommy Campbell’s house and if I had ever seen him with this and that.


J.C: So this was after your precognition on oath and after you had been remanded in custody at Perth?  You were taken down to where?


W.McD.L: Yeah.  The Fiscal’s Office at Custom House on the Clyde.


J.C: Is this in Glasgow, to see Speirs?


W.McD.L: Yes.


J.C: And to see Speirs?


W.McD.L: Yes.


J.C: How many times do you recall seeing Speirs?


W.McD.L: I think it was two or three times I went down there.  I think it was about three times.


J.C: Had the Doyle fire trial started by that time?


W.McD.L: It hadn’t started, no.


J.C: And apart from showing you productions, was anything said about other evidence in the case between you and Speirs?


W.McD.L: No.


J.C: He was just showing you productions and asking you questions?


W.McD.L: Just productions and asking me things.


J.C: Were you accompanied by anyone on these journeys between  Perth Prison and Glasgow?


W.McD.L: Yeah.


J.C: By whom?


W.McD.L: You just need to take a guess.  I don’t need to tell you, do I?  Mr Walker and Mr McKillop.


J.C: Walker and McKillop?


W.McD.L: Yeah.


 J.C: Now, once the Doyle fire trial started, who took you from Perth to Glasgow?


W.McD.L: There was a couple of them.  They used to change around.  There used to be a Detective Sergeant Kelly, and a woman, I think you will probably know her, the woman that was involved, the one with the blonde hair, I forget her name.  And then there was a guy Lewis or somebody.  That was the main three that were there.


J.C: Lewis you mention.  Was Lewis a man?


W.McD.L: A Detective.


J.C: A Detective?


W.McD.L: Yeah.


J.C: Was that his first or second name?


W.McD.L: That was his second name, Lewis.  I think.


J.C: Dark hair or fair hair?


W.McD.L: William Lewis.


J.C: William Lewis?


W.McD.L: Yeah.


J.C: Did you ever have any meetings with a Detective called Simpson?  A ginger haired man called Simpson?


W.McD.L: The name’s familiar.


J.C: The name’s familiar but you don’t recall ever having a meeting with him?


W.McD.L: I don’t recall.


J.C: Now, between getting bail and giving evidence, that’s when you were eventually called at the trial, did you ever give statements or precognitions to defence lawyers?


W.McD.L: Yes.


J.C: How were those meetings between you and defence lawyers arranged?  Did they contact you or did the police contact you or what?


W.McD.L:  I don’t know.  They just came one morning at Perth and said you’re going to Baird Street Police Station and Mr Cobb came up to see me in Perth, but the rest of them, I think you were there, were you there at Baird Street?  They took all the precognitions there.  That’s where most of them were taken.


J.C: I never met you Mr Love.


W.McD.L: I thought you might have been there because you were Mr…. I didn’t pay much attention to who was there anyway.


J.C: When you were giving the precognitions were you giving precognitions to one lawyer at a time or were a group of lawyers around the table or something like that?


W.McD.L: Usually what they were doing is that there were two lawyers at a time at the table and then another two would come in.


J.C: Between getting bail and giving evidence at the trial, did you ever find yourself discussing the case with police officers or them discussing the case with you?


W.McD.L: Yes.


J.C: Roughly how many times?


W.McD.L: I mean I was with them, I mean I was going down to the Fiscal’s office and I was in the car with them for maybe seven hours a day, so it was the top subject.  That’s what they were all talking about.


J.C: After the trial started, did any of those discussions make any reference to any evidence that had been led?


W.McD.L: When they were taking me back to Perth, one morning one of the CID in the car turned round and said that they have impeached you or whatever.


J.C: Was there ever a time when you saw a meeting in the Netherfield or any other public house or place between Thomas Campbell, Joseph  Steele and Thomas Gray when starting a fire at Fatboy’s door was discussed?


W.McD.L: No.


J.C: How was it that you came to say that in evidence at the Doyle Fire trial?


W.McD.L: Because I was told to say that.


J.C: You said on 12th December, 1988, when we had out first meeting, sorry that was out second meeting.  I think I saw you in Perth a few years ago after the Doyle Fire trial.


W.McD.L: That would have been in ’76 I think.  I saw you in the summer of ’76.


J.C: I think you indicated quite bluntly that I should get on my bike.


W.McD.L: Yeah.


J.C: You said on 12th December, 1988, that the Procurator Fiscal Depute Speirs was making threats at you.  Can you tell me what they were?


W.McD.L: He just told me that if I never gave the precognition on oath that I would be charged with all these charges and all that.  Because they had the police officer who took a statement off me and they had written it down and went to the Crown and says this is what we have got.


J.C: The statement which the police took off you – was that on the basis of information that you were able to provide them with without any assistance or were you assisted to provide that information?


W.McD.L: I was assisted to provide it.


J.C: In saying that, are you saying that they told you what to say or….?


W.McD.L: Yeah, they did tell me what to say.


J.C: Since the Doyle Fire trial have you ever said to any policeman that you would tell the truth about the Doyle case if you did not get special treatment such as bail for other alleged offences or get charges dropped?


W.McD.L: Yes.


J.C: When was that?


W.McD.L: I’ve made the threat all the time to them and I’ve had police officers coming up to Perth when I’ve been on remand and told them if they didn’t do this and do that, that I would.


 J.C: What did that comprise of?


W.McD.L: What they offered me, what they said I would get was a safe house for me and my wife and kids and money to live and whatever but they just blanked us.  As far as they were concerned it was two different CID and it was nothing to do with them.


J.C: That’s at Perth?


W.McD.L: Yes.


J.C: Have you ever had any sort of similar encounter in the Glasgow area or Strathclyde area?


W.McD.L: No.


J.C: Have you ever since the Doyle case, had any charges dropped, that’s charges against you dropped?


W.McD.L: Yeah.

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

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #17 

Continuation from previous post:


J.C: When was that?


W.McD.L: I’ve only had one dropped since then and that was a court case in Glasgow, Cambuslang, it was the theft of a lorry.  Me and James Stuart Irvine was charged with it.  They got that dropped for us.


J.C: Now how did that come about – do you know?


W.McD.L: They got it dropped before it got to the stages where it should have been dropped.  There was no evidence anyway to convict us.  They wouldn’t have got a conviction but they still got it dropped all the same before it got to court.


J.C: Have you ever had, since the Doyle case, a bail address given as c/o the police?


W.McD.L: Yes.


J.C: When was that?


W.McD.L: That’s when I appeared at Perth Sheriff court.


J.C: How did it come about that you got a bail address given as care of the police?


W.McD.L: Because the police in Perth knew the circumstances and didn’t want my address to go in the papers up there.


J.C: Was there during your dealings with the police or Procurator Fiscal Depute Speirs in the Doyle case any mention of preferential treatment for you in any future crimes you might be charged with or become involved in?


W.McD.L: No they never said anything about it.


J.C: Now, I would like to ask you about some of the evidence you are reported in the extract of proceedings as having given in the trial.  You said that while walking your alsation dog, Thomas Lafferty told you that Thomas Campbell wanted you to do a message for him.  Did such a meeting take place between you and Thomas Lafferty?


W.McD.L: No. The meeting did take place but that was not said.


J.C: The meeting took place but that wasn’t said?


W.McD.L: That wasn’t said.


J.C: And that evidence, as I recall was in relation to what turned out to be a shooting at an ice cream van?


W.McD.L: Yeah.


J.C: You say that Thomas Campbell’s name was not mentioned by Lafferty?


W.McD.L: Was not mentioned.


J.C: Did Mr Lafferty, at that stage, indicate to you what kind of message it was that he was asking you to do?


W.McD.L: Yes, well he explained it to me.


J.C: Did you understand from that first meeting that that was to do with a shooting?


W.McD.L: Yeah.


J.C: Did you get any impression from what was said to you or those discussions who, if anybody, was to do a shooting?  Who, if anybody, was to pull the trigger?


W.McD.L: No that wasn’t discussed.


J.C: You said that Thomas Lafferty gave you thirty pounds for your part in this incident and that he said Thomas Campbell would square you up.  Was that ever said by Thomas Lafferty?


W.McD.L: No.


J.C: How did it come about that you came to say that at the trial?


W.McD.L: Because that’s what I was told to say.


J.C: Who told you to say that?


W.McD.L: Well, Norman Walker and McKillop, the ones that were there.


J.C: Specifically, was it Norman Walker or McKillop, who actually made the suggestion?


W.McD.L: Norman Walker, I think, he was the one who was doing all the talking.


J.C: Did you see Thomas Campbell at any time in the Barge Public House and hear him say, “Aye, thanks for that message”?


W.McD.L: No.


J.C: Did you hear him say that he would square you up later?


W.McD.L: No.


J.C: Now, earlier on today, you indicated that Thomas Campbell made some comment or indicated to you that the shooting was down to him?


W.McD.L: Yeah.


J.C: What was that?


W.McD.L: Well, I saw him a couple of weeks after it and we were just talking about it,  He says… that’s when he said thanks.


J.C: What did he say?  I have to ask you that.


W.McD.L: He just says, “thanks very much for doing that, that van for us”.


J.C: For doing that van for us?


W.McD.L: Yeah.


J.C: Did you know, before the incident where the van was shot at, did you know that that Thomas Campbell had any connection with it?


W.McD.L: Personal thoughts don’t come into it but there was nobody said to us that it was anything to do with him.


J.C: I think you have probably answered my last question of you Mr Love.  Were you ever able, from any contact that you had with Mr Thomas Campbell, ever able to ascertain that he was implicated in the shootings of the ice cream van, you think from what he said to you a fortnight after the incident, that he was?


W.McD.L: Yes.


J.C: Thank you Mr Love.


S.COBB: Mr Love, could I ask you a couple of things?  You have already said to Mr Caroll that you had not been present at any conversation in a public house either in The Barge or anywhere else involving Thomas Campbell or Joseph Steele.  Can I take it from what you say, because you will remember you did give evidence that Joseph Steele had been present at such a conversation, was that evidence true?


W.McD.L: No, it wasn’t true.


S.COBB: Was any of the evidence,  so far as that matter, so far as it related to Joseph Steele that you gave in the trial, true?


W.McD.L: It wasn’t true, no.


S.COBB: Now, do you also recall giving evidence in the trial relation to Joseph Steele and Thomas Campbell I think,  about going to the house of James Mitchell?  You had a car, and I don’t know if you are aware or not that that was in relation to Charge 6 on the Indictment against him which was a charge of Conspiracy, was that evidence true?


W.McD.L: That was true, yes.


S.COBB: It was true?  Thank you, I don’t think there is anything else I want to ask.


P.A: Tell us why you are making this retraction at this stage?


W.McD.L: Because I want to do it.


P.A: You are not getting any inducements and threats have been made?


W.McD.L: No, no, I have not been offered inducements.  Nothing like that.  I came voluntary, it was me that contacted Mr Carroll.

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

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #18 

ferrisconspiracy : VIEW on FALSE CONFESSIONS.  (USA)


At least 38 false or questionable murder confessions have been thrown out by Broward County courts, rejected by juries or abandoned by police or prosecutors since 1990, The Herald has found.

In the first comprehensive review of murder confessions in South Florida, The Herald found repeated examples of illegal interrogation, coercive questioning and flawed fact-checking. In at least six cases, innocent people languished in jail while likely killers escaped detection.

The review comes as a federal judge weighs the case for releasing Timothy Brown, imprisoned since 1991 in the murder of a Broward sheriff's deputy, convicted solely on the strength of a confession that may be false.

In case after case revisited by The Herald, Broward homicide detectives:

• Jailed people for confessions that were wrong on such basic facts as the year of the crime, the city, the name of the victim or the weapon used. Among them: Antwoin Ricks, who confessed in 1997 to killing a man in Pompano Beach. Broward sheriff's detectives charged him and a codefendant, Lamonda Giles, with a murder in Dania Beach. The men were cleared a few days later.

• Took illegal confessions from people who had asked for attorneys or had invoked their right of silence. In 1998, murder suspect Pui Kei Wong told Hollywood detectives through an interpreter, ''I don't want to talk.'' Detectives continued to question him. A judge threw out the confession.

• Gained confessions from suspects who were in no condition to confess. When Moshe Bitoun confessed to the Fort Lauderdale police in 1997, he was high on morphine and didn't know what day it was. A jury acquitted Bitoun.

• Took questionable murder confessions from the homeless, from boys as young as 15 and from men with a mental age as low as 7. Jerry Frank Townsend, with an IQ of 58, confessed falsely to murders in Broward, Miami-Dade, Tampa and San Francisco.

Although Miami detectives were involved in the Townsend confessions, there have been fewer highly publicized false-confession cases in Miami-Dade County.

Broward, however, has attracted a national reputation for questionable confessions. DNA testing in 2000 and 2001 exonerated Townsend, whose confessions mostly involved Broward murders, and Frank Lee Smith, who had spent years on Death Row for a murder conviction built upon a purported confession. Smith died in prison.

Prosecutors and law enforcement leaders concede the reality of false confessions but point to the vast majority of Broward murder confessions that stand up to scrutiny.
''I think most detectives are honorable and decent human beings,'' said Brian Cavanagh, a veteran Broward homicide prosecutor. ``They are not, in any way, shape or manner, seeking to have somebody confess to something they did not do. Ever.''

False confessions captured national headlines last week with the DNA exoneration of five teens imprisoned for the notorious 1989 rape of an investment banker who was attacked while jogging in New York City's Central Park. In Chicago, Detroit, San Diego and elsewhere, bad confessions also have been exposed.
Confessions are among the most potent tools in police work, a virtual guarantee of conviction in murder trials. Prosecutors point to layers of constitutional safeguards that are meant to protect defendants against confessing falsely.

But the newfound ability to match bodily fluids or hair to a suspect's unique genetic code, known as DNA testing, has exposed false confessions around the nation, freeing dozens of inmates previously thought to be guilty beyond question.

''Interrogation is about getting confessions, not about solving the crime,
'' said Richard Ofshe, a false-confession expert at the University of California, Berkeley. ``It's very simple why people falsely confess: because of police misconduct.''

The 38 tainted or questionable confessions found by The Herald include:
• Fourteen confessions rejected by police or prosecutors because of evidence that pointed to a different killer. Six of those confessions to different slayings came from a single man, Townsend.
• Nine confessions rejected by juries, which acquitted murder defendants after reading or hearing incriminating statements.
• Fifteen confessions overturned by judges because of constitutional violations by detectives, ranging from illegal arrests to ignored requests for attorneys.

At least a half-dozen confessed killers who were charged with murder have been determined to be unquestionably innocent.
John ''Woody'' Wood confessed twice to the murder of Christopher Morris in 1990 before detectives released him and arrested three other people: the victim's parents and a hired hit man. Wood contends that detectives terrified him into confessing and then taught him details only the killer could know.

Jennifer Wilkinson gave a confession implicating herself and her boyfriend -- the father of her unborn child -- in a 1998 home-invasion murder. Almost a year later, prosecutors cleared them and charged a different person.
When the murder confession of Peter Dallas was proved false, a special prosecutor turned around and charged him with perjury for the tainted statement.

Innocence or guilt is less clear in most of the other cases reviewed by The Herald. In some instances, a suppressed or overturned confession spared an innocent man from prison. In others, tainted confessions spoiled legitimate cases against murderers.

Some confessions collapsed because of rudimentary factual errors.
Antoine Gilliam confessed in 1998 to strangling a girl in a polka-dot dress. The victim wore a blue denim jumpsuit.

Townsend confessed to murdering a white girl in a black dress at night in 1973. Prosecutors charged him with the murder of a black girl in sky-blue shorts in broad daylight in 1979.

George ''Stet'' Blancett confessed in 1994 to firing his gun from the window of a Century Village work truck years earlier. Prosecutors charged him with a 1980 murder. Records subsequently showed Blancett wasn't working at Century Village at that time.
Some confessions fell apart because detectives violated the most basic constitutional protections against self-incrimination, the standards enshrined in the Miranda rights.

Osvaldo Almeida, 20, confessed to murder after asking detectives, ''What good is an attorney going to do?'' Detectives didn't reply. The Florida Supreme Court ruled that the question deserved an answer.

Police and prosecutors offer myriad explanations for the rejected confessions, conceding error in some cases, blaming unsympathetic judges or juries in others and claiming that some so-called confessions weren't really confessions at all.

One ''confession'' reviewed by The Herald, that of Frank Lee Smith, turned out to be nothing more than an oblique admission of guilt -- at best. Detectives claimed Smith blurted out that a witness couldn't have seen him at the crime scene because it was dark. He never told police he was the killer. But court papers characterized the outburst as a confession, and the statement helped put an innocent man on Death Row for 14 years. Smith died of cancer months before his exoneration.
But in at least two cases -- the false confessions of Antwoin Ricks and John Wood -- detectives say it was their efforts that freed the innocent men. Investigators contend it was they who determined that the statements were not credible.

A few South Florida law enforcement agencies have embraced a possible solution to the problem of false confessions: taping interviews with murder suspects in their entirety. Broward State Attorney Michael Satz is a vocal proponent of taping. At least one department -- Miramar police -- adopted a new policy last fall of taping all interviews from start to finish in direct response to appeals by Satz.

''We may only get one shot at a particular person. And we've got to do it right, and we've got to do it legally,'' said Lt. Mark Smith, who leads the Hollywood police homicide squad, which tapes most -- though not all -- interrogation-room conversations.

While two states -- Minnesota and Alaska -- require police to record every word spoken in an interrogation room, Florida law does not require detectives to capture even the final version of confessions on tape.

In court, it is the detective's word against that of the person accused of a killing. The accused seldom prevails.

Police and prosecutors consider confessions an indicator of guilt as potent as DNA evidence.

''When a man says he committed a crime voluntarily and freely, I don't know of any better evidence that you're going to get in a case,'' prosecutor Thomas Kern told jurors at the 2001 murder trial of Durrell Leo Smith.
Yet, at least nine Broward juries have acquitted murder defendants who had confessed. Among them: Durrell Smith, who was acquitted even after two BSO detectives took the stand and said Smith had confessed to the murder. The jury didn't buy their testimony, defense attorneys said.

Broward County is only one flash point in a nationwide false-confession debate.

In Chicago, the center of a false-confession maelstrom that led to a moratorium on executions, The Chicago Tribune last year found at least 247 murder cases with incriminating statements that were thrown out by courts or which failed to secure convictions. Chicago reported 666 homicides in 2001. Broward County, in contrast, reported 90 homicides last year.

Police, prosecutors and defense attorneys all said they were surprised at the number of rejected confessions uncovered by The Herald. Conventional wisdom suggests that trial judges almost never suppress murder confessions, juries seldom ignore them, and Florida's conservative appellate panels rarely overturn them.

''Some of the judges, they are so afraid of the political consequences of going against police officers,'' said Johnny McCray, a defense attorney based in Pompano Beach. ``Nobody wants to be seen as anti-law enforcement, or pro-crime.''


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

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #19 

ferisconspirscy : UPDATE


In 1993, the Yard set up a secret anti-corruption operation run by undercover cops whose existence was known to only a few senior officers. The Ghost Squad operated for five years ? spying, lying and concealing information ? with no independent oversight.

In 1998, its shadowy detectives went public as the Untouchables ? their motto: ?Integrity is Non-Negotiable?. Commissioner Sir John Stevens promised they would bring bent and unethical colleagues to justice. But instead of thorough corruption investigations, there was corruption management. Instead of justice and accountability, there was cover-up.

Based on official documents and over 1,000 interviews ? with criminals, supergrasses, police whistleblowers, former anti-corruption officers and judges, many of whom have never spoken out before, let alone on the record ? Untouchables is in the best tradition of hard-hitting expose journalism, naming names and packed with revelations.

It tells the secret history surrounding the Jill Dando case and the key unsolved murders of Daniel Morgan, David Norris, Stephen Lawrence and Rachel Nickell. The authors also expose the buried history of the biggest armed robbery in British criminal history ? the 26 million Brinks Mat gold bullion heist, which is still dogging Scotland Yard on its 21st anniversary.


Untouchables presents a timely and well-evidenced case for a fully independent system of policing the police.




New Labour and the Tories have declared a War on Crime in the run up to the general election next year.

In his keynote speech at the recent party conference, Tory leader Michael Howard promised to unshackle the Police from the burdens of accountability and due process. The criminal justice system will be recalibrated in favour of the victims of crime, he said.

Howard had made exactly the same speech in 1993 as home secretary in the John Major Government. Under his watch Scotland Yard set up a secret unit called the Ghost Squad to examine just how corrupt was the most powerful force in the UK.

With no independent oversight, for the next four years this Ghost Squad secretly buried compromising information.

When New Labour came to power in 1997 on an anti-sleaze vote, the Yard was ready to face the public inquiry into its bungled handling of the Stephen Lawrence murder investigation and the aura of corruption that pervaded it.

The Ghost Squad went public as the Untouchables. Parliament was assured there was going to be a no hiding place blitz on the bent. But instead, more corruption management and cover up followed.

At first, New Labour fought the backlash against the Lawrence Inquiry. But after the events of September 11 and the lurch to war on a false premise, the Yard is now a key ally in Tony Blair's War on Terrorism.

This dark alliance is unlikely to be held accountable by the new police watchdog, which the Home Office set up in April 2004. The so-called Independent Police Complaints Commission is stacked with retired cops led by the former boss of the Untouchables.



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

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #20 



Here are the charges that put TC Campbell & Joe Steele on the long road to clear their names.




The following charges laid against TC and others, were as follows:


"On 16th April 1984 at the house at 29 Bankend Street, Glasgow, occupied by James Bernard Doyle you THOMAS CAMPBELL, THOMAS CLARK GRAY, JOSEPH STEELE and GARY LANE MOORE did, while acting along with said Joseph Grainger, wilfully set fire to a cupboard door and the entrance door of said house occupied by said James Bernard Doyle and said fire took effect thereon and this you did wilfully and with a criminal disregard for the safety of the occupants of said house and adjacent houses whereby Christine Doyle or Halleron, Anthony Doyle, ages 14 years, Mark Halleron, aged 18 months, James Doyle, Junior, said Andrew Doyle, said James Bernard Doyle, Daniel Doyle, Stephen Bernard Doyle and Lilian Peacock or Doyle sustained severe injuries as a result of said fire and in consequence whereof said Christine Doyle or Halleron, and said Anthony Doyle died as a result of their injuries on 16th April 1984, said Mark Halleron died at the Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Glasgow on 16th April 1984, said James Doyle Junior died at the Royal Infirmary, Glasgow on 17th April 1984, said Andrew Doyle died at said Royal Infirmary on 20th April 1984 and said James Bernard Doyle died at said Royal Infirmary on 24th April 1984 and you did murder said Christine Doyle or Halleron, Anthony Doyle, Mark Halleron, James Doyle Junior, Andrew Doyle and James Bernard Doyle".


We now know who did not kill the Doyle family, but the Police and Prosecution to this day know exactly who they are!

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

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #21 

ferrisconspiracy : ARCHIVE


Police morale at "all-time low," not to mention corruption

Government hits back at authorities' condemnation of new measures
by Kieren McCarthy

Home Secretary David Blunkett has hit back at claims by Chief Superintendents that police morale has hit an all-time low, by releasing figures that show police corruption is also at its lowest for 40 years. He was too polite to point out that police morale is always at an all-time low.

Although the police force has yet to produce any evidence of the subjective morale quotient, Mr Blunkett handed over detailed evidence that the number of officers on the make has reduced gradually over the years, particularly when rules were tightened - and indicated that this may have resulted in the conviction of dozens of notorious criminals.

While Blindgit's reforms - including the clamping down on unusual payment practices and on officers found responsible for miscarriages of justice - have had police officers up in arms, many (including everyone outside the police service) seem to think they are a bloody good idea.

Several senior officers have argued however it is their right to retire on full pension as soon as they are probed for tampering with evidence, ignoring vital information, harassing witnesses or running an incompetent investigation.

Mr Blindgit was keen to stress the benefits of his new scheme. Removing police officers' ability to get away with shoddy and/or illegal practices is likely to reduce police corruption still further, he argued. A reduction in police corruption and the ability to identify underperforming or incompetent officers was also likely to benefit society and the police force as a whole, Blindgit suggested.

In response though, one senior figure who wished to remain anonymous told us: "He doesn't understand what it's like at the front line. You've got to stick with your own. If we always played by the rules, we'd never get half the results we do..." and six other cliches, before ending with the old chestnut: "Morale is at an all-time low."

One officer, who we took to represent the vast majority of officers in the UK who are extremely hard-working, respectable and honest had a different view however: "The problem is that Blunkett is blind both literally and figuratively. Once he makes up his mind, he's more stubborn than an ox. And he is simply wrong is some aspects of the reforms."

Detective Inspector Jack Regan told Blunkett earlier this week: "Look slag, I don't give a toss who you have in your bed but don't you try and run your numbers on me."

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

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #22 : INFO


How can I make a complaint?

If you think a police officer has behaved wrongly on duty or has committed an offence you can:

  • write to the Chief Constable of the police force concerned, or
  • give the details at any police station (or to any police
    officer), or
  • ask a solicitor, your MSP or your local councillor to take the matter up with the Chief Constable on your behalf, or
  • contact the local Procurator Fiscal if it appears the officer may have broken the law, or
  • speak to someone at the Citizen's Advice Bureau who will also be able to give you the names and addresses of the people or places mentioned in this leaflet.

What should I say?

  • Say as much as you can about your complaint.
  • Describe what happened.
  • Give the name or number of the officer(s) concerned
    (if you know them).
  • Say where and when the incident took place.
  • Give the names and addresses of any witnesses
    (if you have them).

What happens then?

Normally a senior officer will visit or telephone to tell you about the complaints procedure and to give you the opportunity to discuss your complaint. Whenever possible, the senior officer will explain why the constable subject to complaint took a certain course of action, what the officer's duties were, what the police powers were, and in what circumstances the constable acted. Experience has shown that many people are unaware of the extent of police functions and responsibilities and that an explanation provided by a senior officer may help to clarify the position.

If you are satisfied with the explanation given by the senior officer, your complaint will proceed no further. You may be asked to sign a piece of paper confirming that you are happy for this to happen. A record will be maintained of what has taken place.

Any allegation of criminal conduct would not be the subject of an attempted informal resolution of this nature.

Who will investigate my complaint?

If things are not sorted out informally your complaint will be investigated by a senior police officer - known as the investigating officer. This senior officer must have had no earlier involvement with your case.

How will my complaint be investigated?

The investigating officer will talk to:

  • you;
  • any witnesses;
  • the officer(s) you have complained about.

The investigating officer will refer an account of the investigation into your complaint to the Assistant Chief Constable, who has responsibility for complaints and conduct. In practice, he or she will generally have the title Deputy Chief Constable.

At this stage the Assistant (or Deputy) Chief Constable can:

  • decide, after considering the investigating officer's report, that no formal action is needed, or
  • deal with the officer(s) under the police misconduct procedures, or
  • if it appears that the officer(s) may have broken the law, refer the case to the Regional Procurator Fiscal.

Whatever action is taken you will be told by the Assistant (or Deputy) Chief Constable as soon as possible.

The Regional Procurator Fiscal

The Procurator Fiscal Service is entirely independent of the police and investigates allegations of criminal conduct in the public interest. Where the complainant alleges that an officer
on duty has committed a crime this will be investigated by the Regional Procurator Fiscal. The Regional Procurator Fiscal may deal with the matter personally or may delegate the investigation to an experienced deputy to act on his/her behalf and report to him/her.

Criminal proceedings

On receipt of a report from the police the Regional Procurator Fiscal will:

  • start an investigation;
  • check the evidence;
  • have someone from the Procurator Fiscal service contact you.

Your information is needed by the Regional Procurator Fiscal to assess the strength of the evidence against the officer(s) concerned. You may be asked to go to the Procurator Fiscal's office and speak to someone there.

After looking into the case the Regional Procurator Fiscal will decide whether or not to report the case to the Crown Office (the headquarters of the Fiscal Service).

What happens if a case is not reported to the Crown Office?

If the case is not reported to the Crown Office that means that no criminal proceedings will be taken. The Regional Procurator Fiscal will let you know that there are to be no criminal proceedings. The Regional Procurator Fiscal will also refer the matter back to the force and it is for the force to decide whether misconduct proceedings should be taken in respect of the officer(s).

What happens if a case is reported to the Crown Office?

Crown Counsel (senior prosecution lawyers) will consider the case and will decide whether to prosecute the police matter. The Regional Procurator Fiscal's office will let you know what Crown Counsel decide. Police officers who are accused of a crime have the same rights under law as any other person and must be treated in the same way. If the case goes to court therefore, you and any other witnesses may have to attend court to give evidence.

Police misconduct proceedings

The police officer complained about may not have committed a criminal offence but may have behaved in a fashion considered inappropriate for a police officer. In these circumstances the Assistant (or Deputy) Chief Constable may, in conjunction with the officer's immediate supervisors:

  • warn the officer about the behaviour if the matter is not serious;
  • arrange for the officer to appear at a misconduct hearing.

A misconduct hearing is a formal disciplinary tribunal chaired by a senior officer, who takes evidence. At the conclusion of the hearing the chairman reaches a decision on the allegation of misconduct. If the chairman makes a finding that an act or omission of the officer amounts to misconduct the chairman will impose a penalty from a range of penalties available to him.

What if I am not satisfied with the handling of my complaint?

If you are not satisfied with the treatment of your complaint you can write to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) explaining why you are dissatisfied. You should make your approach to HMIC as promptly as possible _ if possible within one month of the police letting you know how they have dealt with your complaint.

The address is:
HM Inspectorate of Constabulary

2 Greenside Lane, EDINBURGH EH1 3AH.

What should I say to HM Inspectors?

  • Say as much as you can about your original complaint.
  • Give the reasons why you are dissatisfied with the way your complaint was dealt with by the force.
  • Offer any further information about your case which may have come to light since you first made your complaint.

What happens then?

HM Inspectors will:

  • ask the relevant police force for the report of the original investigation into your complaint;
  • examine the report;
  • decide whether your complaint has been handled properly or not.

What happens if HM Inspectors decide that my complaint was properly dealt with in the first place?

If, after careful consideration, HM Inspectors are satisfied that your complaint has been dealt with properly they will write with their findings to:

  • you;
  • the officer(s) you have complained about;
  • the Chief Constable.

What happens if HM Inspectors decide that my complaint requires to be reconsidered?

HM Inspectors will:

  • direct the Chief Constable to reconsider the case, and may;
  • instruct the Chief Constable to take account of any further information which might have come to light after your original complaint was made.

If this happens HM Inspectors will tell you and the officer(s) you have complained about.

What happens when my complaint has been reconsidered by the Chief Constable?

The Chief Constable will report the outcome to HM Inspectors.

HM Inspectors will then tell:

  • you;
  • the officer(s) concerned;

what the Chief Constable has decided and how they view the way in which the reconsideration of your complaint has been carried out.

What is the limit of HM Inspectors' power to investigate?

HM Inspectors' powers extend only to examining how the complaint was originally investigated by the force concerned. This includes an independent examination by HM Lay Inspector of Constabulary. The investigation does not extend to re-interviewing witnesses, or to reviewing decisions of the Regional Procurator Fiscal or the courts.

What happens if I want to withdraw my complaint?

Wherever possible you should speak to the officer to whom you first made your complaint. Alternatively, you can notify the Chief Constable or HM Inspectors if you have approached them. If your complaint has led to criminal proceedings against any officer any decision to continue with those proceedings will rest with the Regional Procurator Fiscal.

How do I complain about a senior police officer?

If you wish to make a complaint about an Assistant Chief Constable, Deputy Chief Constable or Chief Constable, you should contact the relevant police authority for the force concerned. Details of who and where to write to are available in local libraries, Citizens Advice Bureaux, by contacting HMIC and by contacting the force concerned.

Who makes sure that complaints are dealt with properly?

Both the police authorities and Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary for Scotland have to keep themselves informed as to how complaints made about police officers are investigated and dealt with.

The Chief Constable will give the police authority the information it needs to check that complaints are being dealt with properly. Each Chief Constable also gives details in an annual report to the police authority of how complaints made about officers are dealt with.

As described alongside, Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary have the further power in certain circumstances to direct Chief Constables to reconsider the complaints made by members of
the public.

An assessment of how complaints are dealt with is contained in reports published by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland on the inspection of individual forces, and in the annual report of the Inspectorate.

Malicious complaints

Anyone who knowingly makes a false complaint about a police officer(s) may be prosecuted by the Procurator Fiscal (and may be liable to civil action by the officer complained about).

This leaflet is intended to help you understand how you can make a complaint against a police officer in Scotland. Details may change following the Scottish Executive consultation of the police complaint system in Scotland.

Moreover, this leaflet does not cover every detail and should not be regarded as a comprehensive statement of the law


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

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #23 

ferrisconspiracy : ARCHIVE





the Paul Ferris conspiracy

Review by Kevin Williamson 8th 2001


Imagine this situation. a book is written by a high profile, former criminal, now serving a seven-year sentence for gunrunning. the book claims that there are clear links between known gangsters in Glasgow and officers of Strathclyde Police force. the book details these links and the ensuing corruption of police officers, their role in drug-dealing, the bribes and the set-ups, as well as how this has developed. names are named.

Sensational stuff indeed. so what happens next?

Scenario A: high level and independent investigations are made into these serious accusations. the Scottish press reviews the book extensively and sends investigative reporters to speak to all concerned to ascertain the truth. if these revelations are confirmed heads are then seen to roll and the police's power to investigate themselves is abolished and an independent police complaints board is established as a result.

Scenario B: the tabloids seize on the most salacious aspects of the violence detailed in the book and spread them across their front pages. the accusations of police corruption are rubbished as "pure fantasy" in the media by the very same police force that is accused of being bent. nobody takes the book seriously because a former gangster writes it. there are no reviews of the book anywhere.
No prizes for guessing which of the two scenarios has actually happened. (scenario a was just a daft fantasy of mine.)

To date, not a single newspaper or magazine in Scotland has had the courage to review the book, the Ferris conspiracy, let alone investigate the truth or otherwise of its contents. if this is a democratic country with a so-called free press then something's obviously not quite right here. so what's going on?

Paul Ferris is no angel. by his own admission he has been involved in criminal activities that make the hairs on the back of your neck stand on end. vicious stabbings, slashings, shootings, robberies, extortion, are all graphically detailed in this book. (i suspect some of the worst excesses have been omitted.) over the years the criminal activities of Paul Ferris add up to a horrific litany of broken bodies and scars, terror and brutality. or put another way Mr Ferris is not exactly a contender for the Nobel peace prize.

Yet reading this account of ferris's life and times, co-written with investigative reporter reg McKay, even accounting for a certain swagger and "sticking it right up them", i couldn't help thinking that if this guy is making all this up about police conspiracies and corruption then he needn't bother returning to a life of crime - he's got a glittering career ahead of him as a writer of fiction. the scripts of taggart seem as straightforward as the teletubbies in comparison to the twists and turns of the elaborate plots and incredible events detailed here.

So who do we believe? the violent gangster in prison? or the police force who protect the streets of Glasgow with such public-spirited vigilance? with such public-spirited vigilance that some of their officers are known to have fabricated evidence, threatened and beaten witnesses, and perverted the course of justice to secure wrongful convictions against such innocent men as Tc Campbell and Joe Steele (the Glasgow two), as well as Stuart Gair, Raymond Gilmore, and god knows who else.

It is worth stating clearly here that all three witnesses who testified against Stuart Gair when he was sentenced to life in 1989 have since retracted their statements and have told Scottish television that their statements were only made after being blackmailed and threatened with "outing" (re: their sexuality) during interrogations by strathclyde police officers. Gair has subsequently been released on bail after 11 years in prison and is awaiting a judicial review of his case.

It is also worth stating here that the only witness against both Tc Campbell and Joe Steele subsequently retracted his statement and has been exposed as a paid liar. it has also come to light that the crown office suppressed important correspondence relating to case. these two innocent men have served 16 years in prison each and have refused to sign parole papers admitting guilt that would have them immediately released. Ferris' book names the person behind the murders of the six members of the Doyle family and the individual's collusion with officers serving in strathclyde police force. nobody has sued either author yet and the media in Scotland remains silent despite the fact that this week the Ferris conspiracy has now entered the top ten UK best sellers chart.

The real importance of this compelling book is that Ferris explains why and how all of this has happened. i didn't think i would say this but after reading the Ferris conspiracy i'm convinced that despite his previous activities Paul Ferris has done us all a favour by lifting the lid on what is happening in the rotten state of the strathclyde police force. (whether Ferris was fitted up on the gunrunning charges he was jailed for, it's hard to say, but taking all things into account it seems more than likely.)

Ferris's claims are not outlandish, they ring true because they tie in with existing knowledge of the activities of certain Glasgow police officers and their criminal associates, and they should certainly be taken seriously enough to investigate them further.

Ferris and McKay have had their say. but will anyone else have the courage to speak out and confront the surreptitious might of strathclyde police force? politicians? the judiciary? the media? or even an honest cop or two? in the event of silence we should read complicity.

Postscript: the same time as the book is published, one of the authors, reg McKay, received a phone call - number withheld - from someone claiming to be a senior police inspector in Glasgow who told McKay that a confidential internal memo has been circulated around strathclyde police force instructing officers not to buy or read this book. if this is true, it begs the question: is someone at the highest level of strathclyde police force trying to cover something up?



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

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #24 

" . . . . There's a lot can happen between now and when it goes to trial okay. Just leave it at that just now but don't ever start threatening police because like I said wee Paul very nearly went for a walk up the Campsies one night and If I thought your were gonna start playing these games I'd take you on a night fishing trip and you wont be coming back "

Dectective Sergeant Eric Mitchell, 1986...  Based at Baird st POLICE OFFICE



'I'll tell ye something else that came back. Somebody in the Drug Squad is supposed to have given somebody who's been in Russell's car - some wee guy - the stuff to plant in his car, right. At first they said they'd found it in Russell's car because they need statements. But if it goes to trial it'll be that he dropped it out in a matchbox under his motor. The wee guy that's been in Russell's motor is a tout for another Mitchell and they are claiming tout money to pay him off for Russell getting don. That's the story. Nobody knows that … you know"

Transcript of covert tape recording between PC Graham Mitchell and Paul Ferris


Graham Mithchell (no relation to the above 'Eric') was also based at Baird Street POLICE STATION.

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

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #25 

ferrisconspiracy : ARCHIVE



" Members of the Jury, you have now heard the whole evidence in the case and you have listened to persuasive argument by counsel for the Prosecution and counsel for the Defence. When I have addressed you you will retire to consider your verdicts. It is my task now to charge you, that is to give you certain directions and guidance in reaching those verdicts.

Lord Murray, 25th March 1985

It is for you to judge the credibility of those who have given evidence before you, and the reliability of the testimony, which they gave. You have to consider which witnesses to accept or reject, or what parts of their evidence you accept or reject. What you reject you will dismiss form your mind as tending to prove anything. If you conclude that something
is a lie or not to be relied upon, that doesn''t establish that a competing version
of the facts is true.


On questions of fact then, including any inferences from facts, these are vital in this case, are entirely for you to decide fairly and impartially in accordance with your oath on the evidence which has been led before you in this court."

[Lord Murray 25th March 1985]

This opening address to the jury was the beginning of the end of Paul Ferris the Thomson enforcer, the Thomson ''family'' friend, the Thomson associate.

In fact these - and the words that followed them - were the final declaration of war.That was a matter of fact.

1984 was a busy year. Thatcher was preaching greed is good. Criminals all over Britain were earning more money than ever before - and enjoying it more than ever before.

Among Glasgow''s gangster elite everyone was making money - plenty of money - and it seemed as if it would never end. You could have anything you wanted if you wanted it enough.

Money - especially the amounts that the Arthur Thompson was dealing in - is like a drug. The more you have the more you use, and the more you use the more you need.

If you can imagine an addict who will stop at nothing - smash in an old woman''s head just for the loose change in her purse - a junkie who will do anything for a fix and becomes completely corrupted by the drug.Well money is ten times more compelling.

Some people become completely corrupted by money and they will, (and have) killed friends, terrified women, threatened children, and wrecked people''s businesses and lives. That''s what gangsters do.

But some - and there are many examples - who will descend to the lowest of the low in criminal circles - and do deals with the police.

They will sell you down the river for a ten-year stretch, all for a miserable few thousand quid. No matter what you''ve been worth to them in the past, either as an earner or as a friend.

The police of course are very aware of this and take full advantage of it. Money is a powerful corruptor and men with money can buy powerful friends. The trick is to spread the weight or the whole house of cards collapses. Respect is shown on both sides and it''s a delicate, deliberate and dangerous association for both sides.

The cops make a point of always making sure that you are left owing them a favour - maybe a couple of favours, it helps make the informer believe he is ahead of the game.It evens up when they ask for a body and they always expect it to be delivered.

I had made a lot of money for myself and for the Thompson clan. I was ruthless I''ll admit, but it was the easiest way. Believe it or not fewer people got hurt than might otherwise.

I saw the chance of a Christmas bonus when Arthur Thomson asked me to recover £50,000 that another well-established Glasgow gangster ''owed'' him.

It wasn''t that they were reluctant to pay, they were refusing to pay, and in the ensuing mayhem a lot of people were very seriously hurt. Eventually one of the walking wounded made his way into London Road police station in the East End of the city and promptly collapsed in a pool of blood.

Arthur Thomson''s house in Blackhill was raided and the Serious Crime Squad were looking through all his cupboards and under his bed for Paul Ferris.

The charges ranging against me were building - up to fourteen attempted murders, serious assault, possession of firearms, discharging firearms, malicious wounding.

I met with the Thomson''s and it was arranged for me to take a short break until things could be ''sorted''. Let the blood dry and the stitches come out. People would think twice about having to have them re-inserted and keep their mouths shut.

It was with this assurance that I accepted the keys for the Thomson''s holiday home in Rothsay on the Isle of Bute, I was also given the keys of Artie Thomson''s Jag and told there was just over £1000 in the glove compartment. I was confident that it would work out just as '' Uncle Arthur '' told me it would and that I was being "well looked after"

I arrived in Rothsay ready for what I thought was a well-earned rest. I can honestly say that at that time I was 100% a Thomson man. I was creating mayhem and getting well paid for it - including it seemed, paid leave. Who needs a Union eh?

I settled into the flat, got some food and waited for my girlfriend Ann Marie McAfferty to arrive. She was six months pregnant and I was looking forward to spending some easy time together in the run up to Christmas.

The journey by train from Glasgow to the small town of Gourock on the Clyde Coast, and from there by ferry over to the coastal town of Rothsay on the island of Bute is a summer time tonic for Glaswegian''s who have used it as a recuperative bolthole since the late

I met Ann Marie as she stepped off the gangplank onto the quayside. We had a light pub lunch in one of those cosy pubs that time forgot and neither of us mentioned Glasgow other than to agree that it was good to get out of it - for a while.

We went shopping - " proper shopping " Ann Marie called it - and we were well supplied by the time we settled back into the flat. This was the life. Peace, quiet, T.V and Scotland Vs Australia highlights.

What happened next I remember in a sort of multi-speed. At times so fast it''s was a blur of sound and action, at other times ultra slow motion and completely silent. In one second I was leaning back watching the game - and almost in the same second I was on my feet and standing in the living room door looking down the hallway were armed men
seemed to just appear from the centre of an enormous explosion of banging, shouting,
crashing, and wood splintering eruption of utter chaos.

The noise died suddenly and I stood in the doorway trying to understand what had happened.What was happening? What would happen next?

But my mind was completely focused on the figure of a very tall man facing me about 15 feet away pointing a weapon. Two other men, one of whom was armed, flanked him in the narrow space, one standing half in half out of a doorway and the other man kneeling in a firing position in the shelter of another doorway.

From the rubble of noise I heard one voice say loudly and sharply " Armed police!! Stand Still!! Stand still!! Do not move!!

I was standing just inside the living room. I was wearing a T-shirt, tracksuit trouser bottoms, and no shoes. Both arms were raised out and forward of my body, palms out in an instinctive defensive posture. From somewhere an officer walked forward - gripped one of my arms at the wrist and he spun me round. At the same time my legs were kicked from under me and my body flipped into the air then slammed onto the floor. It was slick,
fast, and professional.

As I hit the floor I felt a knee take up position against my spine between the shoulder blades and press hard against it. A broad hand with strong fingers gripped my head flattened one ear against the floor and covered my other ear with the palm.

I realise now that it took only a few seconds. There was pain - but it wasn''t immense pain - and when the pressure on my head and spine came off I realised I was already handcuffed.

I turned my head from side to side to try and take in what was happening. It seemed that every time I blinked I was getting taken by complete surprise and tossed around like a fox caught dreaming by a pack of hounds. I never stood a chance.

I twisted my head and saw that the man who handcuffed me was the armed officer I had focused on at the bottom of the hall. He was very tall. Probably 6"6'' maybe more. His weapon was holstered and after handcuffing me he and two others stood back slightly.
Had 10 seconds or 10 minutes just passed? I hadn''t a clue - but an awful lot of things had happened - and they had all happened to me. My mind began to unfreeze and ''real time'' returned.

As I turned my head from the right side - looking to my left, over to the left side, looking to my right and behind me, my first firm, focused and collected memory is seeing Detective Sergeant George Dickson crouch down. Then I felt him punching a handgun into the back
of my head and I heard a wild low growl tremble his voice as he said
" Ye know whit this is ye wee bastard? ".

Once again my recollection becomes multi speed. As soon as he finished speaking I heard Ann Marie screaming a terrifying and terrified scream. I heard men shouting and moving heavily around the room, then picked out a voice ordering someone to "Get a fuckin'' WPC up here right fuckin'' now " followed by the thump-thump-thump fall of footsteps of a heavy man walking quickly down the hall and out of the house.

Ann Marie was no longer screaming but she was inconsolable. The police seemed to be at a complete loss as to how and who should cope with her. She was heavily pregnant and on the verge of hysteria.  heard myself call out " Anne Marie!! Ann Marie!! It''s all right, its all right. "

I don''t know to this day whether Ann Marie heard me say it though she did calm down, but she was still crying and pleading with them not to hurt me.

One of the policemen - I couldn''t see which one, said " Calm down ", but his voice crackled with impatience and stress and he might have been re-assuring himself as much as Ann Marie " no one is going to get hurt, everything is under control."

Well that depended on which side of the gun you were standing. I wonder if he ever thought how his wife would react, six months pregnant, if a group of armed men forced their way in to her house and put a pistol to his head as he lay on the floor. How ''calm'' would she be when one of them told her that everything was " under control ".

Somebody somewhere made a decision and I was lifted straight up from the floor by the collar, trouser waistband and by the legs then carried in a prone face down position through to the main bedroom placed on the bed and rolled over onto my back.

George Dickson told another officer to stand me up and he helped me as I slid off the bed.

Dickson stood in front of me and told me he was going to search me. I told him to go ahead - but he didn''t want my permission. He turned me round so that I stood with my back to him and ran his hands through my hair, down over my shoulders, across my back, under both arms and down my body to the waist, over my buttocks then down the back of my legs. I was staring at a uniformed officer who was staring back at me like a
stranger in a pub who thinks he might know you from somewhere.

Dickson turned me round and tried the old "looked him straight in the eye " tough guy approach.

As he began to pat me down from the front, he began at my mouth, then shoulders, then down and under my arms and across my chest and stomach. He stopped at my waistband and stepped back " Move your legs apart " then leaned forward to run his hands down my legs. As he did so his holstered pistol fell out and landed with a heavy dull thump between my feet on the carpet and he yelped, "Fuck!!"

I had just about collected my wits and decided to try my own tough guy act - I kicked his gun across the room and it landed about 4 feet away from his grasping hand.

"Aye fuck you ya arsehole - you shouldnae be allowed oot playin'' wi'' fuckin'' guns " I shouted.

He retrieved his gun and turned away as he carefully holstered it, totally ignoring me and made no attempt at retort or even to look at me.

I was surprised. I had expected a mouthful of abuse - maybe even a kick in the nuts. But he acted as if it never happened.

" One up to me ", I thought. But it was much later that the significance of the incident came to be realised. It really was ''One Up'' to Paul Ferris. But that was later.

When he resumed the search he put his hand in my pocket and withdrew my wallet containing my vehicle documents and some other personal stuff. Then - like a magician - he produced a green plastic bank cash bag and said, "What''s this then Paul?" Then
waived it at another officer and said "A bag of brown powder"

He put the bag in my wallet among the ferry tickets, personal papers and car documents,I was back to Glasgow and taken to Stewart Street Police station in time for a supper of greasy tea and two rolls with chips. Guess where that ended up?

Stewart Street jail is one of the most modern in Glasgow. The street level entrance looks like a deserted library foyer - and a notice telling troublesome callers "We don''t need you and we hope you feel the same about us" would not look out of place.

Where the old ''local nick''s'' had grime and glazed brick walls, broken windows and breath freezing chill - the new ones have overheated lung stuffing sterility and turnkey''s who look as if they are on day release from secondary school.

No names scratched on the doors or legends written in the grime of the walls.

No shouting jokes and threats and moral boosting banter to mates or fellow inmates across the way. Just silence.


I heard a muffled fumble outside my door then keys rattling in the lock and the door swung out. In the space where the door had been four policemen appeared with evidence bags and other paraphernalia.

" OK Paul, whit''s gonnie happen now is we are taking your clothes for forensic examination because we believe that you were responsible for a number of serious assaults in Glasgow, and in particular we are investigating the stabbing and attempted murder of a man we believe is known to you."


" We require you to remove your clothing including underwear and socks. We are supplying you with articles of your own clothing to wear while we hold the items you are wearing as evidence".


I stripped naked, my clothes were placed in evidence bags and I was handed a set of fresh clothes that Ann Marie McAfferty had brought with her to Rothsay.


They were confident that I had not had an opportunity to change or destroy any

contaminated clothes, and they were right, I hadn''t.

About an hour after they took away my clothes I was in front of an Identity Parade. The parade as usual was made up of a bemused Joe Public types, a couple of street smart wide boys and a couple of just-going off-duty coppers.

Not one of them - as required by law - was approximately the same age, height or colouring as me. But that isn''t particularly unusual in any ID parade

It wouldn''t have mattered anyway. As the ''wounded party'' entered the room he shouted out almost hysterically " That''s him. Number six. That''s the bastard " then his voice went high pitched and girly and he screeched,

"Your fuckin'' getting it! I''m fuckin'' doin'' you when you get out ya prick"

The two wide boys on the Parade started laughing and I couldn''t help joining them. Here was a guy who had a battalion of coppers standing in front of him challenging me to a square go and promising vengeance.

It wasn''t hilarious. But it was funny.

Positively identified I was formally charged with the attempted murder of Raymond Boner.

I slept most of the rest of the time I was in Stuart Street and was taken down to the Sheriff court on a Petition and I spent a little time with my Lawyer before going in to the Judges chambers for the Petition hearing. As they say in the papers I spoke only to confirm my name and my address and plead not guilty. Then I was taken away to the cells to await transport to Barlinnie C Hall for the statutory seven days remand prior
to another hearing at which I could apply for bail.

As my lawyer and I discussed the situation afterwards - both of us noticed that as yet no one had mentioned anything about drugs. It was my lawyer who first asked me why the Rothsay warrant was a drug warrant and not a warrant in relation to the attempted murder charge or indeed any number of other enquiries. I told him I hadn''t a clue. Which was
the truth at that point, but I also started wondering why it was the truth.

As the first week progressed once piece of good news was that Raymond Bonner''s memory returned and he realised that I was not the man who had attacked him. He contacted the police and completely retracted his statement, which had named me as the man who attacked him.

During the Identity Parade he explained, he had become "confused and emotional" - perhaps due to the painkillers - but either way, he no longer believed that I was the man who had injured him.

This made the possibility of bail even stronger and my spirits began to lift.

When I appeared the next week from remand in C hall for attempted murder - they produced the drugs charges, and I was formally charged with

1. Possession of diamorphine with intent to supply.

2. Possession with intent to supply

Later in conference with my lawyer Peter Forbes we discussed the drugscharges. I explained what had happened in relation to the "broon powder" Dickson had ''found'' in the green cash bag.

I explained that it was never at any time in my possession and DS Dickson had produced it and waived it at me before placing it among the vehicle documents he had removed from my tracksuit pocket.

I described the violence used when I was knocked to the ground, and the way I had been manhandled and bodily lifted before I was searched.

I explained that my clothes had been removed and were being checked for forensic evidence - but only in relation to the attempted murder charge.

My lawyer began arranging for an independent forensic scientist to carry out an independent examination of the clothes - specifically for any traces of Heroin.

Although bail on this second appearance in chamber had been a possibility - particularly given that Raymond Boner had retracted his statement - with the addition of the drugs charges all bets on bail were off - bail was refused and I was fully committed for trail on all charges, including, despite his retraction, the attempted murder of Boner.

In Scottish law a prisoner facing serious charges on Petition to the High Court, must be tried within 110 days. They took it almost to the wire and I lay in the untried wing of Barlinnie prison for 12 weeks before they delivered the petition to me.

It did not include the attempted murder charge, but consisted of possession of an offensive weapon, possession of Cocaine (about 1 gramme) as well as the drugs charges from Rothsay. I was already out on bail for a cocaine possession charge (personal use) but all of these outstanding charges were put collectively on the one indictment.

I tried to plead guilty to the charges out with the Rothsay charges, and fight the case on the basis of what I was not guilty of, but the prosecution declined to accept these plea''s and all the charges were put together on the Indictment.

During the trial - which lasted 16 days we successfully challenged the police account of events - including the basis of the initial search on a drugs warrant, the ''discovery'' of Heroin and the possession of Heroin.

Following a two-day detailed summing up by the judge Lord Murray the Jury retired to consider their verdict at 10:49 on the 27th March 1985.

Despite having demonstrated that evidence had been planted and that the warrant and other aspects of the arrest and discovery of evidence in Rothsay was conjured up from a conspiracy of convenience between cops and crooks - I was still a little unnerved when I met up with my lawyer in the Cell below the Court

My lawyer however, was fully confident on the outcome; saying he had much more experience of Glasgow juries than I have. Glasgow juries he had told me were renowned for their thorough approach to their duty and they would give the evidence the full and complete attention it was due.

Following a long trial - complicated by Police assertions that I was a major criminal, a danger to society and a prolific drug dealer I took only a little comfort from his confidence, and when the turnkey came and told us that the jury was returning I looked at the ashtray and - for some reason thought -

"Shit!! I''ve only smoked one cigarette"

The jury returned their verdict at 11:45 - having taken only fifty-six minutes in total to reach their verdict on trumped up charges that could have seen me falsely imprisoned for up to 10 years.

Possession of Heroin with intent
to supply. NOT GUILTY!.

Possession of Heroin. NOT GUILTY!

Breach of Bail. Act. NOT GUILTY!

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

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #26 

ferrisconspiracy : UPDATE


Paul Ferris has instructed our TEAM to post a view direct to STRATHCLYDE POLICE and his view is that he needs no apology as he would not get one and is happy enough to continue to EXPOSE their operational methods when securing a CONVICTION.


However Paul has indicated that the very least they could do is apologise to TC & Joe Steele in a very PUBLIC manner that would go some way in restoring a little bit of confidence back into the PUBLIC DOMAIN.


SILENCE is for those who have something to HIDE and the sound of SILENCE will eventually have to be replaced with WORDS although how can any words sum up the 20 YEAR fight TC & Joe had to SUFFER or are they still working on a palatable draft for them and the DOYLE family?

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

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #27 
ferrisconspiracy : VIEW
OK so its not Glasgow but some of the ways in which the POLICE operated in NY does have elements of what exactly is going on right here right now in Glasgow.
POLICE passing on information to their criminal partners.
POLICE accepting bribes and pay offs.
POLICE prepared to abuse their use of public office.
POLICE assisting 'THE LICENSEE' to keep out of jail.
Retired pair face life in jail for 'bloody betrayal'
By Edward Helmore

TWO retired New York cops who led double lives as Mafia hitmen and informers are facing life in prison.

Highly decorated officers Louis Eppolito, 57, and Steven Caracappa, 64, were living in retirement in neighbouring homes in Las Vegas when a sting operation exposed their betrayal.

The pair, both highly praised street cops, had been in the pay of Luchese crime family boss Anthony "Gaspipe" Casso, for at least four years in the 80s.

Casso called them his "crystal ball" and paid them a retainer of £2200 for tipping him off about police operations.

They also pocketed bonuses of up to £40,000 for carrying out executions or delivering his enemies to him.

Prosecutor Daniel Wenner described the case as "the bloodiest, most violent betrayal of the badge the city has seen".


US Attorney Roslynn Mauskopg said: "They perverted the shield of good and turned into a sword of evil.

"They didn't deliver us from evil. They themselves were evil personified."

Yesterday, a Brooklyn jury found the pair guilty of a string of charges. Their crimes included racketeering, conspiracy, witness tampering and obstruction of justice

They had been free on £26million bail but after the guilty verdicts, Judge Jack Weinstein revoked the bail and ordered them locked up to await sentencing next month.

Caracappa, who retired in 1992, helped establish the NYPD unit for mafia murder investigations.

Eppolito, the son of a Gambino crime family member, played a bit part in the mob movie GoodFellas and tried his hand at Hollywood scriptwriting.

He also wrote an autobiography, Mafia Cop, in which he painted himself as the honest son of a crooked family.

In one incident, they pulled over a man named Jimmy Hydell under the guise of a traffic stop, stuffed him in the boot of a car and served him up to Casso to be tortured and executed.

In another, they pulled over a diamond dealer, Israel Greenwald, made him follow them to a garage and then shot him in the head and buried his body under a concrete floor.

They earned £37,000 by murdering Edward Lino, a Gambino clan member, stopping him near JFK airport and shooting him in the head.

"These two men were not traditional mobsters' they were better," said prosecutor Mitra Hormozi. "They were not murderers who happened to be cops.

"They were able to be murderers because they were cops."

The crooked cops never met Casso but got their orders through drug dealer Burton Kaplan, who met Eppolito's cousin in prison.

Casso, known as one of the most brutal mobsters in the city, is suspected of involvement in 36 murders himself.

Jurors also heard secretly recorded tapes of the two men in Las Vegas, talking about their crimes, although neither took the stand in their own defence.

Among the government witnesses was Alfonse "Little Al" D'Arco.

He admitted to eight murders, hijacking trucks, armed robbery, arson, heroin dealing, racketeering and "every type of crime except pimping and porn, stuff like that".

He added: "When I was raised by organised crime figures, that was a no-no. That was bad stuff."

Police used Eppolito's fascination with show business to trap him in a sting.

They got an accountant, Steven Corso, to offer to introduce him to a group of movie industry players.


When Corso said the "contacts" wanted methamphetamine, Eppolito offered to supply the drugs.

In March last year, he and Caracappa were arrested in a trendy Las Vegas restaurant, Piero's, which featured in the film Casino.

After the verdicts, lawyers for the two men said they would appeal.

Bruce Cutler, who once represented mobster John Gotti, said: "It's an appearance of justice, but it's not justice."

He claimed throughout the trial that government witnesses, including Kaplan, were lying to save their necks.

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

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #28 






T.C: This is Thomas Campbell, with regards to Ice Cream Wars, so called trial.

F.C.T: Tommy, can you just run us through what happened when you were arrested?

T.C: When I was arrested, I think it was 12th May 1984, eh, I was awakened by banging at the door, I tried to answer the door - took the first lock off and the rest of the door was pushed in, jamming my toes. Police barge in, eh, hustle me into the living room, eh, begin to tear the house apart. I’m asking them what, what the charge is, what it’s about and all they’re saying is, conspiracy, conspiracy. I asked them what conspiracy, but they wouldn’t tell me anything. Eh, just tearing the house apart, eh, just emptying drawers out and tipping them onto the floor - not even searching them, they’re just wrecking the house, as if to say, eh, you know, we’re searching this, although they haven’t searched it, so just pulling drawers out, emptying the contents out onto the floor and moving onto the next drawer and so on. Eh, eventually I get them to tell me what the charge is, and at that time, they say attempted murder.


 Eh, the only thing they had taken from the house, I think it was £260, em, and from there that was it, from there into the police car. I turned around and said to the people in the house, “I’ll see you later on today”, as I thought I’d be back later on that day, eh, and from there to the police station, I see other people there, I see Thomas Lafferty there, Thomas Lafferty Junior, and his mother, my sister Agnes. I thought they were there because Thomas had done something, some kind of juvenile naughtiness or something, and that she was there with him. It turns out that they were my co-accused; they were also charged. Eh, the first charge at that time was conspiracy to further business aims, with no specific detail, eh, and then I saw Thomas McGraw, Thomas Gray, yeah I think that was everybody… and, Thomas Lafferty Senior.

F.C.T: So after you’re arrest, and you’ve been charged, were you charged with the murders at that time?.

T.C: No. That was eh… the papers… the day I was arrested, although I didn’t see the papers, later on that night, one of the police showed me a newspaper and the newspaper was saying that I had been arrested for the Doyle murders, although I hadn’t been charged, and it wasn’t anything to do with my arrest.

F.C.T: So when was the first time that you would have known that you were charged in relation to the Doyle’s?

T.C: Eh, later on that night, I was charged with something like fourteen charges - breaching the peace - nothing that was anything to do with me, eh, and the most serious charge about it was the shooting of an ice cream van. That was the, eh, it wasn’t until, I think, ten days later that I was taken down to the Sheriff Court…

F.C.T: Is this while you’re on remand?

T.C: I was on remand. Taken down to the Sheriff Court, eh, and pulled into a side room, and asked, in effect, to fit up Thomas Lafferty Junior. Eh, the officer said to me… I’m trying to remember his name - a well know name as well. Anyway, the officer said to me that eh, there were two options here. He had been given his instructions from the Procurator Fiscal. Either I sign this statement, or I myself, will be charged with murder. That eh…the statement was effectively saying that Thomas Lafferty had asked me for money, eh, to go on the run because he had murdered the Doyle family, had set fire to their door, and he wanted me to sign the statement saying Thomas Lafferty had asked me for money and had said this to me, and it wasn’t true - none of it was true, so I refused to sign it. At the point, quite agitated, telling me either I sign that statement or I’ll be charged.


Started counting down, ten, nine…a minute, I think they gave me a minute - counting it down. Eh, it was just arguing back and forward, and at the end of that he said, “bring that other bastard in here”. Brought in Thomas Lafferty and charged us with murder. He asked if we had anything to say, and I said, “No reply”. I said it out loud to let Thomas Lafferty know not to say anything. He said “No reply” as well. At that, he started scribbling on his clipboard. “No reply, no reply, you bastard - I’ll give you no reply”, as he’s scribbling down. So I realise he’s scribbling down a verbal, eh, and you can imagine the horror of that - you’ve just been charged with six murders, and if that’s not horrifying enough to realise that you’ve been falsely verballed for six murders, it means you might go to prison for it - you might actually be convicted for it if he puts down false verbal. So it was a bit of a panic at that point, eh, noticing that one of the people at the door had changed his weight - like a guard standing at eh, ‘at ease’ position, changing his weight from one foot to another and at that point, I barged through the door. Eh, another officer, Wiley, grabbed a hold of my jacket, and I dragged him out into the corridor into the Sergeant’s bar, eh, reached over the Sergeant’s bar, grabbed a hold of the inner rim. “Sergeant, Sergeant I’ve just been charged with murder.


 I want it noted that I made ‘no reply’”. The sergeant wrote down, ‘OK, you’re Thomas TC Campbell, isn’t it?’. That’s what he said, “Thomas TC Campbell, isn’t it?”. ‘CC’ he wrote down - I was watching him upside down - CC, I later found out that meant Capital Crime - and then he noted the time and ’no reply’.

F.C.T: Can you identify what Police Station that was Tommy?

T.C: This was Glasgow Sheriff Court, the old Sheriff Court.

F.C.T: You were actually taken to the Court buildings?

T.C: Yes, we were taken down from Barlinnie to court in regards to the first petition, so this was to see whether we were getting bail on the first petition. I mean, they were saying to me at the court, the police were saying to me, eh, no doubt you’re expecting to go home today, and that will be true - that is true. Because none of the charges related to me.


I mean, they really didn’t relate to me, eh, so it signified me going home. I think that was the seven days petition warrant up, eh, two, two or three days in the cells before that, so probably about ten days later.

F.C.T: Just to go back to that deal that the Police had offered you to fit up Thomas Lafferty, was it you exclusively that was offered that deal?

T.C: Oh no, no no. Everybody was offered that deal. Eh, Joseph Steele was offered that deal, eh, Gary Lane Moore was offered that deal, Thomas Gray was offered that deal - not just with Thomas Lafferty. Eh, the fit up with Thomas Lafferty wasn’t happening, eh, those deals reverted to me, so the people were being asked to say that I had said this and that I had said that, so Thomas Lafferty was taken out of the equation and I was put into his place.


It was quite common at the time - everybody spoke about the deals that they had been offered, and what it was that the police wanted them to say, and it was all pretty extreme stuff - it was all verbal confessions to another prisoner, verbal confessions to another criminal.

F.C.T: Can you define what it was that they were asking you to do in relation to all the fit ups and the deals?

T.C: What they were asking me to do, was to sign a statement - a statement already written eh, for me just to sign, to say that it was me that said it. The statement says that Thomas Lafferty approached me and asked me for money, eh, to go on the run. When I asked him what he wanted to go on the run for, he said he had set fire to the Doyle’s house, and that the police were coming after him, and he needed to escape before the police caught up with him.

F.C.T: How did you know the contents of the document?

T.C: They handed it to me to read. It was pinned to a clipboard and they turned the clipboard round for me to read, then handed me the pen for me to sign. If I sign this, I’m going straight out the door - all charges dropped and I’ll be used as a witness against Thomas Lafferty.

F.C.T: On the clipboard, did you identify whether it was typed or handwritten?

T.C: It was a police statement handwritten, eh, I asked, for instance, years and years later, I asked, I told the Commissioner about this, and said this police statement must be registered - it must be numbered. One of the things that they found was that some of the police statements were photocopied. I mean, there was another point in time, it was at Baird Street Police Station, eh, where they showed me two statements - again, they were police statements.


 I mean, formal police statement with handwritten statements on them, and these statements were effectively destroying Thomas Lafferty’s alibi, and this was the police trying to convince me that Thomas Lafferty had killed the Doyle family - Thomas Lafferty Junior had killed the Doyle family and his alibis were false, they could now prove his alibis were false. Well obviously, I know enough to know that these police statements are registered and numbered OK, and if somebody writes on a police statement, then that police statement must be accountable - they must be able to trace that statement and find it and put it in its order of number.


 So when you tell investigators about this, and they traced the statements, what they came back with was that there had been an enquiry into two statements, in a case, where two statements had shown up with the same number. This revealed that the police were photocopying blank statements, writing on them, and whatever one they got to work, they were destroying the others OK?

F.C.T: With regards to the statements Tommy, nobody is professing that you’re an angel - you have been involved in things in the past and you know police protocol….

T.C: Yes, I do understand that.

F.C.T: Would that be a key factor in you knowing exactly what the statements were, based upon the knowledge…

T.C: Yeah, yeah. Based upon the knowledge that the police had made five attempts in the past to fit me up for various things, and so therefore, I know… I’ve got a wider awareness of what the police are capable of - the way they plant evidence, the way they verbal people and the way they can bully people into signing false evidence and things like that, so I had a wider awareness of that, than most people.

F.C.T: So if this deal, that is readily available and you’ve got the experience to note these things, how tempted, or how intimidating would it be for someone that’s never had that experience?

T.C: For someone who has never been in that situation before, who would never expect these kind of things to happen, it’s, it‘s… the… total belief. The police say, “sign this statement and you walk free. Don’t sign it and you go to prison for thirty years”. Total believe that, and you must totally believe that - if you don’t totally believe that, you’re going to go to prison for thirty years. The way I looked at it was, they had tried these kind of things in the past and failed, and if anybody could reveal what they have done in this case, it would be better me doing it than my nephew because my nephew was so naïve, he would fall for every dirty trick they could do.


 Really at that point, I still did not believe that they would go through to fit people up. I knew they would fit people up for bank robberies, fit people up with drugs, fit people up with guns, fit people up for anything, but I did not believe - I was still naïve enough to believe that they would fit somebody up for murder.

F.C.T: You mentioned Thomas Lafferty Junior. Has he got a nickname?

T.C: No.

F.C.T: It’s just Thomas Lafferty Junior?

T.C: It was just Tommy, Thomas or Tam.

F.C.T: Why do you think he was the subject of the police fit up? Why was he targeted?

T.C: I think he was targeted because he’s an easy, he’s an easy target. He’s an easy target - he tells a lot of tales, tells a lot of fairy tales and things like that. He’s really quite naïve, eh, not the sharpest tool in the box, and I think the fact that he was related to me, me with an ice cream van, makes it easier, you know, for that connection.


I think he was just an easy target, he was somebody who was easy to manipulate - easy for them to manipulate. I mean, at one point, Thomas would say, for example, they’ve arrested his mother, arrested his father, arrested his uncle, me, and at one point Thomas had said to us, eh, “the police had said to me that if I sign a statement saying that I done it, they’ll get the charge reduced to culpable homicide, I which case I’ll get four years and with remission be out in two. Do you think I should sign it, because if I sign it, it means that my Uncle Tommy is going free, it means my Mum is going free and it means that my Dad is going free”.


So he thinks that he’s doing a good turn, you know. He’s in a position where he thinks he can do everybody a good turn - everybody will walk free if he confesses to something that he didn’t do, and they convince him that it’ll be a short sentence, you know, eh, so I mean the answer to that was Tam Gray said, “Did you do it?”, and he answered that, “No I didn’t fucking do it” - that kind of way, and Tam said, “Well sign fuck all then”. He doesn’t care whether he’s going free or not - he doesn’t want Thomas to sign a statement that isn’t true. His father says to him, eh Thomas Lafferty, Shadda Lafferty, eh, that’s where they made the mistake. They were talking about ’young Shadda said this, young Shadda said that’. They’ve got witnesses saying ’young Shadda’ but they never called him Shadda - his father was Shadda, not the son. So that was the fundamental mistake they made as far as I was concerned.


 So his father said to him, “What did your mum say to you?”. “My mum said don’t sign anything that’s not true just to get her free”, because they often do that. They often arrest the mother to put pressure on the child, eh, to, force the child to conform. In that case, the mother was aware of what they were capable of doing and she was just telling the son, don’t fall for that.

F.C.T: So at a very early stage, Thomas Lafferty was the focus of attention?

T.C: Thomas Lafferty was the focus of attention, eh…

F.C.T: When did that focus of attention directly focus on you?

T.C: I think when eh, let me see….it must have been because I wouldn’t go along with the fit up. It was at the point where I wouldn’t go along with it, eh, and of course, there was a lot, they were trying to do a lot of things with Thomas Lafferty, they were trying to do a lot of different things from a lot of different angles, and they later discovered that it didn’t come through.


So they were trying to get a lot of false statements from people, and they actually created the statements, and the people alleged to be responsible for the statements had gone to the police with their lawyers to make complaints that the police were writing down things, putting things in their mouths that they had never said, so all that fit up material regarding Thomas Lafferty was beginning to disintegrate, fall apart.

F.C.T: Were these complaints ever lodged?

T.C: They were lodged at the police station and with the withdrawal of the charge against Thomas Lafferty, they didn’t go any further.

F.C.T: If we could move on a bit Tommy, whilst you were on remand, you have all realised that you’ve been charged with murder, mass murder, wiping out a family - what was the impression between you all with regards to knowing that there was deal on the table, knowing that you’ve been fitted up - what was the feeling amongst you all?

T.C: It’s hard to describe… it’s like shock, it’s like something that can’t sink in to you, you just…. It’s like something that is happening to somebody else beside you, but you know, surely this didn’t really relate to me is going through your head. You can’t get it to sink into your head, it’s so hard to accept, and of course, with so many people charged all around about you, you really… you must think, they must know more than they’re saying.


 But they’re thinking the same thing about you. It’s like… I call it ‘pariah syndrome’, you know - eh, if you’re charged with ten child molestations, you can’t be charged with ten if you haven’t at least done some of them, right, so the poison is in the pariah syndrome and sets in against you - everyone looks at you as a pariah. So therefore when there’s people round about you…. I mean, I’m charged with six murders, you know - men, women and children - charged with six murders, nobody believes you.


 Nobody believes you and nobody wants to hear you. I mean, I’ve heard it - so many times that people have been charged with things, and nobody believes them if they try and say they’re innocent. So therefore, there are people round about you saying they’re innocent, it’s difficult to believe them as well, and so therefore you can understand how people outside that find it difficult to believe you.

F.C.T: How was the reaction with the cons and the prison staff in relation to the fact that there was a loss of life of…

T.C: I think in our case, it was a bit more unique than you would expect. I mean, it is quite a unique case, but it’s more unique in many ways than people expect. You would expect that people would stand against you - in any situation, the prisoners would stand against you, prison staff would mistreat you, things like that, but from the day that we entered Barlinnie, must have been dozens of prisoners, were approaching us and telling us what the police had done - the police had offered them deals for their drugs charges, to say that this one had said that, or Thomas Campbell said this or Thomas Lafferty said that.


 They were offering people to drop charges, serious charges - I mean even rape for God’s sake, you know. A man charged with rape is going to get the charge dropped if he says that TC says to him, you know, eh, I need to get a few quid together, I need to jump the country, they’re coming after me for murdering the Doyles - these kind of things. Mad verbals like that. I mean, there were too many prisoners that had been asked to do it, and nobody believed anything anymore. So when William Love did do it, the rest of the prisoners were aware of what happened, you understand? I wasn’t aware of what had happened. When I went into Barlinnie, it was the prisoners who told me what had happened, you know what I mean? In a situation like that, you would be expected to be treated like a pariah by other prisoners, but this situation wasn’t quite like that because they knew what was happening.

F.C.T: So you’re first involvement and understanding that Billy Love had accepted a deal, what was your understanding of it? Was it against you, or was it against Thomas Lafferty?

T.C: Well to me, when people are saying to me, people saying to me in the exercise yard and shouting down from the galleries, “Billy Love‘s fitting you up, Billy Love’s fitting you up”, and I’m saying, “Who’s Billy Love?”, and it turned out six months later when I saw him in court, I did recognise his face but I didn’t know his name before that. So when people are saying “Billy Love, Billy Love”…. someone can’t fit you up if you’ve never met them and you don’t know them, this is what I’m thinking is impossible.


As hard as he might try to fit me up, as hard as might co-operate with the police to fit me up, he can’t do it if he doesn’t know me. He’s got to know something about me to make his evidence credible, so I could not get it in my head. But then, people like Tommy Lafferty (Shadda) and Gary Moore would say things, “You’ll know him when you see him, you’ll know him when you see him”, you know, and I did know him when I saw him, but I just didn’t know that this guy was Billy Love. So my first eh… It’s hard to get into my head that this guy has been fitting me up, so I thought he was fitting me up for something, but I didn’t know he was fitting me up for the murders - I thought he was trying to fit me up for the Ice Cream war, but I didn’t actually know he was fitting me up for the murders.

F.C.T: When was the first time that you read Billy Love’s statement?

T.C: That would have been after receipt of the Indictment, I would say, about two weeks before going to court, before the trial started.

F.C.T: Can you tell us your reaction to it?

T.C: I was absolutely horrified, it was absolute horror. Let me explain something. There was a point where, with my Counsel and my Solicitor, where they read out the statement of a police officer, a Sergeant Ferguson, who used to be in the Serious Crime Squad.


Now they read out his statement and the statement covered about ten years of mayhem right, regarding Campbell, eh, regarding me, and it talks about all these crimes where I was followed at this point and under surveillance at that point - names all the dates, times, places of the surveillance and all the things I was thought to have done, or accused to have done, and there must have been a 35 page statement of crimes that I was alleged to have committed and never been convicted for. And when that statement was read to me by my Counsel, I couldn’t help but laugh, right, now all of a sudden my Counsel is horrified because these are serious crimes here, right, that he is talking about, so my reaction to that was, sorry, I know it’s not funny but the funny thing to me is, is that I was serving a ten year sentence throughout that period, right.


 All these times that he has mentioned, all these times and places where I was followed and seen, I was actually in prison serving a ten year sentence as a Young Offender. So all this was absolute pure garbage, and you can understand why I am laughing, because I can see it’s garbage and I could see it so easily disproven.


 Right, now, in the same strength when you get the statement of Billy Love, it’s so alien, right, like all these….like this statement of all the things I’m supposed to have done, and so alien, that it seems to you to be totally unbelievable, that surely it isn’t going to go anywhere - it can’t go anywhere. I mean, it’s horrifying to hear and see somebody saying this, you know what I mean? It’s horrifying and it’s frightening - it’s terrorising, right, but at the same time, you’ve got a…like a drowning man will grasp at a straw - psychologically, there’s something there that tells you, don’t worry about this because it’s not true, it can’t happen, you know what I mean? It’s not true, it can’t come into reality - it can’t enter the dimension of reality, it must remain as a fantasy and you know, something protects you psychologically from the shock, if you know what I mean.

F.C.T: So the police surveillance report, and your laughter, with regards to the fact that you were spending a ten year sentence throughout the duration of this timescale, was that ever used in evidence?

T.C: The officers called in evidence was cross-examined but wasn’t examined on it, wasn’t questioned on it, so that meant that that statement was lodged as evidence but the Crown did not ask him the questions. I think, eh, Counsel’s first duty is to the Crown - I think Counsel had said to the Crown, “If you take this further and you will be in trouble because look at his previous convictions, and see how it matches up with what he is saying in previous convictions but not a ten year sentence at a certain point in time”, so although he was called, he wasn’t asked to go into anything to do with this but what I was annoyed about was the statement was lodged as evidence.

F.C.T: So if we go back to the Billy Love statement, when were you first made aware of that? Was it Counsel that read it out to you….?

T.C: This would be… Counsel read it out about two weeks before the trial, eh, and it seemed like rubbish anyway, I mean, it seemed like a piece of false verbal, eh, one person upon another and it wasn’t any kind of strong evidence at all. I mean, it’s horrifying and frightening to look at and it blackens your name, eh, but we were, I was confident that when we went to court and he said these things he would be caught out, he would be shown up to be a liar, and in fact, he was shown up to be a liar.


 But that was kinda…although he was shown up to be a liar, that was destroyed by the Trial Judge - the Trial Judge boosted his credibility in saying how brave, how terrific a person and witness he was and all that.

F.C.T: If we could just jump forward to Billy Love’s actual statements that he retracted to your Solicitor John Carroll, he gives an impression of the pressure he was put under with regards to the statement. Was this similar to deal that you were speaking about earlier?

T.C: It’s the same thing that they do to all people in these kind of situations - if they’ve got case… I mean, one time, the Serious Crime Squad was known as the Serious Fit Up Squad. If the ordinary local police or CID cannot convict somebody, or cannot get an arrest for a serious crime, they call in the Serious Crime Squad - they don’t need to call them in if they can solve the crime themselves, but if they can’t solve it, they call in the Serious Crime Squad because the Serious Crime Squad are the people who do the fitting up right, so they’ll get someone who has the weakest alibi and with previous convictions, and just plant the evidence on them.


 Right, now, in the same way, if you take somebody, if you take somebody who is trapped in a corner - he’s maybe got two children, or he’s maybe getting married or his girlfriend’s pregnant - you know, he’s got a domestic crisis. I mean, putting them in prison creates a domestic crisis - he might be going to get married, he might have two children, Christmas might be coming up and he’s going to go away for 20 years - let’s say for armed robbery or something, maybe ten years. Eh, ten years is a long time for somebody, for anybody at all, so to be taken away for ten years and locked up, and somebody comes and says to you, “Sign this paper and you walk free”, it’s you know, it’s the devil’s deal isn’t it? I mean, as the Devil says, sign here, sign the contract and you get your life back, and people go for it - they’ve got to go for it.

F.C.T: In relation to Billy Love’s statements and the police visits, to Billy, on a canvassing mission, were they were actually saying that everybody in there were asking the same questions….?

T.C: Yes. There are people…I mean, we’ve got dozens of statements that were taken into the police station - people were approaching me and telling me they were taken into the police station - the police were asking them to say that I said this, or I said that, and these charges and that charge would be dropped, and people would be out on bail. Now people in the prison themselves, in the prison, were also taken up one by one and again given same deal - their charge would be dropped, their charge would be reduced, these kind of things, and it was all to do with verbals, it was all to do with saying this one said that… it was all usually me - say that TC Campbell said this or TC Campbell said that, that incriminates me and your charge will be dropped.

F.C.T: So the background of all this, and the information that you gleaned before the trial, what was your impression Tommy, with regards to what was going on?

T.C: Well I was horrified. I mean, I can see this as normal - this is the way the police normally carry on, only it was much heavier than normal. But it was the same system they were using - the same fit up situation, only they were given more leeway, they were given no restrictions upon them - all that had been lifted, so they could beat people up all they like. I mean, it wasn’t uncommon to take people in for six hours, move them to another police station, then move them again to another station - effectively kidnap people - moving them for six hours, actually taking them in the back door and not registering them at the Sergeant’s desk, so when people came looking for them, they move them to another police station. They do that on odd occasions, but in this case, they were doing it universally.

F.C.T: The first time Tommy, that you sat down in the dock and the charges were read out, how did you feel then?

T.C: It feels as if somebody has hit you with a bucket of shit. It’s horrifying - it’s frightening and it’s horrifying. I don’t know if I’ve got the right to say it, but to me it’s like an insight into a rape victim - how a rape victim must feel to be violated. It felt like violation, you know? It felt as thought your soul was being soiled and violated. It was just absolute horror… just horror and disgust right through, right into the soul, you know. And rage, I mean… You can be pushed so far, you can be horrified so far, until it touches a point where they’ve gone beyond, all semblance of decency and normalcy. It touches a rage in you that just makes you angry.

F.C.T: The first day is crucial, purely because of, first of all, what you’ve experienced, then you’re removed from court, then you’re taken back to Barlinnie on remand, what was your first thought that night of the start of the trial?

T.C: Pantomime. Before I went to court, I went downstairs to the court to the cells to go into the van to be moved to Barlinnie, I knew I was in serious trouble - because I knew that I could get a fair trial at the High Court right. It’s not always easy, but I knew it that it could be done, with the right Counsel, fighting for your rights, as it could be done - you can get a fair trial. As I was going down the stairs, I thought, this is a pantomime - it’s not a trial, it’s a pantomime. This is nothing but tricks, this is nothing but playacting, this is eh, this is a farce - this is not a trial going on here, this is a farce and everybody knows it.

F.C.T: Could you sum up the public feeling and perception due to the media that was flying out?

T.C: Well, the media has me down as the Ice Cream War Baron, Ice Cream Killer… I mean, I remember a time where a girl, I think she was about nine or something reading a newspaper and it said something about ‘Ice Cream Killer Thomas TC Campbell’ and she looked at me with pure hatred in her eyes and asked, “Did you murder ice cream?”, because the headline has said ‘Ice Cream Killer’. “Did you murder ice cream?”. Now, that’s a child’s reaction, the adult…I mean, the general public would have just shot me. The kind of press that I was getting, I would’ve been executed on sight. If I had of walked out of that court, I would have been strung up by a mob, because, I mean… tried and convicted in the press before it went to court, it turned me into a monster before I even appeared in court.

F.C.T: The jury, although meant to be impartial, do you think they were affected by public opinion?

T.C: Absolutely. They were affected by the press, without any doubt about it. The press were writing a different trial, to me they were writing a different trial - I mean, I’m watching a trial , and reading it in the papers the next day, and it’s not the same trial. So it was totally prejudiced, totally warped, and something totally different.

ferrisconspiracy: UPDATE - Next installment will be available to read next Friday at 6pm.

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

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #29 

One of the biggest police forces in Europe has had its fair share of controversy and corruption over the last four decades so what is it doing now in light of fresh criticism over the way in which they handled the case best known as the 'Ice cream Wars' that resulted in the mass murder of six members of the Doyle family and the way they clearly conspired to fabricate two innocent men almost 20 years ago.

Some people say that Strathclyde police are all corrupt but that is simply not the case although I will concede that corruption within this are was rife during the dark ages of Charlie Craig's reign there were a few honest police still around that could have put a stop to it but did nothing.

Here is what the trial judge said to the jury that sat on the Doyle case in 1984:

'You have the evidence of the detectives themselves to whom these allegations were put and who denied them. You have to choose. It is only if you accept the evidence of the accused and to others whom I have referred that you could agree with Mr Macauley's submission.


 If you do you must consider what follows is that you are saying that not one or two or four but a large number of detectives have deliberately came here to perjure themselves, to build a false case against an accused person, and they have carried this through right to the end; a conspiracy of the most sinister and serious kind.


 They have formed this conspiracy to saddle the accused wrongly with the crimes of murder of a horrendous nature. If so, it involves their making up and persisting in a concocted story, concocted statements attributed wrongly, falsely to the accused. Now, what do you prefer, ladies and gentlemen? It is up to you……'

The prosecution led by Michael Bruce QC, (now Lord Marnoch) sat back and did nothing other than protect his police witnesses and must have been mightily relieved to hear the words of the trial judge:
'Now, what do you prefer, ladies and gentlemen? It is up to you……'

Now with the successful appeal of both Campbell and Steele last year those very same words will come back to haunt not only the police who committed whole scale perjury during the trial but also the Crown themselves for allowing it to take place that has become the biggest miscarriage of justice that Scotland has seen to date.

DS Norrie Walker, senior officer in charge of the mass murder case committed suicide four years after the trial and by all accounts was an honest cop who could not live with the burden that the wrong people were accused for the Doyle murders and left behind a suicide note.

His police colleges denied there was a suicide note but that did not prevent the Walker family contacting Campbell to say that he did leave one. I wonder what the contents were and some people including myself are genuinely saddened that someone no matter what their profession was took their own life because of the actions of others, especially fellow officers.

If Strathclyde police find it hard to issue a formal apology to either Campbell or Steele they should at least consider the Walker family for he too was a victim and what do they now tell the surviving members of the Doyle family?

The worry that I have is that there are more people still held in prison that are innocent and the SCCRC know who they are most importantly so does the police.

People talk of respect on the streets for law and order which is great although the reality is that if the vast majority of the public were aware of what the police have been doing and getting away with would be appalled is there any real great surprise that people like me don't trust them.

My message is simple and clear, I have nothing to loose or gain only to high light the facts as best I can, its up to you the individual to ask yourself who do YOU want to believe?

If Tony Blair can apologise for the convictions of those who spent decades behind bars wrongfully convicted for the bombing campaigns in London during the 1970s surely Strathclyde police have an easier job on their hands or is there some more sinister reason why they can't do the same? Only they will know the answer to that one.

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

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #30 











(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.




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

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.