The Ferris Conspiracy Forum
Sign up  |   |   |  Calendar

  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 4      1   2   3   4   Next

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 3,165
Reply with quote  #1 

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


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












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


Courtesy of John Carroll & Co Solicitors.


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


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


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


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


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


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


LOVE: Yeah.


DOUGLAS:  How old are the kids now?


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


DOUGLAS: How did you know em, Shadda Lafferty?


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


DOUGLAS:  The major?


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


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


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


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


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


JOHN: Right, OK.


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


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


LISA: Right.


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


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


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


DOUGLAS:  And he never asked you?


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


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


LOVE:  Never asked me to do anything at all.


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


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


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


LOVE:  We had a mask on, yes.


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


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


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


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


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


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


DOUGLAS:  How many times did you fire?


LOVE:  Just once.


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


LOVE:  To frighten them.


LISA:  To frighten the people in the van?


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


JOHN: Yes.


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


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


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


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


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


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


DOUGLAS:  We never asked that…


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


DOUGLAS:  Who’s car was it?


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


DOUGLAS:  Do you know what happened to it?


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


DOUGLAS:  What did you do with the shotgun?


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


JOHN:  Turned over by whom?


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


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


LOVE:  That’s it.


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


LOVE: That’s it.


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


LOVE: The fire happened.


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


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


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


LOVE: Oh you mean in Barlinnie.




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


(If you would like to reply to this statement please use the 'Thomas (TC) Cambell and Joe Steele post as this section has been locked) 


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

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 3,165
Reply with quote  #2 

This is a continuation from PART 1:


DOUGLAS: You were denying all knowledge of…


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


LISA: That is…


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


LISA:  They suggested that you…


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


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


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


DOUGLAS:  That was…


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


DOUGLAS:  Was that the Saturday before you were arrested?


LOVE:  That was the Saturday before I was arrested.


DOUGLAS:  So that was Saturday 23rd March?


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


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


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


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


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


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


LOVE:  So that makes it  the Friday, OK.


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


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


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


LOVE: Quite an alibi.


DOUGLAS:  Complicated abibi with lots of witnesses.


LOVE: Yeah.


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


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


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


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


DOUGLAS:  That was it.


LOVE:  Yeah.


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


LOVE: Yes,


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


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


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


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


DOUGLAS: But he never actually said that?


LOVE: Never.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


DOUGLAS: What happened?


LOVE: Got not proven.


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


LOVE: Yeah.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


LOVE: That’s what I don’t know.


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


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


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


LOVE: Yeah.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 3,165
Reply with quote  #3 

This is a continuation from PART 2:


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


DOUGLAS: Known hard men or anything like that?


LOVE: No, no.


DOUGLAS: Just an ordinary family?


LOVE: That’s it.


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


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




DOUGLAS: In your opinion….

LISA: Can I just check one thing first?




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


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


LISA: Right.


LOVE: And that’s where he drinks.


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


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


LISA: It was just supposed to be a night?


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


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




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


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


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


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


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


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


LISA: Right.


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


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


LOVE: Right.


LISA: Why do people do that?


LOVE: Frighten.


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


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


LISA: Right.


DOUGLAS: What would you call it?


LOVE: I don’t know….


DOUGLAS: A warning?


LOVE:….a message.


DOUGLAS & LISA: A message?


LOVE: That’s it.


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


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


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


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


JOHN: Were you telling the truth?




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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


LOVE: I was in Perth prison.


DOUGLAS: For another charge?


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


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


LOVE: That’s right.


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


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


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


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


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


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


JOHN: Was Kelly reading this….?


LOVE: He was reading….


JOHN: Was he reading it out loud or what?


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


JOHN: Talking to you about the contents?


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


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


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


JOHN: How did you know that?


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


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

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 3,165
Reply with quote  #4 

This is a continuation from PART 3:


JOHN: Who provided you with that information?


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


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


LOVE: …Detective Sergeant Willie Kelly.


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


JOHN: Can’t remember.


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


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


LISA: Uh huh.


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


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


LOVE: That they were all found guilty.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


DOUGLAS: So it preys on your mind ever since?


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


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


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


DOUGLAS: The Glasgow Herald….


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


DOUGLAS: In the Glasgow Herald office.


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


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


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


DOUGLAS: Liaison, liaison.


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


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


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


JOHN: When you wrote the letter retracting….


LOVE: Yeah.


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


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


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


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


JOHN: Are you on to any threat just now?


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


DOUGLAS: Why have you decided to do it again?


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


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


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


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


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


DOUGLAS: Because Mr Carroll’s investigating and….


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


JOHN: Did they ever give….


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 3,165
Reply with quote  #5 

This is a continuation from PART 4:


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


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


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


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


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


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


JOHN: Right.


LOVE: Is that what you call it yes?


JOHN: Deferred sentence for 12 months….


LOVE: Yes.


JOHN: Were you released from the court then?


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


LISA: Is that when you phoned Mr Walker?


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


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


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


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


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


LISA: Craig didn’t eh, suggest anything?


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


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


LOVE: That’s it, yes.


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


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


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


LOVE: Yes, Pitt Street.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


LOVE: No, no other locations.


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


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


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


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


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


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


JOHN: Are you talking about the police?


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


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


LOVE: That would be the cops in Glasgow.


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


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


JOHN: Did you know anything about shotguns and drugs?


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


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


LOVE: That’s the one I used, yes.


DOUGLAS: Did you go back to Garthamlock?


LOVE: Yes.


DOUGLAS: Did you do that?


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


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


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


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


LOVE: That’s it, that’s it.


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


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


DOUGLAS: A cup of tea, yes…


LOVE: In a nice hotel room.


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


JOHN: Do you want to date that Doug….


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


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




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

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #6 

This POST has been LOCKED although you can reply direct through the TC Campbell and Joe Steele debate.

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

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #7 

ferrisconspiracy : UPDATE


Here is PART 2 : (uploading delay due to Paris Riots) 

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

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 3,165
Reply with quote  #8 







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


W.McD.L: Yes I do.


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


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


W.McD.L: That’s right, yes.


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


W.McD.L: 29.9.59.


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


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


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


W.McD.L: Yes.


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


W.McD.L: That’s correct, yes.


J.C: Were you  acquitted of that charge?


W.McD.L: That’s right, yeah.


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


W.McD.L: That’s correct, yeah.

J.C: Do you remember how long before?


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


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


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


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


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


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


W.McD.L: That’s correct, yeah.


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


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


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


W.McD.L: No.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


W.McD.L: No.


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


W.McD.L: The very next morning.


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


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


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


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


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


W.McD.L: Yeah.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


W.McD.L: Nothing at all.


J.C: That’s at that first meeting?


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


J.C: Are these the same two?


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


W.McD.L: Yeah.


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


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


J.C: What wasn’t truthful about it?


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


W.McD.L: That’s correct, yeah.


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


W.McD.L: Yeah.


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


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

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 3,165
Reply with quote  #9 

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.



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

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 3,165
Reply with quote  #10 

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.


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

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #11 

ferrisconspiracy : UPDATE


The SECOND STATEMENT of William Love is now on show live to the PUBLIC that unfortunately you have been denied and will not read the FULL version outside this website we have posted the FULL VERSION FOR YOU ALL TO READ TODAY.


The reason is that despite the best efforts of others to have this information kept out of the PUBLIC DOMAIN is due to the lack of PUBLIC CONFIDENCE in the way the POLICE have CONSPIRED WITH EACH OTHER and there is SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE to merit an inquiry into the way the case was handled even by the PROSECUTION SERVICE and CROWN OFFICE.


Are these two statements the reason why TC & Joe Steele spent 20 years behind bars after being FITTED-UP by the POLICE!




NOW THEY ARE NAMED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN PUBLIC. cannot give you the TRUTH we can deliver the FACTS then it is a matter who you personally believe that counts.


We look to our members and surfers alike as a CYBER JURY so please fell free to post your own opinion based on the EVIDENCE that we have provided for you thus far.


However there will be more information to follow .........................

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

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #12 

ferrisconspiracy : UPDATE


There will be an unpublished interview EXCLUSIVE to in relation to his 20 YEAR FIGHT to clear his name.


(upload due for 12:00 GMT TODAY)

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

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 3,165
Reply with quote  #13 


Lord Justice Clerk

Lord MacLean

Lord Macfadyen


Appeal Nos: XC956/03, XC959/03, XC958/03


delivered by


in the references by


in the cases of




For Campbell: Bell, QC, Shead; Beltrami Berlow, Glasgow

For Steele: Gebbie, Miss McColl, McLaughlin; McClure Collins

For Gray: Wheatley, solicitor advocate, Macdonald, solicitor advocate; McClure Collins

For the Crown: Mulholland AD, solicitor advocate, Balfour, advocate; Crown Agent


17 March 2004

I Introduction

The references

[1] The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (the Commission) has referred to us the convictions of Thomas Campbell, Joseph Steele and Thomas Gray at Glasgow High Court on 10 October 1984. In each case the Commission considers that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred and that it is in the interests of justice that the reference should be made.

The ice cream wars

[2] These cases arise from the Glasgow ice cream wars of the 1980s. At that time rival sellers used violence and intimidation to win control of the routes of ice cream vans in the outskirts of the city. In the east end of Glasgow the principal van operators were Marchetti and Fifti Ices. Campbell and members of his family were associated with Fifti Ices. Andrew Doyle, known as Fat Boy, then aged 18, drove a Marchetti van. It seems that he had resisted attempts to intimidate him.

The shooting of Andrew Doyle's van

[3] On 29 February 1984 Andrew Doyle was working in his van, with his assistant Anne Wilson, in the Garthamlock area. At about 8 pm he stopped the van in Balveny Street. A red Volvo drew up beside the van. A masked man with a shotgun got out of the car and fired two shots through the windscreen.

The murder of the Doyles

[4] On 16 April 1984 Doyle's home at Bankend Street, Ruchazie, was set on fire. He and five members of his family, one of them a baby, were burned to death.

The convictions

[5] Campbell, Steele and Gray were tried with Thomas Lafferty, John Campbell and Gary Moore on an indictment containing sixteen charges, all relating to the ice cream wars. These references concern only charges (9) and (15).

[6] Charge (9) was a charge of attempted murder relating to the shooting of Andrew Doyle's van. On this charge Campbell was convicted of assault to danger of life and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. Gray was convicted of attempted murder and sentenced to 14 years imprisonment.

[7] Charge (15) was a charge of murder relating to the deaths of the Doyles. It charged Campbell, Steele, Gray and Moore with having committed the murder while acting along with Joseph Granger (otherwise Grainger). The charge against Moore was withdrawn at the end of the trial. Gray was acquitted by direction of the judge on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. Campbell was convicted as libelled and sentenced to life imprisonment, with a recommended minimum period of 20 years imprisonment. Steele was convicted as libelled and sentenced to life imprisonment.

II The cases against Campbell, Steele and Gray

The case against Campbell - charges (9) and (15)

[8] The Crown case was that Campbell was guilty art and part of the shooting and of the murders because he had planned them.

[9] The crucial witness for the Crown on both charges was William Love. Like most of the principal personalities in these cases, Love had a criminal record. On his own admission, he had been directly involved in the shooting. On 25 March 1984 he was arrested and charged with an armed robbery at a filling station. He was remanded in custody. He was in custody on the date of the murders. He was later interviewed by the police. On 9 May 1984 he was precognosced on oath. Later that day, he was allowed bail on the armed robbery charge. On 12 July 1984 he appeared on petition on other charges and was remanded in custody. Later in July he was acquitted on the robbery charge. He was still in custody on the other charges when he gave evidence at the trial.

Charge (9)

[10] There were two sources of evidence against Campbell on this charge. The first was the evidence of Love. Love gave evidence as a socius. He said that he drove the Volvo to the locus, but that Gray had fired the shots. He said that some time later, in the Barge public house, Campbell had thanked him for the "message" that he had done in driving the car and said that he would square up with him later. The second source of evidence was the police evidence of a statement allegedly made by Campbell at the time of his arrest, which incriminated him in both the shooting of the van and the murders. We shall discuss this later.

Charge (15)

[11] There was no evidence that Campbell was at the locus when the fire was started. The Crown relied on three sources of evidence. The first was the evidence of Love. Love said that in March 1984 in the Netherfield public house he overheard a conversation between Campbell, Steele, Gray, Granger and Duncan Moore. Campbell and Gray spoke about setting fire to Fat Boy's door to give him a fright. Steele was listening and was saying "aye" as if agreeing with the proposal. There were several others standing round at the time, all of them either nodding or saying "Aye, aye." The second source was the statement allegedly made by Campbell to which we have referred. The third was the finding in Campbell's house of a briefcase allegedly containing a map on which Bankend Street was marked with a circle with a cross inside it, apparently at the location of Andrew Doyle's house. The advocate depute accepts that this element of the evidence was not crucial.

[12] Campbell's defence was that he was at home with his wife on the night of the shooting and on the night of the fire. He alleged that Love had fired the shots at Doyle's van. Love had lied to avoid prosecution. The police had fabricated the evidence of his alleged statement and had planted the map in his briefcase. On the day of his arrest, Detective Chief Inspector Dunwoodie had told him that he was to be fitted up for the murders.

[13] Campbell's alleged statement constituted corroboration of Love on both charges (9) and (15). Counsel were agreed that but for the alleged statement, there was no case against Campbell on either charge. That takes us to the police evidence. It is the central issue.

The police evidence against Campbell

[14] On 12 May 1984 Campbell was arrested at his home by Detective Inspector William McCafferty, now deceased, Detective Sergeant Andrew Hyslop, Detective Constable Alexander Geddes and Detective Constable Ian Cargill and taken to Easterhouse Police Station. He was arrested on a petition warrant that related only to the shooting incident.

[15] DI McCafferty said that he cautioned Campbell and that Campbell then said "I only wanted the van windaes shot up. The fire at Fat Boy's was only meant to be a frightener which went too far." He noted this statement in his notebook at the time. When they arrived at the police station, he did not confer with DC Geddes regarding the statement. He did not report the statement to the officer in charge of the enquiry, Detective Superintendent Norman Walker, until the following day.

[16] DS Hyslop said that he had noted the reply as soon as it was made. DC Geddes said that Campbell had made the reply. He gave evidence about it without reference to his notebook. Both officers spoke to the reply in identical terms, except that they referred to "windows" rather than "windaes"; but in our view nothing should be made of that.

[17] DC Cargill spoke to the same statement in identical terms, except that he spoke of the windows being "shot out." He said that the officers had not compared their notes on their return to the police station.

[18] The officers' notebooks have all been destroyed; but the Commission has recovered the officers' police statements. We may reasonably assume that these statements correctly transcribed the entries in the notebooks.

[19] DI McCafferty's statement notes Campbell's alleged words as follows: "I only wanted the van windaes shot up, the fire at fat boys was only ment (sic) to be frightener which went too far." DS Hyslop's statement notes Campbell's words in almost identical terms, including the omission of the apostrophe in "boy's" and including the misspelling of the word "meant" but with the insertion of "the" before "fat boys". DC Geddes' statement says that Campbell said "I only wanted the van windaes shot up, the fire at 'fat boys' was only meant to be a frightener which went too far." DC Cargill's statement says that Campbell said "I only wanted the van windaes shot up, the fire at the 'fat boys' was only meant to be a frightener which went too far."

[20] DS Hyslop and DC Geddes were not asked whether the arresting officers had compared their notes. The Commission interviewed Mr Hyslop and Mr Geddes. Mr Hyslop, now retired, said that to the best of his knowledge the police officers had not compared notebooks and that that would have been inappropriate. Mr Geddes, now a Detective Inspector, could not recall if the arresting officers had compared notes, but he said that normal practice was not to do so and that it would have been inappropriate to copy a statement from another officer's notebook. The Crown has re-precognosced the three surviving officers. They confirm that each officer recorded the statement independently and that they did not compare their notebooks.

[21] Campbell denied that he made the statement. His denial was corroborated by his partner, Mrs Elizabeth Donaldson, who said that she was present when he was arrested.

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

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 3,165
Reply with quote  #14 

Continuation from previous post:


The case against Steele - charge (15)

[22] There were three sources of evidence against Steele. The first was the evidence of Love about the conversation in the Netherfield, to which we have referred. The Crown proposition was that in that conversation Steele was assenting to a plan to start a fire at Andrew Doyle's house.

[23] The second source was the evidence of William Ferguson who said that a few months after the fire he overheard a conversation in the Barge public house between Steele and Moore in which Moore said to Steele that it was an easy £300 he got for torching a cellar and that Campbell would see him alright. Steele had said something that he had been unable to hear. Ferguson's evidence was confused and unsatisfactory. He was unwell. He suffered from a heart condition and was brought to court from hospital. He kept changing the pronouns in his account of the conversation. He referred to Moore as having said that Campbell would see "them" alright, see "you" alright and see "us" alright. He spoke only to what Moore had said. In re-examination, he said that his impression was that both Steele and Moore were to get the £300.

[24] The third source was the police evidence of an incriminating statement allegedly made by Steele while he was being taken in a police car to Easterhouse Police Station. In this case, too, the police evidence is the central issue.

The police evidence against Steele                    

[25] Steele, like Campbell, was an experienced criminal. On 1 June 1984 Detective Inspector McKillop, now deceased, and Detective Sergeant Stewart Clark arrested him at his home. Detective Constable Geddes and Detective Constable Andrew Grainger remained outside. Steele was cautioned and replied, according to DI McKillop and DS Clark, "I thought you would have been here before this." DS Clark said that he noted this reply in his notebook at once.

[26] Steele was taken by car to Easterhouse Police Station to be interviewed. DC Geddes drove the car. DI McKillop sat in the front passenger seat. Steele sat in the rear between DS Clark and DC Grainger. According to DS Clark, DC Grainger and DC Geddes, just as the car was drawing away, Steele said "I'm no' the one that lit the match." According to DI McKillop, he said "I am no' the one that lit the match." When Steele said this, DC Geddes stopped the car and noted Steele's remark in his notebook. DI McKillop did not make a note of it at the time. Neither of the officers in the rear of the car made a note because, they said, they were squashed. Why DI McKillop did not note Steele's remark at the time has never been properly explained. DI McKillop, DS Clark and DC Grainger said that they noted the remark in their notebooks when they reached the police station. After Steele made the remark in the car, DI McKillop either cautioned Steele or reminded him that he was still under caution. According to DI McKillop, he replied "I'm saying fuck all else." DI McKillop said that he wrote these statements in his notebook from memory on arrival at the police station.

[27] Steele was then interviewed at the police station by DI McKillop and DS Clark. DS Clark took notes during the course of the interview. DI McKillop did not. He said that he made notes of the interview in his notebook later. DS Clark said that in the course of the interview DI McKillop told Steele that he knew that Steele had made a statement to the police that Campbell had asked him to set the Doyles' house on fire. DC Clark said that Steele replied "I cannae admit that. If I said that in court I would get fucking killed." DI McKillop was not asked about this.

[28] All four officers insisted that they did not discuss the first of the remarks made by Steele in the car. They denied that they had colluded in their evidence about it.

[29] Steele said that on the night of the fire he was in bed with 'flu at his mother's house. He said that the evidence of the police and of Ferguson was false.

The evidence of Joseph Granger and Alexander Reynolds - charge (15)

[32] Joseph Granger, with whom those accused of charge (15) were alleged to have acted, was led as a Crown witness. He did not speak to the precognition that he had given to the Crown. He gave no evidence of any value to the Crown case. The advocate depute put to him that on 23 and 25 May he had given statements to the police that were inconsistent with his evidence on oath. Granger admitted that he had signed a police statement dated 25 May, but he said that the police had made it up and that he had been forced to sign it by means of bullying and violence. He denied that the contents were true. The trial judge warned Granger of the consequences of not telling the truth on oath. The advocate depute took him through the substance of the statement dated 25 May, as he was entitled to do (cf. Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975, s. 147). He put it to Granger that in his statement he had told the police that before the fire he and others had gone with Campbell in a car driven by Gray to the side of the motorway opposite Andrew Doyle's house. Campbell had then pointed out the house. A week later, he was picked up by Campbell, Gray, Steele and Moore in the same car. Campbell said that they were going to Fat Boy's house to burn his door. Gray parked the car near a wall in the street next to where Andrew Doyle lived. They all got out of the car. Campbell and Gray stood at the wall. Steele, Granger and Moore walked to the Doyles' close. Moore was carrying a petrol container. Moore and Steele went up the close while Granger stayed at the close mouth and kept a lookout. He could see Campbell and Gray standing at the wall. A few minutes later, Moore and Steele came downstairs and all of them got back into the car.

[33] If Granger had given evidence along these lines, his evidence would have been highly incriminating against all four accused. The Crown called two police officers who said that Granger had made the statement dated 25 May and that they had not used violence or threats to make him give it. They did not speak to the contents of the statement.

[34] The questions that the advocate depute put to Granger about the terms of the 25 May statement were not of course evidence against any of the accused; but the mere asking of the questions was highly prejudicial to them.

[35] Another Crown witness, Alexander Reynolds, failed to speak to a police statement dated 26 May that he was alleged to have made. He too said that the police had forced him to sign it by means of violence and threats. If Reynolds had given evidence along the lines of that statement, he would have incriminated Campbell, Gray and Moore.

III The trial judge's charge

[36] The trial judge dealt with the credibility and reliability of the police officers in the context of Campbell's line of defence. He said the following.

"The credibility and the reliability of the witnesses whom you heard are matters for you. You have to decide who you believe, where there is a conflict on the evidence. Now, in this case an attack has been made by counsel on the credibility of Love, and Ness, and many of the detective officers involved in investigating these crimes. I have already given you a direction upon the evidence of Love; you have to consider whether you are to accept Love's evidence which incriminates some of the accused. So far as the detectives are concerned, Mr Macaulay delivered a vehement and sustained attack upon the integrity of a number of detective officers involved in this case, some of considerable experience and in superior positions, some with less experience and in lower positions. He used such words as 'rotten', 'Strathclyde Police rotten', and you will remember he used such expressions as 'There are good policemen, bad policemen' and then reference was made to 'the ugly'; and they have been submitted to be liars and bullies. Well, of course, you appreciate that this attack is made on behalf of Thomas Campbell: Mr Macaulay is acting upon the instructions of his client, either express or implied, because counsel do not hold any views on these matters; Mr Macaulay said this to you himself: so what this attack amounted to was Mr Macaulay on behalf of Thomas Campbell alleging that the police were liars and bullies. Now, the force or the validity of any attack of this kind must be judged on the evidence in the case, not on evidence in other cases, what other policemen may have done in other cases, or on anything else. You have to ask yourselves however 'What is the evidence on which this attack is based that the police are liars and bullies? What is it based on?' That is for you to say, but so far as I can gather from the evidence which you have heard it is based upon the evidence of the accused, Mrs Campbell, and on the young man Hamilton, who says he was bullied by the police into making a statement which he says is not true, Joseph Granger, who said also that he was bullied, or definitely he said he had his hair pulled in order to be forced to make this statement or to sign a space on a plan, a dot on a plan, and the witness Reynolds, who said a 13-page statement was put before him, and he was told to sign it, and it was made up by the police: there may be others. Now, against that body of testimony 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 the others to whom I have referred that you could agree with Mr Macaulay's submission. If you do, you must consider what follows. What follows is that you are saying that not one or two or four but a large number of detectives have deliberately come here to perjure themselves, to build up 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 and attempted murder, and 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: you saw the witnesses in the witness box; you heard how the questions were answered. You have to make up your mind what to believe (at pp. 26-29)."

The trial judge returned to this theme when he came to the question of the credibility and reliability of Love. He said:

"That is the background against which you have to consider the evidence of Love. If he is untruthful, if this is a concocted story, a false story, then it follows, doesn't it, that he has played a gigantic confidence trick on the police, senior police officers, the procurator fiscal and indeed the Crown authorities, because they accepted his story, allowed him out on bail and have proffered him as a witness before you. They according to the submission of the defence have swallowed hook, line and sinker Love's story, which they say is false. Well, you have go to consider this submission, ladies and gentlemen, because it is the foundation of this charge; because if he is lying he is playing a colossal deceit on you: but if he is telling the truth, whatever may have been his motive for not remaining silent, then his evidence is powerful and damning against the accused. It is for you to decide. You saw Mr Love, you heard him giving his evidence, and to some extent you are in a position to assess his character and his intelligence and his intellect. Ask yourselves, was he capable of hoodwinking the police and the Crown and you with an utterly false and concocted story? Could he have conceived of such a story in the first place with no foundation in fact to work on? Could he have persisted in it, successfully, so far as the Crown is concerned, and now before you, without being tripped up, without being shown up as a liar or as a complete inventor of the accounts which he gave? He was subjected to the most skilled and exhaustive cross-examination, designed to test his credibility: did he come through it unscathed, or did you think he was as he is branded by the accused an out and out liar? These are questions for you, not for me" (pp. 61-62).

Subsequent proceedings:

(c) The Secretary of State's reference (1996) - Campbell and Steele

[39] In 1996, the Secretary of State for Scotland referred the cases of Campbell and Steele to this court under the then section 124(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (Campbell v HM Adv, 1998 JC 130).

[40] The reference was made on the basis of an affidavit sworn by Love to the effect that he had lied at the trial at the instigation of D Supt Walker and DI McKillop under various inducements and threats and that he had carried out the shooting. Love's affidavit was supported by an affidavit of his sister Agnes, known as Mrs Carlton, who had not been called at the trial.

[41] On 29 April and 4 July 1984 Mrs Carlton gave statements to the police that she saw the shooting but did not know who fired the shots. On 7 July she gave a statement to the police in which she said that on the day of the shooting Love had appeared at her house, from which she could see the locus of the shooting; that Love had a sawn-off shotgun with him; that he left her house with the stated intention of firing it; that after he left, she looked out of the window and saw a masked man, who was wearing the clothes that Love had been wearing, shooting at the van; and that soon after, Love had come back to her house with the shotgun and concealed it. Later, she gave a precognition on similar lines to Steele's solicitors.

[42] The proposed evidence of Mrs Carlton was crucial to the reference (Campbell v HM Adv, supra, at pp. 145ff). Although it related to charge (9), it had implications for the Crown case on charge (15).

[43] This court accepted that Love's affidavit contained new evidence that was capable of meeting the tests set out in section 106 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (the 1995 Act); but, by a majority, the court held that the proposed evidence of Mrs Carlton was not capable of supporting the requirement that there should be a reasonable explanation why Love had not given evidence at the trial on the lines of his affidavit (ibid, at pp. 158-159; 180-181).

V The present references

The Commission's approach

[44] These references arise, in the cases of Campbell and Steele, from an entirely new matter, namely the reports obtained by the Commission from Professor Brian Clifford and Dr Peter French on the police evidence of the statements allegedly made by Campbell and Steele. Professor Clifford has been Professor of Cognitive Psychology at the University of East London since 1996. He is an expert of international renown in the field of psycho-linguistics as applied to memory. He has written extensively on the subject. He advises on matters of forensic psychology. Dr  French is an expert in forensic linguistics. In general, these experts conclude that it is unlikely in either case that all of the officers concerned could have recalled the relevant statement, and noted it in their notebooks, in virtually identical words. This

conclusion is based on their own experiments, on their professional experience and on the scientific literature.

[45] The Commission's reference in Campbell's case is confined to charge (15). The Commission considers that the terms of the reports by Professor Clifford and Dr French are sufficiently strong to cast doubt on the evidence of the police officers who arrested Campbell. Its decision is "based upon its view that had the jury rejected the evidence of Campbell's arresting officers, it appears that there would have been insufficient evidence to convict him of murder" (Statement of Reasons, p. 95). It is surprising that the reference should be confined to charge (15), because if doubt is cast on the police evidence of Campbell's alleged statement, that doubt affects the conviction on charge (9) also.

[46] The Commission has concerns about all three sources of evidence against Steele. It considers it arguable that Ferguson's evidence was not evidence against Steele at all. It is also of the view that the manner in which Love's evidence against Steele was presented to the jury may have led them erroneously to believe that they could convict even if they did not accept this evidence as corroboration of Steele' s alleged admission to the police (Statement of Reasons, p. 106).

The additional grounds of appeal

[50] In addition to relying on the new evidence, counsel for Campbell and Steele submitted that the trial judge misdirected the jury in his presentation of the evidence; that he misdirected them on the evidence of Granger; and that the court should hear new evidence from Love and Mrs Carlton, being the evidence offered at the 1996 reference. Counsel for Steele also submitted that there was insufficient evidence to entitle the jury to convict him, and that the trial judge misdirected the jury on the evidence of Ferguson. The solicitor advocate for Gray adopted the points made by the Commission in his case, which are in essence an Anderson ground, and submitted that the trial judge misdirected the jury on the evidence of Love and of Granger. He did not rely on the new evidence, which, as the Commission observes, is of limited significance to Gray's case; nor did he dispute that there was a sufficiency of evidence to warrant Gray's conviction.


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

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 3,165
Reply with quote  #15 

Continuation from previous post:


VI The evidence of Professor Clifford and Dr French

[51] On 20 February 2003, after a hearing on the point, we rejected a submission for the Crown that the proposed evidence of Professor Clifford and Dr French was inadmissible on the ground that it was opinion evidence on the credibility and reliability of the police witnesses. We held that the proposed evidence was evidence of the ability of witnesses, in the circumstances spoken to at the trial, to recall a statement accurately and of the likelihood that several witnesses to the same statement could recall it in almost identical terms. That was relevant and admissible evidence of fact that could have a significant bearing on the credibility of the police witnesses. We gave leave to the Crown to lead evidence on the subject.

[52] We have now heard the evidence of Professor Clifford. He was adduced as a witness on behalf of Campbell, but in reality on behalf of Steele also. Professor Clifford spoke to the findings of his experimental studies on which he reported to the Commission. The terms of Dr French's reports were agreed. Dr French was not called on behalf of Campbell or Steele, but counsel for Campbell and Steele relied on his reports to the extent that they generally supported Professor Clifford's conclusions. The advocate depute did not in the event call Dr French, but he referred to his reports and submitted that they did not cast doubt on the convictions. The advocate depute put to Professor Clifford certain criticisms of his methodology and conclusions. In his submissions, he criticised Dr French's Report on similar points. He led no evidence in rebuttal of either of them.

[53] We have set out the almost identical versions of the 24-word statement imputed to Campbell by the four officers who arrested him. The Commission asked Professor Clifford the following questions:

"(1) How likely is it that all four officers were able to note the remark in such similar terms?

(2) What is the likelihood that all four officers were able to note the remark in such similar terms in the absence of any comparison or collaboration whatsoever between them?"

In the case of Steele, the Commission asked Professor Clifford to consider two of the statements allegedly made to the police by Steele. The first was the statement allegedly made in the house, "I thought you would have been here before this". The second was the statement allegedly made in the police car, "I'm no' the one that lit the match" or, as DI McKillop noted it, "I am no' the one that lit the match". The Commission asked Professor Clifford the following questions:

"(1) How likely is it that all four officers noted Steele's comment in the car in such similar terms - or would the memories of those officers who did not note the statement until their arrival at the police station be affected by the time lapse stipulated?

  1. How likely is it that all four officers noted Steele's comment in the house in such similar terms or would the memories of those officers who did not note the statement until their arrival at the police station be affected by the time lapse stipulated?"

[54] We have disregarded the questions put to Professor Clifford in both cases relating to the reliability of the police officers' evidence in relation to these statements. In our view, that is not a matter for expert opinion.

[55] Professor Clifford said that most cognitive psychologists agreed that there was a need to postulate some capacity limitation on immediate short-term memory and that the upper limit was set at about seven to nine discrete items. Beyond that, the meaning of statements was retained but not the actual words, unless the individual was an actor. The short sentences imputed to Steele might be capable of immediate recall verbatim, but the longer statement imputed to Campbell would not. It would be subject to the phenomenon of semantic processing of sentences that had been demonstrated by psycho-linguistic research.

[56] Professor Clifford carried out four experimental studies. The first was designed to test the capacity of individual subjects to retain and retrieve immediately heard utterances of different lengths. The second study was carried out for the same purpose, but with a sample of participants who were Scots. The third study tested the effect of delay upon memory of a heard utterance. The fourth study tested the participants' ability to recall an eight-word sentence after a lapse of five, ten or fifteen minutes. In each study, the participants had to listen to taped statements.

[57] Since the Crown relied at the trial upon two statements in particular, Campbell's alleged statement on arrest and Steele's first alleged statement in the police car, we shall concentrate on Professor Clifford's studies in relation to them.

The first and second studies

[58] In the first study there were 57 participants, both male and female, with a mean age of 31. They were drawn from a wide range of occupations both private and public. All of them were English and English was their first language. They were divided into two groups. One was given relevant information. The other was not. The purpose of having an informed group was to simulate the knowledge that the police officers had when they arrested Campbell and Steele. The participants in the informed group were told that arson and discharge of a shotgun were involved, and that the experiment related to a real life criminal case at the heart of which was the possibility of a miscarriage of justice centred on the reliability of memory for sentences. The participants in the uninformed group had no idea what the topic would be. All the participants were presented with the statements one at a time and in each case were requested to write the statement down immediately word for word. They were told that the utterances were to be spoken by a Scotsman, whose accent might present a difficulty for them, and that they would have to pay close attention to what he said. The source voice spoke the key sentences after extensive practice so that he had them word perfect. He had a Glasgow accent. The mood in which he spoke them was intended to mimic surprise, indignation and resignation, which was thought to be the way in which they had been uttered.

[59] None of the participants could recall all 24 words of Campbell's alleged statement. The majority of the informed group could recall only 40% of the words. The majority of the uninformed group could recall only 30%. The majority of the participants could recall only about 70% to 80% of the eight words of Steele's statement. It made no significant difference whether they were in the informed or the uninformed group.

[60] These results suggested that verbatim recall of the complete Campbell statement of 24 words was impossible. While some individuals could recall verbatim the short sentences that they had heard up to three seconds before, the majority could not. Verbatim recall of the first of Steele's statements in the car was therefore possible; but there remained the question whether the short sentence could be recalled by several hearers in identical terms.

[61] Having considered the results of the first study in the light of psycho-linguistic knowledge, and having compared them with the police evidence, Professor Clifford concluded that it was "very improbable" that all four police officers who noted Campbell's statement would have identical, non-conferenced verbatim recall of it.

[62] Since it was to be assumed that all of the police officers who noted the statements were Scottish, Professor Clifford decided to repeat the study with a sample of Scottish participants. All of these participants were informed in broad terms of the purpose of the study. According to Professor Clifford, this second study stacked the cards in favour of results more comparable with the police officers' recall ability.

[63] In this study there were 74 participants. They included firefighters, nurses, factory workers, a karate group and persons in other occupations chosen at random. Among them there were 14 police officers. All the participants were from Perthshire. The results were closely similar to those found in the first study. There were no significant differences in the data. The low verbatim recalls found in both studies were considered not to be explicable by the linguistic difference between the two sets of participants. Professor Clifford concluded that the low verbatim recalls resulted from the difficulty of the task.

[64] In these two studies, the range of recall for long sentences was wide, but no participant even came close to the apparent recall ability of the arresting police officers. Professor Clifford thought that the difficulties were caused by the structural constraint of the sheer length of the sentence rather than by individual differences in the size of memory span. Both of the long sentences used, one of which was Campbell's 24-word statement, exceeded the most capacious estimates of an individual's short-term memory ability.

[65] The fact that none of the participants equalled or even came close to the recall ability seemingly achieved by the arresting police officers in these cases raised serious doubts in Professor Clifford's mind about the officers' evidence.

[66] In the second study, the police participants performed numerically better than some non-police groups, but the numerical differences were not statistically reliable. There was therefore evidence within the data, according to Professor Clifford, that policemen do not perform any better in terms of accuracy of recollection than other members of society. That was supported by other published data. He concluded:

"Given the extant publications and the current results, the memory performance that apparently was exhibited by the police officers in the case under review must be seen as truly remarkable. So remarkable in fact as to be doubtful."

[67] As an extension of these two studies, Professor Clifford also carried out a semantic analysis of the statement imputed to Campbell. He said that when sentences exceed short term memory, it is the semantic units constituting the statement that are encoded, stored and retrieved. The Campbell statement comprised four idea units; namely, shooting at van windows; fire at Fat Boy's; a frightener; and going too far. It was found that not all semantic units were equally well recalled. The most poorly recalled were those with the greatest criminal significance, namely the shooting and the fire. On a semantic analysis, whether the studies were taken singly or in combination, the same pattern appeared. The semantic study was based on a more lenient criterion of recall, yet even in this study no participant in the combined sample of 131 could recall all four semantic units.

[68] Professor Clifford concluded that in the face of these data the probability that any random four or random two officers could recall a sentence of 24 words in identical terms was "infinitesimal." In answer to the questions put to him by the Commission, he concluded that the findings of the first and second studies, taken together or separately, strongly suggested the unlikelihood that in Campbell's case all four officers could note the utterance in such similar terms, and indicated clearly that to obtain such similar recalls, each officer could not have been acting alone and independently. The degree of similarity in the statements and in the evidence of the four officers could have resulted only from comparison or collaboration.

The third study

[69] The third study related to the alleged statement of Steele, "I'm no' the one that lit the match." It was designed to assess the probability of its being accurately recalled five, ten or fifteen minutes after it was said. There were 20 participants from England and 20 from Scotland. There were 21 males and 19 females, with a mean age of 28 years. The same set of tapes was used in this study as in the previous two. All of the participants were informed about the background to the study and the key elements of arson and the discharge of a firearm, and about the "current plight" of Campbell and Steele. Professor Clifford described the results of this study as "clear and somewhat stark." Recall of a fairly short sentence was found to be very poor after a delay of only five minutes. Only two participants succeeded in recalling it verbatim. 12 recalled it correctly in the semantic sense, but not verbatim. 26 failed to recall anything.

[70] The word for word recalls of the Steele statement by three of the arresting officers after a delay of at least ten minutes, and possibly as long as fifteen, gave Professor Clifford cause for concern. On the basis of his third study, he could say that identical verbatim delayed recall was "not readily available to humans".

[71] In the light of the findings of the third study, Professor Clifford concluded that the verbatim similarity in the police officers' noting of Steele's first statement in the police car was "an extremely unlikely occurrence." The fact that all three of the officers who noted it at the police station managed to recall it verbatim was "quite remarkable." He said that it was hard to escape the conclusion that these similarities were "due to other than independent retrieval of a stored memory of a heard utterance."

The fourth study

[72] Professor Clifford undertook a fourth study, to test recall after specified intervals of time. This study, like the third, concerned only Steele's first statement in the car. Its purpose was to examine whether verbatim memory for an eight-word utterance was possible after delays of five, ten or fifteen minutes under the conditions spoken to by the police officers. For this study there were 50 female and 26 male participants, with an average age of 291/2 years, who were undergraduates and professional people.

[73] Two tapes were prepared. One had the eight word statement, followed by a long caution, followed by the words "I'm saying fuck all else." The other had the same statements, but with a short caution in between. The participants were tested in groups of four to simulate conditions in the police car. They were told that they would be presented with a number of utterances on tape as part of an important experiment. Their task was to remember only the first utterance that they heard and to be prepared to write it down later word for word. They were told that when the tape was stopped they should sit quietly and await further instructions. The first instruction was repeated. The tape was then played and the participants sat in silence for either five, ten or fifteen minutes. At the end of whichever period they were given, they were instructed to write down, if they could, word for word, the first utterance that they had heard.

[74] Only one participant recalled the critical sentence verbatim. That participant was in the ten-minute delay group who heard the short caution. The results showed that participants could recall verbatim only about half of the words of the critical utterance and that recall was delay-dependant. The participants could retain the semantics of the sentence fairly well, irrespective of the time delay and the length of the intervening utterances; but as delay increased, so did error in recall.

[75] Professor Clifford considered that it was extremely unlikely that three police officers could independently recall the alleged utterance in identical or near identical terms. That opinion, he said, was now based on the experience of a total of 244 participants who had heard the critical sentence and had recalled it either immediately, in the case of 151 of them, or after some delay, in the case of the others. The data showed that the individual does not normally process a sentence by storing it verbatim even when he is specifically instructed to do so, as in the first three studies, or when, because of its importance, he intends to remember it for later noting, as in the case of the arresting officers.

Whether this was new evidence

[76] Professor Clifford also dealt with the question whether evidence of this kind could have been obtained at the time of the trial. It is our impression that if it had been available then, it is unlikely that the court would have admitted it; but since the advocate depute did not dispute that this was new evidence, we need not consider the question further.


I'd rather be hated for what I am, than loved for what I am not".
Previous Topic | Next Topic

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.