The Ferris Conspiracy Forum
Sign up  |   |   |  Calendar
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 4      Prev   1   2   3   4   Next
Admin

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 3,165
Reply with quote  #16 

Continuation from previous post:

 

The Crown criticisms of the new evidence

[77] The advocate depute compared Professor Clifford's studies unfavourably with some of those of Dr. French. His principal criticism was that the information provided to the participants fell far short of the information that the police had when they arrested Campbell and Steele. The experiments could not replicate the significance which the statements had for the police officers. This was one of the most important cases that they would have dealt with. They knew that they would have to remember the statements. It was wrong to assume that the arresting officers started to note Campbell's statement only after he completed it. There was no warrant for the assumption that it was made as one statement of 24 words. It could be regarded as two sentences. Moreover, there was no basis on which to make any assumption about the speed at which it was spoken. In the second experiment, the participants came from Perthshire. They would not have a Glaswegian accent. The evidence of Professor Clifford and Dr. French was not so significant that the convictions of Campbell and Steele should be regarded as miscarriages of justice. Their evidence was not sufficiently relevant and cogent in relation to the evidence at the trial to satisfy the test laid down in Cameron v HM Adv (1991 JC 251) and Kidd v HM Adv (2000 SCCR 513).

VII Decision

(1) The evidence of Professor Clifford and Dr French (the Campbell and Steele references)

[78] This evidence raises the principal issue on which these references have been made. Before we even consider it, we are surprised by certain aspects of Campbell's alleged statement, and the circumstances in which it was made. It seems remarkable that an experienced criminal like Campbell should have said anything at all when cautioned, let alone have made so incriminating a statement, and that in answer to a caution relating to the shooting, he should have volunteered an incriminating admission about the murders. If Campbell made such a statement, it is remarkable that he was not asked to authenticate it, by signing or initialling the note of it, in one or more of the police notebooks. Perhaps the most remarkable feature of all is that this crucial statement, which was a breakthrough in the police enquiry, was not reported by DI McCafferty to D Supt Walker until the following day.

[79] In Steele's case, too, the police evidence is surprising. It is remarkable that Steele too should have spontaneously volunteered such an incriminating statement, that he should have done so in a police car on his way to a police interview, and that only the driver of the car should have noted it, while the senior officer, whose hands were free, did not.

[80] We are sceptical about this evidence even without the benefit of Professor Clifford's conclusions; but that is merely our own reaction. We acknowledge that all of these points were put to the jury, who nevertheless convicted Campbell and Steele unanimously. We need not pursue the point further, because we consider that we can decide the Campbell and Steele references on the basis of the new evidence and of certain directions of the trial judge.

The reports of Dr French

[81] Dr French did not give evidence. His analysis was therefore not tested. For that reason alone, we consider that his study carries much less weight than that of Professor Clifford. Moreover, Professor Clifford has expressed reservations about Dr French's methodology and about the small size and unreliability of the samples that he used. Nevertheless we think that Dr French's work is of value to the limited extent that his findings and conclusions point in the same direction as those of Professor Clifford.

The evidence of Professor Clifford

[82] The Crown has had since November 2001 to consider the substance of the new evidence. It has had a year since we held that the new evidence was admissible, to canvass expert advice on it. It has not produced any expert evidence to the contrary.

[83] We have to consider whether the new evidence is capable of being regarded by a reasonable jury as both credible and reliable (Kidd v HM Adv, supra, at para [24]). In the making of that judgment, the quality of the new evidence and its cogency are of critical importance. The evidence is based on established theory and on experimental proof. It is uncontradicted, both as to theory and method.

[84] Professor Clifford's reasoning appears to be logical and his conclusions appear to be cogent. Nothing put to him on behalf of the Crown persuades us that we should not accept his key conclusions. We accept that there is substance in the advocate depute's comments on the limitations of his attempt to replicate the conditions in which the alleged statements were heard. It was impossible fully to replicate those conditions, but in our view Professor Clifford achieved a reasonable proxy for them. Moreover, we are impressed by the robustness of his results.

[85] On that view, we consider that the evidence is highly relevant to the crucial issue in the trials of Campbell and Steele.

[86] We then have to consider what effect the evidence would have had on the course of the trial. We have to decide that question in the knowledge that without the evidence of the statements, the Crown had no case against either Campbell or Steele.

[87] In our opinion, if the new evidence had been given at the trial, the trial judge could not have directed the jury as he did. The contention that the statements were fabricated was crucial to the defence case; but the defence had no independent evidence to support it. The trial judge emphasised that the defences for Campbell and Steele involved an attack on the integrity of the police. He asked the jury to consider what evidence there was to support it. He emphasised that the conflict lay between the police officers and the defence witnesses, including the accused; and that if the jury were to accept the defence case, it would follow that a large number of detectives had engaged in a conspiracy. In our view, it is hardly surprising that, on the evidence before them, the jury resolved the conflict in favour of the Crown.

[88] The alleged statements were recorded in the arresting officers' notebooks, in their police statements, and no doubt in the Crown precognitions. For those officers, therefore, there could be no retreat from the statements. If the evidence that we have now examined had been available to the defence, there would have been independent evidence from a reputable source that undermined the crucial evidence on which the convictions of Campbell and Steele depended.

[89] In our view, any jury hearing Professor Clifford's evidence would have assessed the police evidence in an entirely different light. Moreover, it is obvious that while that evidence would have been more convincing in relation to Campbell's alleged 24-word statement, any doubt that it cast on that statement would have carried over to the alleged statement of Steele.

[90] In our view, the new evidence is of such significance that the verdicts of the jury, having been returned in ignorance of it, must be regarded as miscarriages of justice (cf Kidd v HM Adv, supra).

  1. Sufficiency of evidence (Steele's ground of appeal)

[91] In his charge the trial judge made no reference to Love's evidence in his analysis of the case against Steele; but in his report to the appeal court in 1985, he relied on Love's evidence as a material part of the case against Steele.

[92] In giving the Opinion of the Court in that appeal, Lord Justice Clerk Wheatley dealt with this point by saying that Love had given evidence "about a conversation among a party of people, of whom [Steele] was one, which establishes that [Steele] was a member of a group discussing plans for the commission of the offence and was accepting his involvement in what was being discussed (Opinion of the Court, p 2)." Later, the Lord Justice Clerk said that the evidence of Steele's listening to the conversation between Campbell and Gray and saying "aye, aye" was not just evidence of a confession, but was "independent evidence of the appellant's participation in a plan to commit the offence which subsequently was carried out." That, we think, was an overstatement. That evidence was consistent with an innocent interpretation, so far as Steele was concerned. Nevertheless, it was also consistent with his being involved in the plan. So long as the latter was a possible interpretation, as in our view it was, the jury were entitled to take the evidence into account (HM Adv v Fox, 1998 JC 94). That evidence and the evidence of the police constituted a sufficiency of evidence. We therefore reject this ground of appeal.

  1. Misdirection (the Campbell and Steele references and Gray's ground of appeal)

(a) The trial judge's presentation of the evidence

[93] Counsel for Campbell and Steele submitted that the directions of the trial judge inverted the onus of proof; trespassed on the province of the jury; showed a bias in favour of the credibility of the police witnesses; and undermined the defence cases.

[98] Comments such as the trial judge made about the defence criticisms of the police (at p. 28C) were not uncommon twenty years ago; but we have to decide this case by the judicial standards of today. The essence of a judge's charge is the giving of directions in law. In strict theory, the judge need say nothing about the facts. But in modern practice, in all but the simplest cases, he should refer to the main points of the evidence on which the Crown and the defence rely. In that way, he can give some context to his directions on legal concepts such as corroboration. But whenever the judge refers to the evidence, he should do so with restraint. In this case, the judge not only referred to the defence in forthright terms, but went on to warn the jury that if they accepted the defence cases they would be accepting that there had been a police conspiracy "of the most sinister and serious kind." That sort of comment was appropriate for the advocate depute's speech; but it was perhaps inopportune in the charge. Nevertheless, it did not misrepresent the defence. On the contrary, as we can see from the judge's references to the speech of counsel for Campbell, that was a central point in the defence. In our view, the judge's comments were not a misdirection.

[99] Counsel for Campbell and Steele submitted that there was a misdirection on onus (at pp. 28C-29B) when the trial judge said that it was only if the jury accepted the evidence of the accused that they could accept the defence submission, and that it was for the jury to decide which account they preferred. We do not agree. Those directions must be seen in their context. At the outset of his charge the trial judge gave the standard directions on onus and on reasonable doubt. Later, in the passage complained of, he dealt with the specific issue of the conflict between the evidence of the police and the evidence of the accused about the statements. In that context, he was quite right to say that it was only if they believed the accused that they could accept the submission of counsel for Campbell that the police were liars and bullies. It is obvious that on that issue it was for the jury to decide which account they preferred. We reject this submission.

(5) Proposed new evidence of Love and Mrs Carlton (the Campbell and Steele references)

[105] This ground of appeal is to the effect that this court in its judgment on the Secretary of State's reference (Campbell v HM Adv, supra) erred in its refusal to admit the new evidence of Love. Counsel for Campbell accepted that this ground of appeal raises nothing new. It merely asks us to reach a different conclusion on exactly the same point. Counsel for Campbell suggested that if we were to take a different view from the court which heard the 1996 reference, we should convene a larger court in order to consider the point.

The Anderson appeals

[109] Mrs Carlton was precognosced and cited by Steele's solicitor. She was also cited on behalf of John Campbell and was on the list of witnesses for Lafferty. Although not cited on behalf of Campbell or Gray, counsel for either of them could have called her. Mrs Carlton's precognition for Steele identified Love as having fired the shots. She was the only known source of that evidence. If she had given it, it would have undermined Love's credibility completely.

 

[111] Mr McCormack, when interviewed by the Commission, could not remember why Mrs Carlton was not called. He suggested that perhaps it was because she was changing her story. In his statement to the Commission, he confirmed that Mrs Carlton was not precognosced. He said that he was not aware of her existence at the time of the trial, and that her evidence incriminating Love did not exist at the time of trial, so far as he was concerned. Having seen the terms of the precognition that she gave to Steele's agents, Mr McCormack agreed that her evidence was important to Gray's defence. He also said that the notice of incrimination lodged on Gray's behalf was probably based on information given by Gray himself or on "general street wisdom."

 

VIII Disposal

[120] We shall quash the convictions of Campbell on charges (9) and (15) on the

grounds of (i) the new evidence and (ii) the misdirection relating to the evidence of Granger.

[121] We shall quash the conviction of Steele on charge (15) on the grounds of (i) the new evidence, (ii) the misdirection relating to the evidence of Granger and (iii) the misdirection relating to the evidence of Ferguson.

 

 


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

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #17 

The ferrisconspiracy TEAM have selected the most relevant sections from the Appeal Court ruling that eventually brought to an end a 20 YEARS campaign to clear their names.

 

A FULL UNEDITED COPY can be read by clicking on the following link :

 

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/XC956.html


__________________
The TRUTH is out there...........
hammer6

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #18 

The Thomas (TC) Campbell interview with the ferrisconspiracy TEAM will be updated soon and it is indeed a very SAD way in which ALL parties were used as pawns in the bigger board game played out by STRATHCLYDE POLICE.

 

Police CORRUPTION in SCOTLAND has never before been subject to such PUBLIC EXPOSURE and we intend to tell the WHOLE STORY!


__________________
The TRUTH is out there...........
hammer6

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #19 

Ferrisconspiracy : UPDATE

 

We can now confirm that an audio transcript of the TC Campbell interview will be posted tomorrow at 6.00 PM.

 

The TEAM have decided to UPLOAD the first of several installments to enable the reader to have a REAL view of what went on during TC's arrest and subsequent trial.

 

The transcribed version is in TC's own words and you will be able to read it here EXCLUSIVELY on http://www.ferrisconspiracy.com

 

KEEP IT REAL


__________________
The TRUTH is out there...........
hammer6

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #20 

PART TWO IS AVAILABLE TO READ NOW...........


__________________
The TRUTH is out there...........
hammer6

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #21 

Paul Ferris talks to BBC News Online
"You'll never eradicate (police) corruption, just as you'll never eradicate crime."


__________________
The TRUTH is out there...........
hammer6

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #22 

ARCHIVE:

 

You owe me an apology..; TC'S ULTIMATUM TO TOP COP.(News)


The Mirror (London, England); 3/20/2004

Byline: GAVIN WILSON

ONE of the men wrongly jailed for life for the Ice Cream War killings is demanding an apology from cops and £1million for his "malicious prosecution".

Thomas 'TC' Campbell wants an apology from Strathclyde Police Chief Constable Willie Rae after suffering 17 years behind bars.

And he is demanding an independent public inquiry into his conviction and allegations of police corruption.

Two days after winning his freedom, Mr Campbell and his lawyer Aamer Anwar met Mr Rae.

But when their requests were rejected, they issued an ultimatum threatening legal action if they don't get a response within seven days.

Mr Campbell and Joe Steele had their convictions for murdering six members of the Doyle family at their Glasgow home in April, 1984, quashed after judges ruled they were victims of a miscarriage of justice.

Mr Campbell said: "I'm looking for peace but, where there is no justice, there is no peace."

The Doyle family were victims of a gangland battle to use ice cream van routes for drug dealing and money laundering.

 

*********************************************************

 

VERDICT PUTS SCOTS LAW ON TRIAL.(News)


The Mirror (London, England); 3/18/2004

Byline: MARK SMITH

SCOTTISH justice was in the dock last night after TC Campbell and Joe Steele were declared innocent.

There were calls for a full public inquiry into the case - and cops who lied to put Steele and Campbell behind bars also face a criminal investigation.

Scottish Justice Minister Cathy Jamieson will now be landed with a major compensation claim from the innocent men - which is expected to top pounds 1million each.

Ministers' expected probe into events surrounding the pair's conviction will cost millions more.

And experts say any investigation into the detectives who put Campbell and Steele behind bars could run to pounds 1m.

But, last night, a spokesman for Jamieson revealed an independent figure would be appointed to deal with the men's compensation claim.

He added: "The Executive will look at the details of the case in depth before making any further decision on a public inquiry.

"It is a matter for the Crown Office if any criminal investigation is to be held.

"And any disciplinary matters involving police officers will be a matter for the chief constable of Strathclyde Police."

A spokesman for the Crown Office, which would carry out any criminal prosecution of the detectives involved, said: "We will give the judgement careful consideration before making any decisions."

Leading calls for a public inquiry last night was lawyer Aamer Anwar.

He said: "After 20 years of hunger strikes, prison breakouts, demonstrations, political pressure, solitary isolation, prison beatings, legal fight after legal fight, TC Campbell and Joe Steele are finally free from a life sentence.

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

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

"The injustice was allowed to continue because if the claims of Campbell and Steele were true, then other innocent men have been framed and had their lives destroyed.

"We demand a full independent inquiry into Strathclyde Police, into the allegations of corruption."

Scottish Socialist Party leader Tommy Sheridan last night backed calls for a full public inquiry.

He said: "This day has taken a long time coming and I extend my warmest congratulations to both men.

"They protested their innocence from the very beginning and they have every right to be extremely angry at their treatment."


__________________
The TRUTH is out there...........
hammer6

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #23 

JUSTICE?

 

PERJURY - When a person, having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the U.K. authorises an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true.

In order for a person to be found guilty of perjury the government must prove: the person testified under oath before a jury at least one particular statement was false; and the person knew at the time the testimony was false.

The testimony of one witness is not enough to support a finding that the testimony was false. There must be additional evidence, either the testimony of another person or other evidence, which tends to support the testimony of falsity. The other evidence, standing alone, need not convince that the testimony was false, but all the evidence on the subject must do so.


__________________
The TRUTH is out there...........
hammer6

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #24 

JUSTICE?


__________________
The TRUTH is out there...........
hammer6

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #25 

Justice is something that TC has never fully achieved.

 

However with the NEW documentary in its final stages it will at least go some way to explain why JUSTICE stood still for this man for over two decades.

 

Watch this space.


__________________
The TRUTH is out there...........
hammer6

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #26 

Who did kill the Doyles?...

LORD KINCRAIG turned to the jury of 10 women and five men at Glasgow High Court. He looked grim as he spelled out just what they would have to believe if the men accused of what was then Scotland’s worst multiple murder were to go free.

The judge warned that if Tommy ‘TC’ Campbell and Joe Steele were telling the truth, then the jury would have to accept 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". It would mean there had been a conspiracy by officers of the "most sinister and serious kind... to saddle the accused wrongly with the crimes of murder and attempted murder, and a murder of a horrendous nature".

Last week, 20 years after Campbell and Steele were sentenced to life in prison for the murders of six members of the Doyle family during Glasgow’s notorious Ice Cream Wars, the Court of Appeal ruled that both men had been wrongly convicted. The implication was clear: the jury should have believed the men.

Now the words of Lord Kincraig - who clearly found the allegations of police corruption hard to accept - have come back to haunt Strathclyde Police. Campbell’s lawyer Aamer Anwar points to Kincraig’s summing up at the end of the original trial as a compelling reason why there should now be a public inquiry. He argues that the case is no longer only about Campbell and Steele, and what has now been ruled one of the gravest miscarriages of justice in Scottish legal history, but that it could be just the tip of an iceberg. To have confidence in the system, the public must be sure the same methods were not used to wrongly convict scores of others.

Campbell, 51, is now calling for a fresh murder inquiry to bring those who were responsible for the murder of the Doyle family to justice. However, the reaction from the Crown Office suggests that even though he and Steele are now deemed to be innocent, this is unlikely to happen. "Our position remains there are no new lines of inquiry in this case and there are no new suspects," a spokeswoman said.

Campbell and Steele were cleared after evidence from psychologists cast doubt on testimony given by police officers concerning incriminating statements said to have been made by both defendants. Four officers reported Campbell as saying: "I only wanted the van windows shot up. The fire at Fat Boy’s [a member of the Doyle family] was only meant to be a frightener which went too far."

Campbell denied making that statement and Steele also denied saying to four detectives in a police car that "I’m no’ the one that lit the match" and telling them earlier: "I thought you would have been here before now."

The officers’ recollections of what was said - known as ‘verbals’ - were nearly identical. But the psychologists said studies showed people did not remember even such short sentences word for word. This was enough for the appeal court judges to decide the jury would have viewed the police’s evidence in a different light and the convictions were unsafe.

It is a sign of changing times: in 1984 the defence’s claims that the police had manufactured statements was regarded as outrageous and unbelievable to most.

Some 20 years later Campbell has not finished making extraordinary allegations. In an interview with Scotland on Sunday last week, he claimed to have been given evidence during his long campaign to prove his innocence suggesting the man behind the murders was the notorious Glasgow gangster Tam ‘The Licensee’ McGraw, who was arrested but released during the original inquiry.

Furthermore, Campbell believes the gangster has been behind repeated attempts to kill him since his release from prison pending appeal, in an attempt to shut him up.

The two men were once on friendly terms, but Campbell said that while serving his life sentence he began to suspect McGraw was "making moves against me to make sure I stayed in jail" by hampering attempts by friends in Glasgow to find evidence to clear him.

"Then it became clear why he was doing it. If our conviction stood, there could be no investigation into him or anything he had done," said Campbell. He has claimed that two men who seriously injured him with knives and golf clubs in a vicious fight following his release on bail pending the appeal were McGraw and a since murdered henchman called Billy McPhee.

"What McGraw was angry about is I’m grassing him for the Doyle fire. If he had buried me before the appeal then the conviction would have stood because I wouldn’t have been there to defend myself," Campbell said.

He is now waiting for the next assassination attempt in an effort to stop him giving evidence to any new investigation or public inquiry. "It’s just usual to me. It’s just daily life," he said. "There was a point in time I had to avoid cars trying to cut me off on the pavement and people with knives. One time I went into a hardware store, bought an axe and when I came out they all ran away. There have been people with firearms and there’s been me dodging through gardens to get away. It was twice a week.

"The police said they were ‘obliged to tell me’ that contracts have been taken up and my life is in danger and that danger is active and imminent. To tell you the truth, I don’t f***ing care. I won’t let people threaten me or intimidate me. I’ll just do what I think is right."

On Friday last week, Campbell and his lawyer visited the headquarters of Strathclyde Police. They handed in a letter calling for a new investigation in light of the appeal court ruling, and lodged an official complaint.

"The police need to do an investigation so I can give them the information I have and let them do the work," Campbell said, although he admits that while he suspects McGraw’s involvement in the fire, "at the end of the day, I’m not a witness to it".

"I can only say to the police I’ve found out information from this source and that source," Campbell said.

His information includes claims that McGraw associates bought a can of petrol from a garage shortly before the fire. Campbell said the witnesses told him they had given this information to police during the original investigation but had been ignored.

‘It is not acceptable for police forces to investigate themselves’

However, it is understood that police are highly unlikely to view information that had been discarded at the time as new evidence that would warrant the re-opening of the case.

And claims from Campbell - notorious for extreme violence as the leader of the infamous Gaucho Razor Gang in Glasgow - about someone he clearly hates may simply be put down to an underworld feud.

The reality is the true identity of the people who murdered the Doyles will almost certainly never be known. Only suspicions remain.

Joe Steele, 42, twice escaped from prison during his sentence to mount protests claiming his innocence, gluing himself to the gates of Buckingham Palace on one occasion.

But he has maintained a low profile since the conviction was quashed and now simply wants to get on with life. His lawyer John Carroll said: "He’s lost some of the best years of his life and is wanting to spend time with his family. He has asked in the past for an inquiry but now he has won his appeal he has, in a sense, had that inquiry."

Carroll dismissed any talk of who might have been responsible for the murders. "Suspicion is no good. It was suspicion and tittle-tattle that put them in jail in the first place," he said. "From Steele’s point of view it really is a matter for the police to look into and the police have already stated they are not looking for any suspects."

Both Steele and Campbell are believed to be in line for substantial compensation payouts, possibly of more than £1m each.

Strathclyde Police have remained tight-lipped in the aftermath of the appeal court ruling. A spokeswoman said the force was waiting to examine the written judgment made in the case. She confirmed the force had accepted the letter from Campbell’s lawyer, and added: "We will examine its contents."

Anwar is also writing to First Minister Jack McConnell and Lord Advocate Colin Boyd to call for an inquiry, and his demand is already backed by several opposition politicians.

His letter to police called for an immediate apology, claimed there was a "whispering campaign" against Campbell and said charges should be brought against anyone believed to have perverted the course of justice.

Anwar believes there could be many other people who have been jailed on the strength of police statements that would be discredited by the psychologists whose evidence cleared Campbell and Rae.

His letter to Strathclyde’s Chief Constable Willie Rae states: "Whilst Strathclyde Police will be concerned at opening the ‘floodgates’, we would respectfully submit your concern should not be one of avoiding compensation claims by tens if not hundreds."

Anwar said the whole affair showed there was a need for an independent body to investigate complaints against the police. "It’s not acceptable for police forces to investigate themselves. An independent body is being introduced in England and there’s one existing in Northern Ireland, but in Scotland we don’t have one," he said. "Right up until three weeks ago the police were still fighting this and the Crown Office were still fighting this.

"The vast majority of officers within the police do a good job and a very difficult job. But when issues like this arise it is an indictment of the police force that they close ranks and feel it is not in their interest to carry out an impartial investigation. That is damaging to public confidence."

Eminent defence lawyer Joe Beltrami, who represented a relative of Campbell who was among those picked up by police then released during the inquiry, and represented Campbell in previous cases including serious assault, said he always found it hard to believe the hardman had blurted out a damaging admission.

"I felt there was a shortage of evidence. There was no forensic evidence, none at all. The case really depended in the main on the statement [allegedly] made by Campbell to the police," he said.

"When I heard he was supposed to have made a damaging comment I was a bit taken aback because he had been through the courts umpteen times before and wasn’t the sort of person to say anything at all to the police. I was astonished he said anything."

He also found Campbell’s and Steele’s persistent and strenuous denials convincing. "I was disturbed when Campbell was convicted and from the very beginning I was rooting for him," Beltrami said. "And people very often protest their innocence after conviction, but this normally finishes in a fortnight or three weeks, it doesn’t go on for 20 years."

Crime writer Reg McKay, who wrote a book with Campbell called Indictment: Trial By Fire about the case, is another long-standing supporter of the two men’s claims they had nothing to do with the fire that massacred the Doyles.

However, he is uncompromising about their criminal past. He described Steele as a "lowlife crook who would rob your granny’s meter". And as the leader of the Gaucho Razor Gang, Campbell was involved in "mindless violence, fighting for territory" in the Carntyne area of Glasgow.

"He was a vicious, vicious cruel man. He developed a reputation for just standing there in a fight, doing the business, taking out five, six, seven people while being hacked to bits. An arm might be hanging useless but he would just keep going.

"He’s been gutted numerous times. He knows what it means to be holding your intestines in while someone is trying to cut your throat."

With such backgrounds, is it possible that police officers believed the men were guilty and were tempted to secure a conviction by whatever means necessary? Appeal court judges decided that in this case there was sufficient doubt about the officers’ testimony that the convictions should be quashed.

Amid all the doubt, the only certainty is that the controversy will continue.

Related topic


__________________
The TRUTH is out there...........
hammer6

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #27 

T.C.CAMPBELL - LOVE OR HATE? PART 2


__________________
The TRUTH is out there...........
frankie

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 3,731
Reply with quote  #28 

These men deserve justice for all that they have been through,how can the authorities treat people like this  ,respect to these innocent men,i hope justice will prevail for them,keep up the fight

hammer6

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #29 

"Where there is no justice there is no peace."

Thomas (TC) Campbell.

 

Glasgow "ice cream war" case






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


Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #30 
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie

These men deserve justice for all that they have been through,how can the authorities treat people like this  ,respect to these innocent men,i hope justice will prevail for them,keep up the fight

spot on Frankie Im sitting here laughing I was clearing my loft the other day and a bag landed on my head as i was going down the ladders what was in it???..........The Wilderness Years, Armed Candy and Deadly Divisions as well as a massive psychology book.......ouch!! oh wisnae a tesco bag T.T

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.