The Ferris Conspiracy Forum
Sign up  |   |   |  Calendar

  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 2      1   2   Next

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 3,165
Reply with quote  #1 






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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

T.C: Yes, I do understand that.

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

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

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

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


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

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

T.C: No.

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #2 

Ferrisconspiracy : UPDATE


If you would like to post a view in relation to the TC interview you can do so by posting a reply on the 'THOMAS (TC) CAMPBELL & JOE STEELE' (open FORUM) as this section is now locked to accommodate further sections of TC's interview.


Thank you for your co operation and interest on what the man himself has to say (IN HIS OWN WORDS) in relation to how it all began........


More to follow next week...............

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

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #3 

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...........

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #4 

This is an absolute disgrace to find out that these men have yet to be paid compensation in full: NOVEMBER 1 2006.

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

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #5 

The TC story is currently being filmed by an independent body that will explore ALL aspects of his case.


They will be uncovering the TRUTH behind the BIGGEST single miscarriage of Justice that Scotland has yet to face.


The documentary will be broadcast in the early part of the New Year.

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

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #6 

The Crime and Investigation Network has commissioned SMG Productions to make a pilot episode of Murder Capital – an investigation of the dark underworld of Western Europe’s most lethal city – Glasgow.

In this pilot, Taggart’s John Michie looks back at two of the worst crimes committed in Glasgow, uncovering the real story behind these past crimes and delving deep into the minds of the murderers.

The pilot episode will investigate the death of six members of the Doyle family in an arson attack during the infamous Ice-Cream wars.

The Murder Capital team will talk to all those involved and find out the real motives behind the crimes, using news footage, dramatic reconstructions and interviews with criminologists and psychologists.

SMG Productions will deliver the pilot of Murder Capital before the end of the year, due for tx in 2007. 

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

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #7 

Word of the law that first failed two men, then set them free...

The historic judgment by the Court of Criminal Appeal in the "ice-cream wars" case illustrates the measure of change in the legal world in the 20 years since Thomas Campbell and Joseph Steele stood trial.

Comments made by the judge to the jury about their defence case would have raised few eyebrows when Campbell and Steele stood in the dock in 1984.


If the judge’s words were uttered now, particularly during such a sensitive and high-profile case, outrage would erupt all around.

Campbell, 51, and Steele, 42, were jailed for life in 1984, following the most tragic episode of the Glasgow turf-war over the control of ice-cream van routes which were used to peddle heroin and stolen goods across the city.

The two men were found guilty of the murder of six members of the Doyle family, including a 18-month-old baby, in a blaze at the home of Andrew Doyle, on the Ruchazie housing scheme on 16 April, 1984.

Eighteen-year-old Andrew, known as "Fat Boy", had resisted attempts to intimidate him and to take over the route he worked his ice-cream van. Before the fire at his property, a shotgun had been fired through the windscreen of his van.

The prosecution of Campbell and Steele depended on statements which each was alleged to have made to detectives when they were arrested following the blaze.

According to evidence presented by Strathclyde Police, four detectives heard and noted down Campbell saying: "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."

Steele was said to have replied: "I’m no’ the one that lit the match."

Both men insisted the "verbals" had been fabricated. The police denied "fitting up" the men, or any collaboration between officers or comparing of notebooks in their recording of the comments.

Addressing the jury before they retired to decide their verdicts, the judge, Lord Kincraig, said that they must consider what would follow if they accepted the defence team’s argument that the police officers were "liars and bullies".

Lord Kincraig added: "What follows is that you are saying that 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 crime...of murder of a horrendous nature. If so, it involves their making up and persisting in a concocted story...Now, what do you prefer, ladies and gentlemen? It is up to you..."

The jury preferred to disbelieve the defence, and find Campbell and Steele guilty.

But these comments came under scrutiny in the appeal ruling which last week saw Campbell and Steele walk free 20 years after they were convicted, and on their third attempt at appeal.

In the appeal court judgment, Lord Gill, the Lord Justice-Clerk, said that comments like those made by Lord Kincraig about defence criticisms of the police were not uncommon 20 years ago. But, he added, the appeal had to be decided "by the judicial standards of today".

Lord Gill continued: "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. 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.

"[Lord Kincraig] not only referred to the defence in forthright terms, but went on to warn the jury that if they accepted the defence case 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 [judge’s] charge.

"Nevertheless, it did not misrepresent the defence. On the contrary... that was a central point in the defence. In our view, the judge’s comments were not a misdirection."

With that ruling, an expert in linguistics became the man Campbell and Steele had to thank the most for persuading the appeal judges that there had been a miscarriage of justice.

Professor Brian Clifford, 58, had been asked by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to examine "the verbals" when it was deciding whether Campbell and Steele should be allowed to mount a fresh appeal.

Prof Clifford has held the chair 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," said Lord Gill, sitting with Lords MacLean and Macfadyen.

Prof Clifford had concluded from experiments which he conducted, his experience and scientific literature, that it was unlikely in either case that all of the officers concerned could have recalled the statement, and noted it in their notebooks, in virtually identical words. His opinion was backed by fellow expert, Dr Peter French.

Lord Gill said Prof Clifford’s evidence raised the principal issue in the appeals.

"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, let alone have made so incriminating a statement. Perhaps the most remarkable feature of all is that this crucial statement, which was a breakthrough in the police inquiry, was not reported to [the officer in charge] until the following day."

The judges said that it was equally remarkable that Steele, another experienced criminal, should also have spontaneously volunteered such an incriminating statement. It was said to have been made in a police car, and only the driver had noted it at the time. The senior officer, whose hands were free, did not.

"We are sceptical about this evidence even without the benefit of Prof 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," added Lord Gill.

In a study conducted by Prof Clifford, 57 people heard the statements individually via a Glasgow accent and were asked to write them down. None could recall all 24 of Campbell’s "words".

"The memory performance that apparently was exhibited by the police officers...must be seen as truly remarkable. So remarkable in fact as to be doubtful," concluded Prof Clifford. He added that the probability that any random four officers could recall a sentence of 24 words in identical terms was "infinitesimal". The degree of similarity in the statements could have resulted only from comparison or collaboration.

In another experiment, Prof Clifford looked at the probability of recalling accurately Steele’s eight "words" some ten minutes after they had been uttered, as three police officers claimed to have done.

On the findings, he could say that identical verbatim delayed recall was "not readily available to humans". The fact that three officers had managed to recall it verbatim was "quite remarkable" and it was hard to escape the conclusion that the similarities were "due to other than independent retrieval of a stored memory of a heard utterance". The Crown argued at the appeal that the experiments could not replicate the significance which the statements had for the police officers. It had been one of their most important cases, and they knew they would have to remember the statements.

Lord Gill said: "[Prof Clifford’s] evidence is based on established theory and on experimental proof. His 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.

"In our view, any jury hearing Prof Clifford’s evidence would have assessed the police evidence in an entirely different light. 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.

"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."

Related topic

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

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 9,107
Reply with quote  #8 
Hope big TC can get his docu out to a bigger audience to expose the police corruption that took place before, during and after his conviction


Avatar / Picture

Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #9 

"What follows is that you are saying that 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 crime...of murder of a horrendous nature. If so, it involves their making up and persisting in a concocted story...Now, what do you prefer, ladies and gentlemen? It is up to you..."
Lord Kincraig 1984

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

Posts: 2
Reply with quote  #10 

I'm studying to be a defence lawyer, and have been reading up on the Glasgow crime scene and will always remember this terrible fire, I was 8yrs old and lived not far from the area when my sister and her friend returned from the nightclub waking up the family to tell them about it.  The husband of victims Christine Halleron (need Doyle) and father to their deceased baby boy Mark who both perished in this fire has also passed away sadly probably from a broken heart, he never re-married or had much of a life after this terrible murder.  While I believe that TC Campbell and Joe Steel are both innocent parties also I still feel that other victims need to be kept in mind.  Nobody ever mentions what became of the Mrs Doyle and her two surviving son's either, remember this could have been us and our family .... please click on this link to his obituary below and leave some flowers;item_type=candles;s_source=nqgl_evt

HALLERON — GERARD. Peacefully, at the Marie Curie Hospice, on 17th August, 2009, Gerry, beloved husband of the late Christine, loving dad of the late Mark, much loved son of the late James and Margaret, dear brother of John and the late Mary and son-in-law of Lily Doyle. Fortified by rites of Holy Church, R.I.P. Reception and vigil at All Saints R.C. Church, Broomfield Road, on Thursday, 20th August, at 6pm. Funeral Mass on Friday, 21st August, at 10am, thereafter to Old Monklands Cemetery.


Avatar / Picture

Posts: 1,688
Reply with quote  #11 
R.i.p Must have been the most devastating thing to lose family like that nothing would ever be the same again. The justice system let the family down by not having the right person or people locked away for life  . Innocent people brought into and accused of a sickening crime like this and having to fight to get out after years locked away at least they now have their freedom maybe not in its entirety but a sort of freedom but the family will never see those loved ones again.
"Better to die on your feet than live on your knees"

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 9,107
Reply with quote  #12 
In March 2003, I met TC Campbell in his house in the East End of Glasgow. At the time his statements couldn't have been published because the trial was still on. Campbell was quietly having his lunch in his flat with his wife Karen when I spoke to him. The environment he was in couldn't have been further away from Barlinnie or from all the other jails he had been in: frilly curtains adorned the windows, ceramic knick-knacks the furniture, photographs hung from the walls. While quietly eating, Campbell revealed to me in that occasion that he and Steele were both sceptical and a bit worried about the appeal, yet they were also happy. He also told me he had always been annoyed and angry at the label the media had stuck on him, "the ice cream killer", but he could do nothing rather than wait till the appeal and prove everybody he was innocent. But where did he find the strength to go on throughout those years? "Indignation and outrage gave me strength," Campbell stated, "You feel you've been abused, degraded and violated for all history to view and you know it's not right. You feel you're the only person who knows what's true and the only one to know what's right. When you give up on your own life, the pain and the hardship you endure become irrelevant, because there's something else that it's more important than you and your life and that's justice for all, justice for the children who will come after you, justice for the next generation. In the face of all that, your life becomes meaningless, I felt that my life became unimportant in the face of the ongoing travesty." Campbell talked a lot about justice and I wondered when, according to him, there is justice in our world, "Where there is no equality, there is no justice; where there is no justice there is no peace," he said, "where one party in any dispute retains the right or retains the privilege to control the mechanisms of justice, then you have inequality and you always have oppression. Then justice becomes irrelevant and equality becomes irrelevant."

Justice, though, seems to have been often forgotten in Great Britain, where miscarriages of justice happen quite frequently. "They keep on happening, but they don't adjust the system," Campbell claimed. "Miscarriages of justice aren't publicised because politicians and the media are so keen to say we have the best system in the world, but it's not like that. Now and again miscarriages of justice make the press and go into the public perception, but you'll never see anything coming into the public perception about what happens to the people who have suffered a miscarriage of justice after they get out of jail. Usually they give them a compensation, but you can't compensate people for years of imprisonment, for years of loss of their lives and their families, you can't compensate the victims, the victims have been violated, the victims' families have been violated by the fact that the wrong person has been convicted," he said in an angry tone, continuing: "A miscarriage of justice helps the guilty to go free and to stay free, nothing has ever been done to correct the system to stop something like this from reoccurring again and again. It will always re-occur while there is not equality in the law. I believe that the system of Scottish Justice is one of the best systems in the world but the administration of that is the worst. The Scottish Justice System is one of the best systems in the world IF properly administered, the problem is that it is never properly administered. It is always administered by people who are concerned about their own careers and want to pursue things for their own aims. They tell me the system is getting better, but I don't think it is: justice only seems to be done, but it has got to be done to be seemed to be done."


Avatar / Picture

Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #13 

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

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 9,107
Reply with quote  #14 

INNOCENT; We asked Joe Steele if he was responsible for the six `Ice Cream Wars' murders. He answered: No. Britain's top lie detector expert said: This man is telling the truth.

FOR 17 years Joe Steele has denied killing six people in the notorious Ice Cream Wars murders. 

Yesterday, the Sunday Mail put him to the test - and found Steele is telling the truth. 

We commissioned Britain's leading lie detector expert Bruce Burgess to put him through an exhaustive polygraph test just days before his latest appeal is to be heard. 

No questions were out of bounds - and neither Steele nor the Sunday Mail had any input in them - they were set by Mr Burgess. 

Steele did not hesitate over any question. 

We asked: Did he murder the Doyle family? 

The answer was a clear: "No!" 

Mr Burgess concluded: "Joe Steele told the truth when he answered my questions. The results show there has been a terrible miscarriage of justice in this case. 

"I would be happy to go to court and tell them of my findings. I believe that truth should come out, not just for Joe Steele but also for the Doyle family." 

This is the first time a lie detector test has ever taken place in Scotland and the results were conclusive - they showed Steele answered all of the questions truthfully. 

He was asked: Did you murder the Doyle family? Answer: No. 

Did you pour petrol through their door? Answer: No. 

Did you start the fire that killed the Doyle family? Answer: No. 

Have you ever been in the close where the Doyle family lived? Answer: No. 

Were you present when the fire started. Answer? No. 

Do you know for sure who started the fire. Answer? No. 

Did you talk about the Doyle fire in any pub? Answer: No. 

Did you tell police: "I thought you'd have been here before now."? Answer: No. 

Did you tell police : "I'm no' the one that lit the match."? Answer: No. 

Mr Burgess, who has worked extensively on sex crimes and paedophile cases, said: "Joe Steele answered each question truthfully. 

"The equipment I use is 99 per cent accurate. There is no doubt in my results. I would be happy to show them in any court in the land." 

Steele, 40, who escaped from jail three times and even superglued himself to the gates of Buckingham Palace to protest his innocence, said: "If anyone ever doubted that I was innocent, I hope this proves it once and for all. 

"I had no worries about taking this test. I know I'm innocent. I know I never killed the Doyle family. I know I've spent 17 years wasting away behind bars for something I didn't do. 

"I don't know if the Crown Office will ever have the guts to clear me once and for all but I think this proves my innocence to the people who matter. 

"I can't stop thinking about the years I've been kept apart from my family, my wife Dolly and my two boys. 

"And I can't stop thinking about the Doyles. I did this for them too. I want them to see justice at last." 

In 1984, six members of the Doyle family died after fire ripped through their flat in Glasgow's Ruchazie. 

Andrew Doyle, 18, brothers James, 23, and Anthony, 14, father James, 53, sister Christine Halleron, 22, and her 18- month-old, Mark, all perished. 

Another brother, Daniel, was taken to hospital, critically injured, but survived. 

The Doyles were victims of a turf war over lucrative ice cream van runs through Glasgow's housing schemes. The vans, often used as a front for drug dealing, could net thousands of pounds a week. 

Steele and TC Campbell, 52, were convicted of the killings, but have always maintained their innocence. 

This Wednesday, their latest appeal will be heard in court. 

But lawyers for the Ice Cream Two fear appeal judges may never hear crucial new evidence that could overturn the murder convictions. The pair have always protested their innocence of the 1984 mass murder. 
Their hopes of finally being cleared were raised after the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission raised concerns about police evidence against them. But the pair's lawyers fear the Crown will try to argue the crucial new evidence cannot be heard. 

Steele and Campbell have always insisted that police fabricated statements used against them in court. 

And the review commission found that four senior police officers colluded to make up the verbal "evidence". 

The officers claimed Campbell told them: "I only wanted the van windaes shot. The fire at the Fat Boy's was only meant to be a frightener that went too far." 

They alleged that Steele opened his door to them and said: "I thought you'd have been here before now." 

Later they claimed he said: "I'm no' the one that lit the match." Linguistics experts brought in by the commission to test that evidence found it would have taken odds of billions to one to have four officers repeat those verbal statements, word for word. 

In experiments involving more than 200 people, the very best test subject could only remember six words in total, and they weren't even in the correct order. 

It is this evidence the Crown is trying to suppress, along with statements from witnesses who say they were coerced by police officers to give statements against Steele and Campbell. 

Convicted crook Billy Love gave evidence in court against Campbell and Steele in the original trial, claiming he'd heard them plotting the fire. 

After he'd given the "false" statement to police he'd been released on bail for two attempted armed robberies. 

But after Steele and Campbell were convicted, Love claimed he'd been "blackmailed" by police in return for covering up the attempted murder shooting of Andrew `Fat Boy' Doyle. 

Billy Love admitted he'd framed Campbell and Steele, and later told of his regret saying: "I've had to look at myself every day in the mirror because of that." 

His sister, Aggie Love, wanted to give evidence that proved Billy was persuaded to frame Steele and TC, and that she witnessed her brother shooting at the Doyle's ice cream van. 

But she's never been allowed to give that evidence to the Appeal Court. And two further trial witnesses claim they'd lied under police pressure, Joe Granger and his girlfriend Lynn Chalmers. 

Granger said he was beaten until he signed a statement claiming he was lookout man on the night of the murders, implicating Steele and Campbell. When he changed his story in court, he was charged with perjury and jailed. 

Two of the leading police officers in the case are now dead, Detective Chief Superintendent Charles Craig, the then head of CID, died in 1991. 

Craig was also the officer who arrested Raymond Gilmour - jailed for the 1981 murder of schoolgirl Pamela Hastie, then released subject to appeal last year after SCCRC intervention. The other senior officer on the Doyle case, Detective Superintendent Norrie Walker, was found in his fume- filled car four years after the trial, a hose pipe attached to the exhaust. 

Human Rights expert John Scott said: "It's ludicrous that after all these years, there are any moves to suppress evidence or expert testimony." 

Top criminal lawyer John Carroll, who has represented Steele and Campbell since 1985, said: "I made a promise to fight for Joe Steele and Tommy Campbell until they get a fair trial, and that includes a fair hearing of all pertinent information and evidence. 

"I intend to keep that promise." 

Experts say tests vital for justice 

LIE detector tests are not allowed as evidence in British courts. 

But leading experts believe they could play a key role in the justice system. 

Professor Don Grubin's pioneering work with sex offenders at Newcastle University has prompted calls from the Home Office to carry out trials. 

Professor Grubin said: "I'm a great supporter of the polygraph. It's a wonderful tool. 

"But there would need to be standard- isation of training and constant reviews of test results before a role in court could be considered." 

The lie detector, or polygraph, was first invented in America in the early 1920s by psychologist William Moulton Marston, the creator of Wonder Woman. 

It works by measuring responses through heartbeat, breathing, blood pressure and sweat on skin. The theory is that lies provoke stress responses which can be monitored on a graph. 

Controls are used to measure responses to lies before tests get underway. Accuracy depends on the tester's skills and the way questions are asked. 

Our expert, Bruce Burgess, was trained by the American Polygraph Association alongside some of America's top police officers. 

He carries out highly confidential work for some of the country's top financial institutions as well as with sex offenders. 

Burgess, 58, said: "In the hands of a skilled examiner, the polygraph is highly accurate."


Avatar / Picture

Posts: 9,107
Reply with quote  #15 

One retired officer, who was close to the original investigation, told: "The man behind the Doyle murders was highly prized as a 'grass. There is no question high-ranking officers kept him out of the frame, and fitted up others to take the rap. In those days, fitting up was a way of life. If I had to go in the witness box and tell the truth, I'd be sweating. In a fit-up job, we never sweated because it was all planned out before we ever saw the inside of a court."


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


"He has put more guys behind bars than I ever did and I was in the job for more than 20 years. He'd turn in rivals to the police one by one until he emerged as a main player. His links grew Europe-wide, but every time any attempt was made to catch him red-handed, he mysteriously seemed to know what was coming."


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


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

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.