The Ferris Conspiracy Forum
Sign up  |   |   |  Calendar
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 8 of 8     «   Prev   5   6   7   8
hammer6

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #106 
22 January 2007
TC SON DENIES KNIFING CLAIMS...

THE son of cleared Ice Cream Wars suspect Thomas "TC" Campbell has rubbished reports that he was knifed in the face at New Year.

A down market tabloid claimed yesterday that Tommy Campbell jnr was slashed from "eyebrow to chin" by a woman just before the bells.

The paper said Tommy was attacked in Jack's Bar in Glasgow's Gallowgate area But last night, he revealed that he has never even set foot in Jack's Bar.

Tommy, 34, of Pollokshields, Glasgow, met with Record reporters to prove his face was completely scar-free.

He said: "I was at a party miles away that night. What has been written is a load of rubbish. It's upsetting for me and my family.

"I was absolutely raging when I read about it.

"Where this so-called newspaper got this nonsense from we just don't know."

Tommy was diagnosed with leukaemia four years ago but is now in remission and recovering slowly.

He said: "I'll be on medication for the rest of my days.

"My muscles deteriorated badly because of my illness.

"It's difficult and I don't need these kind of lies printed about me on top of everything else."

TC and Joe Steele served 20 years for murder after six members of the Doyle family died in a blaze in Ruchazie, Glasgow in 1984.

The convictions were quashed in 2004.


__________________
The TRUTH is out there...........
hamburg113

Registered:
Posts: 1
Reply with quote  #107 

Hi

 

I found that a member asked same question in this forum some months ago.

 

Pls use search box to find this questions with comments


If you want to get more materials that related to this topic, you can visit: Cargill interview questions

 

Best regards.

hammer6

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #108 

Indeed SMA -)


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

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #109 

My Bookss

Indictment:Trial by Fire

The Wilderness Years

  

Sentenced to life imprisonment, of which they were to serve not less than 20 years according to the judge's recommendation.

March 2004: Campbell's and Steele's convictions are quashed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh

 

 

 

http://www.tccampbell.co.uk/


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

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,688
Reply with quote  #110 

Weeeet wooooooo  Two books are Brilliant well worth the read


__________________
"Better to die on your feet than live on your knees"
Admin2

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 9,041
Reply with quote  #111 

There are good policemen,bad policemen and the the ugly.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The trial judge dealt with the credibility and reliabilityof the police officers in the context of Campbell's line of defence. He saidthe following.

 

"The credibility and the reliability of the witnesses whom you heard are matters for you. You have to decide who you believe, wherethere is a conflict on the evidence. Now, in this case an attack has been madeby counsel on the credibility of Love, and Ness, and many of the detective officers involved in investigating these crimes.

I have already given you a direction upon the evidence of Love; you have to consider whether you are to accept Love's evidence which incriminates some of the accused. So far as the detectives are concerned, MrMacaulay delivered a vehement and sustained attack upon the integrity of anumber of detective officers involved in this case, some of considerable experience and in superior positions, some with less experience and in lower positions.

He used such words as 'rotten', 'Strathclyde Police rotten',and you will remember he used such expressions as 'There are good policemen,bad policemen' and then reference was made to 'the ugly'; and they have beensubmitted to be liars and bullies. Well, of course, you appreciate that this attack is made on behalf of Thomas Campbell: Mr Macaulay is acting upon theinstructions of his client, either express or implied, because counsel do nothold any views on these matters; Mr Macaulay said this to you himself: so whatthis attack amounted to was Mr Macaulay on behalf of Thomas Campbell alleging that the police were liars and bullies.

Now, the force or the validity of any attack of this kindmust be judged on the evidence in the case, not on evidence in other cases,what other policemen may have done in other cases, or on anything else.

You have to ask yourselves however 'What is the evidence onwhich this attack is based that the police are liars and bullies? What is itbased on?' That is for you to say, but so far as I can gather from the evidencewhich you have heard it is based upon the evidence of the accused, MrsCampbell, and on the young man Hamilton, who says he was bullied by the policeinto making a statement which he says is not true, Joseph Granger, who saidalso that he was bullied, or definitely he said he had his hair pulled in orderto be forced to make this statement or to sign a space on a plan, a dot on aplan, and the witness Reynolds, who said a 13-page statement was put beforehim, and he was told to sign it, and it was made up by the police: there may beothers.

Now, against that body of testimony you have the evidence ofthe detectives themselves to whom these allegations were put, and who deniedthem. You have to choose. It is only if you accept the evidence of the accusedand the others to whom I have referred that you could agree with Mr Macaulay'ssubmission. If you do, you must consider what follows.

 

What follows is that youare saying that not one or two or four but a large number of detectives have deliberately come here to perjure themselves, to build up a false case against an accused person, and they have carried this through right to the end; aconspiracy of the most sinister and serious kind.

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

 

It is up to you: you saw the witnesses in the witness box; you heard how the questions were answered.

 

You have to make up your mind what to believe.

 

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

 

 

Frightener: The Glasgow Ice-cream Wars

 


__________________
FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHTS
frankie

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 3,731
Reply with quote  #112 

Did Mr campbell and steele ever get an apoligie from the courts about there case.And did they offer them any help.So sad what those guys went through.Hats off to these brave men.

JK

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,688
Reply with quote  #113 

Dont think it would give them the time back but would be good if they would at least go face to face with the people they locked away for years 


__________________
"Better to die on your feet than live on your knees"
hammer6

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #114 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammer6

When is the CROWN OFFICE or EXECUTIVE going to inform the public what exactly went on in the BIGGEST MASS MURDER in Scottish history that eventually resulted in both men being EXONERATED and at the very least 17 (SEVENTEEN) POLICE officers committed whole-scale perjury or is this one that the Executive will use again like the Shirley McKie affair...........'After 9 years we feel there is no need for yet another inquiry into this affair'.

 

Sorry time has no limits with regards to justice it is only when TRUE justice is shown by freeing all the innocents and making sure that they have all the support that a convicted person have upon release from prison even the most vile of rapists and pedophiles get that help and the reason that the likes of TC and others get no help is due to the fact that the SYSTEM has to recognise that POLICE CORRUPTION exists in the first place.

 

There are several independent bodies set up in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to look at POLICE CORRUPTION and as yet SCOTLAND especially the STRATHCLYDE area have yet to accept this FACT or are they the only law abiding force in the world that does not have this problem?



This is what convicted the glasgow 2

 

 

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

 

They have formed this conspiracy to saddle the accused wrongly with the crimes of murder and attempted murder, and murder of a horrendous nature. If so, it involves their making up and persisting in a concocted story, concocted statements attributed wrongly, falsely, to the accused.

 

 

Now, what do you prefer, ladies and gentlemen? It is up to you: you saw the witnesses in the witness box; you heard how the questions were answered. You have to make up your mind what to believe.

 

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


__________________
The TRUTH is out there...........
Admin2

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 9,041
Reply with quote  #115 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Admin2

There are good policemen,bad policemen and the the ugly.

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

The trial judge dealt with the credibility and reliabilityof the police officers in the context of Campbell's line of defence. He saidthe following.

 

 

 

"The credibility and the reliability of the witnesses whom you heard are matters for you. You have to decide who you believe, wherethere is a conflict on the evidence. Now, in this case an attack has been madeby counsel on the credibility of Love, and Ness, and many of the detective officers involved in investigating these crimes.

 

I have already given you a direction upon the evidence of Love; you have to consider whether you are to accept Love's evidence which incriminates some of the accused. So far as the detectives are concerned, MrMacaulay delivered a vehement and sustained attack upon the integrity of anumber of detective officers involved in this case, some of considerable experience and in superior positions, some with less experience and in lower positions.

 

He used such words as 'rotten', 'Strathclyde Police rotten',and you will remember he used such expressions as 'There are good policemen,bad policemen' and then reference was made to 'the ugly'; and they have beensubmitted to be liars and bullies. Well, of course, you appreciate that this attack is made on behalf of Thomas Campbell: Mr Macaulay is acting upon theinstructions of his client, either express or implied, because counsel do nothold any views on these matters; Mr Macaulay said this to you himself: so whatthis attack amounted to was Mr Macaulay on behalf of Thomas Campbell alleging that the police were liars and bullies.

 

Now, the force or the validity of any attack of this kindmust be judged on the evidence in the case, not on evidence in other cases,what other policemen may have done in other cases, or on anything else.

 

You have to ask yourselves however 'What is the evidence onwhich this attack is based that the police are liars and bullies? What is itbased on?' That is for you to say, but so far as I can gather from the evidencewhich you have heard it is based upon the evidence of the accused, MrsCampbell, and on the young man Hamilton, who says he was bullied by the policeinto making a statement which he says is not true, Joseph Granger, who saidalso that he was bullied, or definitely he said he had his hair pulled in orderto be forced to make this statement or to sign a space on a plan, a dot on aplan, and the witness Reynolds, who said a 13-page statement was put beforehim, and he was told to sign it, and it was made up by the police: there may beothers.

 

Now, against that body of testimony you have the evidence ofthe detectives themselves to whom these allegations were put, and who deniedthem. You have to choose. It is only if you accept the evidence of the accusedand the others to whom I have referred that you could agree with Mr Macaulay'ssubmission. If you do, you must consider what follows.

 

What follows is that youare saying that not one or two or four but a large number of detectives have deliberately come here to perjure themselves, to build up a false case against an accused person, and they have carried this through right to the end; aconspiracy of the most sinister and serious kind.

 

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

 

It is up to you: you saw the witnesses in the witness box; you heard how the questions were answered.

 

You have to make up your mind what to believe.

 

 

 

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

 

 

Frightener: The Glasgow Ice-cream Wars
 
 

 























Abolish the corroboration rule of law [confused][crazy][sneaky][comp][nono][nono]

__________________
FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHTS
Admin2

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 9,041
Reply with quote  #116 
Copy news item of the conviction [nono][nono]

Doyle Murders.jpg 


__________________
FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHTS
Admin2

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 9,041
Reply with quote  #117 
Seems as though the main dude House was rattled by Lord McCluskey's REAL TIME comments [comp][thumb]

Corroboration: ‘Police not saints’ remark slammed (So they are saints then [confused])

Sir Stephen House said most police deserve public support. Picture: Robert Perry

Sir Stephen House said most police deserve public support. Picture: Robert Perry

  • by TOM PETERKIN
 

 

SCOTLAND’s most senior policeman has defended his force after a retired judge questioned whether officers would investigate cases in a fair and balanced way if the Scottish Government succeeds in abolishing corroboration.

 

Sir Stephen House, the Chief Constable of Police Scotland, has taken issue with a view expressed by the retired High Court judge and former Solicitor General Lord McCluskey, who has emerged as a prominent critic of the government’s plans.

Sir Stephen was reacting to an article by Lord McCluskey published in The Scotsman this week, in which he said that policemen were “not saints”.

In his article, Lord McCluskey cited the Hillsborough disaster inquiry, the Birmingham Six case, the Jimmy Savile “saga” and reports of Scottish officers being accused of crimes as examples of police malpractice.

The former Solicitor General argued that corroboration – whereby two corroborating pieces of evidence are required to prove guilt – compelled the police to fully investigate the background of crimes before presenting evidence to the fiscal.

Lord McCluskey claimed that “anyone with daily experience of our courts will have encountered cases in which the police have fabricated incriminating evidence”.

Sir Stephen said he was “very disappointed” by the peer’s comments on the ethics and behaviour of police officers. In a letter published in today’s Scotsman, the chief constable writes: “I view his comments as ill-judged, unjust, outdated and not entirely relevant to his supposed topic, which was proposed changes to corroboration.

“As leader of Police Scotiand, I believe I speak for more than 17,000 police officers, as well as generations of retired officers, when l refute Lord McCluskey’s outdated views on policing …the interests of policing and public confidence are ill-served by his comments.” He added: “Of course a small number of officers let us all down, but the huge majority deserve support for the job they do. I hope his lordship reflects on this.”

Sir Stephen was supported by Chief Superintendent David O’Connor of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents, (ASPS) who also wrote to The Scotsman. He wrote: “I am extremely disappointed that an individual of Lord McCluskey’s calibre found it necessary to attack the integrity of Scottish Police Service in such a manner merely to advance his personal views on the corroboration debate.”

The ASPS president also criticised Lord McCluskey for using examples from outside Scotland to back up his argument, saying it undermined his argument.

Lord McCluskey declined to comment last night.

Corroboration surfaced at First Minister’s Questions yesterday as Alex Salmond came under fire from the Liberal Democrats leader Willie Rennie, who claimed that the government’s position on the issue was “crackers”. Mr Rennie warned against abolishing “a great Scottish legal safeguard”.

But Mr Salmond defended the move, arguing that the need for corroboration meant some cases did not get to court, particularly those involving women who had been victims of sex crimes.

“That difficulty potentially denies justice to many people in Scotland, particularly women who have been the victims of sex crimes. They cannot get access to justice because of the general rule,” he said.

“We are talking about a real difficulty that affects real cases and real people.”

 (There are good policemen, bad policemen and the ugly............................

What follows is that youare saying that not one or two or four but a large number of detectives have deliberately come here to perjure themselves, to build up a false case against an accused person, and they have carried this through right to the end; aconspiracy of the most sinister and serious kind. They have formed this conspiracy to saddle the accusedwrongly with the crimes of murder and attempted murder, and murder of a horrendous nature. If so, it involves their making up and persisting in a concocted story, concocted statements attributed wrongly, falsely, to the accused. Now, what do you prefer, ladies and gentlemen?  )

 

 http://paulviking.websitetoolbox.com/post/show_single_post?pid=1280397348&postcount=115


__________________
FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHTS
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.