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.