Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[HaveHope]

Wasnt sure where to put this but has anyone heard of this case?  14 days for an appeal, is that not very unusual for an appeal to take that long?  I was just thinking of these people all at various stages, coming up at once, Nat's retrial, Geddes's current appeal (see link), Luke's application, Sean awaiting decision on forensics, Wullie Gages appeal next month. There is not a hope in hell that all of these people will win anything or be released one after the other.  If that were the case, the public might just starting asking questions and they wouldnt want that, would they? 

It just seems like a game, they have the ball, its their rules, and rules will be changed to suit the result, in their favour, of course. I'm beginning to wonder if its like sitting round a table, putting names in a hat, and the one that gets drawn, may get a fair crack at the whip, and the rest of the named tickets gets screwed into a ball and binned.

All we seem to be hearing these days is refusals, postponements, awaiting decisions.  Why are cases drawn out for so long?  I can only assume its part of the game.  It must be mental torture for the innocent person and their families.

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/highlands-islands/282466-businessman-awaits-outcome-of-murder-appeal/ 

[Sandra Lean]

I don't know anything about the Geddes case, but it does highlight the more general concerns about the CJS - the delays, postponements, strange decisions, etc, as well as what is being allowed to pass for "evidence" and "proof of guilt". I picked out these two passages from another article on the geddes case, to highlight what I mean:

The appeal was due to be heard in May but was put off when the Crown asked for more time while they waited for the outcome of another case

There's an example of HH's point that it's "their ball and their rules." They can wait it out and see if another case is going to compromise their position, and then change their approach accordingly. The defence has no such opportunity - they can only respond to what the Crown puts forward, when the Crown decides to do so.

The Highland man claims his lawyers did not do enough to contest fingerprint evidence at the trial. His prints were found on his victim's will, along with 31 other unidentified prints.
If these turned out to be from Mr Mackay, members of his family, or his solicitor the will could have been shown to be genuine

And there's the "evidence and proof" point. Common sense tells us if a document has lots of fingerprints on it, that means it has been handled by losts of people. Leaping on one set of fingerprints - those of the accused - and claiming that's "sinister" is nothing more than a selective manipulation of the available evidence.

The other point in this case which once again raises its ugly head is that of pathologist reports. When pathologists are routinely working for the CJS in criminal cases, they are inevitably beginning from the premise that they are looking for foul play. An objective analysis of the information should be looking for information for and against any suggestion of foul play, but far too often, these scientists fall into the default position of looking only on the one side - we just have to remember Prof Sir Roy Meadow, Prof David Southall, Dr Michael Heath, Paula Lannas....who, between them, reported on thousands of cases before being discredited.

I have no idea whether or not Mr Geddes committed the crime he is charged with, and, not knowing anything at all about the case, I couldn't comment one way or the other. But these reported details of his case once again highlight why doubts emerge as to the safety of convictions such as this one - the system needs to be seen to be fair and just, and not just "cherry picking" the bits of information that appear to show guilt, and hiding any alternative from the jury.

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/highlands-islands/276480-businessman-appeals-against-life-sentence-for-wicked-murder/

[nugnug]

what happened to Arlene frasers body might not be as big a mystery as we first thought.

[HaveHope]

what happened to Arlene frasers body might not be as big a mystery as we first thought.

Care to share your thoughts 

[nugnug]

well well hector dick who was seen outside her house on the day she disappeared happened to be a pig farmer at the time.

[HaveHope]

well well hector dick who was seen outside her house on the day she disappeared happened to be a pig farmer at the time.

Oh good gawd, I really hope that is not the case. 

As for Hector Dick, I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him. 

[nugnug]

anyone old enough to remember the Mickie kidnapping.

[HaveHope]

anyone old enough to remember the Mickie kidnapping.

No idea who you mean.

[HaveHope]

anyone old enough to remember the Mickie kidnapping.

Have you got a link?

[HaveHope]

From yesterday
NAT Fraser is due in court again today charged with the murder of his wife Arlene in 1998.

 
Nat FraserThe former Elgin businessman is set for another procedural hearing at the High Court in Edinburgh.

Fraser has been charged with murdering his estranged wife Arlene (33) between April 28 and May 7, 1998 at the family home, 2 Smith Street, New Elgin or an unknown location elsewhere in Scotland.

Fraser (52) was served with an indictment last August alleging he killed his wife.

He is also accused of assaulting his wife on a number of occasions between the summer of 1987 and November 1994.

The case was continued last November for discussion of preliminary matters when Fraser appeared at the High Court in Glasgow.

http://www.northern-scot.co.uk/News/Nat-Fraser-due-in-court-06022012.htm

[HaveHope]

I'm assuming there must be a blanket ban on this case, as there is nothing that I can find relating to Nats latest appearances in court. 

[nugnug]

there seems to be a news blackout i am not sure why.

[HaveHope]

there seems to be a news blackout i am not sure why.

They probably think that the less the public hear about how corrupt the people are within the system the better.   

[nugnug]

well there going to hear sooner or later.

[HaveHope]

So this blanket ban is just for the prelimary hearing then?