The BBC give the Lord Advocate a good kicking...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/s...st/6987914.stm

" Lord Clarke was undoubtedly correct this morning in withdrawing the
three charges against Angus Sinclair from the jury in the High Court
in Edinburgh."

"The only material evidence the Crown appeared to have was DNA
evidence indicating that there had been contact between Sinclair and
one of the girls. In law this is insufficient to put any of the three
charges before the jury."

"There will undoubtedly be concern in the Scottish legal profession
that this is an example of a "political" prosecution.

Since the lord advocate has become a cabinet member of the Scottish
Executive/Scottish Government there has been a body of opinion amongst
those practising at the criminal bar in Scotland that decisions are
sometimes made by the Lord Advocate/Crown Office on the basis of what
is politically appropriate rather than solely on the grounds of what
is legally correct.

For the Crown in Scotland to bring cases before our criminal courts
which have no prospect of proving is a waste of everyone's time, a
waste of public money and a highly distressing experience for the
close family of the victims who died in these tragic events 30 years
ago."


That's pretty strong stuff. I suggested there should be a criminal
offence of 'reckless prosecution' a year or two ago, with exactly this
kind of case in mind.

In decidedly related news, it appears the prosecutor who brought this
abortion of a case before a judge has done a runner:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/s...st/6987936.stm

"Police are trying to trace the lawyer who led the prosecution team in
the collapsed World's End murder trial.

Advocate depute Alan Mackay was not in court to hear Lord Clarke rule
that Angus Sinclair had no case to answer. "

"Lothian and Borders Police said they were concerned about Mr Mackay
who was reported missing at 1145 BST by court officials.

Officers still do not know his whereabouts and are trying to trace
him."


At least he seems to have some sense of shame!

Mike

On 10 Sep, 20:41, Mike Ross <m> wrote:
> The BBC give the Lord Advocate a good kicking...
>
> [..]
>> "The only material evidence the Crown appeared to have was DNA
> evidence indicating that there had been contact between Sinclair and
> one of the girls. In law this is insufficient to put any of the three
> charges before the jury."

And yet another current high-profile news item is based on DNA
evidence alone?

dg

Mike Ross <mike> wrote in message
news:3ulc
[..]
> him."
>> At least he seems to have some sense of shame!
>
> Mike
> --
> [..]
> 'As I walk along these shores
> I am the history within'

Roy Meadow is nothing compared to this lot

Michael Nifong in the USA was jailed (for a day ,
well it must not be too balanced compared to
decades in jail for his maliciously and falsely prosecuted
targets)

It is this Jonathan Whitaker devil that should be
running away -
he has previously identified a director
of forensic science in a murder,
identified a 6 yearold kid as the
Omagh bomber,
identified a murderer as a stain source
rather than the victim with a supposed
precision of 77 million to 1
- no it was the victim was the source .

ViewArticle.aspx?articleid=3325724

Fears for lawyer after case collapses

THE advocate-depute in the collapsed World's End trial was said to be
"missing" today and concern has been expressed for his whereabouts.

Alan Mackay was not in court to hear Angus Sinclair cleared of rape and
murder charges after Lord Clarke ruled there was no case to answer.

The move came following a submission by Sinclair's defence team.

But what was said to be crucial DNA evidence in relation to ligatures used
in the killings was never heard in court.

And independent MSP Margo MacDonald has called for an inquiry into the
prosecution case.

The Lothians politician said just a fifth of the Crown's evidence was led by
Mr Mackay.

Ms MacDonald has lodged a question with the First Minister, asking whether
an inquiry will be heard into the collapse of the case and Sinclair's
acquittal.

She said: "It raises very disturbing questions about the way in which the
prosecution office worked. I understand they led less than a fifth of the
evidence they had."

The MSP added: "It appears as though somebody has slipped up somewhere.
Everyone would like to know that this won't happen again."

The trial was temporarily halted on Wednesday shortly after DNA expert
Jonathan Whitaker, billed as a star witness, came to the stand. The jury had
previously heard forensic evidence from other scientists relating to swabs
taken from the girls' bodies and stains on one of the victims' coat.

Mr Whitaker, 43, from the Forensic Science Services laboratory in Wetherby,
North Yorkshire, was to speak about tests on the ligatures used to tie up
and strangle the girls.

Problems arose when the expert was asked to identify the ligatures, which
were formed from tights and recovered from the girls' wrists and necks.
QUESTIONS: Margo MacDonald has called for an inquiry into the prosecution
case

It emerged that Mr Whitaker had only seen "some of" the productions before.

An objection was raised by defence QC Edgar Prais and the jury sent out.

They were later sent home for the day as Lord Clarke agreed with Mr Prais
that there were difficulties with Mr Whitaker's testimony.

The Crown was advised that the jury required an "unbroken chain" of
evidence.

The following day the scientist took to the stand again but answered
questions about the swab and coat evidence only.

Margaret Curran MSP, Labour's justice spokeswoman, said: "It is deeply
disappointing that this trial has been thrown out due to lack of evidence.
No criminal trial should be brought before a court unless there is
sufficient evidence.

"The families of Christine Eadie and Helen Scott have had to relive this
nightmare for absolutely nothing.

"After almost 30 years they are still seeking answers."

Margo MacDonald said she would learn tomorrow if her question was to be
addressed by Alex Salmond at Parliament on Thursday. If it is not heard, the
MSP said she will find an alternative way of pursuing the issue.

Bill Aitken MSP, of the Conservatives, said: "For the families of Helen
Scott and Christine Eadie this will be absolutely devastating, and our
thoughts are with them at a very difficult time.

"The initial information we are receiving suggests that questions will be
asked in the days to come - rightly so, as well. However, for now we should
think of Helen Scott, Christine Eadie, their families and their friends, who
have already had to wait 30 years for any justice to be served."

ps
What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing.chat.ru/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine.

Valid email nutteing@fastmail.....fm (remove 4 of the 5 dots)
Ignore any other apparent em address used to post this message -
it is defunct due to spam.

Mike Ross <mike> posted
>
>"There will undoubtedly be concern in the Scottish legal profession that
>this is an example of a "political" prosecution.


What political motive might there be?

"PeteM" <Bozo> wrote in message
news:fwok
> Mike Ross <mike> posted
>>
>>"There will undoubtedly be concern in the Scottish legal profession that
>>this is an example of a "political" prosecution.
>> What political motive might there be?
>
> --
> PeteM

That Something Must Be Done.

On 11 Sep, 12:00, "TD" <tdefr> wrote:
> "PeteM" <B> wrote in message
>
> news:fwok
>>
>> That Something Must Be Done.

The guy has a history of raping and murdering young girls. He admits
to having had consensual sex with two young girls on the same evening
as they were murdered.
I don't think you need to be a rabid mail reader to expect him to be
tried.

"toad" <toad_oftoadhall> wrote in message
news:1410
> On 11 Sep, 12:00, "TD" <tdefr> wrote:
>
> The guy has a history of raping and murdering young girls. He admits
> to having had consensual sex with two young girls on the same evening
> as they were murdered.
> I don't think you need to be a rabid mail reader to expect him to be
> tried.

I think you have to be a rabid mail reader or Home Secretary (or Scottish
equivalent) to expect him to be tried for offences for which there is
insufficient evidence to try him.

Mike Ross <mike> wrote in
news:437be3to651n9c1h5k6vavebc8micr3ulc:

>"There will undoubtedly be concern in the Scottish legal profession
>that this is an example of a "political" prosecution.
....

> That's pretty strong stuff. I suggested there should be a criminal
> offence of 'reckless prosecution' a year or two ago, with exactly this
> kind of case in mind.

I understood that the point of this story was that the Scottish bar believe
that the decision to end the prosecution not on the basis of the evidence
but on the basis of political pressure.

Now I’m sure that would be a better windmill for you to tilt at -
considering that there was enough evidence at the committal stage for the
judge there to believe that there was a case to answer.

In message <1189516192.612009.131410>, toad
<toad_oftoadhall> writes
>On 11 Sep, 12:00, "TD" <tdefr> wrote:
>
>The guy has a history of raping and murdering young girls. He admits
>to having had consensual sex with two young girls on the same evening
>as they were murdered.
>I don't think you need to be a rabid mail reader to expect him to be
>tried.
>

Unfortunately, while one might think that that was strongly indicative
that he might have been involved, in terms of actual evidence that the
sex was not consensual or that this individual rather than the other man
concerned actually killed the girls, there was no case beyond reasonable
doubt.

On 11 Sep, 21:59, Richard Miller <rich>
wrote:
> In message <1189516192612009131>, toad
> <toad_oftoadh> writes
>>
> Unfortunately, while one might think that that was strongly indicative
> that he might have been involved, in terms of actual evidence that the
> sex was not consensual or that this individual rather than the other man
> concerned actually killed the girls, there was no case beyond reasonable
> doubt.

Based on the evidence I'd say that beyond any reasonable doubt he did
do, and I have no doubt a jury would to.

Purely circumstantial evidence must be enough to make a case because
they stitched up Barry George with nothing more than that.

Just out of interest what would you estimate the odds that he _didn't_
to be?

In message <1189589935.020470.257650>, toad
<toad_oftoadhall> writes
>On 11 Sep, 21:59, Richard Miller <rich>
>wrote:
>
>Based on the evidence I'd say that beyond any reasonable doubt he did
>do, and I have no doubt a jury would to.

Which is precisely why the judge was right not to let it go to a jury -
because a properly directed jury acting rationally could not reach such
a decision; but these cases tend to lead to emotion overriding
rationality.
>
>Purely circumstantial evidence must be enough to make a case because
>they stitched up Barry George with nothing more than that.

Oh, they had far less with Barry George than in this case. That one was
a real disgrace. That should never have gone to the jury either.

>
>Just out of interest what would you estimate the odds that he _didn't_
>to be?
>

50-50, because it is perfectly plausible that the other guy killed them
both. And that ain't enough for a conviction.

Richard Miller <richard> wrote in message
news:fwvz
> In message <1189589935.020470.257650>, toad
> <toad_oftoadhall> writes
> >On 11 Sep, 21:59, Richard Miller <rich>
> >wrote:
> >> In message <1189516192612009131>,
toad
> >> <toad_oftoadh> writes
> >>
> >> >On 11 Sep, 12:00, "TD" <tdefr> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The guy has a history of raping and murdering young girls. He admits
> >> >to having had consensual sex with two young girls on the same evening
> >> >as they were murdered.
> >> >I don't think you need to be a rabid mail reader to expect him to be
> >> >tried.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, while one might think that that was strongly indicative
> >> that he might have been involved, in terms of actual evidence that the
> >> sex was not consensual or that this individual rather than the other
man
> >> concerned actually killed the girls, there was no case beyond
reasonable
>
> Which is precisely why the judge was right not to let it go to a jury -
> because a properly directed jury acting rationally could not reach such
> a decision; but these cases tend to lead to emotion overriding
> rationality.
>
> Oh, they had far less with Barry George than in this case. That one was
> a real disgrace. That should never have gone to the jury either.
>> 50-50, because it is perfectly plausible that the other guy killed them
> both. And that ain't enough for a conviction.
> --
> Richard Miller

Anyone following the career of this Jonathan
Whitaker would know exactly what went wrong.
All Edgar Prais had to do was call up his record
of repeated attempts to pervert the course of justice.

ViewArticle.aspx?articleid=3326511

"... WHAT WENT WRONG?

THE prospect of securing a conviction in the World's End trial appeared to
diminish rapidly as the prosecution case neared its end. The seeds of the
Crown's difficulties seem to have been sown when Jonathan Whitaker, a
recognised authority on DNA profiling, was in the witness box.

His evidence was interrupted by an objection from Edgar Prais. When the
evidence resumed, copies of a report prepared by Mr Whitaker were removed
from the jury.

The contents of the report are unclear, but it may have related to evidence
that linked Sinclair to the ligatures used to bind and strangle Helen Scott,
below, and Christine Eadie. ... "


ps
What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing.chat.ru/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine.

Sounds like a re-run of this farce,
FSS people signing off other people's
work or not as the case may be.
[url down]
....
'I was abroad on date of my statement'

A witness in the Omagh bombing trial has told the court that she was in
Zambia on the date which appears on her police statements.

Scenes of Crimes Officer Fiona Cooper showed her passport to the court this
week to prove she was out of Northern Ireland on the date her statements
bear.

She was the SOCO who examined the explosive device at Altmore Forest in
April 2001.

Defence barrister Orlando Pownall asked her: "Can you explain why the
certified copy contains a date when you could not possibly have made that
statement?" She said she could not. ...


ViewArticle.aspx?articleid=3327464
....
But Prais raised an objection, and the reports were hurriedly taken from the
jury. Prais was unhappy that a forensic expert, Jonathan Whitaker, was to
give evidence about the DNA extracted from the ligatures. Prais pointed out
he had not been the expert to extract the genetic material from all the
ligatures and those who had done that work should talk about it.

Police contacted the experts who had conducted the work and they were soon
available to give evidence. But when Mackay was allowed to resume, he didn't
call them and the jury did not hear this crucial evidence. ...


ps
What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing.chat.ru/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine.