JUSTICE DEMANDS FULL DISCLOSURE
UPDATE @ 15 April 2015: I have been in contact with one of the SoS journalists who assured me that there is no major information being held back. I have been given clarification on a few points but I have a considerable amount of work to do before I can make good use of it. Please bear with me.
Despite the headlines and editorial, the case is not solved. In fact, there is nothing which makes any cause more likely than another. The evidence poses questions, very serious questions, for the police and Crown Office but first let’s see what was new.
There is new evidence, claimed new evidence which isn’t, doubtful conclusions, some confusion and, necessarily for a one-off article, lots of background material. Fortunately I can dispense with the background and focus on what is new because it is there that our knowledge increases. Also I don’t have time to sort through and correct their confusions, conclusions and claimed new evidence which isn’t. Therefore I focus only on what is new and the reason for its importance.
having been removed, the car was returned to the crash site
|1st source for above is retired senior police officer in Northern Constabulary|
|2nd source are Barbara and Allan Crowe, Australian tourists who found crash and Macrae|
That the car was removed and later returned to the scene isn’t new; John Finnie stated that a witness had told him. When I posed this possibility some months ago some readers, quite properly, questioned the idea on the basis that to do so would involve massive risk to the police but, with three witnesses, the likelihood is much greater that the evidence is correct. Given too that one witness, believed to be John Finnie’s contact, ‘was a former high-ranking officer in Northern Constabulary’ only adds to the credibility.
This raises serious questions about, for example, the position of the gun but far more important is the knowledge that neither the police nor the Crown Office thought it necessary, in any of their public statements, to acknowledge this fact. [Note: I know that there is no certainty yet about the car’s return to the scene]
If the car was returned, then a crucial question to be answered is,
When were the official police photographs taken?
I posed this in January and its importance is as follows. If the photographs were taken on Saturday, 6 April, before the car was removed to Fort Augustus then, provided the photos were developed, the police had a record of the car’s actual crash position. This would help establish where the gun’s position was relative to the original car position.
In Part 12 I estimate that the actual position of the driver’s door has to be known to an accuracy of no less than +/- 24 inches before any can claim that the gun was found directly below where the car’s door had been.
However, if the photos were taken when the car was returned, there is no record of where exactly the car had come to rest. All the police could use was PC Crawford’s memory or marks left by the crash.
I have doubts about whether marks from the crash could have been used because the site had been walked over by several witnesses on the Saturday; the car had been dragged from its resting position to be taken to Fort Augustus and finally returned to an ‘approximate’? position on Sunday.
Delamore and Semple use the return of the car to an approximate position as a possible explanation of why the gun was found so far from the car. They note, with no doubt,
When the car was returned it was placed close to the original site, but not in the precise spot.
The authors don’t state how they can make such solid claim about the car being ‘not in the precise spot’.
If the original car position was not known EXACTLY then it is hard to see how any conclusion can be drawn about where the gun was in relation to the position of the car far less the driver’s door as referenced by the Lord Advocate in 1990.
I ask that the authors make public all their information. This isn’t, or shouldn’t be, about selling newspapers or books but is about justice.
Crown Office claims they were given two statements reportedly from Crowes although the Crowes made no statement to police [asserted but not sourced]
The article states,
Furthermore, the Crowes claim that, despite leaving contact details, they were not asked to give any official witness statement.
The Crown Office claims that they were handed two witness statements, reportedly from the Crowes to Northern Constabulary in 1985. But Allan Crowe says the statements were not from him or his wife. “I think the police must have been talking to someone else. I did not make any formal statement at the time and I have never been contacted by the police or any other officials since that date.”
If, possibly a big ‘if’, Delamore and Semple can make this claim ‘stand up’ then the Crown Office has a lot of explaining to do.
How can there be statements on file from witnesses who claim never to have made them?
How can ‘Crown Counsel remains satisfied with the investigation into the death of William Macrae?
I ask that they (D & S) put more information into the public arena.
Procurator Fiscal claimed the death had been fully investigated one day before the ballistics tests were carried out [public sources]
I wish I found this. The information was there and I missed it. Well done!!!!
The ballistics tests, carried out on 10 April 1985, confirmed that the bullet which killed Macrae was fired from the gun found at the scene.
How could the death have been investigated fully when the Procurator Fiscal couldn’t have known the results of the ballistics, couldn’t have known if the killer gun had been found.
Strip everything out of this article except these three (new evidence) points and the result is still a humdinger! I hadn’t realised this when I read the full article but the case for an inquiry has been strengthened hugely.
Car returned to the scene: not mentioned in any released records or public statements.
Two witness statements in Crown Office file from witnesses who claim never to have made statements
Procurator Fiscal claiming the investigation was complete before the results of the ballistics were known and, therefore, before any knew that the gun found at the scene had killed Macrae.
Confidence in the investigation, in the police, in the Crown Office should be plummeting!
Public concern should now be rocketing!
Delamore and Semple must go public with all their information. To hold onto any so that Delamore can write a book would be unethical
JUSTICE DEMANDS FULL DISCLOSURE