Author Topic: Kevin Craigie - Initial Police Interview - 3 June 1990  (Read 2037 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online John

Kevin Craigie - Initial Police Interview - 3 June 1990
« on: September 02, 2012, 06:34:45 PM »
This is the transcript of the Police Interview conducted by Det Inspector William Smith and Det Sgt McAllister with Kevin Craigie on 3rd June 1990 (day after Kenneth Rothwell's murder)
« Last Edit: December 28, 2012, 10:06:08 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

stephanie

  • Guest
Re: Kevin Craigie - Initial Police Interview - 3 June 1990
« Reply #1 on: September 02, 2012, 07:33:03 PM »
KEVIN CRAIGIE you haven't really changed a whole lot have you?

You lied all those years ago and you lie now...! You don't stop lying!

Your witness statement with the police says it all - you are a nasty, vile piece of s..m! You have shown no remorse and you continue with your criminal behaviour! Did prison teach you nothing?






stephanie

  • Guest
Re: Kevin Craigie - Initial Police Interview - 3 June 1990
« Reply #2 on: September 02, 2012, 07:46:30 PM »
DI - 'What did you take from the house'

Craigie - 'We put stuff in a bag to kid on it wee a burlgar'


What's this all about then Craigie? Why didn't you phone 999 and get help for Mr Rothwell?


stephanie

  • Guest
Re: Kevin Craigie - Initial Police Interview - 3 June 1990
« Reply #3 on: September 02, 2012, 07:56:03 PM »
CRAIGIE uses the word 'presuming' all the time but in response to his own answers under caution...??!!!  8-)(--)

The guy is an out and out liar! He and Fuller have just murdered someone and when asked if it was raining - he replies, 'no it was cold though.'

stephanie

  • Guest
Re: Kevin Craigie - Initial Police Interview - 3 June 1990
« Reply #4 on: September 02, 2012, 08:19:30 PM »
DI Smith - 'Kevin I'll put it to you, that you and Mark go intentionally to be picked up by poofs, as you call them, homosexuals, with intention of either rolling them or getting money off them by blackmail or other means. Is that right?'

Can you tell us more about this KEVIN CRAIGIE?

whocares

  • Guest
Re: Kevin Craigie - Initial Police Interview - 3 June 1990
« Reply #5 on: September 03, 2012, 12:01:17 AM »
Even if this guy is guilty he has served his time. There is nothing you can do about that. according to the law its a done deal.  why are you even bothering with this?

Kureshi

  • Guest
Re: Kevin Craigie - Initial Police Interview - 3 June 1990
« Reply #6 on: September 03, 2012, 12:54:46 AM »
Even if this guy is guilty he has served his time. There is nothing you can do about that. according to the law its a done deal.  why are you even bothering with this?

Because she's obsessed. Isn't it obvious?

whocares

  • Guest
Re: Kevin Craigie - Initial Police Interview - 3 June 1990
« Reply #7 on: September 03, 2012, 01:29:17 AM »
Even if this guy is guilty he has served his time. There is nothing you can do about that. according to the law its a done deal.  why are you even bothering with this?

Because she's obsessed. Isn't it obvious?

Yes it is obvious that certain people seem to be obsessed over a man whom if indeed guilty, has served his sentence and has been released. Though it looks to me like the people on this forum and other people have decided that this guy is guilty and are encouraging people to contact his work place for what reason?  I am appalled!!

I have followed this discussion for some time  and I feel really uncomfortable with the people commenting on it.

My thoughts are why does the fact this man is appealing a very old case, a case he has served many years in prison for. Why does this bother anyone at all?  His case cannot help other cases unless he wins which is highly unlikely.

Stephanie

  • Guest
Re: Kevin Craigie - Initial Police Interview - 3 June 1990
« Reply #8 on: September 03, 2012, 02:35:02 AM »
Even if this guy is guilty he has served his time. There is nothing you can do about that. according to the law its a done deal.  why are you even bothering with this?

Because she's obsessed. Isn't it obvious?

Yes it is obvious that certain people seem to be obsessed over a man whom if indeed guilty, has served his sentence and has been released. Though it looks to me like the people on this forum and other people have decided that this guy is guilty and are encouraging people to contact his work place for what reason?  I am appalled!!

I have followed this discussion for some time  and I feel really uncomfortable with the people commenting on it.

My thoughts are why does the fact this man is appealing a very old case, a case he has served many years in prison for. Why does this bother anyone at all?  His case cannot help other cases unless he wins which is highly unlikely.
Kevin Craigie chose to come on this forum to discuss his case. He put the details of his case up for all to see and now when we give our opinion, he isn't very happy.

Some people may think it's okay to go around claiming to be a MOJ but for those of us fighting to get our innocent loved ones out of prison, it is a whole different story.

People like Craigie slow up our appeals system. They use public resources and the courts time which could be better spent on the truly innocent victims of our justice system.

Whocares it's kind of rich when people such as yourselves make comments like this.

For example; Jeremy Bamber has served 27 years in prison yet people are still talking about his case today, many of whom believe he is guilty.  Why then if those people believe he is guilty to they bother wasting their energies banging on about his case and his so called guilt. It doesn't look like he's going anywhere anytime soon.

Whereas Kevin Craigie is out and free to get on with his life but instead of doing this, this vile reptile is continuing to spew his hatred and lies and cause as much carnage along the way as possible.

He has theived from innocent/vulnerable people, defamed people names (myself included), attacked, goaded, stalked, harrassed... how does any of that help...?

The only reason that there is any sort of confusion in his case is because he's yet to tell the truth.

This is evident from reading his statements, which change all the time. One minute he is trying to blame his co-d, the next there appears to be an admission of guilt..

Again you may think it is okay for people to claim innocence but you need to speak to real victims of MOJ and see what they think about people such as these.



Stephanie

  • Guest
Re: Kevin Craigie - Initial Police Interview - 3 June 1990
« Reply #9 on: September 03, 2012, 02:52:28 AM »
Even if this guy is guilty he has served his time. There is nothing you can do about that. according to the law its a done deal.  why are you even bothering with this?

Because she's obsessed. Isn't it obvious?

I'm certainly not obsessed with Kevin Craigie! lol...

I am however obsessed with clearing my gorgeous hubby's name - that I will not deny.. However, rather than 'obsession' it is more a case of having to clear my hubby's name. He is innocent and does not belong in prison. The real killers remain at large and justice has not been done.

Until my husband names is cleared and the killers apprehended and behind bars I will continue to fight to clear his name or be 'obsessed' as you call it...

Whilst idiots like Craigie clog up our appeals system I will continue to do what I am doing - that includes exposing the GUILTY!

Gary

  • Guest
Re: Kevin Craigie - Initial Police Interview - 3 June 1990
« Reply #10 on: September 03, 2012, 09:55:34 AM »
I think the poster called Steph is infatuated with Kevin Craigie. Now she acting like she the appeal courts. The bit I find bizarre s when she herself claims to be defending an innocent person !!! It not about being guilty or innocent..that an excuse just to "internet bully" others as she is infamous for doing