My brother did not give evidence against me!

[John]

I'm opening this new thread for Faithlilly's benefit as she has wrongly alluded on the Luke Mitchell board that my brother gave evidence against me.

Some background might be helpful here.  My brother Colin was designated a Crown Witness by the prosecution despite never having made any accusation or alleging any impropriety against me. He refused to attend the trial voluntarily as a Crown Witness so was served with a witness summons. He was told that he would be arrested and dragged to Edinburgh if he didn't comply.

He eventually relented and travelled to Edinburgh. He did not agree with the Crown allegations and at no time did he state or infer that he got less than he was entitled to from our late aunts estate. Hoping to gain a legacy is somewhat different to being entitled to one.

He has since made several statements which are now court record condemning the Scottish Crown Office for their conduct and in particular, for bringing a prosecution in his name when it was unjustified and most definitely false.  He has made it crystal clear that he received all that he was entitled to from our late aunts estate, in fact, he received more than he was entitled to thanks to me.

Hope this clarifies this slur once and for all!

[Venturi Swirl]

I doubt this will satisfy your harrasser John, she will I’m sure demand cites. We shall see...

[John]

I doubt this will satisfy your harrasser John, she will I’m sure demand cites. We shall see...

I have already told Faith that my brother's statements have been lodged as evidence up to Supreme Court level. However, the Court of Session in Edinburgh refused my application to take the matter to the UK Supreme Court where the actions of the Scottish Crown Office could be reviewed, yet another abuse of power imo.

[faithlilly]

I'm opening this new thread for Faithlilly's benefit as she has wrongly alluded on the Luke Mitchell board that my brother gave evidence against me.

Some background might be helpful here.  My brother Colin was designated a Crown Witness by the prosecution despite never having made any accusation or alleging any impropriety against me. He refused to attend the trial voluntarily as a Crown Witness so was served with a witness summons. He was told that he would be arrested and dragged to Edinburgh if he didn't comply.

He eventually relented and travelled to Edinburgh. He did not agree with the Crown allegations and at no time did he state or infer that he got less than he was entitled to from our late aunts estate. Hoping to gain a legacy is somewhat different to being entitled to one.

He has since made several statements which are now court record condemning the Scottish Crown Office for their conduct and in particular, for bringing a prosecution in his name when it was unjustified and most definitely false.  He has made it crystal clear that he received all that he was entitled to from our late aunts estate, in fact, he received more than he was entitled to thanks to me.

Hope this clarifies this slur once and for all!

I’m afraid that you have misunderstood me and there was no slur intended.

Firstly I said that your brother was a witness for the prosecution. I have no way of knowing what evidence he gave.

Secondly I was using your brother to illustrate the fact that guilt should not be assumed simply because a family member hasn’t publicly supported a convicted individual or their campaign for justice. That’s all.

It is wrong to assume that you are guilty of the charges brought simply because your brother hasn’t publicly ( in a non-legal setting) supported you and I said as much in a post to Nicholas.

“It appears that John’s brother has also been conspicuous by his absence when it comes to John’s campaign for justice. Does that mean John’s guilty? Of course not.”

It is however also wrong to assume Luke is guilty just because his brother hasn’t done the same thing. I’m sure both have their reasons.

[John]

I’m afraid that you have misunderstood me and there was no slur intended.

Firstly I said that your brother was a witness for the prosecution. I have no way of knowing what evidence he gave.

Secondly I was using your brother to illustrate the fact that guilt should not be assumed simply because a family member hasn’t publicly supported a convicted individual or their campaign for justice. That’s all.

It is wrong to assume that you are guilty of the charges brought simply because your brother hasn’t publicly ( in a non-legal setting) supported you and I said as much in a post to Nicholas.

“It appears that John’s brother has also been conspicuous by his absence when it comes to John’s campaign for justice. Does that mean John’s guilty? Of course not.”

It is however also wrong to assume Luke is guilty just because his brother hasn’t done the same thing. I’m sure both have their reasons.

You did offer the oft repeated false claim in another thread that my brother give evidence against me. The truth being that he didn't so you were wrong to infer such. Just because he was forced to appear as a Crown witness doesn't mean he was sympathetic to them.

There was no reporting in my trial, the only published comments came after the sentencing hearing in Forfar which the gloating Revenue officers were keen to exploit. They had achieved their original aim and that was to set a legal precedent wrt inheritance tax. This was what this case was all about from day 1, it had nothing to do with either my aunt or my brother, they were collateral damage.

Stating that my brother hasn't publicly supported me is also incorrect. He has made several statements which were referred to in open court to Supreme Court level. Not everyone takes to social media or the streets to make their views be known. The difference between my brother and Luke's is therefore plain to see.

[faithlilly]

You did offer the oft repeated false claim in another thread that my brother give evidence against me. The truth being that he didn't so you were wrong to infer such. Just because he was forced to appear as a Crown witness doesn't mean he was sympathetic to them.

There was no reporting in my trial, the only published comments came after the sentencing hearing in Forfar which the gloating Revenue officers were keen to exploit. They had achieved their original aim and that was to set a legal precedent wrt inheritance tax. This was what this case was all about from day 1, it had nothing to do with either my aunt or my brother, they were collateral damage.

Stating that my brother hasn't publicly supported me is also incorrect. He has made several statements which were referred to in open court to Supreme Court level. Not everyone takes to social media or the streets to make their views be known. The difference between my brother and Luke's is therefore plain to see.

I’m afraid it’s not but my point is made. Let’s move on.