Author Topic: Michael Ross  (Read 4756 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4596
Re: Michael Ross
« Reply #30 on: June 25, 2013, 12:52:PM »
if he had got rid of all of nobody could of proved he ever had it.

The person who gave it to him could have given evidence about it.  It would have been a very dangerous situation for the father, particularly as a serving police officer.  By handing in the unopened box he thought he had covered off that risk.  Unfortunately for him after initially going along with the single box story the person who gave it to him told the police the truth.  I suspect that person's conscience was bothering him as he must have realised that the ammunition had significance to the murder enquiry.   


Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4596
Re: Michael Ross
« Reply #31 on: June 25, 2013, 01:00:PM »
Here is he court of appeal document if anyone is interested in reading it.

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/scot/cases/ScotHC/2012/2012HCJAC45.html&query=Michael+and+ross&method=boolean

Thank you Patti, it makes interesting reading.  One significant point is that Michael Ross did not give evidence in his own defence at trial.  This is unusual, and especially so where the defence is one of alibi.  He will only have followed this course on the advice of his defence counsel.  Such advice is given when counsel takes the view that the defendant will be torn to shreds in cross examination by the prosecution.  He no doubt wished to avoid him being cross examined in particular about his racist views and Nazi sympathies, his ludicrous explanation to police for his antics in the wood, his completely unsupported alibi and the disposal of the balaclava. 

 

Online nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12379
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Michael Ross
« Reply #32 on: June 25, 2013, 01:03:PM »
The person who gave it to him could have given evidence about it.  It would have been a very dangerous situation for the father, particularly as a serving police officer.  By handing in the unopened box he thought he had covered off that risk.  Unfortunately for him after initially going along with the single box story the person who gave it to him told the police the truth.  I suspect that person's conscience was bothering him as he must have realised that the ammunition had significance to the murder enquiry.

if he had got rid all of it they could never have proved he ever had it it would of been the other guys word against his.

bear in mind this person did not come forward he was only questioned because eddie ross named him.

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4596
Re: Michael Ross
« Reply #33 on: June 25, 2013, 01:18:PM »
if he had got rid all of it they could never have proved he ever had it it would of been the other guys word against his.
bear in mind this person did not come forward he was only questioned because eddie ross named him.

Proof is merely evidence which is believed.  Eddie Ross could not take the risk that, once it became public knowledge that the round fired was of exactly the type that he had been given, the person who gave it to him would come forward.  By handing in the full box he thought he had covered himself against that possibility.  He thought he could get away without naming the person but the investigating officers insisted (not surprisingly) so he had to tell them.  He then tried to ensure that the person supported his story of a single unopened box.  Initially that worked but eventually the person told the truth.


Online nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12379
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Michael Ross
« Reply #34 on: June 25, 2013, 01:22:PM »
they only knew he had been given it because he told the guy who gave it to him dident go to the police.

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4596
Re: Michael Ross
« Reply #35 on: June 25, 2013, 01:25:PM »
they only knew he had been given it because he told the guy who gave it to him dident go to the police.

I understand that Nugnug but the point I am making is that Eddie Ross could not take the risk that the person who gave the ammunition to him might go to the police in the future.  That must have been a real possibility given the significance of the unusual type of ammunition.

 

Neil

  • Guest
Re: Michael Ross
« Reply #36 on: June 25, 2013, 04:02:PM »
However the evidence of the bullets came about, come about it did. 

The manner in how it came about is also quite telling. Everyone, including his father, could see just how damning this evidence was/is.

A more compelling case for someone's guilt, would be hard to find. I notice that his supporters play heavily on the fact that he served, for a number of years, in the army. I fail to see how this is in any way relevant.

Was there ever any link established between Ross and the waiter, or was he a completely random target?

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4596
Re: Michael Ross
« Reply #37 on: June 25, 2013, 04:08:PM »
However the evidence of the bullets came about, come about it did. 

The manner in how it came about is also quite telling. Everyone, including his father, could see just how damning this evidence was/is.

A more compelling case for someone's guilt, would be hard to find. I notice that his supporters play heavily on the fact that he served, for a number of years, in the army. I fail to see how this is in any way relevant.

Was there ever any link established between Ross and the waiter, or was he a completely random target?

I agree with you on all points.

No link was established between Ross and the waiter.  He was one of the very few people of Asian descent in Orkney, and the restaurant was an obvious focus for someone harbouring feelings of racial hatred.


Online nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12379
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Michael Ross
« Reply #38 on: September 13, 2013, 07:24:PM »

Online nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12379
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710

Online nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12379
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710

Online nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12379
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4596
Re: Michael Ross
« Reply #42 on: March 06, 2014, 01:55:PM »
http://justice4michaelross.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/case-background/victim-mumutaz-restaurant/

This "evidence", like that shown in your previous post, will not be sufficient to secure an appeal here.  The defence will need something far more significant and I very much doubt if this exists.

 

Online nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12379
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Michael Ross
« Reply #43 on: March 06, 2014, 02:00:PM »
it probely wont be especially not with the bastard appeal judges you get in scotland.

by the way ngb have you seen the video on the site.

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4596
Re: Michael Ross
« Reply #44 on: March 06, 2014, 02:12:PM »
it probely wont be especially not with the bastard appeal judges you get in scotland.

by the way ngb have you seen the video on the site.

Yes, I have watched the video.  I shows that Michael Ross was shorter than his father at the time of the murder.  However this does not in itself establish that he could not have been the murderer.  Estimates of height are always very difficult, particularly for witnesses involved in a startling situation such as that in the restaurant.  Witnesses differed in their estimate of height as is to be expected.  From memory the range was between 5ft 8in and 6ft.  We of course do not know the height of the sole and heal of the footwear worn by the murderer. 

The jury at trial were aware that Michael Ross was shorter than most of the estimates given by the witnesses.  This video reinforces that point but it falls far short of what would be sufficient for the SCCRC to refer the case.