In Parts 7 and 8 (here and here)I used the information released by the police in 2005 to create a timeline for the Macrae crash but only 5 event times were specific to time and day. Therefore, I estimated the earliest (and, where relevant, the latest) times at which events could have happened.
My estimates are simply that.
Only the police can be definite and I call on them to answer the questions below.
|were the photographs at the crash site taken? ||Who took the photographs?|
Were all crash site photographs made public in 2005?
|were the measurements for the locus map made? ||Who analysed and measured the locus?|
|was the car removed from the site? |
|did Macrae arrive at Raigmore hospital, Inverness |
|when was Macrae transferred from Raigmore? |
|did Macrae arrive in Aberdeen Royal Infirmary? |
|did X-rays confirm a bullet in Macrae’s brain? |
|were senior officers informed about bullet? |
|did senior officers first attend site on 6 April 1985? |
|was Macrae’s car secured prior to transfer to police HQ in Inverness? |
|was the car moved to police HQ in Inverness? ||Was the car at any time returned to the Loch Loyne site?|
If so, when, for how long and for what purpose?
|was the car first searched for a gun? |
|was the site first searched for a gun? |
There will be more questions to come when I have completed my analysis of the police documents.
I need to point out that having answers to all these questions will not, on their own, take us any closer to unravelling the mystery but we will have an accurate timeframe against which to measure other evidence. Almost as important will be the feeling that the police are now being open.
But if the police continue to hide behind the ridiculous reasoning used to prevent their answering Delamore’s questions,
that it is never in the public interest to disclose information that gives criminals an advantage over the police and prejudices the police forces' ability to prevent and detect crime, apprehend or prosecute offenders. Nor is it in the public interest to put members of the public or police staff at risk. [Source]
Supt Macrae noted that whilst there is public interest in providing accountability in relation to the efficiency and effectiveness of the police force and its officers in any investigation, that does not outweigh the harm in disclosing information collated for an investigation which could provide those minded to criminality with an advantage which may hinder the prevention or detection of crime. [Source]
then they will continue to give succour to those who believe they have something to hide.
For completeness I append below Delamore’s response to the first of his rejections. Despite this, Superintendent Macrae still managed to respond negatively and withhold information,
Evidently, I am of the belief that due to the investigation being 29 years old and with there being, in the words of former Lord Advocate Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, "no circumstances to warrant criminal proceedings" (July 1, 1985) then I fail to see how an exception can be maintained.
You have concluded, whilst considering the public interest, "that it is never in the public interest to disclose information that gives criminals an advantage over the police and prejudices the police forces' ability to prevent and detect crime, apprehend or prosecute offenders. Nor is it in the public interest to put members of the public or police staff at risk."
Indeed, I do not understand what advantage would be gained by criminals from a 29-year-old police investigation from a police body which no longer exists and operated differently to what Police Scotland does today. Nor is there any worry of apprehending or prosecuting offenders in this case - as there were "no circumstances to warrant criminal proceedings" and the former Lord Advocate Colin Boyd, in 2006, responding to a question from Christine Grahame MSP in Parliament, said:
"The circumstances surrounding the death of William MacRae have been fully considered on a number of occasions and there is no basis upon which to instruct any type of public inquiry." (14 August 2006 - Question S2W-27467)
Therefore, I do not accept that the information that I have asked for fits into your exception. They are mere minor details relating to the investigation with absolutely no bearing on any criminality - comparable with details already released in documentation in Andy Muirhead's FOI request (Northern Constabulary FOI Ref: 176-13) - nor do they pose any threat to witnesses nor would it give criminals any advantages.
You are suggesting that the time at which photographs were taken, the time at which the car was removed and that the time of the post-mortem are considered factors that any present or future criminals would take advantage of which, quite frankly, is nonsensical. There is no risk to any witnesses as the details do not relate to any witnesses.
If you have thoughts, or more, feel free to:
email me at calumsblogATgmailDOTcom or
tweet me at @calumcarr
© CalumCarr 2014
Copyright over this article is retained by me, CalumCarr.
Please feel free to reproduce extracts and images provided you attribute the words and images to me.
If you wish to use more than one quarter of the article then contact me for permission at calumsblogATgmailDOTcom.