Welcome to the 6th post in my series in which I take a detailed and critical look at the death of Willie McRae.
In the 5th post we,
Let’s start with those two questions,
and
My take on the first question is simplistic but may still be correct.
It is into this world that I have come, knowing now of the doubts of others. Can I plot my way through to come to a settled position?
This series is my attempt to find that settled position but, until then, I have no position other than ‘doubt and question everything’.
Do not take my questions as showing I favour one tack over another. I am confused. I can’t reconcile the information. Only by looking, reading and questioning can I hope to come to a clear view …. and even then, even if I find a clear view, I may be wrong!
Come into my confused world and look with me.
No doubt, I’ll keep coming back to the first question but, for today, let’s concentrate on the second question.
How could anyone seeing the car in that position [on the side of the large layby at the official site] ever be in any doubt, at a later date, about the exact position?
Let’s walk through what we know and don’t know.
If the car was removed from the scene and returned, we do not know if it was returned to the same site and position.
In this post we’ll concentrate on the evidence, such as it is, suggesting either the site is wrong and/or the distance from the road is wrong.
My looking carefully at the possible sites is not just a case of checking out every alley in the sure knowledge that most will be blind. It’s more.
Callum Macrae in Part 3 of his Scottish Eye documentary tantalises us with a simple comment but with no proper explanation.
Let’s look at the same clip I showed in my last post,
Also we will hear that David Coutts and another key witness claim the actual site was further from the road than is shown in the police photos.
Scottish Eye Part 3 3m 40s to 4m 50s
Why mention the different districts and the different legal authorities? Surely, there is a purpose in flagging this up and so why leave it so flimsy? A different legal authority might act differently but so might a different police force? Why mention this unless it has significance? Did he believe that Thomas Aitchison in inverness was more compliant than his Lochaber counterpart? Did he believe something different? We don’t know: Callum Macrae leaves us with nothing but these few words.
Callum wasn’t alone. Dave Leadbetter, in an article published here, wrote,
Not only does Leadbetter support the Coutts site, although he doesn’t explain why, he too mentions that another fiscal might have made a difference.
And there’s more.
John MacLeod in his Herald article of 27 March 1995 raises the same issue of Lochaber versus Inverness districts:
but the issue is not developed.
Like so much in this case we are tantalised but ultimately left disappointed.
And so I don’t feel too badly about continuing on the theme of the Coutts site today.
Now let’s look at some more words spoken by the Scottish Eye reporter, Callum Macrae.
Both say the car was much further off the road than the police claim and their photographs show.
If we assume that David Coutts and Allan Crowe actually said the words attributed to them then the official site does not fit their words.
How can a witness mistake 25 yards off road for more than 100 yards? The views are irreconcilable.
The official site cannot be the actual crash site unless both Crowe and Coutts are mistaken.
Perhaps they are. It seems the most logical explanation …. but would you expect to confuse these two scenes below?
In the Coutts picture we must make allowance for 25 years of conifer growth but the views are different as are the heights above, and distances from, the loch. Also in the Official streetview the large roadside layby makes its presence known. There is no equivalent feature at the Coutts site.
How could witnesses, who must have spent a considerable time at the site, not see and remember that the car was on the side of one of the most obvious roadside features on the entire Loch Loyne stretch …. unless the car wasn’t on the side of that layby!
But then why should their powers of observation and recollection be better than the policeman who first attended the site?
We have no words from him but, according to police records, we know that the same police constable (Crawford) attended the site when first the crash was reported and prepared the measured ‘sketch of the locus’.
To my eye, and I think to yours, the signed name above ‘POLICE CONSTABLE 252’ is ‘K S Crawford’. Note: both images above are a small part of two images released by the police. We’ll look at the full documents later.
If Coutts and Crowe are right, then the site PC Crawford attended was the Coutts site. Would he not notice later that his sketch was of the wrong site?
So we have
I want to spend just a little more time looking at reports that the police themselves were confused about the location of the crash site although I say here, even before I lay out this additional evidence, that I find its credibility to be significantly less than that of Crowe and Coutts. Of course, this evidence may still be correct.
John MacLeod in the extract used slightly higher up in this post writes about police confusion. Have a look at the highlighted part of the extract.
This is fuel to the doubters’ fire: the police not knowing where the crash site lay.
In the Daily Record, Reg McKay wrote,
Clearly the car had been removed but yet apparently clueless as to where they should be.
Where did they first stop? Was it North of the Official site and were they then directed to the Official site? Was it at the Official site and were they directed to Coutts?
How accurate is the mile? Surely it an only be an estimate not a measurement.
This pic makes an allowance for an estimated mile, showing 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 mile distances from the official site. Therefore, if the police first stopped incorrectly on the North side of the crash then it is likely they stopped somewhere between the two outermost arrows.
In the absence of more solid information I put this in for completeness only.
If, however, the police stopped incorrectly at the official site and were then directed southwards by a mile the graphic below shows the position.
Where did the police stop? We don’t know.
Did the police stop at the incorrect site? We don’t know.
Without more information the ‘evidence’ isn’t credible. We won’t forget about it but we don’t put it up front.
We don’t know and can’t know unless the civilian who directed them is identified and states clearly what happened. This is a straw but no more. No detail, unsupported.
There’s an interesting claim herein: that McRae’s car was removed from the crash site and then returned later to be photographed. Many questions are begged.
But does the claim itself stand up to scrutiny? There’s a lack of anything definitive in the claim.
The witness may be telling the truth but there’s nothing we can hold onto which gives us confidence and without that we have to ’park’ this, but not forget it. We’ll put it with other unsubstantiated ‘evidence’ just in case the corroboration comes.
I feel I’ve given the Coutts site a good chance. I’ve stared at it, shaken it, magnified it and looked every which way at it and I can’t find a solid base onto which I can place it. It’s like a lovely jigsaw piece, lovely picture and colours but it doesn’t fit any other pieces I have. Perhaps it’s from another jigsaw. Perhaps it will never fit.
Perhaps! But I’m holding onto to it. Perhaps someday I’ll find the perfect fit.
In a later post, once I’ve worked my way through the evidence, I may come back to look at the case with the starting assumption that the Coutts site is the actual site of the ‘crash’. The view might be quite different. So far I’ve tried to fit the Coutts site in to the other evidence and I’ve failed. But looking at the other evidence in the light of the Coutts site being correct will be interesting.
Fear not, those who think already that I’ve given the Coutts site too much time, that day is some distance away.
Next time we will see what we can glean from police records. I’m planning to publish that post, Part 7, on Monday, 5th January, at 10.00.
In the 5th post we,
looked in great detail at all possible roadside features which could be close to the crash site,
saw the sites themselves in aerial and streetview mode,
checked if the Bunloyne dam was visible from the various roadside features,
saw old video of the two sites,
saw that there is no physical evidence to tie the Coutts site to the actual crash site,
saw the only physical evidence which indicates that the official site is the crash site,
showed that only Coutts himself of the witnesses claims his site to be correct,
saw how the official and Coutts site came to be and
posed two major questions (unanswered so far)
saw the sites themselves in aerial and streetview mode,
checked if the Bunloyne dam was visible from the various roadside features,
saw old video of the two sites,
saw that there is no physical evidence to tie the Coutts site to the actual crash site,
saw the only physical evidence which indicates that the official site is the crash site,
showed that only Coutts himself of the witnesses claims his site to be correct,
saw how the official and Coutts site came to be and
posed two major questions (unanswered so far)
Let’s start with those two questions,
How can this be? [that the police photos don’t put an end to the speculation about the site]
How could anyone seeing the car in that position [on the side of the large layby at the official site] ever be in any doubt, at a later date, about the exact position?
My take on the first question is simplistic but may still be correct.
The prominence of McRae in public life and the circumstances of his crash, shooting and death were always likely to lead to speculation about the real cause. The refusal to hold a Fatal Accident Inquiry was key. This, and the decision to withhold the release of detailed police information until 2005, allowed a 20 year free space for fact, fiction and speculation to flow and meld. By the time police photos were released in 2005 their power was diminished. The twenty-year-old questions remained and the photos simply begged more questions.
The still on-going refusal of the police to answer apparently straightforward questions adds to the suspicion.
The still on-going refusal of the police to answer apparently straightforward questions adds to the suspicion.
It is into this world that I have come, knowing now of the doubts of others. Can I plot my way through to come to a settled position?
This series is my attempt to find that settled position but, until then, I have no position other than ‘doubt and question everything’.
Do not take my questions as showing I favour one tack over another. I am confused. I can’t reconcile the information. Only by looking, reading and questioning can I hope to come to a clear view …. and even then, even if I find a clear view, I may be wrong!
Come into my confused world and look with me.
No doubt, I’ll keep coming back to the first question but, for today, let’s concentrate on the second question.
How could anyone seeing the car in that position [on the side of the large layby at the official site] ever be in any doubt, at a later date, about the exact position?
Let’s walk through what we know and don’t know.
We do not know where McRae’s car crashed.
We know David Coutts states the official site is not the actual site.
We know that the police photos show a Volvo at the official site.
We do not know when these photos were taken: neither day nor time.
We do not know if these photos show the car in its original and untouched crashed position.
We do not know if McRae’s car was removed from the scene and returned for the photos.
We know David Coutts states the official site is not the actual site.
We know that the police photos show a Volvo at the official site.
We do not know when these photos were taken: neither day nor time.
We do not know if these photos show the car in its original and untouched crashed position.
We do not know if McRae’s car was removed from the scene and returned for the photos.
If the car was removed from the scene and returned, we do not know if it was returned to the same site and position.
In this post we’ll concentrate on the evidence, such as it is, suggesting either the site is wrong and/or the distance from the road is wrong.
My looking carefully at the possible sites is not just a case of checking out every alley in the sure knowledge that most will be blind. It’s more.
Callum Macrae in Part 3 of his Scottish Eye documentary tantalises us with a simple comment but with no proper explanation.
Let’s look at the same clip I showed in my last post,
Also we will hear that David Coutts and another key witness claim the actual site was further from the road than is shown in the police photos.
Scottish Eye Part 3 3m 40s to 4m 50s
Why mention the different districts and the different legal authorities? Surely, there is a purpose in flagging this up and so why leave it so flimsy? A different legal authority might act differently but so might a different police force? Why mention this unless it has significance? Did he believe that Thomas Aitchison in inverness was more compliant than his Lochaber counterpart? Did he believe something different? We don’t know: Callum Macrae leaves us with nothing but these few words.
Callum wasn’t alone. Dave Leadbetter, in an article published here, wrote,
Not only does Leadbetter support the Coutts site, although he doesn’t explain why, he too mentions that another fiscal might have made a difference.
And there’s more.
John MacLeod in his Herald article of 27 March 1995 raises the same issue of Lochaber versus Inverness districts:
but the issue is not developed.
Like so much in this case we are tantalised but ultimately left disappointed.
And so I don’t feel too badly about continuing on the theme of the Coutts site today.
Now let’s look at some more words spoken by the Scottish Eye reporter, Callum Macrae.
Both say the car was much further off the road than the police claim and their photographs show.
If we assume that David Coutts and Allan Crowe actually said the words attributed to them then the official site does not fit their words.
How can a witness mistake 25 yards off road for more than 100 yards? The views are irreconcilable.
The official site cannot be the actual crash site unless both Crowe and Coutts are mistaken.
Perhaps they are. It seems the most logical explanation …. but would you expect to confuse these two scenes below?
In the Coutts picture we must make allowance for 25 years of conifer growth but the views are different as are the heights above, and distances from, the loch. Also in the Official streetview the large roadside layby makes its presence known. There is no equivalent feature at the Coutts site.
How could witnesses, who must have spent a considerable time at the site, not see and remember that the car was on the side of one of the most obvious roadside features on the entire Loch Loyne stretch …. unless the car wasn’t on the side of that layby!
But then why should their powers of observation and recollection be better than the policeman who first attended the site?
We have no words from him but, according to police records, we know that the same police constable (Crawford) attended the site when first the crash was reported and prepared the measured ‘sketch of the locus’.
To my eye, and I think to yours, the signed name above ‘POLICE CONSTABLE 252’ is ‘K S Crawford’. Note: both images above are a small part of two images released by the police. We’ll look at the full documents later.
If Coutts and Crowe are right, then the site PC Crawford attended was the Coutts site. Would he not notice later that his sketch was of the wrong site?
So we have
Coutts and Crowe or Crawford
We have an absolute split.
Crawford must believe that the crashed car was about 25 yards off the road on the side of a layby
and
Coutts and Crowe must believe that the crashed car was much more than 25 yards off the road and Coutts that the correct site was more than 1 mile away.
I mentioned in Part 5 that Scott and MacLeay found the two sites so similar that one needed to look for external markers (eg an island in the loch when at the official site) but from the satellite maps and streetview I find the sites and their views utterly different. [Scott and MacLeay: ‘Britain’s Secret War. Tartan Terrorism and the Anglo-American State ’ by Andrew Murray Scott and Iain MacLeay, Mainstream Publishing (1990); the relevant chapter is available here]
I cannot envisage anyone who attended a crash scene at the official site ever not knowing that the car was on the side of a layby
but
I cannot envisage anyone who attended a crash at the Coutts site ever thinking later that a car on the side of a layby was the scene they attended.
I find the evidence of Coutts and Crowe credible but do I believe that Coutts is right about the crash site? I don’t know. Their evidence is only a part of the total evidence package about the site and there’s a long way between seeing their evidence as credible and actually believing they are right about the crash site. Being credible doesn’t mean being right
Coutts, Crowe and Crawford are not all correct. That’s the only certainty I can get from this.
John MacLeod in the extract used slightly higher up in this post writes about police confusion. Have a look at the highlighted part of the extract.
This is fuel to the doubters’ fire: the police not knowing where the crash site lay.
In the Daily Record, Reg McKay wrote,
Clearly the car had been removed but yet apparently clueless as to where they should be.
Where did they first stop? Was it North of the Official site and were they then directed to the Official site? Was it at the Official site and were they directed to Coutts?
How accurate is the mile? Surely it an only be an estimate not a measurement.
This pic makes an allowance for an estimated mile, showing 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 mile distances from the official site. Therefore, if the police first stopped incorrectly on the North side of the crash then it is likely they stopped somewhere between the two outermost arrows.
In the absence of more solid information I put this in for completeness only.
If, however, the police stopped incorrectly at the official site and were then directed southwards by a mile the graphic below shows the position.
Where did the police stop? We don’t know.
Did the police stop at the incorrect site? We don’t know.
Without more information the ‘evidence’ isn’t credible. We won’t forget about it but we don’t put it up front.
We don’t know and can’t know unless the civilian who directed them is identified and states clearly what happened. This is a straw but no more. No detail, unsupported.
[Note: the second claim I’ll look at in a later post]
There’s an interesting claim herein: that McRae’s car was removed from the crash site and then returned later to be photographed. Many questions are begged.
Was it returned to the correct site?
Was it moved from Coutts and returned to the official site?
Even if returned to the correct site, was it returned to the correct position?
Was it moved from Coutts and returned to the official site?
Even if returned to the correct site, was it returned to the correct position?
But does the claim itself stand up to scrutiny? There’s a lack of anything definitive in the claim.
Who has made the claim?
What exactly does the ‘witness’ say?
What exactly does the ‘witness’ say?
The witness may be telling the truth but there’s nothing we can hold onto which gives us confidence and without that we have to ’park’ this, but not forget it. We’ll put it with other unsubstantiated ‘evidence’ just in case the corroboration comes.
I feel I’ve given the Coutts site a good chance. I’ve stared at it, shaken it, magnified it and looked every which way at it and I can’t find a solid base onto which I can place it. It’s like a lovely jigsaw piece, lovely picture and colours but it doesn’t fit any other pieces I have. Perhaps it’s from another jigsaw. Perhaps it will never fit.
Perhaps! But I’m holding onto to it. Perhaps someday I’ll find the perfect fit.
In a later post, once I’ve worked my way through the evidence, I may come back to look at the case with the starting assumption that the Coutts site is the actual site of the ‘crash’. The view might be quite different. So far I’ve tried to fit the Coutts site in to the other evidence and I’ve failed. But looking at the other evidence in the light of the Coutts site being correct will be interesting.
Fear not, those who think already that I’ve given the Coutts site too much time, that day is some distance away.
Next time we will see what we can glean from police records. I’m planning to publish that post, Part 7, on Monday, 5th January, at 10.00.
[originally posted 22 December 2014]
__________________________________________________________________If you have thoughts, or more, feel free to:
email me at calumsblogATgmailDOTcom or
tweet me at @calumcarr
© CalumCarr 2014
__________________________________________________________________
COPYRIGHT
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 taking into account the provisos below.
If you wish to use more than one quarter of the article then contact me for permission at calumsblogATgmailDOTcom.
Five images images in this article have been modified by me by the addition of relevant text. I retain copyright [© CalumCarr 2014] over these modified images.
Copyright of the original unmodified images is retained by their respective original owners and to this end I name: Police Scotland, the Herald, the Scotsman, Daily Record, Google.com, Bing and Scottish Eye.