Updates

The death of Carnegie

Peter Alexander Gordon Carnegie died in 2021 after a long illness. His cause of death – kidney failure – explains why he was involved with the Tayside Kidney Patients Association. In 2018 he became chairman and was also vice-chair of the Scottish Kidney Federation. But good works could not make up for a defective personality, something most clearly observed in his driving behaviour. When the red mist descends, most drivers might do a few rash, hot-headed manoeuvres, then gradually calm down.
Not so Peter Carnegie: his psychopathic rage knew no bounds. He employed intimidation, vindictiveness and dishonesty as the tools of his warped trade. He orchestrated a conspiracy against an innocent driver and perjured himself in court to get that driver convicted. Then, 8 years later, he tried to squash the driver’s protests by making a libel claim (see ‘Threat’ below).
He could have sought redemption in his dying years, but psychopaths don’t do remorse.
So my only recourse was to see if his associates were able and willing to cast some light on his behaviour - I reasoned that his family and friends would know all about his vindictive nature and might feel morally bound to tell me about it.
Carnegie's marriage had collapsed in 1998, so I hoped his ex-wife Fiona might have reason to spill some beans. Not so - she never responded to an enquiry I made after the trial.
Their daughter Craigie renounced his surname when she got to 18, taking her mother’s maiden name instead.
Thinking there might be some distance between father and daughter, I hoped she might feel like helping me unravel the mystery.
So in 2023, when I became aware of Carnegie's death, I contacted her through Facebook as follows:
"I'm truly sorry if this has come as a shock to you.
I am the person against whom your father orchestrated a conspiracy to get me convicted of a serious motoring offence. 2 questions, if I may:
Is your family unaware of the case? I did once write to your mother about it.
Do you happen to know how your father knew Russell Moir?
I have used this [Facebook account] since 2005 as a means of gathering information about him. It states somewhere that it is a proxy account."
Craigie responded: "You might need to be more specific, who are you please? Can you remember what address you sent the letter to? I'm keen to help you, but need to know what I'm looking for"
I sent her a copy of the unanswered letter I'd sent to her mother in 2005. I included a link to this blog.
The very next day, she blocked me and complained to Facebook. FB investigated, but rejected her complaint.
I never thought Carnegie's daughter would have anything material to contribute to my investigations. But she would have known, from her mother's stories and from her own memories, what her father was like. She could have chosen to help me, her father’s victim, with such background information; she could have taken the path of empathy. Instead, she chose to blank me.
Craigie takes her name from a hard rock in the Clyde estuary: a very hard rock with an icy sheen.

Caution

As part of my effort to find evidence that would prove my innocence, I wrote to associates of the 'witnesses' - to parents, employers and former spouses - hoping for background information on the witnesses's characters.
I had no choice: if the Police were not going to bother to investigate, I would have to do it myself.
While this might be a legitimate activity for an independent researcher such as a journalist, I suspect the authorities take a dim view of defendants doing it.
Naturally, all my contacts stayed schtum.

I was not surprised when, 9 months after the case, I had a visit from two policewomen accusing me of that catch-all offence Breach of the Peace by contacting Rob Roy's employer, Rossleigh Jaguar of Perth (I had written to ask what time she had clocked off on the day in question).
Rob Roy, to use her pseudonym, had complained to the Police at Carnoustie. She happens to live with Miro at nearby Panmure.
I made them stand on the doorstep and answered "No Comment" to their "did you write those letters?" questions. I was asked to sign a notebook containing their record of the encounter and to accept a Police Caution.
As I would have welcomed confronting the jittery Rob Roy in court, I refused.
Baffled, the leading cop said her colleague would sign for me. Comedy Gold!
She warned that there were to be no more letters and, "don't do it again" and that there would be no further action.
Needless to say, some years later I wrote again to Rob Roy, asking her to divulge what had really happened that evening. There was no reply. And, although I kept a tape recorder at the ready, the Keystone Cops made no more knocks on my door.

Threat

In 2009 I read about a racehorse owner who named a horse Emma Told Lies, as a reproach to a former employee called Emma.
So I set up a small web site that purported to sell grass seed for tennis courts.
I attached the names of the conspirators to the grass seed mixtures that are designed to lie in courts (tennis courts, naturally). It was intended to be humorous. The butts of the jokes also included the Sheriff and my solicitor.
In 2013 my web host notified me that Carnegie had filed a claim for libel.
The web host wrote:
'We have received the below libel claim from a Mr Peter AG Carnegie. As requested by him, please can you remove any libelous remarks from the URL http://www.grasses.dundeecourts.co.uk/ as soon as possible.
"Posted today at 11:15
I request you remove http://www.grasses.dundeecourts.co.uk from your hosting service. The person entering these details has a previous action taken against him re these libelous remarks forcing these to be removed from previous internet sites. I now serve you notice and if this continued Libel continues on your hosted service I will raise an action against yourselves as you are now knowledgeable to the Libel. I make claim of £1000 per day from midnight 6th August 2013 as damages, this does not include any expenses encountered in court and bailiff cost in recouping my losses which will be in addition to the damages claim.
Yours sincerely
Peter AG Carnegie"'
I was pleased to see that Carnegie had discovered the web site, had been upset by its content and had gone to the trouble of finding out how to threaten a web hosting service.
The amateurish language and the touching use of 'Yours sincerely' told me the complaint hadn't been written by a lawyer, though Carnegie had clearly received legal advice, perhaps from Miro's uncle, who is a solicitor.
I was surprised at his brazenness.
Although he knew very well that the verdict against me meant he could act with impunity, he was still taking a risk: initiating a libel action could have opened quite a nasty can of worms for him and his co-conspirators.
I asked the administrator exactly what Carnegie was objecting to and also reported that his second sentence was an outright lie.
My gutless web host did not bother responding. Still, I took the safe option of keeping the site whilst removing Carnegie's name from the text.

Sheriff's Notes

In 2017, following a case in London in which a judge's handwritten notes were made available to a claimant, I applied to see the notes I saw Sheriff McCulloch writing. Naturally, the application failed.
The outcome is reported in the post: Letters / 2 - FOI request for Sheriff McCulloch's Notes.

Letters

I like to remind individuals and organisations of the miscarriage of justice they procured and have allowed to persist.
In 2018 I sent Jennifer Harrower, the current Procurator Fiasco, my imagined description of a depute fiscal preparing a case, with a request for any comments and corrections she might care to make.
To my surprise, her office actually responded, with this straight-faced reply:

So I wrote back with this:

Freedom Of Information

The fascinating contradictions uncovered by my second appeal to the SCCRC gave me an opportunity to fire off Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to both the SCCRC and COPFS.
Amongst other things, I asked for the sources of their published definitions of the term 'corroboration'.
The question arose because the COPFS seems to be in a bit of a muddle: its Glossary of Legal Terms says 'corroboration' must come from "two independent sources", while its Prosecution Code prefers "two separate sources".
Needless to say, 'independent' and 'separate' have different meanings.
And the SCCRC is likewise confused: it believes simultaneously that "two independent sources" are required for a conviction whilst quoting Renton & Brown's view that "at least two sources" are required.

I knew both FOI requests would be rejected but hoped I might get some interesting replies.
In response, the SCCRC and COPFS both said they did not hold the requested information.
The COPFS added that their definition of corroboration is not "..designed to .. be a definitive statement", because it is intended for a "..wide range of people".
Definitions don't have to be definitive, but they ought to be consistent and be broadly accepted by the community using them.
Contradictory definitions are not helpful, particularly in legal settings.

Having appealed the decisions of the SCCRC and COPFS, I next used the Scottish Government's Ask a Scottish Minister facility to enquire about the conflicting definitions.
In response I was advised to ask the COPFS!
I didn't want to make the COPFS dip into its box of specious excuses, so instead I complained to my MP. He asked the Scottish Office in Westminster about it. The Scottish Office forwarded the enquiry to the Scottish Government in Edinburgh, who asked its Crown Office about the discrepancy.
My request ended up on the desk of the Lord Advocate, the ignoble James Wolff QC.

['QC' stands, obviously, for Quantum Controller, this being a device the authorities use to promulgate contradictory definitions of the same concept and, incidentally, to allow vehicles, including cars and vans on the Kingsway, to be in multiple locations simultaneously.]

Wolff the Truth Twister* wrote, "There is no mistake in the information to which your constituent refers; rather, as that explanation points out, it is a brief description of the meaning of the doctrine of corroboration, which is not intended to be definitive or to be relied upon as a substitute for legal advice".

If brevity really were the intention, the term 'sources' would not need to be qualified by the adjectives "independent" or "separate", both of which are used by the COPFS in its definitions of 'corroboration'.
No, Renton & Brown's "at least two sources" would suffice.

Note
* In 2020, Wolff admitted that the COPFS, which he heads, maliciously prosecuted several former Rangers administrators. This could cost Scottish taxpapers £millions in compensation. See: Former Ranger boss Charles Green was maliciously prosecuted..