Then last week a rather peculiar interim finding in this case was reached by three Appeal judges. To cut a long story short, the witnesses' new evidence based on their collective change of heart was flatly rejected. Mostly, the Crown didn't accept that police officers allegedly threatening to "out" someone's sexuality – even in 1989 – was enough to terrify anyone into committing perjury. This of course narrowly defines the issue. Read through the threats made in the Guildford Four case, for example, and you'll find that men broke down after police threats were made to them. Glasgow man Robert Brown was emotionally dismantled inside a matter of hours in Manchester in 1977 and ended up dictating and signing a bogus confession. Why? Well, to understand that you need to read research by Dr James McKeith and Dr Gisli Gudjonsson, who've both shown in studies that we all have, for want of a better term, cracking points — especially inside police stations. Bizarrely, the grounds for the fresh evidence supporting Gair's innocence were rejected because the witnesses were found to be unreliable characters. Why then is their original testimony still good enough? Mention is also made in the judgment of some press inquiries into the case. Nothing overt is said, but an undercurrent is present here and there, that suggests journalists have pressured the witnesses into changing their stories. I know at least three other colleagues who've investigated this case and independently, for different newspapers, magazines and TV stations, have all reached the same doubtful conclusions about Gair's guilt. I also know them well enough to say that I seriously doubt whether any of them would ever cross any ethical journalistic lines and coerce anyone into saying anything they didn't want to. In fact, when I interviewed some of the witnesses they told me they were telling me — a journalist – a fuller version of their stories than to SCCRC investigators simply because they distrusted anyone with a whiff of the law about them. This has happened in many miscarriages of justice cases before and it will happen again. The press in a free democracy has a vital role to play in cases like this and comments suggesting anything to the contrary will not sway us from our task. Journalists like Ludovic Kennedy, Paul Foot, Chris Mullen, Don Hale, and in Scotland, David Scott in the Paddy Meehan case, didn't back down when someone questioned their motives. In this, case, the odd nature of the interim judgment is now being scrutinised. Paddy Hill, from the Birmingham Six, and founder of the Miscarriage of Justice Organisation, says he has never seen anything like it. So it will be interesting to see what happens when the next part of this judgment is issued. The smart money is on Stuart Gair probably walking free because of the seriously flawed forensic evidence against him being dismissed. If it happens, it'll be a victory for no-one. The police can say they were in the clear, the forensic material will be impenetrable to almost everyone and the muttering about Gair's conviction can continue. What an appalling vista that will be. more....