[12] It is clear from the transcript of his evidence that at certain points McLeod was in some distress. When he was asked by the Advocate depute in the morning of the first day of the trial what was distressing him, he said that there had been so much pressure on him during the last few months when he had been locked up in Barlinnie. He added: "I have never been in prison before and when I was in prison there were things that had happened" (page 67). Later that morning he said: "I am just scared, just scared". Asked what he was scared of, he replied: "Well, you know, as I explained, I've had a threats in prison; I had threats... The first threat was that I was going over the gallery if Stuart Gair went down for this murder. The second threat was I had stuck him in and I was getting my jaw ripped, I was getting the face taken off me, and I was told this twice" (page 84). He went on to say that the first incident was before he was fully committed: the appellant had come to the door and asked if he was in for the murder, and he told him that he was (page 85). When he was cross-examined on the following morning as to what had made the difference to his position, he replied: "Yesterday I wasn't thinking straight because I had been threatened a lot by Stuart Gair. I had been threatened by him in prison. On two occasions I had been threatened and a lot of people were beginning to talk about me in prison as well and that was why I was coming in yesterday to say I didn't know him when I actually do know him". When he was outside he thought it would be best if he came in and told the truth (page 176). He was still frightened of the appellant (page 178).

[13] In evidence to this court McLeod gave an account which was to a large extent similar to the evidence which he gave on the first morning of the trial. However, he stated that he did not know where he was on the night of the incident. He did not go into the lane. He did not think that he was in Gordon Street. Being at the toilets was all part of the lies that the police were getting him to tell (page 632). So also was the part where he was supposed to have met up with the appellant (page 689). The police told him that the appellant was a "junkie"; that he had had his girlfriend "on the game"; that he had beaten up his mother; and that he was a thief. The police said to him (McLeod) that they were going to tell his family and his friends that he was gay and was giving "blow jobs" in the city and things like that (page 508). This scared him. However, he accepted that his father had called him gay from when he was a kid, and that he had gay friends (pages 492-3). The police officers said to him that all he had to do was to say that he knew the appellant, that he was with him, and had seen the knife and everything else. Then they were going to let him go and he would be home that night (page 510). They wanted a third name, and foolishly he gave them the name of Edward Harkinson. One of the police officers told him that the appellant had the knife (page 513). It appears from McLeod's evidence that the story was to be that the deceased was to be mugged in the lane; someone gave him the nod, and McLeod ran when he saw the appellant with the knife (page 514). The police gave him the basic story, and he had to add bits to it (page 524). He added the bit about running away (page 525).

[14] The court was referred to the text of the taped interview which was conducted by DI Smith and DC Shaw (Prod 45). On it McLeod was recorded saying that he had been standing at the toilets and talking to the appellant, Harkinson and "Charlie" about mugging someone for money. He went into the lane with them and a "guy". "The next thing he just started battering the guy and then when ah saw Gair pulling oot a knife ah ran, ah didnae hit the guy, ah didnae hit him, but ah ran because ah saw this knife coming oot fae Gair" (page 4).

[15] McLeod informed the court that he felt "absolutely gutted" about being detained on the charge of murder. He did not think it had registered with him that he was already being treated as a suspect (pages 525, 674). Even when he was charged with murder it still did not sink in (page 681). Before appearing before the sheriff he had told his solicitor everything. She said that he should say what he had got to say (page 687).

[16] In regard to the trial, when it was pointed out to him that on the morning of the first day he gave evidence about his being in St Vincent Street on the night of the incident which was to the same effect as he stated at the police interview, he responded: "Yes, because by this point, silly as it may sound, but I didn't know what the truth and what the lies were by this point, do you know what I mean, because I had been set free, it was still in the back of my mind that if I still didn't tell this lie I was going to be locked back up again" (page 541). He did not know why he had given evidence about being threatened in prison. He never had a clue what was going through his head (page 575). It was lies (page 617). He only once came across the appellant in prison, and that was when he came to the cell door to ask who was Willie McLeod. If there were any other threats made, he did not remember them (page 640). As regards lunchtime on the first day, he said that he was in a small room in which he heard a conversation between two police officers in uniform. They were talking in front of him, saying that "that bastard McLeod is retracting his statement", and that he was "fucking up the case" (page 576). He started to panic again and tell lies again. There was mention of perjury, and he had no support from anyone (pages 577 and 583-4). As to why he reverted in the afternoon to claiming that he did not know the appellant, he said that he did not know because he kept chopping and changing (page 596). The detectives who had interviewed him took him back to the High Court the following morning. They warned him that he had better stick to the original story. He thought that otherwise his life was going to be hell. Prompted by reference to his affidavit he said that he remembered being told that he was looking at eight to ten years for perjury (pages 601-602). He saw his solicitor at the court. He explained to her that he never knew the appellant, and the way in which he had been treated at the police office (page 621). "I told her about how afraid I was. She told me just to go in, tell the truth and get it over and done with and I went in and I told lies" (page 604).

[17] After the trial he felt horrible that his evidence could have been important. He claimed that he did not know the verdict in the case. He just wanted to forget about it. He believed what the police had said about the appellant (page 608). He discovered about the verdict a few years later when a private investigator was looking for him. Then he said he had seen a newspaper article to the effect that a man had been sentenced to life for the murder. It put him in total and utter depression. As time went on he started to get a bit wiser and he started to realise a few things that had happened and that he had done. He suffered depression and panic attacks. He lived alone, and gave up his job. One day he was visited by a campaigner who wanted to find out what was his involvement in the case. This was in 1993-94, maybe later (pages 610-614). He accepted that he had been under no pressure from the police after the trial (page 713). more...