#703. “Just reaching out” – Malachy Tallachs book launch invite sponsored by Rip Van Liddle – might it be a Lomond catch report update in disguise?

Typical. We wait for three months for our hibernating new LLAIA Chairman to inform us through his dedicated catch reporting blog of the up to date catch records of June July and August (which remember, should be the cream of the Lomond season) and instead we get an unsolicited invite to a book launch by a guy with no previous affinity to Lomond whatsoever, and with no relevance to the plight of the LLAIA in general.

Malachys invite, whoever he is, whether his scribblings be good or not, is a poor substitute for some kind of official engagement on the present circumstances on LLAIA waters where in the worst season in memory (so far) there has been a total abdication of any kind of management presence explaining, excusing or exhorting. Is this the final official F-U-lot, and from now on the committee won’t even feel the basic need to even pretend to be interested?

Is Rip Van Liddle (who’s rapid transformation from transient virgin Dogged Angler, to short lived LLAIA information source, to LLAIA overall Supremo, to budding literary agent and book critic was almost meteoric) going to bombard us now with obscure book launch invites as a substitute for catch reports and updates on the general stinking decaying corpse the LLAIA has become under Raeburn, Bourhill and now Liddle. Is the committee’s responsibility soon going to be usurped by a do-it-yourself SCOTRAIL type automatic ticket dispenser at Bonhill Bridge so there’s no live interface required between actual live LLAIA members and actual near-dead LLAIA officials.

Right now the LLAIA has ceased to exist as a positive force for good on the waters it formally managed. Its titular committee has disappeared, its salmon have disappeared, its sea trout have disappeared, its members are fast disappearing and its continuing future is in doubt.

But, let’s just ignore the impending collapse and all go to Malachys new book launch and hopefully Rip Van Liddle will be there to explain why he thought promoting a fucken book was more important than telling members HtheF the Lomond system retained its Cat2 status for next season, bearing in mind that there’s not more than ten salmon recorded into Balmaha for the whole 2023 season, and not many more off the Leven or into Balloch.

It’s been a while since I read the Rip Van Winkle fairytale so I’m a bit sketchy on the ending, but I’m sure it didn’t end with the hero ending up the last man standing like our committee, surveying from hiding the terminal carnage they’d caused and thinking they might have been a bit presumptuous in thinking themselves capable of masterminding any kind of recovery.

What’s old Rip Van Liddle himself getting for the free plug on the LLAIAs dedicated blogs. A free book? One each for the committee? One for every LLAIA member? Or is it just a way to fill up the big space that used to be called the fishing report section, and the embarrassing fact that there’s actually no salmon to report. Even after the committees unstinting and back breaking efforts at stock enhancement, Lomond salmon are scarcer than ever.

If Liddle had any baws at all he’d be apologising for ten years of deception and lies and admitting they have no idea what to do now, having already made a howling James Hunt of things and finding themselves in a position of no return. If he had any honour in him he should be notifying all members of the immediate voluntary standing down of the committee and the resignations, in abject humiliation at their constant failures, of Raeburn, Bourhill, Sinclair, etc. Now, that event would fill the Balloch Hall ten times over, and possibly more, without any plugging. And a book on how to destroy a thriving salmon fishery in ten years of ineptitude written by Raeburn and Bourhill would be worth exactly the same now as all the Endrick stretches the LLAIA owns. Which is exactly the square root of S.F.A.!!!!!

Malachys book might be something special, who knows, and none of the above is meant to denigrate his litterary efforts. But the LLAIAs dedicated catch report blog isn’t the place to be plugging it, given the present circumstances. Much better to send B&T a copy and I’ll give it my considered opinion, which I guarantee would hold much greater credibility, and reach far more readers, than Rip Van Liddles strangulated and pathetic efforts.

Sent from Outlook for Android

#702 Latest T&S article on the Cree and argument for hatchery – who still thinks C&R is working? – who thinks the LLAIA Hatchery should be re-built, and those who destroyed it made to pay. – and what about the fishery science policy failure?

I long ago stopped getting Trout&Salmon magazine after years of their rabid promotion, without any evidence that it had worked anywhere it had been imposed, of C&R. Not only was their position overly biased towards this policy as being the world cure all, but they took every opportunity to denigrate anywhere, or anyone, who questioned whether C&R had been sufficiently researched, and ignored any instance where it had been extensively tried but obviously failed, like the River Dee.

However, might this be the start of a reversal of direction, a belated realisation that C&R isn’t, and hasn’t, and never will, make any difference to salmon populations. Not only that but I haven’t seen any evidence, ever, that any of the hundreds of thousands of C&R’d salmon over the last twenty years has actually, in a natural habitat, produced viable ova that hatched into actual live additional juvenile fish. Particularly if the returnee is a liced springer, fresh out the salt with the cumulative stress of physiological change of going from salt to fresh, hooking, fighting, netting, returning and then a eight or nine month wait in fresh water until spawning in November or December. All the indications are that even if they do eventually cut a redd and spawn the resultant ova is not viable and the fish are essentially infertile. Controversial? Or just the logical conclusion of a decade of C&R for absolutely no benefit, in fact obvious detriment, to countless participating once thriving Scottish salmon systems.

This attached T&S article taken from, and discussed in the Salmon Fishing Forum should be rammed hard up every LLAIA committee members ar*e every morning for a month or until they can tell us why they continue to do the exact opposite of what actually works and is getting other systems lightyears ahead of the LLAIA in terms of protection and regeneration.

https://www.salmonfishingforum.com/threads/latest-t-s-article-on-the-cree-and-argument-for-hatchery.284933/

The bulk of the present committee, now ten years on, are still there and all were instrumental in demolishing, giving away and completely rubbishing the contribution of the LLAIAs own self built and financed salmon and sea trout hatchery, all within a single year of them taking over in 2011/12. Malky MacCormick, Gareth Bourhill, Jim Raeburn, with the approval of hangers-on Bell, Sinclair, Elsweiler, etc., are all culpable in that wanton demolishing that leaves us floundering now in near salmon extinction. They replaced the hatchery program with their own idiotic and ill researched substitute method of rejuvenation of Lomonds salmon stocks called variously Compulsory, Voluntary or Ad Infinitum Catch and Release. The stock enhancement method of the gullible, the lazy and the brainless.

After more than a decade of absolutely SFA getting done except their now obvious failed C&R strategy, Lomond’s in the death throes of the near extinction of the once famous spring and summer salmon runs, and the once immense runs of sea trout have been likewise been destroyed without a second thought, as an easily dismissed by-product of their no hatchery, no intervention, nature will provide, heart lazy insistence that their hands are tied by government.

The near miracle hatchery and stocking strategy in place on the River Cree has been raised previously on B&T in post #155 and I pointed out then the similarity, near identical approach and method to the policy carried out by the LLAIA under Mike Brady’s chairmanship from 1995 until 2011. During these years Lomonds salmon and particularly sea trout runs increased steadily and you only need to look back at the returns from 2015/16 (the last year’s we would see a return from hatchery reared salmon) to realise that every year since has been on a catastrophic downward spiral

There is no doubt in my mind that this present committee were disastrously incompetent in prematurely destroying the LLAIAs hatchery capability before first proving that C&R was a viable, sustainable, successful alternative. It’s NOT, but now we’re left with a committee (and an LLFT), who have so attached themselves to this failed strategy that they can’t bring themselves to admit the near extermination of salmon on Lomond is entirely down to them.

Rather than engaging with the likes of the Cree and learning, the LLAIAs committee have gone AWOL again and think that by disappearing from all public communications that no one will remember who, and what, has caused the destruction we all see around us daily. There’s been nothing of interest on either the Committee Blog or on their Catches Blog since the AGM in February. No one knows what’s happening, or who’s in charge of anything, or what’s the committee’s thoughts on this seasons disastrous catches, or even if there still is a committee.

The new chairman, Colin Liddle, has been totally invisible since his coronation in February and as far as can be seen has made no attempt to stamp his authority on events. He’s so far out of his depth as to be a figure of ridicule everywhere anything Lomond related is discussed. His profile in Lomond circles is transient, minimal and laughable. He’s virtually unknown in any pertinent Lomond based angling capacity, with a credibility rating bordering on zero. His chances of making anything positive happen in the LLAIA from the mess he’s inherited from MacCormick and Raeburn are nil. Why he took the job on in the first place is a mystery, though flattery probably was instrumental and a childish desire to see his name on the AGM Report as chairman will probably be high on the list of reasons he’s allowed himself to be promoted so far beyond his ability.

Until someone with a modicum of reason and ability grips the LLAIA with some kind of authority and an idea of how to “do a Cree” on Lomond again the members might as well forget salmon fishing as a pastime for the next ten years.

To put things in perspective in relation to the LLAIA judged against the Cree, Malky was spotted earlier this month on the upper Endrick, firstly with weedkiller in hand making sure his personal parking spaces were nice and tidy and weed free for his own late October kipper hunts. And later in the same areas with the LLAIAs stolen electrofisher, doing who knows what, but he wasn’t catching up brood fish for a hatchery, that’s for certain. Being as he’s still, as far as I know, the LLFTs salaried General Manager in charge of all operations it underlines the vast gulf between the committment to improvement of the massive Lomond system, with it’s comparitivly bottomless resources, and the miniscule Cree, which has only enthusiasm, professionalism and a hatchery and restocking plan that works.

The sooner we’re rid of the wasters like Malky,Raeburn, Bourhill and their underlings the sooner Lomond will have a chance of survival. How anyone involved in the events leading to where the LLAIA finds itself today can hesitate for a second in making way for a tried and tested hatchery based operation or decides to remain in post until there’s nothing left is something needing better a explanation than I can come up with.

#701(B) REPOST OF #578 Gerd Elsweilers Testimonial pt 3 – Part 9 After the last witness – two bent coppers trumped by a ringer – don’t let me see you back here again! – and magna cum laude.

When I’d finished with Jimmy’s poodle he left the stand and I realised I’d actually made it through the ordeal. I think he knew himself that single question from the sheriff he’d twice fumbled and than dropped would turn out to be critical. I wonder if he told Raeburn how he’d messed up, and the rest of his accomplices, or if he just kept it quiet? No doubt he’ll be getting the blame now anyway, in an effort to deflect it away from where it really lies.

Actually I’d been surprised at how quickly the afternoon session had passed, and how naturally I’d taken to the whole thing. There were times I’d actually found myself enjoying it, in a detached sort of way. Not that I’m intending repeating anything like it anytime soon.

But I was glad it was over, without doubt. I’d thought daily of little else for over a year and was now flying off to the sun for a week, a holiday I’d every intention of enjoying, regardless of the result. I’d done my best, and it had gone much better than I’d expected when I’d nervously asked my first cross-examination question six hours earlier.

I gathered in my papers, which were spread out in piles all over the dock, but was vaguely aware of some legal discussion going on between the Procurator Fiscal and the sheriff, apparantly discussing important points of law, what he’d taken account of, what not, and the like. All above my head and for which my opinion wasn’t sought, or probably even relevent. This lasted a few minutes during which I wondered what happened next. It was just after 5.15pm and the whole thing had taken over 7 hours so far. Surely it wouldn’t be adjourned and need another day.

What came next was soon answered, because the sheriff concluded his discussions with the PF and told me to stand up in the dock. It was obviously crunch time.

First up was his verdict on the “without ticket case”. He’d listened to the evidence, much of which he said wasn’t relevent to the issue, particularly the political machinations around the LLAIA Committee goings-on, and therefore had no implicit bearing on the case. He found me guilty as charged and would be imposing a fine and costs. The level of fine depended on my ability and means to pay and he asked my personal financial situation. Was I working? Income? retired? pensions? Disposable income? He had to determine the amount of the fine and costs and the payment level. Eventually he settled on £300 and £20 costs paid at £10 per week. How much is your confiscated gear worth? “To anyone else in the world, practically nothing” I said, “but to me it’s got priceless sentimental value. Much, if not all, obsolete and inherited from friends now dead”.

At this point the PF came over to me and said the Crown was not asking for impoundment and was happy to return the confiscated gear, rather than have it destroyed. (Up yours Raeburn!!!) My personal opinion is that she wasn’t exactly happy at what she was doing having now had the opportunity to hear the real facts rather than the contrived circumstances that Raeburn and Bourhill had so far concealed. I wonder what she had to say to them both privately after it was over, and how their slowly revealed catalogue of dishonesty has affected the LLAIAs future relationship with the Procurator Fiscal office. Personally, I think as soon as she realised what was really going on she sat back and enjoyed watching the crown witnesses squirm under cross-examination, never once objecting to my line of questioning, or taking advantage of re-examining them under re-direct, or in fact assisting the witnesses much at all.

“Just as long as I don’t see you back here ever again”, she says. I think she was scared I’d take this up as a career!

Then it was down to the second, and much more important to me, charge of “reckless and dangerous” and causing Raeburn to dirty his service issue police pants. In relation to the second charge I find you NOT GUILTY as charged and you are free to go.

Fcuk me!!! I’d actually pulled it off!! Did he really say NOT guilty?

I didn’t do a lap of honour round the court, there was no one but the court officers to see it anyway. I didn’t punch the air with clenched fist or make a meaningful political statement. I quietly gathered up my papers, had a last look around so I’d never forgot it and was escorted from the dock by the police guard. I floated up the stairs by myself in a by now empty court building and out through the entrance hall to find the main front doors locked and the whole place dubbed up. I tried the lock repeatedly but it wouldn’t turn and I was starting to think the sheriff had changed his mind when a nice woman appeared with the key and let me go.

I’d expected a massive crowd on the court steps, but had neglected to prepare a statement of vindication. Just as well as it was completely devoid of life by then anyway. Even Raeburn hadn’t stayed to hear the verdict and congratulate me. I headed back to the car alone, and it was only when there that it really hit me. I’d actually pulled it off. Months of work, hesitation, doubts, fears, occasional confident interludes and an unshakable will not to let anyone treat me as expendable had been worth it. What a day!. What an unforgetteble personal achievement!. What a risk!. What an absolute disaster for Raeburn, Elsweiler and Bourhill and the other LLAIA committee member poodles who had supported them.

I had a mad, mental minute of exaltation in the front seat where anyone watching or listening might have feared for the windscreen of the car. But I had to quickly calm down enough to drive home through the evening rush hour without getting myself killed. Not much point in winning if I don’t survive to tell everyone how I did it.

I started up and got through to the M80/M8 where it was less manic and made a few short victory calls to let others know what had happened. An unbelievably sweet moment I’d probably never really believed would come.

Since then I’ve been lying in the sun for a week doing little else but going over the day in my mind, and still regularly find myself grinning stupidly at bits of remembered court testimony. I disposed of a few beers and the odd cocktail in celebration, but didn’t go near any boats. I still can’t believe I pulled it off against all the odds, and against everything the corrupt ex-polis mafia could invent. I took a massive risk I only now realise the magnitude of, and it might have, had things turned out differently, had disastrous consequences for failure. Not just for myself, but it could have resulted in the Chairman and Secretary becoming unassailable and in effect immoveable from the LLAIA committee in the foreseeable future.

But I also had a few nights on holiday where I lay awake into the dawn, thoughts whirling and composed much of the reporting of the days events in my mind. It’s taken a while, but they’re now down on paper for all to see and to judge.

Since I returned I’ve been in contact with the PF briefly to thank her properly for her decision to return my confiscated gear. I hope my “against all odds” self representation victory hasn’t blotted her CV too much. She confirmed she’d already processed my rods and gear for return and I should be hearing shortly from Stirling Police Custodiers Department to arrange collection. I hope its all there, every last swivel and hook and four modified tobys, undamaged and ready to go for next spring. If it’s not, there will be another court case!!!!!

I have no idea how many cases are won under self representation every year, probably not many, and I certainly wouldn’t advise it under normal circumstances. But this wasn’t a normal circumstance. I’d already seen the punitive cost of even a short dalliance with lawyers and that occasion didn’t even reach court. How much would it have cost to fully professionally represent this case, and how much even for a single whole 7hr defence lawyer day spent in court. While on the other side Raeburn and Bourhill just misused the LLAIAs resources shamelessly as their own, (and continue to do so until we bag them)and didn’t need to bother about the cost. The daft LLAIA members would pick up the tab for them, no problem.

Right from the start I had no option, financially, but to self represent and make the best of it that I could. But that gave a false impression of how hard or easy it might be for the opposition witnesses and they turned up expecting little, ill-prepared and dismissive. Which I absolutely guarantee they no longer are.

I didn’t say earlier, but I did have some previous legal training.

About forty years ago in an effort to cut a year from the end of my final qualification I’d attended an optional qualification in Building Law. A decent pass could exempt me from a couple of the final years exams when the pressure was really on in other harder subjects. I found I really enjoyed the law course. I took to it, and it didn’t seem to me like work or study. I had an excellent memory, which luckily I still have, and it seemed tailor-made for remembering obscure case law names and dates, and unfathomable latin legal sayings, both of which are a large part of the legal process. Above all I found the legal process fascinating and anything interesting I find is not hard work. It came to exam time and I was fairly confident. And rarely has any paper seemed so easy. The answers just fell into place and I found myself writing screeds of stuff, trying to cram in all I knew without running out of time. At the end I was really confident, one of my very few confident exam performaces amongst many bare scrape throughs.

The results appeared in the fullness of time, not accompanied by my usual dread of the opening ritual, or sneaking a fearful look at the public results board. I had to look twice when it came. In the results column were the two capital letters SM, instead of a C, or B or my even rarer A. I had to look at the fine print to find out SM stood for Special Mention (not something I’d had to bother much about previously), denoting marks between 95% and 100%.

So, that’s why I can now reveal that I have undeclared previous. Magna cum laude. Maybe I should have warned Raeburn and Bourhill that they were taking on a ringer, an almost invisible sleeper, but I’m sure even that wouldn’t have made them think twice. They would just have raised my Special Mention by two bent coppers and a foregone conclusion, and then carried on regardless, still thinking themselves untouchable.

I don’t delude myself that I didn’t have a large measure of luck, but I also had an unquenchable spirit and sense of fairness. It just isn’t in me to let anyone stitch me up without a fight, especially someone who so depended on his police reputation for advantage. I’ll never ever forget my day in court, and I expect Raeburn, Bourhill, Bell, and especially Elsweiler won’t either, but for vastly different reasons.

#701(A) REPOST OF #576 Gerd Elswielers Testimonial pt2 – Part 8 Gerd Elsweilers case busting fictional account – take a punt Gerd, in front or behind,eh? – …… I don’t know, M’lud

THE RECKLESS AND DANGEROUS CHARGE

I hope all those on the committee, and all those no longer on the committee, and all those that hope we’ll forget they were ever on the committee, and all those that never read Bitter&Twisted are enjoying this. Something to ponder at your next committee meeting. Might one of you now ask why no-one had the balls to stand up and say “not in my name” before Raeburn and Bourhill disgraced both you the LLAIA.

*********************

Raeburn left the witness box and was replaced by his butler, best mate and faithful reainer Gerd Elsweiler, the fifth elected LLAIA Committee member to stand there that day. That, if nothing else indicates the level of organisational collusion this adventure had required. Every single witness against me was either employed by and compelled, or sat on the governing board of the LLAIA. Not one single ordinary member was involved in the Crown case. And all to “bury” one single man “once and for all”.

Elsweiler was sworn in, giving his occupation loudly as retired police officer. Again, I couldn’t help thinking done in such an ostentatious way as to suggest that fact alone would attach more weight to his testimony than that of any other non-ex-police witness.

The Procurator Fiscal then ran him through his experiences that day, remarkably similar in description, believe it or not, to Raeburns. He was behind Raeburn by maximum 150 yards from start to finish he said and saw it all. He was actually called by Raeburn on his mobile to make sure he had seen what was happening. [I don’t know why they didn’t just shout to each other] He’d closely followed the action until approx the vicinity of the Hen Isle, off Rowardennan, where I’d broken off for Balmaha.

He was absolutely clear that my actions had been frightening, reckless and dangerous. He’d later been contacted to make a statement to police about what he’d saw, which he did. And he was here today to tell his story to the court and see justice done.

He finished his story and was handed over for cross-examination, and waited, I’m certain with more than a little trepidation for my first question. I’d deliberately started off with one to set the tone, which was going to be aggressive and forcefully to the point and leaving no doubt about what I thought of him and his story. I was absolutely certain he’d never been near enough on the day to see a tenth of what he’d said he’d seen, and that in itself meant he could be exposed if only I could ask the right questions. He looked nervous and ill-at-ease and so he should have.

Protect your chin at all times, and remember you can throw in the towel at any time if it gets too sore!

***************

Q. How did you get to Stirling this morning. Did you come alone or did you share a car with another crown witness

A. I came in the same car as Mr Raeburn. We live in the same town and shared the same car to get here.

Q. Mr Elsweiler are you a LLAIA Committee member too? And is Mr Raeburn a close personal friend you’ve known since both in the police?

A. Yes

Q. You regularly go fishing together, by this I mean on the same day, time and location but in seperate boats?

A. Yes.

Q. In fact would you say you rarely fish Lomond without each other? Is your usual, in fact habitual practice to troll every day in tandem from Balmaha to Inversnaid Hotel for lunch and drinks in the bar and after to troll back to Balmaha.? Are you both not known for exactly that reason?

A. We do sometimes.

Q. On the day in question just prior to the incident were you in the the Inversnaid hotel. With Mr Raeburn?

A. No, it was closed.

Q. But you could still have a drink or two. Do you think drinking alcohol in charge or a boat is sensible,? Does it affect your judgement and capacity to function normally and remember things clearly.? Do you know its a Park Authority offence to be in charge of a boat under the influence of alcohol? LLTPA 3.5(2)(a) states clearly “No master of any vessel or any other person shall navigate or attempt to navigate any vessel on the loch while under the influence of alcohol or drugs”. But still you continually and frequently ignore the law and use your vessel under the influence of alcohol.

A. I didn’t have any drink that day.

Q. Let’s say you didn’t but you provided a statement corroborating Mr Raeburns version of events of the day in question did you not? When was that written?

A. About three weeks after the event when I was contacted by the police.

Q. Was it compiled independently or in conjunction with Mr Raeburn. Because I have difficulty in believing you didn’t give your pal a wee look just to make sure you got it the way he’d told you.

A. It wasn’t written, it was a telephone statement.

Q. So there is no written complaint, and this was all done verbally, over the telephone?

A. It was.

Q. Did you actually see the events described or just take his word for it, because quite frankly you couldn’t possibly have seen what you say you did due to the physical lie of the land, hills, trees, the shoreline profile and the intervening hundred million tonnes of rock. In relation to the place where the alleged incident you describe took place I contend that you were nothing like as close as you say and were in fact a speck on the shoreline at least half a mile away to the north when I saw you first. You were so far away that I only surmised it was you because you usually follow Raeburn about like a poodle on a long lead. You couldn’t possibly have seen anything unless you could see through rock or over mountains.

A. I was maximum 150yards away and saw it all

Q. If you were in fact as close as you say that is well within camera range is it not. I presume you took some, if not many, photos when you realised your best pal was being intimidated to within an inch of his life . Do you actually have any photos.?

A. No, I don’t have a camera, or at least I do but I don’t ever use it.

Q. Seems strange that everyone else but you, the only “independent” witness, seems to have had the presence of mind to take at least a few photographs. Except, apparently, the only witness, and you were close enough to see everything that happened but somehow didn’t think to take a few record photos. Is that not strange, and almost bordering on calling into question just exactly how close you were.

A. I just didn’t think to take any at the time.

Q. Did Mr Raeburn call you on the phone that day to tell you he was under attack and ask you for help.?

A. Yes.

Q. I presumed from his dire description of the fear and distress he was in that he did. Did you immediately reel in your lines and increase speed to maximum revs to catch up and overtake the two supposedly nearly intertwined craft with Mr Raeburn just about to repel boarders. Because it’s about ten miles of open water between Rowchoish and Balmaha. Maybe a wee bit less, but still a substantial distance and taking a good hour and a half at economic throttle. But, in all that water, over that time frame and with you so close by your way of it, why did you never manage to catch up and render assistance?

A. I didn’t think too.

Sheriff. Mr Elsweiler, did you see the manouver that Mr Raeburn said he undertook trying to escape Mr Lyons.

A. Yes I saw it.

Sheriff. When undertaking this manouver did he pass in front of Mr Lyons boat, or behind him?

A. [Mild look of panic, and hesitation] I can’t say for certain.

Sheriff. But you say that you saw the incident from max 150 yds away. I want you tell me whether he passed in front or behind.

A. Well……, I couldn’t say or certain.

Thank you. Continue Mr Lyons

[ I think at this point Gerd was flustered and couldn’t remember what Jimmy had told him to say. He hedged his bets by not committing to either option in case Jimmy had said the other, and the sheriff was onto it right away. Preparation. Preparation. And more Preparation. It’s the key to success, everywhere except in the police force witness coaching program obviously.]

[I was hoping at this point that this was an indicator of the sheriff’s doubt at the witnesses honesty, but it was so late in proceedings that it might not make that much difference. However, better that it was done than not, I thought, and shows the benefit of not needing to remember any previously rehearsed lies]

Q. When Mr Raeburn arrived back at Balmaha I was still there and watched him beach his boat and start to load his car. He said not a word about the incident, to myself or anyone else, and I left shortly after with him still silent. And still by the time I left you hadn’t turned up. That seems strange to me if you really thought your special pal was in as much danger and as distressed as he, and you, say he was. And if you were so close you could nearly touch us.

A. I decided myself to fish from Ross point back to Balmaha and Mr Raeburn cut straight across the deeps, so I was later in.

Q. Mr Elsweiler I contend by the evidence I’ve provided that you were never in a position to see what you later say you saw. That you fabricated your statement to help your best friend and fellow LLAIA Committee mate, to punish me on his behalf and to teach me a lesson.

A. I did not, I’ve only told what I saw that day.

I have no further questions for this witness.

******************

He was told he could leave the witness box and that was it over. He was the last “clown witness” and they’d kept the best till last, that’s for certain.

I’d never seen him so up close before as he’s seldom about Balmaha when I am. I wondered what motivated him to take the personal reputational risk he’d taken when he’d had really no need to get involved. But he had, for whatever reason, and not only that had done his best to “do me” with another false recollection designed to “bury me once and for all”. The latter part of his story had been muddled and he’d failed to grasp the opportunity to convince the sheriff he’d been as close to the action as he’d said, and obviously hadn’t seen it all as clearly as he pretended. Not being able to decide if Raeburn had passed in front of me or behind me when he’d supposedly seen every last detail prior to that was a major error I hoped had cast doubt on his whole testimony and would ultimately go in my favour. He’ll be sailing under a flag of convenience next season to reflect his homeless status.

And for anyone interested the correct answer to the sheriff’s question would have been neither in front or behind because I’d always kept on the deep side of Raeburns boat forcing him to turn full circle inside me without presenting any opportunity of passing either in front or behind. And if Gerd Elsweiler had been as close as he said he was he’d have seen that and the true image would have been ingrained in his mind to the extent it would have been an automatic response. And even after a year to compare stories, and a final hour in the car to Stirling that morning they still couldn’t get their testimony down pat enough to withstand even basic scrutiny. One astute question by the sheriff had been enough.

Of course you’d have to have been within plain sight to know that. Not round the corner, over the horizon, through the mountain, past the trees, over the hills and far away.

But I wouldn’t be too hard on him though. The jerseys were probably sold as a cumulative effort rather than one man’s individual elementary cock-up, a slow realisation by those in court that every one of the crown witnesses hadn’t covered themselves in glory. It was the non-stop, one after the other, drip, drip, rinse and repeat, joint effort of six against one for seven hours that just screamed “stitch up”.

They’d been given their chance, taken their best shot, used their wits, called in favours, taxed their intelligence and imaginations and any failure now would be catastrophic for their reputations for honesty and call into question their whole careers up till now. Failure for them was unthinkable and the consequences likewise.

So, that was it over, barring the verdict, and what a marathon. 5.15pm and I’m still there,and still technically a free man.

What happened next follows on “After the last witness”