Unorthodox tactics? Such as?
Flaws in the investigation? What do you consider those to be?
Unrecognisable by the time the ID parades came about? Are you really suggesting that Luke would have changed beyond all recognition from the beginning of July to the middle of August? Really? May I suggest that it would take a transition the like of only seen in gothic tales of werewolves for that to be believable.
Further, according to experts, the first statements of witnesses are almost always the most reliable and also Andrina Bryson had suffered no stress or trauma and was simply trying to help so why would the timings in her first statements be unreliable?
More anomalies? LK not mentioning a strangling sound in his first statements.
Neighbours who knew Jodie claiming they saw her leave her house after 5pm.
No DNA of Luke’s on Jodi.
No scratches or marks of a struggle on Luke.
Why when the parka jacket was such a main component of the prosecution’s case did the witnesses who allegedly saw Luke that evening not claim that their sighting was wearing a parka…in fact quite the opposite with Andrina Bryson.
The jogger not being where RW claimed.
And on and on.
The only clear level of flaws is the intellect of those who live in the pages of that book and into a doc based upon it:
Where you keep mentioning the evidence presented to a Jury, yet know virtually nothing of the actual evidence presented, why? - For you live in the pages of a book, with some manipulation of cherry picked excerpts of the defence. 99% of the Crowns case is actually missing. The questioning of each witness on the stand.
90% of the book is around deflection into other areas.
How does your first statement repetition go? - CM and LM's completely wiped out by SM's first statement. So there you have it. No Luke home just as he always stated. from first to the stand. - I did not see my brother.
Don't forget Luke's first either. Listening to that music now. So never saw him never heard him.
CM I got home at my usual time. No she didn't she got home no earlier than 5.15pm. Can't have been mistaken, first account mind, always correct. LM, mum got home at her usual time. Really, so not mistaken mind, always accurate. Lying
CM. Luke left home around 5.45pm. LM. I left home around 5.45pm. "Where did you make the call from Luke?" The wall at the entrance of my estate. "This is at 5.32pm Luke?"
CM - I was in the garden enjoying the sunshine. 'It was not sunny Corinne' Lying.
We can stop there - Just highlighting parts of those first accounts.
In short, one who did not see nor hear his brother. Two in harmony of completely impossible information. Which is concocted? The lies of course.
Now we add in the author and claiming CM simply reminded her son Shane it was the day of the burnt pies:
We move onto his change - 'I remember now, we had burnt pies for dinner. Mum got in at her usual time, I went down to greet her, asked her how her day had been. The time was just after five, her usual time of getting home. Luke was mashing tatties. I went back to my room and mum shouted me for dinner around ten minutes later. So we have those two sets of concocted lies now including a third person to go along with them. A period of time that the mother was not even home. We can't fast forward it. We can't say it was really 5.15 he came to say hi to mum, ask her how her day had been, returning upstairs and all else - as LM was out the door by 5.30pm, as of course was Shane?
Will we add in more? - Luke came out back to say bye to me. He was going to see Jodi. The time was around Qtr to 6. He was wearing a manky, dirty top. Told him to change it, he told me it was Jodi's favourite top. Not for much longer it won't be laddie if you don't stop wearing it. He had on his thick, green blouson Jacket with orange lining. No idea why, I mean it was sunny and warm, I was soaking it up in the garden?! Didn't say anything of that to him though. I did however when we went shopping and he wanted that big parka jacket with the German army badge on it. 'Luke it is summer time, you don't wear jackets. I mean you literally could not get him to wear one. He told me it would be winter soon and I saw the sale sign, well I just had to buy it' - evidently no problem on this warm summers, sunny evening wearing a jacket.
Then we just simply add in the intellect of those soaking up that book. Making statements of evidence presented to a Jury. Telling people there was not enough evidence for a conviction. So 9 weeks later and a handful of cherry picked defence excerpts from a book, and one is suddenly an expert on there being no case to answer to? Where the gullibility is second to none. - Who states, 'she may get things wrong but I trust her' So you are in reality shown b....r all in the grand scheme of things, your few sandwiches short attempt is simply that - blind faith.
Where all you actually do do, is attempt to act intelligent. - you fail miserably where this case is concerned. Mimicking the author repeatedly. First statements jargon, evidence before a jury, what about AB's call to hubby. I am actually surprised you have not come out with the nonsense around the speaking clock yet.
We look at these others! And it is full of not sure's . Approximations and guesswork. The only people to be precise in anything was LM and his mother. So precise it simply crumbled and disintegrated as each piece of evidence came to light. This constant bleat, that they were the only consistent accounts, yes consistently false. Those constant bleats that their statements didn't change. What a bloody hoot! The only ones who's statements who had to consistently change due to evidence coming to light. That caused repetitive change in those lies.
But this author and her honesty. Where your repetition is the exact same. As with MrSwah. 'She may get things wrong but don't believe she would wilfully mislead/lie' Like SL and stating CM is simply mistaken, not lying just confused.
This bloody weather on the 30th of June. Where I highlighted how easily someone can insert narrative that is blatantly false, to back up her own nonsense. This F&W and the dark hair. Nothing she states to make that hair appear darker, no outside factors. No, just the lack of sunshine and of course the shade of those trees. To the present day and she is talking of people wearing hoodies and she states
"Aside from never seeing any evidence whatsoever of this "second blue hoodie," it's something of a ridiculous suggestion that, on a warm (but wet) summer evening, Jodi was wearing a blue hoodie over her Black deftones hoodie"
So there you have it again, from "what was a bright sunny evening around 6pm" to "on a warm (but wet) summer evening" - where her contradictions are literally like weather, ever changeable to suit the narrative at the time.
Perhaps being more public, perhaps more people stepping forward and saying, it was a day of grey sky's, overcast with cooler temps. These thick hoodies, parka jackets and thick blousons.
And we go back to CM and those fibs! Of being out on the patio enjoying the weather ------ to fire's giving off lots of smoke, no doubt dampened by rain! To the author backing CM and stating she too was out on her patio, reading in the sunshine!
Thankfully Faith the support with this clear level of intellect and as the author rightly states, why lie to aid a dangerous person being freed? Where lies are the last thing that will gain anyone freedom. - None of it, the support of the lies and all else, matter a Jot where the safety of LM's conviction is concerned. They pose no threat, just a whole lot of gullible people who claim instantly they give this support on the basis of blind faith. We do not need to see proof under the safety net of Scots law and disclosure. We simply accept the authors word. "buy the book" it is "everything you need to know on this case" - hook. line and sinker. Soaked up, churned round and spat back out with additives.
So please, one can not keep repeating the same old nonsense, of there not being enough evidence before a Jury, when one has no bloody idea of what was before the Jury. Those recordings for a start, the phone logs of the speaking clock, those first statements read and gone over by the prosecution, you know the one's you keep harping on about. Where that search trio from the off stated, LM and his dog went directly to that break in the wall. So it is not about "40yards, 20 feet, parallel to, no one cares" It is everything about nothing to do with the dam dog, and everything to do with LM's lies.
