Mr. Apples,
I appreciate the fact that you have written a detailed reply. Yet it fails to address many of the points that I have made about the problems with eyewitness testimony over the last several months in two threads, the only exceptions to that are that you discussed the difference in the background of LM's photograph versus the others, you discussed the timing, and you mentioned RW's showing the photo to LF. I will address the second and third for the moment. Even if we accept the earlier time for AB's departure, there would still be time spent in loading the car, driving, getting lost, viewing the house, and driving back. That is quite a bit to fit into a period of less than 25 minutes. Moreover, there should have been CCTV confirmation of her route and timing, as Faithfully pointed out; it is conspicuous by its absence. Regarding RW and LF you wrote, "It had nothing to do with breaking the rules or having one's memory contaminated; she knew, quite categorically, that it was the same person she'd seen 6 weeks earlier." This is a seriously misguided argument. She broke a sensible rule, and she spoke falsely (probably lied) about having done so. In so doing, she also contaminated LF's memory.*
Let me give you my bottom line regarding eyewitnesses. Erroneous identifications occur in over 70% of wrongful convictions. This fact alone should make one cautious about overweighting them. The confidence that an eyewitness expresses is in general a poor gauge of its accuracy. The guidelines that have been adopted in various jurisdictions were, no doubt, written with the goal of making eyewitness identifications as trustworthy as is possible, yet (as Donald Findlay said) the guidelines were brazenly flouted. And if anyone had any doubt that not playing by the rules (both regarding eyewitness accounts and disclosure), last month's stories about Andrew Malkinson are an exclamation point about the dangers of investigators' not doing so.
*EDT
"Recommendation 1 from Wells et al. (2020) is relevant. The recommendation is to conduct, before the lineup, an interview in which the witness is instructed to avoid attempting to identify the culprit on his or her own. If the witness has already done so and has encountered the suspect’s photo (e.g., on social media), thereby contaminating memory before the first official test, it is also important to document that fact."
Wixted, J. T., Wells, G. L., Loftus, E. F., & Garrett, B. L. (2021). Test a Witness’s Memory of a Suspect Only Once. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 22(1_suppl), 1S-18S
Chris, likewise I appreciate the effort you put into most of your posts, endeavouring to delineate or highlight any possible flaws in the prosecution's case, reasoning, etc. It's obvious you are erudite, thorough and articulate.
However, it seems to me that you are being overly and disproportionately pedantic in your criticism of the prosecution's evidence, reasoning and methodology in the LM case. I also don't think it's relevant or appropriate to cite the evidence from parts of other cases as often as you do; criminal trials should always be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, since no two cases will ever be the same. There may be some parallels between certain cases, but, in my opinion, it sets a dangerous precedent trying to compare one case with another.
As regards AB's car journey -- and what follows is paraphrased from the AB chapter in SL's IB (p.116) -- after buying some groceries from the Cooperative store in Gorebridge at 1632 hrs (as discussed previously, the 1632 time was confirmed by AD Turnbull in court when he produced a copy of AB's bank statement which showed the transaction for the groceries from Coop was clearly recorded as 1632; the till in the Cooperative store, which showed AB's till receipt to be 1645, was faulty). Upon one of her daughter's arrival home from school at 1605, she and her 2 children got in the car immediately and drove to the aforementioned store (SL, in IB, calls it a supermarket, which is a misleading term for a Cooperative store) -- a journey which took between 5 - 10 mins. SL mentions that AB's weekly shop took between 30 and 45 mins. I have to pause here to question something: no one I know in Scotland ever does their main weekly shop at a Coop store; I've lived in southwestern Scotland for some 40-odd years and have never known anyone to do their weekly shop there. They are convenience food stores. Some people might pop in daily or weekly and buy bits an' bobs or parts of their shopping there, but never for their main weekly/fortnightly shop (most folks do their main weekly/fortnightly shop at either Sainsbury's, Tesco, Asda, Morrison's, Aldi or Lidl). It's simply not a place suitable for this as it's too small (you can't even use a trolley and have to use a basket) and limited in its products, as well as too expensive for most families. Therefore, I think AB was probably in this 'food store' for 30 mins maximum if we are going by SL's timings, but, in all likelihood, was only probably in it for 15-20 mins (20-25 mins at the most). If
she was in the Coop store for 30/45 mins as SL says in her book, then she must have left home before 1605, as per the 1632 store transaction. But, let's stick with the agreed time of she and her 2 kids leaving the house at 1605/1610 (this time is accurate, since this is the time most school kids get in from school). She leaves Coop store at 1632 . . . then, putting her 2 kids back in the car & loading that small amount of shopping in the boot would only have taken few minutes, and then leaving for a 9-minute car drive to view a property for sale in Easthouses (this wasn't a pre-arranged house viewing with an estate agent, but rather a quick look at the house from her car). This would merely add only a couple of more minutes on to her journey, making her sighting of this couple at the entrance to RDP east all the more probable, at 1655. (Incidentally, you can't actually get lost in Easthouses as it's a tiny settlement area with a population of around 2000 people and only has 4 or 5 streets of houses in it. SL says that AB didn't really know Easthouses well, yet she lived in the adjacent village of Newtongrange which is literally only 5 mins away by car? Doesn't make sense. But, no, you can't get 'lost' in Easthouses and that is a fact; it literally consists of only 4 or 5 streets of houses. And, as highlighted upthread, AB would likely have gotten home from Easthouses at any time between 1705 - 1715, depending on what she did when driving back home (as far as I'm led to believe, she did drive directly back home after viewing the house in Easthouses). Logic tells me that, once she unloaded the children and shopping from the car, got back in the house, settled her 2 kids down, put the shopping away and began preparing the dinner for the family, including her husband due in from work, that window of 30-45 mins would have flown by and made her lose track of time. She initially said she got home from shopping/viewing the house at 1750, and that she knew this because she specifically remembered her husband calling her half an hour after she got back (it was later confirmed by her phone logs that the call was received at 1817 precisely).This obviously ties in with AB's original timing of seeing LM at 1740/1745, but, of course, the critical bank statement evidence disproved this, shaving 40/45 mins off AB's time of arriving home. And, common sense tells us that, between 1705-1710, when she likely got back home from Easthouses, AB had misremembered and lost track of time due to settling kids down, putting the shop by and preparing the dinner for her family (including her husband, who phoned her at 1817). So, Chris, once you use the proper evidence of the bank statement, we can accurately figure out what really happened. Initially, especially the way in which SL words the AB evidence (one might be tempted to call it manipulation), it does seem unlikely that it was LM she saw at 1655, but the real evidence, coupled with thorough and meticulous research into the case -- even from the limited info available in the public domain about the case -- we can build an accurate picture of what likely happened that day.
RW was unequivocal that it was him, as I've mentioned numerous times now (and provided cites for as to why she was certain it was him). On the surface, LF's testimony does seem more equivocal, vague and unreliable, but, without having access to all of her statements and court testimony to see for myself personally, I'll reserve judgement. LF was a decent, reasonably intelligent and level-headed individual, so I don't think she'd willingly merely parrot what her sister-in-law said if she had any doubts; she wasn't a nodding donkey and was capable of making her own mind up. And she knew the stakes were high -- that a young lad could go to jail for a considerable amount of time for an unusually brutal murder. Why would she be influenced by her sister--in-law's recall if she had doubts about it? Furthermore, LF was the one who spotted LM at the gate and drew RW's attention to him. LF was also the one who said that LM acting suspiciously and 'up to no good'. She also described his dark green parka jacket, his black jeans and dark footwear, as well as his grungey shoulder length hair which, she said, reminded her of Oasis frontman Liam Gallagher. And also, she recalled, just as she and RW were driving past him, he flicked his hair to the side, which gave them a view of his eyes and face (saw this clearly as she looked in the car's rear view mirror). Her recall was accurate and incriminating. Even if we take RF out of the equation, we still have the eyewitness testimonies of AB & RW. Both of these women were adamant that, when shown pics in 2003, the youth they saw that day was LM. They, too, described his clothing accurately. More robust incriminating evidence.
How can CCTV evidence be conspicous by its absence, in this case? As you say, it would provide crucial circumstantial evidence for both defence and prosecution. The fact there was none probably means there were no cctv cameras on those routes? Unless you think police deliberately tampered with cctv cameras? What is your logic here, Chris?
In finishing, a question for you: if LM was so innocent, why wasn't he screaming and shouting when that guilty verdict came through? Or when he was being led away to begin his life sentence (it even looked as if he was smirking as he was being escorted away in that white Reliance van transporting him to Polmont Young Offenders' Institute). He was knowingly a lippy and confident lad with a short fuse (as per his 'giving the police as good as they got' in interviews, goading, laughing at them and taunting them; or the senior social worker appointed to LM, who never, not once, felt the need to intervene during LM's police interviews, as LM was clearly fit for them despite his young age; the female journalist who noted LM's supreme confidence for his age, who was, in her words, an adult in everything but age). He sure was calm during sentencing, was he not? He was not prescribed horse tranquiliser strength medication, was he? Surely an innocent person would have been shouting and swearing, no matter how timid their nature? LM was not timid -- far from it. Why no reaction from LM on the day of his guilty verdict or when he was sentenced?
