Doubtless an abject state of affairs. However, as I've already stated, it sets a dangerous precedent drawing parallels between cases; more importantly, our legal system is considerably more efficient and admittedly superior than English law (used in the Cardiff 3 case, I believe). Furthermore, the circumstantial evidence used in the LM case is far more robust and compelling than that of the C 3 case -- and there's not a chance in hell that JANJ was lying about SK's whereabouts on the evening of 30.06.03, and nor is there a chance in hell that JOSJ had anything to do with it as he was eliminated forensically and circumstantially.
Yet more glib and obtuse reasoning from you, FL. It won't do.
On the contrary, it is a mistake to keep one's field of vision narrowly on this case alone, when so many other cases around the world illustrate the need to follow correct procedures regarding eyewitnesses. It is even more misguided to handwave away the many irregularities in eyewitness protocols that plagued this case. The notion that Scotland has a better justice system that Wales (or England?) is an assertion without support. Who eliminated [Name removed], the same police force that failed to process the crime scene remotely correctly? The same police force that (without disput) violated LM's rights?
As to the robustness of the evidence, let us briefly examine a portion of the Fleming/Walsh evidence as an example. One, against police instruction Ms. Walsh contaminated Ms. Fleming's memory then probably lied about it. Her credibility is therefore nil, and Ms. Fleming's memory was rendered unreliable. Moreover, Ms. Fleming was shown to be mistaken about the circumstances of seeing LM's photograph, further damaging her credibility. On top of that, this was a dock identification, and every source I have consulted (and may have cited upthread in some instances) states in no uncertain terms that dock identifications are highly unreliable. Then there is the questionable agreement between their description of LM vs. the description of people who actually knew him and saw him in Newbattle. Furthermore, this was a sighting of a stranger from a car, hardly an ideal set of circumstances. Finally, even if both Fleming and Walsh were absolutely correct, it would have little probative value anyway, putting LM a few hundred yards away from where he said that he was.
EDT
I left out the jogger, which suggests that the sighting did not take place where Fleming/Walsh said it did.