Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
I'm talking about the alleged and un-named "Stocky Man" witness who was not called to court or been heard of since, not [Name removed]. My point was "court witnesses" Vs "unknown/never followed up witness" - it was established in court that the witness sightings were of LM, not anyone else. I know I would be hard pushed to describe someone completely accurately that I drove past for 5-10 secs and then identify them over a year later in court.

I’d be hard pushed too to identify someone I’d drove past while concentrating where I should have been, on the road, in court a year later. That’s why eyewitness testimony of this type is so unreliable.
92
Good points Mr Apples. I've heard from numerous sources over the years that there was a strong majority required and that it was more than 9-6 against LM. Of course this will be offset by his dwindling supporters that require cites etc while believing in the ever changing Stocky Man fairy tale put forth by SL & SF.

If there were doubts surely further evidence would have been lodged at appeals and SCCRC?

It has been doing the rounds for many yrs inclusive of forum discussions pre 2010. 
93

Firstly Adriana Bryson’s first statements put her sighting of the young couple was around 5.45. If you were the young couple seen by Bryson would you recognise yourself as that couple if you had been there at the time Bryson first gave rather than the revised 4.45?

Wasn’t [Name removed] extempted from attendance as a witness because of his mental health?

I'm talking about the alleged and un-named "Stocky Man" witness who was not called to court or been heard of since, not [Name removed]. My point was "court witnesses" Vs "unknown/never followed up witness" - it was established in court that the witness sightings were of LM, not anyone else. I know I would be hard pushed to describe someone completely accurately that I drove past for 5-10 secs and then identify them over a year later in court.
94

The brother was present when the police attended at his house, not only was he present there he was also present to the rear of the school with his mother, AO's, along with everyone else which of course includes the police. - Had this nonsense out with SL before.

And we are simply meant to believe you? With absolutely no evidence at all. Some have already been stung by your misinformation this week. Hopefully they will have learned not to be so gullible in the future.
 
95
WW: taking your claim that the witness sightings of LM did not happen or were someone else, would that someone else not have been traced and identified, particularly the "teenage couple" who were seen at the entrance to the path.

While claiming all the LM court witnesses were wrong or unreliable, you've offered ?? as an alternative being witnessed by an unknown person at 4.45pm? This "witness" has never been named or used by the defence as the last person to see [Name removed] alive. I believe this was a false trail that the police did not pursue, or surely the defence would have called them as a witness?


Firstly Adriana Bryson’s first statements put her sighting of the young couple at around 5.45. If you were the young couple seen by Bryson would you recognise yourself as that couple if you had been there at the time Bryson first gave rather than the revised 4.45?

Wasn’t [Name removed] extempted from attendance as a witness because of his mental health?
96
WW: taking your claim that the witness sightings of LM did not happen or were someone else, would that someone else not have been traced and identified, particularly the "teenage couple" who were seen at the entrance to the path.

While claiming all the LM court witnesses were wrong or unreliable, you've offered ?? as an alternative being witnessed by an unknown person at 4.45pm? This "witness" has never been named or used by the defence as the last person to see [Name removed] alive. I believe this was a false trail that the police did not pursue, or surely the defence would have called them as a witness?

It is all utter nonsense Kenmair:

Correct - No witnesses used to show what was important, the girls last movements that day after leaving home. Clearly was a false trail.

The brother, there are NO witnesses to him walking that road far less "following" anyone. Not the schoolgirl at that time, and not anyone "following" her from 'clickbait' headlines. Such outstanding proof used, is it not? 'Clickbait' headlines from a media appeal. To a 'claimed' over the phone ID several weeks later.

The brother was present when the police attended at his house, not only was he present there he was also present to the rear of the school with his mother, AO's, along with everyone else which of course includes the police. - Had this nonsense out with SL before.

The knowledge of the path fiasco, where WW intentionally goes off into a world of their own. Already stated that LM's girlfriend had been banned from using the path after getting into a relationship with him. She was 14yrs old and not the age WW applies.

Absolutely correct, it is not simply the application of the witnesses who saw and identified LM, it is the absolute absence of them being anyone else. More so those on NR where the claimed 'real' LM was not further down that road. Only the one of him present at any time! So again, it is the absence, and in this instance of LM himself elsewhere. Which ties with the AB sighting also, he was not home, no alibi, not seen anywhere else.

Neither is there any 40mins that LM carried out everything. Already been pulled up for such nonsense yet still continues with it.

Mr Apples:

Not quite Mr Apples - My belief is around means and opportunity in respect of the whole time frame and not just up until 6pm. If someone stated he could not have did something, I have combatted it with what could have been achieved. For that time period I worked at one point with the bare minimum of 13mins. The 'forceful', he would have had to go home, have a shower, get changed, discuss with mother and be back on NR, applying fallacy to add weight to 'their' impossible. I have simply combatted that, not therefore my belief that is what he did do.

97
WW: taking your claim that the witness sightings of LM did not happen or were someone else, would that someone else not have been traced and identified, particularly the "teenage couple" who were seen at the entrance to the path.

While claiming all the LM court witnesses were wrong or unreliable, you've offered ?? as an alternative being witnessed by an unknown person at 4.45pm? This "witness" has never been named or used by the defence as the last person to see [Name removed] alive. I believe this was a false trail that the police did not pursue, or surely the defence would have called them as a witness?
98
What ill informed and bigotted rubbish, WS.   No facts at all.   

Just the figments of Amaral and Cristovaos imaginations.   Both men have criminal records and are Court proven liars

None of this changes the fact that Joana wasn't abducted. There's zero evidence Joana was abducted. None, nothing, zilch. There is however, evidence that Leonor blamed her brother for Joana's disappearance. Strange thing to do considering he was completely innocent & a stranger had abducted Joana, iyo.
99
That's all very well, but Joana wasn't abducted. She was murdered by her mother & uncle.

What ill informed and bigotted rubbish, WS.   No facts at all.   

Just the figments of Amaral and Cristovaos imaginations.   Both men have criminal records and are Court proven liars
100
Wasn't a white van seen when Joana went missing?

From memory, a black limousine and a motorcampervan were seen.   The latter, was I believe white and brown and a man was living in it, for a few days, very close to Joanas home.   This van and driver vanished at about the same time that Joana did.   It was found abandoned in a field in PdL.

Bruckner lived in PdL.

At the time there was speculation about this van man having abducted Madeleine.

But there is insuffient information to be certain that Bruckner was involved.   However, interesting pointers.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]