"[100] The identification evidence of Miss Fleming and Miss Walsh was also criticised. They had spoken to seeing the appellant. Fleming claimed to have seen a picture of the appellant in the Daily Record newspaper on 15 August 2003, following the murder. Her evidence in this respect was confused. In particular, she initially claimed that the newspaper was brought home to her by her partner, the witness Patrick Walsh. However, in cross-examination she confirmed that her partner was in Ireland when the newspaper in question was published. Her position then changed as to the date on which she had seen this photograph, claiming that it had been in the week of 4 - 8 August. She later accepted that she was mistaken in this regard also, as no such picture had been printed at that time. Leaving aside the issue of the timing of the photograph, the witness was confused about the image she had seen. In her statement she suggested that this was of a young man walking towards a house, but the newspaper contained no such picture of the appellant."
https://murderpedia.org/male.M/m/mitchell-luke.htm
IIRC Ms Walsh claimed not to have been the one who showed Ms. Fleming the photograph when in fact she did. If you have evidence that QC Turnbull reminded Ms. Fleming or Ms. Walsh about the importance of telling the truth, please cite it. I did not claim that he didn't, only that I have no evidence that he did.
The point being missed however - Such as, these excerpts mean nothing, that is zero, without the everything of the witnesses testimony in full. What DF may have attempted is just that, attempts. Does not mean his attempts were accepted as fact, does it now? Much like the road sign fiasco around AB, attempts to confuse witnesses, so your point here is what exactly?
Those precognitions, where one would look to build something of what they may 'attempt' with each witness, in brief, to attempt to lesson the strength of their testimony already led by the Crown. Where the Crown, not at all daft to what would take place, covers most of those bases pre the cross examining by the defence - In brief, which and again, cannot be highlighted enough, it means nothing, that is nothing, without the "everything" the full context.
Very much why, there is nothing, again, nothing, happening with this case bar being able to gain some further public support - Based upon something that could not be more lopsided.
Talking of nothing, would we agree, that if there was nothing in any first statements, then it would mean nothing could be added to = Nothing. For that is the basis of the good Prof, is it not? There was nothing to merit an arrest far less taken to trial. Not much "Cajoling" going on there then, was there now, for it the end result was nothing, then nothing happened, nothing was added to equal nothing, was it now? I'll leave that with you.
"Cajoling", altering, changing? - Like 50yards, to 30, to 25 to just a "couple of feet" Or, Not quite 60ft to 43ft to just a "couple of feet" Or, less than 1 mile to 3 miles, or 6 ltrs to 5, or 4inches to 1 1/2 inches, a large oak tree to a tree trunk, 10 steps to 30steps, and on this "cajoling" goes, does it not? We know who is "cajoling" don't we now? And we certainly know who is being "cajoled" - Just a thought.
To rapidly arresting SM, to lesson without a doubt any chance of warning those still indoors, were two people were in a bedroom and NOT on couches in the lounge. To, every test carried out upon the suspect was executed perfectly, but everything else was botched, that type of "Cajoling" - And it really does keep going on and on, with more being added, more "cajoling" taken place of the actual truth in this case, transforming it into utter fantasy for the most part.
