think i politeley disagree -by makin publc claims about the timeline or how things panned out usin records that arnt public, and askin people to beleive her version of events without acces to the evidenc, she open herself up to bein challenged and question, naturaly.
her whole career adn source of income is presumbly book sales? why would she mis-represent truth? because alleged miscarrages of justice make better readin material. she needs ther to be public doubt to remian relevant and keep selling
Yes I agree by answering questions and making public claims etc she does open herself upto being challenged, but from what I have read it’s the same stuff she has answered many time that she keeps being asked about (including from me) yet she still replies and I just don’t think she needs to do that so respect that she does.
I respectfully have to disagree with all the above, I do not think the past 16 years has been about misleading the public for financial or personal gain. She had put herself at risk for something she believes to be true, Whether she is right or wrong.
I was asked - With all the cries of 'trial by media' targeting Luke etc. If there was no evidence against him, lots towards other (if that is to be believed of course) Why do you think the police chose to target Luke?
Personally I think the police focused on Luke from the off because of miss information they might have had even before they met Luke and how Luke was presenting himself, a bit of an arrogant little shite. He was different and it’s usually someone close to the victim. He fitted the profile, I don’t think they were wrong in looking at Luke as a suspect, I only think they were wrong to focus their attention on him and assume he was their guy, missing any evidence that didn’t fit to Luke and maybe letting a vital piece of evidence slip by them. They reason I say this is not from anything said by Sandra or anything I read, this was from the horses mouth a matter of a few days after the murder. I worked with the police at the time and I asked them how the case was coming on and was told “oh we know who it is, we just need to prove it” that’s why I think they focused on Luke, because that’s what the police said directly to me. Again I’m not saying he is innocent, I’m saying there is not enough actual hard evidence for me to say he is guilty. Or in other words too much reasonable doubt. I thought if the police were that sure, that soon in, then they must have something solid, but they didn’t, or I’ve not heard it yet if they did. But really I thought police worked mainly on hard facts and evidence, not judge on someone’s personal preferences, music taste, attitude or appearance, remember the Christopher Jefferies and Joanna Yeates murder, everyone “knew” it was him, they just had to prove it...
I’d love to see Luke speak, and tell his side, answer some questions directly himself, like it’s been said, it’s been all these years but you never hear from Luke, I’d love to see him being interviewed, wonder what is needed for that to happen.