The lies from that very first account given until the present day. From LM, and from those who spearhead this campaign. There is only one reason for this. Using both here to tally in with each other. That kindred spirit at the core in all of this. Are lies not the best thing to cover up lies in the first place? Or extraordinary explanation. This fallacy of reasoning to excuse all and everything?
We know LM had no alibi, that he was not home any later that 4.35pm. We know this as there is absolutely nothing to put him at home, and he was seen by AB at 4.55 approx:
Of being home - SM is excluded from this alibi in its entirety. The only brow beating done of SM was by his mother when this pressure was put onto him to lie? - That first realisation for Luke and his mother, that their simple tale of a relaxed dinner was not going to be taken at face value? That dawning of further proof. So they get SM on board, which of course only added to the tale, as being more of a farce. We know this as SM then gives an account of coming downstairs just after 5pm, of speaking to his mother, of the burnt pie. Of returning back up stairs. Coming down again around 10mins later, once dinner was ready. Taking it up to his room and eating it. It was a farce, complete made up story as CM had not gotten home until 5.15pm at the earliest.
So we have no alibi - why all the lies? Why did he need to make up this story?
Then we have AB. As with the intricate checking of the story above, of timings and so forth. These guesses and estimates, went over in fine detail. AB was taken on her journey, timings established. And her sighting was before 5pm. After the call to the speaking clock. This fallacy of reasoning across the board. Does not change what it was. That LM was not home. that LM was seen by AB. Then see again by F&W -
Nothing for approx 20mins - then three sightings in the space of around 15-20mins. Then nothing for a further 80mins plus.
Every part of his story, a fabrication of void holes shored over by highly questionable reasoning. The only truthful part. That of those 15mins approx on Newbattle R'd and his 90mins approx with the boys in the woods, getting high and dirty?
Of lying of his whereabouts from 9pm, of being home until around 10.30pm - no he was not. Of all of the search party walking some distance passed this V break - no they did not. It was a lie, in total contrast to the account given by those who were with him. The story of the dog was made up, we know this as the dog was not some 20 yards passed the V. It was at the V. You can not claim a dog reacted to something, at a specific spot - parallel to where Jodi lay on the other side, when all the dog was doing was scurrying about at the V. And of LM turning immediately to his left due to this. - poppycock. The dog was at the V, at the V it was impossible for LM to make claim that he walked to his left due to this. However, Ms Lean does give reason as to why he walked to the left - he was on his own in the woods, he may have wanted to head in the direction the search party were going, feeling safe? - even this doesn't explain it, as, JaJ saw him turn to his left. That they only continued to walk this path, after he had started to walk down, on the inside of this wall. It was only then that this couple had to do any backtracking.
He lied about knowledge of both the V and the woodland.
He lied about carrying knives and possession of cannabis.
He named both the tree and the bobble/scrunchy of sight and colour.
He lied about contact of any sort with KT.
Let's not forget here that complete lack of anything. These ridiculous claims of slight change in voice are proof of what exactly? - Reason as to why there was nothing the other 99.99999% of the time?
He described what Jodi was wearing that evening - right down to those DC shoes and of borrowed clothes?
There is of course much more.
These lies continue today - anything is required to add weight to, all of the lies told in their first instance?
Of CM - none of the boys from the Abbey gave evidence in court. - lies?
Of theories discussed with Sandra - lies as Sandra firmly denies any such conversation took place, but which one was lying?
That the search trio "had to walk directly passed YW's on their way to the path" - lies?
The V break is hard to see, unless you know what you are looking for - lies?
A witness saw the bike parked at the V - lies and manipulation around this. You can not see the V from where this witness was. - yet the V break is hard to see whilst on this path - lies?
'A mystery man was seen following Jodi onto the path' - lies?
SK, GD, JF and DD were on the path at the crucial time - lies? DD was in his house, he witnessed the boys arrival home at 5.30pm. SK's full name being typed out, is not a typo.
That the search party had to come from the top of Mayfield - lies? They came from just behind Scotts Caravans.
That JF said in his statement that the search party walked passed YW's on their way to the path - lies? This was quickly removed. I remarked of my surprise that Ms Lean would take the word of JF, the liar he is portrayed to be. She said she had a mystery witness to this also (sound familiar?) However, the search trio would have had to walk backwards to do so, not what the did do as they did walk directly to this path. - lies?
That there is clear evidence in phone records that showed that LM had phoned the speaking clock whilst in the house - lies? There is phone records of calls to the speaking clock - they only verify that he had used it, not that he was in the house.
This campaign is wrought with the same type of manipulation, misinformation and lies across the board is it not? When one can not disprove the damming evidence against LM, other means are required are they not?
After all. everything LM lied about, these further lies, the manipulation is excusable when we have a call that is not inclusive in the defence records - Of AW phoning her daughter. Intelligence?
