As is this, ’To risk having someone who could have been capable of such brutality released into the community where my own daughters lived their lives?’
It is meaningless - As Ms Lean was well entangled with CM long before LM was arrested. I simply do not buy into this tale of two complete strangers meeting in 2003. There is not a fraction of it that rings true IMO, as it does with many others. A mother of two daughters whom had absolutely no way of knowing at this point, if the suspicion, only at that point upon LM was founded. One stranger, a mother of boy who is very much a suspect does not look up a complete stranger on the basis of air? Whilst another with two young daughters would become entailed suddenly with the mother of a boy suspected of murdering his girlfriend. This claimed first meeting, was in September 2003. LM was arrested in April 2004. "No Smoke" was released in 2007 which is flawed from start to finish with this case.
Furthermore the statement above is completely empty - It is empty as there is absolutely nothing of risk in the above as to what Ms Lean has done or does do. Ms Leans many claims have absolutely no basis of foundation in proving LM to be innocent. She can not explain in the slightest any of LM's actions on that evening as being credible. If there was anything at all solid in these assumptions, they would not be assumptions in the first place. There would be no speculation and innuendo. There is however plenty of scope for bias and impartiality, even if this friendship had only begun in September 2003
An example of this, is the ban on using this path alone. - Ms Lean could release multiple areas, verbatim from this girls mothers statements to show it to be false. She can not. For surely the key, the reasons and the time of this ban taking place, would be in Jodi's mothers statements. There appears to be no dispute of the fact that this girl had walked this path alone on occasion - it is when this ban took place and why? What were the reasons for it? And of course the many other witness's to this fact. The snip bits that are used do not prove that LM did not know or of his claims to hang around for the best part of two hours. That he did know, with absolute certainty how isolated this path was. That he is the one claiming she was walking this isolated path alone. That it is not at all feasible, in the slightest to accept that he had simply hung around on Newbattle R'd. There is absolutely no proof that he did so.
Another example is that of the search party. - Remember here that the claim is that all of this search party had walked some distance passed this V . Ms Lean, yet again could release the areas of these statements verbatim that show this clear wording. She does not as she can't, for it is not there. The search party talk of this dog at the V - When actual context is put alongside this, of where both Luke and his dog were. It completely wipes out the story of the dog finding Jodi. For they had not all walked passed this V and LM certainly had not. And If, and that is a mighty big IF, he had even stepped a couple of feet passed this V - It does not explain in the slightest the ease of which he handled this, claimed strange, unfamiliar territory. That he had been over this V mere seconds. No trepidation, nothing. This is the very reason DF did not choose to go down foolish routes of bringing in dog experts. It was completely unnecessary and unfounded. He knew what was in those statements, from the off. Yes, he did ask about the dog and of what it had been doing, but is was at the V. Remember here also, that initial look into the woodland at the 'Gino' break. No dog, no nothing. He introduced the woodland into the search. This woodland that he claimed never to have been in prior to that evening. And of course, we are talking around 10mins here. From the point of the search party meeting. Remarkable, isn't it. Impossible? - It was certainly proven to be.