Ah, this vain attempt at some brownie points, that type of wriggling? - It mentions in a media article that it was not disclosed to the defence?
Ok baby steps once more for you. You put up an article from the present day, yourself and SL and co, are on it. With all those wows and all else. As if it is some major piece of new information. Talk of being undisclosed and all else. With me so far?
You then pull up an article that is 7 years old with similar type of information in it. In an attempt to win some brownie points around disclosure - still with me?
In said second article - It does not mention which legal team (still with me?) It does not state which year or by whom (name) they applied to the Crown and subsequently the FBI but not the police directly. It says it was undisclosed to the defence and so forth. It does not say who stated this, still with me? Then it goes on to give feedback from the main support of innocence, namely SL and CM. Who mention that they have, without mincing words, submitted this area of information also to the SCCRC. It also has feed back from police Scotland, who did not deny it's existence, stating that they do use such avenues and do not comment on individual cases as such.
I found the article interesting, I mentioned the vagueness around it and of course it being a media article in itself, which in turn appears to have been fed from certain people, namely campaigners for innocence. I made mention that what they class as being undisclosed, whichever slant they may wish to apply to this - does not equate to the police, Crown and so forth withholding evidence as such. Pointing out the words of David Wilson around it being a tool to use and not evidence.
So whilst you are looking for some brownie points to score, go back and do some more homework. Come back with dates, names and years please. Something a little stronger than a media article, to show that DF and co knew not of this visit to the states? Who applied for the freedom of disclosure around this in the States? How did they know of it?
Now for something else I found interesting in this article, comments from the ever so truthful duo? Namely this to start with.
Mrs Mitchell said: “I believe the findings would have pointed to a violent adult, not a schoolboy.
"They would have already come out if they had reflected badly on Luke – in the same way that other things about him that could be spun negatively somehow found their way into the public domain.”
We have the opposite applying here, finding anything at all to spin another light away from LM? But that is not really what interests me. I am going to refer to the podcasts of 2018 and that joint theory between CM and SL. I'm sure you know the one already. Where they have 'a bike, bloodied clothing, knife, the evidence chucked into the back of a van at a scrap merchants, crushed and gone forever'
So, between whichever year? they knew of the profiling to the podcast in 2018. CM puts out, that if the report points to a "violent adult, not a schoolboy" then it points away from her child. To then dismissing the profilers account completely as she heavily leans on two 16/17 yr olds, taken said bike to this scrap merchants and so forth.
So you see, even his mother and SL do not really believe the profilers account of someone so young NOT carrying this out, do they? When they heavily lean towards two youths barely a year or two older than LM's 15yrs (mere days off his birthday). Or do we add another year or two on to the other two males, also in their teens?
Or we use sense, do we not. This 15yr old who was mature far beyond his years. Allowed to smoke, drink, underage sex at home. Bought and supplied with knives. Driving up and down the estate. Who bowed to no authority figure, constantly disregarded school rules and so forth. Took control of heated interviews with adult males and on it goes.
And we can move onto the original defence. IF they had been aware of the contents of this report and how that would have faired in court? Whilst attempting to apply this, as not being fitting of his client, he would instantly have wiped out his main two areas of casting doubt. That being three other teenage boys. The duo on the bike and Kelly with his DNA?