What’s money when lives are at stake? It’s a disgrace, imo, that the money wasn’t available immediately for this to be done for the defence, especially as it could’ve provided the most crucial circumstancial evidence of all in the entire case. Likewise, I don’t understand why the prosecution never had it done either, as it could’ve provided them with the same key evidence. Was the onus solely on the defence to have the cell site analysis done? I think, even back in 2003, the gsm technology in phones could pinpoint a person’s location to up to 30 metres, so, while not completely accurate, was enough to incriminate or absolve a person strongly. It’s a pity the phones back then didn’t have GPS technology like they all have now — that really would’ve been almost irrefutable proof.
The problem with going down this obtuse line of questioning and reasoning is, as you say, why? - let's have some common sense here.
No cell cite analysis carried out - due to the fear of it proving LM innocent, by the Crown? None carried out by the defence as no funding, not allowed to show LM to be innocent. - the simple answer, there was none that could pinpoint LM to being within a mile of his home/locus and Easthouse's, as the crow flies. DF was not refused funding, he, unlike Ms Lean would have saw those reports from the investigation. LM's defence team, not his friend and subsequent POA.
No expert dog evidence brought in by the Crown or defence - as it would show LM to be possibly innocent and again no funding for the defence? - dog evidence? what dog evidence? - LM was not some 40ft passed this V with his dog. LM's dog was no where near tracker trained. A teddy up a tree indeed? Really? DF saw all of those statements, he did not go down some long winded road, attempting to show this search party had backtracked from somewhere? He knew exactly, from those very first statements - that none of this search trio, had ever claimed to have walked passed this V, prior to LM going over. He did ask them about the dog, he did attempt to show that LM was alerted at the V, and to disperse doubt of what they could see, once he was over, such as turning immediately to his left. You see, LM claimed that he had shone his torch about first. DF was attempting to show this had happened? It had not, not from those first statements to the last. Interestingly though, he attempted to show that LM had not sought to go immediately left, as there was no alert from the dog, to the direction Jodi was? - funding indeed? And again those precognitions, the Jury being taken to the locus, the witness's being taken to the locus. - And that time factor. There is an abundance of very damming evidence here, showing clearly, the impossibility of what LM claimed happened. If people wish to be distracted by SK, saying in court he could not remember what the dog did, at this V, as proof that LM was not lying - then really? Or that JaJ had made it clear, upon clarification of that first statement, as to exactly whom, was in hysterics.
Complete ignorance by the police, Crown and Findlay? of any possible sightings of Jodi - should they again show LM to be innocent - not used by the defence as no funding, claimed to have not been allowed to produce witness's outwith those of the prosecution. - not allowed to show LM to be innocent? These claims that these sightings were either ignored, or followed up. These strawman arguments. - There was absolutely no confirmation that any of this was Jodi, on the Monday in question, that the time was after 5pm. DF, and his team going over every inch of this, every piece of evidence from the investigation - Ms Lean , we are led to believe is however, far superior to all and everyone else, where intelligence is concerned? - Claims that DF could not use any of this due to funding, due to NOT being allowed to call any witness's of his own - They were simply empty of any substance. No riches to be found. Nothing that could have shown the sighting by AB to have been false. If there had been, it would have been used, it really is that simple. - For it is not just in one area - this futile reasoning, excuses are being used in everything. - nothing is ever produced as proof.
All? the wrong forensic tests were asked for by the prosecution, in case they showed LM to be innocent, re - An another being responsible - not carried out by the defence as the police let this funeral go ahead too soon - again no funding as no exhumation of the body, to carry out tests to show that possibility of innocence - The wrong type of testing was requested from the deceased finger nails, if the correct testing was done, then evidence of her attacker is now potentially lost. - What a lot of nonsense - this is on par with "we are once again, left with that real possibility that Jodi was killed elsewhere" - DF saw those reports, as did his team of experts - This constant, "but we don't know as -------" Is Ms Lean, her questions, her queries and her strive for gold. And this is why, they are empty and without foundation. All of these IF's?
No CCTV footage accessed re AB by the Crown, should it show AB was at the store, at a different time from her bank statement? - really? There simply was none.
No investigation done around others should it show LM to be innocent - Completely bypasses, yet again, DF and his professional team. those precognitions and so forth. Ms Lean does not have a clue what went into the investigation, this has been proven, time and again - Has not however stopped her from these multiple assumptions, and damming reports of all and everything?
There is of course, yet again lots more. The system really was out to get LM, for absolutely no reason according to Ms Lean? The police simply believed that LM had murdered Jodi Jones - nothing was going to stop them. There has only ever been one set of people, in all of this with tunnel vision - that is those who campaign for innocence on behalf of Ms Leans word. The very person, who has had, nothing other than tunnel vision. - The Mitchells, placed firmly on the outside?
It is far more plausible to believe that there were two LM's on Newbattle R'd that evening, rather than that stark reality that is was in fact him. MK and LM one and the same? - the two youths with the same jacket as LM "around" 6pm.
Every witness was either manipulated, connected or simply wrong - lot of pockets being filled there. And to add weight to all of this, we are consistently being fed with - MOJ's do happen, people are fitted up - We know this. Each case however, is on it's own merit of worth. - And still there has been nothing, of any solid founding to show that the evidence against LM is wrong. Remembering here that it came mainly from his own mouth - And here lies the problem, lies being the operative word.
This beyond reasonable doubt - what it did clearly show is there were perhaps one or two Jurors at a push - who may not have chosen to find anyone guilty irrespective of the evidence before them. It was a majority on possession of knives and cannabis - really?, taken that R'd of - I would physically have to have seen him do it, carry a knife and give me some cannabis - which is far more believable than the Jury were a bunch of rag readers. That complete thwart on intelligence that is branded upon everyone, involved in the case. - There is only one truth, that of the Mitchells. Sweet boy who launched "half a mars bar".
