WW: taking your claim that the witness sightings of LM did not happen or were someone else, would that someone else not have been traced and identified, particularly the "teenage couple" who were seen at the entrance to the path.
While claiming all the LM court witnesses were wrong or unreliable, you've offered ?? as an alternative being witnessed by an unknown person at 4.45pm? This "witness" has never been named or used by the defence as the last person to see [Name removed] alive. I believe this was a false trail that the police did not pursue, or surely the defence would have called them as a witness?
It is all utter nonsense Kenmair:
Correct - No witnesses used to show what was important, the girls last movements that day after leaving home. Clearly was a false trail.
The brother, there are NO witnesses to him walking that road far less "following" anyone. Not the schoolgirl at that time, and not anyone "following" her from 'clickbait' headlines. Such outstanding proof used, is it not? 'Clickbait' headlines from a media appeal. To a 'claimed' over the phone ID several weeks later.
The brother was present when the police attended at his house, not only was he present there he was also present to the rear of the school with his mother, AO's, along with everyone else which of course includes the police. - Had this nonsense out with SL before.
The knowledge of the path fiasco, where WW intentionally goes off into a world of their own. Already stated that LM's girlfriend had been banned from using the path after getting into a relationship with him. She was 14yrs old and not the age WW applies.
Absolutely correct, it is not simply the application of the witnesses who saw and identified LM, it is the absolute absence of them being anyone else. More so those on NR where the claimed 'real' LM was not further down that road. Only the one of him present at any time! So again, it is the absence, and in this instance of LM himself elsewhere. Which ties with the AB sighting also, he was not home, no alibi, not seen anywhere else.
Neither is there any 40mins that LM carried out everything. Already been pulled up for such nonsense yet still continues with it.
Mr Apples:
Not quite Mr Apples - My belief is around means and opportunity in respect of the whole time frame and not just up until 6pm. If someone stated he could not have did something, I have combatted it with what could have been achieved. For that time period I worked at one point with the bare minimum of 13mins. The 'forceful', he would have had to go home, have a shower, get changed, discuss with mother and be back on NR, applying fallacy to add weight to 'their' impossible. I have simply combatted that, not therefore my belief that is what he did do.