New DNA tests ordered by the SCCRC

[faithlilly]

Did KT, or her representative ie; prosecutor, make a request to the court to ask that she not be identified by a photograph?

Even in 2005 faces on photographs were able to blurred out. This would not have stopped the photograph being presented in court.

[Nicholas]

I don't thinks so, although I haven't asked (don't want to pester the woman too much; maybe she'll tell me in future chats). She did say that the police interviewed her wee sister and that, according to her wee sister, the police were very nice at all times -- not the bullies who were out to intimidate young witnesses into giving false confessions to fit LM up, like SL occasionally suggests. Her wee sister is friends with a few of the other witnesses and they all said/say that the police were very nice and fair with them, too; no bullying or trying to get them to make false statements.

She also told me that her wee sister knows David High and the other boys who were at the abbey with LM that night. They all said that LM was, as well as being a lot cleaner than normal, acting extremely weird all night. Apparantely, DH also said LM was "digging his fingers in the mud" a lot that night. Is this why CM wasn't too kind about DH in the media (I think Corinne called him a liar and wannabe in a press interview)?

There will no doubt be a lot of information/evidence contained within David High’s witness statement(s) that hasn’t seen the light of day - similar to killer Simon Hall’s case

For example, con-artist Sandra Lean made no mention in her 1sts discredited book of the fact Stephanie Bon was in a relationship with killer Simon Hall at the time he committed his murder.

Sandra Lean also made no mention of the fact killer Simon Hall had swapped bracelets with his older brother Shaun Hall just before his arrest

[Mr Apples]

The media reported the most important parts of Kimberley’s testimony. If she had given the police a photograph of Luke in the parka he was alleged to have worn that would have been a very important piece of evidence and she would have been asked about it by counsel. Further the photograph would have been shown to the jury. All this would, of course, have been reported by the media.

As I have said before…if reporting restrictions were in place for Kimberley’s appearance they would have been in place for all her testimony.

The photograph wasn’t mentioned in the media because it didn’t exist. Simple really.

It's erroneous to suggest that journalists will report the most important parts of each witness's testimony; what are the most important bits is open to interpretation, and no doubt each journalist will have their own take on what they deem crucial information. This was a long and complex case, so, inevitably, important evidence from each day's proceedings wouldn't have always been reported in the papers. Ideally, it should, but it doesn't. Besides, some journalists assigned to certain cases are out of their depth, which results in inadequate reporting.

The nub of KT's testimony, imo, was that she thought she and Luke were an item -- that she was his girlfriend.

[Nicholas]

It's erroneous to suggest that journalists will report the most important parts of each witness's testimony; what are the most important bits is open to interpretation, and no doubt each journalist will have their own take on what they deem crucial information. This was a long and complex case, so, inevitably, important evidence from each day's proceedings wouldn't have always been reported in the papers. Ideally, it should, but it doesn't. Besides, some journalists assigned to certain cases are out of their depth, which results in inadequate reporting.

The nub of KT's testimony, imo, was that she thought she and Luke were an item -- that she was his girlfriend.

 

Great post!

And this is one of the main factors as to how and why sadistic killer Luke Mitchell’s, and his enablers, innocence fraud has rumbled on for so long

An online search regarding killer Simon Hall, and his and his family members lies and concoctions, that were said by the prosecution to be “woven into the general framework of the case” throws up nothing!

Yet this was highly relevant evidence in his case - woven into the general framework of the case, much like the Mitchell’s lies and concoctions.

And even by the time of the appeal, the 3 judges had somehow managed to magic this crucial evidence from their narrative, disingenuously claiming - on behalf of the crown no less 

“The Crown acknowledged that the central feature of its case against the appellant was the evidence of fibre analysis”

This was also down to interpretation but also down to a crown prosecutor (or prosecutors) playing along with the innocence fraud

Simon Spence blocked me on Twitter btw (as did his chambers) rather than explains how and why such a fundamental and crucial aspect and evidence of the original prosecutions case was able to seemingly vanish into thin air

The CCRC have chosen to say nothing about the part they played in this innocence fraud also
 

[Mr Apples]

Even in 2005 faces on photographs were able to blurred out. This would not have stopped the photograph being presented in court.

The photo that KT had of Luke wearing the parka in Feb 2003 was shown in court as evidence, along with other photos of him wearing it prior to the murder (that several people/witnesses had of him). The cctv footage of him wearing it prior to 30.06.03 at high school was also shown as evidence in court. What is it you don't understand here, Faithlilly? Just because these photos weren't released in the media doesn't mean they didn't exist.

[Nicholas]

The photo that KT had of Luke wearing the parka in Feb 2003 was shown in court as evidence, along with other photos of him wearing it prior to the murder (that several people/witnesses had of him). The cctv footage of him wearing it prior to 30.06.03 at high school was also shown as evidence in court. What is it you don't understand here, Faithlilly? Just because these photos weren't released in the media doesn't mean they didn't exist.

 

[Nicholas]

The photo that KT had of Luke wearing the parka in Feb 2003 was shown in court as evidence, along with other photos of him wearing it prior to the murder (that several people/witnesses had of him). The cctv footage of him wearing it prior to 30.06.03 at high school was also shown as evidence in court. What is it you don't understand here, Faithlilly? Just because these photos weren't released in the media doesn't mean they didn't exist.

Again CCTV was shown to the jury of killer Simon Hall outside the Tesco’s, Copdock superstore but again there’s nothing online about the jury being shown the CCTV/images

Maybe the journalists reporting on the case didn’t understand the relevance of this evidence so didn’t think it was worth reporting on and publishing the images

[Nicholas]

It's erroneous to suggest that journalists will report the most important parts of each witness's testimony; what are the most important bits is open to interpretation, and no doubt each journalist will have their own take on what they deem crucial information. This was a long and complex case, so, inevitably, important evidence from each day's proceedings wouldn't have always been reported in the papers. Ideally, it should, but it doesn't. Besides, some journalists assigned to certain cases are out of their depth, which results in inadequate reporting.

The nub of KT's testimony, imo, was that she thought she and Luke were an item -- that she was his girlfriend.

Also there wasn’t a single journalist assigned to cover each and every day of the 42 days of the trial

And if there had of been, again it would have been down to their interpretation

As Jane Hamilton wrote somewhere - you’d need an entire newspaper and some to report on each days worth of evidence

[Nicholas]

It's erroneous to suggest that journalists will report the most important parts of each witness's testimony; what are the most important bits is open to interpretation, and no doubt each journalist will have their own take on what they deem crucial information. This was a long and complex case, so, inevitably, important evidence from each day's proceedings wouldn't have always been reported in the papers. Ideally, it should, but it doesn't. Besides, some journalists assigned to certain cases are out of their depth, which results in inadequate reporting.

The nub of KT's testimony, imo, was that she thought she and Luke were an item -- that she was his girlfriend.

No one reported a thing on Shane Mitchell having a fire in the back garden with his mother Corinne that night even though his killer brother told the police he did

[Nicholas]

Even in 2005 faces on photographs were able to blurred out. This would not have stopped the photograph being presented in court.

Sandra Lean didn’t attend the 42 day trial - she had a shop to run and manage

Corinne Mitchell also didn’t attended the 42 day trial - she wasn’t allowed to hear any evidence until after she gave her own - which wasn’t until the last week or so

You don’t appear to be taking on board the fact Sandra Lean is a fraud imo.

Not for the sake of ‘truth’ or ‘justice’ - all for her own sake

[Nicholas]

The nub of KT's testimony, imo, was that she thought she and Luke were an item -- that she was his girlfriend.

And this extremely relevant factor has been played down by many people, who have chosen to suggest it’s normal for 14 year old, weed smoking, sexually actively (and sexually aggressive) teenage boys to ‘two time’

The extremely relevant factor, which again has been played down, is the fact killer Luke Mitchell denied it

Then attempted to pretend to TV cameras he was all about [Name removed]

 

So much so he couldn’t be bothered to phone her mother back during those 90 minutes he pretended to wait for her

Many journalists chose to focus their reporting on Judith Jones leaving the court upset after hearing this evidence instead  of photos of previously worn khaki green parka jackets, and gigs/concerts and other such evidence for example

[faithlilly]

It's erroneous to suggest that journalists will report the most important parts of each witness's testimony; what are the most important bits is open to interpretation, and no doubt each journalist will have their own take on what they deem crucial information. This was a long and complex case, so, inevitably, important evidence from each day's proceedings wouldn't have always been reported in the papers. Ideally, it should, but it doesn't. Besides, some journalists assigned to certain cases are out of their depth, which results in inadequate reporting.

The nub of KT's testimony, imo, was that she thought she and Luke were an item -- that she was his girlfriend.

Agreed…the nub of Kimberley’s testimony was that she believed that she and Luke were an item. What it wasn’t about was that she had a photograph of Luke in a parka and, as the parka was intrinsic to both alleged sights of Luke, it certainly would have been.

The fact that you appear to be suggesting that no media, either print or visual, reported on what would have been one of the single most important pieces of physical evidence in the trial is simply ridiculous.

Which can only lead to two conclusions….you have either been sold a pup or have made the whole sorry tale up…which is it?

[faithlilly]

Con-artist Sandra Lean didn’t attend the 42 day trial - she had a shop to run and manage

Corinne Mitchell also didn’t attended the 42 day trial - she wasn’t allowed to hear any evidence until after she gave her own - which wasn’t until the last week or so

You don’t appear to be taking on board the fact Sandra Lean is a [moderated], a fraud, a charlatan, who has groomed and conned many people - and still is

Not for the sake of ‘truth’ or ‘justice’ - all for her own sake

I’m not taking into account Dr Lean at all. What I am taking into account is the evidence presented in court and reported in the media but if you think that a photograph of the only physical evidence tying Luke to the two alleged sightings of him was not somehow not reported on by a single media outlet then I really can’t help you.

[Mr Apples]

Agreed…the nub of Kimberley’s testimony was that she believed that she and Luke were an item. What it wasn’t about was that she had a photograph of Luke in a parka and, as the parka was intrinsic to both alleged sights of Luke, it certainly would have been.

The fact that you appear to be suggesting that no media, either print or visual, reported on what would have been one of the single most important pieces of physical evidence in the trial is simply ridiculous.

Which can only lead to two conclusions….you have either been sold a pup or have made the whole sorry tale up…which is it?

Faithlilly, no offence, but all of the above makes you sound deeply mental and in denial. Are you okay?  Though, to a certain extent, I too was/am a tad surprised that none of these photos of LM in the old parka were published. Still, I'm 100% convinced he had a parka before 30.06.03; and I 100% believe he was wearing it while he murdered that poor girl.

[Mr Apples]

No one reported a thing on Shane Mitchell having a fire in the back garden with his mother Corinne that night even though his killer brother told the police he did

He seems to still be shrouded in mystery. It strikes me as odd that the only thing we ever saw of him physically was footage of him walking in to Edinburgh High Court desperatelý hiding face with his jacket (this can be seen on the BBC Frontline Scotland doco, originally aired in 2007).