No offence taken. Just trying to stop you looking foolish but you are obviously ploughing on regardless.
Alas Mr Apples, I think there is a little fabrication going on just now. - Chinese whispers perhaps? People doing as the 'Romans do?'
No pictures produced at Mitchell's trial of him wearing that coat pre-murder. That said, there has certainly been some come to light since then.
Tangled together now no doubt, applying them as being shown in evidence as opposed to simply being in existence, film developed lying in a drawer. Camera phones not the in thing then but certainly occasion photo's, such as holiday snaps, and I do wonder what was destroyed from a mother taken those pictures? Just a thought.
But there we have it, those multiples of tens of people who gave statements around its existence, the choice of those used at trial to testify of its existence. He wore one and it disappeared, of that there is absolutely no doubt. The cunning in buying that new one for the exact reason we hear time and again. From CM, from the enablers, that people have become confused with the images of Mitchell proudly putting that new one on show, even in sweltering conditions!
It is this further nonsense, the claims of peoples evidence being annihilated by the defence, such as seeing Mitchell in that coat - Nope, not true at all. It shows the opposite of what is being preached, the strength of the evidence and not its weakness. - Mitchell was found guilty, and not because the evidence was shown to be either false or weak!
Sad as it is, Faith on this occasion is correct but not around media reporting, that remains the same, the choices they made around what to report upon. The two witnesses specifically chosen around that coat, fully reported upon. The others were testifying around multiple things. Knives, cannabis, coat, search and on it goes. Not going to report around the same multiple times, of course they will choose other areas to give a broader picture.
Chris I am afraid has went down a further few notches - Really Chris, parroting are we not? 'Why destroy a coat that was not blood stained?' What was the evidence? Was it around the coat NOT being bloodstained, of course it wasn't. It was around the killer NOT necessarily being dripping with the stuff. But there is not just blood to think of here, other forensic evidence along with three people seeing Mitchell wearing that coat. Each on either side of the murder site.