LM & Jodi’s texts between 1634-1638 & LM’s call to the Speaking Clock at 1654.

[faithlilly]

Why would I divulge her name publicly on these forums, anyway? You could be any headcase.

LM had numerous girlfriends when he was a teenager (all in public domain) and was displaying signs of sexual aggression from as young as 12 (as well as violence to other boys when he was 11). It's absolutely possible that he had been romantically involved with 2 girls with the same name -- especially if he dated them at different times/years. Why is that so hard to believe?

Would it be churlish of me to point out that it was you who stalked this individual across Facebook not me?  Besides you said that she posted under her real name on YouTube, that’s how you found her wasn’t it, so she certainly doesn’t seem bothered about it being in the public domain.

To be honest I’m not particularly bothered what her name is but what she said on messenger to you. Those messages will be easy to retrieve after all it was less than a year ago. Blank out her name if you must but you have already said that you’ll post the messages when you find them. They should be simple to find on messenger.

Who are these numerous girlfriends? Can you name them? It’s interesting that neither Jodi in her diary or Kimberley Thomson on the stand talk about any signs of aggression from Luke towards them. In fact quite the opposite. The only individuals that describe him as such are those bought and paid for by the media. As to two Thomson’s you are simply being ridiculous.

[KenMair]

And that is why, said poster is in no position to be provided with any evidence. A cowardly one at that, hides behind an alias, is demanding people's names, pathetic. But in all honestly, i would not worry about this particular recluse, still be here in 5 years time, going round in circles about Bryson.

One of the issues with FL and Chris's argument is the lack of applied universal law (Kant etc). While demanding the names of prosecution witnesses and girlfriends etc, but unable to provide the name of the Stocky Man alleged witness for one. SM's alibi claim is another example that defies logic, however the jury did not believe "he might have been there". There has not been a single word from SM about his brother since the trial and his main spokesperson is a woman who ran a shop that CM visited. It really seems an argument based on "winning" than anything else.

Quite extra-ordinary, but yes no doubt still arguing about the AB sighting in 5 years.

[faithlilly]

One of the issues with FL and Chris's argument is the lack of applied universal law (Kant etc). While demanding the names of prosecution witnesses and girlfriends etc, but unable to provide the name of the Stocky Man alleged witness for one. SM's alibi claim is another example that defies logic, however the jury did not believe "he might have been there". There has not been a single word from SM about his brother since the trial and his main spokesperson is a woman who ran a shop that CM visited. It really seems an argument based on "winning" than anything else.

Quite extra-ordinary, but yes no doubt still arguing about the AB sighting in 5 years.

I think Kant is a little above Rusty’s pay grade.

Let’s start by pointing out that MA’s alleged contact was not a prosecution witness but the sister of an alleged prosecution witness. She allegedly posted her full name on a YouTube video so her name is already in the public domain. The name of the witness who identified Stocky Man has never posted their name on YouTube or indeed anywhere else on the internet and that is how they protect their privacy.

I hope that helped.

[KenMair]

I think Kant is a little above Rusty’s pay grade.

Let’s start by pointing out that MA’s alleged contact was not a prosecution witness but the sister of an alleged prosecution witness. She allegedly posted her full name on a YouTube video so her name is already in the public domain. The name of the witness who identified Stocky Man has never posted their name on YouTube or indeed anywhere else on the internet and that is how they protect their privacy.

I hope that helped.

Fair point, but surely if the Stocky Man witness was correct they would be all over Lean & Forbes videos fighting for justice as the killer walks amongst us? If it was me, I would want my views to be heard, just like SM doesn't want his to be heard and get on with his life despite his brother serving what looks like a full life term while he stays quiet.

Strange that SL never speaks about SM or allows anyone to mention him?

[faithlilly]

Fair point, but surely if the Stocky Man witness was correct they would be all over Lean & Forbes videos fighting for justice as the killer walks amongst us? If it was me, I would want my views to be heard, just like SM doesn't want his to be heard and get on with his life despite his brother serving what looks like a full life term while he stays quiet.

Strange that SL never speaks about SM or allows anyone to mention him?

Why? Have you seen how individuals have been treated for almost 20 years when even suggesting that one of the Jones family may have been involved in Jodi’s murder? No wonder the witness wishes to have their anonymity protected.

Have you ever thought that perhaps Dr Lean is merely protecting Shane’s privacy? Talking about Shane one minute you say that he doesn’t want his views to be heard the next he’s telling virtual strangers down the bing what he truly thinks. Which is it?

[KenMair]

Why? Have you seen how individuals have been treated for almost 20 years when even suggesting that one of the Jones family may have been involved in Jodi’s murder? No wonder the witness wishes to have their anonymity protected.

Have you ever thought that perhaps Dr Lean is merely protecting Shane’s privacy? Talking about Shane one minute you say that he doesn’t want his views to be heard the next he’s telling virtual strangers down the bing what he truly thinks. Which is it?

1) Nope - which individuals have been badly treated? I do know people who have been physically harmed and intimidated by SF at SL's request though. Surely this Stocky Man witness would feel safe with convicted armed robber SF and numerous ex-cons around? Hardly shrinking violets.

2) Dr Lean? nope, she's a hypnotherapist at best whose main source is a convicted killer.
SM doesn't speak to virtual strangers. His views about his brother are well known in his peer group but keep clutching at straws. If you thought your brother was innocent of murder, would you. A) Speak up. B) Live a quiet life?

You reference Lean as though she's Chomsky. Her book is based on LM's desire to shift the blame. It's not peer checked, referenced or source indexed. It's a rambling sham, no more, and prime reading for the bingo crowd and a few others.

[Mr Apples]

Brevity is the order of the day for good ol' Mr Apples as he's not long finished a backshift.

Erm, let me see. Oh yes, a verbatim quote from SM (neither embellished, nor paraphrased) on the stand during the trial: "I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother that day." It could not be any clearer.

The end.

[faithlilly]

1) Nope - which individuals have been badly treated? I do know people who have been physically harmed and intimidated by SF at SL's request though. Surely this Stocky Man witness would feel safe with convicted armed robber SF and numerous ex-cons around? Hardly shrinking violets.

2) Dr Lean? nope, she's a hypnotherapist at best whose main source is a convicted killer.
SM doesn't speak to virtual strangers. His views about his brother are well known in his peer group but keep clutching at straws. If you thought your brother was innocent of murder, would you. A) Speak up. B) Live a quiet life?

The Stocky Man witness gave a statement to the police identifying Jodi’s brother. That appears to be the end of their involvement in the case. Why would you think that they even knew Dr Lean and Scott Forbes?

TBH I’m not sure what Dr Lean being a hypnotherapist has to do with protecting Shane’s privacy. I do find your reasoning rather juvenile at times.

Not the old ‘I have inside knowledge’ shtick again. It was unprovable nonsense when you first posted it and it’s unprovable nonsense now.

[faithlilly]

Brevity is the order of the day for good ol' Mr Apples as he's not long finished a backshift.

Erm, let me see. Oh yes, a verbatim quote from SM (neither embellished, nor paraphrased) on the stand during the trial: "I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother that day." It could not be any clearer.

The end.

You know what would have been clearer?

“I didn’t see my brother that day”

Unambiguous.

But he didn’t know if he hadn't seen his brother so didn’t say that.

[KenMair]

You know what would have been clearer?

“I didn’t see my brother that day”

Unambiguous.

But he didn’t know if he hadn't seen his brother so didn’t say that.

Yes he did. Once you've finished taking down your Russell Brand posters pop along to the bing and he will tell you exactly what happened. It will save you years of anguish/ and or trolling.

[faithlilly]

Yes he did. Once you've finished taking down your Russell Brand posters pop along to the bing and he will tell you exactly what happened. It will save you years of anguish/ and or trolling.

No he didn’t and MA has just posted what he said under oath. Are you saying that he’s a liar?

[Chris_Halkides]

Let me enunciate a couple of universal principles then apply them to two issues raised in recent comments.  One, the testimony of a witness who is cross-examined is more probative than the statement of a possible witness who is not.  Two, when interviewing witnesses, the police should treat witnesses without regard for whether they are the prosecution's witnesses or the defense's witnesses.

Applying principle one to the alleged sighting of stocky man, the importance of this incident is what it indicates about the police, more than what it might indicate about the identity killer.  There is evidence that tunnel vision set in within the first hours of this investigation.  "The number of identified wrongful convictions and false confessions is mounting, and in almost every wrongful conviction, the problem of tunnel vision is present (Findley, 2012; Findley & Scott, 2006; Martin, 2002). According to Martin (2002), tunnel vision distortion is particularly damaging in the investigative process. Investigator’s misconduct becomes prevalent in note and record-keeping, witness interviews, the interrogation of suspects, and the conduct of searches." https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440221095022. The examples of tunnel vision in this case are not limited to the apparent failure to investigate these witnesses in a timely and thorough manner.

When SM and CM were charged with perverting the course of justice, the only evidence that they had lied was the sincere but synthesized (using Professor Simon's terminology) statement of AB.  Prior to that FLO Lindsay and other investigators kept saying that they could not accept SM's answers and put words into his mouth (p. 305 and p. 318 in Innocents Betrayed).  BTW, if someone does not trust these passages, let him or her quote his testimony directly.  SM's revised account (that he had stopped to help fix a car) was buttressed by his friend's account.  In contrast none of the prosecution's witnesses were charged with perverting the course of justice, despite several who changed their account and at least one who did not come forward until long after he should have.  Given this disparity in how the witnesses were treated, no wonder that SM prefers to keep a low profile.

EDT
Jenna Macfarlane reported, "He [Shane Mitchell] was then asked by defence QC Donald Findlay if there was any point in the evening where he could say he knew for a fact that Luke was not in the house.
Shane responded: 'I can't say that.'"

Based on this passage, I conclude that Shane failed to corroborate Luke's alibi, not that he contradicted it.  As my previous comments explain in more detail, the way that the police questioned him is at least part of the reason for Shane's lack of recall.

[Mr Apples]

You know what would have been clearer?

“I didn’t see my brother that day”

Unambiguous.

But he didn’t know if he hadn't seen his brother so didn’t say that.

Grappling as per usual, eh, Faithlilly? Just like SM developed amnesia without any medical proof to back this (ahem, self-) diagnosis up and despite being in a fairly responsible full-time job as a car mechanic for years? His accounts regarding Luke's whereabouts on the 30.06.03 were incriminatingly evasive (ie, saying that he couldn't remember if LM was there or not). No two boys could have failed to see each other in that 2-storey detached house if they were in it at the same time. And all these people who put forward the notion that the police's heavy-handed tactics made SM say things he didn't want to say is just very obtuse and absurd; the fact SM made such a big deal of LM's whereabouts is extremely telling. He either saw LM or he didn't -- not 'I don't know." Saying "I don't know" is a cop-out and only something you would say if you had something to hide. He only said he saw his brother after being coaxed by his mother. To effectively lie (for her, and for Luke). At least Shane eventually did the right thing and told the truth on the stand and said his brother wasn't there (ie, "I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother that day."). After being shown the pictures of Jodi and her injuries in court, SM's human side came to the fore and he started crying and then told the truth. Furthermore, ADT knew he was lying and SM knew that ADT knew it. (It's yet another nonsense to suggest, as SL and a few others have, that the pictures were shown in court to catch SM off guard and mess with his head. Like, him being shown those pictures would have somehow made him say things on the stand that he didn't want to say? To give a false confession? It's nonsensical and absurd; clutching at straws.) SM was never intimidated or harrassed by police into giving a false confession or telling them what they wanted to hear. Surely if you saw your brother you would simply say so and not make such a big deal about it? People who say that SM being threatened with going to jail for perverting the course of justice or his questions being manipulated by police are being very short-sighted. You would never be frightened to go to jail if you knew you were telling the truth, and more especially if your testimony could potentially prevent your own brother from going to jail for the rest of his life; SM failed to corroborate the alibi for a reason. Also significant is his (SM's) reticence to this very day.

And then there are the other 21 adminicles of circumstantial evidence presented in court ..........

[faithlilly]

Grappling as per usual, eh, Faithlilly? Just like SM developed amnesia without any medical proof to back this (ahem, self-) diagnosis up and despite being in a fairly responsible full-time job as a car mechanic for years? His accounts regarding Luke's whereabouts on the 30.06.03 were incriminatingly evasive (ie, saying that he couldn't remember if LM was there or not). No two boys could have failed to see each other in that 2-storey detached house if they were in it at the same time. And all these people who put forward the notion that the police's heavy-handed tactics made SM say things he didn't want to say is just very obtuse and absurd; the fact SM made such a big deal of LM's whereabouts is extremely telling. He either saw LM or he didn't -- not 'I don't know." Saying "I don't know" is a cop-out and only something you would say if you had something to hide. He only said he saw his brother after being coaxed by his mother. To effectively lie (for her, and for Luke). At least Shane eventually did the right thing and told the truth on the stand and said his brother wasn't there (ie, "I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother that day."). After being shown the pictures of Jodi and her injuries in court, SM's human side came to the fore and he started crying and then told the truth. Furthermore, ADT knew he was lying and SM knew that ADT knew it. (It's yet another nonsense to suggest, as SL and a few others have, that the pictures were shown in court to catch SM off guard and mess with his head. Like, him being shown those pictures would have somehow made him say things on the stand that he didn't want to say? To give a false confession? It's nonsensical and absurd; clutching at straws.) SM was never intimidated or harrassed by police into giving a false confession or telling them what they wanted to hear. Surely if you saw your brother you would simply say so and not make such a big deal about it? People who say that SM being threatened with going to jail for perverting the course of justice or his questions being manipulated by police are being very short-sighted. You would never be frightened to go to jail if you knew you were telling the truth, and more especially if your testimony could potentially prevent your own brother from going to jail for the rest of his life; SM failed to corroborate the alibi for a reason. Also significant is his (SM's) reticence to this very day.

And then there are the other 21 adminicles of circumstantial evidence presented in court ..........

“You would never be frightened to go to jail if you knew you were telling the truth”

Best to say nothing than to ridicule you MA.

[Chris_Halkides]

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/dpic-reports/dpic-special-reports/dpic-analysis-2019-exoneration-report-implicates-use-or-threat-of-death-penalty-in-19-wrongful-convictions

"Research has shown that there is a direct relationship between the seriousness of a crime and the likelihood of a miscarriages of justice. As University of Denver professors Scott Phillips and Jamie Richardson describe it in their law review article, The Worst of the Worst: Heinous Crimes and Erroneous Evidence: “the ‘worst of the worst crimes,’ produce the ‘worst of the worst evidence.’”

The authors continued: "Phillips’ and Richardson’s review of more than 1,500 cases in which convicted prisoners were later exonerated found that “as the seriousness of a crime increases, so too does the chance of a wrongful conviction.” They explain that prosecutions for the most serious crimes tend to involve the most inaccurate and unreliable evidence, and the risks are greatest in cases producing murder convictions and death sentences."

I wish we lived in a world free of unprofessional or worse conduct from the police or prosecution, but to believe that we actually do is naive.