Channel Five documentary - "Murder in a Small Town"

[WakeyWakey]

As am I, and asked similar yesterday, without reply.
Would really like to get a handle on the case and not just from a TV documentary and the ramblings online.
Be good to get the case notes if possible

hello,

unfortunately the full transcripts of the trial wont be available publicly anywhere - these would run to thousands of pages no doubt and contain all sorts of sensitive material, understandably

sandra lean claims to be in possesion of a great majority of the papers but obviously what she has cant be fully confirmed unless she decides to share it, which she claims she cannot under current laws

i suppose thats why people are drawn to this case, as speculation and one persons word / pet project can really take off without challenge

[WakeyWakey]

Some more links to appeal judgements and applications
2006
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=8a928aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

2008
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

2010
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=874686a6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

2011
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=26ab8aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

[faithlilly]

Thanks, a wee bit of reading for me to do.

Like most it's curiosity, and to try and take a balanced approach rather than a 1 sided,
whichever side that may be, look  at everything that is available.

I know from what I've read so far, MOJ, seem to be common, with very little chance of success

Innocents Betrayed by Sandra Lean  is also a good source of information and helps to give a balanced view of the case.

[interested]

I wonder why his alibi was so hard to accept when its documented by evidence, at least in part?

"the deceased had texted him at 1620, asking if he was coming out. He had replied that he would do so later on, as he had to make dinner" copied from the official appeal transcript

[Vertigo Swirl]

I wonder why his alibi was so hard to accept when its documented by evidence, at least in part?

"the deceased had texted him at 1620, asking if he was coming out. He had replied that he would do so later on, as he had to make dinner" copied from the official appeal transcript

You don’t think that might have been a deliberate bit of pre-planning?

[interested]

You don’t think that might have been a deliberate bit of pre-planning?

Possibly. But if he texted her saying he was cooking dinner then how would he know she would be where he wanted her to be, because he would be in the house cooking dinner? Also says in the appeal that no exact time was arranged by text for them to meet, so how would he know what time she would come down the path? For it being "pre-planned" it doesnt seem like a very good plan to me.

[faithlilly]

Possibly. But if he texted her saying he was cooking dinner then how would he know she would be where he wanted her to be, because he would be in the house cooking dinner? Also says in the appeal that no exact time was arranged by text for them to meet, so how would he know what time she would come down the path? For it being "pre-planned" it doesnt seem like a very good plan to me.

Further Andrina Bryson couldn’t point out Luke in court and wrongly described the clothes Jodi was wearing.

[Bullseye]

Im totally new to this case and was introduced to it by the documentary on channel 5. I understand that some people are alleging the docu was one sided. Im going through whats available to read Im leaning towards innocence at this point for a number of reasons but will keep on reading to get a better picture of the whole case.

Welcome to the case. There is so much info out there but also a lot of misinformation, out right lies and confusion (from both sides). I started looking into the case when he launched his first appeal sure Luke was guilty but the more I found out the more convinced I was that it was possible he could be innocent. The circumstantial evidences is too much hear say and not enough hard proof for me. I know i don’t have all the info in the case but I just haven’t seen anything that puts it beyond a reasonable doubt. There is only a couple of things that would convince me one way or the other and these are very unlikely to happen so IMO a full review is needed.

A photo or proof Luke did own a parka jacket before the murder, other that someone saying so

Dna / forensics retested and more concrete evidence found

A confession

Luke’s brother to clarify his statement and confirm if he still supports the family or not

[interested]

Welcome to the case. There is so much info out there but also a lot of misinformation, out right lies and confusion (from both sides). I started looking into the case when he launched his first appeal sure Luke was guilty but the more I found out the more convinced I was that it was possible he could be innocent. The circumstantial evidences is too much hear say and not enough hard proof for me. I know i don’t have all the info in the case but I just haven’t seen anything that puts it beyond a reasonable doubt. There is only a couple of things that would convince me one way or the other and these are very unlikely to happen so IMO a full review is needed.

A photo or proof Luke did own a parka jacket before the murder, other that someone saying so

Dna / forensics retested and more concrete evidence found

A confession

Luke’s brother to clarify his statement and confirm if he still supports the family or not

  you raise some very interesting points, my mind is wide open at this point.

[faithlilly]

Welcome to the case. There is so much info out there but also a lot of misinformation, out right lies and confusion (from both sides). I started looking into the case when he launched his first appeal sure Luke was guilty but the more I found out the more convinced I was that it was possible he could be innocent. The circumstantial evidences is too much hear say and not enough hard proof for me. I know i don’t have all the info in the case but I just haven’t seen anything that puts it beyond a reasonable doubt. There is only a couple of things that would convince me one way or the other and these are very unlikely to happen so IMO a full review is needed.

A photo or proof Luke did own a parka jacket before the murder, other that someone saying so

Dna / forensics retested and more concrete evidence found

A confession

Luke’s brother to clarify his statement and confirm if he still supports the family or not

I absolutely agree.

What would have turned the case on its head IMO is if the first statements to the police by certain witnesses had been allowed in court namely those who searched with Luke and agreed in their first statements that Mia had altered to the v in the wall.

As to Shane’s first statement it’s obvious that that it wasn’t to the police’s liking or why would they have charged him with perverting the course of justice. The dropping of that charge just before he gave evidence wasn’t a coincidence and he may have thought that a perjury charge may follow if he didn’t give the prosecution what they wanted. His last sentence when giving evidence suggests he wasn’t comfortable with what he was saying when he said that Luke could have been in the house.

[interested]

I absolutely agree.

What would have turned the case on its head IMO is if the first statements to the police by certain witnesses had been allowed in court namely those who searched with Luke and agreed in their first statements that Mia had altered to the v in the wall.

I agree faithlilly, the jury shouldve been shown the changes in statements. Statements can change but 3 exact changes in 3 entirely different statements is to much of a coincidence imo.

[faithlilly]

I agree faithlilly, the jury shouldve been shown the changes in statements. Statements can change but 3 exact changes in 3 entirely different statements is to much of a coincidence imo.

Unfortunately Scottish law prohibits it.

[Nicholas]

What would have turned the case on its head IMO is if the first statements to the police by certain witnesses had been allowed in court namely those who searched with Luke and agreed in their first statements that Mia had altered to the v in the wall.

I disagree

It’s possible these statements would have shored things up even more

[interested]

Unfortunately Scottish law prohibits it.

so a witness could change their entire story to fit the evidence and the jury wouldn't even know about it, does the same apply to defence witnesses?

[Nicholas]

As to Shane’s first statement it’s obvious that that it wasn’t to the police’s liking or why would they have charged him with perverting the course of justice. The dropping of that charge just before he gave evidence wasn’t a coincidence and he may have thought that a perjury charge may follow if he didn’t give the prosecution what they wanted. His last sentence when giving evidence suggests he wasn’t comfortable with what he was saying when he said that Luke could have been in the house.

This could have been to do with ‘family loyalties’