Several of the examples in the "Transcript Comparisons" are a bit of a stretch. For example, a German army shirt is not a parka. For another, I thought that the solicitor was tardy in handing over the knife. On the other hand, Shane's testimony under questioning from DF would be informative when it appears. The transcripts change some details, but almost nothing that has appeared so far deals with what are for me the core issues of the case. These include (but are not limited to) lack of forensic transfer between Luke, the lack of a murder weapon, and Jodi, and the abysmal way that the eyewitness testimony was elicited.
Missing the point. The transcripts and comparisons are there to show the deception not prove guilt, the bloggers making it clear their stance has always been around innocence. However, it has made them re-think, and rightly so, around everything that has been in place directly from Ms Lean and co. Which most sensible people would and should do. You like many others will see the why, of course you will, in place to gain attention and support for LM, it in no way makes it right or acceptable.
Strong points, aren't they? No forensic evidence, no murder weapon found, nothing upon the victim pointing this murder to a another, the eye witness stuff is something you simply do not hold any favour with at all. Those alone are enough for you to believe that LM is innocent (not alone), that the case could not have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. - Why therefore do you think that Ms Lean has had to lie repeatedly? More so, do you think that it has been morally right for her to do so? I note you decried JaJ's for clarifying something in her statements, applying a clear level of dishonesty to it, but nothing of the people who have been blatantly lying about her?
JaJ's, and not leaving aside that any changes were before the Jury. Her sister has just been found dead, she is given probably one of her shortest statements to the police and notes this "everyone in hysterics" This shorter statement where one is asked to expand upon later, we know this because it says they were considerably longer. She gives descriptions then of people individually, now out of everything she has been saying, shown in court, she agrees with, but adamant that her alteration still stood, it is exactly how they all were - Why would the police want expansion on this?
Can you pull up where LM said he was in hysterics? AW, SK, emergency services, police etc? Point being, when other people witnessed something different, it fits with her clarifications, doesn't it? Doesn't say at all that she was lying, far from it. Not to forget that DF was attempting to show something, anything from his client against the myriad of other evidence to the contrary. I'm pointing out what the Jury may have taken from those alterations. Faith and signing something off, just how much was she really taken in when handed a piece of paper to sign? Not everyone was calm and collective like LM, were they now?
