"Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean

[Kenmair]

You claimed no ‘professional lawyer’  would touch Luke’s case then in the next breath give me the name of his ‘professional lawyer’.

That’s not being pedantic. That’s simply pointing out how bad you are at this old debating malarkey.

FM has not "taken on LM's case", merely dealing with prison matters which everyone does - probably picked from a solicitors list available to all prisoners. Educate yourself about the case -  ask those involved/around at the time, visit the area, argue against yourself instead of believing anything Lean says. The only person who alibied LM was his mother.

[faithlilly]

FM has not "taken on LM's case", merely dealing with prison matters which everyone does - probably picked from a solicitors list available to all prisoners. Educate yourself about the case -  ask those involved/around at the time, visit the area, argue against yourself instead of believing anything Lean says. The only person who alibied LM was his mother.

Dear oh dear…why do you continue to claim knowledge that you simply don’t have. You have no way of knowing in what capacity Luke’s solicitor is working for him. You have heard of client/solicitor confidentiality?

The only person to alibi [Name removed] is his mother. And?

Further Joseph was identified as the man following Jodi shortly after she left the house by, what the police called, a credible witness.

How could he be in two places at once?

[Kenmair]

Dear oh dear…why do you continue to claim knowledge that you simply don’t have. You have no way of knowing in what capacity Luke’s solicitor is working for him. You have heard of client/solicitor confidentiality? Yes I do - he is not working on LM's appeal/case. Prove otherwise. You didn't even know he had a solicitor, just trying to points score.

The only person to alibi [Name removed] is his mother. And? Why was he seen by 5 other people at times and places he claimed he wasn't.

Further Joseph was identified as the man following Jodi shortly after she left the house by, what the police called, a credible witness. Who was this un-named witness? And how was this person implicated in the murder - Why was Joseph not spotted on the main road dripping in blood on the back of a moped being dropped off home after killing his sister then going for a nap? Where was Jodi killed? Why was the murder scene bleached? Where was Jodi when her dad died? Please explain this Lean-esque nonsense.

How could he be in two places at once?  You're worse than Loony Lean! 19,000 posts of nonsense when you could have written a book

[faithlilly]

“ Dear oh dear…why do you continue to claim knowledge that you simply don’t have. You have no way of knowing in what capacity Luke’s solicitor is working for him. You have heard of client/solicitor confidentiality? Yes I do - he is not working on LM's appeal/case. Prove otherwise.

The only person to alibi [Name removed] is his mother. And? Why was he seen by 5 other people at times and places he claimed he wasn't.

Further Joseph was identified as the man following Jodi shortly after she left the house by, what the police called, a credible witness. Who was this un-named witness? And how was this person implicated in the murder - Why was Joseph not spotted on the main road dripping in blood on the back of a moped being dropped off home after killing his sister then going for a nap? Where was Jodi killed? Why was the murder scene bleached? Where was Jodi when her dad died? Please explain this Lean-esque nonsense.

How could he be in two places at once?  You're worse than Loony Lean! 19,000 posts of nonsense when you could have written a book”

I have claimed nothing so have nothing to prove. You claim that the solicitor mentioned isn’t working on Luke’s case. You have no way of knowing that. All dealings between Luke and his solicitor are rightly confidential.

I take it by ‘he’ you mean Luke? One witness changed the time she saw Luke by almost an hour. Two witnesses were taken apart by DF in court. No idea who you assume the other two to be.

The police called the witness who saw a man following Jodi as ‘credible’. That witness later identified [Name removed]. Their name is immaterial.

The rest of your post is simply juvenile nonsense so I’m afraid I’m not going to engage.

[Kenmair]

The rest of your post is simply juvenile nonsense so I’m afraid I’m not going to engage.

Sandra hasn't told me what to say so I can't reply yet.

[faithlilly]

I don't know what I'm talking about really.

At last, something we can both agree on.

[Chris_Halkides]

"Why was he seen by 5 other people at times and places he claimed he wasn't."

In the last few months most of my comments have dealt with the many things that are wrong with the testimonies of Ms. Bryson, Ms. Fleming, and Ms. Walsh, among others.  I gave examples from other cases that illustrate why guidelines are necessary.  These sightings fail logically, but they also fail procedurally.

[Kenmair]

"Why was he seen by 5 other people at times and places he claimed he wasn't."

In the last few months most of my comments have dealt with the many things that are wrong with the testimonies of Ms. Bryson, Ms. Fleming, and Ms. Walsh, among others.  I gave examples from other cases that illustrate why guidelines are necessary.  These sightings fail logically, but they also fail procedurally.

And yet who is the un-named witness who claimed to have seen the victim's brother following her? Vague at best and uncorroborated. The phony "defence" rests on this witness sighting, but is shrouded in mystery. Surely if this person was credible they would have been paraded in Lean & Forbes TV and podcast appearances?

[faithlilly]

And yet who is the un-named witness who claimed to have seen the victim's brother following her? Vague at best and uncorroborated. The phony "defence" rests on this witness sighting, but is shrouded in mystery. Surely if this person was credible they would have been paraded in Lean & Forbes TV and podcast appearances?

Let’s take Joseph out of things for the moment.

What is corroborated, by the police themselves no less, is that shortly after Jodi left her home two independent witnesses saw a man following Jodi on Easthouses Road. In fact they found the witnesses so credible that they described it as the first probable sighting of Jodi that they’d received and appealed for further witnesses on that basis.

By your own logic then shouldn’t Dr Lean and Scott Forbes have ‘paraded’ the above witnesses before their various audiences? Indeed surely these witnesses prove that if Jodi was being followed around 5pm by an unknown male then she couldn’t have gone with Luke down RDP at 4.50?

“ Detective Inspector Tom Martin, one of the officers in the case, said: "This is a significant development for the inquiry team. We now have two independent witnesses who have given us good statements about seeing a young woman who is similar in description to Jodi.

"Both witnesses saw the girl walking in Easthouses Road towards the entrance to the Roman Dyke pathway at around 5pm and both also noticed a man walking closely behind the girl.”

Of course one of the arguments used re AB’s sighting being Luke could also be deployed here….if the youth seen following Jodi was not involved in her murder why hasn’t he come forward?

[Chris_Halkides]

And yet who is the un-named witness who claimed to have seen the victim's brother following her? Vague at best and uncorroborated. The phony "defence" rests on this witness sighting, but is shrouded in mystery. Surely if this person was credible they would have been paraded in Lean & Forbes TV and podcast appearances?

I question the use of the word "uncorroborated" here.  But let's take the alternate suspects out of consideration altogether for a moment.  The claimed sightings by Ms. Bryson, Ms. Fleming, and Ms. Walsh make for a logically incoherent narrative, on top of the problems of witness contamination and the failure to follow sound guidelines, issues which I discussed at length in another thread.  Their descriptions don't match each other, nor do they tally with what Luke actually looked like on that day.  Standing alone, the prosecution's case is like one of Potemkin's villages.

[faithlilly]

I question the use of the word "uncorroborated" here.  But let's take the alternate suspects out of consideration altogether for a moment.  The claimed sightings by Ms. Bryson, Ms. Fleming, and Ms. Walsh make for a logically incoherent narrative, on top of the problems of witness contamination and the failure to follow sound guidelines, issues which I discussed at length in another thread.  Their descriptions don't match each other, nor do they tally with what Luke actually looked like on that day.  Standing alone, the prosecution's case is like one of Potemkin's villages.

The fact that Andrina Bryson’s original statement claimed that her sighting was almost an hour later than the testimony she gave in court would surely mark her out as an unreliable witness. I’m surprised that Findlay appears to have made very little, if any, comment about this time discrepancy.

[Chris_Halkides]

BBC: "Both witnesses saw this man walking behind a girl in Easthouses Road near to the entrance of the Roman Dyke pathway at around 1700 BST."  This is a much smaller time discrepancy that the one involving Ms. Bryson, but it is still a problem for the prosecution's narrative.

What convinced me regarding Ms. Bryson was looking at the Google street view.  If one is traveling north, the pathway is  not discernible until one is almost past it.  She had to have been traveling south, and that is very strong evidence that the sighting happened about the time she first gave.

[faithlilly]

BBC: "Both witnesses saw this man walking behind a girl in Easthouses Road near to the entrance of the Roman Dyke pathway at around 1700 BST."  This is a much smaller time discrepancy that the one involving Ms. Bryson, but it is still a problem for the prosecution's narrative.

What convinced me regarding Ms. Bryson was looking at the Google street view.  If one is traveling north, the pathway is  not discernible until one is almost past it.  She had to have been traveling south, and that is very strong evidence that the sighting happened about the time she first gave.

Again, why did Findlay not make more of this, and other, obvious, anomalies.

[Chris_Halkides]

Again, why did Findlay not make more of this, and other, obvious, anomalies.

I think that Donald Findlay did a good job with Ms. Fleming and Ms. Walsh, but he did not do as well in his cross-examination of Ms. Bryson.  I also think that he should have called an expert witness in eyewitness identifications, and he should have called Mia's trainer or an expert witness in this area.

[faithlilly]

I think that Donald Findlay did a good job with Ms. Fleming and Ms. Walsh, but he did not do as well in his cross-examination of Ms. Bryson.  I also think that he should have called an expert witness in eyewitness identifications, and he should have called Mia's trainer or an expert witness in this area.

I absolutely agree, so why didn’t he?

He wasn’t some wet behind the ears barrister trying his first case. He was at the time one of Scotland’s foremost advocates and if we can see what needed to have been done why couldn’t he?