F'lilly and Chris. Have you ever looked at the case in a wider context instead of comparing it to the most remote possible cases – the Birmingham 6 etc, really? Have you looked further than Free Library or SL as sources? Have you been near the crime scene or talked to anyone who knew LM or his family, particularly his father and brother, to gain a wider perspective? Have you spoken to anyone that has knowledge of Lean and Forbes unsavoury tactics or do you just believe what you read online?
Have you ever questioned what got LM convicted or just lapped up the alternative ‘poor Luke wouldn't hurt a fly' theory? Have you ever spoken to a member of the Scottish legal profession? SL/SF, who have caused more damage than good, don't count. It's almost as they don't want anything to happen as long as they are kept in the public eye.
Kenmore,
One of the reasons that I became interested in the case is because I read Rolfe's comments at ISF, which turned the planks of the prosecution's case into sawdust. She used logic and the known facts of the case to show just how nonprobative the so-called eyewitness testimony was. She also used Google streetview to illustrate some of what was wrong in Ms. Bryson's testimony. The agreed facts of the case are sufficient to demonstrate the weaknesses of the prosecution's case. When I examined the eyewitness testimony in more detail for myself, I took a slightly different focus compared with Rolfe. I read book chapters and found discussions of individual cases (see below for an example).
It is funny you should write the above, because I was just thinking that what is wrong with the pro-guilt position is that it arises from a myopic and narrow view of this case. It is myopic in that only the finished product (the certainty of the witnesses) is examined, as opposed to considering how it came to be or whether it makes sense. It is narrow because it ignores decades of study on the causes of wrongful convictions. The same errors show up time and time again.
With respect to this case I liken the police and prosecution to car salesman who put sawdust in the transmission of a beat up jalopy. One of the things that got LM convicted is no one checked under the hood. Another thing that got him convicted was his picture in the paper in mid-August. Sloppy and sensationalistic reporting was another factor.
Let me take the issue of suggestive photo lineups as an illustration of how I approach aspects of the case. I have offered the examples of the Dean Gillispie and Thomas Sophonow cases. I also quoted Brandon L. Garrett: “Although showups may be highly suggestive, a lineup may also be suggestive if it is not set up fairly. At least 34% of the trials obtained with eyewitness testimony (55 of 161 trials) were biased, or stacked to make the suspect stand out. If some of the fillers in the lineup do not look anything like the description of the culprit, or the suspect, then the lineup is not a sound test of the eyewitnesses’ memory." Professor Garrett is easily among the foremost experts on wrongful convictions in the country. Besides those sources, I used the 2008 appeal summary. This information, and quite a bit more, is now found at the Laughable Eyewitness Testimony thread.
The Free Library has its limits, but your alternatives are difficult to take seriously. The notion put forward some time ago that local people have some inside knowledge is dubious at best, given the poor quality of the reporting in this case. Based on my experience with another case, I don't place much weight on what relatives think. I have seen people here truck in rumors concerning what the family members believe, and I put even less stock in those.
EDT
Professor David Wilson spent part of his career as a prison governor and designed facilities for some of the most disruptive prisoners. I would strongly question the idea that he jumped to the conclusion that Luke would not hurt a fly. He wrote, "Witness testimony is weak, inconsistent and more than likely wrong, and about the only thing that I could see that needed to be investigated more fully was his part in the initial discovery of Jodi’s body. However, this was not just a case of circumstantial evidence leading to a conviction, but one of literally no evidence at all." In other words he saw what other have seen, an incoherent mess of a case.
