"Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean

[Nicholas]

With respect to the Malkinson case,

that eyewitnesses can be very confident yet very wrong

Violent rapist Andrew Malkinson’s victim has not retracted the fact she would “never forget” Malkinson’s face!

Nor has the fact Malkinson’s victim identified him on the 3rd August 2003 during the photographic video ID parade been discredited!

[Nicholas]

"The Malkinson case is a cautionary tale with respect to the Mitchell case

Only a deceptive con artist would compare the two cases!

[Nicholas]

However, let me clarify one thing.  Some items in Mr. Malkinson's case yielded DNA evidence that pointed away from him, but because of the police starting to destroy evidence, it almost did not come to light.

You are making things up!

The pieces of material, cut from violent rapist Andrew Malkinson’s victims clothing ie; camisole vest top, were NOT in the custody/possession of the police!

[Nicholas]

Some items in Mr. Malkinson's case yielded DNA evidence that pointed away from him

How did the dna testing which was carried out in relation to violent rapist Andrew Malkinson’s case, compare to the dna testing in bomber Sean Hoey’s case?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dna-test-puts-innocent-at-risk-of-convictions-6tl93gkwcjh

[Nicholas]

Some items in Mr. Malkinson's case yielded DNA evidence that pointed away from him

Where is the evidence violent rapist Andrew Malkinson’s victim’s nipple was bitten to cause the “laceration” and when exactly did this injury occur?

[Parky41]

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16881799.circumstantial-evidence-convicted-luke-mitchell/
"This claim was initially corroborated by the family members of the search party. Files show that these statements were changed approximately one month after the event. The original statements, which supported Mitchell’s claim, were put to the witnesses by his defence QC Donald Findlay but they said they were unable to remember or it was not what they meant."
From The Herald on 16 September 2018

The dog and wall saga continues - Let us go with dog and wall. All in harmony with LM. Nope can't do that because it was not in harmony, the only thing the same was dog and wall, nothing else, context, the everything missing as per on repeat.

Now you are saying they were telling the truth, those first accounts, we go with those first accounts only - OK? Here is how truthful the search trio were. Those incredulous descriptions, that proved 100% the events happened exactly as described. Which, no matter how many ways you swing it, was always to the V from the east, momentarily stopping with LM, AW staying behind, JaJ's with SK then walking down further after LM entered the woods.

That slithering of truth, dog and wall, will always be just that, a slithering of truth. - Remember, we know the search trio, those descriptions, could only have happened exactly as they stated, we have always known this. We know they were telling the truth, as has been highlighted repeatedly. - Ignore their change/clarifications let us turn to LM here.

Why did he lie? the other three were telling the truth, so why did LM lie? Why did he tell the police they had been around 60ft past when they had not? Why did he claim his dog alerted around 60ft past the break when it had not. When given the chance to clarify and amend, why did he further lie? He changed it to exactly 43ft and "parallel to" where the body lay in the woods. Drew his map. And he lied some more, he stated, that beside him when his dog alerted, this 60ft to 43ft was JaJ's and SK, that they just kept on walking down the path, whilst he returned. - So, you tell me Chris, why was he lying when they were all quite clearly at the V break in that wall, directly to it from the first to the testimony in court, why did LM lie?

Remember they were telling the truth, we know the changes but this is the first accounts. We know from everything they said, the descriptions and all else, they were telling the truth. One was clearly lying, which was LM, as we know that nothing they described could have taken place where LM claimed, not even 10 ft past with eyes in the back of their heads. - I am happy with that, whatever way you swing it, LM had special knowledge, because we know why he lied, it was the very essence and reason he gave, for knowing exactly where to go - Into that woodland he claimed not to have set foot in before, walked around 10 steps - behave!

 And for the last time, this constant DF did this - Seriously! These fragments, empty and meaningless without the everything.

[Nicholas]

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16881799.circumstantial-evidence-convicted-luke-mitchell/
"This claim was initially corroborated by the family members of the search party. Files show that these statements were changed approximately one month after the event. The original statements, which supported Mitchell’s claim, were put to the witnesses by his defence QC Donald Findlay but they said they were unable to remember or it was not what they meant."
From The Herald on 16 September 2018

The above makes no sense whatsoever!

Why did you choose to quote a lazy, grifting journalist, who more than likely did not attend sadistic killer Luke Mitchell’s trial, and who failed to quote directly what was said during the trial?

[Nicholas]

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16881799.circumstantial-evidence-convicted-luke-mitchell/
"This claim was initially corroborated by the family members of the search party. Files show that these statements were changed approximately one month after the event. The original statements, which supported Mitchell’s claim, were put to the witnesses by his defence QC Donald Findlay but they said they were unable to remember or it was not what they meant."
From The Herald on 16 September 2018

What “original statements” exactly was this lazy, grifting journalist on about?

Who exactly said “they were unable to remember or it was not what they meant”?

This is absolute nonsense!

[Parky41]

What “original statements” exactly was this lazy, grifting journalist on about?

Certainly nothing he had actually read, that is for sure.

[faithlilly]

Certainly nothing he had actually read, that is for sure.

It’s surprising that none of the search party three ever refuted that they had changed their initial statements, even when accused of it on the BBC. They could have asked for a simple retraction and apology. It’s telling that they didn’t.

[Nicholas]

They weren’t “items” of clothing - they were small scraps of material cut from Andrew Malkinson’s victims clothing “items”

However, let me clarify one thing.  Some items in Mr. Malkinson's case yielded DNA evidence that pointed away from him, but because of the police starting to destroy evidence, it almost did not come to light

You are making things up!

The pieces of material, cut from violent rapist Andrew Malkinson’s victims clothing ie; camisole vest top, were NOT in the custody/possession of the police!

1st February 2022

Michael Cowen BBC radio 4

“Andy is now waiting to hear whether his application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission - the body which has the power to send his case to the Court of Appeal - is successful. The DNA tests that appear to exonerate him came from swabs stored in the National Forensic Archive - a government organisation tasked with preserving evidence from historical cases. And it’s fortunate for Andy that they do exist, because the clothing worn by the victim on the night of the attack and collected as evidence has been lost - or even destroyed - by Greater Manchester Police, the force investigating the crime. Emily Bolton is Andy’s solicitor.

Emily Bolton:

“What happens is when the police gather evidence in a rape, they not only gather up the clothing of the victim, they also take swabs from intimate areas in order to gather any physical evidence that may be present there, but also the clothing itself is swabbed or little bits of it are cut out, and those teeny tiny samples from the victim are separately stored, so they’re taken off to a lab and stored and then tested. Those were preserved. However, if you think about it, the original material is the clothing worn by the victim on that day, and that evidence, they never get all the evidence from the clothing. They get a little bit, take that off and test it. If they can get a result from that – great; if they can’t get a result from that, they might come back, but the clothing itself is the evidence that’s now missing. So, the swabs were being held in a different place to where the clothing was being held, the swabs and small samples from the clothing. The main bulk of the evidence, the garments worn by the victim on the day, are what seems to have disappeared[

[Chris_Halkides]

You are making things up!

The pieces of material, cut from violent rapist Andrew Malkinson’s victims clothing ie; camisole vest top, were NOT in the custody/possession of the police!

Let us start with establishing the destruction of evidence.  The Independent wrote, "It [Appeal.org] also accused the force of unlawfully destroying key evidence connected to the case."

The Justice Gap wrote, "Emily Bolton, director of APPEAL and Malkinson’s lawyer, pointed out that the DNA breakthrough was ‘very nearly rendered impossible by the police’s unlawful failure to retain key exhibits’. ‘We will continue to push for accountability,’ she added."

Another article at The Guardian stated, "Malkinson’s conviction was overturned when DNA samples from the victim’s clothing, which had been preserved in a forensic archive, were tested and found to contain DNA from someone who was likely to have been the attacker. This breakthrough was almost missed as the victim’s vest top, bra, knickers and other clothing were destroyed by GMP, despite a preservation order being in place."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/07/police-withheld-evidence-making-rape-conviction-unsafe-says-uk-court-of-appeal-andrew-malkinson

If all of the evidence had been in the possession of GMP, they might have destroyed it.  The evidence that they did  destroy might have yielded additional clues, but we will never know.

[Nicholas]

However, let me clarify one thing.  Some items in Mr. Malkinson's case yielded DNA evidence that pointed away from him, but because of the police starting to destroy evidence, it almost did not come to light

Let us start with establishing the destruction of evidence. 

How about admitting you were telling bare faced lies

[Nicholas]

  The Independent wrote, "It [Appeal.org] also accused the force of unlawfully destroying key evidence connected to the case."

🙄

Appeal have also stated violent rapist Andrew Malkinson was/is “innocent” without providing any believable evidence

[Nicholas]

The Justice Gap wrote, "Emily Bolton, director of APPEAL and Malkinson’s lawyer, pointed out that the DNA breakthrough was ‘very nearly rendered impossible by the police’s unlawful failure to retain key exhibits’. ‘We will continue to push for accountability,’ she added."

Jon Robins is another con artist and grifter!

Again, the small piece of material cut from Andrew Malkinson’s vistims camisole top wasn’t in the possession of the police!