Did she say both Steven Kelly and Leonard Kelly were on the path? If not it was probably just a mistake...typing one name when the other was meant. Was the book proof read ?
Dismissing "No Smoke" as a simple typo? Are you sure this was all it was? because in the same book she states;
Given that there were no positive sightings of Jodi that evening, there is no proof of what time she left the house.
That will be that cleared up then? And of any information to date, about these very much unverified 'possible sightings' of anyone - known to the defence also. Once of course Ms Lean had cleared up this complete paragraph of misinformation. of this mystery man seen following Jodi. yes? no positive ID of Jodi as above but the mystery man was seen following her into this path;
"Several witnesses were identified as having been on the path at the critical time that evening. In total there were a minimum of five – John [Name removed], Gordon [Name removed], his father, David [Name removed], Stephen Kelly, a witness who claimed to have heard a disturbance behind the wall, and the "mystery man" seen following Jodi onto the path. Yet of the four who have spoken to police, none makes any mention of having seen either Luke or"
No mystery man on the path, Jodi on the path? DD nope.
When it emerged that DNA belonging to Stephen Kelly had been found on Jodi‟s t shirt and underwear, the explanation given was that Jodi had been wearing her sister Janine‟s T-shirt. Yet we have only Stephen Kelly (who is implicated by the presence of his DNA) and Janine (his fiancé)‟s word that this was, in fact, the case. The significance of the fact that none of the other members of the search party‟s clothes were taken for forensic testing that night becomes immediately apparent – no-one can ever know what evidence such testing may have yielded
Mr Kelly also gave a statement, of which confirmed that all three had been together for dinner. Please, spare us the multiple areas again of not having this alibi for weeks. No ones clothing was taken that night, it was late hrs into the following morning, and SK had his taken hours later that same day. Ms Lean then explained all was written prior to having access to statements yet in the very same book, she again states:
Careful examination of these statements, however, reveals that crucial aspects of them cannot possibly be true.
Then there is much ado about how she was unaware of Mr Kelly's alibi for his son, that it was only unearthed by the SCCRC and not known to the defence? Really? as we also know that it is in both JaJ and SK's statements. That we also know that precognitions are done - That the defence were very much aware of this alibi, not to forget the actual trial itself. There seems to be a theme that runs rife through this case:
Of lies covering up lies, to cover up misinformation, for more misinformation to be given to cover up more??
And again, why do you suppose CM made comment on James English of being caught on camera, whilst others were simply captured?
Because these others were, where they said they had been, Ms Mitchell was not, was she? She was not home helping finishing this relaxed dinner story - with lots of information on LM's clothing. Let's leave the sunshine out for the moment.
MK, who told the police where he was that evening and it checked out, as he was captured on CCTV - with no face full of scratches?
AO, whom again was exactly where he had stated.
And one wonders why, one family was believed over the other - One was clearly telling the truth all the way through?, the other clearly not?
