A couple of thousand people isn’t ‘a lot of the public’ 🙄
I think very fortunately that is somewhat delusional - I have just watched a little more of one of these Q&A - even the new people on board are stating that Ms Lean is repeating herself.- And she is. And what couple of thousand people? - There may have been the usual bandwagon of people initially. Being hounded and added to groups. There are very few who actually, actively take part in discussion. - And of these (cough) thousands - around 50 turned out for the protest. Not even his own mother attended, nor father or brother of course. And of this graffiti and make shift posters - it is down to two or three individuals. Namely SD and his female side kick. - Now whether this will grow or diminish more only time will tell. - But the nonsense that Nicholas highlighted earlier - of writing to MPs and so forth - about the Jury, Judge, Lothian and Borders, detectives, DF and the pathologist to boot - shows how out of touch with reality - these people really are.
Of the SCCRC. - Of her submission. One is still shaking their head from the first time I heard her mentioning this. Of a circumstantial case. Of each individual piece of evidence being put together in sequence. That none hold merit individually. This is the sensible part, and one understands totally why she must yet again explain this to the level of intellect in the comments section? - Then again explains, how she? put in her "information" not evidence of each individual point. That this should have basically cancelled out each point of evidence in the circumstantial case against LM - That all that she put in, should also have been joined together as was the case?? -That the SCCRC did not do this and of how it is wrong? - No what is wrong, is that that they looked at the evidence, the investigation and not Ms Leans version of it, of her "information" to cancel it out. We already know one key area she used. That of MK, and of lookalike, of owning a Parka jacket and of being on Newbattle Road that evening.
And of disclosure - that old chestnut again. Using the mere fact that somethings were not retained by DF, in his case that he built up, in his defence of LM - Like the phone logs, the statement of alibi from Mr Kelly and the likes - these were not hidden, the SCCRC highlighted these clearly in their report.. But no - they must have been hidden, not disclosed to the defence - As Ms Lean had already written chapters worth of the stuff, made many claims around certain areas had she not? She needs something to blame does she not? - therefore, disclosure is used? - Thus why she now wants an Independent review - so that everything, she has never had, that she has had no legal right to have - can be disclosed?
The SCCRC looked at everything - they as with the Crown and the defence - had access to all that went into the investigation. They built up their case from each stance around this.- And of the 'Cadder ruling' - that, had LM's appeal been heard just days earlier - then his conviction would have been overturned - Ah, if only it were that simple. So, with this it is - to hang with all the evidence that convicted him - she is claiming that by the skin of his teeth - he could have been released on some technical area of law?
And of her holding onto all that she does have. Not handing it over to anyone else. To protect Luke, his mother and the case - should it EVER go forward? - As if she didn't need to do all of this - then she would gladly hand the whole lot over - nope. Would it not be closer to the mark to say - I need to hold onto what I do have, as people will know for a fact what I have done - they will see the truth in those defence papers she does hold. She/they don't even reveal the actual evidence direct from the Mitchells on this basis? It is not to protect the case - it is to keep the truth hidden?
