"Laughable eyewitness testimony"

[faithlilly]

As I said, we'll just have to wait & see. If said evidence does eventually appear on the blog, does that mean that your participation on here will become even more sporadic??

No need to wait MA….Parky….allegedly has the evidence to hand. What’s he waiting for? Surely this would be the perfect opportunity to make all those who believe in Luke’s innocence look absolutely stupid? And yet he doesn’t present it.

Why do you think that is?

BTW I don’t know if you noticed but he didn’t answer your question. Maybe you should try again?

[faithlilly]

It really isn't, CH. It baffles me that someone of your calibre can't see through this - especially SL's or Faith's flawed reasoning.

Conversely perhaps it’s because he is so clear thinking that he sees the holes in the prosecution’s case?

[Chris_Halkides]

It really isn't, CH. It baffles me that someone of your calibre can't see through this - especially SL's or Faith's flawed reasoning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_L._Wells
Your premise is flawed; my assessment that the witness testimony was improperly gathered depends very little upon SL.  Many of the facts that show that Fleming and Walsh's testimony was problematic came from Donald Findlay's cross examination and one of the appeal documents.  I discussed the procedural problems in this and other eyewitness testimony in the spring and summer of 2023, and I cited the writings of Gary L Wells, Brandon Garrett, and others who have spent years studying eyewitness testimony.  Any claim that this case alone is immune from the problems of poorly gathered witness testimony is an informal fallacy known as special pleading.

The argument parky41 put forward is whataboutism because it deflects from the issue raised, which is the serial contamination of the Fleming/Walsh eyewitness testimony, by bringing up another issue.  Either the pro-guilt commenters should explain why their testimony was not contaminated, or they should concede that the testimony is indeed problematic.

[Vertigo Swirl]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_L._Wells
Your premise is flawed; my assessment that the witness testimony was improperly gathered depends very little upon SL.  Many of the facts that show that Fleming and Walsh's testimony was problematic came from Donald Findlay's cross examination and one of the appeal documents.  I discussed the procedural problems in this and other eyewitness testimony in the spring and summer of 2023, and I cited the writings of Gary L Wells, Brandon Garrett, and others who have spent years studying eyewitness testimony.  Any claim that this case alone is immune from the problems of poorly gathered witness testimony is an informal fallacy known as special pleading.

The argument parky41 put forward is whataboutism because it deflects from the issue raised, which is the serial contamination of the Fleming/Walsh eyewitness testimony, by bringing up another issue.  Either the pro-guilt commenters should explain why their testimony was not contaminated, or they should concede that the testimony is indeed problematic.

If eyewitness testimony is unreliable (and I agree that it sometimes can be) then basically you could argue that every single case that has ever entered eyewitness testimony into a trial should be overturned and re-tried, and that in future all eye witness testimony should be banned from court proceedings. You simply can’t pick and choose when to believe it and when not to and I’m pretty sure Mitchell’s supporters depend on some eyewitness testimony to support their poor hard done-by hero.

[Chris_Halkides]

The very reason for guidelines that govern identifications is provide the criminal justice system with the best possible eyewitness evidence.  Yet with respect to AB that was not what happened in this case:  The Glasgow Times reported, "'It is difficult looking at this to see how police could have more ignored, contravened, torn up and thrown away those guidelines,' he [Donald Findlay] said."  In my opinion a similar statement can be made about RF/LW.  A second problem with AB and RF/LW is that both identifications were made by strangers while traveling in automobiles.  Exploring the issue about eyewitnesses and the pro-innocence posters is a reasonable thing to do, but it will have to wait for another day on my end.

[Vertigo Swirl]

The very reason for guidelines that govern identifications is provide the criminal justice system with the best possible eyewitness evidence.  Yet with respect to AB that was not what happened in this case:  The Glasgow Times reported, "'It is difficult looking at this to see how police could have more ignored, contravened, torn up and thrown away those guidelines,' he [Donald Findlay] said."  In my opinion a similar statement can be made about RF/LW.  A second problem with AB and RF/LW is that both identifications were made by strangers while traveling in automobiles.  Exploring the issue about eyewitnesses and the pro-innocence posters is a reasonable thing to do, but it will have to wait for another day on my end.

Donald Finlay was the defence barrister wasn’t he?  So of course he would say that wouldn’t he?

[Parky41]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_L._Wells
Your premise is flawed; my assessment that the witness testimony was improperly gathered depends very little upon SL.  Many of the facts that show that Fleming and Walsh's testimony was problematic came from Donald Findlay's cross examination and one of the appeal documents.  I discussed the procedural problems in this and other eyewitness testimony in the spring and summer of 2023, and I cited the writings of Gary L Wells, Brandon Garrett, and others who have spent years studying eyewitness testimony.  Any claim that this case alone is immune from the problems of poorly gathered witness testimony is an informal fallacy known as special pleading.

The argument parky41 put forward is whataboutism because it deflects from the issue raised, which is the serial contamination of the Fleming/Walsh eyewitness testimony, by bringing up another issue.  Either the pro-guilt commenters should explain why their testimony was not contaminated, or they should concede that the testimony is indeed problematic.

Let me help you Chris - That clear lack of credibility in most everything LM claimed, gives support to other evidence, such as those sightings. It's not all about fallibility, it's what else supported those sightings.

The less talked about supporting evidence in relation to the AB sighting. The fallacy that [Name removed] had made contact with LM to arrange a meeting at no fixed time, no fixed place, just anywhere, anytime type thing? Those ever changing accounts from him, avoiding what he never said, nor could.

Restricted times - Nothing to support the couple making arrangements after school to meet in the evenings. No phone records whilst [Name removed]'s phone was broken  We know they spent most evenings together, and we know the times for meeting were set around her curfew/restrictions. We know she had been banned from walking to Newbattle on her own. We know she had told her mother they would be "mucking around up here" We are giving clear reason for having to make contact with him that day after school. We know her punishment had been lifted in full, no curfew. We know she made contact with no one else, therefore no one else could know of those changes. We know the earlier meeting time is supported by [Name removed]'s time of leaving home. We know she was held back by her mother by several minutes after the new meeting time had been arranged, we know this coincided with LM calling the speaking clock.

Credibility - An alibi shot to pieces. As I mentioned, reason why. Because that clear lack of credibility, lack of alibi, placed LM away from home. Placed him in other places where he was seen. Adding weight to the problematic fallibility that arises from eye witness testimony. Where clearly he didn't have a doppelganger. And no, I really am not interested in the mental gymnastics taken place with F&W. We only need look to what DF attempted later, such as that appeal with MK. Doing this because he knew that the sighting had taken place at that wooden gate, several hundred yards away from where LM claimed to be. Near to where the murder had taken place.

Alas and again - Chalk and cheese. His obtuse tale, exposed by the truth. Which gives us clear reason as to why LM deleted the data from his phone, not the fable he applied. The reasons as to why the meeting was brought forward, the time of the meeting and where. "Agreed facts" Indeed. Both sides did agree it was around meeting, just not LM's obtuse version of events.

[faithlilly]

Let me help you Chris - That clear lack of credibility in most everything LM claimed, gives support to other evidence, such as those sightings. It's not all about fallibility, it's what else supported those sightings.

The less talked about supporting evidence in relation to the AB sighting. The fallacy that [Name removed] had made contact with LM to arrange a meeting at no fixed time, no fixed place, just anywhere, anytime type thing? Those ever changing accounts from him, avoiding what he never said, nor could.

Restricted times - Nothing to support the couple making arrangements after school to meet in the evenings. No phone records whilst [Name removed]'s phone was broken  We know they spent most evenings together, and we know the times for meeting were set around her curfew/restrictions. We know she had been banned from walking to Newbattle on her own. We know she had told her mother they would be "mucking around up here" We are giving clear reason for having to make contact with him that day after school. We know her punishment had been lifted in full, no curfew. We know she made contact with no one else, therefore no one else could know of those changes. We know the earlier meeting time is supported by [Name removed]'s time of leaving home. We know she was held back by her mother by several minutes after the new meeting time had been arranged, we know this coincided with LM calling the speaking clock.

Credibility - An alibi shot to pieces. As I mentioned, reason why. Because that clear lack of credibility, lack of alibi, placed LM away from home. Placed him in other places where he was seen. Adding weight to the problematic fallibility that arises from eye witness testimony. Where clearly he didn't have a doppelganger. And no, I really am not interested in the mental gymnastics taken place with F&W. We only need look to what DF attempted later, such as that appeal with MK. Doing this because he knew that the sighting had taken place at that wooden gate, several hundred yards away from where LM claimed to be. Near to where the murder had taken place.

Alas and again - Chalk and cheese. His obtuse tale, exposed by the truth. Which gives us clear reason as to why LM deleted the data from his phone, not the fable he applied. The reasons as to why the meeting was brought forward, the time of the meeting and where. "Agreed facts" Indeed. Both sides did agree it was around meeting, just not LM's obtuse version of events.

“ We know she had been banned from walking to Newbattle on her own.”


From Janine Jones’s first statement :

“This is the route that Jodi took to Luke’s house (RDP), even though she has been told not to, the alternative route is much longer”

And from her court testimony :

“ Being fair to yourself, please, are you now saying that by the time you made
that comment to the police you had received
information from your mother to the effect
that she knew Jodi used this route as a short
cut? - Yes.
Really. Is that right ?
Yes:
So it couldn't be the case then, if your mum told you that in the early
hours of this morning, that she was pretty clear in her own mind that Jodi didn't use that
route? - She was told not to .
But your mum seems to have
told you in the early hours of the morning that
she knew perfectly well Jodi did use the route as a short cut. That seems to be the position,
yes ?
- She used (incomprehensible) told
not to.
You must please try and answer my question. It does seem pretty clear
then that in the early hours of the morning of the Ist July your mother knew that Jodi used
that route as a short cut? - Yes.

Why do you post such easily debunked nonsense?

Now here’s the thing, [Name removed] claimed in her court testimony that she, Steven Kelly and her gran headed to RDP after a conversation between her mum and her gran. However according to JuJ’s court testimony Jodi had told her that she’d be ‘mucking about up here’ ie Easthouses so surely that’s what she told AW which makes it all the more puzzling why AW headed for RDP after her conversation with her.

[Parky41]

Let me help you Chris - That clear lack of credibility in most everything LM claimed, gives support to other evidence, such as those sightings. It's not all about fallibility, it's what else supported those sightings.

The less talked about supporting evidence in relation to the AB sighting. The fallacy that [Name removed] had made contact with LM to arrange a meeting at no fixed time, no fixed place, just anywhere, anytime type thing? Those ever changing accounts from him, avoiding what he never said, nor could.

Restricted times - Nothing to support the couple making arrangements after school to meet in the evenings. No phone records whilst [Name removed]'s phone was broken  We know they spent most evenings together, and we know the times for meeting were set around her curfew/restrictions. We know she had been banned from walking to Newbattle on her own. We know she had told her mother they would be "mucking around up here" We are giving clear reason for having to make contact with him that day after school. We know her punishment had been lifted in full, no curfew. We know she made contact with no one else, therefore no one else could know of those changes. We know the earlier meeting time is supported by [Name removed]'s time of leaving home. We know she was held back by her mother by several minutes after the new meeting time had been arranged, we know this coincided with LM calling the speaking clock.

Credibility - An alibi shot to pieces. As I mentioned, reason why. Because that clear lack of credibility, lack of alibi, placed LM away from home. Placed him in other places where he was seen. Adding weight to the problematic fallibility that arises from eye witness testimony. Where clearly he didn't have a doppelganger. And no, I really am not interested in the mental gymnastics taken place with F&W. We only need look to what DF attempted later, such as that appeal with MK. Doing this because he knew that the sighting had taken place at that wooden gate, several hundred yards away from where LM claimed to be. Near to where the murder had taken place.

Alas and again - Chalk and cheese. His obtuse tale, exposed by the truth. Which gives us clear reason as to why LM deleted the data from his phone, not the fable he applied. The reasons as to why the meeting was brought forward, the time of the meeting and where. "Agreed facts" Indeed. Both sides did agree it was around meeting, just not LM's obtuse version of events.

Thanks for confirming what I said to be true Faith. This stance you have, indicative yet again of someone personally involved, who clearly has a bruised alter ego just now. One can't use the same manipulative tricks of selective nonsense to paint a false picture. Also from JaJ's transcripts:

Re-examination by the AD:

"Miss Jones, before Jodi was killed did you know where Luke lived? - Yes.

Did you know his address? - I only knew he was in Newbattle Abbey Crescent.

Alright. The route which you've been is a route which can be taken as a shortcut between Easthouses and Newbattle Road? - Yes

It's obvious, from what you were discussing with Mr Finlay at least, that your mother knew that Jodi sometimes used the route? - Yes.

You have explained she was told not to, so you understood - Yes.

But is it your understanding that she was told not to use it at all or told not to use it on her own? - On her own"


Back to the point. those omissions by LM, the boy who not only openly lied but had in place many lies by omission. Nothing of his girlfriend being banned from using the path alone, or as we heard from other witnesses, of having to meet half way - Which would take the girl into that secluded area, the sheltered area, canopied by trees, which we also hear about in testimony.

[faithlilly]

Thanks for confirming what I said to be true Faith. This stance you have, indicative yet again of someone personally involved, who clearly has a bruised alter ego just now. One can't use the same manipulative tricks of selective nonsense to paint a false picture. Also from JaJ's transcripts:

Re-examination by the AD:

"Miss Jones, before Jodi was killed did you know where Luke lived? - Yes.

Did you know his address? - I only knew he was in Newbattle Abbey Crescent.

Alright. The route which you've been is a route which can be taken as a shortcut between Easthouses and Newbattle Road? - Yes

It's obvious, from what you were discussing with Mr Finlay at least, that your mother knew that Jodi sometimes used the route? - Yes.

You have explained she was told not to, so you understood - Yes.

But is it your understanding that she was told not to use it at all or told not to use it on her own? - On her own"


Back to the point. those omissions by LM, the boy who not only openly lied but had in place many lies by omission. Nothing of his girlfriend being banned from using the path alone, or as we heard from other witnesses, of having to meet half way - Which would take the girl into that secluded area, the sheltered area, canopied by trees, which we also hear about in testimony.

Very weak from you Parky. We all know that Turnbull could see what was happening and tried desperately to claw things back during his re-examination. Unfortunately for him it didn’t quite work. You simply can’t put the genie back in the bottle.

 It’s obvious from her testimony that JaJ meant that Jodi used the shorter route alone even though she was warned not to. JaJ also accepted that her mother knew that Jodi walked the path alone.

Did Jodi tell her mum a white lie by saying they were ‘messing about up here’ knowing she was going to walk the path alone? Was that why the texts between her and Luke were wiped from her mum’s phone, so her mum didn’t find out that she was going to Newbattle?

Of course all this may become clearer when JuJ’s testimony is transcribed.

[Parky41]

Thanks for confirming what I said to be true Faith. This stance you have, indicative yet again of someone personally involved, who clearly has a bruised alter ego just now. One can't use the same manipulative tricks of selective nonsense to paint a false picture. Also from JaJ's transcripts:

Re-examination by the AD:

"Miss Jones, before Jodi was killed did you know where Luke lived? - Yes.

Did you know his address? - I only knew he was in Newbattle Abbey Crescent.

Alright. The route which you've been is a route which can be taken as a shortcut between Easthouses and Newbattle Road? - Yes

It's obvious, from what you were discussing with Mr Finlay at least, that your mother knew that Jodi sometimes used the route? - Yes.

You have explained she was told not to, so you understood - Yes.

But is it your understanding that she was told not to use it at all or told not to use it on her own? - On her own"


Back to the point. those omissions by LM, the boy who not only openly lied but had in place many lies by omission. Nothing of his girlfriend being banned from using the path alone, or as we heard from other witnesses, of having to meet half way - Which would take the girl into that secluded area, the sheltered area, canopied by trees, which we also hear about in testimony.

Excellent as we move on again with this lack of credibility from proven liars. The discovery that, far from the claims of having "all" the transcripts, the enablers had very little of them. JuJ's transcripts but one of many more, still not transcribed. As Ms Lean pointed out before when faced with the recordings, that one has never had any in her possession. Claiming however to have the transcripts - Messy.

Transparency goes hand in hand with innocence. Yet we see now why LM kept his data "hidden" from the public eye, such as his statement from July 1st. Praising IB, praising ALWTJ. Praising the blatant lies from those acting on his behalf. One such example, the deletion of his data by himself and not the police. Another, their attempt at an alibi, showing Nicholas to be correct. Of LM asking his mother if his elder brother had been home? Or the claim that the only people consistent in what they said was LM, his mother? Demonstrably false. - All of this given weight to those "laughable eyewitnesses" And still barely scratching the surface of that deception. Not home, seen elsewhere. A clear sequence of events which were backed up. Not just by other people, from that young girl and from the horses mouth.

There is no credibility in constant deflection, avoidance tactics away from those proven to have lied, repeatedly. Excusing, erasing, re-writing from and on their behalf.

[faithlilly]

Excellent as we move on again with this lack of credibility from proven liars. The discovery that, far from the claims of having "all" the transcripts, the enablers had very little of them. JuJ's transcripts but one of many more, still not transcribed. As Ms Lean pointed out before when faced with the recordings, that one has never had any in her possession. Claiming however to have the transcripts - Messy.

Transparency goes hand in hand with innocence. Yet we see now why LM kept his data "hidden" from the public eye, such as his statement from July 1st. Praising IB, praising ALWTJ. Praising the blatant lies from those acting on his behalf. One such example, the deletion of his data by himself and not the police. Another, their attempt at an alibi, showing Nicholas to be correct. Of LM asking his mother if his elder brother had been home? Or the claim that the only people consistent in what they said was LM, his mother? Demonstrably false. - All of this given weight to those "laughable eyewitnesses" And still barely scratching the surface of that deception. Not home, seen elsewhere. A clear sequence of events which were backed up. Not just by other people, from that young girl and from the horses mouth.

There is no credibility in constant deflection, avoidance tactics away from those proven to have lied, repeatedly. Excusing, erasing, re-writing from and on their behalf.

Dr Lean credibility may have been dented by several aspects of the transcribed transcripts but it’s undeniable that she has access to much more of the case material than yourself and as to claims that you have produced no evidence of I think you and her are even Steven’s. Lest we forget there’s the judge’s directions, the concert parka et al.

Avoidance tactics? Is that why you’re answering your own posts? Are you that desperate not to directly answer my points?

You claim that Luke lied in his July the 1st statement. Okay, where? What were the lies?

[Parky41]

Excellent as we move on again with this lack of credibility from proven liars. The discovery that, far from the claims of having "all" the transcripts, the enablers had very little of them. JuJ's transcripts but one of many more, still not transcribed. As Ms Lean pointed out before when faced with the recordings, that one has never had any in her possession. Claiming however to have the transcripts - Messy.

Transparency goes hand in hand with innocence. Yet we see now why LM kept his data "hidden" from the public eye, such as his statement from July 1st. Praising IB, praising ALWTJ. Praising the blatant lies from those acting on his behalf. One such example, the deletion of his data by himself and not the police. Another, their attempt at an alibi, showing Nicholas to be correct. Of LM asking his mother if his elder brother had been home? Or the claim that the only people consistent in what they said was LM, his mother? Demonstrably false. - All of this given weight to those "laughable eyewitnesses" And still barely scratching the surface of that deception. Not home, seen elsewhere. A clear sequence of events which were backed up. Not just by other people, from that young girl and from the horses mouth.

There is no credibility in constant deflection, avoidance tactics away from those proven to have lied, repeatedly. Excusing, erasing, re-writing from and on their behalf.

Credibility and back to the point - LM claimed to be sitting on the wall around the bus stop, at the entrance of his estate, claimed he sat there for around half an hr before moving over the road to the Abbey entrance. Claiming he then called his friend to meet up. He claimed that there was no time set for seeing Jodi, felt like she was a "missing space", that he believed (1st July) she had 'changed her mind'.

His 1st call to DH was inviting him to come to his house. That call was made an hour after he left home (claimed), and not his half an hr. He then changed the meeting place, calling him back to arrange meeting in the Abbey instead. And as we know, the 1st fire in the Mitchell garden was reported from that time frame. Leading up to 7pm.

Nothing of the call to the Jones house, which of course contradicted the claim of "changing her mind" along with "grounded again" or that she was "not coming out" Nothing of course of further claims of walking to and from BC's to see if she were in sight. Which again, at that point, would contradict this no set meeting. We should take into account, this is a lad who was not some criminal mastermind. Clearly winging it as best he could in the first flushes of that investigation. Main focus upon alibi, and the pretence of there not been a fixed meeting?

The transcript makes for an interesting read - The AD highlighting the ludicrous notion of that wait, the claims he made around this 'maybe' meeting.

Evidence - There is no evidence of LM sitting on that wall, hanging around the bus stop, nor standing just inside the Abbey entrance. And we know that is not where the meeting took place with the boys. That is an approx time frame of 80mins as mentioned several times. I'm not looking for excuses here, I am stating what did not happen in respect of not being seen where he claimed to be idling about, for the bulk of that time frame. Nor am I interested in the mental gymnastics of re-writing the evidence on his behalf, erasing at will to make things fit, somehow.

'Checking the kitchen clock occasionally' - Seen in Easthouses, time of calling the speaking clock coinciding with [Name removed] running late. 4:53pm. Clearly not checking the kitchen clock when using his phone to do so. It was the only call to the service for that month.

Further disinformation and lack of credibility from LM and his enablers. The former having no problem with disinformation being handed out to gain support, that latter putting that disinformation out on his behalf. 4:25pm it was claimed that LM called his mothers work, that he had to have been home until at least that point. The call took place I believe at 4:01pm upon his arrival home. There was nothing keeping LM home from that point.

 

[Mr Apples]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_L._Wells
Your premise is flawed; my assessment that the witness testimony was improperly gathered depends very little upon SL.  Many of the facts that show that Fleming and Walsh's testimony was problematic came from Donald Findlay's cross examination and one of the appeal documents.  I discussed the procedural problems in this and other eyewitness testimony in the spring and summer of 2023, and I cited the writings of Gary L Wells, Brandon Garrett, and others who have spent years studying eyewitness testimony.  Any claim that this case alone is immune from the problems of poorly gathered witness testimony is an informal fallacy known as special pleading.

The argument parky41 put forward is whataboutism because it deflects from the issue raised, which is the serial contamination of the Fleming/Walsh eyewitness testimony, by bringing up another issue.  Either the pro-guilt commenters should explain why their testimony was not contaminated, or they should concede that the testimony is indeed problematic.

Just quickly ......  those two women only saw this guy fleetingly at a gate from a car and yet positively Id'd him. The photo on the newspaper 'jumped out at them' as being LM (one of the women even said, "Oh my God, it's him!").They were unequivocal that it it was him; no doubt whatsoever. Standing at a gate clearly looking suspicious and angry (5 witnesses who didn't even know him described this and said he looked strange - LF, RW, CH, MO & DH) . Spotted at the other end of path by AB (who was 'as sure as she could be', that it was him, arguing with JODJ @ 1655). In between 1655 and 1745, a guy (Leonard Kelly) hears disturbing strangling sounds from behind the wall at 1710, so disturbing that they made this grown man slow right down so he could listen properly and yet was so frightened he didn't go over the wall to investigate fully like he wished he had have. Boyo was then spotted (by 3 who knew him personally) 8 times between 1755-1820 (LF, RW, DH, GE, AH, CH, MO & DH) and the 5 who didn't know him not only positively id'd him but said he looked 'suspicious'. 45 mins later from being spotted arguing with his MRS, he is then spotted at a gate just conveniently down from the murder site looking shady as feck. Yeah, right! Far too many coincidences.  This is the same guy who, despite being locked up for the last 20 years, has never explained once why he is innocent; nor has he ever made any attempts to escape like an innocent person would naturally do (eg, Joe Steele). Guilty as all hell. Sorry for my rather incoherent post, but I'm out and about today, just about to enjoy the September weekend with some relatives and their kids (all now drinking age ...  my wallet will doubtless take some severe damage in the next few days!!!).

[Mr Apples]

Credibility and back to the point - LM claimed to be sitting on the wall around the bus stop, at the entrance of his estate, claimed he sat there for around half an hr before moving over the road to the Abbey entrance. Claiming he then called his friend to meet up. He claimed that there was no time set for seeing Jodi, felt like she was a "missing space", that he believed (1st July) she had 'changed her mind'.

His 1st call to DH was inviting him to come to his house. That call was made an hour after he left home (claimed), and not his half an hr. He then changed the meeting place, calling him back to arrange meeting in the Abbey instead. And as we know, the 1st fire in the Mitchell garden was reported from that time frame. Leading up to 7pm.

Nothing of the call to the Jones house, which of course contradicted the claim of "changing her mind" along with "grounded again" or that she was "not coming out" Nothing of course of further claims of walking to and from BC's to see if she were in sight. Which again, at that point, would contradict this no set meeting. We should take into account, this is a lad who was not some criminal mastermind. Clearly winging it as best he could in the first flushes of that investigation. Main focus upon alibi, and the pretence of there not been a fixed meeting?

The transcript makes for an interesting read - The AD highlighting the ludicrous notion of that wait, the claims he made around this 'maybe' meeting.

Evidence - There is no evidence of LM sitting on that wall, hanging around the bus stop, nor standing just inside the Abbey entrance. And we know that is not where the meeting took place with the boys. That is an approx time frame of 80mins as mentioned several times. I'm not looking for excuses here, I am stating what did not happen in respect of not being seen where he claimed to be idling about, for the bulk of that time frame. Nor am I interested in the mental gymnastics of re-writing the evidence on his behalf, erasing at will to make things fit, somehow.

'Checking the kitchen clock occasionally' - Seen in Easthouses, time of calling the speaking clock coinciding with [Name removed] running late. 4:53pm. Clearly not checking the kitchen clock when using his phone to do so. It was the only call to the service for that month.

Further disinformation and lack of credibility from LM and his enablers. The former having no problem with disinformation being handed out to gain support, that latter putting that disinformation out on his behalf. 4:25pm it was claimed that LM called his mothers work, that he had to have been home until at least that point. The call took place I believe at 4:01pm upon his arrival home. There was nothing keeping LM home from that point.

It was odd that he said he called the caravan sales office at approx 1625, but was a lie (call logs produced in court prove this). He was likely out and about on his bike by this point, wearing various layers of clothing (anticipating rain?) Including parka and shirt with t-shirt underneath. The more I think about it, he likely had the murder planned that afternoon in school (the argument and his planned visit to Kenmore being triggers somewhat). Wouldn't even surprise me of he'd stashed some jackets/clothing away in that NB woodland area before he cycled over to EH to be seen at 1655.