"Laughable eyewitness testimony"

[Mr Apples]

You say coached, Shane said reminded.

Why do you accept that Shane was unable to remember one thing and not another?

Shane said ‘he could have been there’ meaning he believed that it would be possible, even in that two storey house.
It appears that you believe the parts of Shane’s testimony that suits.

The 'he could've been there" part was, let's face it, an afterthought. It was incidental and was only said to soften the blow of SM landing his brother in really deep sh%# by destroying the alibi and saying he truthfully couldn't remember seeing Luke in the house at those crucial times. SM's memory loss and amnesia couldn't have been that bad as he was employed full time as a car mechanic - a reasonably responsible job. SM just had to say his brother was there and he didn't. He could've prevented his own brother going to jail for murder. He didn't. It's very telling and damning. "He could've been there" is a cop-out, much like he and Corinne's many "I can't remember" and "I don't know" answers. Deliberately ambiguous. It was obvious they were lying and they were sussed out overwhelmingly.

[faithlilly]

The 'he could've been there" part was, let's face it, an afterthought. It was incidental and was only said to soften the blow of SM landing his brother in really deep sh%# by destroying the alibi and saying he truthfully couldn't remember seeing Luke in the house at those crucial times. SM's memory loss and amnesia couldn't have been that bad as he was employed full time as a car mechanic - a reasonably responsible job. SM just had to say his brother was there and he didn't. He could've prevented his own brother going to jail for murder. He didn't. It's very telling and damning. "He could've been there" is a cop-out, much like he and Corinne's many "I can't remember" and "I don't know" answers. Deliberately ambiguous. It was obvious they were lying and they were sussed out overwhelmingly.

So Shane was a liar but quite conveniently wasn’t lying when he said that he didn’t remember Luke being in the house.


As to don’t know and can’t remember answers have you read Steven Kelly’s testimony? Is he a liar too?

[Mr Apples]

Can I ask you one question, Ken ? and this applies to Mr Apples too!
What route do you think LM took to get to the Easthouses end of RDP when he was 'allegedly' seen by Andrina Bryson?

Who knows. It has been suggested that he cycled over, as a yellow bike similar to LM's was seen chained up by JOHFER at a railings at the back of Newbattle high school. I believe in one of the transcripts already uploaded that a person has said that they saw LM on his bike at some park in the early evening of June 30th, but I can't remember which transcript. I don't think it matters how he got there or what route he'd taken; he was spotted by an independent witnesses at 1655 at the EH end of RDP who said that she was as sure as she could be that it was was LM she saw when presented with the police's book of photographs and when she saw his photo in a newspaper (she even said of the latter that she was taken aback by just how much the photo in the newspaper resembled the boy she saw that day with the girl who matched Jodi's description).

[Mr Apples]

So Shane was a liar but quite conveniently wasn’t lying when he said that he didn’t remember Luke being in the house. As to don’t know and can’t remember answers have you read Steven Kelly’s testimony? Is he a liar too?

Of course he wasn't lying. If he'd have seen his brother, surely he would have said so. It would've saved his brother from going to prison. As I said, it would have been impossible for him not to have seen or heard his own brother cooking dinner at that time; no amount of memory loss, especially in a 21-year-old full time car mechanic, could explain him not seeing or hearing LM that day. Once he saw the pics of poor Jodi, he did the right thing and told the truth -- his human side coming to the fore. All this nonsense about the police bullying SM, him being intimidated by his dropped charge of perverting the course of justice or fearful of perjury would make him say he didn't see his brother when he actually did is ridiculous; it was his own flesh and blood possibly going to prison forever -  if he really did see him surely his conscience would be clear regardless of what happened to him, LM or CM, and that he would be shouting it from the rooftops from the beginning of the investigation til the trial that he DID SEE his brother in the house at those times. It was crucial evidence. Why would he withhold it if his conscience was clear and he genuinely saw LM at those times?  It was extremely telling that he didn't. All he had to say was he was there, but he didn't, and a big song and dance was made about LM's whereabouts. He said he genuinely didn't remember seeing his brother simply because LM wasn't there. "Could've been there" was a cop-out, merely thrown in because he didn't want to fully drop LM in it.

S Kelly had a solid alibi in his own father. Besides, do you think Janine would cover for a mere teenage romance, over her own sister - someone she got on well with and let borrow her clothes?

[faithlilly]

Of course he wasn't lying. If he'd have seen his brother, surely he would have said so. It would've saved his brother from going to prison. As I said, it would have been impossible for him not to have seen or heard his own brother cooking dinner at that time; no amount of memory loss, especially in a 21-year-old full time car mechanic, could explain him not seeing or hearing LM that day. Once he saw the pics of poor Jodi, he did the right thing and told the truth -- his human side coming to the fore. All this nonsense about the police bullying SM, him being intimidated by his dropped charge of perverting the course of justice or fearful of perjury would make him say he didn't see his brother when he actually did is ridiculous; it was his own flesh and blood possibly going to prison forever -  if he really did see him surely his conscience would be clear regardless of what happened to him, LM or CM, and that he would be shouting it from the rooftops from the beginning of the investigation til the trial that he DID SEE his brother in the house at those times. It was crucial evidence. Why would he withhold it if his conscience was clear and he genuinely saw LM at those times?  It was extremely telling that he didn't. All he had to say was he was there, but he didn't, and a big song and dance was made about LM's whereabouts. He said he genuinely didn't remember seeing his brother simply because LM wasn't there. "Could've been there" was a cop-out, merely thrown in because he didn't want to fully drop LM in it.

S Kelly had a solid alibi in his own father. Besides, do you think Janine would cover for a mere teenage romance, over her own sister - someone she got on well with and let borrow her clothes?

What you are conveniently forgetting is that Shane couldn’t remember many, many things, not only whether his brother was home that night and yes, looking at it in isolation, it may appear that Shane didn’t see his brother that night but looking at other factors the picture is not quite as clear as you suggest. Further it might not frighten you being threatened with several years in prison by I’m sure it would to any right minded person, myself included.

Of course if you are suggesting that his forgetfulness is an affectation then you are suggesting that he is a liar.

For the sake of doubt I’m not accusing Kelly of anything, although it is interesting how quickly you jump to his defence. You suggested that Shane’s forgetfulness suggested guilt. I’m merely pointing out the Kelly was just as forgetful in the witness stand.

[Kenmair]

Can I ask you one question, Ken ? and this applies to Mr Apples too!
What route do you think LM took to get to the Easthouses end of RDP when he was 'allegedly' seen by Andrina Bryson?

Why do you ask? Your usual response is "Aah, but that couldn't possibly have happened". I stated earlier that hypothetical scenarios aren't that interesting as they can never be proved.

As far as "allegedly" being seen by AB, we have to accept it was accepted in court that it was LM just like the other sightings. You can't just make up allegations that were unchallenged in court.

Allegedly: Shane doesn't support his brother.
Fact: Shane never positively admitted he saw LM in court and has never spoken publicly in support of his brother.

[faithlilly]

Why do you ask? Your usual response is "Aah, but that couldn't possibly have happened". I stated earlier that hypothetical scenarios aren't that interesting as they can never be proved.

As far as "allegedly" being seen by AB, we have to accept it was accepted in court that it was LM just like the other sightings. You can't just make up allegations that were unchallenged in court.

Allegedly: Shane doesn't support his brother.
Fact: Shane never positively admitted he saw LM in court and has never spoken publicly in support of his brother.

And Andrew Malkinson’s sister thought her brother guilty. Your point?

[Kenmair]

And Andrew Malkinson’s sister thought her brother guilty. Your point?

My point was scenarios Vs facts by JB but you jump in desperate to make a point, like claiming "absolute nonsense" about something when you clearly knew nothing about the terrain near the gate.

I don't know anything about AM. Many thousands of family members still visit their convicted relatives even though they think they're guilty. SM doesn't visit.

[Joe Blogs]

Why do you ask? Your usual response is "Aah, but that couldn't possibly have happened". I stated earlier that hypothetical scenarios aren't that interesting as they can never be proved.

As far as "allegedly" being seen by AB, we have to accept it was accepted in court that it was LM just like the other sightings. You can't just make up allegations that were unchallenged in court.

Allegedly: Shane doesn't support his brother.
Fact: Shane never positively admitted he saw LM in court and has never spoken publicly in support of his brother.

Oh just a few things going on in my mind, Ken, regarding the sightings and such!
But! As you rightly say, Shanes evidence is what sways most towards guilt, not the witness sightings!
Although for me, Lukes actions from 5.40 onwards point to innocence. A guilt scenario from that time onwards makes little sense.

[faithlilly]

My point was scenarios Vs facts by JB but you jump in desperate to make a point, like claiming "absolute nonsense" about something when you clearly knew nothing about the terrain near the gate.

I don't know anything about AM. Many thousands of family members still visit their convicted relatives even though they think they're guilty. SM doesn't visit.

There are no ‘facts’ in a circumstantial case, just interpretation fed by bias.

No need to know anything about the terrain to know that an individual who wants to get out of sight as soon as possible wouldn’t stand at a gate by a road for every passer-by to see. If you truly believe that they would well I really can’t help you.

And many thousands of relatives don’t visit their convicted relatives even if they are innocent. Does Shane know that you’re stalking him and posting private conversations on line? I’m under the impression that Shane keeps a low profile in order to avoid people just like you.

[Kenmair]

There are no ‘facts’ in a circumstantial case, just interpretation fed by bias.
No need to know anything about the terrain to know that an individual who wants to get out of sight as soon as possible wouldn’t stand at a gate by a road for every passer-by to see. If you truly believe that they would well I really can’t help you.
And many thousands of relatives don’t visit their convicted relatives even if they are innocent. Does Shane know that you’re stalking him and posting private conversations on line? I’m under the impression that Shane keeps a low profile in order to avoid people just like you.

There are many circumstantial cases, the Suzanne Pilley murder was, no DNA, not even a body. Was that fed by bias?

You stated LM would have gone between the wall/fence and down a steep embankment you never knew existed only to pop up less than 10 secs later. Even if he appeared directly opposite there would be no way to get out of sight if a car appeared over the blind summit or blind bend. You don't know what you're talking about.

There are many people that have been stalked or publicly humiliated in this case - SM isn't one of them.

[Joe Blogs]

There are many circumstantial cases, the Suzanne Pilley murder was, no DNA, not even a body. Was that fed by bias?

You stated LM would have gone between the wall/fence and down a steep embankment you never knew existed only to pop up less than 10 secs later. Even if he appeared directly opposite there would be no way to get out of sight if a car appeared over the blind summit or blind bend. You don't know what you're talking about.

There are many people that have been stalked or publicly humiliated in this case - SM isn't one of them.

I dont get it, Ken! What was Luke hoping to achieve getting into the woods unseen when he crossed the road beside the gate? What next?
I mean, what was his next move?

[faithlilly]

There are many circumstantial cases, the Suzanne Pilley murder was, no DNA, not even a body. Was that fed by bias?

You stated LM would have gone between the wall/fence and down a steep embankment you never knew existed only to pop up less than 10 secs later. Even if he appeared directly opposite there would be no way to get out of sight if a car appeared over the blind summit or blind bend. You don't know what you're talking about.

There are many people that have been stalked or publicly humiliated in this case - SM isn't one of them.

There are many circumstantial cases and many convictions resulting from them. That’s why we have a Not Proven verdict in Scotland.

If Luke was trying to hide his identity something as simple as putting the hood up of the parka would have helped hide both his hair and his face. He didn’t do that. I wonder why? Further Luke wasn’t even ‘trying to get out of sight’. He was leaning on the gate as if he had all the time in the world. Surely taking off the parka and carrying on walking up the road would have drawn less attention to him…if he was the killer. Why stop?

According to you Shane made derogatory comments about his brother to you in a private conversation. From his past behaviour to have that made public is I’m sure the last thing he would have wanted. I feel sorry for Shane. He obviously doesn’t want to be the subject of public interest and yet you and people like you have got no respect for his privacy.

[Kenmair]

According to you Shane made derogatory comments about his brother to you in a private conversation. From his past behaviour to have that made public is I’m sure the last thing he would have wanted. I feel sorry for Shane. He obviously doesn’t want to be the subject of public interest and yet you and people like you have got no respect for his privacy.

You don't know SM. It's not as those he's been accused of murder like at least 3 innocent people by SL & SF. Many others implicated without reason and pursued by a baying mob of idiots too stupid to think for themselves, all the while SL asks for money to further her "work" in shaming the victim's family. You couldn't make it up eh?

You and people like you have no respect for privacy constantly mentioning the J family when they were powerless to stop LM's actions in murdering their daughter.

[Vertigo Swirl]

There are many circumstantial cases and many convictions resulting from them. That’s why we have a Not Proven verdict in Scotland.

If Luke was trying to hide his identity something as simple as putting the hood up of the parka would have helped hide both his hair and his face. He didn’t do that. I wonder why? Further Luke wasn’t even ‘trying to get out of sight’. He was leaning on the gate as if he had all the time in the world. Surely taking off the parka and carrying on walking up the road would have drawn less attention to him…if he was the killer. Why stop?

According to you Shane made derogatory comments about his brother to you in a private conversation. From his past behaviour to have that made public is I’m sure the last thing he would have wanted. I feel sorry for Shane. He obviously doesn’t want to be the subject of public interest and yet you and people like you have got no respect for his privacy.

once again your hypocrisy knows no bounds.  Who was it who published private correspondence between herself and the Find Madeleine admin all over the intended in an attempt to make out she was a liar and to cast aspersions on the innocent mother of a missing child?