"Laughable eyewitness testimony"

[faithlilly]

Care to expand? My memory is fine. You come across as bitter and twisted to anyone that doesn't agree with you and try and put down various posters as inferior to you.

Madam Superior or Millie Tant?

I point out stupidity when I read it. Some don’t like that.

In Bryson’s first statement she describes the youth she saw as

He was male, white, early twenties….Luke was almost 15…

Average build height, not tall
or short, medium build….average for a 20-something?

Sandy brown hair, sticking up on top and very thick…..Luke’s hair was blonde and straight and kicked out at the bottom. It is fine not thick.

And wearing a green fishing style jacket with lots of pockets, high collar, waist length, olive green
like outdoor clothing and the trousers appeared to be the same colour". Yeah ?
Uh-huh…so not a parka.

Could she have got Luke’s description more wrong?

[faithlilly]

Because he'd already killed her and was trying to create an alibi, but as always, if in doubt blame the family. It's getting a bit "why did the murderer cross the road?" and the replies more outlandish every time. I think yourself and JB Lean should get together and write a book. "Our Struggle (in defending a teenage killer)".

He was allegedly trying to create an alibi by standing on the Newbattle Road waiting for her. If he knew that he had been seen what better way to explain it than by saying that he was waiting across the road from the path that he knew that she’d use? There’s nothing outlandish about that.

What did I blame the family for?

[Kenmair]

I point out stupidity when I read it. Some don’t like that.

If only your convictions were shared by the legal professions instead of online conspiracy theorists. 20+ years and no one has lodged an appeal with new evidence. A fraudulent campaign from SL & SF and his new girlfriend threatening to burn or mow people down, plus your own pleas suggests his freedom is not imminent.

[faithlilly]

If only your convictions were shared by the legal professions instead of online conspiracy theorists. 20+ years and no one has lodged an appeal with new evidence. A fraudulent campaign from SL & SF and his new girlfriend threatening to burn or mow people down, plus your own pleas suggests his freedom is not imminent.

I’ve seen sentences being quashed after 25, 30 even forty years. Your point?

Further several legal experts have publicly voiced doubts about Luke’s conviction. It really is a sign of hubris that you assume that you know more than them.

[Kenmair]

I’ve seen sentences being quashed after 25, 30 even forty years. Your point?

Further several legal experts have publicly voiced doubts about Luke’s conviction. It really is a sign of hubris that you assume that you know more than them.

I might have some concern if those legal experts had done anything more than offered a soundbite. Wilson himself refuted the LM not guilty claim the year before he stated otherwise and has yet to make a TV programme about the case. If any of the other legal experts felt strongly enough about it they would have done something by now.

Claiming someone's sentence is quashed after 25+ years does not mean that will happen to LM. What are the MOJ statistics in Scotland?

[Parky41]

I might have some concern if those legal experts had done anything more than offered a soundbite. Wilson himself refuted the LM not guilty claim the year before he stated otherwise and has yet to make a TV programme about the case. If any of the other legal experts felt strongly enough about it they would have done something by now.

Claiming someone's sentence is quashed after 25+ years does not mean that will happen to LM. What are the MOJ statistics in Scotland?

Indeed. More so when none had access to near enough of anything when giving their judgement. Much of what has been said by the handful of experts quashed by one of many names. Nasen Saadi. No forensic evidence left and none found, clothing he had been wearing disposed of along with the knife. Forensically aware in much the same way as Mitchell imo. But they know all this anyway, where their impossible becomes possible if a receipt for the jacket was produced. Amazing logic.

[faithlilly]

I might have some concern if those legal experts had done anything more than offered a soundbite. Wilson himself refuted the LM not guilty claim the year before he stated otherwise and has yet to make a TV programme about the case. If any of the other legal experts felt strongly enough about it they would have done something by now.

Claiming someone's sentence is quashed after 25+ years does not mean that will happen to LM. What are the MOJ statistics in Scotland?

I deliberately did not mention Wilson because we only have press reports of his recantation. I’m grappling with your logic though that you have to make a television programme about a case to prove that you believe that there has been a miscarriage of justice. A bizarre prerequisite.

John Scott KC, a lawyer for 30, has twice appeared in documentaries regarding Luke’s case. Do you honestly think that he would put his professional reputation on the line in that way if he didn’t truly believe that Luke was innocent? What would it gain him? If you really believe that Scott’s intervention in this case was simply to hear himself talk than I really can’t help you.

Of course just because someone’s conviction was quashed after 25+ years does not mean Luke’s will be but it does rather debunk the myth you were peddling that the longer you spend in prison without parole the less likely it is that you are innocent. That’s errant nonsense.

[Kenmair]

See attached screenshot from Val (LM fan) to DW less than 12 months before he changed his mind, coincidentally on the eve of his book tour. Whatever Scott or Wilson claim is irrelevant - they are not actively involved, in fact no one is.

Your word salads come across as desperately trying to defend your initial stance which was informed by Lean. I think at one point you defended the village idiot Forbes as credible. Both have been exposed as con artists which was clear to see years ago. SL was duped by the Mitchell's and you followed suit. SL & CM, the most untrustworthy people in the whole of Dalkeith, yet you believed them.

[faithlilly]

Indeed. More so when none had access to near enough of anything when giving their judgement. Much of what has been said by the handful of experts quashed by one of many names. Nasen Saadi. No forensic evidence left and none found, clothing he had been wearing disposed of along with the knife. Forensically aware in much the same way as Mitchell imo. But they know all this anyway, where their impossible becomes possible if a receipt for the jacket was produced. Amazing logic.

Again you have absolutely no idea what Scott, Jamieson etc had access to before stating their opinion.

There may not have been forensic evidence in the Nasen Saadi case but there was a live witness who had also been attacked, another witness who Saadi had walked past just after the killing and extensive CCTV footage that showed the killing happening. Saadi’s internet search history was also investigated and revealed his perverse determination to carry out a murder. He had also made several purchases of knives online, and officers found knives, latex gloves and a balaclava at his home in Purley.

Saadi left a trail of evidence that made a conviction almost certain. Compare that to the threadbare circumstantial case offered up to the jury by Turnbull et al. There is no comparison.

[Kenmair]

Compare that to the threadbare circumstantial case offered up to the jury by Turnbull et al. There is no comparison.

At the time LM was the longest trial in Scottish history. Turnbull exposed LM and his mum for the liars they were. LM wasn't where he claimed to be and was witnessed 5+ times despite no receipts or photographs of the clothing he was wearing that night. He's languishing in HMP Shotts with a bedraggled campaign of an ex-gf and local fishwives his only hope of freedom.

[faithlilly]

See attached screenshot from Val (LM fan) to DW less than 12 months before he changed his mind, coincidentally on the eve of his book tour. Whatever Scott or Wilson claim is irrelevant - they are not actively involved, in fact no one is.

Your word salads come across as desperately trying to defend your initial stance which was informed by Lean. I think at one point you defended the village idiot Forbes as credible. Both have been exposed as con artists which was clear to see years ago. SL was duped by the Mitchell's and you followed suit. SL & CM, the most untrustworthy people in the whole of Dalkeith, yet you believed them.

I’m not sure the point you’re trying to make by dragging Wilson into this.

You seem to be of the opinion that you are never allowed to change your mind even when the circumstances dictate it. Isn’t that what adults do? I believed in Luke’s innocence long before I had even heard of Dr Lean and no doubt I’ll believe in it long after she has left the campaign.

[faithlilly]

At the time LM was the longest trial in Scottish history. Turnbull exposed LM and his mum for the liars they were. LM wasn't where he claimed to be and was witnessed 5+ times despite no receipts or photographs of the clothing he was wearing that night. He's languishing in HMP Shotts with a bedraggled campaign of an ex-gf and local fishwives his only hope of freedom.

It was the longest trial precisely because it was so threadbare. If there had been compelling evidence of Luke’s guilt Turnbull wouldn’t have needed so many woeful witnesses.

[Kenmair]

I’m not sure the point you’re trying to make by dragging Wilson into this.

You seem to be of the opinion that you are never allowed to change your mind even when the circumstances dictate it. Isn’t that what adults do? I believed in Luke’s innocence long before I had even heard of Dr Lean and no doubt I’ll believe in it long after she has left the campaign.

Fair point - we are all allowed to change our mind. The fact is you used Lean's book/etc to support your arguments. When you still refer to a disgraced mature student as "Dr" suggests you are reluctant to admit you've fallen for a complete con/fraud. The person you call a "Dr" has never been employed in legal or criminology matters. Her book was fictitious, non-referenced lies mostly sourced from the killer himself - yet you quoted it for years.

[Kenmair]

It was the longest trial precisely because it was so threadbare. If there had been compelling evidence of Luke’s guilt Turnbull wouldn’t have needed so many woeful witnesses.

Between 80-100 witnesses. Which ones were untruthful?

[faithlilly]

Fair point - we are all allowed to change our mind. The fact is you used Lean's book/etc to support your arguments. When you still refer to a disgraced mature student as "Dr" suggests you are reluctant to admit you've fallen for a complete con/fraud. The person you call a "Dr" has never been employed in legal or criminology matters. Her book was fictitious, non-referenced lies mostly sourced from the killer himself - yet you quoted it for years.

I call Dr Lean doctor because she has earned the right to that title through her academic achievements. I’m sorry if you don’t like, or apparently, understand that but that’s the truth.

Much of Dr Lean’s book was latterly proven to be correct when the transcripts were published. Certain claims that she has made are indeed problematic but that does not mean that we throw out the baby with the bath water.