UK Justice Forum

Let me enunciate a couple of universal principles then apply them to two issues raised in recent comments.  One, the testimony of a witness who is cross-examined is more probative than the statement of a possible witness who is not.  Two, when interviewing witnesses, the police should treat witnesses without regard for whether they are the prosecution's witnesses or the defense's witnesses.

Applying principle one to the alleged sighting of stocky man, the importance of this incident is what it indicates about the police, more than what it might indicate about the identity killer.  There is evidence that tunnel vision set in within the first hours of this investigation.  "The number of identified wrongful convictions and false confessions is mounting, and in almost every wrongful conviction, the problem of tunnel vision is present (Findley, 2012; Findley & Scott, 2006; Martin, 2002). According to Martin (2002), tunnel vision distortion is particularly damaging in the investigative process. Investigator’s misconduct becomes prevalent in note and record-keeping, witness interviews, the interrogation of suspects, and the conduct of searches." https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440221095022. The examples of tunnel vision in this case are not limited to the apparent failure to investigate these witnesses in a timely and thorough manner.

When SM and CM were charged with perverting the course of justice, the only evidence that they had lied was the sincere but synthesized (using Professor Simon's terminology) statement of AB.  Prior to that FLO Lindsay and other investigators kept saying that they could not accept SM's answers and put words into his mouth (p. 305 and p. 318 in Innocents Betrayed).  BTW, if someone does not trust these passages, let him or her quote his testimony directly.  SM's revised account (that he had stopped to help fix a car) was buttressed by his friend's account.  In contrast none of the prosecution's witnesses were charged with perverting the course of justice, despite several who changed their account and at least one who did not come forward until long after he should have.  Given this disparity, no wonder that SM prefers to keep a low profile.

You know what would have been clearer?

“I didn’t see my brother that day”

Unambiguous.

But he didn’t know if he hadn't seen his brother so didn’t say that.

Yes he did. Once you've finished taking down your Russell Brand posters pop along to the bing and he will tell you exactly what happened. It will save you years of anguish/ and or trolling.

1) Nope - which individuals have been badly treated? I do know people who have been physically harmed and intimidated by SF at SL's request though. Surely this Stocky Man witness would feel safe with convicted armed robber SF and numerous ex-cons around? Hardly shrinking violets.

2) Dr Lean? nope, she's a hypnotherapist at best whose main source is a convicted killer.
SM doesn't speak to virtual strangers. His views about his brother are well known in his peer group but keep clutching at straws. If you thought your brother was innocent of murder, would you. A) Speak up. B) Live a quiet life?

The Stocky Man witness gave a statement to the police identifying Jodi’s brother. That appears to be the end of their involvement in the case. Why would you think that they even knew Dr Lean and Scott Forbes?

TBH I’m not sure what Dr Lean being a hypnotherapist has to do with protecting Shane’s privacy. I do find your reasoning rather juvenile at times.

Not the old ‘I have inside knowledge’ shtick again. It was unprovable nonsense when you first posted it and it’s unprovable nonsense now.

Why? Have you seen how individuals have been treated for almost 20 years when even suggesting that one of the Jones family may have been involved in Jodi’s murder? No wonder the witness wishes to have their anonymity protected.

Have you ever thought that perhaps Dr Lean is merely protecting Shane’s privacy? Talking about Shane one minute you say that he doesn’t want his views to be heard the next he’s telling virtual strangers down the bing what he truly thinks. Which is it?

1) Nope - which individuals have been badly treated? I do know people who have been physically harmed and intimidated by SF at SL's request though. Surely this Stocky Man witness would feel safe with convicted armed robber SF and numerous ex-cons around? Hardly shrinking violets.

2) Dr Lean? nope, she's a hypnotherapist at best whose main source is a convicted killer.
SM doesn't speak to virtual strangers. His views about his brother are well known in his peer group but keep clutching at straws. If you thought your brother was innocent of murder, would you. A) Speak up. B) Live a quiet life?

You reference Lean as though she's Chomsky. Her book is based on LM's desire to shift the blame. It's not peer checked, referenced or source indexed. It's a rambling sham, no more, and prime reading for the bingo crowd and a few others.

I think Kant is a little above Rusty’s pay grade.

Let’s start by pointing out that MA’s alleged contact was not a prosecution witness but the sister of an alleged prosecution witness. She allegedly posted her full name on a YouTube video so her name is already in the public domain. The name of the witness who identified Stocky Man has never posted their name on YouTube or indeed anywhere else on the internet and that is how they protect their privacy.

I hope that helped.

Fair point, but surely if the Stocky Man witness was correct they would be all over Lean & Forbes videos fighting for justice as the killer walks amongst us? If it was me, I would want my views to be heard, just like SM doesn't want his to be heard and get on with his life despite his brother serving what looks like a full life term while he stays quiet.

Strange that SL never speaks about SM or allows anyone to mention him?